[0:01] uh, p.m. on June 17th, 2026. So,
[0:06] um, that being said, let's just run
[0:08] around uh, the virtual room and do
[0:12] uh,
[0:13] do attendance roll call and uh,
[0:15] introductions for anybody that's new.
[0:18] So,
[0:19] uh, I'll start with myself. My name is
[0:21] Jason Blank Hagle. I'm the chairman of
[0:22] this uh, council.
[0:24] I am the member at large and excited to
[0:28] be here. So, we'll go
[0:31] down the list as I've got it
[0:33] um, with starting with our board
[0:35] members. I've got Brody.
[0:38] » Uh, this is Brody Johnson. I'm the ATV
[0:40] representative calling in from the
[0:42] shores of Lake Michigan.
[0:45] >> Oh, nice.
[0:47] Thanks, Brody. Got Dave?
[0:51] >> Dave Jacobson, BLM representative.
[0:55] >> Okay, thanks, Dave. Mike?
[0:58] >> Mike Cook, safety representative for the
[1:01] council.
[1:02] >> Thank you, Mike. Nicole?
[1:05] >> Nicole Nelson with the Public Lands
[1:07] Policy Coordinating Office.
[1:10] >> Thank you, Nicole. Russ?
[1:14] » Russ Casera with Trust Lands
[1:15] Administration.
[1:17] >> Thanks, Russ. And Scott?
[1:26] For once, he has nothing to say.
[1:31] » I like this part of Scott.
[1:34] >> [laughter]
[1:34] >> Give me the microphone. Hey, now I'm
[1:36] ready for you. I'm the off-road
[1:38] motorcycle representative.
[1:41] >> All right. Thanks, Scott. Um,
[1:44] and then another we've got our program
[1:46] manager, Wade.
[1:48] >> Yeah, Wade Allison, OHRV program
[1:49] manager.
[1:51] >> Thanks, Wade. And Rachel, why don't you
[1:53] go ahead and introduce who's in the room
[1:55] with you and
[1:58] » Yeah.
[1:59] >> Rachel Toker with the Division of
[2:01] Outdoor Recreation. I oversee and manage
[2:03] the OHV Recreation Grant.
[2:05] Nicole Hanna, the Division Director.
[2:08] >> Jason Curry, Division Director.
[2:12] » Excellent. Thanks, guys, for being here.
[2:16] Um we've got other
[2:19] uh people on the call here. We'll just
[2:20] go down real quick. I'll just list them
[2:22] off. Um
[2:24] Brett Davis.
[2:25] Oh, Brett Stewart.
[2:27] Let's have you introduce yourself.
[2:29] >> Brett Stewart, Utah OHV Advocates.
[2:33] >> Thank you.
[2:34] Uh Brett Davis, go ahead. Sorry, that's
[2:36] what I meant to say.
[2:37] >> Yeah, sorry I'm late, folks. Um yeah, uh
[2:40] Brett Davis uh
[2:42] full-size four-wheel drive
[2:43] representative.
[2:45] >> Okay, thank you
[2:46] for being here. Um also we've got
[2:48] Caroline Weiler.
[2:50] Um Evan um
[2:54] And Evan Baish, right?
[2:57] >> Impressive, yes. Evan Baish, here at the
[2:59] Division of Outdoor Rec.
[3:01] >> Uh Jason Whitaker.
[3:04] Um
[3:05] Let's see who else we've got on here.
[3:07] Oh, Sheriff Curtis, why don't you
[3:08] introduce yourself?
[3:10] >> Uh Nathan Curtis, Sevier Sevier County
[3:12] Sheriff, and I am the Search and Rescue
[3:14] Representative.
[3:16] >> Thank you. Um also got Todd Royce on
[3:19] here.
[3:21] And that's all we've got. So, thank you,
[3:24] everybody, for attending.
[3:25] Um
[3:27] Next item on our agenda is approval of
[3:30] the March 6th, 2026
[3:32] meeting minutes. Has everybody had a
[3:34] chance to review those? Are there any
[3:36] questions or concerns with those?
[3:39] >> I have.
[3:42] There was a Scott Walker in there and I
[3:44] have no idea who Scott Walker is.
[3:48] >> It's uh no.
[3:50] >> I don't know if he's impersonating me or
[3:52] not, but the questions he was asking
[3:54] were the same ones I was asking.
[3:56] >> [laughter]
[3:58] >> I think it was a ploy on somebody's part
[4:00] to see if I actually really read all
[4:02] through this stuff cuz half of it said
[4:04] Wheeler and half of it said Walker. So,
[4:08] somebody needs to go in and do some
[4:09] editing on the the Walker.
[4:13] >> I will have those fixed and re-uploaded.
[4:15] Thank you, Scott.
[4:19] » Okay, thanks, Scott. Any other questions
[4:22] or concerns with the March 6th meeting
[4:23] minutes?
[4:29] All right.
[4:31] Um, I guess with those corrections, we'll entertain
[4:35] a motion to approve.
[4:37] >> This this is Brody. I I make a motion
[4:39] that we approve the minutes
[4:41] as written minus the or after the
[4:43] correction of Scott Walker to Scott
[4:45] Wheeler.
[4:48] » I'll second that.
[4:50] >> This is Mike.
[4:51] >> Motion by Brody, seconded by Mike. All
[4:53] those in favor?
[4:55] >> I.
[4:59] » Okay, next one. It looks Are there any
[5:02] opposed, I should say?
[5:06] Okay, we'll move on to the March 26th
[5:09] meeting minutes.
[5:10] Hopefully everybody's had a chance to
[5:11] review those as well. Any questions on
[5:14] those?
[5:20] Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.
[5:28] » I'll make the motion that we accept the
[5:29] minutes.
[5:32] » This is Sheriff Curtis. I'll second.
[5:35] >> Okay, motion made by Mike to approve the
[5:37] March 26th, 2026 meeting minutes,
[5:40] seconded by Sheriff Curtis. All those in
[5:42] favor?
[5:43] >> I.
[5:52] » Okay, any opposed?
[5:56] Okay, that
[5:57] item is
[5:59] taken care of. All right, thank you.
[6:02] Uh next item on the list. This is item
[6:04] number two, nonprofit eligibility for
[6:07] OHV recreation grant. This is from our
[6:09] division attorney.
[6:11] Uh
[6:13] I will turn the time over to you to
[6:15] enlighten us.
[6:40] Rachel, can you unmute?
[6:46] » Can you guys see this okay? This is
[6:47] Nicole.
[6:48] >> Yep, thanks Nicole. We can hear and see
[6:51] you now.
[6:52] >> Perfect. All right, well, thank you guys
[6:54] so much for giving me this opportunity
[6:56] to talk with you guys and explain a
[6:58] little bit about the process that we
[7:01] kind of go through on the back end with
[7:03] OHV our grant eligibility. Um this stuff
[7:06] gets into a lot of statutes and just
[7:09] kind of prior warning, it can be a
[7:11] little bit dry and I appreciate that. Um
[7:15] but it kind of is what it is. So, we're
[7:16] going to go through it together and if
[7:18] you guys have any questions um or
[7:21] concerns, please just interrupt me.
[7:24] Uh it's a little bit easier once I start
[7:26] talking, sometimes I forget to stop.
[7:29] So, OHV our grant of eligibility, a
[7:32] legal perspective. And I have to say
[7:35] that these are not the Utah Attorney
[7:36] General's opinions, they're just mine.
[7:42] How do go forward?
[7:45] >> The arrow buttons work.
[7:48] >> No.
[7:49] >> Space bar?
[7:49] >> Oh, there it goes. Okay. The pre-scoring
[7:52] process. So, eligibility determinations
[7:55] are made as part of the initial grant
[7:57] application review process before
[7:59] they're scored by the advisory
[8:01] committee. And generally speaking,
[8:04] they're inherently exclusive by nature.
[8:06] So, if we can't establish eligibility,
[8:09] it doesn't really matter how good the
[8:11] project is. We can't legally fund it.
[8:14] Now, we can direct them to other sources
[8:17] of funding and that may be that they may
[8:20] be eligible for or may fit a little bit
[8:23] more better.
[8:24] Uh the easiest way to think about this
[8:26] on the 10,000-ft level is it's kind of
[8:29] the eligibility determinations are the
[8:31] same as the determination of whether an
[8:33] applicant an application is complete.
[8:36] So, in most of the cases, it's really a
[8:39] pretty simple determination of whether
[8:41] or not the basic requirements have been
[8:43] met. The interesting ones, or at least
[8:45] interesting ones for attorneys, are um
[8:47] kind of few and far between. Um and but
[8:50] we will talk about one of those at the
[8:51] end of the presentation. And just a quick
[8:55] reminder that even though DOR and staff
[8:58] and everyone involved is very, very
[9:01] conscientious and helpful with the
[9:03] applicant, ultimately it's the
[9:05] applicant's responsibility to
[9:06] demonstrate eligibility. So, we very
[9:09] much appreciate it when they do that.
[9:11] All right. So, here is what I call the
[9:14] path to eligibility. And you see you
[9:16] have your little trail path. You start
[9:19] at the timer, which starts this all
[9:21] entire process. So, the application for
[9:24] the grant is submitted to DOR. We do
[9:26] have some of these conversations with
[9:28] people before the grant is submitted,
[9:30] but once the grant is submitted, that's
[9:32] when we do the deep dives if we need to.
[9:35] Just because it doesn't make a huge
[9:37] amount of sense to do a deep dive into
[9:39] something if they're only kind of
[9:41] thinking that they might want to apply.
[9:43] So, if you follow the arrows with this,
[9:45] you can go two different ways. You can
[9:48] say, are you a federal state agency or a
[9:50] political subdivision of the state? And
[9:52] that will actually that will eventually
[9:54] get you down to the bottom in the
[9:56] scoring process where you get to see
[9:58] some of Utah's beautiful um arches.
[10:01] And the other way that you can go is if
[10:03] you're a registered nonprofit that
[10:05] promotes recreation. And you'll see that
[10:08] one branches into two separate branches
[10:10] um
[10:11] because we have two separate inquiries
[10:13] that have to be done. Are you registered
[10:15] as a nonprofit in Utah and do you
[10:16] promote OHV recreation?
[10:19] And then you'll see that if both of
[10:20] those things are met, all of the arrows
[10:22] point down to the scoring process, which
[10:24] is when we say, "Okay, we've determined
[10:26] eligibility. You guys are good to go on
[10:29] to the next step."
[10:31] Just as in contrast, this is the path to
[10:34] ineligibility. So, our trail is closed,
[10:37] okay? So, you'll see the big X's
[10:40] everywhere and the X's are under the
[10:42] cannot independently verify eligibility.
[10:45] So, the difference with this one is that
[10:48] in the prior slide, we were able to
[10:50] verify it and this one it and those X's
[10:54] can can
[10:55] technically even at the very beginning
[10:57] if they don't fall into the federal
[10:59] state agency, a political subdivision,
[11:02] or a registered nonprofit. But, I think
[11:05] that that maybe kind of might help you
[11:07] see the difference between the eligible
[11:09] and the non-eligible.
[11:12] So, you're going to see this slide a lot
[11:14] because I think it's helpful to kind of
[11:16] get an idea still in this process of
[11:18] where we are. So, we're back to our path
[11:21] of eligibility, okay? And
[11:24] what we're going to be talking about is
[11:26] our statutory authority.
[11:28] >> Excuse me. Someone raised their hand,
[11:29] but I am not on my I don't know who.
[11:32] >> Okay, who raised their hand and would
[11:34] like to talk?
[11:36] >> Brett.
[11:38] >> Hi, Brett.
[11:39] >> Hi, the question I have when you say
[11:41] registered as a non-profit in the state
[11:43] of Utah, can you be from out of state
[11:46] and have a registered non-profit in Utah
[11:49] even though you're from Idaho for an
[11:52] example?
[11:53] >> We're going to talk about that probably
[11:55] more than you ever wanted to know, but
[11:57] the answer is yes. You can also register
[12:01] in Utah. That's the easy answer.
[12:03] >> Okay.
[12:04] Thank you.
[12:05] >> You're welcome. Um, eligibility means so
[12:08] we this is right back to where we were
[12:09] talking about kind of on that right hand
[12:11] side of our little graph there. So,
[12:14] federal agencies and that this is the
[12:17] thing about about what these what where
[12:19] these definitions come from and what
[12:21] they mean. There are no definitions in
[12:24] title 79, which is the outdoor recreate
[12:27] which is under which is the Department
[12:29] of Natural Resources which DOR is under.
[12:32] So, we have to look to other places in
[12:34] the code to find these definitions. The
[12:36] good news is is most of these
[12:38] definitions are fairly consistent
[12:40] throughout the code, but they are a
[12:42] little bit funny that you might not
[12:44] necessarily think about. So, federal
[12:47] agencies you can be part of the
[12:49] executive branch, but not military,
[12:51] Congress, or the judiciary. And state
[12:54] agencies we always think of things like
[12:56] DNR or DOR, but there's also boards,
[13:00] councils, committees, institutions,
[13:03] offices, bureaus, administrative units
[13:05] of the executive branch of state
[13:07] government, or an education entity. So,
[13:10] to ask some of the questions that have
[13:11] come up after I kind of sent everybody
[13:13] the initial draft of this internally at
[13:16] DOR,
[13:17] an education entity for these purposes
[13:20] is going to be any of the state
[13:23] colleges and universities. The ones that
[13:25] I think are left out just off the top of
[13:28] my head, Westminster and BYU because
[13:30] they are not public. Pretty much
[13:33] everything else would theoretically
[13:35] count.
[13:36] Okay, now let's get to political
[13:38] subdivisions of the state. Again, this
[13:40] is one where there are some in there
[13:42] that you just may not um
[13:45] necessarily expect to be in there, but I
[13:47] wanted to give you a couple of examples
[13:50] of some ones where you might go, "Gosh,
[13:52] what is a governmental subdivision?" The
[13:55] Jordan
[13:56] Valley Water Conservancy Conservancy
[13:58] District is an example of a governmental
[14:01] subdivision. So, they're kind of like
[14:04] half public entities, um kind of like
[14:06] UTA. They're very similar that way. And
[14:09] then also public corporations, and I
[14:12] think one of the only ones we have in
[14:14] Utah is the Utah Housing Corporation.
[14:16] I'm not sure that they would be um
[14:17] applying for this grant, but just to let
[14:19] you know theoretically that they could.
[14:22] And then OHV organizations, and remember
[14:25] these have two prongs, okay? That we
[14:27] both have to we have to look at both.
[14:29] So, they have to be incorporated as a
[14:31] nonprofit corporation in Utah, and they
[14:34] also have to have the purpose of
[14:35] promoting the interests of OHV
[14:38] recreation. And they have to have both
[14:40] or they're not eligible.
[14:44] All right, so
[14:46] here are the OHV organization
[14:48] requirements for
[14:50] eligibility. So, you have to be
[14:52] incorporated in Utah as a nonprofit. And
[14:55] Brett, to get exactly to your question,
[14:57] there are a number of different
[15:00] entities, and they're formed under
[15:01] different parts of the code. We are only
[15:04] allowed to consider the ones that are
[15:06] formed under
[15:07] um
[15:08] chapter 6A of the Division of
[15:11] Corporations Code, which is
[15:13] the
[15:15] Sorry.
[15:16] Which is the um
[15:19] the
[15:21] I'm sorry. The So, you can't So, you
[15:23] have different ways in which you can
[15:25] register. You can register as a
[15:27] charitable organization. That's not what
[15:30] Those Just because you register as a
[15:32] charitable organization, you don't
[15:34] necessarily
[15:35] still count under that that subsection
[15:38] for being eligible. And you're going to
[15:41] hear a lot of things about foreign
[15:43] versus domestic corporations, or maybe
[15:45] you've heard that before. So, that means
[15:48] that they initially incorporate in
[15:50] another state. They can incorporate in
[15:53] another state if they also incorporate
[15:56] in Utah, because that puts them subject
[15:59] to the laws of Utah and creates that that incorporation.
[16:04] And it's not technically domestically,
[16:06] technically it's a DBA, but under
[16:09] chapter 6A it still counts.
[16:12] The next step is that you have to be
[16:13] created for the purposes of promoting
[16:15] the interests of OHV recreation. It
[16:18] doesn't have to be the sole purpose.
[16:20] Um, but it does have to be We have to be
[16:23] able to look at the corporate documents.
[16:25] So, in this case, there are two
[16:26] documents that we look at, the articles
[16:28] of incorporation and the bylaws. And
[16:31] those are the ones that are going to
[16:32] tell us if that there if there's any
[16:34] purpose of promoting that OHV recreation
[16:38] interest.
[16:39] So, we're back on this path to
[16:41] eligibility, okay? So, we've gone down
[16:44] and we've looked at you promote OHV
[16:46] recreation, are you registered as a
[16:49] non-profit in Utah? And we're going to
[16:51] talk about our due diligence review and
[16:54] what we have to do with the Division of
[16:56] Corporations. So, incorporating in Utah,
[17:00] there's only one way you can do it. It's
[17:01] through the Division of Corporations and
[17:03] Commercial Code. I've included the
[17:05] website if you guys want to look around.
[17:08] It's really, really helpful. They are
[17:11] always up-to-date, and it is the
[17:13] official legal database of all
[17:15] non-profit organizations registered in
[17:17] Utah. They also have all of their
[17:20] bylaws, articles of incorporation, any
[17:22] kind of renewals or amendments, any
[17:25] corporate documents that are what we
[17:28] call foundational documents. Those have
[17:30] to be sent to the Division of
[17:33] Corporations and Commercial Code. You
[17:35] don't have to send things like if
[17:38] there's an operate if there's a other
[17:40] types of agreements that aren't
[17:42] necessarily
[17:44] bylaws or articles of incorporation,
[17:46] those aren't always found there, but
[17:49] those are the two major ones that we
[17:51] look at. And I would encourage everybody
[17:53] to just go onto the website real quick
[17:55] and you can look around and see what's available because it's incredibly
[17:59] informative and helpful.
[18:03] All right, so what are the required
[18:04] filings?
[18:06] This is a lot of legalese to say that
[18:09] basically you take a document that's
[18:11] called the articles of incorporation,
[18:13] you file it with the division, and that
[18:15] is when your
[18:18] um
[18:18] your nonprofit essentially becomes
[18:22] effective in Utah.
[18:24] And the second part that's important
[18:26] there is it's conclusive proof that all
[18:28] conditions precedent to incorporation
[18:30] have been satisfied. And what that means
[18:32] is that everybody has looked at the
[18:34] statute that they're supposed to, which
[18:35] is 16-6-8-201
[18:38] technically, and then it goes through
[18:40] quite a few other provisions. But what's really what's kind of interesting
[18:44] about Utah's and most states is
[18:46] basically anybody over the age of 18 can
[18:49] file these. And they only have to have a
[18:52] few things included, which is the
[18:54] purpose, corporate name, your registered
[18:56] agent, so that's your contact person,
[18:59] the names and addresses of the people
[19:00] that are incorporating, and then if
[19:02] you're issuing any voting rights or
[19:04] stocks and shares, that's that also has
[19:07] to be included. But what they what they
[19:09] require is very, very, bare bones.
[19:13] So, uh incorporating in Utah articles of
[19:16] organization, these this is some sample
[19:18] language. I don't actually expect you
[19:20] guys to really want to read all of this.
[19:22] Um but basically what what the important
[19:25] thing to get out of this is this purpose
[19:27] clause like we talked about in the prior
[19:29] slide which is required to in order to
[19:32] file your articles of incorporation and
[19:34] to become a non-profit in Utah. These
[19:37] tend to be very, very broad. And so, you
[19:41] can just see some examples of um some
[19:45] purposes that people have stated here.
[19:49] It's really helpful when they're not as
[19:51] broad and they're a little bit more
[19:52] tailored, but technical but generally
[19:55] speaking people like to keep them really
[19:57] broad so that the non-profit can do
[20:00] uh a number of different things instead
[20:01] of having to be too, too limited.
[20:05] And additional requirements you have to
[20:07] be met if you want to hit that 501c3
[20:10] um or 501c4, really any of the 501
[20:13] things. And just a real quick note about
[20:15] the 501 language, attorneys kind of use
[20:18] it as a uh synonym for a non-profit.
[20:22] Technically, the 501 language is the
[20:24] federal language and there are lots of
[20:27] different types of 501 corporations and
[20:31] whether they're a C uh three or four or
[20:33] some of the different things, it has to
[20:35] do with how much they're allowed to
[20:37] lobby, what they're allowed to do with
[20:39] their charitable donations.
[20:41] So, this is the other document that's
[20:43] really, really important. This is the
[20:45] bylaws. And the bylaws are your
[20:48] administrative kind of set out for your
[20:51] organization. So, again, when we look at
[20:54] the purpose, it's going to be it can be
[20:57] or generally is tends to be very, very
[21:00] broad. But that is the other place where
[21:03] we look when we're trying to find
[21:05] evidence of um
[21:07] eligibility and OHV interest. All right,
[21:11] so we're back to this path to
[21:12] eligibility and we talked about doing
[21:15] the Division of Corporations filings and
[21:18] now we're going to switch over to
[21:21] promoting the interest of OHV
[21:22] recreation. So the Remember, this is the
[21:24] second step because we have to have
[21:26] both. So what we look at that we just
[21:28] talked about is looking at the corporate
[21:31] documents and this is going to be
[21:33] inclusive and not exclusive. So even if
[21:36] it's very broad and it just generally
[21:38] says that it promotes outdoor
[21:40] recreation, that wouldn't immediately
[21:42] trigger an ineligibility determination.
[21:45] What that would trigger would be a much
[21:48] more extensive look into the entity
[21:52] itself and what it's doing. And so and
[21:55] we call that kind of the baseline
[21:57] determination, right? So all of the
[21:59] things that DOR looks at when
[22:02] determining eligibility. Was that
[22:04] another hand?
[22:06] >> Oh, no. Sorry.
[22:07] >> Okay. Sorry guys, I just didn't want to
[22:09] miss one. So the things that DOR
[22:12] considers and again, there's a there's a
[22:15] very broad list here, but this is a
[22:16] really good kind of summary is the legal
[22:20] aspects. So the code, the rule and the
[22:22] corporate document review. Then there's
[22:24] a practical element. So site visits,
[22:28] um looking at, you know, any kind of
[22:30] modifications of documents,
[22:32] organizational history, intent. We talk
[22:35] with their attorneys, we talk with um
[22:37] usually the members of the board, um
[22:40] evidence of past OHV projects or
[22:43] investments in projects. And then we
[22:46] have policies.
[22:46] >> I ask you a question on that?
[22:48] Um
[22:49] What What do you mean by organizational
[22:51] history and and and and more
[22:53] specifically, what do you mean by
[22:55] intent?
[22:57] >> So the organizational history is going
[23:00] to be when we look at the articles of
[23:02] incorporation and the bylaws and all of
[23:05] the history, we're going to look at when
[23:07] it was established, why it was
[23:10] established, what the purpose of of it
[23:13] being established was for, whether or
[23:15] not it is in good standing, meaning that
[23:19] they have that they So, you can be
[23:21] active or in or or they call it
[23:25] inactive, but basically every every 5
[23:29] years, I believe it does.
[23:31] Um you have to re-up your registration.
[23:34] So, we look to make sure that they've
[23:36] done that. We look to make sure that
[23:38] they haven't had a massive overhaul of
[23:40] the board or something. And if they
[23:42] have, again, it's not that it makes them
[23:45] necessarily ineligible, but it's
[23:47] definitely something that we look at so
[23:49] that we make sure that the organizations
[23:51] that we're giving money to are
[23:54] reasonable organizations that, you know,
[23:57] for example, haven't had a history of
[24:00] like an an incredibly litigious history.
[24:02] So, they haven't been sued every year
[24:04] for the past 10 years for fraud, um
[24:06] which unfortunately happens with some
[24:08] nonprofits.
[24:11] >> And what about the intent? What's the
[24:13] definition here of intent?
[24:16] >> Um is what their intent is? Well, both
[24:19] So, that's that's pretty broad, and I
[24:21] think that that applies in a number of
[24:23] different places. So, what's the intent
[24:26] of the reason why they applied for this
[24:29] grant? What was their intent in
[24:32] um forming the organization? What is
[24:35] their What are their intentions going
[24:37] forward? If they're a new organization,
[24:39] and we keep we look try to look and see,
[24:42] well, there aren't really any past OHP
[24:44] projects or investments in projects,
[24:47] then we talk with them, and we say,
[24:49] "Okay, well, you know, what what What
[24:51] are you What are you hoping to do, or
[24:53] what are you hoping to accomplish with
[24:55] this nonprofit that
[24:57] >> Are we
[24:58] with the intent can
[25:01] what sources of information can you use
[25:04] for the intent? Can you use
[25:06] Facebook, social media? What what can
[25:10] you use for the intent? Cuz that's pretty broad.
[25:14] >> Yeah, it is. And again, because it's
[25:16] inclusive and not exclusive. So, if they
[25:20] have filed a really really broad purpose
[25:23] statement in their articles of
[25:24] incorporation or their bylaws and we
[25:27] look at um then we you know, we we look
[25:30] on their social media page and we see
[25:32] that they've been doing, you know, um
[25:35] OHV activities pretty consistently. I
[25:37] mean, we we kind of can look at anything
[25:40] that we want to in making that practical
[25:43] determination.
[25:45] >> Do we get in trouble by looking at their
[25:47] social media history and going, "Wait a
[25:50] minute, this is a group that has a
[25:51] history of
[25:53] uh
[25:55] anti-OHV rhetoric in social media and
[25:58] all of a sudden they're putting in a
[25:59] grant. Do are we allowed to say raise
[26:03] our hand and say, "Hey, that's a that's
[26:05] an issue." or do we need to be quiet and
[26:08] sit on our hands?
[26:10] >> Well, no, I think that that is one of
[26:13] the pieces of information that can be
[26:15] used in order to make these
[26:16] determinations, but I don't think that
[26:19] stalking someone online is a good idea.
[26:22] So, for example, if the organization
[26:25] itself when we're talking about social
[26:27] media, we're talking about the
[26:28] organization's page. We're not talking
[26:31] about like individual people's pages.
[26:33] So, if the organization's page is, you
[26:37] know, if we look at it and everything in
[26:40] there is
[26:41] doesn't have anything to do with OHV and
[26:44] all just has to do with protecting
[26:46] trails, let's say, for just walking and
[26:49] hiking, then yeah, that would be
[26:51] something that we could take into
[26:53] consideration.
[26:56] >> Okay, that that makes sense. Thank you.
[26:57] >> You're welcome.
[26:59] Um I would never though I I don't think
[27:02] and I don't think that DOR does this and
[27:05] I would never suggest that we should
[27:06] take just something that is on social
[27:09] media that hasn't been verified and then
[27:12] just use that as a reason to deny a
[27:15] grant. I think that there is again, if
[27:18] you look at that and you have some
[27:20] concerns, those are concerns that then
[27:22] DOR addresses very carefully to try to
[27:25] understand why the stated intent in the
[27:29] articles of incorporation and bylaws as
[27:31] a nonprofit is different than what
[27:33] they're actually advocating for.
[27:37] Does that make sense?
[27:39] >> Yes, thank you.
[27:40] >> You're welcome.
[27:42] Okay.
[27:42] >> Mike has his hand up, too.
[27:44] >> I'm sorry?
[27:45] >> Mike has his hand up, too. He's got a
[27:46] question.
[27:47] >> Hi Mike, what's up?
[27:49] >> Hey, how are you doing?
[27:50] >> Mike.
[27:52] >> Kind of thinking down in the same lines
[27:54] of Brody. I just
[27:56] My question is, let's say you have a corporation or whatever they are that
[28:02] I mean their bylaws say, "Yeah, we're
[28:04] here to promote OHV just flat out." But
[28:07] then,
[28:08] you know, obviously they aren't um and
[28:11] there's evidence, you know, either on
[28:13] their Facebook page or the way they're doing that. Um
[28:18] uh just overwhelming evidence that they aren't promoting OHV.
[28:25] Uh where's the threshold and who makes
[28:28] the decision off of that to say, "No,
[28:31] you aren't eligible."
[28:33] Just just because your your bylaws say
[28:37] you're
[28:38] you know, fit the mold,
[28:40] your actions don't. Who makes that
[28:42] um call?
[28:45] >> DOR would make that call.
[28:47] >> Okay.
[28:50] All right.
[28:51] >> All right. Um so the the next thing that
[28:54] we would move down to is kind of the
[28:55] policy considerations and you know, so
[28:59] does this further the interest of the
[29:01] OHV recreation access consistent with
[29:04] the grant program's intent and purpose?
[29:06] And I think that also is one where
[29:08] there's a lot of discretion, but I do
[29:10] think that that's one that um DOR takes
[29:13] into account very carefully uh in these
[29:16] determinations. And remember this is
[29:19] like like kind of if you think of it as
[29:22] like a gumball
[29:23] you know, like one of those old guess
[29:25] the number of gumballs in the gumball in
[29:27] the gumball container. Like these are
[29:29] all gumballs that we use to kind of in
[29:31] our weighing of whether or not this is
[29:34] this this um
[29:36] entity is eligible. The one thing that I want to say is if
[29:41] we read the articles of incorporation
[29:43] and the bylaws or any other corporate
[29:45] documents that are available and there
[29:47] is nothing in there about OHV or then
[29:51] all of this other stuff we you know, we
[29:54] usually would reach out to them to talk
[29:56] with them about it, but that's going to
[29:58] be a pretty high bar for them to try to
[30:01] convince us that um that this is an
[30:04] eligible entity.
[30:08] Okay, so the and the last one is the law
[30:11] enforcement aspect and this is because
[30:14] we do have areas where people have
[30:16] applied for grants and there's been
[30:19] there are issues and they're kind of
[30:21] systematic issues with people not
[30:23] registering or not being compliant. And
[30:26] so that's one of the things that we also
[30:28] can talk to them about. So if you have
[30:30] an entity and it's an OHV you say,
[30:33] "Okay, great. Everybody here is for OHV.
[30:36] It's in your articles and your bylaws.
[30:37] We've looked through all of this other
[30:39] stuff and we'd like to move forward."
[30:42] and then there no one that has those vehicles is compliant with the
[30:47] registration requirements. That's
[30:49] something that we would require them to
[30:52] change usually as part of their kind of
[30:56] plan. And the reason is is because this
[30:58] gets funded with that registration
[31:00] funds. And so it's you know, it it helps
[31:04] it's it's hard to justify giving an
[31:07] organization a bunch of grant money
[31:09] that's funded with registration fees in
[31:11] part
[31:13] when they aren't registering their
[31:16] vehicles or don't think that that's
[31:18] important. And that also gives us kind
[31:20] of an an indication that even if they
[31:23] say that they're going to sign all of
[31:25] the grant requirements, maybe they just
[31:28] don't really care about the law and they
[31:31] just want the money, and that would also
[31:33] be incredibly problematic.
[31:36] And so the point of all of this is it's
[31:38] not a cursory process. We don't just
[31:40] look at one document or one situation
[31:43] and say, "Okay, well, this is or
[31:46] sometimes they do you can if it's very clear." And we can think of a
[31:50] couple of examples of really
[31:52] well-established OHP groups in Utah
[31:55] where, you know, we we don't have to go
[31:58] down to like the
[32:00] some of the practical things because
[32:02] they're just so so so well-established,
[32:04] right?
[32:06] So that's kind of that part.
[32:10] So the other thing that I thought might
[32:11] be helpful for you guys was just to kind
[32:13] of talk about the division of duties. So
[32:17] um
[32:18] for DOR
[32:20] their duties are to determine things
[32:23] that like eligibility that are dictated
[32:26] by code rule or policy. It's it's not a
[32:29] discretionary determination unless it's
[32:32] stated so in code rule or policy. And
[32:35] the way that we look at it is whether
[32:37] DOR shall do something versus DOR may do
[32:41] something, okay? So examples of that are
[32:44] compliance with the funding provision
[32:47] that dictates what the grant funds can
[32:49] and cannot be used for under the Utah
[32:52] law that applies to these grants, right?
[32:54] So if they want grant funds and we just
[32:57] can't use them because the law says that
[32:59] we can't, then there's not a lot that we
[33:01] can do about that. Another example that
[33:04] application applications are completed
[33:06] timely and submitted by DOR's due date.
[33:10] The difference with the advisory council
[33:12] is that they their duties you guys
[33:14] mostly advise on the policies related to
[33:17] the use of off-highway vehicles and you
[33:19] don't really make those eligibility
[33:21] determinations, but once those have been
[33:23] made, you evaluate the projects, right?
[33:26] Based on the funds, the project
[33:28] applications, the um
[33:30] the things that are set forth in rule,
[33:32] all of the different requirements, and
[33:34] then there's also kind of a
[33:36] discretionary part here, right? With
[33:38] whether or not you guys as a whole think
[33:40] that this is a good project that should
[33:42] move forward. I do think it's important
[33:44] to add here that
[33:47] unlike some of the other boards, your um
[33:51] code language is just advisory. So DOR
[33:56] can choose to ignore the recommendations
[33:59] of the advisory council. Generally, that
[34:01] is not their practice and Jason and I
[34:04] talked about this and that it would only
[34:06] really um come into effect in very
[34:08] extreme situations. What I want to say
[34:11] though is that I think you guys are
[34:13] really, really fortunate and sometimes I
[34:15] think people don't realize this because
[34:17] there are a lot of advisory councils in
[34:20] Utah and not every division of the state
[34:23] of Utah gives as much importance and
[34:27] weight to their advisory council. So
[34:30] when I used to represent DABC, which is
[34:32] now DABS, which is the alcohol division,
[34:35] they have an advisory council as well,
[34:38] and maybe
[34:40] I don't I haven't been there for a few
[34:42] years, but when I was there, I was like
[34:45] 70 to 90% of the time what the advisory
[34:48] council advised, they did not follow.
[34:51] So, just to give you an idea
[34:54] of that there are there huge differences
[34:56] in how advisory councils are treated
[34:58] throughout the state.
[35:01] All right, we're back to our path to
[35:03] eligibility.
[35:06] So, this is what we're going to talk
[35:08] about with eligibility in practice. So,
[35:10] we're going to run through our little
[35:13] chart like we did with the Foundation
[35:15] for America's Public Lands. This is the
[35:17] BLM Foundation that was formed as a
[35:20] 501c3
[35:22] as kind of the charitable arm of the
[35:24] BLM, and one of the reasons why they did
[35:26] that is because what a federal agency is
[35:29] allowed to do and what a 501c3 is
[35:32] allowed to do are very different things.
[35:35] Lobbying is a big one. How they accept
[35:38] charitable donations is another big one.
[35:41] To my knowledge, this is the only entity
[35:44] that this entity is the only entity that
[35:47] has been formed like that, and it is
[35:49] extraordinarily unique, and I'll explain
[35:52] to you why it's unique and why it has to
[35:54] be had to be considered a little bit
[35:56] differently. So, there were two possible
[35:58] entity determinations that this could
[36:00] fit into. Is it a federal agency, or is
[36:03] it one of those OHP organizations,
[36:06] right?
[36:07] So, we started with federal agency
[36:09] eligibility. Now, these guys don't have
[36:12] articles of incorporations or bylaws,
[36:14] instead they were established by an act
[36:16] of Congress in 2019, so they have an
[36:18] enacting law. And what they do is they
[36:21] run it through an operating agreement
[36:23] that is with the BLM. They're covered by
[36:25] the BLM's insurance, and they're
[36:28] technically a separate entity, but there
[36:30] is a lot of crossover. Uh they are
[36:33] registered as charitable entities
[36:35] throughout the United States where
[36:37] that's required by state law. It wasn't
[36:39] required in Utah until January 1st of
[36:41] 2025.
[36:44] So and then there are a few little
[36:45] exemptions, but basically what we did is
[36:48] then we we started that review, right?
[36:51] And then we found out that they had
[36:53] incorporated in Washington D.C. as a
[36:56] nonprofit. So that is problematic
[36:58] because if they're if they're
[37:00] incorporated in Washington D.C., then
[37:04] they also need to be incorporated in
[37:06] Utah. So I gave them a call and they
[37:08] agreed to incorporate in Utah as a
[37:10] nonprofit, and we were absolutely
[37:13] thrilled, and they got on it, and I am
[37:15] just waiting on verification for them,
[37:18] but it was a really really helpful good
[37:21] choice.
[37:22] So now that we we've agreed that
[37:25] technically they can't they are eligible
[37:28] as uh potentially eligible as a
[37:30] nonprofit, we have to move to that
[37:31] second part of the the analysis, which
[37:34] is does it promote the interests of OHV
[37:36] recreation? And we went back and forth
[37:39] about this for quite some time, but
[37:41] basically what it what ended up
[37:44] happening, and I I don't want I I didn't
[37:46] add too many of the specific things here
[37:49] because a lot of it is protected work um
[37:51] work product between attorneys because I
[37:53] was talking with their counsel and
[37:55] stuff, but
[37:56] they um they have done some amazing
[37:59] projects, and they just uh
[38:02] just sent me a news article where they
[38:05] donated um a few hundred thousand
[38:07] dollars in a partnership with Polaris,
[38:10] and so we we went through everything and
[38:14] talked with them and had meetings with
[38:16] them, and basically we came to the
[38:19] conclusion that while they also, you
[38:23] know, um do matching funds for
[38:26] non-motorized outdoor recreation
[38:27] activities, so like they will do, you
[38:30] know, they'll do trail repair for hikers
[38:32] or bikers and other things, you know, or
[38:34] water, they aren't at they aren't doing
[38:37] anything that would be detrimental to
[38:41] motorized um
[38:43] or OHV recreation. So, that concern, I
[38:46] think, was alleviated and alleviated
[38:49] really at an extraordinarily high level.
[38:52] So, that's where we get to our little
[38:55] are they able to be are they eligible to
[38:58] be a grant? And the answer is, yeah, we
[39:00] think they probably are because they
[39:02] thought they are an OHV organization,
[39:05] they're going to incorporate in Utah,
[39:06] and they promote OHV recreation.
[39:10] Did that make sense to everybody? And
[39:12] whoever was has their hand up, please
[39:14] just interrupt.
[39:19] » I think that's pretty cool. I I didn't
[39:21] have my hand raised. I think that's
[39:22] cool. It seems like was didn't the
[39:24] Forest Service maybe have something
[39:26] similar or or or not?
[39:30] >> So, they Yeah, they may. Yeah. Yeah, I
[39:32] apologize. Go ahead.
[39:34] >> Yeah, I got American Forest Foundation.
[39:36] Yeah. And they have applied for grants
[39:37] with the division for different things
[39:39] and
[39:39] are good partner, but just like anybody
[39:41] else
[39:42] we uh we weigh the merit, you know,
[39:44] benefits of their application based on
[39:46] the project they do.
[39:47] >> Yeah, and
[39:48] >> bit different structure, but
[39:49] >> Yeah, and so so that's the thing is each
[39:52] one of these because because they don't
[39:54] really fit real easily into any of these
[39:57] categories when you first look at them,
[40:00] they we spent a lot of time um
[40:03] you know, trying to make sure that that
[40:05] this was going to be a good fit. But,
[40:07] you know, the And these are relatively
[40:09] new, so
[40:11] um I think it's actually a really
[40:13] positive beneficial step in private and
[40:15] partner um private and public
[40:17] partnerships.
[40:19] >> Uh it looks like Brett Stewart has his
[40:21] hand raised. So, I'll make him a
[40:24] participant for this one.
[40:28] Brett.
[40:32] » All right. Brett, go ahead.
[40:35] Okay, so two questions. If
[40:38] let's say for an example a nonprofit
[40:40] receives a grant and then they're in
[40:43] violation of the of the contract,
[40:46] which I believe has happened in the
[40:47] past, what is there any language
[40:50] anywhere that what the penalty could be?
[40:52] Like you can't apply again for 5 years
[40:55] or anything like that anywhere
[40:58] in the rules?
[40:59] And the other And the other question is,
[41:02] sorry, the other question is
[41:04] if the BLM receives money through a
[41:06] grant, which I happen to know
[41:09] um I did a support letter for the one on
[41:11] the Henry's and and within a few months
[41:13] of getting that money, I found that
[41:15] um they were using I'm So, I'm assuming
[41:19] I don't know, but there was a lot of
[41:22] road closures that had been done since
[41:24] they received the grant. I mean, how do
[41:27] we monitor that? And that would
[41:30] definitely be in violation again along
[41:32] with a nonprofit the on question number
[41:34] one.
[41:35] >> So, actually that's a different
[41:38] determination and that's not really a
[41:40] pre-scoring issue. That is once you guys
[41:43] have scored them and they have um
[41:46] received the grant monies and they've
[41:48] signed the grant contract, that then if
[41:52] they breach the terms of that grant
[41:54] contract um or grant agreement, that
[41:57] that's a completely different kind of
[42:00] legal process that we go through. But
[42:02] yes, we um and and that's something I
[42:05] think that if you guys are interested
[42:07] and I I'm more than happy to pull out
[42:09] some of the provisions from our grant
[42:11] agreement to or walk you guys through it
[42:13] so you can see what protections and
[42:16] stuff we have put in, but this is all
[42:18] happening at a pre-scoring level. So, it
[42:21] is very, very different than that
[42:24] situation, which is a more of a breach
[42:26] of contract and then could potentially
[42:30] result in all of the grant funds being
[42:33] pulled back.
[42:35] And yes, possibly not and you know, not
[42:37] being able to get grants in the future
[42:39] and things like
[42:40] >> Okay, thank you.
[42:41] >> It's just a different little spot, but
[42:43] you're right, it is relevant and it is
[42:45] important and I'm more than happy to
[42:47] pull those for you guys and and do that
[42:50] in a separate spot, but we're just at a very, very preliminary spot right
[42:55] now.
[42:55] >> Okay, thank you.
[42:57] >> You're welcome.
[42:58] >> Mike, you had your hand up.
[43:00] >> Yeah, so um
[43:02] I think these are these are great
[43:04] because
[43:05] I think the purpose of them is to
[43:06] basically bypass some of the spending
[43:10] um regulations
[43:12] just
[43:13] so that we don't get bogged down in red
[43:15] tape, but I do have a concern.
[43:18] Um
[43:20] so,
[43:21] if you have
[43:23] some kind of agency, be it government or
[43:25] anything,
[43:27] and they're applying for grants under
[43:29] their name,
[43:30] then you have this friends of let's say
[43:33] John Doe here is applying for grants and
[43:35] you have this corporation, friends of John Doe,
[43:39] that are applying. They're two different
[43:41] entities,
[43:43] but the money's going to the same place.
[43:45] Um
[43:46] >> They're actually three different
[43:47] entities.
[43:48] >> Okay, three different entities, but
[43:51] >> Yeah, you're right. And and they're
[43:53] three different entities and the money
[43:56] is technically going to three different
[43:58] places,
[43:59] but there is
[44:02] there's something that we call it's
[44:04] called breaching the corporate veil. And
[44:07] so, that means that if you set up a
[44:09] whole bunch of foundations and
[44:10] organizations and ultimately you're just
[44:13] funneling the money to yourself,
[44:16] those corporations are not valid
[44:19] anymore. So what the division the
[44:22] division of corporations you can file
[44:23] complaints with them and then they go
[44:26] through a process where they will
[44:28] de-incorporate them and not allow them
[44:30] to re-incorporate. Um it's it's a very
[44:33] long process, but it's called piercing
[44:35] the corporate veil and it basically
[44:37] means that people have tried to set up a
[44:39] series and people do this with trusts
[44:41] too and with um different uh like um not
[44:46] just nonprofits, but they do it with
[44:48] different like LLCs. They'll set up like
[44:50] 40 different LLCs, but if ultimately you
[44:53] can prove that the money's going to the
[44:55] same place, then that would be the
[44:57] analysis that we would go through.
[44:59] >> Yeah, and I'm not so worried about
[45:01] somebody doing something illegal like
[45:03] that. I'm I'm just think that it it'd be
[45:06] beneficial for
[45:08] us as the advisory council to know that
[45:13] we didn't just give a 100,000 to this uh
[45:16] well, we'll just use the BLM. We didn't
[45:18] give 100,000 to the
[45:20] that we gave 100,000 to the BLM and we
[45:22] gave
[45:23] the another 100,000 to this that we
[45:26] really gave $200,000 to the BLM.
[45:30] >> No, you did not. You only gave $100,000
[45:33] to the BLM.
[45:34] >> Yeah, but if the money goes from that
[45:36] corporation straight to the BLM, then in
[45:39] essence, you know, that we gave
[45:42] you know, the BLM really got $200,000,
[45:45] you know. I mean, technically they
[45:47] didn't, but but they did
[45:49] >> Not only just technically, that it's
[45:51] they're very very different
[45:53] organizations and they they they have to
[45:56] operate separately. So yes, you're
[45:59] absolutely right. If we could try to
[46:02] prove that this Foundation for America's
[46:05] public lands was fraudulent because what
[46:07] they were doing was just funneling money
[46:09] back into the BLM without any kind of
[46:12] good corporate structure or they had the
[46:14] same account or something like that.
[46:17] You're You're absolutely right, but I
[46:19] think that it's not as helpful to think
[46:22] about it as we're giving two different
[46:24] organ We're actually just giving the
[46:26] same organization
[46:28] $200,000 because that's not really the
[46:31] way the law works.
[46:33] >> Uh-huh.
[46:34] >> So, I I agree that it's important and
[46:36] that's one of the things that, you know,
[46:38] we can look at, but it for example with
[46:41] this Foundation for America's public
[46:43] lands, they're not just funneling the
[46:46] money back into the BLM.
[46:48] >> And not only that, I can't imagine the
[46:50] advisory council not having rigorous
[46:52] discussions about a situation like this.
[46:54] Just you know, waiting. So, it's it's
[46:57] kind of a moot point in my opinion.
[47:00] >> Okay. Yeah, well, that That was my thing
[47:02] is that if
[47:04] you know, that that money if they are if
[47:07] they are doing a project for say the
[47:09] BLM, which I don't have a problems with.
[47:11] I mean, that's great if they they're
[47:13] helping out the BLM.
[47:15] But but I I as a advisory council would
[47:18] like to
[47:20] know that that money
[47:22] that we gave that project is going to
[47:24] BLM, you know, where exactly it's going
[47:26] to go.
[47:27] >> Yeah, I think what we would really want
[47:29] to look at in a case like that, Mike, is
[47:31] do they have a letter of support from
[47:32] the BLM? And is the BLM, you know, local
[47:35] district office, state office supportive
[47:37] of that project? And maybe maybe Dave
[47:39] Jacobson can offer the insight as well.
[47:42] >> Yeah, the foundation can actually give
[47:43] us money.
[47:45] They could do work in our behalf. And
[47:47] Mike is right. You could potentially
[47:49] have like, let's say the BLM apply for a
[47:52] grant to do a trail project and the
[47:54] foundation to do a trail project. I
[47:56] would hope it would never do this.
[47:58] But, I guess there's potential that
[48:00] somebody could do that and they're both
[48:01] working on the same trail and the BLM's
[48:03] bringing their money to it and the
[48:05] foundation's bringing their money to it.
[48:08] Uh that could happen. I hope that it
[48:10] would never happen. It would just be
[48:12] either the BLM applies for it or the
[48:14] foundation applies for it.
[48:16] You know, like Cricket Mountain Cricket
[48:17] Mountain's OHV trail system right now,
[48:20] the foundation applied for the grant.
[48:22] I'm actually the project manager working
[48:25] with the Fillmore Field Office.
[48:26] They're purchasing the materials and
[48:28] we're coordinating the work and putting
[48:30] the materials on the ground to update
[48:32] that.
[48:33] They're not actually giving us money.
[48:35] They're not paying us or
[48:37] they're just paying for the materials
[48:38] with the grant funding.
[48:40] >> But all of that also is going to be set
[48:44] out in the in the application materials
[48:47] and stuff. I mean, if we see an
[48:48] application where two different entities
[48:50] working on the same part of the trail
[48:52] that looked like they could possibly
[48:54] overlap, then absolutely that's
[48:56] something that DWR looks at as a very
[48:59] baseline initial determination and we
[49:02] would reach out and get that information
[49:05] and stuff.
[49:06] I was I have to tell you guys, I have
[49:09] been thoroughly impressed by the
[49:10] Foundation for America's Public Lands.
[49:12] The The projects that they have done um
[49:15] throughout the state and stuff and
[49:17] throughout um
[49:19] all of the other states where they've,
[49:20] you know, contributed. I mean, they're
[49:22] just doing some really cool stuff. So,
[49:26] >> Yeah.
[49:27] >> I'm a fan. I got to tell you.
[49:29] >> Yeah, I mean,
[49:30] I think it's great thing. I just think
[49:32] that we need to just make sure that we keep track of where it's going
[49:37] and uh just uh
[49:40] you know, make sure that
[49:42] >> Yeah, absolutely.
[49:43] >> two hands in the same pot, I guess.
[49:46] >> And part of that is what Brett was
[49:47] talking about is that if we if we start
[49:50] getting, you know, invoices and and
[49:52] stuff and they look hinky or, you know,
[49:55] it's for the same stuff or they're
[49:56] duplicated, that's after that scoring
[49:59] process when eligible grant has been
[50:01] formed and stuff and we do kind of
[50:03] these, you know, little audits and stuff
[50:06] and look for things. That is all part of
[50:08] that process. But, um
[50:10] at the you know, when you're determining
[50:12] eligibility, this is a different part of
[50:15] that process.
[50:16] >> Yeah.
[50:17] >> But, I agree with you all. Yes, I think
[50:18] it's very, very important that um DOR
[50:22] continues to ensure that the monies are
[50:24] spent in the way in which the uh
[50:27] the application and the project dictates
[50:30] that they were spent. And that's why
[50:32] they, you know, spread
[50:34] they separate out their budget. And, you
[50:37] know, we get those receipts. And so,
[50:39] there's an entire internal process that
[50:41] also happens at that stage.
[50:45] >> Good. Sounds good.
[50:47] Thanks, Mike. Uh Scott, you've got your
[50:48] hand up.
[50:54] Yes, you.
[50:56] >> Uh I have a comment and a question. The
[50:59] key to this is a follow-up on it. All
[51:01] you have to do is follow up and see what
[51:02] they're doing. And if somebody did that,
[51:04] you'd be able to tell whether or not
[51:06] that they were following through with
[51:07] it. So,
[51:09] uh but on that note, I have a question.
[51:12] Uh I I understand this group actually
[51:14] takes a percentage
[51:16] from the grant money to help fund
[51:18] themselves. So, do you know what that
[51:20] amount is?
[51:21] >> That's going to vary depending on the
[51:22] application. That will be laid out in
[51:24] their budget.
[51:25] >> Yep.
[51:25] >> Yes.
[51:26] >> They have to disclose that.
[51:28] >> And the advisory council can look at
[51:29] that on a case-by-case basis and decide
[51:31] whether it's appropriate or not to
[51:33] support any amount of administrative
[51:35] costs.
[51:37] >> Because the state does the same thing.
[51:39] When we get grant monies, if we're
[51:40] allowed to, there's a
[51:42] there's usually there is often a
[51:44] provision that says that if an division
[51:47] has to needs to provide administrative
[51:50] and staff support for a grant program
[51:53] that they can take some of that money
[51:55] and use that for that purpose as well.
[51:59] >> Okay, the question I have is it 50%? Is
[52:02] it 25%? I'm just asking it'd be nice to
[52:05] know
[52:07] you know it
[52:08] That would be if it's 10%
[52:10] >> It's in the application.
[52:11] >> be based on what they what they put in
[52:13] the application. There's no magic number
[52:15] or threshold amount that the the
[52:17] advisory council looks at and says, "Oh,
[52:19] what? They want 15% for administrative?
[52:22] Well, I don't like that because our you
[52:24] know, we see a lot of them that are more
[52:25] like 5%."
[52:27] That would be up to the advisory council
[52:28] to evaluate that as a criteria for for
[52:30] its merit.
[52:31] >> I'll tell you as an attorney if I see
[52:33] over 10% I start to get worried. If I
[52:36] see 10% or under, ideally 5% and under,
[52:40] then that's just objectively fairly
[52:43] reasonable as an administrative cost
[52:46] because there are a lot of indirect
[52:48] costs.
[52:49] >> So, the reason I bring that up is the
[52:51] grant application before didn't state
[52:54] that at all. We had to ask that. And so,
[52:57] I
[52:58] I'm not sure. I I'm okay with them
[53:00] getting some type of a fee in there, but
[53:02] I just want to make sure it's
[53:04] reasonable.
[53:06] >> Yeah, if it if it's different than what
[53:07] their grant application said then it'd
[53:09] be in breach and not able to use the
[53:11] funds for that. So,
[53:14] >> I don't believe the grant application
[53:15] said anything about administrative fees.
[53:18] That was brought up later. And uh so,
[53:22] that would be a key in that that it
[53:23] would be nice to know that and it'd be
[53:25] part of the application that 5%, 10%, or
[53:28] 20% was used for administrative costs on
[53:31] that.
[53:33] >> Yeah, on the on the Moab grant there was
[53:35] indirect cost. For the Cricket Mountains
[53:37] they didn't charge an indirect
[53:39] direct cost. asked. And it was right
[53:42] around 10% for um the MoLab project.
[53:46] >> So,
[53:47] eligibility-wise, we will not pay for
[53:50] indirect costs, but for
[53:53] administering the grant, we do allow
[53:55] that, but yeah, it we don't expect it to
[53:57] be high. Right now, we don't have a
[53:59] percentage in there. If you would like a
[54:00] percentage, we could definitely do that.
[54:03] >> Yeah, maybe I misphrased that.
[54:05] >> Yeah, I would exercise some caution,
[54:08] though. I think that we would need to do
[54:09] that through like a rule, and we would
[54:12] probably need to really discuss because,
[54:15] like you said, if they're asking for 10%
[54:17] in one case and then they're asking for
[54:19] 0% in the other in another case,
[54:22] you know, I think they probably I mean,
[54:24] I I give people the benefit of the doubt
[54:27] until they can and if they can show me
[54:28] the documentation and do all the
[54:30] documentation as to why they need that
[54:32] 10%, then I think sometimes that is
[54:35] incredibly reasonable.
[54:37] >> And sometimes the administrative costs
[54:39] is overseeing employees who are, you
[54:42] know, it's
[54:43] overseeing the project as a whole. It's
[54:45] not just the paperwork that goes into
[54:47] it.
[54:48] >> Yeah, it it Yeah, it That's a That's
[54:50] kind of a different conversation, too,
[54:52] is these administrative costs and what
[54:54] counts as direct or indirect costs and
[54:57] what are allowed and what are not
[54:58] allowed. But, generally speaking, those
[55:01] are very low.
[55:04] >> Well, my job as a council member is to
[55:06] make sure that we get the most out of
[55:09] the funds that are available that hit
[55:12] the ground, and so that would be a
[55:14] concern from my from my perspective and
[55:17] from I would think every council member
[55:19] is to make sure we get the most out of
[55:22] what we're we're we're allocating.
[55:26] >> Yeah, I think that's, you know, very
[55:28] reasonable and understandable and very
[55:30] fiscally responsible. So, well done.
[55:35] » Thanks, Scott. Uh Brody, you've got your
[55:37] hand up.
[55:38] >> Mine's just simple, but uh in our
[55:40] Richfield meeting we talked about maybe
[55:42] having the foundation come and present
[55:46] the next time they put in for a grant,
[55:47] what whatever size it may be.
[55:50] That way we could get to know them and
[55:52] maybe have a few minutes to ask a few
[55:54] other questions. Would that be a
[55:55] possibility?
[55:56] >> Yeah, the guy that we will talk with,
[55:58] his name's David Zang. He's out of
[56:00] Sacramento. He's a great guy. He runs
[56:04] He's an attorney. He runs all of their
[56:06] kind of outreach stuff and I've had a
[56:09] number of conversations. I actually even
[56:12] drove out to to Sacramento and um
[56:15] just cuz we were on the way down to a
[56:17] family vacation. So, um they are
[56:20] incredibly willing, able, and helpful,
[56:24] and reasonable, and very much want to
[56:28] give you guys the money. If they Their
[56:30] perspective was if they didn't give this
[56:32] money to you, they were going to give it
[56:33] to another state. So, I think if I call
[56:36] David and ask him to come back out here,
[56:38] he he was just here about a month ago,
[56:41] um that he would be more than happy to
[56:43] give you guys a presentation, to talk
[56:45] about what they are and what they do.
[56:48] >> I think that would be awesome.
[56:50] >> I I honestly, like with with some of
[56:54] these foundations, um they have been so
[56:58] incredibly helpful, straightforward,
[57:00] upright, and just willing to bend over
[57:03] backwards to meet our requirements. So,
[57:07] quite frankly, um there are there are
[57:10] OHV user groups that I am more concerned
[57:13] about, I would say, than I am concerned
[57:16] about this particular uh institution.
[57:23] » Thanks Brody. You had your hand
[57:25] >> Yeah.
[57:26] >> You had something.
[57:28] >> Yeah, real real quick, and and then we
[57:30] probably need to move on, Jason. This
[57:32] has been very good. I just want the
[57:34] council to know I have met with David um
[57:37] Zhang and had a very good conversation
[57:40] with him.
[57:41] Um
[57:42] I've talked to him several times,
[57:44] actually. Once in person. We are kind of
[57:47] working a joint project right now down
[57:49] in Cedar City. A really great OHP
[57:51] project. Um and just so you know, too,
[57:55] they are heavily funded by Polaris.
[57:58] jumps in a lot of money to help
[58:00] this foundation. So
[58:02] I I'm with Nicole. I'm pretty solid with
[58:05] these guys.
[58:08] >> Thank you, Wade. I have the same um
[58:11] appreciation for David Zhang and I just
[58:13] think he is so fun and easy to work with
[58:17] and the the amount and level of
[58:19] dedication and the Polaris stuff. I'll
[58:21] go ahead and if it's okay with you guys
[58:23] with the OHR, I can send you the news
[58:25] articles that they sent about that
[58:27] partnership cuz it's really neat to see.
[58:29] >> We're actually going to be It's my
[58:30] understanding that we're working on a
[58:31] press release right now.
[58:33] >> Great. Okay.
[58:33] >> So we'll actually be putting out a press
[58:35] release through
[58:37] our name, but yeah, if you want to share
[58:39] it and then
[58:40] >> Yeah. So I just have one more thing to
[58:43] talk about, but this is it's going to be
[58:45] about trail cams. So if anybody else has
[58:47] any other questions about eligibility, I
[58:50] think it's like a speak now or forever
[58:52] hold your peace. Well, not really. If
[58:53] you continue to have questions, I'll be
[58:55] more than happy to answer them to the
[58:56] best of my ability.
[59:00] But is everybody feel a little more
[59:01] comfortable with kind of understanding
[59:04] this back um kind of the back end
[59:06] process?
[59:11] Good. Okay. So hearing no comments, I
[59:13] will move to the last thing.
[59:17] Trail cameras in Utah law. So if you
[59:19] guys remember, we had a grant request
[59:22] for I think it was $6,900 in Sevier
[59:24] County and part of that request, $600 of
[59:28] it, were to put up trail cameras to
[59:30] monitor trail usage.
[59:32] In order to have in Utah, in order to
[59:34] have trail cameras on public lands year
[59:36] round, we need to comply with the
[59:38] requirements of UCA 23A-5-307,
[59:43] which is a DWR, Department of Wildlife
[59:46] Resources code. And the reason why trail
[59:49] cameras are in that code is because Utah
[59:51] owns all of the wildlife in Utah, and
[59:55] Utah is very concerned about improper
[59:57] takings of wildlife. So, there's there's
[1:00:01] kind of a political element here, and we
[1:00:03] don't really need to get into that. Um,
[1:00:06] but the the easiest, best, and I in my
[1:00:10] opinion, best, easiest, and most
[1:00:12] efficient way forward is to comply with
[1:00:16] this law, which just means that we need
[1:00:18] to enter into an MOU um with DWR,
[1:00:22] between DWR and DOR, and we will work
[1:00:26] out all of the details of that. It is
[1:00:28] currently being drafted. It is not in a
[1:00:30] position which I can share with you guys
[1:00:33] today, but I certainly it's going to be
[1:00:36] there pretty soon. And just to let you
[1:00:38] know, um since this law passed, and it's
[1:00:41] relatively recent law, um
[1:00:44] DWR has been doing these MOUs now with
[1:00:48] all different kinds of entities and
[1:00:50] agencies. So, the last one what that
[1:00:52] they did most recently was with UDOT for
[1:00:55] traffic cameras, because traffic cameras
[1:00:57] sometimes overlook wildlife management
[1:00:59] areas, and sometimes capture um
[1:01:02] you know, wildlife. So, that's the
[1:01:05] solution, and then we can go ahead and
[1:01:07] just move forward.
[1:01:11] » [clears throat]
[1:01:12] >> Sounds good.
[1:01:13] >> Yeah, great.
[1:01:14] Any questions or concerns on that one?
[1:01:16] >> Yeah, is there any issues with privacy
[1:01:17] on that one?
[1:01:19] >> Which kind of privacy? The animals?
[1:01:22] I mean, I I haven't heard any complaints
[1:01:24] from the animals, but
[1:01:26] >> People People being filmed.
[1:01:27] >> Sorry, guys. It's late. I'm tired.
[1:01:30] >> [laughter]
[1:01:31] >> Not from a legal perspective, because
[1:01:33] they're in a public place.
[1:01:34] >> Yeah.
[1:01:35] >> There might be a social element to it,
[1:01:36] but
[1:01:37] >> So, this is These are trail cameras on
[1:01:40] public land, okay? So, that's a little
[1:01:43] bit different. It I think that there are certain situations in which
[1:01:47] people put trail cameras on private
[1:01:49] land, and then it's overlooking public
[1:01:52] land, and there's some Again, this is a
[1:01:55] very political uh there are some
[1:01:57] constitutional issues here. There are
[1:01:59] all kinds of things, but for our
[1:02:01] purposes, this is how we have to do it.
[1:02:05] This is the only path forward that we
[1:02:07] can do it, and if we choose not to do it
[1:02:09] this way, um unfortunately, I don't see
[1:02:12] another path forward without getting a
[1:02:15] foul of this law,
[1:02:17] which would prohibit cameras for 6
[1:02:19] months out of the year,
[1:02:21] basically. So,
[1:02:22] >> Let's just get the MOU and move forward
[1:02:24] and be happy.
[1:02:25] >> Yep.
[1:02:26] That was my perspective on it, but
[1:02:28] I'm always open to anybody else's.
[1:02:34] Hey, you guys. I know that this has been
[1:02:36] a lot, and I know that this isn't the
[1:02:38] most um
[1:02:39] This can be a little dry, but I really
[1:02:41] do appreciate your attention. I
[1:02:43] appreciate the questions. I appreciate
[1:02:45] the detail. I appreciate the care with
[1:02:47] which you are exercising your statutory
[1:02:50] duties and your dedication to outdoor
[1:02:52] recreation, and I really, really
[1:02:54] appreciate that you guys were willing to
[1:02:56] let me just talk with you about this.
[1:02:58] So, thank you very much. I am done.
[1:03:02] >> Excellent. Thank you, Nicole.
[1:03:05] Okay, we'll move on to the next item on
[1:03:07] our agenda. This is item number five,
[1:03:09] OHP Advisory Council Member
[1:03:11] Applications. We've got applications for
[1:03:14] the dealership uh position, as well as
[1:03:17] the snowmobile position
[1:03:19] on the council.
[1:03:21] Um we've had a chance to review these
[1:03:24] applicants.
[1:03:26] Um
[1:03:27] we'll let uh Rachel pull them up and
[1:03:30] um
[1:03:31] I I'm just going to open it up to just
[1:03:35] discussion on these applicants and then
[1:03:36] we'll
[1:03:37] get to come to some sort of a consensus.
[1:03:40] Let's
[1:03:41] um
[1:03:42] try to go through these briefly. Rachel,
[1:03:45] do you have the ability to pull them up
[1:03:47] and
[1:03:48] just give a brief
[1:03:50] um
[1:03:51] this is who they are and where they're
[1:03:54] from and who they represent.
[1:03:57] >> Yes. So
[1:03:58] >> And how much time do we have to do this
[1:03:59] in?
[1:04:00] >> Oh.
[1:04:01] Okay.
[1:04:02] So right off the bat right now, we have
[1:04:03] technically we have 20 minutes set
[1:04:05] aside, but we are behind schedule
[1:04:07] a little bit. So um keep that in mind.
[1:04:10] So for the first one, dealership
[1:04:12] application, it's for five individuals.
[1:04:15] Um
[1:04:17] Let's go here.
[1:04:19] So the first one is Charlie Stevenson.
[1:04:20] He's based out of Cedar City. Hold on.
[1:04:23] I'm actually going to find a redacted
[1:04:24] version that does not list their
[1:04:28] Sorry.
[1:04:29] Stay tuned.
[1:04:33] » [clears throat]
[1:04:43] » Can I pull that back?
[1:04:45] So Jason just whispered to Rachel,
[1:04:47] "You're going to jail."
[1:04:49] I'm trying to be respectful.
[1:04:53] So what Rachel's trying to do, she's
[1:04:55] being very kind to me and so one of the
[1:04:58] things that we're doing is kind of going
[1:04:59] through with the data privacy laws that
[1:05:01] have passed and we're trying to present some of this stuff in a public
[1:05:05] meeting in a way that may be a little
[1:05:07] bit um
[1:05:08] little bit more conscientious about um
[1:05:11] some of this stuff. so this is my fault.
[1:05:14] Not Rachel's.
[1:05:16] >> Okay, thank you everyone. Okay, so the
[1:05:18] first one is Charlie Stevenson. He's
[1:05:19] based out of Cedar City.
[1:05:22] Um
[1:05:25] It looks like there are letters from
[1:05:28] Marilyn Wood
[1:05:30] >> [clears throat]
[1:05:31] >> who is the former Iron County
[1:05:32] Commissioner.
[1:05:33] We also have uh Sam Steed who is the
[1:05:37] Piute County Commissioner.
[1:05:40] And then Mike Werden uh who's the former
[1:05:42] natural resources specialist as well as
[1:05:45] Brett Stewart.
[1:05:47] So that is
[1:05:49] Charlie.
[1:05:50] The next one is
[1:05:52] >> Which district
[1:05:53] did he represent?
[1:05:56] >> That's a good question.
[1:05:58] >> Triple S out of Cedar City.
[1:06:00] Um okay, thank you.
[1:06:02] >> Triple S out of Cedar City, thank you.
[1:06:04] So the next one is Jared Oldham. He's
[1:06:08] based out of Spanish Fork.
[1:06:12] Let's see.
[1:06:14] It's been a few days since I've read
[1:06:15] these.
[1:06:19] Um
[1:06:20] where's Does anyone know off the top of
[1:06:22] their head who Jared represents?
[1:06:25] >> Yes, Rocky Mountain ATV.
[1:06:27] >> Thank you. Okay, so there's a letter
[1:06:29] from Eric Nelson uh
[1:06:31] from the Winter Trail Council.
[1:06:34] And I believe that is the only letter of
[1:06:36] support. Then we have Kimberly Black.
[1:06:38] She's based out of Kamas. She is with
[1:06:41] Well Recreation.
[1:06:46] We have a letter from Chase Peeley.
[1:06:48] The Utah Snowmobile Association. So Cody
[1:06:51] Sargent.
[1:06:54] And Nanette Bush.
[1:07:00] And then we have Lacy Lacy Warner and
[1:07:04] she's also based out of Cedar City.
[1:07:14] Okay.
[1:07:20] I do not know who this is by or
[1:07:23] >> That is the vice president of the Cedar
[1:07:26] City ATV Club. So.
[1:07:28] >> Okay.
[1:07:29] Thank you.
[1:07:30] We also have a letter from the Tushar
[1:07:31] Mountain ATV Club.
[1:07:34] And then Randy with Duck Creek Village
[1:07:37] Legacy Project as well.
[1:07:39] And Jared Anderson
[1:07:42] from
[1:07:43] SUU.
[1:07:44] >> Josh Anderson.
[1:07:46] >> Thank you. Josh Anderson. And so she
[1:07:48] works with D&P Performance.
[1:07:51] And then lastly, William Shannon
[1:07:53] Chambers. She's from They are from
[1:07:56] Benson, Utah.
[1:07:58] Apologies on the
[1:08:00] pronoun error.
[1:08:01] >> So, Bill Chambers represents
[1:08:04] North Star Polaris. He has a Polaris
[1:08:07] dealership in Logan and one in Franklin,
[1:08:09] Idaho.
[1:08:11] >> Thank you. And so there's a letter of
[1:08:13] support from Top of Utah Snowmobile
[1:08:14] Association with Michael Michael Balch.
[1:08:17] And then a letter from Corey Argyle,
[1:08:20] who's the president of the Franklin
[1:08:21] County High Markers.
[1:08:26] And then so those are the five.
[1:08:29] I don't know if you're happy if I wrote
[1:08:30] them all down.
[1:08:32] >> [clears throat]
[1:08:36] » Is there
[1:08:38] I'll I'll give it back to you, Jason.
[1:08:41] >> Okay. Any questions or
[1:08:45] points of discussion on these five as
[1:08:47] you guys have reviewed them? What are
[1:08:49] your
[1:08:50] thoughts and impressions?
[1:08:52] >> This is Brody. I'd like to just put a
[1:08:54] plug in for Lacy with D&P.
[1:08:57] Lacy
[1:08:59] and all of her Uh, employees have been
[1:09:01] working on the weekends up at Duck
[1:09:03] Creek, uh, getting They've actually been
[1:09:06] removing trees, fixing trails, things
[1:09:09] like that. Uh,
[1:09:11] and this is all in those letters, but
[1:09:13] uh, they've also been
[1:09:15] uh, they they host a yearly ATV Jamboree
[1:09:19] over in uh,
[1:09:20] Ruby's Inn.
[1:09:22] They're averaging 350 people coming from
[1:09:25] within and outside the state every year.
[1:09:28] And uh, and and then she also does a lot
[1:09:30] for just the community as a whole. She's
[1:09:32] very involved in all aspects of the
[1:09:35] community from raising funds for uh,
[1:09:38] there's a couple of kids in uh, the area
[1:09:40] that have had cancer, so they've raised
[1:09:42] funds from their Jamboree and personally
[1:09:45] uh, to to help support some of those
[1:09:47] kids over the years. So, very good
[1:09:49] person, very she's very community-minded
[1:09:54] and just an outgoing person, just an
[1:09:56] awesome person.
[1:10:00] » Okay.
[1:10:01] >> I don't personally
[1:10:02] know any of these, so I'd really like to
[1:10:04] hear if
[1:10:06] other people on the council, if they
[1:10:08] have
[1:10:10] uh,
[1:10:10] opinions and know any of these guys. So.
[1:10:17] » Brody, what do you know about Charlie
[1:10:18] Stevenson?
[1:10:19] >> Is this a closed hearing?
[1:10:23] >> No.
[1:10:24] >> Uh, then I'd prefer not to say.
[1:10:26] >> Okay.
[1:10:32] » Hey Hey Rachel.
[1:10:34] >> Yes.
[1:10:36] >> Do you exclude AI in these applications?
[1:10:39] Because some of them were you know, very well written and very long.
[1:10:45] And
[1:10:46] I
[1:10:47] I'd almost prefer their own personal
[1:10:49] language as opposed to AI doing this for
[1:10:52] them. And so, is there an exclusion for
[1:10:55] not using AI for these applications?
[1:10:58] >> That was not included in as part of the
[1:11:00] application. Um
[1:11:03] So, just to have a
[1:11:04] >> Can I just comment real quickly? So, one
[1:11:06] of the challenges with doing something
[1:11:09] like saying you can't use AI to draft
[1:11:12] language and stuff is that um we already
[1:11:16] do and we have been using that for a
[1:11:18] really, really long time. So, like AI
[1:11:22] for example, when I did my slides, AI
[1:11:25] was the one that helped me do the
[1:11:27] designs for them, right? So, either it's
[1:11:30] so if you hated them, you can blame AI
[1:11:32] and if you loved them, then it was all
[1:11:34] my work. But it it is it's kind of an
[1:11:36] interesting um it's a very interesting
[1:11:40] kind of way in which the world is now
[1:11:44] moving forward. Um but I I think it
[1:11:47] would be very challenging to just
[1:11:50] prohibit any type of AI because Google
[1:11:53] is AI. Um so, technically, we you know,
[1:11:56] we've all been using it for for years
[1:11:59] and years and years.
[1:12:01] >> I don't know if that I would have to
[1:12:02] tell them
[1:12:02] >> Yeah, you can write
[1:12:03] >> whether it's AI or not. I mean, if you do think that one of these is AI
[1:12:06] and you think that's not appropriate,
[1:12:07] certainly weigh in and
[1:12:09] um make make your opinion known about
[1:12:10] it. I think that's appropriate.
[1:12:12] >> Yes, absolutely. But but we can't say
[1:12:14] you can't use AI. Now, you can say
[1:12:17] something if you guys would like
[1:12:19] >> Right.
[1:12:19] >> Like like would yeah, like like we we
[1:12:22] appreciate that, you know, we we really
[1:12:25] like to hear from you, you know, with in
[1:12:28] your own words about what your
[1:12:31] contributions can be. Something like
[1:12:32] that would absolutely be okay.
[1:12:34] >> And we can also ask them to disclose, if
[1:12:37] you did use AI, we would like to know.
[1:12:39] >> Yeah.
[1:12:39] >> And that would be a good filter.
[1:12:40] >> Yeah. And I think that going forward,
[1:12:42] probably including something like that
[1:12:44] would be beneficial. But I also would
[1:12:46] like to state that there's people in our
[1:12:48] office that are very detailed writers.
[1:12:51] So, just because it's detailed doesn't
[1:12:52] mean it's AI. Um it's There's people
[1:12:55] have different writing styles. Usually
[1:12:56] you can tell with AI, but you know,
[1:12:58] sometimes people also use a little bit
[1:13:00] more
[1:13:01] flowery language. So, it can really be
[1:13:02] hit or miss. So, I think making the
[1:13:05] assumption especially without being
[1:13:07] known right now, it's could be it it
[1:13:09] isn't unfair.
[1:13:11] So, going forward I will definitely
[1:13:13] include that, but
[1:13:15] for this one I don't know if we can make
[1:13:17] an assumption in that regard.
[1:13:20] >> Nicole, you had your hand up.
[1:13:22] >> Yeah, I think it's kind of been covered,
[1:13:24] but I would say even just
[1:13:27] something as simple as spell check is
[1:13:28] probably considered AI and it's
[1:13:30] something that
[1:13:31] I know I couldn't live without.
[1:13:34] >> [laughter]
[1:13:35] >> Yeah.
[1:13:35] but you could say something where
[1:13:37] you would prefer you could ask them, you
[1:13:39] know, when you're doing your narrative,
[1:13:41] you would prefer that they do it in
[1:13:43] their own words instead of um
[1:13:46] you know, uh
[1:13:47] yeah, like yeah, I think if you get one
[1:13:49] and you're really really concerned about
[1:13:51] it, then that's one of those trust but
[1:13:53] verify things that that we could do.
[1:13:56] >> What I'm saying is very difficult when
[1:13:58] you read these to determine who to put
[1:14:00] in those positions if you don't know
[1:14:02] them and or you're not been hanging out
[1:14:04] with them or got some background
[1:14:06] information because
[1:14:08] AI is not that person. It's somebody
[1:14:11] else.
[1:14:12] And so uh it's very difficult to
[1:14:14] determine that and so um I I read these
[1:14:19] applications probably five times and I
[1:14:22] still I'm still struggling who to put in
[1:14:25] what position.
[1:14:28] » Were Were there any
[1:14:29] suspect used AI then, Scott?
[1:14:34] » You know what? I I I don't know how we
[1:14:36] get around it because it's everywhere
[1:14:38] and I I would I'd like to just
[1:14:41] these applications are, you know,
[1:14:44] they don't need to be as long as they are. Just make them three or four
[1:14:48] sentences or a paragraph as opposed to a
[1:14:51] whole page.
[1:14:52] >> You're right.
[1:14:53] Yep. I think you're absolutely right,
[1:14:55] Scott. So, I would use that as criteria
[1:14:57] to evaluate these. If they're
[1:14:59] too wordy, then do you want somebody
[1:15:01] who's going to take up lots of time in
[1:15:02] the meetings and that's their style?
[1:15:04] That's up to you to decide.
[1:15:06] >> Scott, do you want somebody that's too
[1:15:07] wordy in the meetings?
[1:15:09] >> [laughter]
[1:15:11] >> No, but I'm here, so you guys are in
[1:15:13] trouble already.
[1:15:16] » All right, Mike.
[1:15:18] >> Does anybody know Jared Oldham or Will
[1:15:20] Chambers?
[1:15:23] » Mike, I I know I can just tell you my
[1:15:25] experience with uh Bill Chambers.
[1:15:28] Um
[1:15:30] last fall I I wanted to have a meeting
[1:15:32] with the single track guys up there in
[1:15:34] Logan cuz they don't really have a club
[1:15:36] or an organization.
[1:15:38] And and he's the guy I reached out to.
[1:15:40] He's a Husqvarna dealer as well. And he
[1:15:43] opened up his business. He um
[1:15:46] I bet he brought in 40 motorcycle guys
[1:15:49] throughout Cache Valley to come and
[1:15:50] listen to me talk with them.
[1:15:53] Um he's very engaged in both snowmobile
[1:15:56] and off-road.
[1:16:02] » Yeah. Thank you.
[1:16:04] >> So, sorry, real quick. Rachel and I are
[1:16:06] looking through some of these because
[1:16:08] unfortunately now I'm becoming a little
[1:16:10] bit of an expert in recognizing AI and
[1:16:12] it does look like there are some places
[1:16:15] in which um AI may have been used
[1:16:19] um to draft the the the responses. There
[1:16:24] are some that definitely AI wasn't used.
[1:16:27] So, you know, one of the things you
[1:16:29] might want to you might consider is just
[1:16:31] like a word limit.
[1:16:34] » That's what we've done within the
[1:16:36] applications. So, this was done through,
[1:16:38] you know, as a state agency, we have to
[1:16:40] use Qualtrics when it comes to surveys.
[1:16:43] I'm unsure if there's word counts that
[1:16:44] we can implement, but
[1:16:46] I think that's a great way going
[1:16:47] forward.
[1:16:48] >> Well, I think yeah, you're right. I
[1:16:50] think though if you said in 50 so words
[1:16:52] or less and then you just you can just
[1:16:55] And the other thing is is if you guys
[1:16:56] are I mean
[1:16:58] there are programs that can recognize
[1:17:01] AI, but I don't know how helpful that's
[1:17:04] going to be.
[1:17:05] I think this is kind of the new normal.
[1:17:07] I'm going to have to tell you guys.
[1:17:11] » Did anybody reach out to any of these
[1:17:13] applicants?
[1:17:14] >> Yeah.
[1:17:22] » Well, I've had I've had conversation
[1:17:24] with Lacey. I can tell you that you know, she's she's known about
[1:17:30] the council for a long time. She's very
[1:17:32] interested in what it's about and the
[1:17:35] things that she's written are things
[1:17:37] that she really does believe in and
[1:17:38] that's what she promotes. Uh it's not
[1:17:41] something that she just writes down.
[1:17:43] She's promoted that. She lives it and so and she believes it.
[1:17:49] >> Do we know if any of these applicants
[1:17:51] have uh helped apply for or been
[1:17:55] involved in the OHV grant?
[1:18:01] » Sorry.
[1:18:01] >> Um there's several of them I'm sure have
[1:18:05] been involved in helping
[1:18:07] uh not necessarily writing like letters
[1:18:09] of support, but in uh provide being the dealer that maybe
[1:18:14] other people that is particularly search
[1:18:16] and rescue has gone to for uh
[1:18:19] machines and supplies, maintenance,
[1:18:20] things like that.
[1:18:22] >> Okay.
[1:18:22] >> Could you repeat the question, Jason?
[1:18:25] >> Yeah, my question was is have any of
[1:18:27] these um applicants been directly
[1:18:30] involved uh either as a
[1:18:33] project manager or assistant project
[1:18:35] manager manager or provided letters of
[1:18:37] support for any previous grants.
[1:18:41] >> There's probably been potential letters
[1:18:43] of support because we do tell them to go
[1:18:45] to the community, but there's definitely
[1:18:47] I feel like the only the majority of the
[1:18:49] communication that's happened with
[1:18:51] applicants and dealerships has have been
[1:18:53] vendor wise. So you know, purchasing as
[1:18:56] Brody said purchasing equipment.
[1:19:00] » So it sounds like
[1:19:02] um
[1:19:03] Brody's putting Lacy up here on a little
[1:19:06] bit of a pedestal.
[1:19:08] Um
[1:19:08] >> I I I am and and the reason why is is uh
[1:19:14] she's just a good person. I I just love
[1:19:16] her to death. I think she would be an
[1:19:18] a great advocate.
[1:19:20] And she does work very well with the
[1:19:22] other dealers and and so that's kind of
[1:19:25] important. I I think you know, if we're
[1:19:28] looking at the all around, you know,
[1:19:30] what are what are they wanting? What are
[1:19:31] they they're wanting people to first
[1:19:34] ride their machines. They want people to
[1:19:36] be safe riding their machines. They want
[1:19:38] people to enjoy that. They want to to
[1:19:41] have that relationship with the local
[1:19:44] land managers. Uh and so and and then I
[1:19:47] also think when you look at what they do
[1:19:50] when they're off the clock and and I see
[1:19:53] that all the time uh
[1:19:55] where you know, when when people are out
[1:19:58] doing projects, they're putting they're
[1:20:00] putting
[1:20:01] uh
[1:20:02] shovel to ground and chainsaws to trees.
[1:20:05] And they do it on their own time and
[1:20:06] they're not really promoting themselves
[1:20:08] for doing that. And and so that tells me
[1:20:10] a lot, too.
[1:20:14] I hope that makes sense.
[1:20:15] >> a comment here. I I have three people in
[1:20:18] here and uh that
[1:20:20] Eric had wrote a separate letter for
[1:20:23] this Jared and Wade's talking about this
[1:20:26] William and Brody's talking about Lacy
[1:20:28] and and they all have good support from
[1:20:32] them.
[1:20:33] Uh
[1:20:34] You know, how do we come up with a name?
[1:20:37] Uh
[1:20:39] >> Is there Is there some that's kind of a
[1:20:41] red flag to anybody that we I mean, we
[1:20:44] can eliminate based on their responses
[1:20:46] to the questions?
[1:20:47] >> I think if your if your only concern is
[1:20:51] the sales of machines, then that's a
[1:20:54] >> I'm going to I'm going to interrupt real
[1:20:56] quick. I'm sorry, and I'm going to
[1:20:57] interrupt because this is actually a
[1:20:59] really important distinction here. So,
[1:21:02] if we're going to start to talk about
[1:21:04] someone's like character or
[1:21:05] professionalism and stuff, that's
[1:21:07] something that we can discuss in a
[1:21:11] closed meeting and would definitely be
[1:21:14] more appropriate than discussing it in
[1:21:16] an open meeting. There are quite a few
[1:21:19] rules and procedures that we need to do
[1:21:21] in order to go into a closed meeting,
[1:21:24] including some notice provisions and
[1:21:26] stuff. So, what I would um politely
[1:21:29] suggest, and again, I sincerely
[1:21:30] apologize for interrupting. I just want
[1:21:33] to make sure that we're not
[1:21:35] unintentionally doing something that
[1:21:36] would get us into trouble. But, that is
[1:21:38] something that that we can that you guys
[1:21:41] as a
[1:21:42] um an advisory committee can talk about
[1:21:44] if you're potentially interested in
[1:21:46] doing that, and then we can do that, you
[1:21:48] know, moving forward.
[1:21:50] >> Do Is that something that we can do in
[1:21:52] this session, or do does that need to be
[1:21:54] an item on the agenda?
[1:21:56] >> Yeah, I I'm a little bit concerned that
[1:21:58] we didn't have any proper notice that we
[1:22:01] were closing the meeting, and um that gives me pause. Um and I I would
[1:22:06] feel more comfortable if you guys uh did
[1:22:09] it in a subsequent meeting. But, I also
[1:22:12] think you could have the discussion
[1:22:14] without necessarily going into some of
[1:22:16] those things in a way that is um you
[1:22:20] know, inappropriate. So, I I think it's
[1:22:22] up to to kind of the board and you know,
[1:22:25] to you know, to figure out how you guys
[1:22:27] want to handle it. If you'd like to
[1:22:30] go in forward [clears throat] though,
[1:22:30] then we can do that.
[1:22:32] >> What you're saying is we just need to go
[1:22:33] off of the questions answered and make
[1:22:36] our evaluations based off of that and
[1:22:38] not [clears throat] necessarily off of
[1:22:40] um
[1:22:42] who they are or who they know or
[1:22:43] anything like that, right?
[1:22:46] » I think you could speak in generalities.
[1:22:48] >> Yeah.
[1:22:49] >> Um
[1:22:50] you know, somebody's got into detail
[1:22:51] saying why he likes a particular
[1:22:53] applicant. Obviously somebody if there
[1:22:55] is one applicant that somebody doesn't necessarily want to support, you
[1:22:59] could make that known in a general sense
[1:23:00] and say that.
[1:23:01] >> You could say something
[1:23:03] Yeah, you could say something like I
[1:23:04] just don't feel like they've been
[1:23:06] they're a good fit or um you know,
[1:23:08] something like that I think would be
[1:23:10] very reasonable, but I do think if
[1:23:13] you're going to get into specifics that
[1:23:15] we should um notice a closed meeting and
[1:23:18] do it that way going forward.
[1:23:21] >> Well, what if we just vote on it? I
[1:23:23] mean, we've we've all done our due
[1:23:25] diligence. What Why don't we just vote?
[1:23:29] >> You know, well you could do that
[1:23:30] certainly just have an open
[1:23:33] election. You got to got to decide on
[1:23:34] what the ground rules are, what type of
[1:23:36] election you're going to
[1:23:37] selection process you're going to do.
[1:23:39] Or you could do it the uh
[1:23:42] nomination so open nomination someone
[1:23:45] anybody could that
[1:23:47] move to nominate a particular candidate
[1:23:48] and then
[1:23:50] there's a number of different ways to do
[1:23:51] it so you definitely need to clarify the
[1:23:52] rules.
[1:23:54] When you call the question
[1:23:56] » Okay, thanks Jason. I mean I think we we
[1:23:59] probably ought to just touch on and
[1:24:02] um
[1:24:04] just identify. I mean, we've we've
[1:24:05] looked through these um identifying um
[1:24:10] personal relationships uh or personal
[1:24:13] understanding uh if you know them one by
[1:24:16] one.
[1:24:17] Um
[1:24:18] we've got
[1:24:20] Yeah, and I I guess my direction or my ask is if we can narrow this down
[1:24:26] based on what you guys feel is I
[1:24:29] looks like there's a few that have come
[1:24:30] to the top of the list and maybe it's
[1:24:32] that we vote on a top two.
[1:24:35] Um
[1:24:36] we haven't talked much about Kimberly or
[1:24:38] Jared.
[1:24:40] Um we've talked a little bit about
[1:24:41] Charlie, Lacy, and Bill.
[1:24:44] Um is there any
[1:24:45] anything that anybody noticed about the
[1:24:48] application for Charlie or or Jared or
[1:24:51] Kimberly that stands out that
[1:24:53] would maybe bring them to the top of the
[1:24:54] list?
[1:24:55] >> Uh Jason, I do. I I crossed uh Charlie
[1:24:58] and Kimberly off and I circled the the
[1:25:02] three other people, Jared, Lacy, and
[1:25:04] William. And And from those three I like
[1:25:07] I said, I I I I I take a lot out of
[1:25:12] people's opinions of them and their
[1:25:14] background information. We do that all
[1:25:16] the time. We ask for advice from people
[1:25:19] and I I I I I give a lot of credit to
[1:25:23] Wade and to Eric and Brody on their
[1:25:25] opinions about things. I I I take a lot
[1:25:28] of weight on that and so I'm I'm tossed
[1:25:30] between these three three people. So,
[1:25:33] I'm not sure who to vote for, to be
[1:25:34] honest with you. And And maybe all three
[1:25:37] of them could do a great job.
[1:25:43] » Does anybody else have any thoughts on
[1:25:44] those on what Scott said?
[1:25:47] >> Not to throw another name into the hat,
[1:25:48] but I will say that I've worked closely
[1:25:50] with Kim. Um and while recreation's
[1:25:53] great to work with, Kim's been great.
[1:25:56] So,
[1:25:57] just she works closely with our uh
[1:25:59] division when it comes to all of our
[1:26:02] events that we host. So, our summit
[1:26:04] meetings, they're always there in
[1:26:06] providing and donating to help those uh
[1:26:09] events that we put on.
[1:26:11] >> We just put it on the list. It's been
[1:26:12] We've been on this topic for 22 minutes.
[1:26:14] >> Okay, yes. We've also been on this topic
[1:26:16] for 22 minutes. And I was also notified
[1:26:18] by Nicole that if we were to do a poll
[1:26:21] or you send me an email that needs to be
[1:26:23] can
[1:26:24] included into the public notice website
[1:26:27] posting as part of the meeting material.
[1:26:31] So, you recommended that we do not do
[1:26:33] that.
[1:26:34] So, just that in mind as well.
[1:26:37] >> That we don't do a poll or emailed out.
[1:26:40] So, we just need to So, we probably the
[1:26:43] best thing is nominations and So, it
[1:26:45] sounds like we've got a few that have
[1:26:47] come to the top and
[1:26:49] nominations and vote.
[1:26:51] >> We could do hand raising also. Like I
[1:26:53] could name someone and you know, start
[1:26:55] with the first person and who votes for
[1:26:57] those individual, they raise their hand.
[1:26:59] I can record it.
[1:27:01] And we can go on to the next person and
[1:27:03] the next person who has the most votes
[1:27:05] will
[1:27:07] become our next dealership rep.
[1:27:09] Or top
[1:27:11] >> You could do it that way. You could even
[1:27:12] somebody could just say, I I I would
[1:27:15] move that we select this person.
[1:27:18] And then the chair could recognize a
[1:27:19] motion if there's a second, then you
[1:27:21] could have discussion on it and then and
[1:27:23] then vote. That that it could be as
[1:27:25] simple as that, but you know, that's only one other option. Just to
[1:27:28] throw it out there. You don't have to do
[1:27:29] that obviously.
[1:27:30] >> Or you could do it for two people the
[1:27:32] way that Jason said, you know, like you
[1:27:34] want to the same way that we do it we
[1:27:36] want to with grants where you want to
[1:27:38] allow them to you know, go to the next
[1:27:40] level of consideration.
[1:27:44] » Okay. Um
[1:27:47] I guess that being said, uh any
[1:27:49] preference you guys want to
[1:27:51] uh make a motion or do you want to vote
[1:27:54] go down the names and vote?
[1:27:57] Any preference?
[1:28:03] » Let's go down the list and vote and
[1:28:04] maybe just pull out the top two
[1:28:07] and then
[1:28:08] go back through and pull out the top
[1:28:10] one.
[1:28:12] >> So, would it be okay to make a motion
[1:28:14] and just do that?
[1:28:17] » I would like to make a motion that we
[1:28:19] go individually through the council
[1:28:21] members and identify our top two,
[1:28:24] then
[1:28:26] go through and identify the top one.
[1:28:30] >> Hey, before we vote on that, can I throw
[1:28:32] something out? What if you did a loaded
[1:28:34] type of deal? You put a 1 2 3 and then I
[1:28:37] know that complicates it. Maybe that's
[1:28:39] too complicated to do that. So, I'll
[1:28:41] forget it.
[1:28:44] » Forgotten.
[1:28:45] We've got a motion.
[1:28:46] Do we have a second?
[1:28:53] » No seconds on that motion?
[1:29:00] » Jason, with no seconds, maybe you could
[1:29:02] just open it up for a nomination. Um
[1:29:05] open it up for a no- a nomination and if
[1:29:08] all we get is one nomination, then we
[1:29:10] vote on that person and
[1:29:12] >> So, so real quick, you guys, and I
[1:29:14] apologize, but this is like a Robert's
[1:29:16] Rule legal thing and so if what you got
[1:29:18] to we still need to do it through a
[1:29:20] motion. So, if you guys would like to
[1:29:23] amend the motion that's currently on the
[1:29:25] table because it didn't get Well, it
[1:29:26] didn't get seconded. I'm sorry. Yeah, I
[1:29:28] failed. I apologize.
[1:29:30] Um yeah, so but we we still need to kind
[1:29:32] of do this um through just with the with
[1:29:36] the motion practice that you guys have
[1:29:38] been doing so that there's consistency
[1:29:40] in your approach.
[1:29:42] >> Okay, that sounds good. I think that
[1:29:46] >> Jason, can't we just vote just say,
[1:29:48] "Okay, you choose somebody out. You have
[1:29:50] to choose somebody out. Put it down. Put
[1:29:53] the number down."
[1:29:54] >> You're making a motion. Got
[1:29:56] >> I'm making a motion right now that we
[1:29:57] just go ahead and vote.
[1:29:59] I
[1:30:00] Do I have a second on that?
[1:30:02] >> This is Brody. I make a second on that.
[1:30:05] >> Okay.
[1:30:07] Uh what So, one are the challenges with
[1:30:09] that motion, um,
[1:30:11] is I I'm I'm not sure exactly what
[1:30:14] you're voting on. So, could you please
[1:30:17] be a little bit more specific in your
[1:30:18] motion?
[1:30:20] >> The The motion would be that we start
[1:30:22] voting. I could go ahead and say right
[1:30:23] now who I choose. I'm going to vote for
[1:30:25] somebody right now, and we start that,
[1:30:28] and then we go through the council, and
[1:30:30] everybody has a chance to vote. And
[1:30:33] then, whoever has the most of
[1:30:35] we could choose that person. If we have
[1:30:37] a tie, then we do another vote.
[1:30:39] >> Okay, is there a second for that motion?
[1:30:42] >> This is Brody. I second that motion.
[1:30:45] >> Okay, any discussion? Oh, sorry, Jason.
[1:30:47] I'm taking over for you. I'm going to
[1:30:48] give it to back to you.
[1:30:50] Sorry, Jason.
[1:30:51] >> Thanks, Nicole. Okay, we have a motion
[1:30:53] made by Scott, seconded by Brody.
[1:30:56] Um, all those in favor of voting for
[1:31:00] the
[1:31:01] dealership representative, say I.
[1:31:03] >> I.
[1:31:06] >> So, I want a roll call on this one,
[1:31:07] definitely. Sorry, buddy. This is
[1:31:09] important.
[1:31:11] >> Let me pull up my, uh, list here. Uh,
[1:31:14] Brett?
[1:31:17] » I.
[1:31:18] >> Brody?
[1:31:19] >> I.
[1:31:21] >> David?
[1:31:23] >> No one voting.
[1:31:24] >> Okay. Mike?
[1:31:26] >> I.
[1:31:27] >> Nicole?
[1:31:29] >> Yes.
[1:31:30] >> Russ?
[1:31:35] » Uh, I'm going to abstain from voting.
[1:31:39] >> Sheriff?
[1:31:40] >> Yes.
[1:31:45] >> And I'll vote yes, as well.
[1:31:47] Okay. That being said, um,
[1:31:52] we'll have
[1:31:54] >> Do you want me to start?
[1:31:56] >> Rachel, go down the list.
[1:31:58] >> Jason, just make a ruling that motion
[1:32:00] passed.
[1:32:01] >> Okay. That That motion passed.
[1:32:03] Unanim- Unanimous.
[1:32:06] >> Um
[1:32:09] Okay, so
[1:32:11] >> Play with two abstentions.
[1:32:14] Oh, it's not voting. Oh, sorry, one
[1:32:15] non-voting and one non- one abstention.
[1:32:19] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:32:22] So, let's go down the list. Um
[1:32:26] Voting um if you want to vote for
[1:32:30] Charlie Stevenson.
[1:32:32] Uh
[1:32:34] stay
[1:32:35] Let's
[1:32:37] >> Jason, I wasn't talking about doing it
[1:32:39] that way. I was saying you just asked me
[1:32:41] who I'm going to vote for and I'll give
[1:32:43] you my name.
[1:32:44] >> Okay,
[1:32:45] that'll work. Let's just go down the
[1:32:46] list then.
[1:32:47] Uh Brett, who's your vote?
[1:32:49] >> Uh can you come back to me, please?
[1:32:51] >> Yes. Uh Brody, who's your vote?
[1:32:54] >> Lacy.
[1:32:55] >> Okay.
[1:32:57] Um
[1:33:00] David, are you voting on this one?
[1:33:02] >> No, non-voting.
[1:33:03] >> Okay.
[1:33:04] Mike, who's your vote?
[1:33:07] >> Will Chambers.
[1:33:09] >> Okay.
[1:33:10] Nicole.
[1:33:13] » Can you come back to me, too?
[1:33:17] » We're just about there. Russ, are you
[1:33:19] voting on this one?
[1:33:23] » No, I'm not.
[1:33:24] >> Okay.
[1:33:25] Uh Sheriff Curtis.
[1:33:28] >> I'm going to go with Charlie.
[1:33:30] >> Thank you.
[1:33:32] » Okay.
[1:33:34] Um
[1:33:36] Scott.
[1:33:37] >> Lacy.
[1:33:42] » Okay, coming back up, Brett.
[1:33:51] » Dillon.
[1:33:55] » Uh
[1:33:56] >> If Brett needs a minute, I I'm ready.
[1:33:59] So, if you want you go ahead
[1:34:02] I'm going to go with Lacy just cuz I've
[1:34:04] heard some nice things on this but
[1:34:06] everybody's so equal on this it's such a
[1:34:08] hard thing to pick one.
[1:34:11] Okay Brett.
[1:34:14] I'm going to go Charlie.
[1:34:17] okay
[1:34:20] and then I will vote for Bill
[1:34:24] for the record but it looks like Lacy is
[1:34:27] the winner on this one.
[1:34:31] Okay that was easy. I want to make the
[1:34:34] final motion what the vote what ended up
[1:34:37] being Lacy 3 Bill 2 Chuck 2.
[1:34:39] It looks like Lacy Wheeler Lacy Werner
[1:34:43] is
[1:34:45] the top voted candidate so do we need a
[1:34:49] motion to
[1:34:50] I guess how would that motion look like
[1:34:54] what would that motion look like.
[1:34:55] I'll
[1:34:57] make this is Sheriff Curtis I'll make
[1:34:59] the motion we accept the results as Lacy
[1:35:01] being the
[1:35:05] top choice for our dealership
[1:35:06] representative.
[1:35:09] Okay motion made by Sheriff Curtis do I
[1:35:11] have a second? This is Brody I second.
[1:35:14] Seconded by Brody let's go down roll
[1:35:16] call
[1:35:18] how about you guys have any discussion
[1:35:20] to that motion oh yeah do we have any
[1:35:21] discussion to that motion.
[1:35:29] Okay.
[1:35:30] Seeing none let's go down roll call vote
[1:35:33] for the record Brett.
[1:35:35] Yes.
[1:35:37] Brody.
[1:35:39] Yes.
[1:35:41] Mike.
[1:35:43] Yeah.
[1:35:44] Nicole.
[1:35:46] Yes.
[1:35:47] Sheriff Curtis.
[1:35:48] Yes Scott. Yes.
[1:35:52] And I'll vote yes as well. That is
[1:35:55] unanimous.
[1:35:56] So, Lacy Werner will
[1:35:59] um
[1:36:00] is
[1:36:02] going to be our next uh dealership
[1:36:04] representative.
[1:36:07] Okay, let's go on to our snowmobile
[1:36:10] applicants.
[1:36:15] Hold this up here.
[1:36:34] We have Alton Harris
[1:36:38] who's in Mendon.
[1:36:42] » It looks like he's with Top of Utah
[1:36:45] Snowmobile Association. He's serving on
[1:36:47] the board.
[1:36:50] » And Michael Fogg
[1:36:52] >> Yep.
[1:36:54] >> from Mountain Green.
[1:36:58] » Looks like he's
[1:37:00] part of the Weber County Search and
[1:37:01] Rescue.
[1:37:14] » All right, any thoughts or impressions
[1:37:16] on these two applicants?
[1:37:18] >> Hey, I go back on that letter of
[1:37:20] support. Nope, go up. Go up. Nope, that up.
[1:37:24] >> Um
[1:37:26] >> That Keep going up just a little bit
[1:37:28] more.
[1:37:30] That up Not the up that other up.
[1:37:32] Go up.
[1:37:33] >> So, you're saying
[1:37:34] >> there.
[1:37:35] >> So, you're saying down.
[1:37:37] >> Wait,
[1:37:38] um
[1:37:39] I'm just reading the the very first
[1:37:42] line. That's kind of funny. So, sorry.
[1:37:46] >> Mr. Howard
[1:37:49] >> Uh
[1:37:50] >> yeah, I saw that, too.
[1:37:52] >> Years late.
[1:37:54] >> [laughter]
[1:37:55] >> It's okay. Also, Utah Division of Parks
[1:37:57] and Recreation.
[1:37:59] So.
[1:38:00] >> Wow.
[1:38:01] >> I know.
[1:38:02] >> It's just the sheriff writing it. Well,
[1:38:04] I mean, what are we worried about?
[1:38:07] >> [laughter]
[1:38:08] >> I'm happy that Yeah, you said it, not
[1:38:10] us.
[1:38:12] >> That's why it was okay that I said it.
[1:38:14] >> [laughter]
[1:38:15] >> Maybe he used AI. I don't know.
[1:38:26] » Is
[1:38:27] there an interest to look at any of
[1:38:28] these applications, or should we just
[1:38:30] move on to the discussion portion of
[1:38:31] this?
[1:38:36] » Yeah, the floor's open for discussion if
[1:38:37] anybody has any points of uh concern or
[1:38:40] interest or uh
[1:38:42] things that impressed you on the
[1:38:43] applications.
[1:38:47] Or if there's any
[1:38:47] >> Do we Do we know anything about that uh
[1:38:49] the the first applicant's uh group that
[1:38:53] he belongs to?
[1:38:54] Um do we Does it anybody have any
[1:38:57] interaction with that group?
[1:38:59] >> Yes, I do a lot. Top of Utah Snowmobile
[1:39:02] Utah group is very very active um in
[1:39:06] Logan Canyon. They've played a big part
[1:39:09] in helping me. I had some problems with
[1:39:12] diesel fuel up there. They found a
[1:39:14] solution.
[1:39:16] Um they recently sponsored a parking lot
[1:39:19] uh Top of Utah did with Utah Snowmobile
[1:39:21] Association there at Franklin Basin.
[1:39:24] That they were awarded a grant, and they
[1:39:26] did it very timely and very good. So, I
[1:39:29] have a personally, I have a lot of
[1:39:30] interaction with Top of Utah.
[1:39:34] >> I was going to say ditto to that.
[1:39:35] They've been great to work with.
[1:39:38] Um
[1:39:39] Top of Utah Snowmobile Association has
[1:39:40] been awesome. So, I don't believe that
[1:39:43] they've applied, but they have a lot of
[1:39:44] projects in mind that they want to move
[1:39:46] forward with.
[1:39:54] » Jason, I'm ready to vote for somebody if
[1:39:56] you want to start.
[1:39:58] >> Yeah, do you want to make a motion?
[1:40:00] >> Do we need to make a motion to vote?
[1:40:04] >> Yep.
[1:40:05] >> I make a motion that we just start
[1:40:07] voting.
[1:40:08] >> Yeah, so clarify the same way that we
[1:40:10] did the prior one, Scott.
[1:40:12] >> I'm sorry, what was that?
[1:40:13] >> Are you suggesting the same method that
[1:40:15] you did in the prior one?
[1:40:16] >> Same method as we did before. We just go
[1:40:18] ahead and vote. We just start voting.
[1:40:20] >> Yeah, we just start voting.
[1:40:22] >> Okay, motion made by Scott. Do we have a
[1:40:24] second?
[1:40:24] >> This is Brody. I second that.
[1:40:26] >> [clears throat]
[1:40:27] >> Second, any discussion?
[1:40:32] Seeing none, let's vote on the motion to
[1:40:34] vote.
[1:40:37] Uh
[1:40:38] Brett?
[1:40:39] >> Yes.
[1:40:40] >> Brody?
[1:40:41] >> Yes.
[1:40:43] >> Uh Nicole?
[1:40:45] >> Yes.
[1:40:47] » And Scott?
[1:40:49] >> Yes.
[1:40:51] >> Michael?
[1:40:52] >> Yes.
[1:40:54] >> And I think that's everybody. I'll vote
[1:40:56] yes as well.
[1:40:58] Okay.
[1:40:59] Let's go ahead. Uh we'll go down the
[1:41:01] list.
[1:41:03] Uh
[1:41:03] >> Can we go down the list backwards this
[1:41:05] time?
[1:41:06] >> I don't know. Brett Brett got away from
[1:41:08] that last time. I think we need to start
[1:41:10] >> I'm ready to vote this time.
[1:41:12] >> [laughter]
[1:41:13] >> Either way, don't care.
[1:41:14] >> Okay, Brett, who's your pick?
[1:41:15] >> Dean.
[1:41:18] >> This is Alton Harris.
[1:41:20] >> Uh yes. Yeah.
[1:41:22] >> Uh Brody?
[1:41:26] >> Alton Harris.
[1:41:29] >> Nicole?
[1:41:31] >> Uh
[1:41:32] the Alton Dean Harris.
[1:41:35] >> Mike?
[1:41:36] >> Dean Harris or Alton.
[1:41:39] >> Scott?
[1:41:40] >> Uh Dean.
[1:41:42] >> Okay, and I will vote Dean as well.
[1:41:47] So, that is all six of the voting
[1:41:50] members voted for Alton Dean Harris to
[1:41:53] be our snowmobile representative.
[1:41:56] So,
[1:41:58] what Remind me, what motion do we need
[1:42:00] for that, or do we need any motion?
[1:42:03] >> Motion to accept the results.
[1:42:05] >> Yeah. Yep.
[1:42:08] >> So made.
[1:42:09] >> [laughter]
[1:42:10] >> Brett Brett made a motion to accept the
[1:42:13] voting
[1:42:14] with Alton Harris being the applicant.
[1:42:16] Do we have a second?
[1:42:17] >> Did Sheriff Curtis vote?
[1:42:20] >> Oh, Sheriff Curtis, did you vote?
[1:42:22] >> I figured you guys would figure out to
[1:42:24] vote for the other guy. That's why you
[1:42:26] didn't give me a chance.
[1:42:27] >> [laughter]
[1:42:28] >> Sorry, thank you.
[1:42:29] >> But I will say the professionalism and the other one I'll go with Dean as
[1:42:33] well.
[1:42:34] >> Okay.
[1:42:35] So.
[1:42:36] >> And I can second the vote the uh motion.
[1:42:40] >> Excellent, thank you.
[1:42:42] Motion made by Brett, seconded by
[1:42:43] Sheriff. Any other discussion?
[1:42:47] Okay, seeing none, let's go roll call,
[1:42:49] and I won't miss you this time. Uh we'll
[1:42:51] start with Sheriff Curtis.
[1:42:53] >> Yes.
[1:42:55] >> All right, Scott?
[1:43:04] >> yeah, I'm sorry, yes.
[1:43:05] >> Okay. Uh Nicole?
[1:43:08] >> Yes.
[1:43:10] >> Mike?
[1:43:10] >> Yes.
[1:43:11] >> Rodney?
[1:43:13] >> Yes.
[1:43:14] >> Brett?
[1:43:15] >> Yes.
[1:43:16] >> And I will vote yes as well.
[1:43:20] All right.
[1:43:22] That wasn't so bad.
[1:43:26] Okay, pulling up back up to my agenda
[1:43:28] now.
[1:43:30] >> On the agenda.
[1:43:32] >> That's me.
[1:43:35] » Okay. Yep.
[1:43:37] Turn the time
[1:43:38] to
[1:43:39] >> Trusting you with
[1:43:42] Thank you. First before I start, thank
[1:43:45] you Jason
[1:43:46] for your leadership. Thank you for
[1:43:50] everything you've done for the council
[1:43:52] this past year. Um your leadership is
[1:43:54] well appreciated and noted. I would also
[1:43:58] like the council to know I reached out
[1:44:00] to Eric Neilson today and let him know that uh I appreciate
[1:44:05] what he did for the council as well.
[1:44:08] So we have an opening for chair and vice
[1:44:11] chair.
[1:44:13] Um and what I'd like to do is accept a
[1:44:16] nomination to go ahead and open that up.
[1:44:20] If anybody would make that motion.
[1:44:23] >> This is Brody. I'd like to make the
[1:44:24] motion that we open up the position of
[1:44:27] chair and vice chair.
[1:44:29] >> Okay, is there a second?
[1:44:31] >> I'll second it.
[1:44:33] >> Thank you Mike. Can we do a quick roll
[1:44:34] call on that? Brett?
[1:44:41] » Yes.
[1:44:42] >> Brody?
[1:44:43] >> Yes.
[1:44:44] >> Mike?
[1:44:45] >> Yes.
[1:44:46] >> Nicole?
[1:44:47] >> Yes.
[1:44:49] >> Uh Sheriff Curtis?
[1:44:50] >> Uh yes.
[1:44:52] >> Scott?
[1:44:54] >> Yes.
[1:44:55] >> And Jason?
[1:44:56] >> Yes.
[1:44:58] >> Okay, now the next motion I would like
[1:45:00] to uh entertain is I'd like to entertain
[1:45:03] a motion for a nomination for chair.
[1:45:08] Um
[1:45:09] >> This is Brett. This is Brody. I'd like
[1:45:10] to nominate Jason to serve another year
[1:45:13] as chair.
[1:45:15] >> I'll second that.
[1:45:17] >> And Mike beat me to it cuz I was going
[1:45:18] to second it, too.
[1:45:22] » Is there is there any other nominations?
[1:45:25] >> I'll nominate Brody.
[1:45:27] >> Um no I I don't want to be chair, but
[1:45:29] thank you.
[1:45:32] >> We don't accept that We don't accept
[1:45:34] that nomination.
[1:45:36] >> Well played, Jason.
[1:45:38] >> [laughter]
[1:45:38] >> Good job, Jason. Yeah. So, Brody
[1:45:40] declines. Any other nominations for
[1:45:44] chair?
[1:45:48] Okay?
[1:45:50] That nomination holds. I'd like to do a
[1:45:51] roll call on
[1:45:54] um Jason
[1:45:56] being the chair.
[1:46:00] Brett?
[1:46:01] >> Yes.
[1:46:03] >> Brody?
[1:46:04] >> Yes.
[1:46:05] >> Mike?
[1:46:06] >> Yes.
[1:46:07] >> Nicole?
[1:46:09] >> Yes.
[1:46:10] >> Sheriff Curtis?
[1:46:11] >> Yes.
[1:46:12] >> Scott?
[1:46:13] >> Yes.
[1:46:14] >> And Jason, we we don't let you vote for
[1:46:16] yourself off. So sorry.
[1:46:19] The vote is unanimous.
[1:46:25] Um I would entertain a second motion to
[1:46:27] accept Jason as the chair of the OHV
[1:46:32] Advisory Council.
[1:46:35] >> I'll make the motion to accept Jason as
[1:46:38] the chair of the council for another
[1:46:40] year.
[1:46:41] >> Thank you, Nicole.
[1:46:43] >> And this is Brody. I second that
[1:46:44] nomination or that I second that.
[1:46:47] >> Okay, roll call real quick. Brett?
[1:46:50] >> Yes.
[1:46:50] >> Brody?
[1:46:52] >> Yes.
[1:46:52] >> Mike?
[1:46:53] >> Yes.
[1:46:54] >> Nicole?
[1:46:55] >> Yes.
[1:46:56] >> Sheriff Curtis?
[1:46:58] >> Yes.
[1:46:59] >> Scott Wheeler?
[1:47:01] >> I want to say yes and also I think you
[1:47:03] ought to take that into consideration
[1:47:06] that all of us want you to be there and
[1:47:08] we think you've been doing an excellent
[1:47:10] job.
[1:47:12] >> And give that man a raise.
[1:47:14] >> [laughter]
[1:47:15] >> Did anyone ask if Jason accepted the
[1:47:17] nomination?
[1:47:19] >> We don't have to To that.
[1:47:20] >> Yeah, we don't ask.
[1:47:21] >> He doesn't have a choice.
[1:47:24] >> Well, the the nomination holds. It's
[1:47:26] unanimous.
[1:47:28] Uh Jason, thank you very much for your
[1:47:31] willingness to be part of this process
[1:47:33] for another year.
[1:47:34] We are excited to uh to have your
[1:47:37] leadership again.
[1:47:40] >> Thank you. Thank you everybody for your
[1:47:41] support, too.
[1:47:42] >> Okay, the uh
[1:47:44] let's do the vice chair. I would open up
[1:47:46] uh entertain a
[1:47:48] uh motion to open that up.
[1:47:54] » I I'd like to make This is Brody. I'd
[1:47:55] like to make the proposal that we open
[1:47:57] up the nomination for vice chair.
[1:48:00] >> Okay, is there a second?
[1:48:01] >> I will second. Scott.
[1:48:03] >> Scott seconds. Quick roll call. Brett?
[1:48:06] >> Yes.
[1:48:08] >> Brody?
[1:48:09] >> Yes.
[1:48:10] >> Mike?
[1:48:10] >> Yes.
[1:48:11] >> Nicole?
[1:48:12] >> Yes.
[1:48:13] >> Sheriff Curtis?
[1:48:14] >> Yes.
[1:48:15] >> Scott?
[1:48:17] >> Yes.
[1:48:18] >> And Jason?
[1:48:19] >> Yes.
[1:48:20] >> It's unanimous. I will now open it up
[1:48:23] for nominations for vice chair.
[1:48:26] >> I nominate Brody.
[1:48:29] >> [laughter]
[1:48:32] » Brody, will you accept the nomination as
[1:48:34] vice chair?
[1:48:36] >> I I would accept that. Thank you.
[1:48:39] Definitely not chair.
[1:48:42] » Are there nominations for a second
[1:48:44] nomination?
[1:48:49] » I nominate This is Sheriff Curtis. I
[1:48:51] nominate we close nominations.
[1:48:54] >> There you go.
[1:48:56] Is there Is there a second?
[1:48:58] >> Motion. I'll second that.
[1:49:00] >> Do we need a second to the nomination at
[1:49:02] all?
[1:49:05] » Um let's do a quick second and then
[1:49:07] we'll go back to Sheriff Curtis's. Is
[1:49:09] there a second for Brody?
[1:49:13] >> Oh, I'll second, Brody.
[1:49:15] >> Okay, we got a second. Sheriff Curtis,
[1:49:17] did you have Did you want to follow up
[1:49:19] with your motion?
[1:49:20] >> Then I'll make the motion that
[1:49:22] nomination cease and we vote on
[1:49:25] Brody as the vice chair.
[1:49:29] >> Okay. Is there a second there?
[1:49:33] » I second that. That's the Scott.
[1:49:36] >> Okay. [snorts]
[1:49:37] Very good. So, let's go ahead and
[1:49:40] open it up for the vote on the vice
[1:49:42] chair of the OHV Council for the next
[1:49:45] year. We only have one um one applicant
[1:49:48] or one voted on and that's Brody. One
[1:49:53] Let's go down and do a quick roll call.
[1:49:56] Brett.
[1:49:57] >> Yes.
[1:49:59] >> Um I guess you can vote for yourself,
[1:50:02] Brody, if you want. Um
[1:50:05] >> Sure.
[1:50:07] Mike.
[1:50:08] >> Yes.
[1:50:09] >> Nicole.
[1:50:10] >> Yes.
[1:50:12] >> Sheriff Curtis.
[1:50:13] >> Yes.
[1:50:14] >> Scott Wheeler.
[1:50:16] >> Yeah.
[1:50:17] >> And Jason.
[1:50:19] >> You bet you.
[1:50:21] >> The vote is unanimous for Brody Johnson
[1:50:24] to be the vice chair of the OHV Council
[1:50:27] for the next year.
[1:50:29] >> Hey Wade, I have a question.
[1:50:32] Can any of the government officials that
[1:50:34] are on this council serve as a chair?
[1:50:38] >> No.
[1:50:42] » Um probably not federal government. It'd
[1:50:44] be a good question for Nicole to answer
[1:50:46] for our state folks like Nicole or Russ.
[1:50:50] I doubt they would want to because of
[1:50:51] their other roles they play. It could be
[1:50:53] a It could get into more of a conflict,
[1:50:56] but our federal partners, it's a
[1:50:58] definite no.
[1:51:02] » Yeah, so I don't think that there's any
[1:51:04] if if you're if you're also a state
[1:51:06] employee and you're on the council, I
[1:51:08] don't think there's a direct prohibition
[1:51:10] from you voting, but I do think that you
[1:51:13] need to very carefully take into account
[1:51:16] any types of conflict and stuff.
[1:51:21] » I would just say as a state employee, I really appreciate that outside people
[1:51:26] take on that role because I really do
[1:51:29] appreciate what they have to say and I
[1:51:30] listen very carefully when they talk.
[1:51:36] » Okay, very good. Uh
[1:51:39] Jason, the uh calendar's back to you.
[1:51:42] >> All right. Well, I'm going to kick it
[1:51:43] right back. So, item number seven is uh
[1:51:46] OHP program update from
[1:51:48] OHP program manager.
[1:51:49] >> just so we can get out of here on time.
[1:51:50] All of you have my cell number. You're
[1:51:51] welcome to call me after the meeting if
[1:51:51] you have any any follow-up questions
[1:51:52] that you want. I'll throw it out after
[1:51:53] tonight. I'm going to be kind of in and
[1:51:53] out of cell phone service for the next
[1:51:54] week on vacation, but do reach out to
[1:51:55] me. I'll I'll definitely call you back.
[1:51:56] First thing I wanted to talk about most
[1:51:56] of you have seen the audit. In fact, I I
[1:51:57] seen that there was a KSL article on it.
[1:51:58] Um I think the KSL article is a little
[1:51:59] bit misleading to to what the audit was,
[1:52:00] but nonetheless, it's it's out there.
[1:52:03] Um sent all of you out um
[1:52:06] a link
[1:52:08] to access the audit.
[1:52:10] Um and just just in a nutshell,
[1:52:14] uh really quick, the audit has asked
[1:52:16] that that we keep the council more
[1:52:19] involved,
[1:52:20] um and that we keep the council more
[1:52:22] involved on where money is being spent.
[1:52:26] The audit asked for
[1:52:29] us to take a look at
[1:52:32] snowmobiles um that there's
[1:53:05] uh deficiencies there in the snowmobile
[1:53:08] program to take a look at raising the
[1:53:11] snowmobile registration fees, which
[1:53:13] we've already been in the process
[1:53:15] on that as well. Um so, we're going to
[1:53:19] look at some legislation on that.
[1:53:21] Um
[1:53:23] the audit also talked a little bit about
[1:53:25] some
[1:53:26] um on our grants, and if you want to
[1:53:28] jump in, Rachel, just to to take a look
[1:53:30] at the grants and do a little bit more
[1:53:33] um verification and follow up on those.
[1:53:36] Um
[1:53:39] Did you want to jump in on that real
[1:53:40] quick, Rachel, or are you okay with
[1:53:42] that?
[1:53:49] » She's got to unmute first.
[1:54:00] » [clears throat]
[1:54:03] » So, that's in a nutshell. You guys are
[1:54:05] welcome to look at it. Um
[1:54:08] I I know several of you were interviewed
[1:54:11] by the uh by the auditors. Um you're
[1:54:14] welcome to to take a look at it, and you
[1:54:16] are welcome to call either Rachel or I
[1:54:19] and discuss those components of the
[1:54:20] audits that that we're dealing with. A
[1:54:22] lot of the things
[1:54:23] um we we have in place like being
[1:54:26] advised more of the financial. I think
[1:54:28] we started off a really good foot on
[1:54:29] that last November when we disposed um
[1:54:33] where all the money was being spent. And
[1:54:36] uh we're we're going to continue that
[1:54:37] every fall. So.
[1:54:39] Rachel, did you get up?
[1:54:42] Oh, she's she's left the call. Now she's
[1:54:44] back.
[1:54:45] >> Sorry, technical difficulties.
[1:54:48] Yeah, just for a second. Sorry, would
[1:54:51] not let me um
[1:54:53] do anything.
[1:54:54] So,
[1:54:55] yeah, real briefly to just to talk on
[1:54:57] the two notes. So, kind of what Wade was
[1:54:59] saying, this should be uh what you have.
[1:55:01] Our recommendations are at the very end
[1:55:03] of it. Um one of those was to have more
[1:55:07] in-person site visits. Uh we are in the
[1:55:11] process of
[1:55:13] assigning someone to the compliance
[1:55:15] position. Uh it's actually going to be
[1:55:17] someone that is internal. So, I'll be
[1:55:20] meeting with her tomorrow. Her name is
[1:55:21] Carolyn Wyler. I believe she might be on
[1:55:23] this call.
[1:55:25] Um Carolyn, if you are on this call,
[1:55:27] just
[1:55:28] >> Yeah, I'm on the call.
[1:55:30] >> Perfect. This is Carolyn. She's going to
[1:55:32] be our compliance person going forward.
[1:55:35] So, she'll be kind of I'll be working
[1:55:37] with her. She will be doing compliance
[1:55:39] for all of the grants. Uh but there will
[1:55:42] be
[1:55:43] um
[1:55:43] we're going to make sure that it's fair
[1:55:45] and that it's going to kind of be
[1:55:46] regional. Do you have anything to input
[1:55:48] or any input on that, Carolyn, real
[1:55:49] quickly?
[1:55:51] >> Nope, we're in the very beginning
[1:55:52] process of starting this all, but um I'm
[1:55:54] happy to kind of hear your conversation
[1:55:56] and get to know what you guys are
[1:55:57] talking about and the issues that you're
[1:55:58] raising. So, excited to work with you
[1:56:00] moving forward.
[1:56:01] >> Yeah. So, that was the recommendation
[1:56:03] 2.2. 2.1 is for more reporting. So, the
[1:56:08] biggest issue was reporting on marketing
[1:56:11] and reporting on education. So, I've
[1:56:14] kind of gone through and will be putting
[1:56:16] more
[1:56:18] questions, per se,
[1:56:20] for during progress reports and basing
[1:56:23] it off of their application that are
[1:56:24] going to be specialized for the specific
[1:56:27] categories. Right now, it's general. We
[1:56:29] just ask every applicant, regardless of
[1:56:31] what category they apply for,
[1:56:33] um some very basic questions. We're
[1:56:36] going to be going in and honing in on
[1:56:38] what those specific questions will be
[1:56:40] per category. So, as you guys could see,
[1:56:43] the recommendation-wise, I have very
[1:56:45] quick deadlines for these.
[1:56:47] Um so, for 2.1, that will be happening
[1:56:50] very soon. Um that are
[1:56:53] and I'll be making those changes soon.
[1:56:55] So, that is for me. Thank you, Wade.
[1:56:57] Appreciate it. Going to attempt to mute
[1:56:59] myself and hopefully unmute it if I need
[1:57:01] to.
[1:57:02] >> Thank you. And I'm sorry for being so
[1:57:04] brief on this, but guys, Rachel and I,
[1:57:07] you guys have our phone numbers. Call
[1:57:08] us.
[1:57:09] Uh Brett, you had a question?
[1:57:11] >> Yeah, a couple of things I wanted to hit
[1:57:13] on. Um
[1:57:15] I had a a good discussion with
[1:57:18] uh Jason Curry and Joel Ferry after the
[1:57:21] audit meeting.
[1:57:22] And I think it's been a concern that
[1:57:25] we're working on and it's getting much
[1:57:26] better.
[1:57:27] Um Jason agreed to
[1:57:30] any dollars that are spent over $10,000
[1:57:33] would be reviewed with the advisory
[1:57:35] council.
[1:57:37] Um I think Jason will agree with that
[1:57:39] and I think it's a good number.
[1:57:41] Um
[1:57:42] the other thing is my opinion of the
[1:57:45] KSL, I very seldom ever
[1:57:48] agree with the media, but I think it was
[1:57:52] pretty spot-on of my opinion. I mean,
[1:57:55] you have to dig deep into the audit to
[1:57:58] see what was really there, but I think
[1:58:00] they hit on some pretty good points of
[1:58:01] things that we need to work on.
[1:58:03] And then the other thing is Nicole was
[1:58:05] going to work on
[1:58:07] Attorney Nicole was going to work on
[1:58:09] um the no
[1:58:12] reciprocity for the street legal rule.
[1:58:15] Did you want to talk on that, Nicole, or
[1:58:21] » This is the rule change that I was
[1:58:22] >> So,
[1:58:23] I guess I should finish what I'm saying
[1:58:24] is I was going to run a bill because
[1:58:27] right now, if you're an out-of-state
[1:58:30] non-street legal, you have to buy the
[1:58:32] sticker, the $35 sticker. Well, it will
[1:58:35] be 35 um come July. Right now, I think
[1:58:38] it's 30. Anyway, if you're out-of-state
[1:58:40] non-street legal, you have to buy the
[1:58:42] sticker. The street legal, you do not
[1:58:45] have to to buy it.
[1:58:47] And what I found out when I went and
[1:58:50] helped on an event, uh the Moab Red Rock
[1:58:52] Rally, I was one of the guides and
[1:58:54] there's a lot of people. There is one
[1:58:56] huge group that was from California and
[1:58:59] they were buying South Dakota plates,
[1:59:01] and so
[1:59:02] they went through that process so that
[1:59:04] they didn't have to contribute to the
[1:59:06] ORV program in Utah. And there's
[1:59:09] actually some other issues with um
[1:59:12] actually he was a grant recipient and
[1:59:15] they licensed their vehicles in Montana.
[1:59:19] So, they don't have to contribute. So,
[1:59:21] after discussing with a lot of ORV
[1:59:24] users, we we decided to run a bill and
[1:59:27] we just wanted to get support from the
[1:59:29] advisory council rather than just my
[1:59:31] idea
[1:59:32] um to no more reciprocity for
[1:59:36] out-of-state street legal. We want them
[1:59:38] to buy a $35 sticker just like anybody
[1:59:41] else and that would go directly into the
[1:59:44] off-highway vehicle restricted fund
[1:59:46] account. So, those are the things that I
[1:59:49] wanted to hit on. Um
[1:59:52] maybe you could follow up on that,
[1:59:55] Nicole.
[1:59:56] >> Oh, I have I apologize. I just hadn't
[1:59:58] put two and two together that we were
[2:00:00] talking about the same thing, but um
[2:00:02] I've reviewed the statute and it looks
[2:00:05] like it's already in the statute that
[2:00:07] they have to buy the decal, so I I don't
[2:00:10] see it at that there's a um there's an
[2:00:14] issue, but I think that uh we need that
[2:00:16] what that where there is an issue is
[2:00:18] that the rule is a little bit
[2:00:20] inconsistent. So, I think quite frankly
[2:00:23] that it might be a lot easier um
[2:00:26] to move forward with instead of a
[2:00:28] statutory change on this issue to just
[2:00:30] change the rule cuz it's already in the
[2:00:32] statute that they have to buy the
[2:00:34] decals.
[2:00:35] >> Much much easier and I forgot to think
[2:00:39] that that could be an option.
[2:00:41] >> Yeah.
[2:00:42] >> Do we know where it crossed the line
[2:00:43] with um
[2:00:45] motorcycles because motorcycles
[2:00:48] there is a range
[2:00:50] of what is a street bike versus what is
[2:00:52] an OHV.
[2:00:54] And
[2:00:54] >> It's been
[2:00:55] further operating.
[2:00:57] It's been clarified that if you're and
[2:00:59] Wade can hit on this, if you're a street
[2:01:01] legal
[2:01:02] off-highway vehicle motorcycle,
[2:01:05] then you're the same category as a type
[2:01:07] one, two, or three, which is ATV, UTV,
[2:01:10] um or the Jeeps that are type three. So,
[2:01:13] a motor motorcycle falls in the same
[2:01:15] category. So, if they're street legal
[2:01:18] off-highway vehicle,
[2:01:20] then they would have to pay the
[2:01:21] out-of-state sticker. If they're street
[2:01:22] legal, just like a Harley Davidson or
[2:01:25] whatever,
[2:01:26] they're not
[2:01:27] uh required to pay. So, if you buy your
[2:01:30] uh street legal from the dealer,
[2:01:32] and it is from the factory street legal,
[2:01:35] you would not be required to get an
[2:01:37] off-highway vehicle sticker.
[2:01:40] So, that was clarified last year in
[2:01:41] session, I believe.
[2:01:43] >> Okay.
[2:01:44] >> So, we're just The only thing The only
[2:01:46] ones this will affect is out-of-state
[2:01:48] street legal
[2:01:50] will now be required to buy an
[2:01:52] out-of-state sticker. And there was one
[2:01:55] other thing that was in the existing
[2:01:57] rule
[2:01:58] that they were asking to prove that you
[2:02:00] was an out-of-state person, which no
[2:02:03] longer is needed because a lot of them
[2:02:06] were registered out-of-state. It was
[2:02:07] $30, yet they were charged $35 in-state.
[2:02:11] So, I think that needs to be struck out
[2:02:14] of the language, and Rachel's familiar
[2:02:16] with that, I believe.
[2:02:18] So, this will only affect out-of-state
[2:02:20] street legal. That's it. And Arizona
[2:02:21] does the same, so when we did the big
[2:02:23] ride this year, I believe Wade had to
[2:02:25] work with Arizona
[2:02:27] OHV program because we actually rode
[2:02:30] into Arizona just for a minute and then
[2:02:33] back out again.
[2:02:34] If if not, if he wouldn't have worked
[2:02:36] that out, we would have had to have buy
[2:02:38] an out-of-state sticker. So, we're not
[2:02:40] the only ones.
[2:02:42] So, we're just getting rid of the uh
[2:02:45] res- reciprocity.
[2:02:47] That's all we're doing.
[2:02:48] And we would like to
[2:02:51] get your opinion of do you support it as
[2:02:53] the advisor or counselor cuz it's
[2:02:55] important that your opinion
[2:02:58] is heard.
[2:02:59] >> Uh Brad, are you asking I have a dirt
[2:03:02] bike that I've made street legal, okay?
[2:03:05] >> Okay.
[2:03:06] >> The taxes I pay on it are almost as much
[2:03:09] as I pay on my pickup truck. Uh the
[2:03:11] taxes are It's like twice as much as uh
[2:03:14] the registration for my dirt bike. Uh
[2:03:16] are you saying that my street legal dirt
[2:03:19] bike that I have a license plate on it
[2:03:21] that I can drive around
[2:03:23] Are you wanting me to buy an off-road
[2:03:26] permit for it also?
[2:03:28] >> No, because when you license your street
[2:03:30] legal, you're paying for off-highway
[2:03:31] vehicle and street.
[2:03:33] >> Okay.
[2:03:33] >> But I've never seen anything over $112.
[2:03:36] At one time it was over the cost of my
[2:03:38] pickup, and that was like $200 a year,
[2:03:40] and we fixed that. So, the most I've
[2:03:42] ever heard anybody pay now the way it
[2:03:44] sets is $112 or less.
[2:03:47] Um but no, this is related to only out
[2:03:50] of state.
[2:03:50] >> Okay. Okay.
[2:03:51] >> And and it's really
[2:03:53] >> My bike is $95 for my 2014 350 dirt
[2:03:57] bike.
[2:03:58] >> Yeah. Nope, this will affect nobody in
[2:04:00] the state of Utah.
[2:04:03] There's it It's sad that these people
[2:04:05] can't even
[2:04:06] And this is just my opinion,
[2:04:08] but it's kind of I own a car wash, and I see all these
[2:04:12] people with these Montana plates, and I
[2:04:14] was really frustrated. I mean, I didn't
[2:04:15] really say much to them. They were a
[2:04:17] customer. But it's like you're too cheap
[2:04:19] to even donate $35 a year. I mean,
[2:04:22] people go to Laguna to spend $100 a day,
[2:04:24] and they can't you know, and this money
[2:04:26] will go into the restricted account. So,
[2:04:28] this non-motor non-street legal already
[2:04:31] paid, this will just be for street legal
[2:04:33] out of state.
[2:04:35] >> So, just real quickly, I'm going to just
[2:04:36] hop in here to sum this up because um it
[2:04:39] is I've talked with DOR about it and
[2:04:42] this is a really simple rule change on
[2:04:44] our part and I think trying to talk
[2:04:47] about it um without seeing the new
[2:04:50] language might be a little bit more
[2:04:51] challenging. So, I would just like to
[2:04:53] suggest that maybe you guys let us just
[2:04:56] get the draft get the draft rule and
[2:04:59] that way you can have something concrete
[2:05:01] to talk about um just so that
[2:05:03] everybody's 100% on the same page about
[2:05:05] what we are and are not talking about. I
[2:05:07] think it's much easier with the statute
[2:05:09] and the rule in front of us to do that.
[2:05:11] That's just a polite suggestion from my
[2:05:13] part.
[2:05:14] >> I like that, but if there is a question
[2:05:16] now at I I'd love to hear it.
[2:05:18] >> Well,
[2:05:19] we're also going to be sending it out
[2:05:22] and kind of getting the feedback that
[2:05:24] way.
[2:05:25] So, I mean
[2:05:27] >> Okay, who?
[2:05:28] >> questions. It's just
[2:05:31] >> Okay, who?
[2:05:32] >> The advisory council.
[2:05:34] >> Oh, okay. Yeah.
[2:05:35] >> Yeah, we'll be sending an email with it
[2:05:37] all. That's where we're going to have
[2:05:38] that
[2:05:39] discussion. Just to make it so that
[2:05:41] because this was decided, you know, we
[2:05:42] talked with our attorney Nicole
[2:05:44] yesterday regarding this. So, we don't
[2:05:46] want to get put the horse in front of
[2:05:48] the cart.
[2:05:49] >> And and I just want to add to this that
[2:05:51] it's so important that the advisory
[2:05:52] council reviews whether it's policy or
[2:05:55] dollar spend.
[2:05:56] And I have all the respect in the world
[2:05:58] for you and all the trust in the world.
[2:06:00] So, thank you for doing what you do. I
[2:06:02] know you're all volunteers, but I fight
[2:06:04] my guts out to bring things to come
[2:06:07] across the desk cuz you represent the
[2:06:09] OHV community users. So, thank you.
[2:06:14] >> Thanks, Brett.
[2:06:16] Wade, did you have anything else?
[2:06:21] You're on mute.
[2:06:22] >> You're unmuted.
[2:06:25] » Yeah, a couple other things, Jason, real
[2:06:27] quick. The heavy equipment crew, um we have anything definite on that and
[2:06:31] I'll be advising the the the council
[2:06:34] more on that. Um there's some other
[2:06:36] things in the work I've discussed with
[2:06:37] some of you,
[2:06:38] but apparently it's we won't be
[2:06:40] discussing it now. We'll discuss it in
[2:06:43] the future date. Um
[2:06:46] there's also many of you seen stuff on
[2:06:48] the High Desert Trail. I hope you guys
[2:06:50] commented on that. Um
[2:06:53] that was great. Um
[2:06:55] It's been a long time coming, and uh
[2:06:58] it's been a long process for a lot of
[2:07:00] DOR staff that really stepped up and
[2:07:02] took care of that. We're also talking
[2:07:04] about um a couple of positions. One is a
[2:07:07] volunteer coordinator, and this has uh a
[2:07:10] high value to the department to get
[2:07:12] somebody in there that can help um
[2:07:14] coordinate volunteer projects, and maybe
[2:07:17] even go as far to have like a volunteer
[2:07:20] program where we can certify volunteers
[2:07:23] on chainsaws and and uh trail
[2:07:27] maintenance and trail tread repair. Kind
[2:07:30] of going down that road, um and I'll
[2:07:32] keep you posted on that, but that's a
[2:07:34] very important um position to the
[2:07:37] council.
[2:07:38] And we've also talked um I've got
[2:07:40] approval for the council to possibly
[2:07:42] hire a couple of seasonal workers to
[2:07:45] work on single track. You guys voted in
[2:07:47] favor of that last year. I just kind of
[2:07:50] wanted to refresh your memory on that.
[2:07:53] we're trying to look forward to maybe
[2:07:55] doing something with that, too. If any
[2:07:56] of you have any concerns on that, let me
[2:07:59] know, but we've talked about that quite
[2:08:01] extensively. Um also side-by-sides,
[2:08:05] um I would like to have more discussion
[2:08:07] with the council on helmets and seat
[2:08:10] belts on side by on side-by-sides.
[2:08:13] Um
[2:08:14] most of you have probably read the news
[2:08:16] of of deaths this last weekend in
[2:08:18] Parowan.
[2:08:20] Um
[2:08:21] anyway, we need to talk about uh helmets
[2:08:23] and side-by-sides. I'm not going to take
[2:08:25] up your time here, but I'd like you, if
[2:08:27] you could on your own, please review the
[2:08:29] Arizona statute on side-by-side and
[2:08:32] helmets.
[2:08:33] Um, I think they
[2:08:35] out of all the ones I've studied, I
[2:08:37] think they're probably the one I like
[2:08:39] the most.
[2:08:40] Um,
[2:08:42] it's just it's just it's just
[2:08:44] I just cannot understand on how we can
[2:08:47] let um, our youth in a side-by-side
[2:08:50] without a helmet or a seatbelt. Um, it
[2:08:53] just does not make any sense to me at
[2:08:55] all.
[2:08:56] But, we'll need your support if we want
[2:08:58] to move forward with a with a
[2:09:00] legislation that's similar to an ATV.
[2:09:03] Um, Brett, you covered yours that you
[2:09:06] wanted to talk about.
[2:09:08] Um,
[2:09:12] Nicole, did you have something you
[2:09:14] wanted to chat with on um, grammar?
[2:09:17] >> Yes, I
[2:09:18] >> Nicole,
[2:09:19] >> Thank you so much and I apologize. I
[2:09:21] know we're over and so I'm going to keep
[2:09:23] this super quick, but I just wanted to
[2:09:25] let you guys know that um, we have
[2:09:28] received a couple grammar requests that
[2:09:31] involve um, the OHV program and stuff
[2:09:34] and the reason why I'm bringing this to
[2:09:37] your attention is because the entity
[2:09:39] that is requesting it is in active
[2:09:42] litigation with the state and it's very
[2:09:44] contentious litigation and so um,
[2:09:48] we are going to be handling it the same
[2:09:51] way that we usually handle it with, you
[2:09:54] know, and and under the the rules of
[2:09:56] grammar and everything, but um, because
[2:09:59] we are in active litigation, I think
[2:10:01] it's really really important that we do
[2:10:03] a couple things. One thing is is just
[2:10:07] um, you know, uh,
[2:10:10] let's be let's be very very careful that
[2:10:12] we don't unintentionally
[2:10:15] violate any kind of court orders that
[2:10:18] may be existing in the case and so we
[2:10:21] are going to coordinate with Tess Davis,
[2:10:23] who's doing the RS277 litigation on
[2:10:26] behalf of Flipco, and run everything
[2:10:28] through her. If you get questions,
[2:10:31] though, that relate to a grandma um from
[2:10:34] the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, I would very much appreciate it if you
[2:10:39] could bring those to Tess and I so that
[2:10:42] we can just make sure that again that we
[2:10:44] are not unintentionally violating any
[2:10:46] court orders. This is very complex
[2:10:49] litigation and very contentious
[2:10:51] litigation, and I just want to make
[2:10:54] absolutely sure that we don't get
[2:10:56] ourselves in trouble because we don't
[2:10:59] realize um
[2:11:00] exactly what what the dynamic is, and I
[2:11:03] am not the expert on this litigation at
[2:11:06] all, so that's why we're going to bring
[2:11:07] in the other attorney, Tess Davis, okay?
[2:11:12] >> Sounds good. Thank you, Nicole.
[2:11:14] Rachel, you needed a sec real quick um
[2:11:17] to talk about the survey.
[2:11:19] >> Yeah. So, tomorrow at 8:00 a.m.,
[2:11:22] everyone will have an email from me. It
[2:11:24] will include a survey as well as fiscal
[2:11:27] year 2026 overview of the over grant.
[2:11:31] So, the survey uh
[2:11:33] please please take that. It and give us
[2:11:36] your honest feedback. It's the only way
[2:11:37] that we can really help improve the
[2:11:39] advisory council and what we're doing,
[2:11:42] as well as the grant itself, what's
[2:11:43] working, what's not working. So, please,
[2:11:45] if you do have the opportunity and the
[2:11:47] time to take it, please do. And then,
[2:11:49] just real quickly, the overview um you
[2:11:52] can see for fiscal year 2026, and you
[2:11:54] can compare it to our last year
[2:11:56] um that was sent out as well. So, you'll
[2:11:58] see that email from me tomorrow.
[2:12:01] Thank you.
[2:12:02] >> I got one other thing. Um Todd, you'd
[2:12:05] like to jump in for 1 sec.
[2:12:08] >> Sure, thanks for your time. Uh my name's
[2:12:11] Todd Royce. I'm the law enforcement uh
[2:12:13] chief or the division director of the
[2:12:15] Division of Law Enforcement. I
[2:12:16] appreciate what you guys do and the time
[2:12:18] that you guys spend on all of these
[2:12:20] subjects. Um
[2:12:22] in talking with Jason Curry and and some
[2:12:24] of my staff members, I felt it important
[2:12:27] that we spend a little bit more time
[2:12:29] with uh
[2:12:30] this advisory council. And and and if
[2:12:33] it's okay with with the the council, uh
[2:12:36] we would like to come and report
[2:12:38] periodically on the law enforcement
[2:12:40] efforts that's being done uh across the
[2:12:43] state and take uh a short amount of time
[2:12:45] to just
[2:12:46] um
[2:12:47] to go over that and answer any questions
[2:12:50] if that's okay. I just wanted to put that out there and and maybe get
[2:12:55] it on the agenda for one of these
[2:12:56] upcoming meetings.
[2:13:01] » Excellent. Thanks, Todd.
[2:13:03] >> That's that's all I got. And again,
[2:13:05] council, if any of you want to call me
[2:13:07] up, I'm headed through the canyon. Give
[2:13:09] me an hour and I'll be back in cell
[2:13:11] phone. I'd love to follow up with if you
[2:13:13] had any of you have any questions.
[2:13:18] » Okay, thank you, Wade. Appreciate your
[2:13:20] efforts and your time. And thank you for
[2:13:22] your reports and your emails, too.
[2:13:24] That is very helpful. So
[2:13:28] Um
[2:13:29] Okay, [clears throat] we I I think we're
[2:13:31] out of time for public comment, so
[2:13:35] um
[2:13:36] and I don't see any other members of the
[2:13:37] public here other than what we've
[2:13:39] already included.
[2:13:41] Uh
[2:13:42] Rachel, you've got your hand up.
[2:13:44] >> Yep. Mr. Chair, Jason. Just
[2:13:47] [clears throat] a couple of things I
[2:13:47] wanted to mention really briefly before
[2:13:49] we conclude here.
[2:13:52] » Go ahead.
[2:13:53] >> Um so first of all, thank you for uh
[2:13:55] accepting another term as chair. We
[2:13:57] appreciate that. And uh just appreciate
[2:14:00] the council overall. Um
[2:14:02] last month, I was asked to come and
[2:14:04] provide testimony at the legislature as
[2:14:06] they can as they consider sunsets. And a
[2:14:09] sunset means that there will be, you
[2:14:11] know, a a an end date to some provision
[2:14:13] of the law. So, the advisory council is
[2:14:16] scheduled to sunset in 2027, meaning it
[2:14:18] will go away out of law.
[2:14:20] So, uh they asked me to come and um and
[2:14:23] give my thoughts on um if it should be
[2:14:25] sunsetted or or not. And um
[2:14:28] obviously I uh I
[2:14:30] testified to the fact that this is a a
[2:14:32] very valuable group that we um could not
[2:14:35] do our work without you.
[2:14:37] Um I would I would encourage you to go
[2:14:40] and listen to it. I sent a a link to
[2:14:41] Jason um so he could see it or listen to
[2:14:44] it. Um so just just underscore the value
[2:14:48] of this group and the communication.
[2:14:50] Talking about the the audit, that was
[2:14:52] the main main recommendation in the
[2:14:53] audit is that is that our communication
[2:14:55] with the advisory council um
[2:14:57] was not adequate in the past. And um and
[2:14:59] what we've been doing so far we'll
[2:15:01] continue to to do in the future. Um
[2:15:03] we're
[2:15:04] we we welcome any amount of information
[2:15:07] that the council or that the uh
[2:15:09] um you know, the council wants. And um
[2:15:12] so just just make sure that as we enter
[2:15:15] into the next legislative session, there
[2:15:17] are building blocks that we will be
[2:15:18] requesting. Wade already hit on on those
[2:15:21] with a couple of of employees that will
[2:15:23] be um operating in a um a compliance way
[2:15:27] and in a um
[2:15:28] trail uh single track way and then also
[2:15:30] in a um an education
[2:15:34] position or two. So, um as we get closer
[2:15:36] to those dates, we want to make sure
[2:15:37] we're sharing all those with you and get
[2:15:38] your your feedback on on
[2:15:41] those requests.
[2:15:46] » Thank you, Jason. And thank you for uh
[2:15:48] um standing up for our council, too. Uh
[2:15:50] we
[2:15:51] all are very passionate about being on
[2:15:53] this. And
[2:15:54] um we are grateful for the opportunity
[2:15:57] to be involved in how our registration
[2:15:59] dollars are handled.
[2:16:01] So, thank you.
[2:16:03] Um
[2:16:04] Okay, moving on. Uh we're I think we're
[2:16:07] pretty well done. We do have public
[2:16:09] comment, but I think we're over time.
[2:16:11] So, we'll we'll negate that this time.
[2:16:14] Um I'll accept a motion to adjourn.
[2:16:19] >> This is Brody. I make a motion to
[2:16:21] adjourn the meeting.
[2:16:22] >> I'll second that.
[2:16:25] >> Motion made by Brody, seconded by Mike.
[2:16:27] We are adjourned. Thank you, everybody
[2:16:29] for your time.
[2:16:30] >> Thanks, everybody.
[2:16:31] >> Thank you.
[2:16:33] >> I'll
[2:16:34] >> Thank you,
[2:16:35] they said