Friday, June 19, 2015

How to Keep the Prison in Draper Utah

The prison can obviously be re-built new on site in 2 phases. It will not cost more, and will likely save money. 93 percent of the voters in my area said even in January to keep the prison in Draper. They knew it would cost money. How much we keep of what is good will save more, but I believe even if we rebuilt the entire complex at Draper, the cost building new at the other sites will be more, counting wetlands, water, sewer, transportation, etc.

Back to the sketch.

The yellow line is approx. where the power lines are. The dashed line could be a proposed power line re-location. To move the lines would likely cost millions of dollars. How many millions would determine if it is worth it or not. The difference between $2 M or $20 M is a big deal.  I don't have those numbers yet. I just have confirmed it is possible. The power company has relocated lines dealing with Mountain View highway. They can do it. It isn't free.

The buildings can be built so they are not too close to or under these lines.

I have designed several buildings near and under power lines before, for example the ECI building west of I-15 at 700 S and 700 West in Woods Cross. It has transmission lines from 2 different power lines on both sides of the building. Depending on the amount of power in the lines, the distances between the lines and the buildings are different.

The other lines on the sketch shows different areas.

The NE corner near I-15 is approx. 120 acres. If we decide to replace all of the buildings as opposed just the worst ones, that 120 acres seems to be the most valuable for commercial office or retail to be eventually sold off to the private sector and developed and used to help replace part of Draper's property tax loss.  It has visibility and access off of an existing intersection at Bangerter. It can be accessed from 2 different I-15 interchanges.

The part north of Bangerter is approx. 68 acres. It could be used for a hub for transit, wetland credit,  or manufacturing, commercial or residential. It is likely not going to be used for expansion and could be sold off at any time.

Out of the approx. 680 acres there, that would leave almost 500 acres. Enough for the new prison.

The main men's prison area where Wasatch is about 50 to 60 acres.  That total section of ground in the middle of the site is about 350 acres and likely could include all the current prison rebuilt.

There is about 90 acres just south of Bangerter. It could be kept for Utah now to speed up phasing, or kept for future expansion or sold later for office or manufacturing.

The remaining 40 acres on the west, south of that would likely be kept for expansion, or used to help phasing now.

There is actually a few more acres there, but it is clear the existing main men's prison area can be rebuilt north of it, and then torn down and then the rest of the complexes replaced on site and then the existing town down, with approx. 180 acres sold and 500 acres kept now, with an option of selling 90 acres later.

Fred C. Cox
House District 30

Moving the Prison and the PRC vs Keep it in Draper

A recent response to someone writing me:

Thanks for writing. I understand some of the frustration, but some of it could be misplaced.

For example, I wrote/asked 3 questions at the PRC meeting at Salt Lake City, but only one was asked. A moderator tried to interpret the questions and sometimes did better than other times. Because there was not an opportunity at any of the 3 public meetings or 1 public hearing to ask questions directly or have follow up question or statements to clarify, many felt like their question was never really asked, let alone answered. Many of the answers were very good, even some I didn't agree with.

The good news is the Utah Legislature can read the questions here, as most of them were not able to be able to attend all 4 meetings. I am glad I was there.

At the Grantsville PRC meeting, I only asked one question. The question was given to one of the outside consultants who had no clue what the answer was, even though it was covered on page 172 in the final report and so he avoided the question. I don't think he did it to be mean.

Someone else asked the same question at Eagle Mountain. Rep. Wilson took the question head on and did a great job of answering it. Basically, the $95 Million in taxes that are expected to be generated each year from a fully developed Commercial Draper site will not be used to pay back the cost of moving the prison as it is likely the development would be commercial office and not retail, so the taxes would be Property Taxes benefiting the city and the local school district and Income Taxes, that benefit education.

Someone else did a good job in answering and pointing out the $1.8 Billion economic effect per year was similar to GDP per year where Utah is doing almost $150 Billion currently (so a small percentage wise) and Utah can now grow more than that in a year now not over the 10 years or 20 years it would take to hit that level after someone invests a $1 Billion of private money at Draper. The person asking the question had argued that 700 Acres couldn't generate 1/10th of our GDP. The good news it can't and won't, (closer to 1%) but it isn't claimed that it will.  (I understand both of those numbers are being looked at by staff).

I was impressed with some of the public questions at PRC meetings. You could tell that many had done their homework and knew the reports, etc. in many cases better than the hired consultants. Some questions were not as helpful as they seemed to target a person not an issue. Some included personal attacks. Most were civil however.

I also understand your frustration, as today I texted KSL radio two questions for the Governor and neither were read, but were combined and changed and then given to the Governor with my name.

I asked:

"From Rep. Fred Cox For the SLC location wetlands will dramatically increase the cost of that location. The other locations have water, sewer and transportation issues. Will you veto any bill to move the prison if those initial reports hold. There are hundreds of acres in Draper to begin rebuilding the prison there."

"From Rep. Fred Cox. Governor Herbert, it appears based on comments from the PRC meetings that transportation, water and sewer costs make the current Draper Prison Site the best to replace the prison. If that remains the case will you veto any bill to move the Draper Prison"

What was asked the Governor was simply if he was going to veto any move to relocate the prison. Not what I asked at all, so how do I fault the Governor for his non certain, too early to tell, answer.?

I do hope the PRC posts the audio/video/statements from the public hearing on Tuesday. I also hope the public Q&A is posted. Perhaps they are.

The first statements from the Public hearing on Tuesday that included the Salt Lake City representatives and other locations were very specific, prepared, and in my opinion, destroyed any reason to move the prison.

The PRC members are pretty smart and will have in the future clarifications and other reasons and answers to back up the non-binding decision to move the prison from the resolution last year.

Remember no one is perfect. We all have strengths and weaknesses. While the public meetings and hearing were not perfect, I know our staff spent many long hours to make them as best as they could.

Again, thank you for your passion.  I believe Rep. Wilson held his temper really well and did a good job of answering the moderated questions he got.  Even though I don't agree with him on a few issues, he has my respect, as do the other PRC members.

The couple of architects that I know that have experience in this area are more interested in designing the buildings if they win the future RFP and didn't want to be involved in this phase. I am sure that limits the choices for consultants.

Fred C. Cox
House District 30
West Valley City

Wednesday, June 3, 2015

Healthy Utah vs Utah Cares

Do we want to take a step that we can see what will happen or do we step off a cliff and not know if there is something there? I would rather do something than nothing, unfortunately the Governor and Senate have not agreed in the past.

Healthy Utah doesn't just cover the gap, as that ends at 100% of poverty level and it goes to 138%. We already have 140,000 Utahns being covered by the subsidy now, those between 100% and 400%. Not all below 100% are in the "gap". If the US Supreme Court rules against the subsidy for federal exchanges, then what? We can't under the ACA just try medicaid expansion for two years. Healthy Utah is a pilot without a parachute. Do we really want to cover people and then, in 2 years say, sorry, we were just kidding? The House does have a plan that would be sustainable, even though it isn't less money. Utah Cares isn't just a name..

The House wasn't using PCN over 100% for Utah Cares. Utah Cares leaves the already existing subsidy over 100%. Approx 140,000 Utahns are using that subsidy now. PCN was only used for part of the coverage gap which ends at 100%. Much of that gap proposed using the 30% v 70% state/fed split that is more likely to remain and doesn't require Utah to cover a large % of those that are already covered.

The 100% line is real and that the Feds won't let Healthy Utah work without crossing it which is one of the deal breakers for the House.
No idea as to what Healthy Utah will really cost is a big problem. A capped funding formula isn't a gap, it is called a budget.

What bill passed the House?


Thursday, April 30, 2015

Fred Cox for Utah Republican State Central Committee

Fred Cox for Utah Republican State Central Committee

Fred C. Cox is a current member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee representing Salt Lake County and is a member of the Utah House of Representatives.

Fred is an active defender of the Neighborhood Caucus Election and Convention System, as an activist, member of the State Central Committee, and as a member of the Utah House of Representatives.

Fred worked tirelessly helping the Political Issues Committee, Protect Our Neighborhood Elections, directly challenge Count My Vote. He also created Fair Elections Utah to provide a place to broadcast critical information through social media during that fight. In addition to reducing the number of voters signing the petition in targeted areas of the state, the group filled official complaints with the Lt. Governor’s Election Office with documented examples of violations of Utah Initiative laws. It was immediately after this that Count My Vote compromised and agreed to stop gathering signatures. Fred spoke against the 2nd Substitute 2014 SB 54 in committee less than one day after this “grand compromise” was announced.

As a member of the Republican State Central Committee, Fred was at the front standing up to the demands of Count My Vote for over a year. He is also one of the strongest supporters of creating ways to improve our current neighborhood caucus election system to allow greater participation, including same day voting by firefighters, police, health workers and families with sick children.

In 2015 Representative Fred Cox was the original sponsor of H.B. 281 Revisions to Elections Law, to effectively delay the implementation of 2014 SB 54. The bill had a committee hearing in the House with the same language being used in a Senate bill which passed committee and was voted on in the Senate chamber. Rep. Fred Cox also sponsored a substitute to attempt to block many of the critical fixes for 2014 SB 54 that appeared in 2015 SB 207, which he felt would weaken the party’s fight to protect it’s constitutional rights.

What now? The Party is currently taking a media beating over how to deal with this issue. The Republican State Central Committee will meet in a month to decide what to do. It will be this Committee and then the State Delegates in August that will decide, not the Chair or the Executive Committee. We need members on the State Central Committee who will provide positive solutions, understanding the party and the law.

Critical also will be the 2016 Utah U.S. Presidential nominee for our party that will be decided at the March 2016 neighborhood caucus elections. The details will be important as this new vote can help attract more support to our party and system or the reverse.

Starting May 12 in Utah of this year, we will be able to pre-register 16 year olds to vote who will then be fully registered when they turn 18. The Republican Party must be out in front to help these new voters understand why they want to be affiliated with our party.

Vote Fred Cox for Utah Republican State Central Committee, to represent you, Salt Lake County, to help strengthen the State Republican Party.

• Member of the Utah House of Representatives, 2011 to 2012, 2015 to present
• Member of the Utah Republican State Central Committee 2011 to present
• Utah Republican State Delegate 2002 to 2003, 2005 to 2011, 2013, 2015 to present
Salt Lake County Republican Bylaws Committee, 2013 to present
Salt Lake County Republican Central Committee, 2010 to 2012, 2014 to present
Salt Lake County Republican Precinct Chair, 2014 to 2015
Salt Lake County Business Alliance Gov. Action Committee, Nov. 2010 to present

AIA Utah, Gov. Affairs Committee, Jan. 2008 to Jan. 2011 and Jan. 2013 to present
• Charter member of the Valley West Rotary Club
• Campaign Volunteer and/or Consultant for local, state, federal and party candidates
• Church Based community service

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Petition For Extraordinary Writ


Notice is given that Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, petitions the Utah Supreme Court to direct Spencer J. Cox, Lt. Governor, State of Utah, Respondent, to accept the Application for an Initiative or Referendum by Stephanie Gricius and four other Sponsors, attached, for the purpose of allowing them to attempt to obtain signatures for a referendum, to submit to the voters of the 2015 Utah General Election a repeal of 2015 2nd Sub. HB 454, now Enrolled, “Prison Development Amendments”, as allowed by the Utah Constitution, Article VI, Sec. 1, (2) (i) (B), and Utah Code, Title 20A, Section 7, Part 3.  The bill failed to obtain a two-thirds vote of both Houses.

The Sponsors attempted to submit their Application on March 27, 2015, but was refused and denied that opportunity by the Utah Lt. Governor’s Election Office, based on the deadline found in Utah Code, 20A-7-302 (1) “within five calendar days after the end of the legislative session at which the law passed.”, which this year ended March 12, 2015. By the deadline specified in Utah Code, March 17, 2015, it was not known if the Governor would sign this bill, and according to the Legislative Website, the Governor was sent the Enrolled version of the bill on that day.

The Governor signed the bill on March 25, 2015 and finished signing or vetoing any other session bills on April 1, 2015, a deadline per Utah Constitution Art. VII, Sec. 8. The effective date of the bill to become law is May 12, 2015, as the immediate effective date found in the bill did not apply without the 2/3 vote of both houses.

This Court is the court specified by Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a) for an extraordinary writ to compel the Lt. Governor to accept the application for any referendum petition. Even though the Petitioner, a Utah Voter, as required by Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a), is also a current member of the Utah House of Representatives, the Petitioner is powerless to repeal or request legislation soon enough to be of help to the Application Sponsors, in this case, without a special session being called by the Governor, who signed the bill, or this Court. The Court recently ruled in a similar case involving Draper City where an extraordinary writ was issued per Utah Code  20A-7-6 (4).

The Petitioner, contends that the deadline found in Utah Code, 20A-7-302 (1) does not provide a legal voter the power vested by the Utah Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 1, (2) (i), as in most cases the voter will not know if the bill will be signed by the Governor by that deadline. The Petitioner requests the Court to decide this matter, and asks that the deadlines be adjusted by the Court for this case, so the Sponsors can submit their Application, and also have time to obtain signatures.

Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner

Note, a copy of the Petition For Extraordinary Writ was delivered to the Lt. Governor's Election office for Fred C. Cox by James Dabakis on April 3, 2015. 


The  court asked for more information on May 1, 2015.
This has my response and a motion.

DATED MAY 1, 2015

Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, responds to the Court Order for supplemental pleadings to the following two questions by the Court:.
1. What form of the "copy of the law" must be attached to an application for a referendum petition under Utah Code 5 20A-7-302(2)(d); and, if the term "law" is construed to mean "a bill passed by the Legislature," how does an applicant comply with that requirement if a copy of the enrolled version of the bill is not available within the five-day limit specified by Section 20A-7-302(1)?

2. What standing, if any, do voters have to challenge the denial of referenda petitions or applications for referenda petitions?

Response to Court Question 1a: The Enrolled version of the bill. Under Utah Article VI Section 25 and Utah Code 36-12-12 the Legislature has the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel prepare the “final” version of the bill after it has passed both Houses. This enrolled version of the bill is what is presented to the Governor to sign. The Governor has the option to sign the bill, veto the bill, allow the bill to become law without his signature, or provide a line item veto of the bill. This year he did all of those.

Utah Code 36-12-12 tasks the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel to prepare the enrolled version for hundreds of bills each year leaving enough time for the Governor to receive the enrolled bill and make his decision in 10 days or at least prior to the 20 day deadline after the session found in Utah Article VII Sec. 8.  An Enrolled bill is not a law without this process. See again Utah Article VII Sec. 8. According to Legislative Research, some bills are in enrolled form within 5 days after the session but most are within 12 days. They are then sent to the House or Senate, to printing and then to the Governor.

Response to Court Question 1b. While an applicant can attempt to apply for a referendum using a different version than the enrolled version of the bill, only the enrolled version of the bill, that has become a law, prior to its effective date, meets all the requirements of 20A-7-302 and 303 and Article VI, Section 1, (2)(a)(i)(B). One of the tasks the Lt. Governor’s office is given is to evaluate the application, making sure the applicant has the proper forms, disclosures and the correct version of the law. See 20A-7-303 and 304.

Response to Court Question 2a. A Utah voter has Standing under US Constitution Amendment 1, Utah Article VI, Section 1, (1)(b) and more specifically in this case Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B). This Utah Constitutional Section protects the voters’ legislative power to create and veto laws, except as delegated to the House and Senate. Also providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of referenda petitions is Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a).
If the lieutenant governor refuses to accept and file any referendum petition, any voter may apply to the supreme court for an extraordinary writ to compel the lieutenant governor to do so within 10 days after the refusal.

Response to Court Question 2b. Providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions is again US Constitution Amendment 1, Utah Article VI, Section 1, (1)(b) and more specifically in this case Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B).

“require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.”

Also providing Standing for a Utah Voter regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions is Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a).  In this case, the application was not allowed by statute after 5 days from the session and therefore it was the policy for the Lt. Governor’s Election Office to instruct interested parties of that deadline, including the applicants and the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a Utah Voter, and also in this last session attempted to amend the bill, which failed, and voted against it twice. There is an additional reason however any Utah Voter has standing regarding the denial of applications for referenda petitions. The applications are part of the process for referenda petitions and a Utah Voter has Standing per Utah Code 20A-7-307 (3) (a).  There is not a question that the Lt. Governor’s office was attempting to follow Utah Code. The question for the Court is if the Code follows the State Constitution. 

Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, requests the Court Order before May 12, 2015, a delay to the effective date  of 2015 HB 454 pending the decision of the Court, and depending on that decision, include the days that would have been allowed under statute for those applying for a referendum to gather signatures, and have those signatures verified.

If the Motion is granted, the Court Order to delay the effective date, is requested that the notice be sent to both the Respondent and to the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel arriving no later than May 11, 2015. This delay of the effective date will be required by Utah Article VI, Section (2)(a)(i)(B).

“require any law passed by the Legislature, except those laws passed by a two-thirds vote of the members elected to each house of the Legislature, to be submitted to the voters of the State, as provided by statute, before the law may take effect.”

along with Utah Article VI Section 25 and Utah Code 36-12-12 . If the Court decides grant the Petition for Extraordinary Writ to allow the application for referendum for 2015 HB 454 to be submitted, the law must not take effect during the process of the referendum. Based also on the Order the Court has given the Respondent, they will have 15 days to respond to this Supplemental Pleadings and Motion. That response deadline is not before May 12, 2015.

Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner    May 5, 2015,
Delivered May 6, 2015


The Lt. Gov/AG submitted a response to the motion part of the previous filing on May 11, 2015.
The Motion back to the Court on that day was as follows. 


Fred C. Cox, a Utah Voter, Petitioner, responds to the Respondent with the following Motion:.
1.    The Court is already aware that the Petitioner and the Respondent differ on the Standing of the Petitioner in this case. That was one of the two main questions the Court asked. The Petitioner stands by the argument previously presented that as a voter, in this case, continues to argue he has standing.
2.    The Court also asked if the current law was flawed based on the State Constitution. The Petitioner answered the questions. The Respondent, who has not responded directly yet to the first question, still has time to respond, but that will not be soon enough to protect the Petitioner’s rights under Article VI.
3.    The Court and the Responder have copies of the Application for a Referendum that was attempted to be filed on March 27, 2015. Those sponsors were repeatedly told that they could not submit the application as was the Petitioner on that date, since the 5 days had passed since the session. Since March 27, 2015. there has been no reason stated by the Respondent as to why the Application was not able to be submitted, other that the statute timeline in question, which the Petitioner believes violates the Utah Constitution and has asked for protection of that right as a Utah Voter.
4.    The Court has wide power under the Rules of a Petition of Extraordinary Writ to protect the rights of a Utah Voter.
5.    The Rights of the Petitioner, a Utah Voter, according to Article VI include the right veto the law in question because it didn’t received the 2/3rds vote of both houses prior to the Effective Date, which is tomorrow. (Providing there are enough other Utah Voters). There is nothing in the Utah Constitution that says the Law Must have the Effective Date in 60 days, only that it can not be sooner unless the bill received the 2/3rds vote of both houses, and that it is the default of 60 days. The Petitioner belies the Court has the power to delay that date, providing the Respondent more time to answer the Court’s first question in more detail.
6.    The Petitioner therefore asks for a MOTION TO STAY AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

Fred C. Cox, Dated May 11, 2015

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

The US President can not cut a deal with Iran on his own

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"  US Constitution Art 2, Sec. 2, Clause 2

"The Congress shall have power ... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" US Constitution Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 3

If it isn't a treaty, The US President doesn't have the power (it is Congress') and if it is, he has to get the advice and the consent of 2/3 of the senate. The President, including the Secretary of State, is outside his US Constitutional powers.

The Constitution is simple and clear. If you don't want simple and clear, there may be an argument that an agreement with Iran limiting commerce can be done with a congressional-executive agreement, or law. It may also be argued that a sole-executive agreement may deal with foreign policy, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, from a prior act of Congress, or from a prior treaty, as limited by the Constitution. The US Senate in 2001 released a study about these 4 exceptions for a sole-executive agreement, provided by the Congressional Research Service. Even with this, the President is still out of line.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Church Lobbyists

While I didn't follow former Representative Carl Wimmer around in 2011, and in fact voted differently than him on several bills, his blogged experiences differ widely to mine re: Church Lobbyists, etc. in 2011.

I posted this several years ago.

This year, Mr. Wimmer was not involved in the legislature, and his assumptions, as far as I am concerned with 2015 SB 296 and SB 297 are nothing more than that, assumptions, and are also rubbish as far as I am aware.

I have made Facebook comments last week re: this subject. My comments from this thread are below:

Fred C. Cox, March 22, 2015

In 3 general sessions and several special sessions I would say my experience would not match what Carl described. No one from the Church has told me how to vote. For starters I haven't talked to the two he mentioned. I was there in 2011. I loudly complained about a newsroom press release in April 2011 re immigration which was revised in June. Nothing during the session. This year, I started reading SB 100 again for the 3rd year. I have posted major amendments on my blog for over 2 years. I was surprised my complaints were fixed. That was prior to any announcement from the church in January.

I have contacted reps from the church to verify what I was hearing was crap, which it typically was. For example some claiming Healthy Utah was backed by them. I was referred to a pretty generic statement.

 "Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."

The two he named are no longer lobbyists.

I copied it not because of some lobbyist, but because of some local member of the church giving a representative or senator grief for voting against SB 296.

 I voted for SB 296 because of changes that were made to a bill I had been reading for years. The protection of rights on page 23 are huge. The idea that we need a law so people would respect others that believe differently is sad. There is a reason a few activists are concerned it might be replicated. They are so used to calling anyone that disagrees with their view a bigot that the idea we should love others that believe differently is scary to them.

If there was anyone that could have been targeted, would have it been the House Judiciary Committee? I am not aware of any report of anyone on that committee or another in the #utleg that complained about backroom arm twisting on SB 296 coming from the church.

And since I am on the house judiciary committee that vetted SB 296, I would likely have seen something.

Someone asked if there was a LDS caucus. Not that I have ever seen.

I was not following Carl around. I don't know what he saw and didn't. All anyone can report on is what they know. My experience doesn't match. I will not call him a liar. I do not agree with some of his conclusions. People have the right to disagree.

Try reading lines 687 to 691. And while you are there, continue to lines 706.

Lines 182 and 183, along with 790 to 791.

You are trying to put words in my mouth. You conclusion based on what I did say wasn't even close. Assumptions made re: this year, are just that.

So why in 2011, when I voted against HB116 and also spoke against it did I get no contact during the session? Speculation is all that is found here.

The amount of crap being shoveled on this thread would make a lot of fertilizer.