A Chronology of Providence City’s Continued Attempts to Annex Private Property

Private drive shown within Millville City limits (not Providence’s), that the Simmons’ home is on.

We are very concerned at what we have been hearing from Steve Simmons, Susan Packer and Howard Creed about the tentative revision of the original Dan Cox subdivision agreement which was voided by the Judge Willmore decision last year in favor of Simmons and his neighbors.

[ Steve Simmons’ letter concerning this issue, Providence City vs. Private Property Rights, can be found by clicking the link. ]

Here is the story so far, to the best of our understanding:

Providence City annexed the private driveway called 2100 South (not in Providence at the time) in error, believing the Cache County plat map was correct in showing that driveway was a public right-of-way. The driveway in question, built by the current owner’s father Don Simmons in 1991, does not appear on any official Cache County road map past or present . It was only on a plat map. Utah law clearly states a plat map is not legal proof of a road’s ownership by government.
None of the owners of adjacent land were informed of the annexation of the “2100 South” private driveway, although the Utah State Code requires them to be informed in writing by the county and/ or city in question. Not having been informed of the annexation, property owners with adjacent land missed the deadline for protesting the annexation.

Steve Simmons, owner of the “2100 South” private driveway, learned of the annexation of his driveway nine months after the fact.
Steve Simmons filed a petition to Cache County to vacate its right-of-way claim on his property, but received no reply.
Failing to reach a negotiated settlement with the developer, Cache County and Providence City, Simmons and six neighbors (all of whom live on the private driveway deceptively labeled “2100 South”) filed suit in District Court against Cache County, Providence City and developer Dan Cox requesting they vacate their claim to a right-of-way on Simmons’ private property.

At the opening of the case presentation in District Court, the Cache County Attorney testified that Cache County had no proof of a legal right-of-way on the driveway called 2100 South and bowed out of the case.

Providence City and the developer gave Simmons et al. the impression that they wanted to continue to fight the law suit anyway for two more years. We also learned from Mr. Simmons that during that period the developer boasted he could afford to bury the plaintiffs in legal costs.

3/13 Judge Thomas Willmore decided in favor of the six “2100 South” plaintiffs. (Case # 150100236)  Mr.Cox had removed Simmons’ fence and some trees while the law suit was still ongoing when Cox believed he owned the fence line (due to a faulty survey). Cox also installed a sewer line in an irrigation ditch which he believed was on his property but was shown by Willmore’s decision not to be on Cox’s property. Judge Willmore’s decision included orders for Cox to restore the fence and repair any damage he had done. It took Cox eight months and two additional hearings (and paying some of plaintiffs’ legal expenses) to remove the sewer line, rebuild the irrigation ditch and restore the fence.

3/13 Simmons’ written requests to Providence City, Cache County and the State of Utah to correct their error on the Cache County street map (which showed erroneously that his driveway was a public right of way) were not answered.

3/18 Mayor John Drew sent his “memo” listing possible options for the completion of the Dan Cox subdivision. One of these options was “Eminent Domain, may not be legal”. The memo was reviewed at a Providence City Council meeting where Mayor Drew and City Administrator Bankhead reiterated their concern that they “follow the Master Plan”. (Simmons observed that a planned major east-west road at the location of his private driveway appeared on the Providence Master Plan’s Transportation Plan map publicly only starting May of 2018.)

4/18 Simmons addressed Providence City in writing with a request that they correct the Cache County map error showing his driveway erroneously as a public right of way.

4/18 Dan Cox submitted a proposal to Providence City for a new Subdivision permit with his new development plan.

5/8 Providence Mayor John Drew stated in a public City Council meeting his preference for Dan Cox to avoid losing two lots by installing an isolated east-west length of “road” narrower than what is permitted by Providence ordinances. Originally Cox had planned to have a cul-de-sac on that boundary of his property, but did not want to install a cross street sufficiently close to the cul-de-sac as required by Providence Ordinances.

5/25 Simmons and neighbors met with Mayor Drew and City Administrator Bankhead to discuss the issues. The city officials informed Mr. SImmons et al. that requiring Mr. Cox to build a short section of one-half of a non-existent road would not violate the City code as it will be labeled an “unfinished” or “incomplete road.” (?) The city officials insisted that all of the land south of the Cox road is going to be subdivided and developed and that will solve the road problem “someday”. (?) The mayor confidently but mysteriously predicted that no one would buy a city lot with a road in the front and a 10 foot driveway in the back. (?) Mayor Drew also opined that Mr. Simmons’ trees and irrigation ditch didn’t matter, which would mean they had no value as real estate or as improvements. The fact that the developer felt he could sell lots on a cul-de-sac with the back of the lot to the Simmons property didn’t matter to Mayor Drew and Ms. Bankhead. It seemed to Mr. Simmons that the City officials were somehow obsessed with the notion of taking his driveway, in spite of Judge Wilmore’s Decision that they had no right to do so. Seven years and an expensive and lost lawsuit had not changed the minds of these two City officials.

Mayor Drew and Ms. Bankhead also provided Mr. Simmons with an instruction kit as to how he could correct the annexation map error at his expense (the Cache County fee is $150).

6/2 Simmons wrote an email to the City Council members requesting that the issue be solved now, this month. He requested the City either build the complete road they so ardently desire somewhere else or offer to buy the land they want. Mr. Simmons and his neighbors find it very frustrating that Mayor Drew continues to deny any plans for using Eminent Domain action on Simmons’ property while trying to prepare a subdivision plan that will make it extremely likely in the vague future.

The private road/drive (private property) looking west.

The Utah State Code governing a public taking of private property requires that the planned use for such property be a legal use, that the taking be necessary for the implementation of that legal use, that construction toward such a legal use commence promptly following such a taking and that the proposed new use must be an improvement over the previous use of the property.

The Providence City code only allows two road width options for new roads: with paving sections of 37 feet and 56 feet. There is no legal 25-feet- wide road option for a new road. Currently Providence Mayor Drew has informed Simmons officially that his preference will be to require Cox to build a short stretch of half of a 56-feet-wide road on the south border of Cox’s property, with the plan that eventually (no date proposed) Providence City will take Simmons’ driveway and part of his yard via Eminent Domain for a road which cannot proceed all the way to Highway 89 anyway because USU has a big piece of property in the way of such a path–and the USU property is not subject to municipal Eminent Domain. The location of the USU property suggests that another location would be best for a wide thoroughfare, not the “2100 South” driveway.

The story so far, then, is that Providence City erred in annexing what turned out to not be a public right of way, failed to inform adjacent landowners of the annexation (as required by state law), lost in District Court when it was revealed that there was no such public right-of-way to take, failed to answer written correspondence asking the City to correct the error on the County map, now instructs Simmons to pay Cache County’s $150 fee as part of his application to the County to correct their map, and plans to (illegally) require Dan Cox to install a tiny section of one-half of a legal road– with the supposed plan of using Eminent Domain at some unspecified future date to seize the remainder of their required road width from Simmons by seizing his driveway and part of his front yard (already declared officially in District Court not to be a public right-of-way). In the alternative, they plan to await the appearance of a developer who will buy buy the Simmons parcel of 1.35 acres, tear down the house, built the other half of the city’s road, install a cul-de-sac on the west end at the USU property and subdivide the remaining land into ¼ acres lots.

An obvious major problem with this plan is that there is nothing in the Providence City Ordinances that requires an applicant to install a section of a road which does not exist, so Cox cannot legally be required to install such a section of a non-existent road. There is nothing in the Ordinances allowing one-half of a section of road to be built in such a location that its completion will require the use of Eminent Domain. It is not feasible for the current City Council to make decisions which would require future City Councils to enact an Eminent Domain action. Also, the most reasonable place for an east-west major street rather than the private drive (“2100 South”) would be along the 600 South. If Mr. Cox is required to place the back sides of two lots up against half of a short stretch of a non-existent road, with the expectation that the houses built on those lots will eventually look out on a major thoroughfare, that would seem be very poor planning–almost the opposite of planning.

Private road/drive looking East

Providence City vs. Private Property Rights

The entrance to the Creed/Packer farm in Millville, next door to the Simmons’, showing mature landscaping that will be destroyed if taken illegally by Providence City to establish a 66’ wide road that is outside of Providence City limits.

A Chronology of Providence City’s Continued Attempts to Annex Private Property can be found by licking the link. ]

Some questions for the citizens of Providence, Utah:

If the city administrator, mayor, and city council members are honest people? Then why do they make written and verbal statements that they aren’t going to invoke eminent domain to take the Simmons and Creed land, then in private they ask the developer to build a narrow 24 foot wide road next to the Simmons and Creed property? They have stated that they want a 66 foot wide road. The city’s own codes require a 66 foot wide road. Where are they planning to get the rest of the road width if not by eminent domain against the Simmons and Creed property? Are they suddenly going to settle for a 24 foot wide road in violation of their own city code instead of a 66 foot wide road? If they are so honest and if there is nothing wrong with their behavior, why do they seek to hide it from the public? Why not openly admit they want the land and make an open and fair offer for it? Simmons and Creed both say that in the seven years this issue has lasted so far; neither the developer nor the city have ever offered to buy the land they want in the open and honest way normal people do when they want some land.

Why does the city council seem determined to solve the housing crisis along the Wasatch front of Utah by themselves? Were they elected by the developers? Or did the people who might want to move to Cache valley elect them? Why are they not more responsive to the desires of the people who already live in Providence? Why are they fixated on more and bigger roads instead of bike-paths, walking paths or even equestrian paths? Why are there not more city parks?* Why don’t they focus on improving the quality of life for the citizens of Providence instead of so much focus on future growth? Growth happens, so where is the focus on preserving a green belt and future city park lands to maintain the current semi-rural quality of life for the current voting citizens? They make a master plan for roads on land they don’t own or control, do they have future parks and bike paths set aside? The master plan map of future roads has been on the wall of the city administrator for years but only on the city website for a month or two. Where is the map of future city parks, bike paths, walking paths, horse trails?

They say they focus on future growth, do they have plans for a future pedestrian overpass from the north side of 1st north to the school on the south side or must the children of city voters risk life and limb to cross as the traffic they forecast from new development increases?

Honest and fair minded people don’t have to find ways to hide their actions from the public. In fact they look for ways to inform the public.

Steve Simmons

* One of Mayor John Drews campaign complaints with the previous mayor’s administration was “ignoring” lack of enough parkland acreage in Providence. Now is a perfect, if fleeting, chance to increase all property values in Providence by adding parkland and equestrian trails while procuring a greenbelt at the same time. (ed.)

Private drive shown within Millville City limits (not Providence’s), that the Simmons’ home is on.
The private road/drive (private property) looking west.
Private road/drive looking East
The Simmons’ front yard, showing mature landscaping that will be destroyed if taken by eminent domain by Providence City.
The Simmons’ front yard in Millville, that was annexed illegally by Providence. It will be removed and replaced with a 66’ paved thoroughfare if Providence City goes through with its illegal planned taking by eminent domain.