By Jessica Rands

SMITHFIELD -- After much debate, the City Council voted 4-1 in favor of instating a park impact fee Wednesday night. This means that anyone moving into a new residence within the city limits will have to pay $900 to the city to be put toward the building of new parks and recreational facilities.

This has been an ongoing battle among council members and citizens. It was discussed heavily during the council meeting Jan. 14, but the decision was postponed until yesterday. Councilwoman Deon Hunsaker was the only one who voted against the fee.

"A park impact fee will only hurt the poor and raise the cost of buying a home," said Hunsaker. "The purpose of the city is to provide services. We shouldn't be charging extra for every service we provide."

Hunsaker also said that generally, park impact fees push people out of the city into the unincorporated areas where they would not have to pay impact fees.

Councilwoman Kris Monson said that she was concerned about the fact that developers come to Smithfield simply because there was no park impact fee. She said that she could see Hunsaker's point, but that there was no other way to get the money for parks. The other members of the council agreed with her.

"Seventy-two new [housing] units were just approved. New families add stress to the area if there is nowhere for the kids to play. We are building schools that are full before they are even built. We have parks that we can't develop for free. We are really lacking in parks and recreational facilities right now and there is nowhere else to get the money," said Janice Mikkelsen.

"Even with a $900 park impact fee, we will still have the second lowest impact fees in Cache Valley," said Dee Wood.

Another pressing issue was whether or not to continue extending water connections outside the municipal limits. Jeff Gittins, previously a city council member, presented his case to the council. He said that he had three main reasons why Smithfield should not continue to sell water outside the limits of the city.

"First, it is simply what we have agreed to do. We agreed with the state, who owns the water, that we would only sell water within the corporal limits of Smithfield. We need to honor our agreements," said Gittins.

His second point was that residents out of the city were being charged double rates, but that it is not the city's water to sell.

"Thirdly, Smithfield City has had a policy to try to develop the city from the inside out. If people want city service, they should annex to the city," said Gittins.

The council decided that more information was needed from the state and from the city attorney before any further decisions were made. It has been postponed until Feb. 25. Gittins, who also is the president of the irrigation company, said that if the matter was not taken care of, he would take legal action against the city.

Also on the agenda was a request from Brett Jacobson to level some land on the north side of town in order to build a home on the property. Currently there is a large gravel pit with a 30-foot drop that could be hazardous to children playing in the area.

In her council report, Monson said that she is looking for people who would be interested in being on a parks committee, as well as a new adviser for the Youth City Council.

NW
MS