Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 3

[Future Mayor]

It's not as simply as an increase to SLC's coffers of 18.33 million, if they city were to annex the Millcreek area.

Salt Lake City has to take over street maintenance, including plowing, repair, street lighting, and eventually change all the street signs. They would also need to take over fire protection, police protection and garbage collection. Those things alone would require a substantial increase in expenditures for personnel and equipment.

Those of school age then become part of Salt Lake City School District, requiring the city to purchase the Granite District Buildings in the newly annexed area, to make them part of the SLC School District, and educate those children. Libraries would need to be accounted for as well. The city has it's own library system, requiring them to either purchase an existing county library or build a new one.

Other things that have to be taken into consideration is additional staff, in most departments to service/manage those areas; such as larger planning staff, and two additional council members (or the current council district would have to be enlarged dramatically.

Parks are another consideration. Salt Lake City owns it's own parks, it's rec centers are operated by the county, but parks are not. That again is additional equipment and personnel that need to be purchased and hired to maintain the additional parks.

Of course Holladay wants the area, because they currently are part of Granite District, SL Co parks, SL Co garbage and SL Co roads. So they just extend their contracted area rather then add facilities, equipment and personnel.

[SLC Projects]

We need these small townships to Annexed into Salt Lake City, not into other suburbs. Just think Salt Lake City could finally pass 200,000 people.

[Stenar]

Salt Lake City wouldn't have to incorporate all the schools and libraries into the city immediately. They could do that over time.

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

It's not as simply as an increase to SLC's coffers of 18.33 million, if they city were to annex the Millcreek area.

Salt Lake City has to take over street maintenance, including plowing, repair, street lighting, and eventually change all the street signs. They would also need to take over fire protection, police protection and garbage collection. Those things alone would require a substantial increase in expenditures for personnel and equipment.

Those of school age then become part of Salt Lake City School District, requiring the city to purchase the Granite District Buildings in the newly annexed area, to make them part of the SLC School District, and educate those children. Libraries would need to be accounted for as well. The city has it's own library system, requiring them to either purchase an existing county library or build a new one.

Other things that have to be taken into consideration is additional staff, in most departments to service/manage those areas; such as larger planning staff, and two additional council members (or the current council district would have to be enlarged dramatically.

Parks are another consideration. Salt Lake City owns it's own parks, it's rec centers are operated by the county, but parks are not. That again is additional equipment and personnel that need to be purchased and hired to maintain the additional parks.

Of course Holladay wants the area, because they currently are part of Granite District, SL Co parks, SL Co garbage and SL Co roads. So they just extend their contracted area rather then add facilities, equipment and personnel.

[Future Mayor]

You're right on that, but they would have to eventually. That is part of the consideration when analyzing the income and expenditures of an annexation.



If any of you are in the Liberty Wells neighborhood, I am taking a few minutes on the agenda at tonight's meeting to introduce myself to the residents and get their opinion on strengths and weaknesses of their neighborhood and the city as a whole. If any of you are planning on attending please come introduce yourself, I'd love to meet you.

[Orlando]

I think SLC should be pro annexation of the Millcreek area. I also wish South Salt Lake was all part of SLC, too. I am for SLC to get bigger, so it can have a bigger influence in the valley and metro area. The biggest problem we have in the metro is a lot of pull away/competion from the many suburban cities. If SLC had a greater proportion of the metro, there would be less of that and they would have more of a say.

[Orlando]

Here is a rendering of the covered walkway of the SLC Public Safety Building currently under construction

[Comrade]

When looking at annexing, you have to weigh the costs and benefits. Does annexing Millcreek bring the city more than it would need to invest into the transition? I don't think so.

Millcreek is mostly suburban housing, with no commercial center and limited amount of potential. It doesn't even include the area where the Cottonwood Mall once sat - and even the area around Highland Drive is limited (since the eastern side of the street is Holladay). So, you have to ask yourself - outside growing the population, and potential tax revenue from that population (which would also mean more spending on the whole as the city now expands its services), what does that area bring to the city?

So, Salt Lake's population now becomes 252,038 instead of its current 189,899. I don't really think that's reason to annex the area. Millcreek is a nice community - but I don't see the value it brings. I'd much rather focus on redeveloping the areas IN SLC than expanding to new areas.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

It's not as simply as an increase to SLC's coffers of 18.33 million, if they city were to annex the Millcreek area.

Salt Lake City has to take over street maintenance, including plowing, repair, street lighting, and eventually change all the street signs. They would also need to take over fire protection, police protection and garbage collection. Those things alone would require a substantial increase in expenditures for personnel and equipment.

Those of school age then become part of Salt Lake City School District, requiring the city to purchase the Granite District Buildings in the newly annexed area, to make them part of the SLC School District, and educate those children. Libraries would need to be accounted for as well. The city has it's own library system, requiring them to either purchase an existing county library or build a new one.

Other things that have to be taken into consideration is additional staff, in most departments to service/manage those areas; such as larger planning staff, and two additional council members (or the current council district would have to be enlarged dramatically.

Parks are another consideration. Salt Lake City owns it's own parks, it's rec centers are operated by the county, but parks are not. That again is additional equipment and personnel that need to be purchased and hired to maintain the additional parks.

Of course Holladay wants the area, because they currently are part of Granite District, SL Co parks, SL Co garbage and SL Co roads. So they just extend their contracted area rather then add facilities, equipment and personnel.

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

When looking at annexing, you have to weigh the costs and benefits. Does annexing Millcreek bring the city more than it would need to invest into the transition? I don't think so.

Millcreek is mostly suburban housing, with no commercial center and limited amount of potential. It doesn't even include the area where the Cottonwood Mall once sat - and even the area around Highland Drive is limited (since the eastern side of the street is Holladay). So, you have to ask yourself - outside growing the population, and potential tax revenue from that population (which would also mean more spending on the whole as the city now expands its services), what does that area bring to the city?

So, Salt Lake's population now becomes 252,038 instead of its current 189,899. I don't really think that's reason to annex the area. Millcreek is a nice community - but I don't see the value it brings. I'd much rather focus on redeveloping the areas IN SLC than expanding to new areas.

I do understand that the city would not be able to keep the entire $18+ million to invest, but I am sure it would still earn more tax revenue overall with 250k than 190k residents. Growing a city`s population does not usually make that city poorer. Even if the city nets a few million more dollars of tax revenue than it currently does, it would be beneficial. City budgets have many line items that are in the thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Any extra money could certainly be put to good use. That would explain the interest of other municipalities in annexing the area. If SLC doesn`t annex the area, then Holladay (or other suburban cities) certainly will. I would rather SLC annex the area than other suburbs.

Also, the new 250k population figure would not simply be a nominal statistical change. Municipal governments receive federal funding through block grants, subsidies, etc based on population. Both federal and state governments help cities and municipalities fund education, health care, infrastructure, etc. Companies also make decisions to expand or enter into new markets based on population figures so they can know the overall size and growth of the market. 190k inaccurately portrays the real size of the consumer market in SLC. It is not just simply for bragging rights. Population figures are used for numerous reasons that directly effect capital investment.

I pulled the following information off the HUD website that explains such development funding by the federal government.

The Community Development Block Grant entitlement program allocates annual grants to larger cities and urban counties to develop viable communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment, and opportunities to expand economic opportunities. The Department of Housing and Urban Development determines the amount of each grant by using a formula comprised of several measures of community need, including the extent of poverty, population, housing overcrowding, age of housing, and population growth in relationship to other metropolitan areas.

While annexation may bring new challenges, I feel that, overall, it brings more positives than negatives.

[Comrade]

It's obvious the city doesn't feel they're losing out on much or they would be proactive in the annexing game.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Comrade Reynolds

It's obvious the city doesn't feel they're losing out on much or they would be proactive in the annexing game.

Not until a suburb that SLC passively allowed to incorporate several decades ago steels development projects away from it. Annexation is a much broader process than just adding the Millcreek area to SLC. Had the city been more aggressive in the past, it would not be facing as much suburban competition today. I still advocate annexation today because I think it could still make a difference, small as it may be. Maybe its just me that feels this way. Clearly the city council doesn`t, and apparently many city residents are equally apathetic.

[Comrade]

I'd rather grow our population naturally as opposed to artificially.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I think SLC should be pro annexation of the Millcreek area. I also wish South Salt Lake was all part of SLC, too. I am for SLC to get bigger, so it can have a bigger influence in the valley and metro area. The biggest problem we have in the metro is a lot of pull away/competion from the many suburban cities. If SLC had a greater proportion of the metro, there would be less of that and they would have more of a say.

I agree with both you and Economy404.

Also LOL, There's nothing artificial about the tens of thousands of living, breathing, many upper income people who inhabit Millcreek. I think even as Millcreek is now, it is much more of a positive contribution than a drain. While Millcreek might not have as much commercial potential as Holladay, it definitely has excellent potential along corridors such as 39th and 33rd. There's also excellent potential for village development. I also agree with those who think South Salt Lake would be an excellent fit to add to Salt Lake proper.

I'm not sure that the political leanings of Millcreek are as blue as the Democrats would like. If it tends to be more conservative, I can see that as a bit of a problem for the political establishment(Democrat) of Salt Lake. I don't think the Democrats would want to dillute the one bastion that they hold. While mostly upspoken, I think that could be a reason for some of the lack of enthusiasm amongst City Hall.


The Mill Creek Township includes the Canyon Rim, Olympus Cove, Millcreek, and East Millcreek neighborhoods. Each of these neighborhoods has its own community council. The boundaries of the Millcreek township are difficult to describe since the township looks like a splatter on a map.

.

[Comrade]

Of course it's artificial. Salt Lake's population wouldn't be growing so much as it would be expanding by including other areas. That's exactly artificial - since comparable growth naturally would be by people actually moving INTO the city and not by the city expanding its boundaries.

If Salt Lake City and County decided tomorrow they would merge, would that instantly mean Salt Lake was on the level of Dallas, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle and a handful of other cities that SLC would instantly be comparable to in population (and in some instances, larger)?

No.

So, yeah, it would be artificial. We wouldn't be doing it for any other reason than to make the population bigger. It wouldn't mean more people are moving into the city and that to me is not natural. The growth Salt Lake saw since the 90s was natural. But had the city, in the '70s or 80s, when they were losing people, decided to expand its boundaries, it wouldn't have changed the fact the city itself, the core part, the original part, was still losing people. It would have been absolutely artificial.

I'd much rather build up the density in Salt Lake than expand into more suburban areas of the county that, as I mention, don't offer much of anything except a population increase.

[Reachforthesky]

I wish the early settlers would've planned for the future. Besides the Northwest Quadrant, SLC is pretty much maxed out. Its sad at the rate its going, West Valley City and other suburbs may become the largest cities in Utah. Not to mention the population of SLC is VERY deceiving to people in our country. In fact I have a friend from California that thought the Riverside area was larger than SLC, based on the SLC proper population he saw online. I had to explain to him that 2.3 MILLION people live in SLC's urban area. When I brought him here and showed him the city, suburbs and infrastructure, his words were "Boy I was wrong, this is a city."

The other problem is the SLC proper population deceives businesses like the Lego store, from coming here. I applaud our fellow forum member that set the record straight. Now we have a lego store! Thank you!

Salt Lake City has waaaaaaay to many Suburbs! Last thing we need is another one leaching off the capital city! These suburbs need to know that they are just that, Suburbs! They would not be in existence without SLC. If you have heart problems, eventually your whole body will suffer and you can't function properly and you die. By breaking down the city center and stealing people, businesses,sports teams,etc they are only hurting the area as a whole!

Thanks to the burbs SLC has been trying to regain its population it lost to them since the 1960's!! It's taken 50 something years to catch up!

learn your place suburbs! You will not outshine SLC nationally! By trying to, you only make it worse for SLC, and the surrounding area to continue to shine! Stop trying to be something your not! Remember if SLC is successful, it's success/notoriety is always shared with you!

[Comrade]

Salt Lake will be fine if it continues developing major urban projects in the city. But we can't mask certain problems by just expanding our boundaries. In the 70s, when the city lost its population, just annexing the area that would eventually make up West Valley wouldn't have solved the basic problems of suburban flight except by making the city more suburban in nature.

Moreover, I don't worry about the suburbs passing Salt Lake in population. West Valley, and other suburban communities, are limited as much as Salt Lake in their potential development. Take WVC, the second-largest city in the state. Their population has cooled off compared to the last twenty-years - where it grew by 20.3% in the 80s and 25% in the 90s. This past decade, it only grew 18.9% - which is impressive, but it shows that the extent of the city's growth is limited because, like SLC, its open area is becoming more developed.

Salt Lake still has a 60,000 population edge on West Valley and I suspect it will continue to remain fairly large.

The most important thing is that the city keeps pushing to bring people back into its limits. Just annexing Millcreek or other areas doesn't address the real problem - the city still lags behind a great deal of other cities in condo development. I'd rather emulate a city like Portland than Phoenix, which is a sprawling city literally five-times the size of Salt Lake's area.

Yes, we do have an area of the city that is uninhabitable, or at least underdeveloped, and certain parts of the Wasatch to deal with, but even the city itself, the area where most the residential development resides, can become more dense without having to go into the suburbs to grow our population. I don't want to be a suburban city. Millcreek is great as a suburb - but it's not really that walkable, doesn't have a central retail center like SugarHouse or 9th and 9th and much of the residential neighborhoods are generally older suburbs that, while charming, are still not exactly urban.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a bad area, and certainly much better developed than a great deal of the newer suburbs - it's just I think we need to focus more on making Salt Lake more dense than expanding the city's limits just to grow the population that way.

Look at it this way - take 84106, the zip code associated with most of SugarHouse and part of Millcreek. That zip gets a walkable score of 65. Not great compared to a great deal of other areas, but good enough. It's not great because much of it also incorporates the suburban area south of 2700 S and further into the Millcreek area. To further what I'm talking about, the 84124 zip code, which includes part of Holladay, but a very similar makeup to most of Millcreek, gets a walkable score of just 22.

To put that into perspective, 84105, the area code for much of Central City, gets a walkable score of 71.

It shows you how dramatic the area changes the further south you get from downtown. SLC already has pockets of unwalkable neighborhoods and I just don't want to add even more, especially when there is so much work to be done within the city's limits.

I'm confident we can grow Salt Lake from within and not have to rely on expanding our city's limits to bring in more people.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Reachforthesky

I wish the early settlers would've planned for the future. Besides the Northwest Quadrant, SLC is pretty much maxed out. Its sad at the rate its going, West Valley City and other suburbs may become the largest cities in Utah. Not to mention the population of SLC is VERY deceiving to people in our country. In fact I have a friend from California that thought the Riverside area was larger than SLC, based on the SLC proper population he saw online. I had to explain to him that 2.3 MILLION people live in SLC's urban area. When I brought him here and showed him the city, suburbs and infrastructure, his words were "Boy I was wrong, this is a city."

I agree that SLC's population is deceptive to most people who don't know anything about the are, but your friend is right in one regard. The official Riverside area MSA is at about 4.5 million people.

[Reachforthesky]

Originally Posted by wrendog

I agree that SLC's population is deceptive to most people who don't know anything about the are, but your friend is right in one regard. The official Riverside area MSA is at about 4.5 million people.

Sorry, It appears I have a slight case of dyslexia. I was meaning to say:

I have a friend from California that thought Riverside (city proper) was larger than the SLC area (urban/metro), based on the SLC proper population he saw online.

[Lilljemalm]

Originally Posted by Reachforthesky

The other problem is the SLC proper population deceives businesses like the Lego store, from coming here. I applaud our fellow forum member that set the record straight. Now we have a lego store! Thank you!

Next, you need to push to get an American Girl store. In talking with them, they also think SLC only has 186,000 people in it and acted surprised when I told them it has close to 2.4 million in its metro. They hadn't even looked at the county or MSA numbers.

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by Lilljemalm

Next, you need to push to get an American Girl store. In talking with them, they also think SLC only has 186,000 people in it and acted surprised when I told them it has close to 2.4 million in its metro. They hadn't even looked at the county or MSA numbers.

I bet they don't even realize that the area has a HUGE youth population either. On the note of writing a letter or contacting American Girl to get a store here. I don't think I want another store here where my 2 girls think they need to go to every weekend. My second oldest already asks to go downtown to either the Disney or Build a Bear stores every week now that she is aware of them. That girl would try to empty my bank account even faster if there was a doll store like that in the area so I am sure I will pass on encouraging that.

[Future Mayor]

I'm sorry, but that is simply ignorant research by Lego and American Girl, to simply look at the city population rather than the msa population.

As for corporate expansion and relocation decisions, they are much more thorough in their research, they always look at the entire region when making those decisions.

So while SLC may not get a retail store as soon as we'd like, the things that will truly grow the economy and the population are new occupational type jobs, corporate jobs, such as Goldman Saks.

I wouldn't have an issue with SLC pursuing the annexation of the Millcreek area, but I wouldn't put it as a priority by any means. Just because you type it on here and say that it makes sense to annex Millcreek, doesn't make it the case. The city on the other hand, the ones who would either pursue or accept an annexation petition are the only ones that know exactly how the numbers work. So we can speculate all we want about there would be this much more money and this much more population, and "there is no way it would not be beneficial to the city" We don't know that! I would venture to guess that it has been looked at in the past.

I like Comrades point, do we really want to suburbanize SLC just to increase the population? I don't.