The following is our response to Mrs. Kirkham’s letter and other comments found within this site in relation to our proposal. We appreciate and respect the manner in which Mrs. Kirkham addresses points, without misrepresenting the student population we serve. Many of the questions she raises are valid. However, several items need further clarification, as details will provide a more thorough view of our intentions. Also, we have chosen to comment on some statements found on this site by other writers.
Kirkham: “As a Huntsville resident, and someone who could be very affected by the proposed Green Valley Academy, I would like to comment on why the folks on this side of the valley have so many concerns about this commercial business wanting to establish in our neighborhood. First, it must be addressed that we as a whole are not against this academy or the service that it provides. Many people over here are actually employed in this field. We have social workers, therapists, teachers and doctors who live here and support this type of facility. These children do need help and support and we applaud the fact that this group of doctors are trying to make a difference. The issues involved here are really about the bad fit of this facility into the middle of a rural neighborhood here in the valley.
It must also be mentioned that this is a private, for profit school with a $9500.00 per month tuition required. Times that by 36 students and you have $342,000.00 per month, or $4.1 million dollars a year. The boys that will be attending this school will not be from Utah but will be flown in from different parts of the country. They are children of the very wealthy, including celebrities and high profile people. This is not going to benefit Ogden Valley or Weber County in any way, except for the taxes that Weber County can garner from this commercial business. Ogden Valley residents pay an inordinate amount of property tax with very little to show for it, but now we will have the privilege of paying our heavy, heavy property tax, and have our property values depreciate at the same time. Sound fair? I don't think so!”
GVA Response: (1) “The issues involved here are really about the bad fit of this facility into the middle of a rural neighborhood here in the valley“ (Kirkham).
The proposed property is on 18 acres and is surrounded (to the north, south, and west) by many open acres, not to mention the undeveloped land of the nearby Monastery. The closest homes mentioned are to the east with acreage bordering neighboring properties. We are not a program attempting to squeeze itself into “the middle” of a high density area (like other programs which currently exist throughout Weber County). Furthermore, the academy will preserve a large portion of land from becoming sub-divided in the future, which will promote the rural atmosphere.
(2) “This is not going to benefit Ogden Valley or Weber County in any way” (Kirkham). Academy directors have stated publicly and in writing that they hope to employ local residents who are qualified for available positions. The Valley has many diverse and talented people who could provide contractual support in the arts, recreation, teaching, house staff, nursing, maintenance, organic gardening, equine, I.T., etc… A number of valley residents are currently unemployed due to state, national, and local layoffs (see Wolf Creek), or are experiencing economic hardship. Admittedly, Green Valley will not solve these issues, but we intend to be part of the solution by promoting clean growth and fulfilling employment. By stating there will be no benefit, seems out of touch with the economic conditions many in the valley currently face.
(3) Why is it such a novelty to work in the same area where you live? While some are fortunate to work nearby, the majority commute. Isn’t decreasing time and money spent on gasoline, reducing the amount of traffic, or eliminating the commute on hazardous winter roads a benefit to Valley residents?
(4) The tuition costs for the Academy have been raised both here and elsewhere (on this site or during meetings where directors addressed the community). The opinions expressed have varied from not so subtle references—to accusations of greed, to concerns about the viability of our business model. The costs associated with providing a highly individualized, therapeutic environment which is fully staffed by licensed, trained professionals, who provide ongoing 24 hour supervision and support IS costly. Associated costs provide students with high quality, individualized education, room, board, recreational therapy, and scholarships for those in need. If costs were significantly lower, the concerns voiced would be, “How can you provide professional support and supervision at such ‘cheap’ rates?” The concerns mentioned regarding the economic viability of the Academy are valid. However, we are confident that our experience and track records will mitigate these concerns, and Green Valley will be successful. Furthermore, the proposed costs of the Academy are on par or lower than comparable programs which offer equal opportunities and services.
Kirkham: “At the recent meeting in the Huntsville library with the directors of this proposed business, there were two women who
********************************************************************************************
live by the Oakley school which is being used as a comparative to the proposed Green Valley Academy, (Oakley was started by these same directors, as was the Island View facility, and both were later sold). The Oakley residents both stated that their property values had not declined. One is an employee at the Oakley school and neither one of them have tried to sell their property or had it appraised. It would be difficult to comprehend that the average person with a family would want to buy a home near a commercial facility when there are so many other properties available.”
********************************************************************************************
live by the Oakley school which is being used as a comparative to the proposed Green Valley Academy, (Oakley was started by these same directors, as was the Island View facility, and both were later sold). The Oakley residents both stated that their property values had not declined. One is an employee at the Oakley school and neither one of them have tried to sell their property or had it appraised. It would be difficult to comprehend that the average person with a family would want to buy a home near a commercial facility when there are so many other properties available.”
GVA Response: (1) The two guests mentioned above drove themselves from Oakley to Huntsville and essentially reported that they and their neighbors have had nothing but positive interactions with staff, students, and that their property values did not suffer. What is not mentioned is that two former mayors of Oakley, as well as other citizens, have written extremely positive comments about the school (which can be viewed on-line via the Weber County staff report). Consider if any of these same people had made negative comments. In all likelihood, such information would be viewed with enormous credibility by those who oppose the project.
(2) GVA will present data to the planning commission which clearly demonstrates that property values did not drop in either the Oakley or Syracuse communities due to our prior projects.
Kirkham: “There is great concern about the traffic this would bring. The road leading to this property is one of the most narrow, winding roads in the entire valley. It is actually a private lane with 90 degree turns where cars often go off the road in the winter. This road will not sustain an extra 20 or 30 cars coming and going daily. The students would also need to be transported to the various activities that this facility purports to provide for its residents, via bus or van, many times during the week, adding to the problem.”
GVA Response: Efforts (outside of Academy directors) have been made to purchase the proposed property and sub-divide. Similar proposals have been discussed regarding the property to the west. Certainly, new residences (which would have on average of 2-3 vehicles per home) would generate similar traffic concerns and increased pedestrian activity. There appears to be a prevailing view that our proposal will either result in the degradation of the community, or that corner of the valley will stay forever pristine and rural. These arguments are unrealistic, and surrounding open areas will ultimately be developed by multiple dwellings which will impact traffic, septic, and water.
Kirkham: “The parents of these boys are required to visit once a month (remember, they are from all parts of the country). Adequate parking would be required by law for this business and the mandatory lighting would take away our dark sky at night. No more stars!! A side note here, the grid on this end of the valley is ancient, and our power goes out 2 to 3 times a month, sometimes for 8 to 10 hours at a time. What will the academy do for this problem?”
GVA Response: (1) This comment appears to be made for effect, without factual basis. Have you ever been to the Oakley community? Were there ‘no more stars’? The Oakley school does not prevent residents from their nightscape. If you don’t want to drive to Oakley to find out, then drive to the neighborhoods west of Wolf Creek condos on a clear night (Green Valley Academy is not even remotely close to Wolf Creek in size, or lighting) and you’ll see that stars are not obstructed.
(1-A) Academy lighting and parking will be designed in a sensitive manner, and we will solicit feedback from the neighbors in terms of landscaping, the creation of privacy, and dorm placement. Moreover, a new subdivision of homes would certainly test the grid.
(2) Requiring family involvement and program participation is seen as essential to the overall well being of the students we serve. To a lesser degree of importance is the business these visiting families will bring to the Valley during peak and non peak times of the year. Parent visits will be staggered. Thus, not all parents will visit the academy simultaneously. We will not host conferences at the Academy, but in area facilities, as to avoid significant traffic upon surrounding areas.
Kirkham: “We are worried about the fact that we all live on wells and septic tanks here. This business would need a massive septic system and larger well to accomodate the number of students and staff. We are situated directly above the aquaphor and have a very high water table. The river runs directly behind the proposed facility, so there are concerns of pollution to the river and seepage into fields and other homes.”
GVA Response: (1) These issues are addressed within our application. We have stated that we will meet code. We agree with the writer, that if we can’t meet code, we should not be in this location.
(2) We care about the environment, as well. Students and staff of the Academy will be involved in ongoing community service which will contribute to the environment and will help off-set impacts of other valley citizens, such as highway, pathways, and river clean-up. Currently allowed conditional uses in this zone already include a recreational lodge, an academic institution, conference center, and impending sub-divisions—all of which would generate similar concerns. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any of these entities would provide similar community services.
(3)The Oaks restaurant, Gray Cliff Lodge, Alaskan Inn, Snow Berry Inn, and Chris’ are all located near bodies of water and are able to operate in environmentally safe manners.
Kirkham: “This business is asking for a conditional use permit that would forever change the FV3 zoning and would "open up a can of worms" for Weber County. FV3 does allow for a school or lodge, but this is a 24 hour 7 day a week facility. No one goes home at 3:00 on the bus, and no weekends or holidays off. The directors of this academy are looking at properties throughout the valley, so it could end up in your neighborhood as well. In fact, if this zoning passed, several of these facilities could open in the valley, and we would have no say in any of it.”
GVA Response: (1) Take a moment to go to the Weber County planning commission website. Look at the current conditional and accepted uses found within FV-3 zones. When viewing these uses ask yourself (1) if the uses listed are specifically residential: A (commercial) ski Resort? A (commercial) recreational lodge? A (commercial) bed and breakfast? A (commercial) residential facility for the handicapped? A private (commercial) camp? A conference or education center? Additionally, “Parking lot accessories to uses permitted in this area” are allowed for these uses (planning commission website).
(2) Review related material below and ask yourself if these uses are compatible with what GVA proposes (therapeutic and educational support for those with emotional, learning disabilities, year round lodging and recreation).
(2-A) For comparison, a recreational lodge allows for 16 guest rooms with 3 guests per room, equaling a total of 48 guests, aside from staff. (The Academy is requesting a variance for 36 students). A recreational lodge could be open 365 days per year and could be rented out year round. Presumably, these boarders may have criminal backgrounds with no standards in place to screen them). Also, lodge guests would drive numerous cars at multiple times of the day (as opposed to the Academy’s use of carpooling vans). Students of the Academy will not drive or have their own vehicles. Another point to consider is that recreational activities provided through GVA will resemble or exceed activities a recreational lodge would provide its clients.
(2-B) The FV-3 zone conditionally allows for an educational institution—think boarding school—providing residence year round to an entire student body.
(2-C) The zone allows for a bed and breakfast which may have 7 guest rooms with up to 14 guests—all coming and going at different times. As stated above, some would certainly have criminal/deviant backgrounds and there would be no screening processes available to determine potential risks to community members with these or other listed businesses.
(2-D) The zone conditionally includes private camps which allow for dramatically more “over night campers” than what the Academy requests.
All residential zones unconditionally allow residential facilities for the handicapped.
(3) Green Valley Academy encompasses the essential features found within the FV-3 zone. The academy will be an accredited high school, will serve individuals with emotional and learning disabilities, and will have a strong recreational program led by professional recreational therapists. These elements demonstrate that the Academy is well within the nature and spirit of the zone’s offered uses. Current conditional uses (ski resorts, camps, bed and breakfasts, and convention centers) pose potentially higher impacts upon surrounding areas than what is being requested by the academy.
(4) Currently located within the FV-3 zone is Valley Camp, a year round adult alcohol recovery camp that has been in operation for decades (how many are even aware of this camp’s existence?) Since this program’s existence, no similar programs have been established within the area. Evidently, the zoning for such a facility did not open “a can of worms” or the flood gates for additional programs.
Kirkham: “Lastly, people are concerned about the safety and privacy of their families. Residential Treatment Facilities often have "runners" and other issues such as suicides , etc. Most of these problems are taken care of "in house" so that the public is never made aware. Oakley has a good record and so does Island View. But, it is known that issues do arise, and things do happen.”
GVA Response: We appreciate the writer for reporting accurately that “Oakley has a good record, and so does Island View” (Kirkham). We ask that this information be viewed objectively and with the same value one would assign if these programs did not have excellent records. One writer whose comment can be found elsewhere on this site wrote, “Do not bring some smooth talking “promise them anything you think they want to hear" bullshit artist.” While making commitments to the community (and why shouldn’t we?), we demonstrate from proven track records and various Oakley community members’ feedback what we have already accomplished, not only what we will do. Unfortunately, this is ignored by the writer who implies we’ll merely offer slick talk and promises.
Kirkham: “For most of us, it has been a big sacrifice to have the privilige of living in this unincorporated part of Ogden Valley. We were required by the county to purchase 3 acres of land, whether we wanted that much or not. We are taxed beyond reason, and have no services to show for it (other than snowplowing). Everytime we want to go somewhere it is at least half an hour away! Why do we do this? Because we love the peace and quiet, the views, the stars at night, no traffic and just plain wonderful country living. As you can see, we as a group of Valley residents, are just fighting for the quality of life that we have sacrificed greatly for, and have come to love. I suspect if your quality of life was threatened, you would feel the same way. And if you live anywhere in the valley, be warned, it is coming your way.”
GVA RESPONSE: Ultimately, the real issue isn’t whether Green Valley Academy has great potential to help children or benefit the community. Our track records are validated by families of students helped, views of Oakley community members, and the collective expertise of Green Valley Academy directors.
The real questions surround zoning and whether the Academy plans represent the Valley’s progression. Zoning determinations are designed to reflect the priorities and needs of a community, which is why we believe Green Valley Academy is in accordance with current zoning strategies. We feel the valley is much more than a place to recreate or simply have the privilege of living in beautiful homes in a pristine environment (this is a point where we are in agreement with Mrs. Kirkham). We believe that living in the valley should not prohibit opportunities for a place designed to help kids with disabilities. The Academy’s students are children whose problems are not the result of natural consequences to their choices and behaviors. These kids deal with quality of life issues (extreme anxiety, self-esteem issues, and delayed development) which are not the result of misbehavior. Some residents argue that these kids should be treated next to Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club, rather than the Valley. We disagree with this kind of thinking and are proud to create a facility which will help not only the families we serve, but will inevitably become respected by those in the valley.
We would like to work with community members in a calm, collaborative manner, for we believe the valley is a healing place and should be balanced with responsible, growth and quality projects.
Sincerely,
Green Valley Academy Directors
