Generous voters okay Open Space Bond and RAPZ Tax renewal

Voters lined up Tuesday at the Cache Event Center to register and cast their ballots in the midterm election. County voters gave their approval to the Open Space Bond issue and the RAPZ Tax in that balloting.

CACHE COUNTY — County voters here gave their endorsement Tuesday to both Propositions 1 and 2 on the midterm ballot.

Proposition 1 — the so-called Open Space Bond issue — passed by a relatively slim margin of 2,178 votes.

Proposition 2 — the renewal of the Restaurant, Arts, Parks and Zoos (RAPZ) Tax — also passed by a more comfortable vote margin of nearly 19,000.

Preliminary results on Tuesday before midnight showed 14,424 votes for the issuance of bonds on Proposition 1 to 12,246 against.

On Proposition 2, preliminary results were 18,273 in favor of renewing the RAPZ Tax versus 8,433 against.

The Open Space Bond was the brainchild of former North Logan Mayor Jack Draxler, entrepreneur Eric Eliason and Utah State University professor Steve Daniels, along with the members of an ad hoc committee who shared their vision of the need to provide a legacy of open spaces in Cache County for future generations.

Draxler reports that the idea of the Open Space Bond was also supported by the Cache County Farm Bureau; the Nature Conservancy; Valley Implement; the Cache Trails Alliance; the Stokes Nature Center; the Bear River Land Conservancy; and the Bridgerland Audubon Society.

Proposition 1, they contend, will establish a fund to protect scenic vistas; preserve open lands near valley gateways; add trails and trail connectivity; and, maintain agriculture, waterways and wildlife habitat.

Critics said that sounded like a pretty ambitious goal for only $20 million.

Eliason agreed with that observation, but discussed ways that the $20 million generated by the proposed bond issue could be used as matching funds to bring other dollars into play.

With the bond issue passed by voters, the entrepreneur now hopes for subsequent donations of land and money from individuals and non-profits groups as well as money from the state and federal government.

A county mailer stated that an annual property tax increase sufficient to pay the debt service on the $20 million bond issue over a period of 20 years is estimated at $26.85 for a $429,000 primary residence and $45.52 on a commercial property of the same value.

Draxler and his committee admit, however, that information is only an estimate and is not a limit on the amount of taxes that Cache County may be required to levy to pay the debt service on the bond issue.

As to management of the funds generated by the bond issue, its supporters say that a critical aspect of the program is the formation of an Open Space Board to develop and administer the program.

The renewal of the RAPZ Tax on Proposition 2 was a much less controversial proposal, according to Wendi Hassan, the executive director of the Cache Valley Center for the Arts (CacheARTS).

Cache County has collected a 1 percent sales tax on prepared food since 1992 to fund support for tourism, recreation and the cultural arts.

The RAPZ Tax — which is a tenth of 1 percent sales tax — was added in 2002 to support capital projects and the operating expenses of local recreational venues.

Unlike the restaurant tax, the RAPZ Tax must be renewed every 10 years.

Those combined taxes have allowed county officials and a volunteer screening committee to award more than $54 million in grants to worthy projects over the past three decades.

Since 2002, the RAPZ Tax alone has generated revenues of about $26 million.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!

7 Comments

  • Communism at it's finest November 9, 2022 at 1:03 am Reply

    The only true stakeholders in this bond are the homeowners who are now saddled with more taxes thanks to the numerous renters who got to vote on how homeowners spend their hard-earned money, and get to “enjoy” other people’s property without having to pay a dime in order to do so. This is a load of communist bulls#@t despite protestations claiming otherwise. I wonder, were those extra 2,000 votes hidden away at the airport?

    • Abe Lincoln November 9, 2022 at 8:27 am Reply

      Because the landlords who pay those taxes don’t pass the price on to the renters? I guarantee they do, which is a firmly (and rightly) capitalist thing to do.

      • Communism at it's finest November 9, 2022 at 10:36 am Reply

        Considering that most apartments are now owned by property management companies aka corporations rather than independent landlords, your point is irrelevant on the issue. Even if renters who live in even a complex along with 50+ other tenants the impact on the individual vs individual homeowners is essentially nil. This proposition ought to have been voted on solely by individual homeowners as they are the ones who will foot this bill.

      • Decent Landlord November 9, 2022 at 12:29 pm Reply

        Nope, I didn’t. My rentals’ property taxes doubled 2020 to 2021. Would have taken $50 more per month per unit to cover, but didn’t figure it was necessary and everyday people already struggle enough to keep up with expenses. Why should I add to their stress when I don’t have to? Not everybody lives every waking moment of their lives in pursuit of the almighty dollar. I also forgave multiple months of rent among several units during the pandemic – fortunately there never was a single month that required leniency for more than one unit at a time. Doing the right thing made that time work out for many families, even the owners of the complex. Some, maybe even many are content to have sufficient for their needs and use some of their efforts and resources to help lighten the burdens of their fellow man. These pursuits are ultimately more fulfilling that the pursuit of wealth.

        The property tax per unit is admittedly less than an average home, but is perhaps comparable to a similar size small home on a small lot – about $1,000/unit/year. Whether the tax increase impact is felt on the renter depends on the landlord and the lease terms, but local owner/voters certainly experience that impact. I do see the argument that renters do not have a direct property tax impact as a consequence as a result of their vote, and that outside entities are burdened financially by the votes of locals despite there being no benefit to those entities. However, our system has no provisions for selective voting.

    • Blayne November 9, 2022 at 9:05 am Reply

      You make a good point about renters voting on this. Doesn’t seem right. Just another tax with no real benefit to the taxpayer. I would like to hear where these so-called “scenic vistas, open lands and trails” will be – Clarkston? Large developers aren’t looking at Clarkston, Lewiston, etc. They want Logan, Hyde Park, Providence, Nibley, and this tax does nothing to protect those areas from mass development.

  • Big Al November 9, 2022 at 12:06 pm Reply

    There is not a tax that the people of Cache County don’t love! These same folks bitterly complain about their property taxes going up each year and wonder why.

    **”Draxler and his committee admit, however, that information is “only an estimate and is not a limit” on the amount of taxes that Cache County may be required to levy to pay the debt service on the bond issue.”

    Seems to me that the good people of Cache County have just written an open check to local government. Supporters claim that it “will only be the cost of an ice cream shake per month.” I suspect it will be more like the cost of a fine, steak dinner.

  • Terry November 9, 2022 at 10:56 pm Reply

    And don’t forget about the seniors living on fixed-incomes that spent their entire life paying for a home has to sacrifice their lunch money to pay this forced tax! Go figure!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

For security, use of Google's reCAPTCHA service is required which is subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

I agree to these terms.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.