Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.
New City Hall will help revitalize Bountiful City
Dec 02, 2016 | 2499 views | 1 1 comments | 218 218 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Dear Editor:

The City Council of Bountiful is proposing a multi-million dollar plan to build a new city hall and plaza to revitalize a long neglected area of Bountiful. Years ago a group of residents of the Bountiful Fort Historic District fought and won an effort to re-zone a large portion of the Historic District. This was done to prevent the demolition of historic homes on large lots from becoming replaced with high-density housing. The new city hall would be an addition to the effort to improve the Bountiful Fort Historic District and revitalize the area. A small vocal minority has used illegal posted signs and outdated arguments against the proposal. Though a final decision has been made, it is time to tell “The Rest of the Story.” 

When subdivisions were first built in Bountiful in the 1950s, many neighborhoods had covenants that prohibited the sales of homes to individual based on race and ethnicity. Currently, and for good reason, those provisions are illegal and unenforceable. Many of us as youths passed the “Special Class,” where those with disabilities were segregated from the general student population. With the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, children with disabilities were required to have the same educational opportunities of others. The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990. The law was passed to end the discrimination and exclusion of persons with disabilities from public buildings and businesses. The law requires that all citizens have equal access to public buildings. The time for segregation and discrimination is over. We need to move forward. 

The current city hall is discriminatory at best and illegal at worse. The disabled and elderly must enter the east door of the building and are unable to use the west main public entrance. Once in the building it is very difficult for the elderly and disabled to get downstairs to the public meeting rooms for available for citizen’s use. This segregation and exclusion is discriminatory and is restricting these individuals from their legal right of access to the existing City Hall. Many of us remember automobiles without seatbelts, and riding in the open backs of pick-up trucks. These conditions and activities were and are still unsafe and dangerous. 

The construction of the old Stoker Elementary building is also unsafe and dangerous. It does not meet current building standards. Observation of the fire escape on the west side will show the obvious danger of the current structure. If still in use today, by the Davis School District, the building would have long been replaced. Renovations have been made to most of the older schools in the district, including the complete replacement of Davis High School to bring it up to current building standards. School districts across the State of Utah are upgrading buildings to meet the needs of their students. Many of the elementary schools in the Salt Lake School District have been replaced with new schools that are safer and accommodate all students. 

When it was proposed to replace East High School in Salt Lake City, there was a similar discussion about wanting to keep the existing building. The final decision was to build a new building to accommodate all students including those with disabilities. 

Another issue that has not been addressed is the current location of the Bountiful Farmers Market. The Bountiful Farmer’s Market located on 100 South, just north of the existing Stoker building, needs a new home. The proposed plaza behind the new city hall would give the market a much needed new home. The Farmer’s Market is currently infringing on the religious rights of those residents who use the Bountiful Tabernacle as a place of worship. Every Thursday afternoon and evening during the summer, the street is closed restricting one third of the parking of the Church. Despite signs prohibiting any parking for none-Church use, the patrons of the market continue to illegally fill the main parking lot, eliminating another third of the church parking. A Care Center on the north side has been allowed to let their employees use the north side parking, thus elimination all parking for the Church on Thursdays. The Farmer’s Market needs to move and have their own space where the religious liberties of others are not trampled upon. 

The old Stoker school is property owned by Bountiful City. It is seismically unsound and poses a danger to those who use it. The cost to bring the building to current building standards is not feasible or sensible. Should there be an earthquake and lives lost or injured, the city, as the owner of a known unsafe building, is liable. This liability is financial burden hanging over all the residents of Bountiful. An effort to keep it would require any remodel to meet the ADA requirements, which is not financially feasible with the existing structure. 

Another complaint about moving the location of the City Hall is increased traffic. Other than the occasional resident paying a utility bill, there is very little traffic at the current location, compared to the hundreds of students currently using the Stoker Campus of the University of Utah. Another concern is the cost of a new building. We no longer live in a time of a dime candy bars or cans of soda. We must face the reality that things are more expensive now and that cost will only go up in the future. It is time to stop bickering about unimportant details and move into the future with a new city hall in Bountiful. 

The new city hall will help revitalize downtown Bountiful. As Paul Harvey would famously say, “Now that is the rest of the story.” 


Jim Jones 


Comments-icon Post a Comment
December 16, 2016
The story never ends, my friend. A new City Hall, away from the Courts, Police and Library, would split what is now our Civic Center. The Bountiful Historic District exists to keep our history alive. Stoker School is the second oldest building in Bountiful. How can its demolishment for a new City Hall be an effort to improve the Bountiful Historic District?

As for revitalization, it is pointed out in this very editorial, "...there is very little traffic at the current location..." So a new City Hall isn't going to revitalize very much. As for the Plaza to accompany it, it is completely unnecessary. An add-on, I believe, to make the new City Hall remotely palatable to the public.

Furthermore, how can Stoker School be demolished when it is a designated historical building according to the State of Utah?

This document can be referenced via this link:

The entire area roughly bounded by 200 West, 500 South, 400 East, and 400 North, is designated the Bountiful Historic District according to the National Register of Historic Places. Stoker School is referenced in this document as well.

This document can be referenced via this link:

The National Register document (dated 2005) also makes reference to the fact that the city offices used to reside in that zone, but later moved out of it. There is also a notation, "Most recently, the city has contemplated moving city hall from the complex at 700 South, where it has been since the early 1960s, back to the city center. Hopefully, the new complex will be sympathetic to the neighborhood, which was designated by the city as the Bountiful Fort Historic District in 2004."

This idea seems to have been in the works for over a decade. How many members of the city council have come and gone in that time? Will voting for a different mayor and/or city council members really make a difference to these plans? What then, pray tell, is the motivation for this project? The citizens should be able to decide in a referendum vote. A petition for such a vote is circulating now.

It seems to me that the City Hall needs a renovation, as it was built in the 1960s, but onsight, not in the historic district. Stoker School also needs a renovation, but not a demolition. Why tear down an over 100-year-old building (Stoker School) and close a street simply to replace one from the 1960s? Especially when that building is surrounded by many residential and religious developments as old or older? It's taking the heart out of the city in my opinion. A nice, quiet, tree-lined one with little traffic.

I think we need to remember what used to be good, what used to be real and can still be real. An original city office/cabin was moved and resides on Main Street, near the current city offices. That's what I propose. We change, yet remain at least somewhat the same. We don't need a grand City Hall building, nor will a log cabin suffice. We need a grand City Council overseeing a nice, well-maintained, fiscally conservative city and hall that acknowledges and preserves its past while moving into the future.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at the discretion of
Follow us on: