[1:06] Oh, good afternoon. I'd like to call

[1:08] this meeting on April 7th for the Grand

[1:10] County Commission

[1:12] of Semon meeting to order at 402

[1:16] and I Trisha Dean Kyla Hadler, Brian

[1:20] Martinez, Ma Mcan, Michael McCertie,

[1:22] Bill Linkale, myself, Melody McCandless,

[1:25] we have our county attorney Stephen S,

[1:27] our county administrator, Art Tiner, and

[1:30] our clerk auditor Vortekch in attendance

[1:32] with also Adam um administrative

[1:35] assistant Quinn

[1:37] Penny and and Dana in the back. So, I do

[1:40] want to remind you all that we will have

[1:43] the citizens to be heard, but that will

[1:45] not be for the public comment. So, the

[1:47] or the um the hearing. So, we have two

[1:49] hearings this evening and they will both

[1:51] start after 6 and that's when you'll be

[1:54] able to comment on on that. So, but we

[1:56] will have citizens to be heard. And if

[1:58] you'll join me in the pledge of

[1:59] allegiance.

[2:03] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[2:06] United States of America and to the

[2:08] republic for which it stands. One nation

[2:11] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[2:14] justice for all.

[2:19] » And I do want to remind the

[2:21] commissioners to use their mics so

[2:23] everybody in the audience can hear. And

[2:24] then I also want to remind the audience

[2:26] to use the mic. So there's a mic on this

[2:28] stand here and there's also a mic on

[2:30] this table. And that way everyone in the

[2:32] audience can hear you as well. And is

[2:35] who would like to go first?

[2:38] Anyone [snorts] here for just the

[2:39] regular citizens to be heard?

[2:43] >> Go ahead. Jim, come on. State your name.

[2:46] >> Okay. My name is Jim Webster and uh I am

[2:51] going to speak to the timed entry uh for

[2:54] just a couple of minutes. And uh some of

[2:56] you might know that I worked and

[2:59] actually lived in Arches National Park

[3:00] for 10 years and was the chief ranger.

[3:04] And uh we uh it was very different then

[3:09] in the '9s and the mid 2000s than it is

[3:12] now. But nonetheless problem still

[3:14] exists. But I I wanted to point out uh

[3:18] got a couple other people here are going

[3:20] to speak to this, but I wanted to bring

[3:24] uh probably everybody's attention to a

[3:28] little survey that Utah State University

[3:30] did in 202.2

[3:33] uh after the first year of timed entry.

[3:36] Uh my experience at Arches was a short

[3:40] entrance road and then we built that

[3:42] longer one in order to

[3:45] accommodate many, many, many more

[3:47] vehicles. So, they didn't come out onto

[3:50] the highway, but of course, they still

[3:53] come out onto the highway. Uh and that

[3:57] the year before time entry started,

[4:00] there were

[4:03] 140 times during the busy season that either troopers or park rangers or

[4:09] both had to close the highway entrance

[4:13] until the line could go into the park

[4:18] 140 times between the 1 of April and the

[4:21] end of October. that is that is very

[4:24] difficult and timed entry fixed that

[4:27] problem for the years uh that uh that

[4:32] followed that that closure. So uh 80 and

[4:37] so this went back to the Utah state

[4:39] survey. They surveyed about 500 people

[4:43] and 89%

[4:45] of the people successfully

[4:48] uh got a timed entry and 98% of those

[4:53] people were able to enter on their

[4:55] selected day. So that was very

[4:58] successful.

[4:59] Uh the 84% of those responding who would

[5:06] experience the time entry said they

[5:08] would like to have a reservation in

[5:09] place system in place like what they

[5:12] just experienced. And uh 78% of those

[5:16] visitors that were surveyed that had a

[5:21] timed entry were aware of that system

[5:23] before they even arrived in the area. So

[5:26] the park service was able to get that

[5:28] word out and uh that's a good thing. So

[5:33] most of the people that uh expressed an

[5:36] opin opinion about the system they liked

[5:39] it

[5:41] uh and 88% of the people said they had

[5:45] no impacts to their experience because

[5:47] of time entry. So, uh

[5:52] I believe that

[5:54] for whatever reason the time entry was

[5:56] pulled here, uh that was in my opinion a

[6:00] mistake and it should be reinstituted

[6:04] until something some other positive plan

[6:08] for accommodating

[6:10] the million and a half people that come

[6:12] into this park uh are able to,

[6:17] you know, see see how uh we can do it.

[6:21] But but I think that we're going to go

[6:23] back to the same experience that

[6:26] occurred dur the year prior to timed

[6:29] entry which is you're going to have so

[6:32] many people coming in. You're going to

[6:33] end up closing the highway, closing the

[6:36] road, going into the park at the high

[6:38] entrance. People are going to come up

[6:41] and they're going to get flagged on,

[6:42] waved on. You know, you can't you can't

[6:45] even turn in here. I can't even turn

[6:47] around here. You've got to go up to

[6:49] brands to turn around or

[6:52] however they will need to do that.

[6:55] >> Thank you.

[6:55] Jim.

[6:58] >> All right, come on up.

[7:05] » I like standing. I don't know why. Uh my

[7:08] name is Carrie Dabney and I'm here on

[7:09] behalf of Walt Dabney who would be here

[7:12] except he's floating the Grand Canyon.

[7:14] Um, so he wanted me to read into the

[7:16] record a letter to the the commissioners

[7:18] and I've got a signed copy uh leave with

[7:22] you all. Anyway, here's his letter. Dear

[7:25] Grand County Commissioners, the issue of

[7:27] overcrowding at Arches and how to help

[7:29] visitors plan their trip, enter the

[7:31] park, find parking, and actually enjoy

[7:33] their experience remains unresolved. The

[7:36] timed entry system that was previously

[7:38] in place worked. It allowed visitors to

[7:40] plan ahead, spend time elsewhere in the

[7:43] area, and arrive at a reserved time to

[7:45] experience the park without overwhelming

[7:46] congestion. Its removal, for political

[7:49] reasons, has brought back long entrance

[7:51] lines and full parking lots, conditions

[7:53] anyone can observe today. During my

[7:56] eight years in the 1990s as general

[7:57] superintendent for the Southeast Utah

[7:59] Group, we were already grappling with

[8:01] these same challenges. We expanded

[8:03] parking, improved and hardened trails,

[8:05] and paved the road to Delicate Arch.

[8:07] These efforts helped, but they did not

[8:09] eliminate crowding. Visitors would still

[8:11] come to my office frustrated about long

[8:13] waits and lack of parking. And their

[8:15] most common suggestion was simple. Just

[8:18] get some buses. A shuttle system,

[8:20] possibly combined with a bike lane, may

[8:22] indeed be part of a long-term solution,

[8:25] but it is far more complex than it

[8:27] sounds. The logistics are significant

[8:29] and the costs are substantial. Key

[8:32] questions must be addressed. Would

[8:33] private vehicles be eliminated entirely

[8:35] as they are in Zion or allowed in

[8:37] limited numbers? Would an entrance lane

[8:39] be dedicated to shuttles? If shuttles

[8:42] and private vehicles are mixed,

[8:43] congestion could worsen, not improve.

[8:46] Then there are operational realities.

[8:48] How many buses are needed every day of

[8:50] the week? How many drivers and where

[8:51] will they live? Where will visitors park

[8:54] to access the system? Where will buses

[8:56] be stored, maintained, and repaired, and

[8:59] by whom? Visitor safety is another

[9:01] critical concern. In summer heat that

[9:03] reaches 110°, shuttle stops would

[9:06] require shade, water, and possibly

[9:09] restrooms. From my experience at the

[9:11] south rim of the Grand Canyon, shuttle

[9:13] systems are often used as sightseeing

[9:15] rides, not just transportation. This can

[9:18] lead to long waits as full buses pass

[9:20] by. I've personally experienced

[9:22] situations where multiple full buses

[9:24] forced our group to split up just to get

[9:26] back. conditions that raise real safety

[9:28] concerns for a variety of reasons. In

[9:31] short, the shuttle system is not a great

[9:33] fix. It requires careful planning.

[9:35] Infrastruct is not a quick fix. It

[9:38] requires careful planning,

[9:39] infrastructure, staffing, and most

[9:41] importantly, sustained funding. The

[9:44] concept has been studied before, but

[9:45] never funded. If there's serious

[9:47] interest in pursuing a shuttle system,

[9:50] the effort must focus on securing

[9:51] congressional appropriations. The

[9:53] National Park Service cannot lobby for

[9:55] funding. That responsibility lies with

[9:57] citizens and elected officials,

[10:00] including Utah's congressional

[10:01] delegation. This approach has worked

[10:03] before, as seen when Senator Bob Bennett

[10:05] helped secure funding for the Arches

[10:07] Visitor Center. Until such a system is

[10:09] fully planned and funded, the most

[10:11] effective immediate step is clear.

[10:14] Reinstate the timed entry system. It is

[10:16] a proven tool that reduces congestion,

[10:19] improves visitor experience, and helps

[10:21] protect the park. Sincerely, welcome.

[10:24] Thank you. Okay.

[10:26] >> Thank you.

[10:28] >> Come on up, Dave. [clears throat]

[10:35] » My name is Dave Bodner. I'm going to

[10:37] cover some of the things Carrie covered,

[10:40] but speaking directly to you, Mr.

[10:42] Martinez, I don't know who you're

[10:44] working with upstate, but this so-called

[10:47] ACE plan is the work of people who want

[10:50] the state to take control of the federal

[10:52] lands in Utah. Now that you're

[10:54] unemployed, you have even more time to

[10:56] work against the citizens of Grand

[10:57] County. You were elected to represent

[11:00] the citizens of Grand County. You were

[11:03] not elected to be the superintendent of

[11:05] Arches National Park. I've seen your

[11:08] Facebook pace with a post with a little

[11:10] bus icon and find it to be ridiculous.

[11:13] How many buses will it take to pull this

[11:15] off? At least two or three on each of

[11:18] the five routes. Where will they be

[11:20] stored at night? How many mechanics will

[11:22] it take to maintain them? You want a hub

[11:25] at Balance Rock, but since there will be

[11:27] waiting time for the next bus, there

[11:29] will need to be bathrooms, running

[11:32] water, shade, and rain structures.

[11:34] Creating these will cost hundreds of

[11:37] thousands of dollars, if not more. And

[11:39] there will be massive crowds at these

[11:42] locations, which you can check with Zion

[11:44] Park and find [clears throat] out that is the case. When the trails are

[11:48] all interconnected, will there be a

[11:51] trail patrol, like a ski patrol

[11:54] at the ski resorts to sweep the trails

[11:56] every evening, make sure nobody

[11:57] [clears throat] gets left out there? If

[11:59] you miss the last bus, do you have to

[12:01] walk out? What are the hours of

[12:03] operation? On the desk, 9 to5. You call

[12:07] for a bicycle trail that goes through a

[12:09] sandy wash flash. So, your gravel trail

[12:13] will get washed away. And you expect the

[12:16] bike people when they get to the hub to

[12:18] get on the buses. I don't think they'll

[12:20] do that. And I think they're going to

[12:22] ride out the main exit and not go back

[12:25] on the gravel trail. Um,

[12:29] this past week has shown that not having

[12:32] time entry causes massive problems. Long

[12:35] lines and no place to park once you get

[12:37] enough parking. It's time to let the

[12:39] park be managed by the park service.

[12:42] Thanks for your time.

[12:48] Thank you, Mary.

[12:54] » Mary O'Brien, Castle Valley. I believe

[12:57] the following epitomizes the entire

[13:00] attack on Arches National Parks approach

[13:02] to transportation and non-impairment of

[13:06] resources. At the February 3rd

[13:08] commission meeting, approval of the

[13:10] Gardener Institute's request to extend

[13:12] [clears throat] the deadline for their

[13:13] timed entry report to April 30th was on

[13:16] the agenda. Commissioner Hadler

[13:18] supported that, but proposed an

[13:21] amendment that would include Commission

[13:22] Administrator Tiner as a point of

[13:25] contact along with Mr. Winfield who had

[13:27] been the point of contact and who had

[13:30] been meeting monthly with Gardner

[13:32] Institute along with Commissioner

[13:34] Martinez. We only learned Mr. Martinez

[13:37] was at the meetings through a grammar

[13:38] request. Winfield opposed Hadler's

[13:41] amendment to the contract, implying it

[13:44] wasn't needed. He said, "Do I quote, "Do

[13:47] I have a problem with the commission

[13:49] administrator being a point of contact

[13:51] with me? I have no problem with that."

[13:54] End quote. And with Winfield's verbal

[13:57] implication that Tiner would also be a

[13:59] point of contact, four commissioners

[14:01] passed the report deadline extension.

[14:04] three didn't trust that. A week later,

[14:07] February 11th, administrator Tinerailed

[14:10] emailed to all commissioners that he had

[14:12] informed Gardner Institute that he would

[14:14] be a second point of contact. However,

[14:17] as we found out only through a grammar

[14:20] request on February 23rd, Bill Winfield

[14:23] a emailed to the Gardener Institute and

[14:26] Tiner and CC two commissioners

[14:30] McCannless and Martinez but excluded

[14:33] commissioners Mccertie, Hadler, McCann

[14:36] or Hadine the following quote. As the

[14:39] point person for this study with the

[14:41] Chem Gardner Institute, I want to make

[14:44] it very clear that there should be no

[14:46] information released to anyone other

[14:48] than myself. I am overseeing this

[14:51] project for Grand County and have been

[14:53] from day one. No one other than myself

[14:56] is authorized to receive information

[14:59] regarding this project. Please make it

[15:01] very clear to everyone at the gu

[15:04] gardener institute that I'm the only one

[15:07] that will be requesting information and

[15:10] the only person authorized to do so by

[15:13] grand county commission.

[15:16] So we're to trust Bill's report on the

[15:18] gardener process tonight.

[15:20] trust his report regarding what all he

[15:23] and Brian Martinez pushed for in DC

[15:26] [clears throat] or whether a shuttle

[15:28] plan against Arches National Park will

[15:30] be a product of anyone other than Bill

[15:33] and Brian and Melody.

[15:36] Thank you.

[15:41] Like to speak.

[15:43] I'll get her and then you

[15:46] first.

[15:52] » Hello. Uh my name is Crystal Music. I

[15:56] have lived in Moab off and on for about

[15:58] 10 years. I recently moved away for two

[16:01] years to California and recently came

[16:04] back for a visit. So, I wanted to point

[16:07] out some good things I've seen. Uh, it

[16:09] was great to see the new playground in

[16:12] um, Swany Park. There has been a lot of

[16:16] housing, especially over Mil Creek Drive

[16:18] that looks like all different types of

[16:20] units. Definitely looks like a mix of

[16:24] housing development. Um, like I also

[16:28] enjoyed seeing the new trash cans,

[16:31] something I advocated for. [laughter]

[16:33] Um, it's nice to hear that this police

[16:36] staff has been um, adequately staffed. I

[16:40] still follow the news in Moab even

[16:41] though I wasn't living here anymore. Um,

[16:44] some bad things that I also saw was the

[16:47] increase in development. Um, that's

[16:49] bound to happen. Growth will happen. Um,

[16:53] I don't know what's going to be

[16:54] affordable. I don't know if there's any

[16:56] senior housing in the future plans.

[16:59] >> [clears throat]

[17:00] >> Um it still is a very very noisy town

[17:03] and place to live that I think affects

[17:05] every um person that lives here in town.

[17:10] It's not bicycle friendly at all. So I

[17:13] think that's an improvement that can be

[17:14] done in the county. Um could be a better

[17:19] diversified economy. Many of my friends

[17:21] that still live and work here work two

[17:24] or three jobs with no benefits, no

[17:26] healthcare, nothing. Um, we just need

[17:29] better jobs, better paying jobs, and

[17:32] then the people can have a good quality

[17:34] of life. Um,

[17:38] I just want to remind you why national

[17:40] parks were created. Created for the

[17:42] resource to protect those very special

[17:46] places.

[17:48] Um,

[17:49] more people doesn't always necessarily

[17:52] mean good for the land.

[17:57] And

[17:59] I just want to, you know, think about

[18:01] the people that live here in their

[18:02] day-to-day life and the decisions that

[18:04] the county makes. Um, there's a lot of

[18:07] outside people that come here. Um, Moab

[18:10] is basically industrial tourism in a

[18:12] town based on greed, but there's a lot

[18:14] of people here that love it for it being

[18:18] quiet and peaceful in the outdoor

[18:19] recreation. And we love visitors, but

[18:22] there is a point when you are going to

[18:25] go beyond that. Thank you.

[18:28] >> Thank you. Okay, come on up, Pete.

[18:32] [clears throat]

[18:36] » My name is Pete Gross. I'd like to echo

[18:39] the sentiments of all the previous

[18:41] speakers. I agree with all of them

[18:42] wholeheartedly. I have a lot to say

[18:44] about and I don't know if I could fit it

[18:46] all in the public hearing point or if I

[18:48] can stay around, but I just want to

[18:50] remind you in 1992 the Grand County

[18:52] Commission granted Charlie Nelson a

[18:54] commercial zone for a 10acre primitive

[18:56] campground at the downstream end of this

[18:58] property. I don't need to elaborate what

[19:00] happened almost 30 years later. And then

[19:03] we have the municipality view of the

[19:04] state that they've created. Anyway,

[19:07] that's all I have. Oh, that's all I have

[19:09] to say for now. Thank you.

[19:11] >> Thank you.

[19:14] Come on up, please.

[19:16] >> Sorry to be a little delayed there. I'm

[19:17] Dan Kent and I live just four blocks

[19:20] that way on the same street as Bill. So,

[19:23] uh, he seems a little bit more tolerant

[19:24] of the noise than I am. Maybe. I don't

[19:26] know. Maybe it's cuz I'm just sensitive

[19:27] to it cuz I'm a wildlife biologist. But,

[19:29] uh, it's this is town. I know it's town

[19:33] and so it's loud because of that. But, I

[19:34] just want to point out that what Crystal

[19:36] just said rings true for a lot of us.

[19:38] And it's difficult when you've got

[19:40] developers constantly pressuring the

[19:42] council and people that have an interest

[19:44] in developing, benefiting from what the

[19:46] council does to keep clear on what the

[19:49] citizens want. And yeah, we want a

[19:50] healthy community, but there is such a

[19:52] thing as too much growth, too fast

[19:53] growth, and I think we are clearly an

[19:55] example of that. Um, and so I agree it's unsafe for bicyclists. It's way too

[20:01] noisy. There's been way too little

[20:03] emphasis on reducing the noise,

[20:04] especially from uh commercial groups

[20:07] that are bringing razors all over the

[20:09] place now and having a massive amount of

[20:11] impact. I think it's really important

[20:12] that we paying attention to how much

[20:14] impact per person we're getting. We

[20:16] don't think much about carrying

[20:17] capacity. And that's the key thing to me

[20:19] is if you're going to have somebody come

[20:20] here, where are they leaving their

[20:22] trailer if they have brought one? Um

[20:23] where what's going to happen to the

[20:25] destruction that they do to public

[20:26] lands? Are we're going to be saddled

[20:28] with that? whether it's us as people

[20:29] driving messed up roads and eroded out

[20:32] uh creek systems or we're going to have

[20:34] to repair it. So, I think it's really

[20:36] important that we start thinking more

[20:37] and our especially now the travel budget

[20:39] has gotten so huge. We got to think

[20:40] about who are we bringing in. We got to

[20:42] target that because this is a sensitive

[20:45] landscape. It's really fragile. It's

[20:46] super steep and erosive. We got to think

[20:48] about those things. Anyway, couple other

[20:50] points that I had. Um oh, and I just

[20:53] wanted to echo also Crystal's comment

[20:55] about diversity.

[20:57] Why aren't we diversifying more? Why are

[20:59] we putting all our eggs in one basket

[21:00] with tourism? I know it's not totally

[21:02] just tourism, but I just see way too

[21:04] much time spent on tourism and breaking

[21:06] things that have already been fixed,

[21:08] like the time entry system, which I

[21:09] totally feel is working, even though I'm

[21:11] not for it. I don't want that. I want

[21:13] free access anytime. And I don't even

[21:15] come in the main entrance anymore. But I

[21:17] want to have the freedom to visit Arches

[21:20] without it being overwhelmed with too

[21:22] many people. I don't even want to be

[21:23] there. I don't want to be on sand flats

[21:25] anymore. I'm losing the places that I

[21:26] can go as a citizen, which is why I

[21:29] really hope you guys work primarily on

[21:30] protecting the back country that is

[21:32] still quiet by things like the road

[21:35] project that happened out by 10 mile. We

[21:37] shut down two of the key roads that were

[21:39] doing damage out there, 10M and

[21:41] Labyrinth Canyon. I hope we can hold

[21:43] that line. And I hope you guys are going

[21:44] to help hold that line for us since you

[21:46] are our elected representatives who said

[21:48] that you were interested in def in

[21:50] defending and representing the people of

[21:51] this town, not outside developers like

[21:53] the Cane Creek people who, you know, you

[21:56] know, that's meabox money. That's $35

[21:58] billion fortune from the Hyatt Regency.

[22:01] So that is not locals and that's not

[22:03] what you guys should be here supporting.

[22:05] In fact, I'd like to see you doing a lot

[22:07] more to stop that. And I I know that

[22:09] it's at a pause moment, but please, you

[22:12] know, show us that you're really trying

[22:14] to defend the town and its integrity

[22:16] because it's a gem and it's not common

[22:18] and we've got to work hard not to just

[22:20] become like everything else by building

[22:22] more. Um,

[22:25] I just wanted to say that, you know,

[22:27] with that wershed protection is super

[22:29] important right now, an enhancement of

[22:31] our water flow. So, if we could get the

[22:33] Colorado River right that we have a

[22:35] right to, I think this is the year

[22:37] because if we don't, I think we're going

[22:38] to lose that. It's really important that

[22:39] we work on getting the Colorado River

[22:41] white right established if we ever want

[22:43] to have that water accessible to us. Um,

[22:45] and protecting our roadless areas is

[22:47] super important. The Lasalis is our

[22:49] wershed and we need to be working on

[22:51] protecting that, not developing new

[22:52] motorized trails or or making room for

[22:56] more cattle or enhancing Trump's plan to

[22:58] sell off our national forests and log

[23:00] them. We don't want that happening in

[23:01] Los. [clears throat] It's a mountain

[23:02] island. It's super important to protect.

[23:04] And if you don't mind me going over, I'm

[23:07] sorry, but I had one more thing I wanted

[23:10] to mention.

[23:11] >> Go ahead.

[23:12] >> No, that's good enough. I I appreciate

[23:14] I'll be back at six.

[23:15] >> All right. Perfect. Well, thank you.

[23:18] >> All right. In the back corner and

[23:19] turquoise.

[23:20] >> I'm not going to walk all the way up

[23:22] there. Um I've lived here for 73 years.

[23:26] >> You can't be heard. your cat hair the

[23:29] microphone.

[23:30] >> Sorry, Marca. I want to be on record and

[23:33] then just

[23:35] >> All right. Thank you.

[23:35] >> All right.

[23:36] >> Sorry, Marca. [laughter]

[23:39] >> Marsha. Marshall. I've lived here for 73

[23:42] years. All I can say is just short. This

[23:45] is bait and switch tactics.

[23:48] >> You bait him to get the zoning, then you

[23:50] switch the plan. And I'm very angry

[23:52] about it. And I want to thank the

[23:56] commission for taking on such hard

[23:57] issues.

[23:59] There you go.

[24:00] >> Thank you.

[24:03] >> Okay. Anyone else like to come up and

[24:05] speak?

[24:08] >> And then you'll have the opportunity at

[24:09] 6:00 when we open up the public hearings

[24:11] to speak on [clears throat]

[24:13] >> So if we

[24:16] talk now about the reasonzoning

[24:19] then it's not going to be on public

[24:20] record. No, it won't go cuz that's when

[24:22] >> we have to wait till 6.

[24:23] >> Yeah,

[24:25] we can speak now, but it won't be on the

[24:27] actual public record.

[24:28] >> But I send an email.

[24:30] >> That would be on public records.

[24:31] >> Yes, you can send us email or

[24:33] >> I'd like to talk.

[24:34] Okay.

[24:36] >> And and just one c one caveat,

[24:38] [clears throat] we're not supposed to

[24:39] receive public comment regarding the

[24:41] zoning outside that range. So, it's not

[24:43] that it wouldn't be part of the record.

[24:45] We really need to contain the comments

[24:47] at at the 6:00 point. So if you wanted

[24:49] to speak to any other topic, you could

[24:51] do it at four. But the reason why we do

[24:53] that is to have that that consistency

[24:55] >> and she get on Zoom when she gets home.

[24:57] >> Definitely everybody can log on to Zoom.

[24:59] You can it it's just makes it easier for

[25:01] everybody to catch where it's at so that

[25:03] we don't have people going to different

[25:05] places. So it's not meant to offend.

[25:07] >> Sorry. Okay. Anybody else?

[25:10] >> I wonder

[25:12] question.

[25:13] >> I was confused as to why the public

[25:16] hearing was at six since it wasn't

[25:17] money. because it's still in our

[25:19] policies and procedures that way. I ask

[25:21] as well, Mary.

[25:22] >> Thank you.

[25:22] >> Yeah, in the future hopefully public

[25:25] hearings, if they don't include the

[25:27] budget, can be at the beginning of our

[25:29] meeting, but in our policies and

[25:30] procedures, that's how it's set up right

[25:32] now. But state code can change, so we're

[25:34] working on that. Come on up.

[25:36] >> Thank you.

[25:39] [cough]

[25:39] [clears throat]

[25:43] >> Hello.

[25:44] >> I'm Laurley Green. I know many of you,

[25:47] some of you know me as well. And um I

[25:50] can't make it at 6, so I'm going to make

[25:52] this vague so that I don't uh and I

[25:55] don't really care about it being on

[25:56] public record. It's just for you all to

[25:58] hear. So that's what's important. First

[26:00] of all, thank you commissioners for your

[26:02] hard work, um

[26:04] your dedication and all the very very

[26:07] difficult decisions you make. And I

[26:09] think many of us recognize that that you

[26:11] have a hard job and it's hard to make

[26:13] everybody happy. So um with that said uh

[26:18] I think many of us I I'll speak for

[26:19] myself are you know we support tourism

[26:22] here that's the way it's our livelihood

[26:23] it's how we make our uh it's how we

[26:25] survive here and um we also support

[26:29] small businesses right we all have to

[26:31] survive one way or another and um but at

[26:34] the same time we all want um a good

[26:37] quality of life for the people here in

[26:38] Moab but I know that's at the top of

[26:40] your agendas as well and Um, you know,

[26:44] when it comes to uh reszoning properties

[26:48] and making those those big decisions,

[26:51] um, I just wanted to to say this, and

[26:54] it's obvious, but just to remind you of

[26:56] it, that, um, when these kind of

[26:58] decisions are made, it doesn't always

[27:01] mean that um, promises are kept by the

[27:04] people that you're um, reszoning for

[27:08] property. And um, we don't always know

[27:10] what happens down the line. um when

[27:13] different generations you know

[27:14] properties are passed down to different

[27:16] generations and every generation can

[27:18] make different decisions and um and of

[27:21] course properties can be sold and um

[27:24] I've heard many times that and I know

[27:26] nothing about construction and I've

[27:28] heard many times oh you know so and so

[27:30] in this location doesn't have the

[27:32] infrastructure to to build uh resorts

[27:36] and things like that and again I don't

[27:38] know a lot about construction but I do

[27:40] know that technology is changing ing um

[27:42] every moment. So we may not have the

[27:46] technology right now to um put certain

[27:49] types of in structure in that doesn't

[27:51] mean 5 years from now it won't exist. Um

[27:55] so we do have to I encourage you to

[27:57] think down the line when you're making

[27:58] big decisions like that and um yeah so

[28:02] just wanted you all to know that and

[28:03] thank you again for your hard work.

[28:06] >> Thank you.

[28:08] Okay. Do we have anyone else who'd like

[28:10] to speak?

[28:13] >> No. And I don't think there's anyone

[28:14] online and so

[28:16] >> I think everyone online is for the six

[28:17] o'clock.

[28:17] >> Okay. 6 o'clock. And a lot of people may

[28:19] be here. Okay. Well, we're going to move

[28:22] along to our presentation. So, we had a

[28:24] presentation that was going to be on

[28:26] history and process of the site future

[28:30] plan and we have postponed that and

[28:32] moved that to a joint city meeting

[28:33] that's going to be next Friday, April

[28:36] 17th. So if you're interested in that

[28:38] then you can show up at this at city

[28:40] hall.

[28:42] And our next one is a crowd seeing

[28:44] updates with Jared Smith and I think

[28:46] it's online.

[28:49] >> Okay.

[28:53] » He's not online.

[28:54] Okay.

[28:56] Do you want to message him?

[28:59] >> If he comes online, we could

[29:01] presentation. So we'll go ahead because

[29:02] I see Maddie out there. [laughter]

[29:05] >> Wait, Maddie, come back. Maddie, do you

[29:06] want to come in?

[29:09] >> She's like, "No, I'm not escaping."

[29:12] >> She said, "Sure, she's coming back."

[29:14] >> Okay.

[29:17] » So, we'll move along to our Spanish

[29:19] Valley Drive.

[29:22] >> Yeah, that's wrong. That's wrong.

[29:25] >> Yeah. Note that in our posted agenda, it

[29:29] had said the 21st for that meeting.

[29:31] That's our next meeting here at this

[29:33] county, but the joint meeting with um

[29:35] site teaches plan will be on the 17th.

[29:37] So it was posted on

[29:40] and we are going to have our department

[29:42] report with Maddie Lawitz, our trails

[29:45] director and also Sean

[29:49] too. Sean Yates, our county engineer.

[29:53] We're going to have a Spanish valley dry

[29:54] path progress update which I'm sure all

[29:56] of you are very interested in as well.

[29:59] [clears throat]

[30:00] I'll leave some paper.

[30:04] >> Okay, perfect. Okay, so this is an

[30:06] update on the Spanish Valley Drive

[30:07] multi-use pathway project. There's a

[30:10] management team for this project that

[30:11] has about eight or nine people that's

[30:13] been meeting meeting intermittently.

[30:15] That includes two commissioners,

[30:16] commission admin, uh representatives

[30:19] from planning and zoning, roads and

[30:21] trails, um a project manager from Jones

[30:24] and Deil Engineering, and then also um

[30:27] representation from the trail mix

[30:28] advisory committee that active

[30:30] transportation representative.

[30:33] So, some uh overall benefits to this

[30:35] project, of course, there's the active

[30:37] transportation component where improve

[30:39] active transportation access down

[30:42] Spanish and safety. Um, but there's also

[30:44] a lot of other benefits to drainage

[30:46] improvements and utility protection that

[30:48] are needed in that corridor. So, this

[30:49] project is going to incorporate kind of

[30:51] all of those updates at the same time.

[30:54] UD do awarded uh 2.7 million back in

[30:57] 2021. Since then, the project costs have

[31:00] increased. So, the current estimate that

[31:03] was just recently refined is 3.8

[31:05] million, which does leave a question

[31:07] about $1.1 million that's not covered by

[31:10] that U DOT contribution.

[31:13] The completion schedule is um it's

[31:15] everything goes to plan. Hopefully the

[31:17] advertisement for bids will go out mid

[31:20] to late this year um in time for work to

[31:23] begin next year and then wrap up by fall

[31:25] winter 2027.

[31:30] Let's see the design. So we have a 90%

[31:33] um engineering plan that's available in

[31:36] the admin office and there's been a few

[31:39] updates to that in the last few months.

[31:40] So, I know there was some concerns about

[31:42] there's some um special considerations

[31:45] along that corridor. There's a historic

[31:47] art bottle wall, so there's been some

[31:49] modifications to make sure that that can

[31:50] stay in place and some other

[31:52] adjustments.

[31:54] And then the current project is working

[31:56] on the right of way. So, Gra County does

[31:59] have a right-of-way acquisition agent

[32:01] and she's been working since early

[32:02] February with four different um property

[32:04] owners or residents who requested um

[32:08] appraisal discussions and negotiations.

[32:10] And so, um one small correction is it

[32:13] says that those are complete. Those will

[32:14] actually be complete at the end of the

[32:15] week, but we're hoping to bring those um

[32:19] uh updated appraisals to the next

[32:21] commission meeting on the 21st.

[32:24] So, that brings us to next steps. Um

[32:26] yeah, so finishing up the um the right

[32:28] ofway acquisitions and then um the

[32:32] commission will be asking the commission

[32:33] to make a decision about that uh funding

[32:37] gap essentially between what UD do has

[32:39] contributed and what county needs to

[32:41] contribute. So that's $1.1 million. And

[32:43] so we're expecting that um according to

[32:46] other recent projects, once we have a

[32:48] 100% engineering plan complete, the um

[32:51] EDOT will require a letter of commitment

[32:53] from the county uh to confirm the

[32:55] funding

[32:57] that's on the horizon.

[32:59] Um and then some other things that are

[33:00] in the works right now are working with

[33:02] utility companies. This has been

[33:04] primarily led by the Jones and Deill um

[33:07] engineer coordinating that and then um

[33:10] some uh need for followup with the

[33:13] neighborhood to do some outreach to

[33:15] provide residents with an update.

[33:18] >> Anything else to add?

[33:20] >> Well, some late breaking news today. I

[33:22] spoke with Judy Larson, a rideway agent.

[33:25] And uh we will have all four appraisals

[33:27] ready by the end of the week, beginning

[33:29] of next week for presentation to uh you

[33:33] as commissioners at the next meeting on

[33:35] the 21st for funding of that rideway

[33:38] acquisition. I can't divulge any kind of

[33:40] numbers that were shared with me today,

[33:43] but it'll be a reasonable rideway

[33:45] acquisition um offer initial offer to

[33:48] those property owners. Um, one reason

[33:51] that the appraisals need to go back for

[33:54] revision is that the initial appraisal

[33:57] um, in particular had looked at the uh,

[33:59] the property adjacent or the property on

[34:01] the um, where the bottom wall was. Um,

[34:06] that needs to be lowered somewhat

[34:09] because the bottom wall is going to be

[34:12] preserved there. So, that'll that'll

[34:13] save the county some dollars as well as

[34:17] preserve that bottle wall. Also, um a

[34:20] daughter of one of the property owners

[34:22] came in today um and had some questions.

[34:25] The uh the project designer Dave Camille

[34:28] is going to meet with that individual

[34:30] here in a week or so on a Zoom meeting

[34:32] and provide a 3D model so that that

[34:35] individual and her mother can see

[34:36] actually what the impacts will be

[34:38] visually um from that rideway table. But

[34:41] overall, I believe that u things are

[34:43] going well in the project and um it's

[34:46] been a long time coming from what I

[34:48] understand. It's been even before 2021.

[34:51] So, this will be a joyous occasion when

[34:54] we cut the ribbon on this.

[34:58] » Any questions from commissioners? Go

[35:00] ahead, Jo.

[35:01] >> So, uh, you talked about the 1.1 million

[35:04] funding gap.

[35:06] Where will that get us as far as how far

[35:08] south? I think originally when I I've

[35:10] been involved with this for a long time,

[35:11] we were talking about getting all the

[35:12] way down to Bean Street and then it it's

[35:14] kind of crept back up. It was the

[35:16] four-way at one point and then it was

[35:17] back all the way up to uh just past our

[35:19] way crossing I think to resource. Um

[35:23] where exactly if we if we if the full

[35:27] thing is funded and is there an option

[35:28] if we aren't able to meet the 1.1

[35:32] funding gap is just extend it as far

[35:35] south as we can and then pick it up when

[35:36] more funding might be available.

[35:39] >> Yeah, that's always an option.

[35:41] Um the 3.85 805. From what I understand,

[35:45] it estimate takes us all the way to

[35:47] resource boulevard.

[35:48] >> Okay. So, the the whole shebang.

[35:51] >> So, we need the extra 1.1 to get us to

[35:53] resource pool.

[35:54] >> That's correct. Yeah.

[35:56] >> I suppose there's some other options

[35:58] that could could go in there. If we're

[35:59] really pressed for cash, we could we

[36:01] could end it um after the the retaining

[36:05] wall section is built and then just

[36:06] build a shoulder. Um, I think there's

[36:09] probably several different options that

[36:10] the designers could explore if we're wanting to tighten that

[36:14] acquisition or that that project

[36:17] >> match down a bit.

[36:20] >> Commission.

[36:22] >> Um, do we have any numbers on the

[36:25] acquisition of the property rights yet?

[36:27] I mean, is that included in the 1.1

[36:29] million on here? It says it's not.

[36:32] >> It's it's not because we didn't know

[36:33] what those acquisition numbers going to

[36:35] be. because there are federal dollars in

[36:36] this project. It was it's a tap grant. I

[36:39] think it's supposed to be um the code of

[36:42] federal the code of federal regulations

[36:45] requires that we go through a uniform

[36:46] act. I think most of you are familiar

[36:48] with um the additional strings that are

[36:50] attached when you have federal dollars

[36:52] and you're acquiring private property

[36:54] and and part of that is u going through

[36:57] the the appraisal the appraisals uh

[37:00] making the offers uh allowing the

[37:02] property owners to get their own

[37:04] appraisals and then to counter offer and

[37:06] then to negotiate in between. Um but um

[37:10] I was given a dollar amount over the

[37:11] phone by the appraiser. I can't divulge

[37:13] that at this point, but it was

[37:15] reasonable um for that piece of property

[37:17] where the art bottle wall exists. Um and

[37:20] I I shared that with [laughter] here

[37:22] [clears throat] before the meeting. We

[37:23] don't anticipate that that cost is going

[37:24] to be exorbitant.

[37:26] >> But that's just one property, aren't

[37:28] there? Multiple along there.

[37:30] >> Yeah, there are four properties

[37:32] >> in aggregate all four of those

[37:33] properties. We're not looking at a huge

[37:35] sum of money.

[37:39] » Okay. Uh Mike,

[37:41] >> uh this is a mix between Gabe and you

[37:44] guys, I guess. Uh it says in 2021, uh

[37:47] the project received 2.7 million. Uh I

[37:51] have a grant, I'm guessing, on that one.

[37:53] Uh are we holding that money? Are we

[37:56] holding a blank check?

[37:57] >> Yeah, it's it's in fund 47. Um and then

[38:01] the the draw downs have been primarily

[38:03] for engineering that have come out of

[38:04] the planning and zoning department.

[38:06] >> Okay.

[38:08] >> Question. uh in fund 47 we're still

[38:11] doing pretty good on interest rates for

[38:12] the last few years. Has has that has

[38:17] that occurred interest been the occurred

[38:20] interest on that 2.7 million? Uh have we

[38:25] said it's regulated like relegated to

[38:27] this project?

[38:30] » Uh it's it's just interest specific to

[38:34] fund 47. So not specifically these

[38:36] funds. I would imagine that it would be

[38:39] a simple ratio of how much the reserve

[38:41] balance uh was made up by that amount

[38:43] and the interest acred over that period

[38:45] of time. It probably wouldn't wouldn't

[38:48] strike me as a super uh complicated

[38:50] calculation but I agree with that

[38:53] determining that

[38:54] >> should be considered

[38:55] >> that uh

[38:57] I mean quick math says 30k on a million

[39:00] uh holding it our current interest rates

[39:03] we're doing pretty good. uh it's good

[39:05] for the entire county, but I mean give

[39:08] or take since 2021, we should have a

[39:11] healthy chunk of that 1.1 million uh

[39:14] occurred in interest

[39:16] >> possibly.

[39:18] >> Send a message

[39:20] >> future consideration there.

[39:27] » Anybody else?

[39:28] >> Yep.

[39:28] >> Go ahead.

[39:30] >> Thanks.

[39:32] So you said it was a tap grant. Is this

[39:34] also part of that hotspot funding?

[39:37] >> Well, let's see. I I thought it was a

[39:40] tap grant. It does say this agreement

[39:42] they've entered into the executable date

[39:44] between you do

[39:46] and the local agency. It doesn't specify

[39:49] the color money

[39:51] on this. Um

[39:55] I thought this was part of the Arches hotspot funding right there when

[39:59] that came.

[39:59] >> I have read that this contract doesn't

[40:01] actually specify

[40:03] um just says cooperative agreement.

[40:06] >> If you guys can just so we can see if

[40:08] that's that's part of I think my my

[40:10] understanding was is part of the money

[40:12] came for the uh uh Moab area transit

[40:15] shuttle and then part of that hotspot

[40:17] funding was put towards this project

[40:18] right here.

[40:20] >> I believe that the 2.7 is specifically

[40:23] for this project. Um and then it does so

[40:27] yeah it has a lump sum payment um a

[40:29] total amount to be paid by UD do for

[40:31] this project and it does say kind of

[40:34] prominently any costs over this amount

[40:36] will be the responsibility of the local

[40:37] agency.

[40:38] >> Okay.

[40:39] >> So I think it's sort of separate from

[40:41] any other hotspot funding.

[40:43] >> Okay. And then so the uh the the

[40:45] rightway evaluations those would be so

[40:48] there's four total or is there because

[40:51] on the back I was a little bit confused

[40:53] on this right here. uh meeting with the

[40:55] affected residents, four residents

[40:57] requests requested prior to RO uh

[41:00] appraisals, discussions, negotiations, a

[41:03] boundary survey with stakes be

[41:05] performed. So there are four total. So

[41:07] all of the people that that that um that needed to uh fill out a right or

[41:13] need to offer right away, they all they

[41:15] all requested the boundary survey.

[41:17] >> From what I understand that is the case.

[41:19] So the project um footprint was overlaid

[41:22] onto properties and where that project

[41:25] footprint went outside of county right

[41:27] away. Um it was determined that there

[41:29] were four properties where that was the

[41:31] case. Um before rightway

[41:35] negotiations could begin. Those property

[41:37] owners wanted to know number one where

[41:39] is existing property because many of

[41:40] them at least two or three of them have

[41:43] actually built right up to the edge of

[41:44] the road on county property. Um, and I I

[41:48] think even a portion of the art bottle

[41:50] wall is on on county property. Um, and

[41:52] it will remain there um, just slightly.

[41:55] Um, but uh,

[41:57] >> so it's historic and then people smile.

[42:00] Is that is that because it is actually

[42:02] 50 years old or

[42:04] >> question?

[42:04] >> Well, no. I mean, I

[42:06] >> It's not that old.

[42:07] >> I just like like to make sure that we're speaking, you know, correctly

[42:10] about it.

[42:10] >> Yeah. I'm not a Shipo official.

[42:13] >> Yeah. I I guess in local war it's

[42:15] probably historic in in some sense of

[42:18] the term but yeah you're correct it

[42:19] probably isn't 50 years old

[42:21] >> and then just in your opinion looking at

[42:24] this so typical rideway takes six to 12

[42:27] months. So yeah, from the beginning of

[42:30] um once they have the footprint down and

[42:33] they have the rideaway plans, then they

[42:35] can get appraisals and then the clock

[42:37] starts ticking 6 months if if

[42:40] negotiations go well up to a year. Um if

[42:44] there's back and forth, um I think we're

[42:47] probably three three months into that

[42:50] already. So, in another 3 months,

[42:52] probably at at the longest, um those

[42:55] checks would be cut to those property

[42:57] owners and then we could um figure out

[43:00] we're going to get the 1.1 or put the

[43:02] funding package together and then

[43:03] actually advertise the project perhaps,

[43:06] I don't know, September.

[43:10] >> September. So, but do you guys still

[43:12] think that uh breaking ground in April

[43:14] then is reasonable with that?

[43:17] Yeah, I don't think we're looking at

[43:19] more than four to six months of

[43:21] construction with all the pipe work

[43:23] that's going to go in there, utility

[43:24] relocates. Um, if we if we got a

[43:29] contractor on board by this fall, that

[43:31] would put us into the cycling season.

[43:34] >> But would we would we hire a contractor

[43:36] and would we start breaking ground until

[43:39] all of those rideways are filled out?

[43:40] >> No. No, we can't we can't even advertise

[43:42] it already.

[43:43] >> That's what I'm saying. So, we can't

[43:44] even advertise for 6 to 12 months.

[43:47] possibility that we might not even be

[43:49] able to advertise this until next next

[43:51] April.

[43:52] >> Yeah. And that would be that would be if

[43:53] property owns are very uh adverse to any

[43:56] kind of acquisition. I think we could

[43:58] anticipate that maybe on on the long end

[44:01] maybe

[44:02] >> and and so you see where my questions

[44:03] come in about is is spring of next year

[44:05] actually reasonable to clarify. So um

[44:09] bullet points the six months isn't

[44:11] starting now. The six month like we

[44:12] already kind of started that clock a few

[44:14] months ago. So we're midway through the

[44:15] process. So I think with some things

[44:18] that we expect based on the response

[44:20] we've gotten from those property owners

[44:21] that it's going to be more on that six

[44:23] month timeline in which case we're kind

[44:24] of roughly 50%

[44:26] >> three more months we're looking for the

[44:28] rideway access.

[44:29] >> Okay.

[44:29] >> Yeah. We appreciate you thinking

[44:30] conservatively on this end because we

[44:32] definitely don't want to overpromise and

[44:33] underdel.

[44:34] >> I'm just I'm thinking more about the

[44:35] timing of it all and how which budget is

[44:38] this going to fall under.

[44:39] >> Yeah. because I think we're

[44:41] >> and and I'm not sure if we're talking

[44:43] tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands

[44:45] for the right away.

[44:47] >> It's

[44:48] >> can't tell you that. [laughter]

[44:50] >> Exactly, but it's on the low end of what

[44:51] you just mentioned.

[44:54] >> Okay. Great. Well, I'm just trying to

[44:55] figure out where we're looking.

[44:56] >> And then the last question is is you

[44:58] guys mentioned the uh cutting it short

[45:00] right there. if it was a uh um you know

[45:04] uh depending on the funds that we could

[45:06] come up with, does that affect the grant

[45:08] right there if we were to cut that short

[45:09] from what the original project was? I

[45:12] don't think it does because what's been

[45:14] stated here is there here's $2.7 million

[45:17] to build build a trail. There's there's

[45:19] no limits that are specified in this

[45:21] grant documentation.

[45:23] >> Thanks, Sean. That's all the questions I

[45:25] have.

[45:25] >> Okay, Mike, go.

[45:27] >> I I don't want this time number two. So,

[45:28] if anyone else go ahead

[45:30] >> Okay. Uh, thinking back on Jos and and

[45:32] Brian's over here. Uh, wherever it ends,

[45:36] I I'm glad to see it getting work on.

[45:38] Uh, but, uh, with that, are we already

[45:42] looking and this is a shout out to Cody

[45:44] back there, too. Um, are we looking at

[45:46] any more DOT grants? Any other grant

[45:49] prop? I know it's not going to make it

[45:51] all the way to San Juan County line, but

[45:53] we want it to

[45:54] >> definitely. So, it was mentioned earlier

[45:56] today by by staff that perhaps Governor

[45:58] Cox would be willing to

[46:01] increase this just because we're in the

[46:04] mood of building a cycle

[46:07] multi-use path. So I I don't think it's

[46:09] out of the realm of possibility that we

[46:11] could maybe out.

[46:13] >> Okay.

[46:14] >> I don't know. I'm not that familiar with

[46:15] it.

[46:16] >> And in that same notion, I say the San

[46:18] Juan County line. I'd like to go farther

[46:20] out clear out to the mud springs, but

[46:22] with that we've been talking to San Juan

[46:24] on this. Like I know the speed of

[46:27] government 2027

[46:30] it's right around the corner, but it's

[46:32] not. One thing we have looked at,

[46:33] Commissioner Cody, is uh Cody has

[46:38] demonstrated this past summer his

[46:40] ability to to maximize road funds by um

[46:45] having a contractor come in and road a

[46:47] mill and push those buildings out to the

[46:49] shoulders and then pave over the top.

[46:51] Um, we have a tab grant that's been

[46:54] that's in the works right now to do that

[46:56] for another section from the four-way

[46:57] stop um north to the end of this

[47:02] project. And then that would take us all

[47:04] the way out to the the Beaman Bridge,

[47:07] which would only leave from Bean out to

[47:09] the Santa County line to to have

[47:11] shoulders if that's how we want to go. I

[47:12] know that in many people they would like

[47:15] to have a detached path all the way out

[47:16] there,

[47:17] >> but in the meantime at least maybe we

[47:19] could have shoulders that cyclists and

[47:22] walkers, pedestrians.

[47:25] >> Thank you for that information with that

[47:28] uh that small interconnectivity to uh to

[47:33] the city uh to the city trail systems.

[47:35] It's not that far away from where we're

[47:37] starting the trail.

[47:38] >> Mhm.

[47:39] >> To interconnectivity with the city. Has

[47:42] the city been approached? And part of

[47:45] the conversation on that small gap, I

[47:47] mean, it's less than a I mean, it's 200

[47:49] yards, 300 yards.

[47:51] >> Yes, that's correct. And we're just in

[47:52] the final stages of a safe streets for

[47:55] all.

[47:55] >> Okay.

[47:56] >> Effort with Kimley Horn. In fact, Manny

[47:58] and I just met with them online remotely

[48:00] today to kind of

[48:03] encapsulize what we've what we've uh put

[48:07] together through input sessions out in

[48:08] the field and there's a desire to create

[48:10] that connected connectivity all the way

[48:12] down into town and then up Sand Flat

[48:15] >> variety of other quarters. I don't know

[48:16] if there's anything you would like to

[48:18] add with that. Um I think well so the

[48:20] city did adopt the updated version of

[48:22] that trails master plan too and that

[48:24] does have a whole active transportation

[48:26] section and a lot of that's focused on

[48:27] like city uh connectivity. Okay.

[48:30] >> So there's also equipment in there that

[48:32] they're working with.

[48:33] >> Well I I like that we would I mean we're

[48:37] interconnected through roads right

[48:38] there. I'd like we'd be interconnected

[48:39] through trails right there too. So

[48:42] >> okay we're going to have Bill and then Jacques and then we're going to

[48:45] wrap this up and take them off. I I just

[48:47] want to go back to the point of four

[48:49] properties, Sean and Maddie, because

[48:52] Jacques and I were in a meeting and I

[48:54] would have

[48:55] >> Well, I don't want to swear, but I

[48:57] believe they mentioned 12 or 16

[49:00] properties were affected by Rideaway.

[49:02] So, I just want to make sure we're not

[49:03] missing something here because unless

[49:06] something's changed, that number was a

[49:08] lot higher than four that were affected

[49:10] previously.

[49:11] >> I remember that meeting. In fact, I

[49:12] might have been the one that made that

[49:13] statement. might have been um based off

[49:16] of an old project footprint line and

[49:20] which would explain the fact that

[49:22] originally we we thought that the the

[49:24] bottle wall was going to have to come

[49:25] out.

[49:26] >> Okay.

[49:27] >> So, I I believe David Riddle, the

[49:28] project designer, went back and

[49:30] tightened that design up a little bit.

[49:31] I'll verify that with him online because

[49:33] we don't want to we didn't want to get

[49:34] to the the commissioner meeting on the

[49:36] 21st and and approved

[49:39] cost for

[49:40] >> I'm good. I just I remember a lot larger

[49:42] number. That's all.

[49:47] Great. Yeah, I was going to ask the same

[49:48] thing as Bill because I do remember that

[49:49] from that meeting as well. But also um

[49:52] uh

[49:53] you know with with lack of funding, I

[49:55] know there was the um the UD do

[49:57] alternative transportation initiative

[49:58] that that created a huge pot of money

[50:00] for projects and they are even spending

[50:03] $12 million to close a 58 mile gap.

[50:07] >> This would be considerably longer than

[50:08] that and probably more useful to more

[50:10] locals although that gap was definitely

[50:11] needed. um if that's a potential source

[50:16] that would be fantastic. But then also I

[50:18] wanted to point out just getting it up

[50:20] to I think a royal crossing to me would

[50:21] be a huge win because there's so many

[50:23] people in that community and I know a

[50:24] lot of them have approached me that that

[50:26] like to commute into town by bike or

[50:29] ebike or or some alternative source. And

[50:32] I also wanted to the the should the

[50:35] shoulders are incredible. Hawaii. As

[50:36] someone who rides that road all the

[50:38] time, just the the work that the roads

[50:39] department's done recently has been very

[50:42] appreciated. It's it's a lot smoother.

[50:44] It's wider. It gives you a little bit

[50:45] more buffer between cars and and and

[50:47] I've definitely had citizens say that

[50:51] they appreciate the work that's done. So

[50:54] it in light of that, I mean, even if we

[50:55] can't get all the way to where we want

[50:57] to now, continuing to do that sort of

[50:59] work is is very much noticed, very much

[51:01] appreciated, and and super useful. So I

[51:04] think oh and also the San Juan piece

[51:06] back in the day when we were talking

[51:07] about this four or five years ago I know

[51:09] when Elaine was working at San in in San

[51:11] Juan County uh Elaine and both both Lane

[51:14] and Mac had expressed um a strong desire

[51:18] to once that path gets pushed out to the

[51:21] San Juan County line to continue it down

[51:23] to Mud Springs area and also to provide

[51:25] more access to to those um developments

[51:28] that are currently being worked on in

[51:29] San Juan County too. So I think I think

[51:31] there can definitely be an appetite down

[51:32] there and Obviously, we've had good

[51:35] collaboration with them on things like

[51:36] Mudspring, so that's that'd be a that'd

[51:38] be a great addition to the whole

[51:40] project.

[51:41] >> Thanks.

[51:42] >> Yeah. Okay.

[51:44] >> Thank you very much. Thanks, Cody, too.

[51:47] >> Thank you, Cody.

[51:48] >> I wasn't in the hot seat. [laughter]

[51:50] >> The hot seat. I still got the kudos.

[51:51] >> And it is so appreciated. So much safer

[51:55] when we have those shoulders.

[52:00] » Okay.

[52:02] We appreciate the update. I know that

[52:03] everyone's been everyone's excited for

[52:05] that to happen.

[52:07] Our next um is general business. So, I

[52:11] think that Jared from Cloud City is

[52:13] going to be on in about 5 minutes. So,

[52:14] we'll run through our um

[52:18] general business action item consent.

[52:19] We'll start with just commission member

[52:21] disclosures and future considerations.

[52:23] Go ahead, Mike.

[52:24] >> Uh my wife works for the sheriff's

[52:26] department.

[52:30] My son works for Sandlast and for future

[52:34] consideration, I would uh really like to

[52:37] look at the policies and if we have any

[52:40] policies and thoughts on when a

[52:43] commissioner represents the county on a

[52:47] board to if they what's the policy as

[52:52] far as if the county commission has

[52:55] taken a vote on something

[52:59] should that commissioner follow suit and

[53:02] represent the county as the commission

[53:04] voted.

[53:07] >> I think that's uh something we need to

[53:09] clarify.

[53:11] >> I'm a little confused what you're

[53:12] asking, but we are working on those

[53:13] policies and procedures for the county

[53:15] commission and so those will come before

[53:18] us all probably in a workshop. I know

[53:20] admin has been working on cleaning them

[53:22] up and then get those out for people to

[53:24] comment on and so we can look at that.

[53:28] >> You're doing rolling your eyes, Stephen.

[53:31] >> Not rolling my not rolling. I'm trying

[53:33] to figure out. So are are you asking in

[53:36] the context of the ability for a

[53:37] commissioner to speak in general or at a meeting? For example, if I'm at the

[53:42] under

[53:43] >> if if the if the commission voted on a a

[53:46] certain way.

[53:47] >> Sure. and then in a different meeting

[53:49] that they are representing the county,

[53:52] they don't follow suit and vote the way

[53:54] the commission did.

[53:56] >> Uh what's I mean I always thought that

[53:59] was necessary.

[54:01] >> I I that was the assumption I've worked

[54:03] under for 12 years is that if it's voted

[54:06] on by the commission, that's how you

[54:09] proceed. Commissioner should always

[54:11] represent that the body or the majority

[54:14] if there has been a path that has been

[54:16] taken by the majority of the commission

[54:18] they should make it very clear where

[54:21] their uh it's like when when any

[54:23] commission writes the newspaper they

[54:24] make that clear that that's their

[54:26] position but if say for example on this

[54:28] bike on this path let's say the

[54:30] commission voted for it to go out to a

[54:32] certain distance it's really important

[54:33] for commissioners to make it clear that

[54:35] that's what the commission majority did

[54:37] or that's what the county is doing and

[54:38] not to confuse the you um and I think

[54:41] >> well it uh and I you know I think Bale

[54:44] probably knows what I'm concerned about

[54:45] is that we voted support to support

[54:48] >> okay

[54:49] >> the water tank and then it was turned

[54:52] down and Bale voted to turn it down even

[54:54] though we as a commission sent a letter

[54:56] of support

[54:57] >> okay if

[54:58] >> and that concerns me

[54:59] >> yeah if you want to send me an email

[55:01] with additional information and include

[55:03] the chair as well um I'm I'm happy to

[55:05] provide the two cents here of course you

[55:07] folks can always put agenda items

[55:10] we have a a nice thing to discuss at a

[55:12] future consideration so that it's just

[55:15] really clear.

[55:17] >> Thank you.

[55:17] Mary. And Trish,

[55:19] >> I would just ask once you guys have

[55:20] those and you send them out. You give us

[55:22] a couple weeks. Yeah.

[55:23] >> Okay. Yeah. I don't I don't want to be

[55:24] given a couple days. No,

[55:26] >> if that's okay. Okay.

[55:27] >> I'm going to look at them first and he's

[55:29] going to look at them and then we're

[55:30] going to send them out to everybody

[55:32] >> so that they can look at them and

[55:33] comment and then we will bring them back

[55:35] in discuss them before they're voted on.

[55:38] you know, they it's a process and that's

[55:40] been super helpful to have um admin kind

[55:42] of take the lead just cleaning them up

[55:45] at first.

[55:46] >> Okay. Anybody else for the commission?

[55:50] >> Right.

[55:51] >> Yeah. I just wanted to bring up um

[55:53] possibility of creating a policy for the

[55:56] county's priorities for CDBG funding. I

[56:00] think right now we kind of wait for

[56:01] everybody to come up to us and there

[56:03] hasn't been any future forethought of

[56:06] actually where we want to see those

[56:07] project or that that project money going

[56:09] and I think that would it would do the

[56:11] county well to have to have that funding

[56:13] planned for in the next 5 to 10 years

[56:22] » are we doing future considerations

[56:24] >> we are doing okay

[56:26] >> and future

[56:26] >> yeah they're together and then we'll if

[56:28] Jared gets online we'll go that I'll

[56:30] keep on moving along. So,

[56:31] >> okay. Um, may I ask um, Commissioner,

[56:34] are you guys going to do a pre tell us a

[56:37] little bit about your DC trip today?

[56:39] >> Because I did ask for that in the last

[56:41] future considerations. Are you guys

[56:43] going to do that today? And if not, then

[56:44] I'll just ask that it be in the next

[56:46] week.

[56:49] » Brian had his report online. I know I

[56:53] would I would like you guys to verbally

[56:55] give us just a brief description just

[56:57] because it's such a it's such a big deal

[56:59] for the community and you were there

[57:01] representing Gra County and I think it'd

[57:03] be great to do a five minute

[57:05] presentation on here's who we met with

[57:07] here's what we were advocating for.

[57:09] >> It's what we've done so what I always

[57:11] do.

[57:12] >> So if not tonight maybe that would be my

[57:15] ask for future considerations.

[57:19] [clears throat]

[57:20] >> Sorry I missed. Thank you.

[57:21] >> Oh, yeah. I guess I can't take him do

[57:24] it.

[57:25] >> All right.

[57:26] >> Oh, hold on.

[57:27] >> Let's go.

[57:27] >> How much time do you have? [laughter]

[57:30] >> I'm just I got to look it up cuz I don't

[57:32] have my notes in front of me right now.

[57:34] >> Well, we have it. If you find it and you

[57:36] want to do it at the end of the meeting,

[57:37] Brian, we can do that.

[57:39] >> That That's fine. I got no problem.

[57:40] >> We can do it next meeting, too.

[57:42] >> Just finding my notes real quick and

[57:43] going through them.

[57:45] >> All right. Well, let's do the consent

[57:46] agenda. So we have a is approval of

[57:50] meeting

[57:50] >> be in that meeting that we gave them to

[57:52] Dana Brian um because she uploaded all

[57:56] of our notes in that meeting.

[57:57] >> Yeah, sounds great.

[57:59] >> And it could, you know, this is a long

[58:00] meeting.

[58:02] >> No, let's go ahead and do it. Let's put

[58:03] at the end of the meeting. I got no

[58:04] problem.

[58:06] >> Okay, so the approval of consent agenda

[58:09] items A is approval minutes. You guys be

[58:12] quiet. Hey. [laughter]

[58:16] » Okay. B ratification of payment of

[58:17] bills. Total bills of 1,87,7169.

[58:23] Total payroll is $443,799.90

[58:28] with total bills and payroll being

[58:30] 1,531,51659.

[58:36] C is a ratification of local consent for

[58:38] an alcohol license at the Moco Hotel. D.

[58:41] ratification of local consent for

[58:43] hotel liquor license at Spring Hill

[58:45] Suites. E ratification of local consent

[58:48] for special event beer license cruise

[58:51] 2026.

[58:52] F ratification ofou for senior companion

[58:55] program. G is opioid settlement

[58:58] agreement. H is consulting party status

[59:01] with the Bureau of Land Management for

[59:03] quarter 3 2026 oil and gas leases sale

[59:06] in Grand County. I is approval of

[59:09] purchase of the EOC furniture for

[59:12] emergency management.

[59:14] J approval of mob office tourism's

[59:18] use of for special event marketing

[59:20] grants. K Crescent Junction

[59:23] rehabilitation and armor armor coat

[59:25] project and L is a consideration of

[59:28] active transportation cooperative

[59:31] agreement with the Utah Department of

[59:32] Transportation.

[59:34] >> Mike.

[59:35] >> Uh so moved. Okay. Second.

[59:39] >> Second. All right. All in favor? That

[59:42] passes the six and one absent.

[59:45] Commissioner Winfield.

[1:00:01] All right. So, we will go ahead and move

[1:00:03] on to number five, which is the

[1:00:05] appointment of midterm vacancy on the

[1:00:06] Grand County EMS Special Service

[1:00:08] District Board. And I'm the liazison for

[1:00:11] that board. And we did have quite a few

[1:00:13] applicants and it was um made a motion

[1:00:17] for Cassidy Davis to be on that board

[1:00:20] and it was approved

[1:00:22] uh

[1:00:24] six to one

[1:00:26] to recommend her. Do you mind if I ask

[1:00:28] you a question? Go ahead.

[1:00:29] >> Or or are you done? Yeah, that's all.

[1:00:32] >> I might have cut you [laughter] off. Go

[1:00:33] ahead. You could have a lot of

[1:00:34] applicants. So, can And you're so much

[1:00:36] better than watching. I didn't watch the

[1:00:37] meeting. So, um can you just give me a

[1:00:39] brief like um why you chose that

[1:00:43] candidate over the others? Just a just

[1:00:45] kind of summary of that.

[1:00:47] >> Okay. Yeah. The conversation that was

[1:00:48] leading up to that. So, one of the gals

[1:00:50] was a prior EMT and that um was

[1:00:54] commented that that would be really

[1:00:55] great to have somebody that had been in

[1:00:57] that, you know, even though we have

[1:00:58] Jason and I both are on that board and

[1:01:00] we both have been EMTs. So, I think we

[1:01:02] kind of are we have that cover but not

[1:01:04] as as currently as this girl

[1:01:06] >> lady. Um [clears throat] and then

[1:01:09] Cassidy and Jordan were both on there

[1:01:12] and they are they it's kind of their

[1:01:16] first stint at boards. It kind of seemed

[1:01:17] like that maybe they were just getting

[1:01:18] involved with some local government. We

[1:01:20] had Chris Marsh as well who's very

[1:01:23] involved in the community and great and

[1:01:25] then um

[1:01:27] I have his name is Terry.

[1:01:29] >> Yeah, Terry. Terry and he's you know

[1:01:32] he's was EMT back in the day as well.

[1:01:34] He's got a lot of great it was all

[1:01:35] great. They were all really great

[1:01:36] applicants. I think that

[1:01:37] >> some of the ideas was one of the things

[1:01:39] that EMS hasn't had on their board is

[1:01:41] someone that's really good with

[1:01:42] finances. Oh.

[1:01:44] >> Um, it's like when we go through our

[1:01:45] checklist of from the auditor's office,

[1:01:47] like that's always a big fat zero.

[1:01:50] >> Okay.

[1:01:50] >> Because we don't have and it's supposed

[1:01:52] to be like a CPA or something on that

[1:01:54] board. But, um, both Cassidy, you know,

[1:01:56] my comments were both that Cassidy and

[1:01:58] Jordan both work on Financial World. And

[1:02:01] anyways, Jason Taylor ended up making

[1:02:02] the motion. I seconded. And all in

[1:02:04] favor,

[1:02:05] >> thank you.

[1:02:06] >> That's how Thanks for giving me the

[1:02:07] second.

[1:02:09] >> They all would have been great.

[1:02:10] >> Awesome. Okay, good.

[1:02:12] >> All right. So we go ahead

[1:02:14] [clears throat] Mike.

[1:02:14] >> Happy to see so many applicants. But uh

[1:02:16] with that I move to approve Cassidy

[1:02:18] Davis to the midterm vacancy on the

[1:02:20] Grand County EMS Special Service

[1:02:22] District to the remainder of the term

[1:02:24] ending 1231 2022.

[1:02:28] >> Second.

[1:02:29] >> I think Mary Beach are there. So we got

[1:02:31] Mike and Mary. Any other comments,

[1:02:34] questions? All right. Let's go ahead and

[1:02:36] call for a vote. Those in favor

[1:02:39] that passes. 70.

[1:02:44] And

[1:02:46] number six, consideration of mud springs

[1:02:50] 2 downhill trail design. And this would

[1:02:53] be Quinn Hall is going to talk about

[1:02:55] this. Or we can have Bill talk about

[1:02:57] this.

[1:02:58] >> Either way, Bill's familiar with it.

[1:02:59] Maddy's familiar with it. I'm familiar

[1:03:00] with it.

[1:03:01] >> Oh, good way.

[1:03:01] >> Let's Maddie, if you want to cop, do you

[1:03:03] have your laptop when you're ready?

[1:03:06] Chat about it. Thank you. Love talking

[1:03:07] about M Springs.

[1:03:09] Uh so we've been in the process of

[1:03:13] completing the trails at Bud Springs,

[1:03:14] both phase one and phase two. The phase

[1:03:16] two dollars we're trying to kind of

[1:03:18] guard a reserve for shifting to complete

[1:03:21] the road into phase one. Um in order to

[1:03:24] keep phase 2 on track, we need to get

[1:03:26] those trails designed and start NEPA on

[1:03:28] those trails. And so we'd like to not

[1:03:30] spend that phase 2 money in the hopes of

[1:03:32] kind of preserving it for those roads.

[1:03:34] And we need $5,000 in order to or $4950.

[1:03:38] Is that right?

[1:03:39] >> Yeah.

[1:03:39] >> To get dirt, who designed phase one, to

[1:03:41] design the trails in phase 2 and then

[1:03:42] that will keep that project on track. Um

[1:03:45] I spoke to a couple commissioners about

[1:03:46] this and the suggestion was to advocate

[1:03:49] for this coming out of commission

[1:03:50] discretion if you guys are okay with

[1:03:51] that. So that's

[1:03:55] » I'll I'll add just a little bit. Um, I

[1:03:58] was the one that made the suggestion

[1:04:00] pull it out of discretionary,

[1:04:02] but the reason that we do not want to

[1:04:04] tap into the phase 2 funds is because

[1:04:08] Patrick is making sure that we can

[1:04:11] utilize some of those funds towards the

[1:04:13] road. And if we start spending out of

[1:04:16] those funds ahead of that, it might

[1:04:19] dedicate the entire amount to not to

[1:04:22] where there would not be any use for the

[1:04:24] road system. And I'm not sure if

[1:04:26] everybody's aware, but we've got some

[1:04:28] bike trails with no access. And so until

[1:04:31] we can get those roads built in there,

[1:04:34] they're not going to be usable by the

[1:04:36] bike teams. Um Nika, I think that's the

[1:04:40] >> Yeah, it's the it's accessible now, but

[1:04:42] the the turnoff is dangerous. and the

[1:04:45] races that are planned for the NIFA

[1:04:46] season, which are on the uh 12th and

[1:04:48] 26th of September, um are in danger if

[1:04:52] we don't do a dedicated turnoff lane.

[1:04:55] And what you do is looking at is is the packet cut off turnoff. It has it

[1:05:00] has uh exit lanes and they're going to

[1:05:03] improve the dirt road out to that. So

[1:05:04] that's that's the plan and the funds

[1:05:05] that are in phase two need to be used

[1:05:08] for that in order to keep everything

[1:05:10] rolling with the with the Nika season

[1:05:11] which is a huge benefit to the whole

[1:05:15] community as well as

[1:05:16] >> totally you know bike community as well

[1:05:17] as those folks in San Juan and

[1:05:19] everywhere else. So I I'm in agreement

[1:05:21] with Bill on this for sure.

[1:05:22] >> Maddie um just to add a little context

[1:05:24] to so we have phase [clears throat] one

[1:05:26] and phase two of springs. So phase one

[1:05:29] we started building last fall. We have

[1:05:31] seven miles of trail roughly on the

[1:05:33] ground. And then this fall we're doing

[1:05:35] part two of phase one, whatever you want

[1:05:37] to call that. So, we're going to put

[1:05:39] about three and a half more miles of

[1:05:40] trail and that will complete phase one.

[1:05:42] Um, and then phase two is going to we're

[1:05:44] still in the NEPA process, so nothing's

[1:05:46] been approved. Um, we don't have any

[1:05:48] final approved concept lines by the BLM,

[1:05:51] but it's going to be hopefully between

[1:05:52] 10 and 15 miles of additional trails.

[1:05:54] and it's going to be um phase one is

[1:05:57] kind of like the core of the trail

[1:05:58] system and includes that NIKA course

[1:06:00] that the community's been really excited

[1:06:02] about for a long time and then phase two

[1:06:04] has kind of adds um more a whole other

[1:06:08] area to that and includes more of the

[1:06:10] advanced trails too. So the ones that

[1:06:12] specifically we want to design out of

[1:06:14] house because we usually design them

[1:06:15] inhouse are downhill gravity trails

[1:06:17] which we just don't really have in our

[1:06:19] region. So, it's kind of a um would be

[1:06:23] great for us to have because it's it

[1:06:24] would be like a new kind of type of uh

[1:06:27] recreation in this area and then it's

[1:06:29] also something that we yeah want to um

[1:06:31] since hopefully there's funding we want

[1:06:33] to use a consultant just so we can make

[1:06:34] sure we get the best product.

[1:06:36] >> Great. Thank you. Mike had his hand up

[1:06:39] first. Go ahead, Mike.

[1:06:42] I'd like to move to authorize Mud

[1:06:44] Springs phase 2 downhill trail design

[1:06:46] with a fiscal impact of $4,950

[1:06:49] to be t taken from discretionary

[1:06:51] commission discretionary fund.

[1:06:54] >> Second it. Okay, second. And then Brian

[1:06:56] had us signed up to speak and then Mary.

[1:06:59] >> Yeah. No, I'm real excited about these

[1:07:01] trails and just just a couple things.

[1:07:02] So, first off for the public, when did

[1:07:04] the trails open up?

[1:07:05] >> Oh, uh, so we did a soft opening this

[1:07:07] past fall. Mhm.

[1:07:08] >> Um they were open for um just about 2

[1:07:12] weeks, which is why we didn't do a grand

[1:07:13] opening because there is a winter

[1:07:14] closure. So we didn't want to advertise

[1:07:16] to the world and then have people arrive

[1:07:18] for a closure. Um but they reopen on

[1:07:21] April 16th.

[1:07:23] >> Perfect. Just so folks know that the

[1:07:24] [clears throat] arms yet

[1:07:25] >> and they're really fun.

[1:07:27] >> And then second off, just uh uh just a

[1:07:29] more technical question. Have you guys

[1:07:30] worked things out with Shipo yet?

[1:07:33] >> Um for the um PCC walls,

[1:07:36] >> correct? Yes. The roads the roads have

[1:07:39] been cleared. We have

[1:07:42] >> Todd Deair, I believe that's his name

[1:07:44] down there is going to start. He's given

[1:07:46] a date when he thinks he can start on

[1:07:48] that. I don't remember what it is, but

[1:07:50] the parking lots have not been cleared

[1:07:52] yet. Just the road system.

[1:07:54] >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[1:07:55] >> Okay, Mary, go ahead.

[1:07:57] >> Gabe, this is a question for you. If we

[1:08:00] take that uh $4,950

[1:08:03] out of discretionary fund, well, how

[1:08:05] much will that leave us in our

[1:08:06] discretionary?

[1:08:10] » I can answer that for you if you don't

[1:08:11] want to be here,

[1:08:12] >> please.

[1:08:13] >> So, we've only allocated $5,000 for that

[1:08:17] grant that Trish put in for the archery

[1:08:19] range out of. So, I think we had $40,000

[1:08:22] budgeted in a discretionary. So, that

[1:08:25] would put us right about $30,000.

[1:08:27] >> Thank you.

[1:08:27] >> Right. And if I don't get the grant then

[1:08:29] >> Yeah. And she didn't get the grant. So

[1:08:31] if I don't get it then

[1:08:33] $10,000.

[1:08:35] >> Thank you. Thank you, Melody.

[1:08:36] >> Yeah. Appreciate it.

[1:08:37] >> Just because I already asked that

[1:08:38] question. [laughter]

[1:08:41] >> All right. Go ahead, Mike.

[1:08:43] >> I I don't know if everyone heard that.

[1:08:45] And everyone online, I hope heard that.

[1:08:47] would be April 16th that the trails

[1:08:50] are to be actively used.

[1:08:53] >> April 16th. Shameless plug. One more

[1:08:56] time. I'm really happy for these trails

[1:08:57] to uh be out there. So, can't wait to

[1:09:00] use them myself.

[1:09:01] >> Okay. So, let's go ahead. Any more

[1:09:03] questions, comments? We're going to call

[1:09:04] for a vote.

[1:09:06] So, all in favor of Metro's trail design

[1:09:10] out of commissioner discretionary. Okay.

[1:09:12] Thank you. Six one dock.

[1:09:17] >> If he makes a second, can he be gone

[1:09:18] during the vote?

[1:09:20] >> Tech. Technically, whenever a vote is

[1:09:22] called originally, he's not supposed to

[1:09:24] leave the chambers.

[1:09:25] >> [laughter]

[1:09:26] >> But I need to [clears throat] see that

[1:09:27] you know once once there is a motion

[1:09:29] before commissioners are supposed to

[1:09:31] remain where they're seated.

[1:09:33] >> So just a reminder that when we have a a

[1:09:35] motion on the table that we have to stay

[1:09:36] seated to call for the vote but okay

[1:09:39] well he was he's absent anyways.

[1:09:42] >> Thank you.

[1:09:43] >> We know where John and then I think

[1:09:45] we're going to move on to um our

[1:09:47] presenters online. Jared with seated.

[1:09:50] So, we're going to stop at item number

[1:09:53] seven and we're going to go back to the

[1:09:55] beginning of our agenda where we had

[1:09:57] presentations and we're going to do the

[1:09:59] cloud seating updates from Jared Smith

[1:10:01] with Green Maker Technologies.

[1:10:04] >> Hello everyone. Sorry I was late. Uh,

[1:10:08] can you hear me? Okay,

[1:10:10] >> perfect. I'm going to share my screen

[1:10:12] real quick. Oh, I cannot share screen.

[1:10:15] >> I'll fix that.

[1:10:19] So, I just want to give a quick update

[1:10:21] on the cloud seating program. Um, both

[1:10:25] kind of in your program specifically and

[1:10:27] then across uh just our operations.

[1:10:31] As uh we kind of previously discussed,

[1:10:33] we're using new technologies and really

[1:10:36] working hard to produce much more uh

[1:10:40] reliable validation for proof of effect.

[1:10:44] >> Can I share now?

[1:10:45] >> Share now.

[1:10:46] >> There we go. Okay.

[1:10:49] So, I will share some of those results

[1:10:51] with you really quickly. Okay. Can you

[1:10:52] see the slide?

[1:10:54] >> Yes.

[1:10:55] >> Okay. Perfect. So, really quick uh brief

[1:10:58] reminder, cloud seed, the way it works,

[1:11:01] you introduce these particles into the

[1:11:03] cloud that basically help water droplets

[1:11:06] that are below freezing temperatures

[1:11:07] turn into ice crystals uh earlier, which

[1:11:11] then helps them fall out of the cloud as

[1:11:13] a snowflake onto, you know, some sort of

[1:11:15] area that you're targeting.

[1:11:18] Um in you, you know, we have operations

[1:11:20] across all of Utah. specifically your

[1:11:23] program is focused on the Lasal Mountain

[1:11:25] range and then also the Abaho because

[1:11:27] it's uh shared funding. Um

[1:11:31] let's see I can skip the different

[1:11:34] technologies that have been used. These

[1:11:35] are the drones we're using for our

[1:11:38] operations. Uh they weigh about 55

[1:11:40] pounds. They go up 15,000 feet and

[1:11:43] sustain icing conditions. So um

[1:11:48] what I would say is

[1:11:50] historically cloud scene the way it's

[1:11:51] been proven to work has been using these

[1:11:54] statistical validations that uh compare

[1:11:57] multiple locations and see how the

[1:11:59] relationship changes between those

[1:12:01] locations over a winter snow pack when

[1:12:03] you start to see one and not the other.

[1:12:06] um

[1:12:08] they have some inherent challenges if

[1:12:09] you talk to scientists. Uh

[1:12:12] [clears throat] just the nature of all

[1:12:13] statistical analysis there's challenges.

[1:12:16] Um primarily the sample size getting

[1:12:19] enough samples to make anything mean

[1:12:21] anything. Um so this is you know what

[1:12:25] cloud has used in the past. It's really

[1:12:27] hard and we are working on doing a

[1:12:31] different form of validation which is

[1:12:32] called physical validation. So, where

[1:12:35] that came from is this came from uh a

[1:12:39] research project called the Snowy

[1:12:40] Campaign in Idaho where they flew an

[1:12:44] airplane and zigzagged out cloud seating

[1:12:48] uh with the goal of being able to see

[1:12:50] zigzags in the natural weather to see

[1:12:53] that they were having an actual man-made

[1:12:55] effect on the precipitation. So really

[1:12:58] briefly, you can see the zigzags that

[1:13:01] they picked up in the storms as they

[1:13:05] seated. Um this is the first time they

[1:13:09] ever showed cloud seating having an

[1:13:11] effect in an individual storm um

[1:13:14] anywhere. So this is really big in 2017

[1:13:17] and this is the basis for our company's

[1:13:21] efforts for validation is to basically

[1:13:23] duplicate this. Now, this research

[1:13:25] campaign, they operated a whole winter

[1:13:27] and they picked up three what are called

[1:13:29] seating signatures.

[1:13:31] Um, and

[1:13:34] so far,

[1:13:37] uh, we've picked up about 70 seating

[1:13:39] signatures across all our operations in Utah and Idaho. Um, so I I'll kind of

[1:13:46] skip some of this stuff, how we do it,

[1:13:49] uh, but I will show you some of the

[1:13:50] results. So, this is an Idaho. Uh you

[1:13:53] can see

[1:13:55] these loops where you can see this we're

[1:13:59] seating up here

[1:14:01] and so you can see that uh there's these

[1:14:04] kind of pulsing sets of precipitation

[1:14:08] directly downwind uh following kind of

[1:14:10] the the plume flow from our seating. Um

[1:14:14] so that's there the Lasal Mountains. We

[1:14:16] actually were very surprised that we got

[1:14:18] a seating signature in the Lasal

[1:14:19] Mountain Range because the radar from

[1:14:21] Grand Junction. so far away. But this

[1:14:24] was uh really exciting for us. Now, the

[1:14:25] targeting

[1:14:27] needs to be improved from this

[1:14:29] operation. I was a little disappointed

[1:14:30] that it fell a little bit too far to the

[1:14:32] east, the precipitation at least that we

[1:14:34] identified from radar. So, we're seating

[1:14:36] up here. Um

[1:14:40] but you can see these pulses of

[1:14:43] precipitation that track. So, you kind

[1:14:46] of just have to trust us that we we are

[1:14:48] running uh a particle dispersion

[1:14:50] analysis to track the dispersion of the

[1:14:52] material that we're deploying in these

[1:14:54] storms. So, we can track it uh and

[1:14:57] colllocate it with the radar. And so, um

[1:15:03] it may not be appreciated, but this is

[1:15:05] actually a really big deal

[1:15:06] scientifically for proving man-made

[1:15:08] precipitation. Um and we got this right

[1:15:11] in your own in your backyard. So, uh,

[1:15:15] you know, targeting needs to be

[1:15:16] improved, which we have already started

[1:15:18] to adapt to do that. We've gotten

[1:15:19] permission from the Bureau of Land

[1:15:21] Management to use

[1:15:24] basically all of their land for uh,

[1:15:27] cloud seating, which really has opened

[1:15:28] up our opportunities for targeting and

[1:15:31] improving, you know, where that snow is

[1:15:33] going to fall out. It's such a small

[1:15:34] mountain range, it is hard. Uh but that

[1:15:36] is an advantage of the drones is that we

[1:15:38] actually can adapt and target better

[1:15:41] than historical uh groundbased cloud

[1:15:44] seating systems.

[1:15:46] And yeah, I mean I can show other cases

[1:15:50] where we've we've done it. This was in

[1:15:52] uh

[1:15:54] this is in Oregon. You can see we're

[1:15:56] seeing from over here.

[1:15:59] Radar's a little better over here. You

[1:16:01] can see that our pulsing plumes are

[1:16:04] tracking with the precipitation.

[1:16:07] Um, and then we're we're actively

[1:16:10] working on, so this is another case in

[1:16:11] Oregon. That's kind of our research

[1:16:13] place. We're actively working on taking

[1:16:15] our radar seating signatures and then

[1:16:18] being able to calculate the

[1:16:20] precipitation over a surface area so we

[1:16:23] can actually tell you how many acre feet

[1:16:25] we induced in that specific storm in an

[1:16:28] area. Um,

[1:16:31] so

[1:16:34] [sighs] that's kind of the update. Here

[1:16:36] is a satellite. You can see a satellite

[1:16:38] view. This is actually this hole in the

[1:16:39] cloud. I don't know if you can see it

[1:16:41] from your screen, but that's basically

[1:16:44] you can see where that cloud actually

[1:16:45] turned to precipitation and fell out

[1:16:47] onto the ground. So, um,

[1:16:52] yeah, that's big improvements, big uh

[1:16:55] big progress. Um, we've operated, it's

[1:16:59] been really a terrible winter, honestly,

[1:17:01] across the West, as I'm sure you know.

[1:17:03] Uh, very warm, but we've operated 12

[1:17:07] times. Um, well, we we've flown in

[1:17:10] operations 12 times. We've come down

[1:17:12] more than that, but the storms ended up

[1:17:13] not working out or it was too warm. Um,

[1:17:16] nine of those targeting the Lasal

[1:17:18] Mountain Range and three of those

[1:17:19] targeting the Abahos.

[1:17:21] uh the funding mix uh in working with uh

[1:17:25] Grand Water and Sewer Agency is um

[1:17:28] targeting about 30%

[1:17:30] uh effect on the Abaho Mountains and 70%

[1:17:36] towards the Las Mountains based off of

[1:17:38] the funding breakdown.

[1:17:40] Um sorry, I know that was fast. I was

[1:17:42] told I had five minutes. So if there's

[1:17:44] any questions, feel free to ask.

[1:17:49] questions. Go ahead, Trish.

[1:17:51] >> I don't think my questions I guess, you

[1:17:54] know, when we when we did fund this, um

[1:17:57] I don't know if we knew what the other

[1:17:59] contributions were going to be. So, can

[1:18:02] you Brian, maybe you know, do you know

[1:18:04] who else contributed to this? I know we

[1:18:06] gave 10,000. Is that correct?

[1:18:08] >> Yep, we gave 10,000. San Juan gave

[1:18:10] 10,000. Oh, good, good, good, good.

[1:18:12] >> I believe. And then I think at San Juan

[1:18:14] Water Conservancy gave us some money.

[1:18:16] Okay. And then gave 10,000 as well.

[1:18:19] >> Oh, awesome.

[1:18:19] >> The city of Moab stiffed us

[1:18:22] >> and uh uh Oh, no. Ended up not coming

[1:18:25] into the to the table. I mean, let's

[1:18:26] just be honest about it. I think that

[1:18:28] there was a handshake agreement. It was

[1:18:30] kind of a last minute thing um that they

[1:18:32] were going to come in and join us, but

[1:18:33] they they ended up not paying. Lissa, I

[1:18:36] believe, ended up taking up that convers

[1:18:38] or uh uh that payment.

[1:18:39] >> Okay. I'm glad to hear that the others

[1:18:41] were. Yeah, I'm glad to hear that cuz I

[1:18:43] know when I don't think it had all come

[1:18:44] together when we made the contributions.

[1:18:47] >> This was a last this was a kind of a

[1:18:48] last minute ditch effort right there in

[1:18:50] December when we found out about this

[1:18:52] funding and then Jared came to Gwissa to

[1:18:53] bring this forward.

[1:18:54] >> Okay.

[1:18:55] >> Um I do think that GISA is also

[1:18:57] interested in getting this started again

[1:18:59] for next year. Um that was one of the

[1:19:00] reasons that we brought this forward to

[1:19:02] make sure that we that we have it on our

[1:19:04] plate that we understand that this is uh

[1:19:06] this is a request for 2027 as well. and

[1:19:09] hopefully that it co coincides with the

[1:19:12] city's budgeting so that they can make

[1:19:13] sure that they're able to budget for

[1:19:15] this project as well.

[1:19:17] >> Yeah. Yeah,

[1:19:19] >> at the end of the season, um I mean

[1:19:21] because we're still seating, I mean, we

[1:19:22] just seated on April 1, uh we're going

[1:19:25] through the the end of April, we'll

[1:19:27] provide uh like a final report and I'm

[1:19:30] happy to come down and present with you

[1:19:32] all or with the city of Moab again um to

[1:19:35] kind of give, you know, a final

[1:19:37] conclusion and then work towards next

[1:19:39] year. I know the state uh division of

[1:19:41] water resources has mentioned support

[1:19:44] for funding for next season as well.

[1:19:51] I had a mic had a comment. Y he

[1:19:54] >> it was mostly answered right there. Uh

[1:19:56] please do that final report. Uh it is

[1:19:58] great to visually see uh your seating

[1:20:02] project and the cloud formation itself.

[1:20:04] Uh actually love seeing that

[1:20:06] representation there as a uh a Doppler

[1:20:09] nerd there. But

[1:20:11] >> with that, uh, I'd love to know your

[1:20:13] calculations on the like acre foot, uh,

[1:20:18] of of where or like how much seating

[1:20:20] efforts generated, how much acre feet of

[1:20:21] water. I'd love to see those numbers.

[1:20:24] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we'll we'll we'll put

[1:20:26] something together. Like I mentioned,

[1:20:28] um, we're in a transitionary period in

[1:20:31] the industry where the the historical

[1:20:34] ways use the target control analysis.

[1:20:35] So, there's, you know, a Snowtel site in

[1:20:37] Lasal that we would probably compare to

[1:20:39] some other area that's not being seated.

[1:20:42] Um, I think what we'll do is we'll

[1:20:45] probably do it that way, but in the

[1:20:48] future, we're we're working on honing in

[1:20:51] on this radar base because I really what

[1:20:53] I would really like to be able to say

[1:20:54] is, "Hey guys, this last storm we

[1:20:56] produced whatever 800 acre feet of water

[1:20:59] over your mountain range." That would be

[1:21:01] ideal and and here's the proof uh with

[1:21:04] the radar. um that that's the ultimate

[1:21:06] goal. Um and we're getting there. But as

[1:21:09] part of our final report, we will have

[1:21:11] some sort of estimate on yield or

[1:21:14] production.

[1:21:15] >> That works perfect. Thank you.

[1:21:17] >> Yeah.

[1:21:18] >> First, Bill, go ahead. Yeah, and this

[1:21:20] isn't less for Jared, more for the

[1:21:22] commissioners, but we worked extensively

[1:21:24] with Jason on the air service recently,

[1:21:27] and I think with our next meeting that's

[1:21:29] coming up, we can bring that up and see

[1:21:31] if we can get the city to participate

[1:21:34] with us. So,

[1:21:37] that's all I had.

[1:21:38] >> All right. Did you have something else,

[1:21:39] Brian?

[1:21:40] >> Yeah, I know. I I also talked to Miles

[1:21:42] uh uh Council Councelor Loftton as well

[1:21:46] about getting this added to their

[1:21:47] agenda. I could bring this forward. But

[1:21:49] well, my question actually was is for

[1:21:51] Jared. Um Jared, the the folks that have

[1:21:53] or the other uh um counties that have

[1:21:55] used this service, um are they planning

[1:21:58] on doing it again for 2027?

[1:22:01] >> Uh yes, I it kind of comes down to the

[1:22:05] state funding. So we had the other

[1:22:06] county, one was Filillmore. They have no radar for validation there.

[1:22:13] Um, so we we did actually pick up seed

[1:22:16] signatures using satellite which was

[1:22:18] awesome, but their funding was not it

[1:22:21] was like privately sponsored. I don't

[1:22:23] know if the private sponsors will have

[1:22:25] funding again there. So that's still to

[1:22:28] be determined. Um, the other ones I

[1:22:30] think possibly I know Washington uh

[1:22:35] county is looking at

[1:22:37] uh adding some teams and working with

[1:22:39] Southern Nevada Water Authority uh to

[1:22:42] help with that. So, we'll see about what

[1:22:44] the other counties do. I know in

[1:22:46] Northern Utah we're still planning on

[1:22:49] doing it actually expanding some.

[1:22:53] >> And the state the state is still

[1:22:54] planning on on on funding this as well.

[1:22:57] >> Yes. Yeah. state still planning on

[1:22:59] funding it. Um, and I think the lower

[1:23:02] basin states may even

[1:23:03] >> That's my next question is so is I also

[1:23:05] heard Arizona was looking at chipping in

[1:23:07] as well.

[1:23:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, there's a there's a a

[1:23:10] programmatic agreement with the lower

[1:23:12] basin states that helps fund cloud

[1:23:13] seating. Um,

[1:23:16] it's up to water resource to determine

[1:23:18] how that funding is distributed. Um, I

[1:23:22] don't think it will make any difference

[1:23:24] for your all, you know, funding

[1:23:26] contributions except for the fact of

[1:23:27] knowing like the lower basin states are

[1:23:30] paying their fair share. [laughter]

[1:23:32] But, uh,

[1:23:32] >> good to know who's got the skin in the

[1:23:34] game.

[1:23:35] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, but it's it's up

[1:23:37] to the, uh, Jonathan Jennings and

[1:23:40] Division of Water Resources determine

[1:23:41] how their funding gets attributed.

[1:23:45] >> Thanks. Questions?

[1:23:47] >> Yeah.

[1:23:47] >> Okay. Thank you. But he's good. Thank

[1:23:50] you Jared for joining us. We'll look

[1:23:52] forward to the end for talking to you

[1:23:56] budget.

[1:23:57] >> Thank you all.

[1:23:58] >> Yeah,

[1:23:59] >> thank you sir.

[1:24:01] >> Okay, we're going to move along back to

[1:24:03] our agenda item seven. It's the

[1:24:06] emergency purchase request for overhead

[1:24:08] door motors at the Old Spanish Trail

[1:24:10] Arena. And do we have Angie online or

[1:24:13] she's right here in the hallway

[1:24:16] >> hiding? I can see you coming up. It's on

[1:24:19] carpet, not online.

[1:24:21] >> Okay.

[1:24:23] So, over well, last week um one of our

[1:24:28] garage door um motors

[1:24:32] decided to quit working during Jeep

[1:24:34] Safari. It caused [laughter] a little

[1:24:36] bit of havoc, but we managed and got

[1:24:37] through it. Um

[1:24:40] but we definitely need it and we need it

[1:24:42] working. Um, this was an item that I

[1:24:45] proposed in my budget and also my

[1:24:48] presentation

[1:24:50] to get fixed and replaced on all of the

[1:24:53] first. So, um, I'm bringing to you for

[1:24:58] an emergency repair emergency repair on

[1:25:01] the one mortar, but also asking for all

[1:25:04] three of them to be done just because it

[1:25:06] did cause um quite the ordeal.

[1:25:09] >> Yeah. So on the on the quotes, there's

[1:25:11] three different quotes and those are for

[1:25:13] the motors only and then the other

[1:25:15] person is the electrician that would

[1:25:16] install one motor or all three or is

[1:25:20] that the price per motor to install?

[1:25:22] >> So the electrician would only be doing

[1:25:25] wiring for one motor because the other

[1:25:27] two motors are already there.

[1:25:29] >> So they're replaced and they don't need

[1:25:31] to be wired.

[1:25:32] >> Correct. Okay. My question Mike

[1:25:36] >> I'm scouting off those quotes. What was

[1:25:38] the uh

[1:25:40] >> what was the bill do?

[1:25:41] >> 14,900.

[1:25:43] >> No, so if we go with um

[1:25:50] which would be our two locker um LLC and

[1:25:55] then A&E Electric, it would come to

[1:25:58] $10,8752

[1:26:02] » for the whole thing.

[1:26:03] Okay.

[1:26:06] >> And that would be with the three motors

[1:26:08] and the installation

[1:26:10] >> and the electrician.

[1:26:12] >> Still going.

[1:26:13] >> Go ahead. 10,872

[1:26:16] $10,875.882

[1:26:22] » if you go local to local places.

[1:26:26] >> But we previously did give recognition

[1:26:28] to four local bids. We we recognize

[1:26:31] >> that we

[1:26:32] >> and uh [clears throat] does it have a

[1:26:37] warranty for about a year?

[1:26:39] >> You know, I it was such a rush. I didn't

[1:26:41] even

[1:26:41] >> I would assume everything has about a

[1:26:45] one year warranty.

[1:26:45] >> Yeah. I mean, I can definitely find out,

[1:26:48] but it was such a rush to

[1:26:49] >> along with workmanship.

[1:26:51] >> Yeah. Uh, with that, I move to approve

[1:26:53] the emergency purchase and repair of the

[1:26:55] Old Spanish Trail Arena overhead door

[1:26:57] motors with Arch Walker Enterprises LLC

[1:27:00] in the amount of $10,876

[1:27:06] » $75.82

[1:27:09] » from Capital Improvements.

[1:27:12] » All right. Any discussion or questions?

[1:27:15] Go ahead, shock. I I was out working

[1:27:17] that day with the mountain bike team at

[1:27:19] a fundraiser where we were parking cars

[1:27:21] and um I I was Angie filled me in on it

[1:27:24] out there and I talked to Rex as well

[1:27:26] other people. I just want to say I I

[1:27:28] think that Angie and the OA staff

[1:27:30] handled it very very well. Could have

[1:27:32] been could have been worse. It was

[1:27:34] terrible timing, but is what it is. And

[1:27:37] I fully support um purchasing these

[1:27:40] matters. [clears throat]

[1:27:42] >> And Bill, go ahead. Yeah, I was actually

[1:27:44] walked up just as um Angie was holding

[1:27:47] her update for everybody on emergency

[1:27:51] exit

[1:27:53] evacuations out of the building and

[1:27:55] everything. So was invited to stand in

[1:27:57] with that as a commissioner and

[1:27:59] everything went well. She did a great

[1:28:00] job and I think everybody knew which door they were

[1:28:06] headed to if an emergency occurred. So

[1:28:09] >> packed house too. Good job.

[1:28:12] So, will the installation of these three

[1:28:14] garage doors impact any events that we

[1:28:16] have coming?

[1:28:18] >> Um, no. They should hopefully I was

[1:28:22] going to penny what you guys say said

[1:28:26] contact the contractor this evening and

[1:28:29] hopefully still get them. The goal was

[1:28:31] to get it done on Friday if not Monday.

[1:28:33] My next event will start setting up on

[1:28:36] Monday, but they're just setting up. Um,

[1:28:39] and participants won't actually be going

[1:28:42] into the arena until Wednesday. So,

[1:28:44] we're we're cutting it by the skin of

[1:28:46] our teeth, but it shouldn't.

[1:28:52] » Sorry to add you with that extra stress

[1:28:54] when it was anything, but you know,

[1:28:57] prioritizing the budget isn't the

[1:28:58] funnest thing either. So, right.

[1:29:00] Anyways, we'll go ahead and call for a

[1:29:02] vote on the garage doors. Um, we had it

[1:29:05] first by Mike and second by Bill. All in

[1:29:07] favor? And that passes unanimously.

[1:29:10] >> Perfect. Thank you, Angie. [laughter]

[1:29:14] » All right. Number eight is the

[1:29:17] consideration of an award for the Grand

[1:29:19] County Land Use Code Update RFP with our

[1:29:23] planning and zoning director Andrew

[1:29:24] Jackson.

[1:29:34] I'm Andrew Jackson, the Grand County

[1:29:36] Planner. Um

[1:29:38] the uh request is to award the contract

[1:29:42] for the rewrite of the latest county

[1:29:44] development manager code. This was

[1:29:46] previously placed in the budget uh in

[1:29:49] the planning department, but then was

[1:29:51] moved on December 16th, 2025 to capital

[1:29:55] improvements. for capital facilities

[1:29:58] budget item. We originally had about

[1:30:01] $90,000 that was set aside. On February

[1:30:05] 27th, 2026,

[1:30:08] Grand County published a request for

[1:30:10] proposals for a land use and development

[1:30:12] management code rewrite. The RFP was

[1:30:14] published in accordance with the Grand

[1:30:16] County and State of Utah purchasing

[1:30:18] policy. Uh clerk auditor, Mr. White

[1:30:22] reviewed and published the RFP.

[1:30:24] Questions from potential submitters were

[1:30:26] received by Mr. Way's office on March

[1:30:29] 6th of 2026, not 20 2036. [laughter]

[1:30:36] Um, the answers to the questions were

[1:30:38] posted March 13th, 2026. Three responses

[1:30:42] to the RFP were received by the March

[1:30:45] 20th deadline. Their [clears throat]

[1:30:47] franches were scored by a staff

[1:30:49] committee consisting of Mark Tiner,

[1:30:51] Quinn Hall, Sean Yates, and Andrew

[1:30:54] Jackson. Um, I do have to say that Mark

[1:30:58] was a very tough grader and Shawn was a

[1:31:00] very lenient grader, and Quinn and I

[1:31:04] were real close to each other. Um, you

[1:31:07] can see the test RP scoring sheet

[1:31:10] proposals from each firm were included

[1:31:13] in the backup material. Um CZB was one

[1:31:16] of the firms they had a score of 56.25.

[1:31:20] Um Hansen planning group was uh scored

[1:31:24] at 67.75

[1:31:26] and Sunray's engineering was 73.5.

[1:31:30] Uh the planning commission held a

[1:31:32] special public meeting at noon on

[1:31:34] Monday, April 6th. After some

[1:31:36] discussion, Randy Day made a motion to

[1:31:38] recommend that the county commission

[1:31:40] award the contract to rewrite the Gar

[1:31:42] County Land Development Manager Code to

[1:31:45] Sunrise Engineering. Megan Schaver

[1:31:47] second the motion. The motion carried 50

[1:31:50] with two absent. Um, after careful staff

[1:31:54] recommendation is after careful

[1:31:56] consideration of viewing and scoring in

[1:31:57] each of these three responses by our

[1:32:00] four staff members, the unanimous staff

[1:32:02] recommendation for the consultant to

[1:32:04] rewrite the land use and development

[1:32:06] management code and fundraising to do.

[1:32:11] » Okay.

[1:32:14] like to make the motion after careful

[1:32:17] consideration and review of the scoring

[1:32:19] and recommendation staff have has

[1:32:21] provided review of the planning

[1:32:23] commission recommendation and upon

[1:32:24] review of the RFP the scoring criteria

[1:32:27] and the budget the three response and

[1:32:29] the three responses to the RFP and

[1:32:32] public comment. I move to award the bid

[1:32:34] to rewrite Grand County's land use and

[1:32:36] development management code to Sunrise

[1:32:38] Engineering.

[1:32:40] >> I'll second

[1:32:42] by Brian. and discussion.

[1:32:44] [clears throat] Trish, right? I just

[1:32:45] have a comment.

[1:32:46] >> Yeah, comments. Um, I'm going to support

[1:32:49] this. I, you know, and this was conveyed

[1:32:52] during the plan the planning commission

[1:32:54] on Monday. Um,

[1:32:57] I this is this is have been a need for a

[1:33:00] very long time. Um, one thing I have

[1:33:03] stated that there should be somewhere

[1:33:05] and I said I' I would help you find this

[1:33:07] very long list that Alisa Martin had

[1:33:10] been putting together of you know

[1:33:12] specific things that she um that were

[1:33:14] just you know obviously breakdowns all

[1:33:16] along the line and and

[1:33:19] you know there's there's a ton of them.

[1:33:21] Um, it's extremely important that this

[1:33:24] is done right. That hopefully the

[1:33:26] objective is if we do it right, we won't

[1:33:29] have to do it again for 15 years is the

[1:33:31] hope.

[1:33:32] >> And so, you know, I want to make sure

[1:33:36] that we're moving in a manner that isn't

[1:33:38] rushed. For some reason, there's been

[1:33:40] this overarching like got to get it done

[1:33:45] thing. And it's a little disconcerning

[1:33:48] to me. I think, you know, the objective

[1:33:50] is to get it done right so that we have

[1:33:52] a product that is easy for you to use,

[1:33:56] easy for developers to use and and it's

[1:34:00] something that will have staying power

[1:34:01] within the county. That's the objective.

[1:34:04] Um especially when we have the turnover

[1:34:06] that we do have in planning and zoning,

[1:34:08] we want a land use code that is simp

[1:34:11] [clears throat] simplified.

[1:34:12] >> Hopefully there won't be too much

[1:34:13] turnover. [laughter]

[1:34:15] >> Exactly. Um, so I would just that, you

[1:34:18] know, and that was brought up um during

[1:34:19] [clears throat] the planning commission

[1:34:21] the other day, just this, you know, I'll

[1:34:22] support this. I just let's not rush it,

[1:34:26] you know, let's have let's move through

[1:34:27] it chapter by chapter. Let's make sure

[1:34:30] the community is involved. Make sure

[1:34:32] that the planning commission and the

[1:34:33] county commission is involved all along

[1:34:35] the way. There's no reason to rush this

[1:34:37] process.

[1:34:37] >> I do have access to Miss Martin and Miss

[1:34:41] hard drives.

[1:34:42] >> Okay, great. Great. Great.

[1:34:44] >> Okay, that's super. What's the list I've

[1:34:45] been making? [laughter]

[1:34:47] >> Good. I know. I know. I'm sure you have

[1:34:48] a long list. Thank you. Thanks. I think

[1:34:51] that Bill and then Brian and then Mike.

[1:34:54] I

[1:34:54] >> I just want to state I mean I'm

[1:34:57] appreciative that the commissioner is

[1:34:58] supportive of this. I'm a little bit

[1:35:00] surprised because for what the last year

[1:35:03] and a half there's been a huge rush

[1:35:05] pushed by you and a couple of the other

[1:35:07] members of the commission here to hurry

[1:35:09] this up. So I'm glad that you're

[1:35:11] supportive of it. I'm surprised though

[1:35:14] of the reversal of before it wasn't and

[1:35:17] now that we're we're flipping around to

[1:35:21] >> please and thank you Andrew. Let's move

[1:35:23] this forward.

[1:35:26] [clears throat]

[1:35:27] >> Yeah, I got I got I got a couple things.

[1:35:29] >> So yeah, just uh um you know maybe to

[1:35:33] just make sure that we give you know

[1:35:35] thanks for the hard work that's been

[1:35:37] done. Um, Andrew, it's been a breath of

[1:35:39] fresh air having you in that department,

[1:35:41] being able to make things happen, right?

[1:35:43] Um, there was a statement made that

[1:35:44] we're trying to make get things done and

[1:35:46] yeah, we are trying to get things done

[1:35:48] as this commission and I think that

[1:35:50] that's fantastic. Um, I went and looked

[1:35:52] up the procurement schedule which was on

[1:35:54] the RFP and we are right on schedule.

[1:35:56] Um, and I think that's incredible that

[1:35:58] we are right on schedule. And I also

[1:36:00] want to make sure that we're thanking

[1:36:00] our planning commissioners that showed

[1:36:02] up for the meeting um on was that

[1:36:05] Monday? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. yesterday. I I

[1:36:08] lose track of days sometimes, but the uh

[1:36:10] you know that showed up on a day that

[1:36:12] wasn't normally scheduled so that they

[1:36:13] can go through have an opportunity to uh to weigh in on these uh proposals and

[1:36:19] um yeah and and keep this thing still on

[1:36:22] contract or still on schedule.

[1:36:23] >> Yeah. And and a comment to that too is

[1:36:25] that Chairman Cle and Vice Chair

[1:36:28] Schaefer were heavily involved in the

[1:36:30] development of the RFP. They spent a lot

[1:36:33] of time reviewing it and going over

[1:36:34] things, making suggestions, etc. So, I

[1:36:36] think the RFP was a good product.

[1:36:39] >> It was an aggressive schedule, but I'm

[1:36:40] glad that we're able to keep it. Um, I

[1:36:42] also can just bring a couple Give me

[1:36:45] just one second just to go through my

[1:36:46] comments here real quick. Um, just uh

[1:36:48] some of the comments that were made by

[1:36:50] the planning commission on the the

[1:36:51] meeting and one is that, you know, uh

[1:36:53] CBZ did not have the experience here in

[1:36:56] Utah writing land use code. Uh was one

[1:36:58] of the things that they had brought up.

[1:37:00] Um, also, um, Obie brought up that all

[1:37:03] three of these look like they were

[1:37:04] great, um, bids. So, I just want to

[1:37:07] thank the the folks that took the time

[1:37:08] to go ahead and apply. And then also

[1:37:11] that uh, both Hondu, was it was it I'm

[1:37:14] sorry, it's

[1:37:15] >> Hansen.

[1:37:16] that's right. Can't even read my

[1:37:18] own notes. Hansen and Sunrise [laughter]

[1:37:21] both have a lot of rural experience uh, both with law and uh, uh, and both

[1:37:26] of these were in I I guess you could say

[1:37:28] budget, right? because it wasn't really

[1:37:30] a budgeted item. It was originally set

[1:37:32] at $90,000. Um, but I believe during

[1:37:34] budget season, one of the commissioners

[1:37:36] here said that it was going to cost up

[1:37:38] to $200,000. And so, we took that out of

[1:37:40] the budget and put that on over into our

[1:37:43] capital expense. So, once again, great

[1:37:45] job for coming in under what we thought

[1:37:46] it was going to cost.

[1:37:49] >> Thank you, Mary. Uh, yes. In the past uh

[1:37:53] when we're in the process of updating

[1:37:56] codes and such that uh we have put

[1:38:00] moratoriums on new uh uh missions or new

[1:38:05] uh projects because we want to update

[1:38:09] the code and make sure that

[1:38:13] projects that come on in the future are

[1:38:15] following the new land use code. We did

[1:38:18] that when we were looking at how we were

[1:38:21] going to uh you do we had a moratorium

[1:38:25] on motel, hotels and overnight rentals

[1:38:28] when we were updating how that was

[1:38:30] happening. And

[1:38:33] I I I don't know if that's been

[1:38:35] considered, but I think it's something

[1:38:37] that should be seriously considered

[1:38:38] because we don't want people to hurry

[1:38:40] and rush because that's what will happen

[1:38:42] to have people jump in and get up on

[1:38:48] pipeline so that they don't have to

[1:38:50] follow any new rules or presentations.

[1:38:55] >> Yeah. and and um we thought about that

[1:38:57] and talked about it a little bit amongst

[1:38:59] staff and I believe also with the chair

[1:39:00] and vice chair. Um I don't think that's

[1:39:03] necessary and that's one of the reasons

[1:39:05] why we're wanting to move forward and

[1:39:07] move quickly with this. Uh

[1:39:09] >> I think if it's moving forward quickly

[1:39:13] and such and having a moratorum would

[1:39:18] you know it's not going to be a very

[1:39:19] long one but I I I think

[1:39:23] I personally think it's really important

[1:39:24] that we do something of that nature so

[1:39:26] that uh the people in the future are

[1:39:29] following the rules that will be set

[1:39:31] through this new process and not being

[1:39:34] try and and we won't have the rush

[1:39:36] because that's what will but is as we go

[1:39:39] forward if people see something they're

[1:39:41] not comfortable with there's going to be

[1:39:43] a rush of applications.

[1:39:45] >> Sure. Good comment.

[1:39:46] >> So I I really support and think we

[1:39:49] should consider a moratory

[1:39:52] until this is in place. Mike,

[1:39:55] >> yet another another reason for a rush.

[1:39:58] Thank you for not being rushed and

[1:40:00] getting this work done. [clears throat]

[1:40:01] uh previous plan uh land use plan was

[1:40:05] uh quite frankly a load of crap. Uh it

[1:40:08] had legal pitfalls. It had contradictory

[1:40:10] statements. It had it still does

[1:40:14] >> land use code. Uh

[1:40:17] I can't wait till the new one's done.

[1:40:18] Thanks for getting the work done.

[1:40:20] >> Thank you.

[1:40:23] >> You have any more comments?

[1:40:25] >> No. Yeah, [clears throat] I appreciate

[1:40:26] that.

[1:40:27] >> Is this also a notice to proceed or is

[1:40:28] that a different

[1:40:30] >> Excuse me.

[1:40:31] >> Would this be a notice to proceed as

[1:40:33] well or is that a different like to

[1:40:36] contact the sunrise engineering and tell

[1:40:38] them to go ahead and proceed?

[1:40:40] >> Yes, as soon as we vote on it. I think

[1:40:41] that would be

[1:40:43] >> Yeah. [clears throat]

[1:40:45] >> Okay. With that, we will go ahead and

[1:40:46] vote on it. So, we had a motion by Mike

[1:40:49] and a second by Brian to go ahead and

[1:40:51] accept Sunrise Engineering for the land

[1:40:53] use code update. Those in favor

[1:40:58] that passes seven. Oh, thank you.

[1:41:01] Thanks for all your work on Andrew and

[1:41:03] all the planning commissioners and

[1:41:04] Trish.

[1:41:06] >> I I don't know if we want to put that on

[1:41:07] future consideration to look at doing

[1:41:11] on a new application.

[1:41:15] >> All right. from six distribution to two

[1:41:17] in the past. So

[1:41:19] we have

[1:41:23] » yeah when we did that future land use

[1:41:25] plan we did put a moratorium. So I don't

[1:41:27] know Stephen if you could just look into

[1:41:28] that a little bit if you don't mind.

[1:41:30] >> I think it's I I personally think it's

[1:41:33] really [clears throat]

[1:41:36] » Okay, we're going to move along. We have

[1:41:38] Steven Glire

[1:41:40] and Jud

[1:41:43] from our engineering company.

[1:41:46] Lochner. So, we're going to talk about

[1:41:48] airport entrance road FA grant

[1:41:51] application number nine.

[1:41:54] >> Hi.

[1:41:56] >> Okay, before I share my screen, just a

[1:41:58] little background on this. Um, this

[1:42:01] entry road grant app and the uh pavement

[1:42:05] preservation project were both things

[1:42:07] that had gone through the airport prior

[1:42:10] to my arrival, as did the two projects

[1:42:12] that are kind of under construction

[1:42:13] right now. Um,

[1:42:16] as a result, uh, I just missed it. This

[1:42:19] should have been on the budget this

[1:42:20] year. So, let me just go ahead and

[1:42:22] apologize in upfront that this wasn't

[1:42:26] budgeted for. I put it on the CIP list

[1:42:28] and just didn't get it in the full

[1:42:29] budget. So, I apologize for that, but

[1:42:32] these are grants that have been

[1:42:34] discussed as part of our um, ongoing

[1:42:38] projects for

[1:42:40] even before I got here. So, I'm going to

[1:42:43] try and figure out how to share screen

[1:42:45] here

[1:42:47] through both projects at the same time.

[1:43:18] full screen.

[1:43:22] Okay.

[1:43:30] Goodness gracious. All right. That was

[1:43:32] not as hard as I look. [laughter]

[1:43:34] >> There it goes.

[1:43:34] >> Okay. So, first of all, we have our

[1:43:36] entry road rehabilitation. You have a

[1:43:38] question already.

[1:43:39] >> Oh, not yet. [laughter]

[1:43:42] » Mike, Mike, put your hand down.

[1:43:47] >> I'm willing to start, but um picture of

[1:43:50] our current entry roads.

[1:43:51] >> Y the entry road um is kind of your your

[1:43:55] front door to your airport. And this is

[1:43:57] what ours looks like now. For just

[1:44:00] contrast, the the pavement that you see

[1:44:03] that's in reasonably good shape was done

[1:44:05] 12 years ago.

[1:44:07] >> Uh and the highway

[1:44:08] >> and the pavement that uh is on the other

[1:44:11] side of that obviously was done much

[1:44:13] longer ago than that, which is why this

[1:44:16] was put into the CIP in the first place

[1:44:18] is um when you go to an airport, a lot

[1:44:21] of people nervous about flying,

[1:44:23] whatever. How professional your airport

[1:44:25] looks going in is kind of a big deal. Uh

[1:44:28] so [clears throat] we asked for the

[1:44:30] grant on this one. The total project

[1:44:33] cost on this is uh 1 million157,895,000

[1:44:40] dollars. Uh the FAA is going to put in

[1:44:44] 1.1 million and our match of 5% would be

[1:44:48] about $58,000.

[1:44:51] The 5% match is something that may not

[1:44:54] last very much longer. because so you

[1:44:57] know it's usually a 10% match that you

[1:44:59] have to make on FAA projects. So um the

[1:45:03] 5% match is something that's pretty

[1:45:04] important to try and take advantage of.

[1:45:07] So with that said, this is why we want

[1:45:09] to do this [cough]

[1:45:10] and uh again I apologize. This should

[1:45:13] have been in our budget. I missed it.

[1:45:15] [clears throat] Uh so that's why we're

[1:45:17] here now asking for the money. Just for

[1:45:20] an additional point of clarification,

[1:45:21] the 5% match, the federal government for

[1:45:24] all airport projects nationwide for

[1:45:27] physical years 2025 and 2026, they upped

[1:45:31] the match. It was kind of tied to the

[1:45:33] other um infrastructure funding. For 25

[1:45:37] and 26, they upped it from the roughly

[1:45:40] 90% federal share to 95%.

[1:45:44] So,

[1:45:45] >> and just both of these projects, by the

[1:45:47] way, don't come out of the AIP money.

[1:45:49] They come out of the BIL, the bill money

[1:45:51] or AFT as we call it. He had he had his

[1:45:54] hand up first. So,

[1:45:55] >> he always does. [laughter]

[1:45:57] >> I actually have a question.

[1:45:59] >> Okay.

[1:46:00] >> Wait until after. Yeah, Mike's going to

[1:46:02] go in if we have discussion after.

[1:46:04] >> There's no questions. I drove on it

[1:46:05] about 3 weeks ago.

[1:46:06] >> Okay. I I move to approve the entrance

[1:46:08] road grant application and authorize the

[1:46:10] chair to sign all related documents to

[1:46:12] the completion of the project for a

[1:46:14] fiscal impact of $57,895

[1:46:19] the local 5% match.

[1:46:24] » Actually Brian can second first before

[1:46:26] we can have discussion.

[1:46:27] >> Go ahead. Yeah. So I'll second motion in

[1:46:29] a second. Okay. And then we're going to

[1:46:30] go ahead and go Trish.

[1:46:31] >> Okay. Um was this Ge was this on the

[1:46:34] capital improvements list or Steve? Was

[1:46:36] this on the capital?

[1:46:36] >> It was on our It was on our CIP list.

[1:46:39] Yeah. That I submitted. Yeah.

[1:46:40] >> Okay. It was on that list. Okay.

[1:46:44] >> Killing me.

[1:46:47] [laughter]

[1:46:47] >> Doc now. Go ahead.

[1:46:49] >> Are you finished? Sure.

[1:46:50] >> Yeah.

[1:46:50] >> Okay. So, it was on the but it wasn't in

[1:46:52] budget. It was just on the improvement.

[1:46:53] >> Yeah. It wasn't in budget.

[1:46:56] >> Yeah. No, I I I think that it's pretty

[1:46:58] compelling that we're getting over a

[1:47:00] million bucks for just about $60,000

[1:47:03] share. But I do there we have approved

[1:47:05] two airport projects that were out of

[1:47:07] budget already. Um

[1:47:09] >> and those those were out of budget for a

[1:47:11] different reason, but we went we WENT

[1:47:12] THROUGH THAT.

[1:47:13] >> NO, NEVERTHELESS, they were out of

[1:47:14] budget. We we had a difficult budget

[1:47:16] year. We're [clears throat] still having

[1:47:17] a difficult budget year. We've already

[1:47:18] approved $15,000 that are out of budget.

[1:47:20] >> One of those we're going to get back,

[1:47:22] but just keep

[1:47:23] >> Okay. I hope [laughter] so.

[1:47:25] >> Um so I so I get the value there. I I

[1:47:28] get the need. Um I'm yeah I'm just

[1:47:32] having difficulty with with two of these

[1:47:33] coming up and two having already been

[1:47:36] put in that we we're spending a lot of

[1:47:38] money on the airport and and I'm cool

[1:47:40] with that but there's also a ton of

[1:47:42] other projects in the county that we do

[1:47:44] need to spend money on maintenance

[1:47:46] things like the mosquito abatement

[1:47:48] building things like OA where we just

[1:47:50] saw motors fail and I know we're we're fixing those things peace meal

[1:47:55] where we should be getting in front of

[1:47:58] it and this is money that could you

[1:47:59] spent for those things.

[1:48:01] >> Um,

[1:48:02] >> no, no, it's it's it's cool, Steve. I'm

[1:48:04] just I'm just pointing it out.

[1:48:05] [laughter]

[1:48:06] >> Um, I I looked at both of these projects

[1:48:09] and I think my personal preferences I I

[1:48:12] definitely think they're both valuable,

[1:48:13] but I I'm going to vote for one of them

[1:48:15] and I and I think the the this the

[1:48:18] second one that you put on here is the

[1:48:20] one that I think is more pressing. um

[1:48:22] having read those

[1:48:25] um and that's the reason not not at all

[1:48:27] because I don't support the airport

[1:48:28] improvements there. I just I just think

[1:48:31] we're we're we're pushing a lot of money

[1:48:33] in that direction there. I think there's

[1:48:34] other directions that we should be

[1:48:35] pushing.

[1:48:36] >> Can I comment real quickly before you go

[1:48:38] on?

[1:48:39] >> Yeah.

[1:48:40] >> FAA funding tends to go in waves. Um we

[1:48:44] caught a big wave. I mean this this is

[1:48:46] not the kind of thing the two major

[1:48:48] projects that we that we've already been

[1:48:50] working on. three. Actually, that

[1:48:52] doesn't happen very often. And typically

[1:48:54] after you've had a big wave of funding

[1:48:57] like that, you're kind of you got to sit

[1:48:58] at the top of the class for a little

[1:49:00] while.

[1:49:01] >> So, I I I hope not. We're going to try

[1:49:03] because this is a 20 to1 um

[1:49:08] >> try and get grants to keep the airport

[1:49:09] going.

[1:49:10] >> Um but it does typically get harder to

[1:49:12] get discretionary money after you've had

[1:49:15] two really big projects.

[1:49:18] >> All right. Okay. So, we're going to go

[1:49:19] with Brian and then Mike and then Mary

[1:49:21] because she hasn't spoken yet. Probably

[1:49:23] Bill and Trish and then I will speak as

[1:49:26] well. But so, Mike, go ahead. Oh,

[1:49:29] >> I think it was Brian first. [laughter]

[1:49:31] >> Had your hand up first, I'm sure.

[1:49:33] >> Uh, yeah.

[1:49:35] >> Never put it down.

[1:49:36] >> My I just want to make the statement. My

[1:49:38] comments are important, too. If I have

[1:49:40] my hand raised, it's for something I

[1:49:41] read a week ago because we got this

[1:49:43] roughly a week ago. It's not hard to see

[1:49:45] that. But my comments are relevant to

[1:49:48] the topic just because I already

[1:49:50] formulated opinion. Don't tell me to put

[1:49:51] my hand down.

[1:49:54] >> Thank you,

[1:49:55] >> Brian.

[1:49:58] So, I just want to kind of break up a

[1:50:01] little bit of the the idea of this

[1:50:02] budget. I think that the public still

[1:50:05] plans on Grand County doing

[1:50:07] infrastructure projects, right? Safety

[1:50:10] projects like the entrance right here to

[1:50:12] the airport. uh safety projects like you

[1:50:14] know maintaining the the pavement out

[1:50:16] there on the runway. Um I I think that

[1:50:19] that's all planned that that what what

[1:50:21] they're looking for. I think when people

[1:50:22] talk about us cutting our budget, I

[1:50:24] think they're talking about us cutting,

[1:50:26] you know, the the overinflated staffing

[1:50:28] that they have that happened, you know,

[1:50:30] the prior 10 years where we where our

[1:50:33] the size of our government grew, right?

[1:50:35] But the projects that were actually

[1:50:37] being completed out in the community

[1:50:38] were not that folks weren't seeing those projects being completed. I think

[1:50:43] this is a great deal right here. Um, you

[1:50:46] know, and I mean, if I had the

[1:50:47] opportunity right now to go back and

[1:50:49] get, you know, 3.2 financing on my

[1:50:52] house, believe me, I'd go ahead and jump

[1:50:53] in on that right now.

[1:50:56] >> Mary,

[1:50:59] um,

[1:51:02] trying to think what to say first. To

[1:51:04] begin with, I I just want to comment on

[1:51:06] what what you just said, Brian. There

[1:51:08] has not been a feasibility study to

[1:51:10] determine whether or not we are under or

[1:51:13] over staffed. I believe if you to talk

[1:51:16] to 90% of our staff, they would feel

[1:51:19] like they're working very hard and doing

[1:51:21] an incredible job with a [snorts] lack

[1:51:24] of resources. I think it's uh an

[1:51:28] assumption to say that the community

[1:51:31] looks at our staff and says that we are uh overstaffed. That is an

[1:51:37] assumption and that just

[1:51:41] it it bothers me when [clears throat]

[1:51:43] you say something like that. It needs to

[1:51:45] come from some type of study, not just

[1:51:48] an opinion.

[1:51:50] I I agree with Jock.

[1:51:54] I I I look at both of these and and I

[1:51:56] read both of them

[1:51:59] and shoot a airport. I remember the year

[1:52:01] that Jud was the head of the airport and

[1:52:04] we were redoing everything. It seemed

[1:52:07] like every time we turned around we were

[1:52:09] looking at another budget and another budget.

[1:52:13] But I do know FAA loans don't totally go

[1:52:17] away. They stay till the next year. And

[1:52:19] I do think it's at this point I think we

[1:52:22] have I'm going to choose between one of

[1:52:24] the two projects at this point because

[1:52:27] there's uh a lot of needs in this

[1:52:30] county. A lot of needs and uh the

[1:52:34] entrance to the airport would be

[1:52:35] wonderful and I and you you are one of

[1:52:38] the best advocates for your department

[1:52:41] and I cheer you for that. [laughter]

[1:52:43] But I also know that a lot of other part

[1:52:45] apartments need a lot and I think the

[1:52:48] preservating preserving the pavement is

[1:52:51] so important because that is safety and

[1:52:54] critical to the operations of the

[1:52:57] airport. So, uh,

[1:53:01] not that I don't support them both and I

[1:53:02] see that, you know, it's a hard one to

[1:53:05] turn something down when you're going to

[1:53:07] get all this money, but at the same

[1:53:09] time,

[1:53:11] we're we're we're just spending and spending and spending

[1:53:15] outside of budget and this is only our

[1:53:20] fourth month.

[1:53:22] >> We're not even we're not we're in our

[1:53:24] first quarter still.

[1:53:25] >> I totally understand that. Let me put up

[1:53:26] one more quick slide just to so that you

[1:53:28] kind of have an idea of the scope of the

[1:53:30] project. This this is the uh this is the

[1:53:32] area that we will be working on. So it's

[1:53:35] a pretty large project and you you might

[1:53:37] not know it but right out in front of

[1:53:39] our offices and our snow removal

[1:53:41] building there is about an 18 in hole

[1:53:44] where a sinkhole has begun to form. So

[1:53:47] um you know there are there are some

[1:53:49] relevant reasons uh to do this project.

[1:53:51] Not the least of which is depending on

[1:53:54] what happens in the Middle East. Who

[1:53:55] knows what the oil would cost us for

[1:53:57] next year if we wait. I mean, it's

[1:54:01] >> I get it. I get it. There's a ton of

[1:54:03] different things, but I'm not sure

[1:54:04] there's another one that's going to give

[1:54:06] you a 20 to1 return.

[1:54:09] >> This is true.

[1:54:10] >> Oh, did you have a comment?

[1:54:11] >> I do.

[1:54:13] >> Yeah. Um, there's seven commissioners up

[1:54:15] here. There's probably seven different

[1:54:18] opinions on the size of our local

[1:54:21] government. And that commissioner is

[1:54:24] able to have his opinion as I am and as

[1:54:26] you are where whether we do a study or

[1:54:28] not. We don't need a study to look back

[1:54:31] and see that for the last four to five

[1:54:33] years our budget has been going down and down because of the fact that

[1:54:39] tourism was dropping. This is an

[1:54:42] economic driver for the county here.

[1:54:45] This is the entrance. We're going to

[1:54:48] great lengths here to bring in a new

[1:54:50] airline possibly if the FAA so chooses

[1:54:53] to honor our choice. This is going to be

[1:54:56] something that's going to help that

[1:54:58] bottom line whether we choose to support

[1:55:00] the size of the staff we have now or a

[1:55:03] larger staff or smaller staff. This is a

[1:55:06] driver that's going to help our

[1:55:08] community and the county's finances. So

[1:55:12] that's my stand on it.

[1:55:14] >> Okay. So, I was [clears throat] gonna

[1:55:15] just I was

[1:55:16] >> Oh, I was I was out.

[1:55:17] >> I think you already spoke and I haven't

[1:55:19] >> Well, I was after Okay, I'll [laughter]

[1:55:20] go. May I go after you?

[1:55:21] >> Yeah. Okay, great.

[1:55:22] >> Yeah, you you spoke and I haven't yet.

[1:55:24] So,

[1:55:24] >> okay. [clears throat]

[1:55:25] >> Um I think that we have an airport

[1:55:27] subcommittee meet um with the

[1:55:29] commissioners and and Steve, I think it'

[1:55:31] be super helpful to not miss these

[1:55:34] things in the future so that when we are

[1:55:36] going to do our budget that these will

[1:55:37] be forefront and we'll know what's up.

[1:55:39] We'll know what's going on and we'll we

[1:55:42] won't be surprised. And I also am just

[1:55:46] curious about the um [clears throat] you

[1:55:48] know it's a it's a $1.1 million with the

[1:55:51] $58,000 match. If we did push that off

[1:55:53] like Mary's recommending and the cost of

[1:55:56] the project goes up, how does that

[1:55:58] funding work?

[1:55:59] >> I'm not as worried about Well, we have

[1:56:01] to go back and reapply for the grant. So

[1:56:03] if the if the cost of it um if

[1:56:06] [clears throat] the everything goes up

[1:56:07] and we have to bid it next year, then we

[1:56:10] would have to reapply for more grant

[1:56:11] money.

[1:56:13] Um I'm more concerned with the doubling

[1:56:15] of our match,

[1:56:17] >> which is a real poss which is a real

[1:56:19] possibility.

[1:56:20] >> I agree. Okay. And um and I and I do

[1:56:23] agree that the airport is a huge

[1:56:25] economic driver. It's also something

[1:56:27] that diversifies our community. You

[1:56:29] know, we have pilots and and they make

[1:56:32] good good money. So I think that the

[1:56:33] investing the airport is really good.

[1:56:35] The other piece is that road. I think

[1:56:37] when we were doing that because I am on

[1:56:38] the airport subcommittee is that road.

[1:56:40] We need that access to get to those new

[1:56:42] hangers that we want to build which are

[1:56:44] going to create income to the airport.

[1:56:47] >> Yes. That that will run

[1:56:51] >> parallel down there.

[1:56:52] >> So So it won't help it.

[1:56:54] >> It would just continue along

[1:56:55] >> continue. So I think it's a definitely

[1:56:57] needed um just to get those get that

[1:56:59] moving along to spring money on those

[1:57:02] hangers.

[1:57:03] >> I do think the airport subcommittee is

[1:57:04] going to help make sure we don't miss

[1:57:06] these. I think it's also going to help

[1:57:07] that I don't plan on going anywhere and

[1:57:09] we're not going to be having transitions

[1:57:11] going on uh where one thing started

[1:57:13] under one and then under another and

[1:57:15] then to me. Um I think that's going to

[1:57:17] help too. So

[1:57:18] >> absolutely that's great to hear. Thank

[1:57:20] you. And now Trish, go ahead.

[1:57:22] >> Um I I do appreciate all your guys'

[1:57:25] work. I really do. I just our budget as

[1:57:29] you know was torturous and um

[1:57:33] it yeah we just keep we just keep

[1:57:36] digging holes here and and so again so

[1:57:39] please don't take offense if I vote

[1:57:40] against this it won't make any

[1:57:41] difference. I'm not going to vote for

[1:57:43] either of them just because of that that

[1:57:45] they were not within budget. Um, and we

[1:57:48] I do and I keep stating this that I

[1:57:50] think we need to have a prioritized

[1:57:52] capital projects list where we take the

[1:57:54] greatest needs are on the top of that

[1:57:55] list. And and I understand they're by

[1:57:57] department and because we literally we

[1:57:59] have a weed department building right

[1:58:01] now where they have to move their

[1:58:03] computers and move their scientific

[1:58:05] equipment when it rains because it's

[1:58:07] leaking so bad. I mean, there are

[1:58:09] departments that are in defcon 5 phase.

[1:58:12] They're just not as vocal. And yes, I

[1:58:15] understand they're not providing

[1:58:17] economic vitality and all of that and so

[1:58:19] they're not as as flashy, but we do have

[1:58:22] great needs. So, please don't take

[1:58:24] offense.

[1:58:24] >> I will take I will take no offense

[1:58:26] >> and I do appreciate your efforts.

[1:58:28] >> Okay. Thank you. Oh, Brian, go ahead.

[1:58:31] >> I am an advocate for the weeds

[1:58:32] department, but I do remember during

[1:58:34] budget season, the push in the weeds

[1:58:36] department was for more staff and not

[1:58:38] for the infrastructure.

[1:58:40] >> Okay,

[1:58:41] >> we're going to call for a vote on this.

[1:58:42] So, we had a motion by Mike and a second

[1:58:44] by Brian for the match on the um airport

[1:58:49] entrance. All those in favor?

[1:58:54] That passes? Well, all those opposed.

[1:58:56] [clears throat]

[1:58:59] » So, those that passes 43 with the

[1:59:00] opposed is Commissioner Haden,

[1:59:02] Commissioner Heather, and Commissioner

[1:59:04] McN. and we're gonna go ahead and um get

[1:59:07] number 10 done since you guys are

[1:59:08] sitting right there and then we'll go on

[1:59:09] to the opening the public hearing.

[1:59:13] >> All right.

[1:59:14] So number 10 is the pavement

[1:59:16] preservation grant application. And

[1:59:19] >> so this slide is just to show you the

[1:59:21] part of the pavement that we're planning

[1:59:23] on doing the pavement preservation on.

[1:59:25] Um there there's a lot of reason to do

[1:59:27] pavement preservation, but the biggest

[1:59:29] one is you see what happens on the other

[1:59:31] picture when you don't do pavement

[1:59:33] preservation for a long time. That's

[1:59:34] totally failed pavement. That's part of

[1:59:36] what we're going to be rebuilding under

[1:59:38] our next project.

[1:59:40] Um so we want to try and avoid that for

[1:59:42] as long as we can. The FAA actually

[1:59:44] wants us to do pavement preservation

[1:59:46] every 3 to 5 years. Um, and if you have

[1:59:49] a good plan in place to make sure you're

[1:59:51] doing your pavement preservation every

[1:59:52] three to five years, it gives you better

[1:59:54] chances to get um, discretionary money

[1:59:56] when you do have to do rebuilds. So,

[1:59:58] that's part of the reason that we want

[2:00:00] to do this project as well. And put up

[2:00:03] the amounts there. Some of these are on

[2:00:06] this particular one, more than anything,

[2:00:08] we're we're it's a bit of an estimate,

[2:00:10] but um, it's kind of a not to exceed.

[2:00:13] We're we're hoping we can get it for

[2:00:15] less than that, but again, the cost of

[2:00:16] oil changes constantly. So, yeah.

[2:00:22] >> Mike,

[2:00:23] >> I'd like to make the motion. I move to

[2:00:24] approve $50,000 not to exceed $50,000 in

[2:00:29] pavement preservation grant application

[2:00:31] matching funds and all and

[2:00:35] to authorize all other needed signatures

[2:00:37] to complete this project.

[2:00:39] >> Thank

[2:00:41] you. you had a did you have a question

[2:00:43] or comment? No,

[2:00:44] >> I was just going to say I was just going

[2:00:45] to say like I said previously, I I I

[2:00:47] think both these projects are worthy. I

[2:00:48] think this one to me uh was a little

[2:00:52] more preent and um hard to hard to

[2:00:57] ignore. The 5% match is is great. And

[2:01:02] again, I do support things at the

[2:01:03] airport, what I said before about um

[2:01:07] budget stands, but I'll support this

[2:01:09] one. Okay, Mike.

[2:01:12] >> Just want to double check my numbers,

[2:01:13] too. Uh, that was roughly $107,000. 107

[2:01:19] correct $1,000 total uh for the total of

[2:01:22] 2.1 some odd million.

[2:01:24] >> Yeah.

[2:01:26] >> I like your guys' rate of exchange here.

[2:01:28] >> Like I said, like I said before, don't

[2:01:31] >> we need to get some other

[2:01:34] This is pretty amazing that you that you

[2:01:36] caught a wave like this. I get that it's

[2:01:37] a tough budget year, but it doesn't

[2:01:40] happen all the time. There's going to

[2:01:41] come a time when we're begging the FA

[2:01:42] for money and can't get a nickel.

[2:01:44] >> Are you the grant writer?

[2:01:45] >> That's how it is.

[2:01:46] >> Have you been the grant writer on these?

[2:01:48] >> Oh, no. These were approved before I got

[2:01:50] here. I got to just ride this way then.

[2:01:52] That was so easy for you.

[2:01:54] >> We need to talk about some grant

[2:01:55] writing. [laughter]

[2:01:56] >> It's good stuff.

[2:02:00] » Okay.

[2:02:02] >> So, can you just explain where this this

[2:02:04] paving is right there? kind of going

[2:02:05] through the application like the the

[2:02:07] maps that I I didn't see in the packet

[2:02:09] that really

[2:02:09] >> Oh, I didn't put a I didn't put the the

[2:02:11] >> Yeah. So, I just kind of I just want to

[2:02:13] understand the project just a little bit

[2:02:14] more if we have

[2:02:15] >> pavement preservation is going to

[2:02:16] include the runway.

[2:02:17] >> Okay. And so that's

[2:02:19] >> Yeah. So, payment preservation, it's

[2:02:21] basically [cough] two parts. One, if

[2:02:23] there are cracks, you get cracks uh

[2:02:26] filled. That's kind of what the uh

[2:02:28] spaghetti of lines is on the right

[2:02:29] picture is crack fill from a previous

[2:02:30] pavement maintenance. The next is a

[2:02:33] rejuvenating oil. It's the end result is

[2:02:35] like a chip seal on a road, but you

[2:02:37] can't have tiny chips around jet

[2:02:38] engines. No.

[2:02:39] >> Um so crack fill oil and then remarking.

[2:02:44] So it's all fresh paint. Um the

[2:02:46] locations will be the runway, the entire

[2:02:49] runway and all the markings on that. The

[2:02:52] taxi way that runs parallel to the

[2:02:54] runway and all of the areas of the apron

[2:02:58] that are not being reconstructed. So in

[2:03:01] this particular picture, the uh pictures

[2:03:04] on the right, that is a project that's

[2:03:07] already funded already. The grants are

[2:03:09] already issued. It was funded last year.

[2:03:11] Just the grant came in too late to do

[2:03:13] construction last year. That'll be

[2:03:15] starting at the completion of the new

[2:03:17] apron project in May. You

[2:03:19] >> mentioned jets on there, but the jets aren't on this. You can't put a

[2:03:23] jet on that, can you?

[2:03:24] >> Oh, absolutely. That actually where

[2:03:25] we're standing right now is where the

[2:03:27] contour jet left that's a contour jet on

[2:03:29] the left hand side of the picture.

[2:03:31] >> Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right

[2:03:32] there. But where you're doing your your

[2:03:34] chip seal right there.

[2:03:34] >> No, that's where that's where we're

[2:03:36] doing the chip seal is right there. The other we're rebuilding completely

[2:03:41] doing on the concrete or on the

[2:03:42] >> Not on the concrete. All of the

[2:03:44] remaining asphalt. So there are two

[2:03:45] areas of concrete. One right in front of

[2:03:47] the terminal building and then another

[2:03:48] large parking area in the middle of the

[2:03:51] apron. Those are not getting the oil put

[2:03:54] on it. Um

[2:03:57] >> we don't park we don't you don't park

[2:03:58] the jets on that on the where the oil's

[2:04:01] at. Right.

[2:04:02] >> Uh you can park smaller ones. The larger

[2:04:04] That's the whole point of the larger.

[2:04:06] >> Exactly. That's the whole point of the

[2:04:08] concrete on what you mentioned jets and

[2:04:11] that's why it was just a little bit.

[2:04:12] >> Well, that's why you can't put a chip

[2:04:14] seal because it has little pieces of bod

[2:04:16] that will get sucked up into their

[2:04:17] engine because they do still roll across

[2:04:19] it.

[2:04:19] >> Sure. Yeah.

[2:04:20] >> Yeah. Okay. I basically everything it

[2:04:24] protects everything that's not being

[2:04:26] actively worked on either constructed

[2:04:28] this year or the concrete. Otherwise,

[2:04:30] it's all the rest of the

[2:04:32] >> is rebuilt.

[2:04:33] >> Rebuilt. Obviously, not the taxi way or

[2:04:34] the taxi lanes that were just built. Um

[2:04:37] obviously those don't need it, but they

[2:04:39] will the next time around. Fast forward

[2:04:42] 3 to 5 years depending on whether

[2:04:44] >> it also helps with the contrast. For our

[2:04:46] 139, you're required to have a certain

[2:04:47] amount of contrast between your markings

[2:04:49] and your pavement and to redo it helps.

[2:04:53] >> And then just one last question. This is

[2:04:54] when is the timing of this project will

[2:04:56] affect operations throughout this year?

[2:04:58] >> The pro the reason these are kind of

[2:05:00] tricky is you should you should crack

[2:05:02] seal when it's as absolutely coldest as

[2:05:04] possible and you should seal coat when

[2:05:06] it's warm. So because we always have to

[2:05:09] do these at the same time, they're

[2:05:10] always in conjunction. Usually do them

[2:05:11] in the fall when it's cool. um not not

[2:05:16] hot enough to be real great for the oil

[2:05:18] and not cold enough to be real great for

[2:05:20] uh the crack seal but kind of the the

[2:05:25] best we can do when you're doing them at

[2:05:26] the same time.

[2:05:27] >> So in a fall season

[2:05:30] so will it have will this have an impact

[2:05:32] on the fall season as far as operations

[2:05:34] at this work? Uh we will that will be

[2:05:37] part of our design will be a phasing

[2:05:40] plan to have we can't say no impact but

[2:05:44] minimize it as much as possible.

[2:05:46] >> Obviously when we do the runway there's

[2:05:48] going to be a day and and we will make

[2:05:51] sure we pick a day that is the least

[2:05:53] traveled day usually a Tuesday um and

[2:05:57] try and get that done so that we don't

[2:05:59] impact aircraft.

[2:06:00] >> Perfect. Thank you guys.

[2:06:03] Okay, we're done. We're going to call

[2:06:05] for a vote. So, we had a motion by Mike

[2:06:08] and a second by Bill. Those in favor of

[2:06:10] supporting the pavement preservation

[2:06:12] grant in the match of $50,000

[2:06:14] [clears throat] for the county say I.

[2:06:17] >> I.

[2:06:19] >> And those opposed.

[2:06:21] And those abstaining abstaining. Okay. I

[2:06:25] supported one, but now they're going to

[2:06:27] go two. So, I just didn't.

[2:06:31] >> Okay. So we have that passed five with

[2:06:34] one against Commissioner Hadin and one

[2:06:38] opposing Commissioner McGain.

[2:06:42] Sorry, abstaining.

[2:06:44] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[2:06:47] >> All right. [laughter]

[2:06:48] >> We will be sending lots of paperwork.

[2:06:50] >> Lots of paperwork. Yes.

[2:06:52] >> I already have it all. I've been

[2:06:54] ignoring it. [laughter]

[2:06:56] >> Um so it's 6 o'clock. 607 and we're

[2:07:00] going to go ahead and open the citizen

[2:07:02] to be heard first portion of this. So,

[2:07:05] we're not opening the public hearing

[2:07:06] yet. So, if there's anyone online or in

[2:07:09] this chamber that wants to speak at our

[2:07:11] standard citizen favor, not on the

[2:07:14] public hearings, then let me know and

[2:07:17] come on up. Come on up, Jibby.

[2:07:24] » Can I sit down? Sit down.

[2:07:25] >> You don't have to. You can stand right

[2:07:26] here. But you'll that way everyone in

[2:07:28] the audience can hear you

[2:07:29] >> if you use a microphone.

[2:07:32] >> Okay. I just would like you guys when

[2:07:34] you're thinking about affordable housing

[2:07:36] to seriously look at the manufactured

[2:07:39] home issue because I think it's

[2:07:43] generally not a good idea having been in

[2:07:46] this. It's usually really hard to they

[2:07:48] don't uphold as well. They're harder to

[2:07:51] finance. They do take away employment

[2:07:53] from locals, even though I know it's

[2:07:55] hard for us to find plumbers and that

[2:07:57] stuff. So, I just would like you to look

[2:07:59] into other options as well.

[2:08:02] >> And you know, I don't think I asked to

[2:08:03] say your name.

[2:08:04] >> Oh, I'm Judy Powers.

[2:08:05] >> Thank you.

[2:08:07] >> All right. Anyone else here to speak on

[2:08:09] citizens to be heard?

[2:08:12] >> I just wanted to ask a question. I've

[2:08:14] already been mousing off and I'm going

[2:08:15] to do another session. But I'm just

[2:08:16] curious if I could speak prior to the

[2:08:19] zoning talk and then also in that or if

[2:08:22] I just get one.

[2:08:22] >> Uh we usually let just have citizens

[2:08:24] speak one time at citizens be heard. You

[2:08:26] can speak the additional time at the

[2:08:29] about the public hearing.

[2:08:30] >> Okay.

[2:08:31] >> But not in a second citizens be heard.

[2:08:33] We do have another meeting on April 21st

[2:08:35] and so you can come back and talk to us

[2:08:37] then

[2:08:37] >> or I'll send you an email.

[2:08:38] >> I'll send email time to get to billions

[2:08:40] of those.

[2:08:41] >> Yeah, that's great. Thank you. Anyone

[2:08:43] else here for regular citizens to be

[2:08:46] heard?

[2:08:48] Okay, going once. Going twice

[2:08:52] >> online. I think update online is for the

[2:08:54] hearing too. So I just want to move on.

[2:08:56] Okay, we're going to go ahead and we are

[2:08:57] going to open up our first public

[2:08:59] hearing which is this um that's number

[2:09:01] one on our agenda. It's the steeen

[2:09:03] reszone from range and grazing to

[2:09:09] sorry

[2:09:10] range and grazing to resort commercial.

[2:09:13] I'm going to have Andrew Jackson come

[2:09:14] up. He's our planning and building

[2:09:15] director and he's going to open up

[2:09:20] and after that we will allow everyone to

[2:09:22] come up.

[2:09:26] » Thank you Mary. If I drink coffee I

[2:09:28] won't sleep. [laughter]

[2:09:32] Andrew Jackson, planning director for

[2:09:35] Grand County. Uh the application is for

[2:09:38] an ordinance amending the Grand County

[2:09:40] zoning map from range and grazing to

[2:09:43] resort commercial for Mini Lee Ventures

[2:09:45] LLC for approximately 235 acres located

[2:09:50] on lots one and two western half the

[2:09:53] northeast quarter the northern half of

[2:09:56] the northwest quarter of section 36

[2:09:58] township 2 25 south range 21 east Salt

[2:10:03] Lake Base and Meridian excluding

[2:10:05] property sold to Mov city parcel number

[2:10:09] 03-0036-0063

[2:10:13] in Grand County, Utah.

[2:10:17] The scheme family is requesting a zoning

[2:10:19] map amendment for the property changing

[2:10:21] it from range and grazing to resort

[2:10:24] commercial to support various outdoor

[2:10:27] recreation uses both primary and

[2:10:31] secondary in line with the Grand County

[2:10:33] Land Use Code. The zone change aligns

[2:10:36] with the future land use plan for

[2:10:38] Spanish Valley adopted on December 17th,

[2:10:41] 2024, which involve repeating and

[2:10:44] replacing section six of the land use

[2:10:48] section of the 2030 general plan. The

[2:10:51] applicant appeared before the planning

[2:10:52] commission on April 14th of 2025 to

[2:10:56] present their plans for the property.

[2:10:58] The planning commission provided

[2:11:00] extensive feedback including requests

[2:11:02] for more details on issues such as

[2:11:05] annexation status, infrastructure and

[2:11:08] access, use intent and scope, food

[2:11:12] truck, uh offhighway vehicle accessible

[2:11:16] event space, future land use plan

[2:11:18] alignment and environmental and scenic

[2:11:21] protection. The applicant responded to

[2:11:24] the feedback in a letter sent on July

[2:11:26] 22nd, 2025 addressing a comment from

[2:11:29] both the planning commission and the

[2:11:31] public. Please see the attached

[2:11:34] um letter from Miss Steam that's in the

[2:11:38] packet. At the planning commission

[2:11:40] meeting, it was suggested that the

[2:11:41] applicant obtain obtain a letter from a

[2:11:46] city regarding the city's interest in

[2:11:48] annexation. State law does not require a

[2:11:51] property to be annexed into the city

[2:11:53] unless the property owner wants to be

[2:11:55] annexed except if the property owner

[2:11:57] owns less than 50% of the property in

[2:12:00] the act annexation petition.

[2:12:03] Ben County Code states 9.1.11

[2:12:09] require municipal notice of urban

[2:12:11] development proposed residential

[2:12:13] development with more than 15 dwelling

[2:12:15] units and an average greater than one

[2:12:19] residential unit per acre or any

[2:12:21] proposed commercial development with a

[2:12:23] cost projection of greater than $750,000

[2:12:27] that is in the municipality's proposed

[2:12:30] annexation area is subject to municipal

[2:12:33] review. The steam request does not

[2:12:36] include any residential dwellings and

[2:12:39] improvements are less than $750,000.

[2:12:42] So, it is not uh subject to municipal

[2:12:45] review. Additionally, a request was made

[2:12:47] for a more recent title report. Miss

[2:12:50] Dean has submitted a clean preliminary

[2:12:53] retital title report dated March 31st of

[2:12:56] 2026.

[2:12:58] advocate appeared before the planning

[2:13:00] commission on March 23rd, 2026 for a

[2:13:04] public hearing regarding the zone change

[2:13:06] uh from range of grazing to resort

[2:13:08] commercial. After public comment,

[2:13:10] Commissioner Randy Day made the

[2:13:12] following motion. Having considered a

[2:13:14] staff report and recommendations, public

[2:13:16] comments, testimony, a future land use

[2:13:18] map for Spanish, the land use code, and

[2:13:21] finding that the mini lee venture steam

[2:13:23] application for a zoning map amendment

[2:13:26] complies with the Grand County, Utah

[2:13:28] future land use plan for Spanish Valley.

[2:13:32] He recommended approval of the ordinance

[2:13:35] to the county commissioner. Uh,

[2:13:37] Commissioner Plant Commissioner Megan

[2:13:39] and Schaefer second the motion. Motion

[2:13:41] passed. Five in favor with two opposed.

[2:13:46] >> Thank you. Thank you, Andrew.

[2:13:50] » We have the applicants here. Do they

[2:13:53] want to speak or are they here?

[2:13:55] >> Ask Stephen question. Do they want to

[2:13:57] come up and speak?

[2:13:59] >> Can I ask Stephen a question? [laughter]

[2:14:00] >> Go ahead and ask Stephen. I got some

[2:14:03] exparte communication

[2:14:05] and I'm not sure if I have to would to

[2:14:10] disclose that or if I have to read it

[2:14:12] into the record

[2:14:14] >> for commissioners. You guys aren't

[2:14:16] subject to the same requirements that

[2:14:18] the uh the planning commission has. If

[2:14:20] there was if there was a if there was an

[2:14:24] investment or if there was some other uh

[2:14:26] conflict of interest or restricted

[2:14:28] conflict of interest, he would disclose

[2:14:29] that normally. Um, but it's not the

[2:14:32] exact same as the planning commission.

[2:14:34] But if there's something that you want

[2:14:36] to disclose, you're always welcome to

[2:14:37] disclose.

[2:14:38] >> Oh, okay. Well, I I will disclose. I did

[2:14:41] get a letter from

[2:14:44] >> I think we all I Yeah, but I I I

[2:14:48] was told when the Carmichael property

[2:14:51] years ago that you weren't supposed to

[2:14:53] communicate

[2:14:54] >> and it would be I haven't received a

[2:14:56] copy of that. Um, I would appreciate if

[2:14:58] any commissioner could forward that to

[2:15:00] me and then I can look at it and then

[2:15:01] follow up with you.

[2:15:02] >> Okay. Cuz Yeah, cuz I was told

[2:15:05] that that was not okay. Okay. At one

[2:15:08] point

[2:15:08] >> forward that to me and then I'll I'll

[2:15:09] review it and then I'll I'll make

[2:15:11] recommendations based on that.

[2:15:12] >> Okay. I'll for you right now.

[2:15:14] >> Thank you.

[2:15:15] >> Okay. Will you introduce yourself,

[2:15:18] please?

[2:15:18] >> Hi, my name is Ashley Steam.

[2:15:20] >> I'm Mark Sting, Ashley's father.

[2:15:25] Um, I did email each of the

[2:15:27] commissioners and I'll be happy to read

[2:15:30] that email here so that it's into the

[2:15:31] public record. Um, each commissioner's

[2:15:33] email is listed on the Grand County

[2:15:36] website and there's no stipulation

[2:15:37] saying what you can and cannot email

[2:15:40] them about. So, I apologize. I'm just a

[2:15:43] land owner. I'm not a developer.

[2:15:45] >> Email us about anything. So, we just

[2:15:48] totally fine.

[2:15:50] >> As I said, I am a land owner, not a

[2:15:52] developer.

[2:15:54] I'm the owner of the property that is

[2:15:55] the subject of a request for a zoning

[2:15:57] change from range and grazing to resort

[2:15:59] commercial.

[2:16:00] We are asking for your approval of this

[2:16:02] zoning change request because it

[2:16:04] recognizes both the longstanding and

[2:16:07] current commercial use of our property

[2:16:09] and will allow for future legal

[2:16:11] commercial activities on this land. The

[2:16:14] current [clears throat] zone of range

[2:16:15] and grazing does not apply to our land.

[2:16:18] This property has never been used for

[2:16:20] grazing or raising cattle. The only

[2:16:23] agricultural use of this land is that

[2:16:25] decades ago,

[2:16:27] it was part of a route for driving

[2:16:28] cattle to and from the Lasal Mountains

[2:16:30] for summer grazing. This land is not

[2:16:33] suitable for grazing cattle.

[2:16:37] The Ravens Room Zipline business has

[2:16:38] been operating on our property since

[2:16:40] 2013. It is a wellestablished, highly

[2:16:43] rated tourist attraction and a unique

[2:16:46] outdoor experience in Moab. The Ravens

[2:16:49] Room Zipline is one of the few zip lines

[2:16:51] in the United States with starting and

[2:16:52] landing points without platforms. Each

[2:16:55] zipline starts and ends on solid

[2:16:57] sandstone. It includes an exciting

[2:17:00] off-road drive in all train vehicles

[2:17:02] from the valley floor to the first of

[2:17:04] six zip lines that are unlike anything

[2:17:06] else in the area. Guests consistently

[2:17:09] describe it as one of the highlights of

[2:17:11] their Moab experience. Under the current

[2:17:13] management, the business has increased

[2:17:15] the number of guests enjoying the

[2:17:16] zipline. And Raven's Rim wants to add

[2:17:19] the following attractions. One, guided

[2:17:22] repel course. Two, recreational climbing

[2:17:25] zone. Three, food truck and shaded rest

[2:17:28] area for Slick Rock Bike Trail and Hells

[2:17:30] Revenge users. Four, OV accessible event

[2:17:34] space. Five, additional zipline courses.

[2:17:38] The Ravens Room Zipline currently

[2:17:40] employs around 20 guides. These are some

[2:17:42] of the highest paid guides in the area.

[2:17:44] Many earn $4 to $500 a day just in tips.

[2:17:49] This expansion would allow Ravens Room

[2:17:51] to increase their workforce.

[2:17:53] I'd now like to address the concerns and

[2:17:55] objections that were raised before the

[2:17:57] planning commission. Commissioner Robert

[2:17:59] O'Brien argued that this zoning change

[2:18:01] would allow some future owner to

[2:18:03] construct five homes per acre on this

[2:18:05] property for a total of 1,175

[2:18:08] houses. This assertion is easily

[2:18:10] disproved.

[2:18:12] The geology and topography of this land

[2:18:14] makes most of it totally unsuitable for

[2:18:17] home sites and it is not our intention

[2:18:19] to construct any homes.

[2:18:22] This is not an agrarian landscape. It is

[2:18:25] not a flat alalfa field or a peach tree

[2:18:27] orchard.

[2:18:29] >> In fact, more than half of this land is

[2:18:31] completely uninhabitable.

[2:18:33] There are two types of sandstone on this

[2:18:35] property. The Cayanta sandstone and

[2:18:37] Navajo sandstone. Broad bench below the

[2:18:40] Big G is entirely composed of Caya

[2:18:42] sandstone which is very competent

[2:18:45] sandstone formation that is resistant to

[2:18:47] erosion and forms a bare rock surface

[2:18:49] with very little top soil.

[2:18:52] The property inside the sandots

[2:18:54] recreation is comprised almost entirely

[2:18:56] of Navajo sandstone. The Navajo

[2:18:58] sandstone gets weathered into rounded

[2:19:00] domes and fins which make for exciting

[2:19:02] biking and off-roading but makes it

[2:19:04] unsuitable for the construction of homes

[2:19:06] or dwellings.

[2:19:08] Planning Commissioner member Mary Hawine

[2:19:11] stated that our property was in an area

[2:19:14] where the overarching philosophy should

[2:19:16] be do no harm. The Hell's Revenge Trail

[2:19:19] is notable for many things, but doing no

[2:19:21] harm to the surface of the Navajo

[2:19:23] sandstone isn't one of them.

[2:19:26] More than 100,000 visitors on bicycles

[2:19:28] and off-road vehicles are enjoying the

[2:19:30] use of the trail easements our family

[2:19:32] granted in 1968 and 2013.

[2:19:36] However, as seen in map four of our

[2:19:38] packet, thousands of off-road vehicles

[2:19:41] are trespassing off the deed easement to

[2:19:43] visit the Devil's Hot Tub.

[2:19:45] Our goal is to allow the Ravens Room

[2:19:47] Zipline to add to the excitement and

[2:19:48] enjoyment of the visitors who venture up

[2:19:50] above Moab's Big G. This is a request to

[2:19:53] align zoning with reality, support an

[2:19:56] existing and successful local business,

[2:19:58] and allow for controlled, appropriate

[2:20:00] use of a uniquely situated,

[2:20:02] privatelyowned property within a

[2:20:04] recreationdriven economy. Thank you for

[2:20:07] considering our application.

[2:20:10] >> Thank you. So, the county commission

[2:20:13] does not vote on this tonight. It's just

[2:20:14] a public hearing, so we won't even, I

[2:20:16] don't think, ask questions. We're just

[2:20:18] here to listen to everything and that's

[2:20:21] all. It's going to be 3 minutes. You

[2:20:23] have three minutes to speak. There's

[2:20:24] going to be a timer up here. When it

[2:20:26] turns to red, please wrap up your

[2:20:28] comments. I don't want to have to ask

[2:20:29] you to stop speaking. Okay. Mark, did

[2:20:31] you have something to say as well?

[2:20:33] >> Uh, yes. I've uh prepared a handout that

[2:20:36] I'd like to give all of you and the

[2:20:39] public and entered into the record. Is

[2:20:41] that possible?

[2:20:41] >> Yeah.

[2:20:42] >> Okay. So, how many are you up there?

[2:20:45] >> Seven. We have seven. And then our admin

[2:20:47] will make sure that it gets into the

[2:20:49] packet

[2:20:51] one for our county attorney.

[2:20:59] » So I have a short statement.

[2:21:06] I believe that those of you who are

[2:21:08] concerned about this loan land being

[2:21:10] resold

[2:21:12] are overlooking several things about

[2:21:13] this property. The claim that 1,175

[2:21:18] homes could ever be stuffed on a few

[2:21:20] acres that are fairly flat and buildable

[2:21:22] apparently false and being used to scare

[2:21:25] up opposition to the reszoning

[2:21:26] application.

[2:21:28] More than half this parcel is

[2:21:30] uninhabitable because it's located in

[2:21:32] the Navajo sandstone where the Slick

[2:21:34] Rock Bicycle Trail and Hell's Revenge or

[2:21:36] HB trail are located.

[2:21:39] And as my daughter probably got great

[2:21:40] land for riding mountain bikes and

[2:21:44] blasting around on ter all-terrain

[2:21:46] vehicles, how no one, no sane person

[2:21:49] would want to build a home in the middle

[2:21:50] of this overcrowded, overheated

[2:21:52] landscape.

[2:21:54] At least a fourth of the rest of this

[2:21:55] property is a steep, unbuildable cliffs.

[2:22:00] There's a hillside slope restriction on

[2:22:04] building on that slope. My old man

[2:22:07] didn't get the memo.

[2:22:09] So I don't think anybody is going to

[2:22:13] attempt under the current restrictions

[2:22:16] to build on that slope. So if you look

[2:22:17] at the map

[2:22:19] that uh is nearly a fourth of the actual

[2:22:23] flat parcel. So if you look at this, we

[2:22:26] have narrow sandstone where this is

[2:22:28] inside the Hell's Revenge and the Slick

[2:22:31] Rock Bike Trail and the zipline. And

[2:22:34] then we have this small area

[2:22:36] a stiff of steep cliffs where nobody but

[2:22:40] my old man's going to ever build a home.

[2:22:43] And then you have basically the Cayenta

[2:22:46] formation which I can't imagine could

[2:22:51] accommodate more than there's no way

[2:22:54] could accommodate 1,175

[2:22:56] homes. So, you know, if someone wants to

[2:23:00] buy those home sites and take them off

[2:23:02] the market, we'll sell them for $1,000 a

[2:23:05] home site. That's that's a million

[2:23:08] bucks. Want to buy 500, take them off

[2:23:11] the market, $500,000. Don't want to just

[2:23:15] buy 20 whatever somewhere feels that

[2:23:17] we're going to somehow develop that

[2:23:19] property. We're ready to take it off the

[2:23:21] market. I can't imagine that anyone

[2:23:24] would do that other than trying to scare

[2:23:27] up a lot of people who believe that

[2:23:28] someday they're going to be 5,000 people

[2:23:31] living up there. So when you talk about

[2:23:34] doing no harm,

[2:23:37] I find this humorous because when I used

[2:23:41] to go up there, when I was a kid, we

[2:23:43] used to go hiking up there. Uh it was

[2:23:46] pristine. The longest black rubber tired

[2:23:50] skid mark in the world is on that

[2:23:53] property now. And I I go up there and

[2:23:56] I'm just amazed. I'm sure all of you

[2:23:58] are. I was amazed when the bicycling

[2:24:01] trail how many people were enjoying it.

[2:24:04] When I saw the uh off-road vehicles, I

[2:24:07] couldn't believe it. And yet, it doesn't

[2:24:09] bother me because it's a big part of

[2:24:11] what draws people to this town. I don't

[2:24:14] know what the percentage of the income

[2:24:17] revenue is, but it must be 20 or 30% of

[2:24:21] what this town receives.

[2:24:24] And we're not trying to disturb any of

[2:24:25] that. We're just trying to get some of

[2:24:28] the value, the commercial value of the

[2:24:30] property that my daughter owns. So,

[2:24:33] thank you for your time and looking

[2:24:35] forward to

[2:24:38] uh hearing the comments the public and

[2:24:41] uh we'll be I'd also invite any of you

[2:24:43] who would like to come to the property

[2:24:45] and get a tour. Uh the zipline people

[2:24:49] would be glad to arrange that and you

[2:24:51] can see what's going on up there and

[2:24:53] realize how um busy the place is during

[2:24:58] the hike.

[2:25:01] Thank you. It is busy. Thank you. Thank

[2:25:03] you. Okay, so we're going to start the

[2:25:06] public um comments and I'm going to go

[2:25:08] ahead and start online tonight because

[2:25:10] we've had some people been waiting for a

[2:25:12] while. So, I'm going to go ahead and let

[2:25:13] Bob O'Brien go first if he's there

[2:25:17] and then Troy or Troy, sorry, will go

[2:25:21] after Bob and move back into the room.

[2:25:26] And like I said, we do have a timer

[2:25:28] here. So when it gets to red, please

[2:25:30] wrap your comments up immediately and

[2:25:32] move on to the next person. It sounds

[2:25:35] like

[2:25:36] >> All right, Bob, are you on there?

[2:25:41] » Maybe not. What about Tori?

[2:25:44] >> I'm here.

[2:25:45] >> Okay, Tori, go ahead and start with you.

[2:25:48] >> I'm just going to ask you to not reszone

[2:25:51] this as a resort commercial.

[2:25:57] just the possibility. Okay, there's a

[2:25:59] house out here in the cliff in the

[2:26:02] Navajo sandstone that was blasted out by

[2:26:05] dynamite. Nobody ever thought, "Oh, they

[2:26:09] could build right there in the cliff."

[2:26:11] But they did. Um, we just received our

[2:26:15] dark sky designation from Moab. Building

[2:26:18] on the skyline is one of the worst

[2:26:20] things you can do for your visual

[2:26:26] uh perception of the night sky. Okay. Um

[2:26:30] [clears throat]

[2:26:31] to allow a a resort commercial to where

[2:26:35] there could possibly be five five homes

[2:26:38] per acre when you could do a resort

[2:26:41] special.

[2:26:44] Just seems counterintuitive.

[2:26:46] uh with everything that we're trying to

[2:26:48] do. If you look at the St. George

[2:26:51] skyline 30 years ago, 35 years ago when

[2:26:53] I lived there, nobody would have even

[2:26:56] imagined that there would be houses

[2:26:58] along every cliff face in St. George.

[2:27:03] There are. And they're not houses,

[2:27:05] they're McMansions.

[2:27:07] So, don't you know uh discount the fact

[2:27:10] that people will build. If you zone it,

[2:27:15] they will find a way.

[2:27:17] Um, I would really like to see this

[2:27:20] commission making more community

[2:27:23] enhancing decisions rather than business

[2:27:26] and touristen enriching decisions that

[2:27:29] has been happening recently.

[2:27:31] We need to protect our little gem of a

[2:27:35] town in the desert that we're so

[2:27:38] fortunate to have. So, if you feel like

[2:27:41] you must reszone this to allow for their

[2:27:44] food truck or for some tourist activity

[2:27:47] up there, and I know there's activity up

[2:27:49] there. I've hiked up there, then do it

[2:27:52] resort special and at least you would

[2:27:55] you wouldn't open the door for a huge

[2:27:58] development

[2:28:00] up on the cliff. I appreciate all of

[2:28:03] your work. Thank you.

[2:28:06] >> Thank you. All right, Bob. I see you

[2:28:08] now. Let's go ahead and move to you.

[2:28:12] Thank you.

[2:28:13] >> Okay. So, uh Bob O'Brien, Castle Valley.

[2:28:16] Um basically, I think I'd echo what uh Tori said. Uh resort commercial

[2:28:23] allows for five houses per acre. Uh

[2:28:27] resort special allows for one for five

[2:28:30] acres. I think for this area, uh resort

[2:28:34] special uh is preferable. Uh it's just

[2:28:39] the same density as range and grazing. I

[2:28:42] do understand they don't think they're

[2:28:44] going to be building. They don't think

[2:28:46] that people after them are going to be

[2:28:48] building, but I think it's a bad idea to

[2:28:52] give the same density we have in our

[2:28:55] county uh land use code for um

[2:28:59] uh what is it? neighbor our our uh small

[2:29:04] lot residential which is five units per

[2:29:07] acre. That's residential kind of

[2:29:09] building and I don't think we ought to

[2:29:11] be giving that kind of zoning away in

[2:29:14] this particular case. I'm going to quote

[2:29:16] quickly from our land use code. I don't

[2:29:19] think either of these two things, resort

[2:29:23] commercial or resort special are ideal

[2:29:28] uh and fit this area terribly well. But

[2:29:31] I do believe that either one of them

[2:29:33] could be used if one wanted to make that

[2:29:35] decision. Here's Resort Commercial. It's

[2:29:37] intended to promote site design concepts

[2:29:40] implemented in the Moab Grand County

[2:29:42] North Gateway Plan in an amendment to

[2:29:45] the Grand County Plan. The dis the uh

[2:29:49] the district is designed to create a

[2:29:51] positive impression of the city of Moab

[2:29:54] and Grand County and encourage mixed

[2:29:56] residential and commercial development

[2:29:59] including resort guest and local

[2:30:01] oriented commercials uses in an urban

[2:30:04] setting doesn't fit terribly well. I

[2:30:07] think it course can be used because I

[2:30:09] don't think it has to be exactly along

[2:30:12] 191. Same thing for resort special.

[2:30:16] is specifically designed

[2:30:18] to implement the scenic resource

[2:30:20] protection district codified in section

[2:30:23] 4.8.

[2:30:24] The zone is intended to be the prefer

[2:30:27] preferred zone for the area defined by

[2:30:30] the boundary map in section 4.8.2.

[2:30:33] Basically, that's highway 191 and 313.

[2:30:37] It was designed uh to be the preferred

[2:30:40] zone for that area, but I think it can

[2:30:42] be used uh for other areas. I think both

[2:30:46] of these can. They just don't fit uh

[2:30:48] terribly well. Um

[2:30:52] let's see what else I want to say.

[2:30:54] Basically, the resort commercial zone

[2:30:56] allows a density that's 25 times greater

[2:31:00] than that that's currently allowed. Uh

[2:31:04] and that's kind of the density that we

[2:31:06] would have that for compact

[2:31:07] neighborhoods. Um, and I know it's going

[2:31:11] to be argued and I understand it's going

[2:31:13] to be very difficult to build much

[2:31:15] density up in sand flats or maybe even

[2:31:17] along the cliffs. Uh, and I I have to

[2:31:20] agree with that. But the density that

[2:31:23] this allows,

[2:31:26] five units per acre like small lot

[2:31:28] residential just shouldn't be allowed in

[2:31:30] this area. And it would be easy to make

[2:31:33] this resort special. It's actually a

[2:31:36] dangerous precedent. I don't really want

[2:31:39] to draw this uh comparison because it's

[2:31:42] not absolutely uh clear, you know, that

[2:31:46] this would be similar, but I think lots

[2:31:48] of people thought that Cane Creek was

[2:31:49] going to be a campground and now it's

[2:31:51] going to become a town. Oh, but you

[2:31:54] couldn't get a sewer there. You couldn't

[2:31:55] get water.

[2:31:56] >> Thank you. It's been three minutes. I

[2:31:58] hate to cut you off, Bob. I'm sorry.

[2:32:01] >> We have a lot.

[2:32:02] >> That's great. Okay. All right. And so

[2:32:06] let's start with we've got a hand up

[2:32:08] here. She's come back. She came back.

[2:32:10] Sorry. Black shirt. [laughter]

[2:32:12] I left my class to come talk to you.

[2:32:14] >> Come back. Thank you.

[2:32:17] My name's Amy Johnson.

[2:32:20] I live here in Miami. Uh the resoning to

[2:32:23] resort commercial of esteemed property

[2:32:25] is dangerous. You may think that there

[2:32:28] is no way roads or services can be

[2:32:30] [clears throat] built to allow for

[2:32:31] community up there, but we don't know

[2:32:33] that. I'm a geological engineer. The

[2:32:36] advances in the next 20 years could be

[2:32:38] amazing for building on Navajo sandstone

[2:32:41] or Cayenta. Um, it's irresponsible to

[2:32:46] assume that the result won't be utilized

[2:32:48] by some future developer.

[2:32:51] The stains want it zoomed that way so

[2:32:53] they can get maximum money for the sale

[2:32:55] of their property. Plain and clear. I

[2:32:58] fully support denying this reszone or at

[2:33:01] the very least just doing a spot reszone

[2:33:04] for the little food truck thing they

[2:33:06] need. Um, and leaving the rest as it is.

[2:33:10] You should have learned your lesson from

[2:33:13] the Cane Creek disaster. We really don't

[2:33:15] just repeat that. Don't doubt it.

[2:33:18] [applause]

[2:33:21] I am a mountain biker and I love riding

[2:33:24] in the Sand Plats area. I go mountain

[2:33:26] biking to enjoy nature, not to grab

[2:33:28] lunch at a food truck. I go mountain

[2:33:31] biking to get away from food trucks. I'd

[2:33:34] like to finish with a quote from my

[2:33:35] favorite musical Hamilton. [laughter]

[2:33:39] History has its eyes on you.

[2:33:46] [applause]

[2:33:48] Andrea, do you want to come up?

[2:33:50] >> Yeah. And just so we can move through

[2:33:51] this, we have a lot or else I'll have to

[2:33:53] stop. I mean, if we get an hour in, I'll

[2:33:55] stop the comments. Can't go on all night

[2:33:58] long. So, let's move along.

[2:34:06] » We can set them at a time, but we can we

[2:34:08] just need to move along so that we can

[2:34:09] just get them all done. Public record.

[2:34:12] >> Okay. Uh Grant County Commissioners uh

[2:34:14] Samplex Recreationary Stewardship

[2:34:16] Committee is by resolution an advisory

[2:34:18] body authorized to provide the Grant

[2:34:19] County Commission with facts, analysis,

[2:34:22] and recommendations on matters related

[2:34:23] to Sandflats. On April 6th, the

[2:34:26] committee met to consider a general

[2:34:27] resone application submitted by Mini Lee

[2:34:29] Ventures LLC. The application requests a

[2:34:32] change from range and grazing to resort

[2:34:34] commercial for a 235 acre parcel located

[2:34:37] at 1021 North Hell's Revenge Trail.

[2:34:40] Grand County holds a perfected easement

[2:34:42] for the Helerbench Trail across this

[2:34:44] parcel and the BLM holds a perfected

[2:34:46] easement for the Slick Rock Bike Trail

[2:34:47] across this parcel. The committee

[2:34:49] reviewed the proposal with particular

[2:34:51] attention to its potential impacts on

[2:34:52] visitor experience, operations, and

[2:34:55] natural resources.

[2:34:57] Some background, the Sand Flats

[2:34:58] Recreation Area is nationally recognized

[2:35:00] for the Slick Rock Bike Trail and the

[2:35:01] Hell's Revenge OV trail, both designated

[2:35:04] national recreation trails. Samplat

[2:35:06] receives more than 250,000 visitors

[2:35:09] annually and contributes over $25

[2:35:11] million to the local economy. Of the 99

[2:35:15] businesses operating under BLM special

[2:35:17] recreation permits within SAM Flats, 75

[2:35:21] are local businesses. 13 permitted

[2:35:24] events occur annually, including

[2:35:25] mountain bike races and four-wheel drive

[2:35:27] events such as the Jeep Safari. Each

[2:35:29] year, approximately 60,000 vehicles

[2:35:31] travel to Hellzer Venge Trail and over

[2:35:33] 75,000 users ride the Slick Rock Bike

[2:35:36] Trail. Concerns: Reszoing this property

[2:35:39] for range and grazing to resort

[2:35:40] commercial would allow development at

[2:35:42] the highest intensity permitted under

[2:35:44] the land use code. While the existing

[2:35:46] Rapens Rim zip line operates under a

[2:35:48] conditional use permit, the applicant's

[2:35:50] proposed expansion could likely be

[2:35:52] accommodated through through a CUP

[2:35:55] amendment or under resort special

[2:35:57] zoning. This zoning would allow

[2:35:59] approximately 0.2 units per acre,

[2:36:01] capping development at roughly 47 units.

[2:36:04] Instead, the applicant seeks resort

[2:36:06] commercial zoning, which allows up to

[2:36:08] five residential units per acre. At full

[2:36:10] buildout, this would permit

[2:36:11] approximately 1,175 residential units on

[2:36:14] a parcel that surrounds segments of both

[2:36:16] the Slick Rock Bike Trail and the Hell's

[2:36:18] Revenge OV trail. Although the applicant

[2:36:20] has stated that large-scale resort

[2:36:22] development is not currently intended,

[2:36:24] such development would be allowed by

[2:36:26] right under this zoning decision

[2:36:27] regardless of the future ownership.

[2:36:29] Resort commercial zoning would also

[2:36:31] require roadway improvements to

[2:36:33] commercial standards. Given that legal

[2:36:35] access to the property is via the class

[2:36:37] D road near the hot tubs, this would

[2:36:40] likely necessitate paving portions of

[2:36:42] the Hell's Revenge Trail. Such changes

[2:36:45] would fundamentally alter the character

[2:36:47] of the trail system and diminish the

[2:36:49] experience that supports local guiding

[2:36:51] businesses and recreational users. The

[2:36:53] economic impact on the 75 local

[2:36:55] businesses operating under BLM permits

[2:36:58] could be substantial with corresponding

[2:37:00] effects on the broader local economy.

[2:37:02] The committee also noted that allowing

[2:37:03] alternative access points from the

[2:37:05] Hellsbench exit road could compromise

[2:37:07] Sandflat's ability to manage its trail

[2:37:09] system. This includes impacts to revenue

[2:37:11] collection, visitor safety, orientation,

[2:37:13] and resource protection.

[2:37:16] For these reasons, the Sample

[2:37:17] Stewardship Committee voted to recommend

[2:37:20] denial of the reszone application in its

[2:37:22] current form, finding that it conflicts

[2:37:23] with the established management

[2:37:25] objectives of the Samplat recreation

[2:37:27] area. Respectfully, Andrea Branch chair.

[2:37:31] Thank you.

[2:37:34] >> Speed reading.

[2:37:35] Yes. Next. Come on up,

[2:37:37] Audrey.

[2:37:40] about two or three.

[2:37:44] » Hi everybody.

[2:37:47] Uh I'm Audrey Graham, resident and

[2:37:48] homeowner for 42 years here in Grand

[2:37:50] County, Grand County Commissioner from

[2:37:52] 2004 to 2012. So you could throw around

[2:37:55] and wait for quite a while. [laughter]

[2:37:58] Um

[2:37:59] the Steam family has indeed uh con

[2:38:03] [clears throat] contributed lots to our

[2:38:05] community clearly land and recreation.

[2:38:08] This is not about the Steam family. Um,

[2:38:10] we're very grateful, but we have been

[2:38:13] pies too many times. In 1998, many

[2:38:17] people don't remember this or know it,

[2:38:18] but Bill Browder asked for an upzone of

[2:38:20] 30 acres along Sand Flats Road

[2:38:22] overlooking Moab. He wished to open a

[2:38:24] resort with 240 units in a five in four

[2:38:28] five-story buildings right there along

[2:38:31] the Sand Flats Road that was on 30

[2:38:34] acres. Quoting from the July 9th, 1998

[2:38:37] Times Independent,

[2:38:39] if the request is approved, he or future

[2:38:42] owners of the land would not be limited

[2:38:44] to any plan and could build whatever

[2:38:47] facilities they wanted that fit within

[2:38:49] the zoning and subdivision rules. End of

[2:38:52] quote.

[2:38:54] Forever, eternally, whatever you want to

[2:38:56] say, the right lives with the land.

[2:39:00] People are telling us telling you this

[2:39:01] right and left and reminding you in 1998

[2:39:05] I nominated the runes of our canyon of

[2:39:07] our valley for our last chance

[2:39:09] landscapes through an organization

[2:39:10] called Scenic America. This was during

[2:39:12] the time that our landfill was voted the

[2:39:15] second most scenic landfill in

[2:39:17] [laughter] the United States. Right.

[2:39:20] >> Um the Moab rims were indeed voted among

[2:39:24] America's 12 most endangered landscapes.

[2:39:27] That was October of 1999. in this little

[2:39:30] book. It made front page news and it was

[2:39:33] exciting and it opened up the discussion

[2:39:36] we needed to have and helped establish

[2:39:38] the need and open have open conversation

[2:39:41] and policy for hillside protections.

[2:39:43] Since then, we've had all kinds of

[2:39:44] revisions and updates to the general

[2:39:46] plan and zoning and all the good things.

[2:39:48] This is not about the proposed

[2:39:50] development. It's about the resort

[2:39:52] commercial zone being too broad and it's

[2:39:55] about broken trust.

[2:39:58] If the land owner wants a retirement

[2:40:00] fund, let's get together and buy the

[2:40:02] land at a fair price in the current

[2:40:04] zoning.

[2:40:04] >> Exactly.

[2:40:05] >> Fine.

[2:40:06] We have been here before. We've been

[2:40:10] here with Can Creek. Sorry, Echo Canyon.

[2:40:13] We've been here with Rock, Lion's Back,

[2:40:15] the tunnels in the west proposed for the

[2:40:18] West Rim. Remember those? That wasn't

[2:40:20] that long ago. Um tunnels up to a a

[2:40:23] development up there. And oh, the tram the trams to nowhere. So along

[2:40:32] that line I would like to ask what are

[2:40:34] the bonding arrangements for this

[2:40:36] development? Who pays and when do they

[2:40:40] pay for removal if this development

[2:40:42] fails?

[2:40:45] Let's I I if the landowners want to make

[2:40:48] a living, let's get some safety, some

[2:40:51] guarantees.

[2:40:53] If they want to make a killing, let's

[2:40:55] not be psies. We've been there before.

[2:40:59] Thank you.

[2:41:01] [applause]

[2:41:04] » Go ahead and come up and then you in the

[2:41:05] back will be right next after

[2:41:10] school. [clears throat]

[2:41:12] >> Hi, my name is Eric Hildenbrand. Uh I

[2:41:15] want to echo a lot of what Audrey said.

[2:41:17] Uh and I also want to thank the students

[2:41:19] for coming and talking. I think that is

[2:41:20] a much uh feeling a lot more actual

[2:41:23] engagement with community. obviously,

[2:41:25] you know, have been involved in the

[2:41:26] community for a long time here than

[2:41:28] feeling that not feeling that with Echo

[2:41:29] Canyon. So, um, yeah, I mean, I think

[2:41:32] people's concerns are coming from the

[2:41:33] repeated trauma of, uh, seeing the same

[2:41:36] pattern play out over and over again

[2:41:38] with people, you know, requesting up

[2:41:40] zones, reszoning now, leading to the

[2:41:42] higher sale price,

[2:41:43] [clears throat and cough]

[2:41:44] and then big money interests don't

[2:41:45] really care how unbuildable it seems to

[2:41:48] us mere mortals. Um, and hotel companies

[2:41:52] are operating with a completely

[2:41:54] different scale of money than, you know,

[2:41:56] we're operating with. So, they don't

[2:41:58] really care that it's unbuildable. Uh,

[2:42:00] and they have a lot of time to wait it

[2:42:01] out. Uh, which we've seen with a lot of

[2:42:03] these developments as well. Um, it seems

[2:42:06] the current owners are doing this in

[2:42:07] good faith. Uh, they can take additional

[2:42:09] steps to ensure that our concerns are

[2:42:11] alleviated. Uh, that can be specifically

[2:42:14] they can enter into deed restrictions.

[2:42:16] they could put the land in a land trust.

[2:42:18] It restricts future use of of the land.

[2:42:20] Uh they don't need to request the

[2:42:22] highest zoning available for this. Um so

[2:42:25] I urge the property owners to take the

[2:42:27] steps they can to guarantee us in the

[2:42:28] next generation. We just won't turn into

[2:42:30] another echoan. So thank you.

[2:42:35] » I have an Emily online. You're going to

[2:42:36] be after this gentleman. So if you want

[2:42:38] to be ready. Thank you.

[2:42:40] >> Hi my name is Jordan Listister. I'm a

[2:42:42] Moab resident and I live in district 3

[2:42:44] represented [clears throat] by

[2:42:45] Commissioner Hadler. I would like to

[2:42:47] highlight the concerns of the dissenting

[2:42:49] members of the planning commission who

[2:42:50] expressed concern for resoning with

[2:42:52] Portell for the future. It would require

[2:42:54] an intentionally myopic view to not see

[2:42:57] the parallels between this reasonzoning

[2:42:58] and the pending developments in

[2:43:00] Cambridge. While it is perhaps unfair to

[2:43:03] restrict future actions due to past

[2:43:05] misactions, it would also be incredibly

[2:43:07] foolish to not learn from past mistakes.

[2:43:10] Additionally, it is my understanding the

[2:43:12] entirety of the parcel is being

[2:43:13] requested to be reszoned due to a

[2:43:15] planning commission preference to not

[2:43:16] allow further subdivisions and resonings

[2:43:18] due to other past land use frustrations.

[2:43:21] However, this case does seem like a good

[2:43:24] candidate for just such peace meal

[2:43:25] reszones if the commission wishes to

[2:43:27] allow limited development in the area.

[2:43:30] However, regardless of the size of

[2:43:32] requested reszone, I would urge the

[2:43:34] commission to not allow this to move

[2:43:36] forward. the land directly above the

[2:43:38] greater sand flats area and is crossed

[2:43:40] by the slick rack bike and heler bench

[2:43:42] trails. Adding concessionary business to

[2:43:44] that area would alter its experience and

[2:43:46] reduce its allure. The appeal of this

[2:43:48] area is a sense of being in remote and

[2:43:50] rugged red rock country despite being

[2:43:52] only minutes from town. Encroaching

[2:43:55] business development would imbue a tame

[2:43:57] disified field that is counter to that

[2:43:59] nature. It cheapens the experience. It

[2:44:02] degrades the area. This area is our

[2:44:05] shared natural backdrop. Fellow

[2:44:07] residents and the visitors we all depend

[2:44:10] on as a town. We value the scenic views

[2:44:12] and outstretching vistas. Reszoning this

[2:44:15] area into a commercial use category

[2:44:17] jeopardizes our greatest shared resource

[2:44:20] and the very thing MOA has to offer.

[2:44:22] Accessible, undeveloped, uninhabited red

[2:44:26] rock wilderness. Thank you for your

[2:44:28] time. I hope you reject this proposal

[2:44:30] and inevitable future proposals like it.

[2:44:34] Okay,

[2:44:36] and then Christie online.

[2:44:39] >> All right. Hi everyone. Emily Campbell.

[2:44:41] Um, I want to speak a little bit more

[2:44:43] broadly about a lot of the ambiguities

[2:44:45] that exist in our land use code and in

[2:44:48] our general plan um, and the precedent

[2:44:50] that this could set if those aren't

[2:44:51] addressed. And I'm want to raise these

[2:44:53] with the hopes that um, I know we've

[2:44:55] had, you know, a lot of turnover in

[2:44:57] staff. So, I hope our new members of

[2:44:58] planning staff have a chance to address

[2:44:59] these prior to your vote. And also I

[2:45:01] think some of them need to be addressed

[2:45:02] in whichever motion you end up making

[2:45:04] when you do take this to a vote. Um so a

[2:45:06] lot of the reason we're in this

[2:45:07] situation is because the county has

[2:45:09] dragged its feet on updating the land

[2:45:10] use code. And that in of itself should

[2:45:12] not be a reason to rush into a

[2:45:14] legislative decision that will have

[2:45:16] large uh implications going forward

[2:45:18] again regardless of how you ultimately

[2:45:20] decide on this individually. Um, so a

[2:45:22] couple of those like Bob has already

[2:45:24] called out the fact that this resort

[2:45:26] commercial district is explicitly stated

[2:45:28] in the land use code as being associated

[2:45:30] with a small area plan that was created

[2:45:32] in 2001. And there are u pieces of that

[2:45:36] still all over the site uh plan

[2:45:38] descriptions and and requirements for

[2:45:40] the zone that are not addressed. When

[2:45:42] the future land use map went out to bid

[2:45:45] in uh March of 2024, the at the time we

[2:45:48] were calling it sort of the resort

[2:45:49] commercial all-encompassing district for

[2:45:51] the future land use map, but with a note

[2:45:53] that the implementing zones would be

[2:45:54] resort commercial or resort special. Um,

[2:45:57] not only did this say that this zone

[2:45:59] should um, scenic resources resources

[2:46:01] and view sheds are to be protected in

[2:46:03] uh, new resort commercial developments,

[2:46:05] but also any new um, developments in

[2:46:08] this area were supposed to require

[2:46:11] employee housing. And you can see that

[2:46:14] in the um, RFP that went out to bid from

[2:46:17] the commission. It's not excl it's not

[2:46:19] included in the chapter that got

[2:46:21] adopted, but the chapter points to the

[2:46:24] updated need to um change the

[2:46:26] definitions in the land use code. So,

[2:46:27] we're in this weird tricky spot where I

[2:46:30] don't think the five of you who voted

[2:46:32] for the change in chapter six of the

[2:46:34] general plan intended to remove

[2:46:36] affordable housing and as an attribute

[2:46:38] of new tourism development, that would

[2:46:40] be um Mary, Jacques, Trish, Mike, and

[2:46:44] Bill. I mean all of you have talked

[2:46:45] about the importance of housing and we

[2:46:47] know that housing for our our service um

[2:46:49] and seasonal workforce is one of the

[2:46:51] areas we are most deeply constrained.

[2:46:53] Any new development of tourism

[2:46:55] businesses are going to just put

[2:46:56] additional pressure on that housing

[2:46:57] stock. And I thought the county had

[2:46:59] wanted to address this the general plan.

[2:47:01] This is the time to do it when we're

[2:47:03] putting our land use code out to bid

[2:47:05] before we um put one of these large

[2:47:07] parcels into this new zone without

[2:47:09] having addressed that question. So, I

[2:47:10] really would like to see you guys

[2:47:12] address that beforehand so we can

[2:47:13] interpret it. And one other area of

[2:47:15] interpretation, the reason that do no

[2:47:17] harm keeps getting brought up is on chap

[2:47:19] on page 27 of the land use uh chapter of

[2:47:22] our general plan, we have a map that

[2:47:25] includes this parcel and many many many

[2:47:27] other parcels including many by my home

[2:47:29] in a do no harm map that says do no harm

[2:47:31] means these areas should generally

[2:47:33] maintain the densities that exist at the

[2:47:34] present. The landscape beyond the

[2:47:36] existing entitled residential areas is

[2:47:38] an essential characteristic that

[2:47:39] contributes to the agrarian landscape

[2:47:41] that defines much of the outskirts of

[2:47:43] Spanish valley. These areas should be

[2:47:45] preserved and protected for higher

[2:47:47] density development that is better

[2:47:48] suited to proposed community centers. So

[2:47:51] if you arbitrarily make this change here

[2:47:54] without addressing how we're supposed to

[2:47:56] interpret this map on page 27 where it

[2:47:59] very clearly conflicts with the future

[2:48:00] land use map on page 35. Um, it makes me

[2:48:03] wonder how you guys are going to

[2:48:05] interpret the very large agrarian spaces

[2:48:07] near my own home or in other areas of

[2:48:08] the county where these two are at odds.

[2:48:11] Um, you had another reszone development

[2:48:13] proposed right around the corner for me

[2:48:15] that had the exact same problem. Do no

[2:48:17] harm on one page, massive development

[2:48:20] opportunities on the other. And the

[2:48:22] precedent that you would be setting

[2:48:23] makes it very difficult for land owners

[2:48:25] as well as future developers to protect

[2:48:27] how you're going to interpret these

[2:48:29] things. Um, again, I'm I'm here just to

[2:48:31] advocate for better process and please

[2:48:34] more predictable outcomes for both sides

[2:48:36] of this market. And the way to do that

[2:48:38] would be to address the land use code

[2:48:40] issues first and then this resone. Thank

[2:48:42] you very much.

[2:48:44] >> Thank you. Mary, are you online?

[2:48:48] >> I messed it up.

[2:48:50] >> Oh, okay. Um,

[2:48:52] >> you're next, Christie. Let's see. Unless

[2:48:54] Mary, I think she's coming on right now.

[2:48:57] >> Thanks. The uses proposed

[2:49:00] for the steam property could be

[2:49:02] accommodated by resort special,

[2:49:06] but once it's owned for resort

[2:49:08] commercial, allowing for 25 houses on

[2:49:12] any buildable 5 acres, it could be sold

[2:49:15] to Lion's Back. It could be sold to any

[2:49:18] other developer. There's a home in

[2:49:21] Castle Valley that's built into a cliff.

[2:49:24] It's a cave home. It looks like it's a

[2:49:26] really expensive home. I've spent years

[2:49:30] on my in back country trails gazing up

[2:49:34] at ancient homes built up on impossible

[2:49:38] cliffs.

[2:49:40] Just tell the developer that something

[2:49:43] is too hard to build on and see how

[2:49:46] ambitious they get

[2:49:49] when money is no problem. As Tory Hill

[2:49:54] says, if you zone it, they will build. I really hope you don't pretend to be so

[2:50:00] naive to think that this zone wouldn't

[2:50:04] go to the highest bidder, the most

[2:50:06] ambitious developer, and to hell with

[2:50:10] food trucks.

[2:50:12] [laughter]

[2:50:13] >> Thank you.

[2:50:18] want to thank the Steen family for

[2:50:21] really being so crucial in how this

[2:50:25] community developed way back when and uh

[2:50:28] for its cultivation so far. I am deeply

[2:50:32] concerned about the timing and the scope

[2:50:36] of this up zone that it goes from uh the

[2:50:41] grazing which I get you're not doing

[2:50:43] can't do there but to go all the way to

[2:50:46] the highest with uh the timing of the

[2:50:51] planning that still needs to be taken

[2:50:54] care of like Emily was talking about.

[2:50:56] But I think one of the things that

[2:50:59] really I'm concerned about is that ever

[2:51:03] uh since [snorts] I can remember there's

[2:51:06] been a sort of communitywide

[2:51:10] feel that rimside development is not the

[2:51:12] way we want to go. It's repeated like a

[2:51:15] refrain in every planning effort that I

[2:51:18] can think of. And so the uh concern

[2:51:22] about the access where it gets to would just lead to more development up

[2:51:30] there where we've already got the dark

[2:51:32] sky and also everything we discovered

[2:51:35] from Johnson's up on top when we went oh

[2:51:38] effluent does roll downhill uh we got to

[2:51:41] look at the water and this is right

[2:51:43] above Skakel Springs where this proposal

[2:51:46] is so I think it's premature to vote

[2:51:49] for this massive reszone. Please

[2:51:52] reconsider a cup, a spot zone, or res

[2:51:56] resort commercial. And thanks for

[2:51:59] grappling with it.

[2:52:01] >> Thank you.

[2:52:02] >> All right, I think that's everyone

[2:52:03] online right now.

[2:52:04] >> We got everybody online. D um K, do you

[2:52:06] want to come up?

[2:52:07] >> That's you.

[2:52:09] >> Are you that far ahead?

[2:52:11] >> Dan, sorry. Dan, do you want to come up?

[2:52:12] >> Do you want to step up? Everybody's

[2:52:14] saying what I wanted to say.

[2:52:15] >> Oh, everybody's saying what you want to

[2:52:16] say. Great. Let's have you you come up

[2:52:18] and then who wants to be next? Okay. Mr.

[2:52:21] Kate, next after her.

[2:52:23] >> I am seeing an hour.

[2:52:25] >> Um I'm glad you're not voting on this

[2:52:27] tonight because uh seems like some

[2:52:30] people have come with minds made up. You

[2:52:32] had a chip on your shoulder about having

[2:52:34] wanting to say something a week ago and

[2:52:36] saying it now. And I hope that you can

[2:52:37] come to these meetings openminded. All

[2:52:39] of you. And I have to say as a citizen,

[2:52:42] I hate to see this infighting. It's it's

[2:52:44] childish and it's awkward. It's not what

[2:52:46] we voted for. But with regard to the steam modder, I find

[2:52:54] it concerning and interesting how we got

[2:52:56] to this point after years of tomalt at

[2:52:58] the Grand County Planning Comm

[2:53:00] Department. Whether a person likes or

[2:53:02] dislikes the massive upzone of the steam

[2:53:05] property. The question is how did the

[2:53:07] 235 acres come to be recommended to be

[2:53:11] upzoned in the first place? Was sincere

[2:53:14] notice given to adjacent property owners

[2:53:16] of this proposal?

[2:53:18] >> I've communicated with Markstein who I

[2:53:21] don't see him here. I consider him to be

[2:53:23] a friend. There he is hiding. Um

[2:53:26] >> I'm not hiding. I'm right here.

[2:53:28] >> Okay. He's associate owner of the land

[2:53:31] with his daughter and he told me, "We

[2:53:33] are not asking for anything from Grand

[2:53:34] County except to recognize that the

[2:53:36] zoning they proposed is the proper one

[2:53:39] for our county." He said, "The county

[2:53:41] has proposed this zone." Who in the

[2:53:43] county did that?

[2:53:45] >> And when was that recommendation made?

[2:53:47] Seems like it was recommended even

[2:53:49] before the Steen asked for it. For at

[2:53:52] least the past 5 years, the Grand County

[2:53:54] Planning Department has been unstable.

[2:53:56] It had three directors since 2021.

[2:53:59] Andrew Jackson was appointed to the post

[2:54:01] a little more than four months ago. Due

[2:54:04] to the intense turnover of county staff,

[2:54:06] an estimated 50 development applications

[2:54:08] became overdue.

[2:54:10] When he went on to the county payroll,

[2:54:13] Jackson said there would be no surprises

[2:54:15] and that he would emphasize transparency

[2:54:17] as he worked through the backlog. I

[2:54:20] don't see him here. I think he left.

[2:54:21] [laughter]

[2:54:22] >> I'm not hiding either.

[2:54:24] >> I certainly hope this plan wasn't the

[2:54:26] product of staff who did the developers

[2:54:29] bidding and the bidding of the divisive

[2:54:32] majorities of the planning commission

[2:54:33] and county commission.

[2:54:36] The problem is our community isn't being

[2:54:38] given the time to process these

[2:54:40] proposals and air their concerns. Where

[2:54:42] does the community get to learn more

[2:54:44] about the 50 overdue projects that could

[2:54:46] impact our community? We need to have

[2:54:49] processing and response time. I

[2:54:52] communicated personally with Mark Steen

[2:54:54] when I learned the proposal and he

[2:54:56] described his property property to me as

[2:54:58] he just said overcrowded and overheated

[2:55:02] and women didn't even want to live

[2:55:04] there. the views. Of course, Steen told

[2:55:07] me, "We are not proposing to build any

[2:55:09] homes up there." So, while he and his

[2:55:12] daughter, the applicant, might not build

[2:55:14] a resort there, they sure might like to

[2:55:16] sell it to billionaires who would own

[2:55:18] the 1100 unit density.

[2:55:21] Fing communicated this to me at the

[2:55:23] proposed density if the zoning is

[2:55:25] changed from range and grazing to the

[2:55:27] resort commercial. That's an unrealistic

[2:55:30] number of houses for any property in

[2:55:31] Moab. More than half of that land is

[2:55:34] inside an unlivable hellscape where the

[2:55:37] trails are located.

[2:55:39] Homes are not selling in Moab right now

[2:55:41] because the place is a scenic hole.

[2:55:43] He told me [laughter] all the big

[2:55:46] developments in Moab are languishing and

[2:55:47] they always will until they clean up the

[2:55:50] trash and junk. He told me

[2:55:53] what I fear is that the density could be

[2:55:55] clustered into high-rise condos, even if

[2:55:57] most of it is a hellscape.

[2:56:00] As a fifth generation Moab kid, I'm here

[2:56:02] to say that the trashy parts of Moab

[2:56:04] stem from the uranium mining economy

[2:56:06] that decades ago squeezed mining

[2:56:08] families into singlewide trailers where

[2:56:11] they had to exist in poverty level

[2:56:13] conditions. Many of the miners got

[2:56:15] cancer and the Atlas mill left a huge

[2:56:17] toxic mess. Ironically, the steamup zone

[2:56:21] is being requested just as we mark the

[2:56:23] milestone on moving 16 million tons of

[2:56:26] toxic waste off the banks of the

[2:56:27] Colorado River, a project paid by

[2:56:30] taxpayers.

[2:56:31] Moab has a dirty legacy with uranium.

[2:56:34] Those who exploited the land in the 50s

[2:56:36] are here to do it again 75 years later.

[2:56:39] Maybe they deserve an 1100 unit resort

[2:56:41] entitlement tower towering over Moab if

[2:56:44] they can get water, sewer, roads, and

[2:56:46] billionaire buyers. But this process

[2:56:49] seems a little shady. When I grew up in

[2:56:51] Moab in the early 60s,

[2:56:53] >> you're past time. Thank you.

[2:56:55] >> Okay,

[2:56:58] >> you got my

[2:57:13] Hand

[2:57:22] them to

[2:57:26] » I was an elementary school teacher. I

[2:57:28] got this down path.

[2:57:35] » Oh, he's ready to

[2:57:36] >> I'm ready.

[2:57:38] >> Save time. Uh, good evening. Uh, my name

[2:57:42] is McKay Edwards. Um, I'm here

[2:57:44] representing Moab Springs Ranch Resort,

[2:57:47] the property most directly affected by

[2:57:50] and impacted by the proposed up zone of

[2:57:54] the zipline property. We share a 1,000

[2:57:57] ft boundary with this parcel, but

[2:58:00] received no notice from the proponent or

[2:58:03] the county that this very substantial

[2:58:06] upzone was being considered. Um, and

[2:58:09] last time I did a large scale plan in

[2:58:11] this town, we notified everyone within

[2:58:13] 1,000 ft. Apparently, that has changed,

[2:58:15] but the rules of good manners have not.

[2:58:18] And and I would just point out that we

[2:58:21] learned two days ago that this is going

[2:58:23] on immediately adjacent to and above our

[2:58:26] property. Uh we request that the

[2:58:29] commission delay a final vote on this

[2:58:31] proposal for at least a month and also

[2:58:33] extend the comment period to allow

[2:58:35] neighboring properties such as us and

[2:58:38] the community to fully understand what

[2:58:40] is being proposed. Because time is

[2:58:42] short, I won't go into process issues,

[2:58:45] but for the record, we submit our

[2:58:47] agreement with planning commissioner

[2:58:49] Hoffine's process objections raised at

[2:58:51] the planning commission meeting. The

[2:58:53] county is not on firm ground here

[2:58:56] procedurally. The up zone is not

[2:58:59] consistent with the general plan or the

[2:59:01] land use code such as they are. Uh it

[2:59:05] also is not in conformance with policy

[2:59:09] around the annexation boundary of of

[2:59:11] Moab city. They did not obtain the

[2:59:13] letter that has been requested by the

[2:59:15] planning commission in April of 2025.

[2:59:19] So, we're playing catchup here a day or

[2:59:21] two after learning that this is going in

[2:59:24] right over our heads. Uh, among our many

[2:59:26] concerns are impact the scapl springs.

[2:59:29] are a primary drinking

[2:59:32] water source for Moab. A large

[2:59:34] development cited on poorest sandstone

[2:59:36] directly over the scapel springs aquifer

[2:59:39] is a risk that the community should be

[2:59:41] aware of. This development will be

[2:59:43] highly visible from most of the valley.

[2:59:46] If you can see the G from your house,

[2:59:48] you'll see the houses or the hotels or

[2:59:51] the condos or the mega structures that could happen on this site. Um,

[2:59:58] and it's currently an area that is um

[3:00:02] really undisturbed. I'd like to we heard

[3:00:05] here tonight from the applicant and in

[3:00:07] the packet the same thing is said there

[3:00:09] will never be a Cloud Rock Alliance Back

[3:00:12] Resort or a Cane Creek development on

[3:00:14] this property due to the topography. Um

[3:00:17] what I would say is I'd like to take

[3:00:20] everyone here down to see Almond Gary

[3:00:23] Resort near Wawi in Kain County looks an

[3:00:26] awful lot like the the sandstone fins at

[3:00:29] the top of Slick Rock. The same things

[3:00:32] that make it challenging and expensive

[3:00:34] to develop make it very valuable. In a

[3:00:37] world of billionaires and equity

[3:00:39] capital, private equity, this something

[3:00:42] like this will happen. All 1100 units

[3:00:46] will be developed someday.

[3:00:49] I promise you that there will not be one

[3:00:52] unit left on the table. There's a

[3:00:54] 60-year-old development that I'm

[3:00:56] familiar with in Park City that is going

[3:00:59] in now. entitled 60 years ago. Everyone

[3:01:02] said it would never happen. Well, the

[3:01:04] billionaires finally found it and it is

[3:01:06] happening. So to to say that the cost of

[3:01:10] development will protect this land and

[3:01:12] if it's true if it's actually true that

[3:01:14] the current applicant has no intent of

[3:01:17] doing the kind of development that we

[3:01:20] all fear, why are we granting 1175

[3:01:24] units? It's the most circular crazy it

[3:01:28] [laughter]

[3:01:29] argument. It doesn't hold up. We can use

[3:01:32] about 10 different ways to permit a food

[3:01:36] truck, some bathrooms, some expanded

[3:01:38] climbing. I actually have no objection

[3:01:40] to those uh particular proposals, but a

[3:01:44] permanent entitlement for,200

[3:01:47] units and this location. It's going to

[3:01:49] hover over this town like a dark cloud

[3:01:52] forever. And someday it will happen.

[3:01:55] It'll use the last water we've got, the

[3:01:58] last sewer capacity we've got, the last

[3:02:01] uh view shed we've got. Um, is this how

[3:02:04] we want to um use public resources and

[3:02:09] the countyy's going to be on the hook

[3:02:10] for this? The taxpayers and property

[3:02:12] owners. Someone will come back in 5 10

[3:02:16] years, a lawyer will say, "Well, if you

[3:02:17] didn't mean to serve us with the water,

[3:02:20] why did you grant us the upzone? If you

[3:02:22] didn't mean to c to cooperate with

[3:02:24] sewer, why did you grant us this upzone?

[3:02:27] The same lawyers that are saying these

[3:02:29] things down the river, they'll be right

[3:02:32] back here. I thank you very much for

[3:02:33] your time.

[3:02:36] [applause]

[3:02:41] All right, great. You're coming after

[3:02:43] Judy. Thank you.

[3:02:44] >> All that sitting [laughter] trouble

[3:02:46] walking. Sorry. I'm Judy Powers and what

[3:02:50] they all are saying I agree with. So,

[3:02:52] I'm not going to belabor this, but I'm

[3:02:54] very concerned about a lot of upzoning

[3:02:56] that's happening right now, and I don't

[3:02:58] understand why we're not doing it before

[3:03:00] we're fixing the land use code. I've

[3:03:02] been going to the planning and zoning

[3:03:03] meetings, and I have to tell you, the

[3:03:05] next one is the same thing. The next

[3:03:06] public hearing is the same thing.

[3:03:08] They're going to they want to upzone.

[3:03:10] The guy is very nice. He asked for

[3:03:12] reasonable things, but I just don't

[3:03:14] understand why we're not doing this. And

[3:03:16] we say, "Oh, it's going to be too noisy

[3:03:18] up there. It's too I mean, who'd want to

[3:03:20] live up Well, who want to live on lion's

[3:03:22] back? I mean, come on. So, just please

[3:03:25] think about this. Seriously, this is a

[3:03:27] huge decision. Thank you.

[3:03:34] » Is that Pete? Okay,

[3:03:36] >> Pete G. I'll be very quick. Um, I can

[3:03:39] corroborate what McKay said. I received

[3:03:41] a text from him about 11:30 at night two

[3:03:43] nights ago saying, "You know anything

[3:03:46] about this? I haven't heard anything

[3:03:47] about it." And also um I went I attended

[3:03:50] the planning commission meeting when

[3:03:51] they voted on it 52. One of the people

[3:03:54] who voted for it really didn't like the

[3:03:57] idea but his argument was well all the

[3:04:00] surrounding commercial property owners

[3:04:03] were in favor of it. So this person

[3:04:05] voted in favor of it. He didn't know

[3:04:08] that or well it was Aaron Lindberg. He

[3:04:10] didn't know that one of the property

[3:04:12] owners had not been consulted. So thank

[3:04:14] you and I hope you deny this. I'm not.

[3:04:19] Sorry. [laughter]

[3:04:21] >> Curly hair. Sorry.

[3:04:24] >> I'm not a regular. You don't know me,

[3:04:26] but this is scary enough that it got me

[3:04:28] coming in. I'm not even on Zoom. I'm in

[3:04:30] the room. [laughter] I'm Celia. It's

[3:04:32] nice to meet you all. And I don't envy

[3:04:33] you. Thank you for the work that you're

[3:04:35] doing. Uh, everything that everybody's

[3:04:37] been saying, in particular, what Jordan

[3:04:39] said about the change to recreation, I

[3:04:42] think it's really important. I won't

[3:04:43] trouble you with that. But I want to

[3:04:44] introduce two concepts that may not be

[3:04:46] popular. You may have never heard of

[3:04:48] them and I deeply hope that they become

[3:04:51] a part of the conversation here and in

[3:04:53] the planning commission. The first one

[3:04:55] is a concept that's taking over in a

[3:04:57] bunch of places that have not yet been

[3:04:59] turned into a MOAB. And I don't know if

[3:05:01] you travel, but when you travel in Utah,

[3:05:03] you see a lot of signs that say, "Don't

[3:05:05] Moab my blank with the name of the

[3:05:07] cities and towns." And I've been seeing

[3:05:09] a bunch of them as I've traveled. One of

[3:05:12] the concepts I want to encourage you to

[3:05:13] think about going forward is called

[3:05:15] solidarity tourism. It's a rethinking of

[3:05:18] how relationships and power work, how

[3:05:21] the tourists who come engage with the

[3:05:23] space. And this conversation kind of

[3:05:26] sounds like let's see if we can somehow

[3:05:28] find a way to minimize the negative

[3:05:31] impacts of having visitors. What

[3:05:33] solidarity tourism does instead is it

[3:05:35] says let's maximize the positive impact.

[3:05:38] Let's go from uh you know having us

[3:05:41] muddle through for six now nine now 10

[3:05:44] months of the year uh as locals to let's

[3:05:47] amplify the values and the voices of the

[3:05:50] community. Let's be together in a

[3:05:52] transformational long-term relationship.

[3:05:54] Most of the people that are using up

[3:05:55] there whether they're on bikes or motos

[3:05:57] or ATVs have been coming here for years

[3:06:00] and they don't come here because they

[3:06:03] want to look out at a viewscape that has

[3:06:05] much crap. And I love the idea of the

[3:06:08] very few things mentioned in this

[3:06:10] request. I think granting them might be

[3:06:12] fine, especially if it can be done in a

[3:06:14] conditional way, but I'd much rather see

[3:06:17] us in a longer term, bigger picture

[3:06:19] conversation about what we actually

[3:06:21] want. What is solidarity tourism look

[3:06:23] like? What is a methodology for the next

[3:06:25] 50 years of Moab tourism that actually

[3:06:28] really will work for locals? Now, the

[3:06:30] second concept you'll probably like even

[3:06:32] less, but here's but here's what I'm

[3:06:35] thinking about. I'm thinking about water

[3:06:37] use and land use that we could

[3:06:39] prioritize that would actually help us

[3:06:42] feed a whole bunch of people that live

[3:06:45] in this valley year round. It is not

[3:06:47] unthinkable that we could move away from

[3:06:50] the kind of land speculation that we're

[3:06:52] living with now to a way where we are

[3:06:54] prioritizing and privileging the use of

[3:06:58] the water and use of the land in a way

[3:07:00] that connects a series of pocket farms

[3:07:03] and market gardens and farms so that

[3:07:06] everybody who lives here year round

[3:07:07] could afford fresh fruit and veg without

[3:07:09] a federal subsidy which as you may have

[3:07:12] heard has expired. You know what EasyBe

[3:07:15] Farms and our village did over the last

[3:07:17] couple years with previous gen uh

[3:07:19] administration federal monies fed

[3:07:22] hundreds of families in this community

[3:07:24] fresh fruit and veg every week all

[3:07:27] through the season that they wouldn't

[3:07:28] have been able to afford. What if you

[3:07:30] all and everybody else who has to solve

[3:07:33] these problems reoriented towards food,

[3:07:37] toward land as valued if they can feed

[3:07:39] our communities, towards water as valued

[3:07:42] not for another toilet flushing for

[3:07:44] somebody who's going to come through and

[3:07:45] buy red dirt, but instead for the people

[3:07:48] who are going to grow, you know, stone

[3:07:50] fruit for our neighbors. So neither of

[3:07:53] those may be concepts that are

[3:07:55] necessarily prevalent in this right now,

[3:07:58] but we have options. And the future

[3:08:00] could include some really cool weird

[3:08:03] architecture that actually gets one,

[3:08:06] two, five, however many things built per

[3:08:08] acre or a future where we do this

[3:08:11] another way. So just food for thought.

[3:08:16] [applause]

[3:08:25] And who's after her? Who would like to

[3:08:26] go next? Okay, great.

[3:08:30] Hello. I'm Crystal Music. And I just,

[3:08:34] this is really mindboggling to me. So,

[3:08:36] first of all, it's very large, 235

[3:08:38] acres. If all you want to do is expand a

[3:08:41] business in a food truck, um like

[3:08:44] there's options to do that without going

[3:08:48] full spectrum to the maximum zone

[3:08:52] change.

[3:08:53] So I also like everybody else is saying

[3:08:56] um resort special delay the boat so

[3:09:00] community and the business owners in the

[3:09:02] area can [clears throat]

[3:09:04] at least know what's going on in the

[3:09:05] neighborhood. What is going on in the

[3:09:07] neighborhood? Um,

[3:09:10] I think

[3:09:12] also mentioned the land use code is

[3:09:14] being updated. We still need to do a lot

[3:09:16] of work on that. Um, Mary brought up,

[3:09:19] you know, putting the stop to some

[3:09:21] things before we get to that plan. Uh,

[3:09:23] it just seems like jumping the gun. Um,

[3:09:29] if you want to expand a business, hey,

[3:09:31] why don't you put a house on one of

[3:09:33] those acres for your guides? That would

[3:09:37] be awesome. Um,

[3:09:41] but basically, yeah, it's just

[3:09:42] Disneyland and we don't want Disneyland.

[3:09:46] Thank you,

[3:09:49] [applause] Sloan.

[3:09:54] My name is Christina Sloan. Um, I'm an

[3:09:56] attorney. I'm here for myself. I want to

[3:09:58] focus on something you haven't heard

[3:09:59] about yet, and that's some another tool

[3:10:01] that uh you guys get to decide if these

[3:10:04] uses are appropriate. Um, some people

[3:10:06] like them, some people don't. Um, but if

[3:10:08] you decide that expanding the zipline

[3:10:11] and the climbing and the food truck is

[3:10:13] appropriate, there is a better way to do

[3:10:15] it. The city is working with campus

[3:10:18] overlays. It's a very cool legislative

[3:10:20] tool that is great for Moab because we

[3:10:23] are unique and if you find a proposal

[3:10:25] that is uniquely Moab and you want to

[3:10:28] help facilitate that, you can create a

[3:10:30] what's called a campus overlay to craft

[3:10:33] it very specifically. So, I'm working on

[3:10:35] one of these with the city right now.

[3:10:37] The city is what the county used to be,

[3:10:39] which is this honed planning machine.

[3:10:40] And Cory has it going on. He knows what

[3:10:42] he's doing. He he's working on his third

[3:10:44] campus overlay. It's very cool. The city

[3:10:47] land use code, just like the counties,

[3:10:49] is not sophisticated enough to deal with

[3:10:51] some really cool proposals like what

[3:10:53] I've heard tonight out of the steam

[3:10:55] family. And the problem is, as you've

[3:10:57] heard, this reszone can and it will

[3:10:59] eventually get built fully out, right?

[3:11:02] Full full capacity. Um, and there's just

[3:11:05] better tools to do it. So, there's also

[3:11:07] the CP amendment, which honestly isn't a

[3:11:10] horrible way to do this either, so you

[3:11:11] can accommodate the uses that are being

[3:11:13] talked about. Um, which I think are

[3:11:15] appropriate for MOA personally. It's my

[3:11:17] personal opinion, um, in other ways. So, I'd like you guys also to slow down.

[3:11:22] I think the county attorney, the

[3:11:23] planning director, the city planning

[3:11:25] office could really get together and um

[3:11:27] think through some cool ways and um more

[3:11:30] cohesive planning between city and

[3:11:32] county and the way, you know, tools that

[3:11:33] we can use to to make things better.

[3:11:36] Thanks.

[3:11:40] [applause]

[3:11:42] >> Come on up.

[3:11:42] >> Close.

[3:11:44] >> I don't want to keep you waiting. Thanks

[3:11:45] for giving me a second chance to talk

[3:11:46] tonight. And I don't have much to say.

[3:11:48] Well, I I always do, but I must to say

[3:11:50] that because what's been said tonight is

[3:11:52] incredible. I think this is about as

[3:11:53] close as you ever get to consensus.

[3:11:55] Unless perhaps people don't want to die

[3:11:57] in a nuclear war. There might be even

[3:11:58] more consensus, but here we [laughter]

[3:12:00] are. Um,

[3:12:02] I don't know what you guys are going to

[3:12:03] do with this, but but I mean, this is

[3:12:05] just one room full of people, but this

[3:12:06] is not everybody that would speak, and

[3:12:08] everybody tonight has been coming to you

[3:12:09] with great ideas and with a very aligned

[3:12:12] perspective. I I agree with every single

[3:12:14] person that spoke everything that they

[3:12:15] have said which is just unbelievably

[3:12:17] unusual and what I'm hearing is that

[3:12:19] this is like a town talking to you

[3:12:21] primarily even even the business people

[3:12:22] are speaking about a town that has

[3:12:24] integrity and their business's integrity

[3:12:26] is dependent upon that this is a primary

[3:12:29] location is completely unique there's

[3:12:31] probably no place in the world that is

[3:12:33] like this property and I don't want to

[3:12:35] deny the ste or anybody else that has

[3:12:37] property in this town their due worth

[3:12:38] and they should have their value and

[3:12:40] there's ways of getting out of this the

[3:12:41] most obvious way is that we buy this

[3:12:42] like we could have done back when the

[3:12:44] BLM turned down the opportunity when

[3:12:46] they had that opportunity. This is the

[3:12:48] only property that's up on the Slick

[3:12:49] Rock essentially and there's a massive

[3:12:52] amount of it and I wish we had a map

[3:12:54] here tonight and I would really request

[3:12:55] that the commission make sure that there

[3:12:56] is a map of this at any future

[3:12:58] communications whether it's written or

[3:13:00] digital or in this room because it's

[3:13:02] super apparent when you look at it that

[3:13:04] Moab Valley runs like this, right? Well,

[3:13:07] property lines all run like this. So,

[3:13:09] this is all just an anomaly of our

[3:13:12] ungodlike behavior, our human our

[3:13:15] humanity that we don't didn't at the

[3:13:17] time really know how to handle

[3:13:18] properties other than in boxes. This is

[3:13:20] all about boxes. That's why this

[3:13:22] property even exists. And the fact that

[3:13:23] we didn't do something about it earlier

[3:13:24] is shameful and I'm sorry that I wasn't

[3:13:26] involved in doing something about it

[3:13:27] when I could have. But now what we've

[3:13:29] got is a situation where this property

[3:13:31] runs way out into the slick rock trail

[3:13:32] that is, you know, the slick rocks like

[3:13:34] this. The property just jabs over here.

[3:13:36] Well, it's an afterthought. What's going

[3:13:38] on up there? You know, everybody was

[3:13:39] thinking about land that was useful

[3:13:40] below. There's almost no land in Moab

[3:13:42] that is up on the Slick Rock because

[3:13:44] everybody thought it was useless, as we

[3:13:45] heard tonight. But that's changed. It's

[3:13:47] not useless anymore. People want to be

[3:13:48] in places like that. I want to be there.

[3:13:50] I would love to buy a property up there.

[3:13:52] If it gets broke up into 5 acre lots,

[3:13:53] I'm going to be one of the first people

[3:13:54] to step up and see if I can afford it.

[3:13:56] In fact, the first place I lived in Moab

[3:13:58] was in my van 40 years ago, just down

[3:14:02] there on the state lands just at the

[3:14:03] base of Lion, you know, Lion's Back.

[3:14:05] Spectacular. One of the best years of my

[3:14:07] life. and a great place to be in the

[3:14:09] winter because anyway, rocks are great

[3:14:10] to live in and people are going to want

[3:14:12] to do it. So [laughter]

[3:14:13] anyway,

[3:14:15] what can I what can I say beyond that?

[3:14:16] Why do we manage the squares? Property

[3:14:18] boundary doesn't make any sense. Um

[3:14:20] let's let's buy this thing. Let's parcel

[3:14:23] it off if we have to. Let's let's find a

[3:14:25] way that the ste can get rid of that

[3:14:26] useless chunk of rock that's overcrowded

[3:14:28] already as they said and let the rest of

[3:14:31] us continue to enjoy it as the skyline

[3:14:33] and the recreation zone closest to town.

[3:14:35] You realize this is like a kilometer

[3:14:37] from town or less almost all of this

[3:14:40] property. It is our backyard and we

[3:14:42] should treat it like Boulder, Colorado

[3:14:43] does, which is make sure that we have

[3:14:44] good citizen access to the best places

[3:14:46] to walk. It's one of the easiest places

[3:14:48] for children to walk. It's pretty

[3:14:49] harmless up there compared to all the

[3:14:51] other crazy places we've got. So, we

[3:14:53] should work to protect this. There's got

[3:14:54] to be a solution and the should be able

[3:14:56] to get their money's worth one way or

[3:14:58] the other, but we don't need a, as you

[3:15:00] heard, a super huge upzone to 25 times

[3:15:03] the current density. Thank you.

[3:15:04] >> Thank you guys.

[3:15:08] » All right. Are we all done with comment

[3:15:10] on this one? Come on up.

[3:15:14] [clears throat]

[3:15:19] » I'm Mike Duncan. I had eight years on

[3:15:21] county planning commission way back,

[3:15:22] four more years on city council and I've

[3:15:24] been serving on Gwissa's water board as

[3:15:26] well. I would encourage you to um as a

[3:15:30] minimum to make the housing stipulation

[3:15:32] a conditional use and among that there's

[3:15:35] not only the political what what do we

[3:15:37] want the town to look like that would be

[3:15:39] a criteria on whether you would grant

[3:15:41] that or not but

[3:15:43] the hydraologist that the city hired to

[3:15:47] do water studies for the future pointed

[3:15:50] out that the entire eastern side of Moab

[3:15:54] Valley is highly fractured.

[3:15:56] And that's why Moab Springs is where it

[3:15:58] is. Moab Springs was the city's first

[3:16:01] commercial publicly owned waterway and

[3:16:05] that's a big source of water. So you do

[3:16:07] want to pay particular attention to any

[3:16:09] leaks from sewer pipes and so forth

[3:16:11] because you don't want to contaminate Mo

[3:16:13] Springs Ranch and and the water tank

[3:16:15] that city owns that sits there. Not to

[3:16:17] mention the nature conservancy as well.

[3:16:19] They get a good big piece of that water

[3:16:21] as well. So be very careful. And one

[3:16:23] final thing is um we're [clears throat]

[3:16:25] running out of water kids. Uh I've done

[3:16:28] quite a bit of research on u how we're

[3:16:32] doing uh the the best indicator is uh

[3:16:37] spring flows from the city. The county

[3:16:39] doesn't have any uh springs, but the

[3:16:42] city does. And I can tell you we did

[3:16:44] pretty well from 1970s on up until 2000.

[3:16:47] But in the last couple of decades, you

[3:16:49] can watch the spring flows. to recharge

[3:16:51] every spring, but they don't quite come

[3:16:53] back up to where they started. And with

[3:16:55] the increase in demand and and the

[3:16:57] climate drying up, it portends a

[3:16:59] problem. So, right at the moment, the

[3:17:01] county is managing to keep their

[3:17:02] wellheads covered, but don't count on it

[3:17:04] lasting forever. Okay? So, be if you

[3:17:07] want to grant new housing developments,

[3:17:09] do so, but be very judicious about how

[3:17:12] you do it. That's it.

[3:17:14] >> Thank you.

[3:17:15] >> Okay. Do we have anyone else that wants

[3:17:16] to come speak?

[3:17:19] This uh public hearing will be open

[3:17:22] until next Wednesday the 15th. You can

[3:17:26] comment at commission granite county

[3:17:29] utah and spell it all the way out

[3:17:32] granountutah.gov

[3:17:35] if you have any other comments. And

[3:17:37] we're going to have another public

[3:17:39] hearing for another item and it's it's

[3:17:42] our number two item. Well, just real

[3:17:44] quick, can we are we allowed to ask ask

[3:17:47] Andrew any questions? Um, I understand

[3:17:50] we'll have a discussion, but I have a

[3:17:52] few questions that maybe he can take

[3:17:55] with him so that he can prepare for the

[3:17:59] next or no,

[3:18:00] >> I mean, you can you can inform him of

[3:18:02] questions, but it might be better for

[3:18:03] him to do it for you to do it via email.

[3:18:06] >> Okay. And I'll send to the entire

[3:18:07] commission.

[3:18:08] >> Yeah. And he'll be prepared with them

[3:18:09] for next. Okay, that'd be great. That'd

[3:18:11] be great.

[3:18:12] >> Thank you. Okay. So, our next one is um

[3:18:15] number two on the agenda and it's

[3:18:18] McValen time request for a zoning text

[3:18:22] amendment to all outfitting services

[3:18:24] light industrial z

[3:18:27] >> Andrew Jackson uh Grand County Planner

[3:18:30] and ordinance amending Grand County land

[3:18:32] use code section 3.1 use table related

[3:18:36] to uses in various zones particularly

[3:18:39] allowing outfitters guided service and

[3:18:42] facilities is not ATV as a permitted use

[3:18:45] in the light industrial zone. Um the

[3:18:48] background on this Mick Valentine

[3:18:52] uh is requesting that the county

[3:18:53] planning commission recommend to the

[3:18:55] county Excuse me.

[3:18:58] >> Yes. So we have this go to the planning

[3:19:00] commission. So, he's requesting that the

[3:19:02] county commission amend the Grand County

[3:19:05] Land Use Code to permit outfitters guide

[3:19:09] services and facilities ATV outfitter

[3:19:12] guide services and rental businesses uh

[3:19:15] not permitted um as a permitted or

[3:19:18] conditional use of light industrial

[3:19:20] zone. Mr. Valentine currently owns a

[3:19:22] light industrial property. properties

[3:19:24] located at 825 West Canry Boulevard and

[3:19:27] used for a ebike business. Um the Grand

[3:19:31] County land use code currently

[3:19:33] identifies various land uses permitted

[3:19:35] in the light industrial zone. Such uses

[3:19:38] include a first story residential,

[3:19:42] county, state shop, storage yards, major

[3:19:45] utilities, building material sales and

[3:19:47] yards, repair services, RV and boat

[3:19:50] storage, and manufacturing and

[3:19:52] production. The Grand Canyon land use

[3:19:54] code also allows outfitters, guide

[3:19:56] services, and facilities known ATV

[3:19:58] outfitters, guys, and rental businesses

[3:20:01] as conditional use in the multif family

[3:20:03] residential zone and several commercial

[3:20:05] zones. Um staff finds that this request

[3:20:09] is consistent with other permanent uses

[3:20:11] of a light industrial zone. Uh

[3:20:14] Commissioner Randy Dave made the

[3:20:16] following motion. Having considered a

[3:20:17] staff report and recommendations, public

[3:20:20] comment, testimony, lady's code, and

[3:20:22] finding that Mick Valentine request for

[3:20:26] outfitter guy services and facilities

[3:20:28] nonattv outfitters

[3:20:31] um is uh similar to other permitted uses

[3:20:35] in the light industrial zone. He

[3:20:37] recommended approval of the ordinance to

[3:20:39] county commission.

[3:20:42] And so again, this is just the public

[3:20:44] hearing portion

[3:20:46] uh of this request.

[3:20:47] >> Okay. Thank you. Is Mr.

[3:20:49] >> I am present.

[3:20:50] >> Yeah. I come up.

[3:20:52] >> Sure.

[3:20:54] >> Here.

[3:20:56] >> You can talk either way. That one or

[3:20:57] this one?

[3:20:59] >> Microphone.

[3:21:01] >> So yeah, basically what Andrew said is

[3:21:03] true. Um, I've been operating ebike mo

[3:21:06] um for the last 6 years and the property

[3:21:09] which I purchased 30 years ago is zone

[3:21:11] light industrial. So it's it's kind of a

[3:21:13] downgrade. I figure it's better than a

[3:21:15] cement plant. So all look to do is a

[3:21:18] little bit of outfitting. Absolutely no

[3:21:20] ATVs, UTVs or any kind of four wheels at

[3:21:23] all.

[3:21:25] So just giving us the ability to kind of

[3:21:28] run some raptor trip type thing from

[3:21:31] that is all we're looking to do this.

[3:21:36] >> Okay.

[3:21:37] All right. Well, we'll open it up to the

[3:21:39] public to come up and speak if they have

[3:21:42] any.

[3:21:43] >> All right.

[3:21:43] >> So, thank you.

[3:21:44] >> Thank you very much.

[3:21:44] >> I'm sorry I said your name wrong. All

[3:21:47] right. Judy, come on up.

[3:21:49] >> Seems you need my day here.

[3:21:52] >> On a roll. Yeah, I guess our time's a

[3:21:54] charm.

[3:21:55] >> Hi, I'm Judy Powers and my concern is

[3:21:58] that we have very limited light

[3:22:00] industrial zoning and again we're doing

[3:22:03] it's not an up zone. It's technically I

[3:22:05] guess sort of a down zone, but I think I

[3:22:08] don't understand why we can't do a uh

[3:22:10] conditional zoning for this.

[3:22:11] >> Yeah, that's what I'm looking for.

[3:22:13] >> No, you're looking to change the zone.

[3:22:15] >> No, I'm not looking to change the zone.

[3:22:16] I own the property. I'm not the public.

[3:22:18] >> Wait a minute. Sorry, guys. [laughter]

[3:22:20] We had chat back and forth.

[3:22:22] So, I I mean, I would like it. I think

[3:22:25] what he's asking for is semi-reasonable,

[3:22:27] except for that

[3:22:29] really crappy road where he's located.

[3:22:32] Um, and having more traffic there, I

[3:22:34] think seems really problematic. So, if

[3:22:36] you don't know where it is, it's past

[3:22:39] the workforce services going out Can

[3:22:41] Creek on the left.

[3:22:44] So I think uh if we I mean I think we

[3:22:48] have a real issue with not having a lot

[3:22:50] of light industrial zone. That's huge

[3:22:53] issue for small businesses around there.

[3:22:56] If you want to get something besides

[3:22:58] tourism, that's something to think

[3:22:59] about.

[3:23:01] >> Thank you.

[3:23:03] >> Anyone else?

[3:23:04] >> Can I give three minutes?

[3:23:07] >> Public comment. No, he's he's the

[3:23:11] applicant wants to speak. Listen to all

[3:23:12] the other comments and then if there's

[3:23:14] anything else you want, the chair may

[3:23:16] consider giving you additional time at

[3:23:18] the end, but we're not going to do we

[3:23:19] don't do a back and forth. You get one

[3:23:21] after that. So, let let the comments

[3:23:23] come through and and today is not the

[3:23:25] vote. So,

[3:23:26] >> we don't

[3:23:30] agree

[3:23:34] after lunch.

[3:23:36] >> Thank you. Anyone have anyone?

[3:23:40] >> Anyone else in the chamber that wants to

[3:23:42] speak?

[3:23:47] » Okay. Well, then come on up.

[3:23:49] >> Go ahead and give us

[3:23:52] talk for three more minutes.

[3:23:55] >> So, just so I'm very clear, I'm not

[3:23:56] looking at changing the zoning on the

[3:23:58] property. We're looking for amendment on

[3:24:00] it so we can

[3:24:03] >> do what is already being done. And as

[3:24:05] regards to the the size of the road, so

[3:24:07] it will remain light industrial.

[3:24:10] Um, as regards to the side of the road,

[3:24:13] the size physical size of the road.

[3:24:16] There could be a cement plant open up

[3:24:18] there with big trucks. I mean, we're not

[3:24:20] looking at high impact transportation

[3:24:24] going down the road. So, nor are we

[3:24:27] looking to change the zone. So, it will

[3:24:28] remain light industrial.

[3:24:31] >> Thank you.

[3:24:32] Okay. All right. So, this

[3:24:35] also is a public hearing and it will be

[3:24:37] open until Wednesday the 15th at 5:00

[3:24:40] p.m. You can message commission at

[3:24:44] granite countyutah.gov

[3:24:45] if you have any more comments. Thank

[3:24:48] you. And it'll be on April 21st agenda

[3:24:52] and we are going to go back to our

[3:24:55] regular

[3:24:57] agenda. So, we on number 11. Fant, thank

[3:25:00] you for being so patient back there and

[3:25:01] thanks everyone for coming. Um, position

[3:25:04] backfill request with Tess Barger, our

[3:25:06] personal our personnel services

[3:25:09] director.

[3:25:16] » All right. Um, good evening,

[3:25:18] commissioners. I tend to be a little bit

[3:25:20] of a broken record in terms of one of my

[3:25:22] agenda items that I am uh coming to you

[3:25:24] with fairly frequently these days. So

[3:25:27] number 11 is position backfill requests.

[3:25:29] We have two requests and I'll go through

[3:25:32] them one at a time. Um there was a

[3:25:36] deputy assessor position that just

[3:25:38] recently became vacant several weeks

[3:25:40] ago. This is a different position than

[3:25:42] the one that you all approved in

[3:25:44] January. Um a different staff member

[3:25:46] that departed. And the requests for this

[3:25:50] deputy assessor position are similar to

[3:25:52] those that were expressed last time,

[3:25:54] which is that based on the level of

[3:25:57] capacity that they need in order to

[3:25:59] maintain the level of service that they

[3:26:00] currently offer, um the assessor has

[3:26:04] requested to be able to backfill that

[3:26:06] full-time position.

[3:26:10] » Mike,

[3:26:12] >> uh this is just to fill uh a previously

[3:26:15] vacated spot, right? This isn't a new

[3:26:17] position.

[3:26:17] >> Correct. Correct. It's not a new

[3:26:19] position. It was budgeted for um

[3:26:21] >> Yeah, it was already 26.

[3:26:23] >> That was my next question. So,

[3:26:24] [laughter]

[3:26:24] >> yeah.

[3:26:24] >> Uh with that, I move to approve the

[3:26:26] backfill and fulltime deputy lesser

[3:26:28] position.

[3:26:29] >> Second.

[3:26:30] My break. Any more discussion or

[3:26:32] questions?

[3:26:36] » Okay. I'm going to go ahead and call for

[3:26:38] the vote. Those in favor of this

[3:26:42] position filling, sorry. I

[3:26:45] >> I

[3:26:46] >> Okay, so that passes five with two abs.

[3:26:53] Commissioner Winfield and Commissioner

[3:26:55] Man.

[3:26:55] >> That was that [laughter] was

[3:26:57] >> you had to sit there.

[3:27:00] >> So interesting tonight. Deputy, thank

[3:27:02] you. [laughter]

[3:27:03] >> Okay. And then our next one, chief

[3:27:06] deputy treasurer.

[3:27:07] >> Yes. Thank you. the chief deputy

[3:27:09] treasurer, our current chief deputy is

[3:27:12] going to be leaving the county in June

[3:27:14] of 2026. Um, and this request is for us

[3:27:19] to backfill this position as soon as

[3:27:22] we're able to. Um, while the position is

[3:27:25] posted, we have not made any movement on

[3:27:26] it. We haven't started interviewing

[3:27:28] applicants um or engaging in any any

[3:27:31] part of the selection process until

[3:27:33] receiving um from the commission. Um but

[3:27:36] there is only the treasurer and the

[3:27:38] chief deputy treasurer. So there is a

[3:27:40] necessity to have the second in command

[3:27:42] position. And again the request to back

[3:27:45] fill it as soon as possible is so that

[3:27:46] there is time for cross trainining prior

[3:27:49] to the chief deputy's departure in June.

[3:27:52] >> Okay. Go ahead Mike.

[3:27:54] >> I move to approve the backfill of the of

[3:27:57] full-time chief deputy treasury

[3:27:59] position.

[3:28:01] Okay. We have first by Mike and a second

[3:28:03] by Brian. Any other questions or

[3:28:04] comments?

[3:28:07] Okay. So, we're going to call for a

[3:28:09] vote. I'll wait till Mary sits down

[3:28:13] with us if she wants to. Um, those in

[3:28:16] favor of filling the chief deputy

[3:28:19] treasurer position say hi. And that

[3:28:23] passes 70. And Mary Lee will be missed.

[3:28:26] I got to get somebody. So, thank you.

[3:28:30] Thanks, Tess.

[3:28:32] All right. Number 12, an ordinance

[3:28:35] repealing or yes, an ordinance repealing

[3:28:37] ordinance 616 that was in 2020 for OV

[3:28:41] speed limits. And this is one that I put

[3:28:43] on there. [clears throat] Um, currently

[3:28:46] the city is discussing this. It's been

[3:28:47] long conversations when I was up the

[3:28:49] state capital this winter was also spoke

[3:28:53] about how we have speed limit signs in

[3:28:55] our community that say OBV speed limit

[3:28:59] which

[3:29:00] only would go for offh highway vehicles.

[3:29:05] And so when we have signs that say OB

[3:29:08] speed limits, the public thinks that

[3:29:10] they can ride

[3:29:13] illegal OBS in our community. And so

[3:29:16] removing those speed limits is going to

[3:29:18] help law enforcement to to be able to

[3:29:21] maintain the speed limit. So if it's 35

[3:29:23] m an hour and that 35 m an hour is a

[3:29:26] zone that is whether you are a street

[3:29:29] legal OD or you're just a regular

[3:29:31] vehicle car on the road, they should be

[3:29:34] treated the same. And so taking those

[3:29:36] down in the county, I know the city's

[3:29:38] taking them down and they're looking at

[3:29:39] some routes for noise. I think in the

[3:29:41] county I think we need to follow suit

[3:29:43] and take those down. And that's the

[3:29:44] purpose of this. So anyways, go ahead,

[3:29:47] Trish. Oh, I think is up. I think both

[3:29:50] these guys

[3:29:50] >> I probably have [laughter]

[3:29:52] you guys go. You know what I'm gonna

[3:29:54] say.

[3:29:54] >> All right. So, go ahead. Either one of

[3:29:55] those go ahead.

[3:29:56] >> Um, first off, uh, the city hasn't moved

[3:29:58] on this. I know they are discussing it,

[3:30:00] but it's it's going to be on one of

[3:30:01] their future agendas. They haven't

[3:30:03] started taking signs down at all. I I I

[3:30:05] checked around and um, so that

[3:30:07] information in the packet wasn't uh,

[3:30:09] correct. Um, second, I do understand the

[3:30:13] issue and and we did discuss it with

[3:30:16] Jameson a little bit about about people

[3:30:18] assuming that because the sign says OBV

[3:30:20] with speed limit that it it may allow

[3:30:24] people assume that allows them to drive

[3:30:26] their illegal, not street legal

[3:30:30] >> uh vehicles on the highway or on the on

[3:30:32] the public roads. Um, so I I understand

[3:30:35] that's a concern and I appreciate that.

[3:30:39] I personally think that

[3:30:43] nothing has helped reduce the noise in

[3:30:46] this area more than reducing the speed

[3:30:48] limits for OVs. I live on a super busy

[3:30:50] OV street. I live on Fourth North.

[3:30:52] There's three rental places at the end

[3:30:53] of my street. They drive down my street

[3:30:55] all the time going out to to King Creek

[3:30:57] and Harat Pass. And when they're driving

[3:30:59] past at 15 miles an hour, they are half

[3:31:02] as loud as when they drive at 25. Um, I

[3:31:05] was also involved in the original noise

[3:31:06] ordinance uh discussions back when I

[3:31:08] first became a commissioner in 2021. Um,

[3:31:11] we hired a a sound expert and we bought

[3:31:15] a bunch of expensive uh sound testing

[3:31:17] equipment. I went out with the sheriffs

[3:31:19] a number of times and we tested that

[3:31:21] equipment in various spots around the

[3:31:23] county and the city. Um, and there's

[3:31:26] absolutely no question that a vehicle

[3:31:28] OV, especially moving at 15 mph, is far

[3:31:31] quieter than one moving at 25. Um, so I

[3:31:35] I'm not in favor of this. I think it's

[3:31:36] one of the few tools that we have. We've

[3:31:38] been told extensively to use the tools

[3:31:40] in our toolbox, which the states

[3:31:41] continue to take away from us. Um, I I

[3:31:46] understand where it's coming from. I

[3:31:47] understand it's not like a it's not like

[3:31:49] a

[3:31:51] it's it's it's fair. It's a fair it's a

[3:31:53] fair issue, but I'm I'm not in favor of

[3:31:56] it. I would also

[3:32:00] not move on this yet. I'd wait for the

[3:32:03] city because I think the city the city

[3:32:04] hasn't made up their mind yet. I've

[3:32:05] talked to just today I talked to at

[3:32:07] least three elected officials in the

[3:32:09] city. That's going to happen in the next

[3:32:11] uh couple of weeks and and and

[3:32:15] we're not sure how they're going to move

[3:32:17] on that. So, I would uh be reticent to

[3:32:20] move before the city and and wait for

[3:32:22] them to make the move first and then

[3:32:23] maybe adapt accordingly. Um but I'm not

[3:32:26] going to vote for it.

[3:32:28] >> Mike,

[3:32:29] >> I'd like to make the motion. I move to

[3:32:30] approve the

[3:32:31] >> Sorry, I just know you.

[3:32:32] >> Okay, you're okay. You're next. Oh,

[3:32:33] >> you're okay. You go. You your hand was

[3:32:35] up first.

[3:32:36] >> Oh,

[3:32:37] >> go.

[3:32:37] >> Like to make a motion to approve the

[3:32:39] ordinance repealing ordinance 616 OV

[3:32:42] speed limits in its entirety.

[3:32:48] » Second.

[3:32:49] >> Oh, yeah. I'm not seconding.

[3:32:50] >> I'm just wait.

[3:32:54] » And go ahead, Trish. Um, I I'm going to

[3:32:57] agree with a number of things that

[3:32:59] Jacques said, but I would ask that we

[3:33:01] postpone this and wait for this city.

[3:33:03] And you you kind of said that when you

[3:33:05] were doing the initial statements, like

[3:33:06] we want to I don't can't remember

[3:33:08] exactly how you said it, but um you did

[3:33:10] kind of say we want to be with the city.

[3:33:13] And so I'd actually think we just wait

[3:33:15] for the city. My understanding I did

[3:33:17] talk to the mayor um about this and she

[3:33:21] said they were going to study it a

[3:33:22] little bit. they may leave a couple

[3:33:24] routes where they keep the speed limit

[3:33:26] low. Um, so I think we just wait for

[3:33:29] them and see where they go. I speaking

[3:33:31] to Jameson, he definitely stated that we

[3:33:34] want to have a unified approach with

[3:33:36] both the city and and the county. And so

[3:33:39] I just think we wait for them. We

[3:33:41] postpone this, wait to see what they do,

[3:33:43] and then we move. I will state from my

[3:33:46] perspective being one of the few

[3:33:48] commissioners that actually lives in the

[3:33:49] county not in the city. Um I think one

[3:33:54] of the big issues out there because you

[3:33:56] know I you know I I occasionally get

[3:34:00] behind the lines out there on Spanish

[3:34:01] Valley drives. 30 miles an hour is

[3:34:03] painful. 20 is really painful. Um it is

[3:34:07] what it is. I would say the biggest

[3:34:09] thing we could probably do for members

[3:34:11] and this is just a thought in the future

[3:34:13] because it sounds like Mel you've been

[3:34:14] talking to legislators upstate is

[3:34:16] allowing a curfew and it's something we

[3:34:18] approached in the past and they never

[3:34:19] would allow it but I'll tell you a

[3:34:21] couple it wasn't that maybe I think it

[3:34:23] was Friday night I got woken up at like

[3:34:25] 1:00 in the morning by the drone and I

[3:34:29] don't live right next to Spanish valley

[3:34:30] drive Jameson says it's really bad cuz

[3:34:32] he lives right next to Spanish drive so

[3:34:34] I think that's the most kind thing we

[3:34:36] can do for our community members is just

[3:34:38] having a curfew on them. Right. 10. We I

[3:34:41] think we tried for 10 to 6 10:00 p.m. to

[3:34:44] 6:00 a.m. and it they wouldn't allow it

[3:34:46] through. But

[3:34:46] >> 6 a.m. to

[3:34:48] >> Yeah. 6 a.m. Yeah. You know what I'm

[3:34:49] saying? From 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. we

[3:34:51] had we had that moratorum or they

[3:34:53] couldn't drive. But my my recommendation

[3:34:55] is we just allow the city to make their

[3:34:58] decision and then we follow suit. And

[3:35:00] I'm you know I'm down with following

[3:35:03] suit.

[3:35:03] >> Larry, go ahead.

[3:35:05] Uh I I talked to uh city city people too

[3:35:08] and and what what they're going to do

[3:35:11] and I you know I I would like to see us

[3:35:13] do something similar. They're going to

[3:35:14] really they're not going to change all

[3:35:18] these. I think the biggest issue is that

[3:35:22] they don't

[3:35:24] it it gives the illusion that you don't

[3:35:27] have to have all the straight legal

[3:35:30] aspects to your OP when you have that

[3:35:35] separate thing. So, you know, I think

[3:35:37] they're looking at having if if all the

[3:35:41] uh speed limits be the same,

[3:35:44] but maybe in areas say like in Jacques

[3:35:48] uh where you in areas where there's a

[3:35:50] lot of them that everyone drives at a

[3:35:53] certain speed.

[3:35:55] I think they're taking the time to

[3:35:57] really look at how to move forward

[3:35:59] through with this because, you know, it

[3:36:02] is lowering the speed limit did help a

[3:36:05] lot. People I have a lot of friends that

[3:36:08] live on locust lanes. They said that

[3:36:10] really helped a [clears throat] huge

[3:36:12] amount when people weren't heading up to

[3:36:14] sp you know sand flats going 20 miles an

[3:36:17] hour. Uh I I and I talked to Jameson for

[3:36:21] quite a bit and he really wants it

[3:36:23] changed so that we don't have the OBV

[3:36:26] sign underneath it where it says OV 15 m

[3:36:30] an hour, 20 m an hour, 15. He says that

[3:36:33] creates some real problems on many

[3:36:37] levels. It's totally un

[3:36:40] enforcable and we couldn't take it like

[3:36:42] somebody could fight it and take it to

[3:36:44] court and there's nothing we could do. I missed that last part. What was what

[3:36:47] do you say was uninforceable?

[3:36:49] >> It It's a very hard to

[3:36:52] >> enforce this

[3:36:53] >> for noise or for

[3:36:55] >> I'm sorry.

[3:36:56] >> So, even the speed limit because when

[3:36:58] you read the Anyway, he says it's hard

[3:37:01] to enforce it.

[3:37:02] >> Not necessarily. I mean, if if you guys

[3:37:05] are asking my question, it's strict

[3:37:06] liability for traffic code. Traffic code

[3:37:08] doesn't require intent. So, if you

[3:37:10] violate the code and that's what it is,

[3:37:13] you violate the code. So you don't have

[3:37:15] to prove uh there's a there's a classic

[3:37:17] saying negligence is no defense of the

[3:37:19] law. So just because you didn't know or

[3:37:22] you didn't know that this speed limit

[3:37:23] was this or you thought that you could

[3:37:24] drive on this road but you weren't

[3:37:25] permitted. It's still enforcable. Um we

[3:37:29] don't see tickets for a lot of these

[3:37:31] things though to be very honest. I don't

[3:37:32] think I've seen a single UHV or UTV

[3:37:36] ticket for exceeding the speed. It

[3:37:39] doesn't they don't get challenged very

[3:37:40] often. I don't see them very often. So

[3:37:42] not

[3:37:43] >> I don't know. Uh, I do think we need to

[3:37:45] relook at it. I think it's really

[3:37:47] important to relook at it and I think

[3:37:49] the city's looking relooking at it, but

[3:37:51] I think maybe before we repeal it, we

[3:37:54] should really decide what we want to

[3:37:56] repeal it to,

[3:37:58] you know, do a little more.

[3:38:00] >> Go ahead, Frank.

[3:38:02] >> And you caught my second on that motion,

[3:38:04] correct?

[3:38:04] >> I did.

[3:38:04] >> Okay. Just making sure I was I was the

[3:38:07] lead. I guess discussion with [laughter]

[3:38:08] that.

[3:38:08] >> Oh, I was I thought I was left in the

[3:38:10] weed.

[3:38:10] >> No, no, no, no. I had you right there.

[3:38:12] It was all good. Um, so yeah, I I I I'm

[3:38:16] just wondering if your conversations are

[3:38:18] confusing two things, right? So there's

[3:38:21] one which is taking the signs down,

[3:38:24] which it says right here, city manager

[3:38:26] Michael Black said the city will remove

[3:38:28] the 15 m per hour speed limit signs that

[3:38:32] uh apply specifically to OVs to be taken

[3:38:35] down within the next month. Andrew's

[3:38:37] here. He wrote that. [laughter]

[3:38:40] >> That's right.

[3:38:41] And then the the the second is right is

[3:38:44] they were talking about actually

[3:38:45] lowering the speed limits, right? So

[3:38:48] rather than having it be, you know, 25

[3:38:50] for vehicles and 15 for uh uh uh uh um

[3:38:55] for OVs, it would just be 15 for all

[3:38:58] vehicle traffic. And I think that's

[3:39:00] where we're actually getting the

[3:39:01] confusion at right here. Um is there's two different things. And

[3:39:05] then once again, what Mel was talking

[3:39:06] about up at the state, um there was some

[3:39:09] folks that were talking to try to have

[3:39:11] this added in because even up at the

[3:39:13] state, they said that it's not possible

[3:39:16] to have um a specific speed limit set

[3:39:19] for OVs. So So what what what we have

[3:39:22] going on right now, um like Mel had

[3:39:24] said, is not legal. Um, under my

[3:39:27] understanding, if I go out to Hanksville

[3:39:29] and I want my kids to go ride on their

[3:39:31] OV right down the side of the road,

[3:39:33] right, there's a little sign that says

[3:39:34] OV and it says 15 mph. And that means

[3:39:37] that they can ride their OV with their

[3:39:39] little sticker on it right down that

[3:39:41] little side road. And so there are other

[3:39:44] counties in towns in Utah that already

[3:39:46] have this in place. We have tried to use

[3:39:48] it for a different way that it's it is a

[3:39:50] great tool, but it's not a tool that I

[3:39:52] think is actually legal for us to use.

[3:39:54] And that's why I think the city has gone

[3:39:56] ahead taken those taken the signs down

[3:39:59] and they're talking about lowering that

[3:40:01] speed limit, which I mean to me I

[3:40:03] actually I agree with on those roads,

[3:40:05] right? I think that that lower speed

[3:40:07] limits on those roads are great inside

[3:40:09] of the city. Um I don't know and we can

[3:40:12] go ahead and look at that in the county

[3:40:13] and see if we need to look at some of

[3:40:15] our other our roads as well to see if we

[3:40:17] need to lower those speed limits. But I

[3:40:19] think once again that we're confusing

[3:40:21] two separate topics. One is taking the

[3:40:23] signs down and the second is replacing

[3:40:26] the speed limit sign with, you know,

[3:40:28] making everybody down to 15 miles an

[3:40:30] hour.

[3:40:32] >> And Bill,

[3:40:33] >> yeah, I mean, the reduction in speed

[3:40:36] limit helped my street. I mean, I live

[3:40:39] on the same street Danny does. I'm not

[3:40:41] going to deny that. But the city did

[3:40:43] have a discussion about this and then

[3:40:46] we're told that they had to actually

[3:40:48] vote on it. So, they're going to meet in

[3:40:50] the future to vote on this and the signs

[3:40:52] are coming down as Andrew stated and

[3:40:56] what they're intending to do is possibly

[3:40:58] split the difference. They haven't made

[3:41:00] that choice yet. So, rather than there

[3:41:02] being a 25 mph speed limit or 15,

[3:41:06] they're considering one speed limit of

[3:41:08] 20 m an hour. And I also got that from a

[3:41:11] city council member. So, I I'm in favor

[3:41:15] of bringing this into

[3:41:19] accordance with the law because it is an

[3:41:21] issue. It was raised up at the state.

[3:41:23] It's been raised by our sheriff to some

[3:41:25] degree in the police department. And so

[3:41:28] I'm going to support it with the idea

[3:41:30] that I especially in the city that

[3:41:33] they're going to come up with a plan and

[3:41:35] that is their intent to change the speed

[3:41:38] limits for everybody, not just for OVs.

[3:41:43] >> Did you have another comment? Yeah, I

[3:41:46] they haven't taken any signs down yet.

[3:41:48] Anyway, I

[3:41:50] >> I'm gonna talk again. Go [laughter]

[3:41:51] ahead.

[3:41:52] >> Yeah, but you have and they from what I

[3:41:55] was told by elected city folk is that it they require an ordinance to do

[3:41:59] so and they haven't voted on that yet.

[3:42:01] So, whatever. I guess this is all

[3:42:03] semantics, but it hasn't happened yet.

[3:42:05] Um, again, I think regardless, this is

[3:42:09] the best tool, maybe the only tool for

[3:42:11] keeping keeping noise down. Um, I'm in

[3:42:15] favor of it. Hell at high water. I I

[3:42:18] don't want to go back to 2021 levels of

[3:42:22] OV noise. Um, I think we're going to get

[3:42:24] a massive amount of push back from

[3:42:25] people in the city and the county and um

[3:42:31] I'm not in favor of reducing or not in

[3:42:34] favor taking down the sign.

[3:42:35] >> Yes, I watched the entire meeting at the

[3:42:36] city and I talked to the mayor and I you

[3:42:39] know they they spoke about what they're

[3:42:40] studying is going to be. what are they

[3:42:42] going to lower the speed limits to to

[3:42:44] make it match? They also talked about

[3:42:46] having routes go specifically to certain

[3:42:49] spots, but then another, you know,

[3:42:51] councilman said, "No, that sucks because

[3:42:53] that means these guys are the ones that

[3:42:55] are going to always get the noise. You

[3:42:57] know, let's not try to make a dispersed

[3:42:59] or a specific route to recommend to the

[3:43:01] ATV companies because then those people

[3:43:04] are getting the the noise." So, that's

[3:43:05] what they're going to study. They're definitely taking down the OBV

[3:43:09] uh signs because it's not legal anyways.

[3:43:13] We can't have OVs on our road that

[3:43:15] aren't highway. If they're if they are

[3:43:18] not if they're not legal, then they're

[3:43:20] not legal. Period. It doesn't matter if

[3:43:21] they're OB or not. And also, the speed

[3:43:25] limits have come down all around the

[3:43:27] town. I agree. I live on King on on King

[3:43:30] Creek. I have a back window and a swamp

[3:43:32] cooler. I listen to them all all day

[3:43:34] long. I drive them and I know that when

[3:43:36] the speed is 30 miles an hour versus 15

[3:43:39] miles an hour, I can talk to the person

[3:43:40] next to me at 15. I can't talk to them

[3:43:42] at 30. I absolutely understand the

[3:43:44] noise. What I don't like is the

[3:43:46] ambiguity of it and the fact that I mean

[3:43:49] they're not giving tickets, but they're

[3:43:50] not giving tickets because people are

[3:43:52] arguing and we see ovs that are not

[3:43:54] street legal on our roads all the time.

[3:43:55] So, they're breaking they're totally

[3:43:57] breaking the law. But the thought that

[3:43:59] they're not, even though, you know, you

[3:44:02] have to you don't get to just plead

[3:44:03] ignorance. Um, but when they when they

[3:44:06] are pulled over, they're like, "Oh,

[3:44:08] well, we thought we could because we

[3:44:09] have these signs." In the valley,

[3:44:11] they've dropped the speed limit. So, in Moab City used to be 30 miles an

[3:44:14] hour. Now, it's 25 most places, 15 for

[3:44:17] OBS, OBS. And then in the VA in the

[3:44:21] valley, I mean, Spanish Valley used to

[3:44:23] be 45 miles an hour. Now it's 30. And

[3:44:25] so, it already dropped at 15 miles an

[3:44:27] hour. And then we're going to drop

[3:44:28] another 15 or it's actually only 25. So

[3:44:30] I think it's 30 for the regular speed

[3:44:33] limit and then it says 25 for O

[3:44:35] >> 20.

[3:44:36] >> I looked at the sign yesterday.

[3:44:38] >> So it's 20 miles an hour out there. So

[3:44:39] we've already dropped that speed limit

[3:44:41] drastically since 2020. So the speed

[3:44:43] limits have come down in the valley and

[3:44:46] we don't have as many roads at the city.

[3:44:49] I mean, at the city, the noise bounces

[3:44:51] off of all of the um so I think they

[3:44:54] have a lot more to study, but I think

[3:44:55] that I don't I don't want to wait for

[3:44:56] the city. I don't think we need to wait

[3:44:58] for the city to do something. I think

[3:44:59] the county can be the lead and then

[3:45:00] they're they're going to figure out what

[3:45:01] their what their solution is for that

[3:45:04] noise. And I and I agree with them. I'm

[3:45:05] fine. I'll drive 15 miles an hour all

[3:45:07] around town in my legal or my legal

[3:45:11] vehicle or my legal OV. You know, I

[3:45:13] don't mind being, but I just want to

[3:45:14] take down that ambigu ambiguity for our

[3:45:17] visitors.

[3:45:19] So,

[3:45:20] another go ahead.

[3:45:21] >> Yeah, I I want to just reiterate too

[3:45:24] that I think we've done a great job as

[3:45:26] well as the outfitters have. They're

[3:45:29] they are much better at educating the

[3:45:32] people to be careful to get out of the

[3:45:34] town. I think that's done as much as

[3:45:36] just the lower speed limits. And I don't

[3:45:39] think because we pull our OB signs down

[3:45:41] that they're going to all of a sudden

[3:45:43] throw their hat in the ring and say go

[3:45:45] hell for bent through town or until you

[3:45:47] get out to the or start start speeding

[3:45:50] immediately. I think they're going to

[3:45:51] continue that education. We have to

[3:45:53] encourage them to do so, but I do think

[3:45:56] we need to come into um alignment here

[3:45:58] with what the state and the city plans

[3:46:01] to do here in the near future. And I

[3:46:03] agree with Melody that I don't think we

[3:46:06] have to follow the city. We've all

[3:46:08] spoken to the city people over there.

[3:46:10] Every one of us, I think, have. And

[3:46:13] let's let's make a decision here, but we

[3:46:15] don't have to wait on them.

[3:46:19] >> Okay. Okay. Going to call for a vote.

[3:46:21] So, we had a first by Mike, a second by

[3:46:23] drawing. All in favor?

[3:46:28] And those opposed?

[3:46:30] Okay, that passes 43.

[3:46:34] And that's uh Commissioner Hadine,

[3:46:37] Commissioner Hadler, and Commissioner

[3:46:38] Mcan in opposition.

[3:46:41] Now we're going to move on to number 13,

[3:46:44] which is the ACE

[3:46:46] Arches Plan Arches Shuttle Work Group.

[3:46:50] Matt is with Commissioner Martinez.

[3:46:55] So, at the request of uh park

[3:46:57] superintendent Lita Pace uh at a meeting

[3:46:59] with Commissioner McCandless,

[3:47:01] Commissioner Winfield, and myself, um

[3:47:03] Grand County works with VIA

[3:47:05] Transportation. They're a leader in

[3:47:08] transit in the current operator of the

[3:47:10] Moab Area Transit um to assess the

[3:47:14] feasibil feasibility of a practical

[3:47:17] affordable shuttle connecting downtown

[3:47:19] Moab to Arches [clears throat] National

[3:47:21] Park.

[3:47:23] VIA studies. VIA study outlines a full

[3:47:26] operational hub and spoke fixed route

[3:47:28] service launching as early as May 18th,

[3:47:32] 2026

[3:47:34] at a not to exceed cost of 3 million for

[3:47:37] season 1 pilot. The proposed route would

[3:47:41] run from downtown Moab to Panorama Point

[3:47:43] with connecting spokes to the windows,

[3:47:45] Delicate Arch, and Devil's Garden,

[3:47:47] operating daily with 12 to 15 passenger

[3:47:50] uh shuttles running on 15 to 30 minute

[3:47:53] headways. The budget equipped um each

[3:47:57] shuttle with onboard water refilling

[3:47:59] stations and Starlink connectivity,

[3:48:02] providing real-time park information to

[3:48:04] riders in areas with limited cell

[3:48:06] service. Because VIA already operates

[3:48:09] the Moab area transit, the Arches

[3:48:11] shuttle could ultimately be fully

[3:48:13] integrated into the existing system,

[3:48:15] opening a natural pathway for county and

[3:48:17] the city to explore how a unified

[3:48:20] visitor supported transit network could

[3:48:22] become a lasting benefit for residents,

[3:48:25] offering transportation for locals well

[3:48:27] beyond the funding for that program that

[3:48:29] sunsets next year.

[3:48:32] Granite County's goal with season 1

[3:48:34] pilot is to ensure that visitation and

[3:48:36] arches best protects park assets,

[3:48:39] provides a positive visitor experience,

[3:48:42] mitigates safety hazards identified on

[3:48:44] Highway 191, and improves safety for

[3:48:47] Main Street pedestrians. Achieving this

[3:48:49] goal sustains our economy, reduces

[3:48:52] vehicle pollution and traffic congestion

[3:48:55] to improve the quality of life for Grand

[3:48:57] County residents. This pilot proposal is

[3:49:00] design uh designated to generate real

[3:49:04] writership data, real safety

[3:49:05] improvements, and real congestion

[3:49:07] relief. The pilot does not replace or

[3:49:10] preempt NPS's long-term planning

[3:49:13] process, but ensures that residents,

[3:49:16] visitors, and the lo uh local economy

[3:49:18] are not put on hold. Um public lands

[3:49:21] management has always been a subject of

[3:49:23] civic conversation between federal

[3:49:25] agencies and gateway communities. Grand

[3:49:28] County's engagement in this conversation

[3:49:30] is no different. We are working

[3:49:32] collaboratively to offer solutions and

[3:49:34] advocate for outcomes that protect the

[3:49:36] park, the visitor experience, and

[3:49:38] improve the quality of life for

[3:49:40] residents. I also included the the

[3:49:43] proposal inside of the packet.

[3:49:53] » Yeah. I'd like to make the motion that

[3:49:55] we put this um committee together with

[3:49:59] um Chair McCandless, Vice Chair

[3:50:01] Winfield, myself, and Commissioner

[3:50:03] Martinez.

[3:50:06] >> And that's a second my mic.

[3:50:07] >> I didn't make the lotion. It's weird.

[3:50:11] >> Getting tired. All right, Trish, did you

[3:50:13] have a comment?

[3:50:14] >> Oh, no. I think you need a second. Yeah.

[3:50:16] Or

[3:50:16] >> a first second here.

[3:50:18] >> Um I'll try to kind of keep it brief. I

[3:50:22] mean, um, [clears throat]

[3:50:24] Trump's budget proposal for 2027, I

[3:50:28] don't know if you guys have seen it. It

[3:50:29] just came out a couple days ago. Um

[3:50:33] [clears throat] massive cuts to the

[3:50:34] National Park Service maintenance and

[3:50:37] operation to be cut in 430 national

[3:50:40] parks over 736 million reduction about

[3:50:44] 25% of park operations likely

[3:50:47] eliminating thousands more park staff

[3:50:50] and severe losses to infrastructure. So

[3:50:53] my overarching concern is,

[3:50:56] you know, the park service has already

[3:50:58] been slashed this year.

[3:51:00] Trump's proposing

[3:51:03] more cuts next year. I think the park

[3:51:05] service, I think it was 35% this year

[3:51:07] and now 25% next year. Um,

[3:51:11] and then, you know, we're we're throwing

[3:51:14] out these ideas and I think I think it's

[3:51:16] cool. I mean, I don't get me wrong, like

[3:51:18] I think it's great that you're like,

[3:51:20] "Okay, I have this idea." And but we

[3:51:23] need to be realistic. And the big my big

[3:51:27] o overarching thing is I think we need

[3:51:28] to stay in our lane. We're not we're I'm

[3:51:32] not I'm not working for the National

[3:51:33] Park Service. I'm a grand county

[3:51:35] commissioner and my job is to take care

[3:51:39] of our infrastructure, to take care of

[3:51:41] our employees, to work on our budget.

[3:51:45] And so I just think we're so far out of

[3:51:47] our lane, it's not even funny. We have

[3:51:50] always provided um federal land

[3:51:53] management agencies with feedback. We've

[3:51:55] been a part of their management um

[3:51:59] programming and and and reviewing

[3:52:01] documents etc and so on. But I think the

[3:52:04] fact that we are now developing our own

[3:52:08] management for Arches National Park and

[3:52:10] this is what we're going to do. We're

[3:52:12] going straight to the state. are going

[3:52:13] straight to the feds, which hopefully

[3:52:14] we'll hear about that, and over

[3:52:17] overriding our our um superintendent,

[3:52:22] overriding the regional managers. I I I

[3:52:26] just don't get it. I don't get it. We

[3:52:28] have our own fish to fry. And again, I'm

[3:52:31] really concerned when I I don't know if

[3:52:33] you've had a chance, you guys have

[3:52:34] looked at at Trump's budget for 27. I

[3:52:36] mean, it's massive cuts everywhere.

[3:52:40] But we and we should be quite concerned

[3:52:43] about that overall for many many many

[3:52:45] reasons. Um because I do think it's

[3:52:48] eventually going to have a trickle down

[3:52:50] effect on our economy because people are

[3:52:53] going to stop traveling when they're

[3:52:55] losing other services. But the fact is

[3:52:58] how so we do a pilot program. Not sure

[3:52:59] where the 3 million's come from. It's

[3:53:01] not coming from Grand County. It's not

[3:53:03] coming from Grand County. We do not have

[3:53:06] it. the fact that we have this reserve

[3:53:08] that we keep just chewing away at, chewing away at. We

[3:53:12] cannot be paying for something like

[3:53:14] this. Um, so I'm hope I'm assuming you

[3:53:17] found the money, which is great, but

[3:53:19] then what

[3:53:21] you know it's I I would support and I

[3:53:23] think I said that in in my email. I

[3:53:25] would support [clears throat]

[3:53:27] whether it's a university feasibility

[3:53:29] study. I I gave you guys the USU

[3:53:31] feasibility study. I also attached the

[3:53:33] feasibility study for the east um Zion

[3:53:36] shuttle. I would support something like

[3:53:38] that, not financially, but I would be

[3:53:40] more than willing to be a stakeholder in

[3:53:42] that. I think that'd be great. And that

[3:53:44] being said, this is the last thing I'll

[3:53:45] say. Um

[3:53:48] I when you guys you talk a little bit

[3:53:50] about having diverse perspectives, you

[3:53:53] know, in the in the agenda summary and

[3:53:56] the three of you do that doesn't provide

[3:53:58] diverse perspectives. And I understand

[3:54:01] it's like you it was kind of like in the

[3:54:03] future you'll start here with the

[3:54:05] foundation and you'll look out and try

[3:54:06] to get more perspectives. I would

[3:54:09] recommend bringing in a commissioner

[3:54:12] that has a different perspective than

[3:54:14] you all. And I will say

[3:54:18] out of all of us, not picking on any of

[3:54:20] you, I have the largest background in

[3:54:22] natural resource management.

[3:54:25] So I would throw that out. I'm more I'd

[3:54:27] be more than willing to participate. I

[3:54:30] think I would come with different

[3:54:31] perspectives. I think I work very very

[3:54:33] well with our superintendent and I'd be

[3:54:36] happy to participate.

[3:54:39] >> Bill, who's Bill then my

[3:54:41] >> I had my hand up with Trish earlier. I

[3:54:43] thought I [laughter] caught your eye.

[3:54:44] >> Sorry, I did not see you. Okay. But go

[3:54:45] ahead. Go.

[3:54:48] >> Um,

[3:54:50] first first off, the three million. I

[3:54:51] mean, I mostly agree with with what

[3:54:54] Trish said, but but the funding I think

[3:54:56] is the obvious question here. Have has

[3:55:00] it has some of that funding been

[3:55:03] secured?

[3:55:06] » Has the funding been secured?

[3:55:07] >> No. No. Okay.

[3:55:09] >> No, that's that's what we're working on.

[3:55:10] >> Okay. I What was it?

[3:55:12] >> Yeah. I think I asked you about a letter

[3:55:14] if we could put a letter of support, but

[3:55:16] I never got a response. So, I didn't you

[3:55:18] know, we didn't do anything. Um, so

[3:55:20] that's what I mean. We have to we have

[3:55:22] to have people come together to make

[3:55:23] decisions.

[3:55:24] >> So, sorry I jumped in.

[3:55:27] >> Yeah. No, no, that's fine. I I asked a

[3:55:29] question so I invited it. [laughter]

[3:55:31] >> Um and

[3:55:34] people coming together. I mean I mean I wasn't aware of the meeting that you

[3:55:37] guys had originally. I've told you we've

[3:55:39] talked about that. I don't need to

[3:55:40] rehash old stuff. But people coming

[3:55:42] together too doesn't mean like Trish

[3:55:45] said having one perspective on on a

[3:55:48] subcommittee. I'm not going to throw my

[3:55:49] hat in the ring. I'm not interested in

[3:55:50] that. But I think someone like Trish

[3:55:52] would probably do a big um would be a big contribution.

[3:55:58] But otherwise, I

[3:56:01] am

[3:56:03] I I think Shuttle is a great option in

[3:56:07] the future. I think it requires a lot

[3:56:09] more than just let's contract this

[3:56:12] company for $3 million and see what they

[3:56:14] can see what they can do. Um, I know

[3:56:17] it's been studied in the past, but this

[3:56:20] seems a little pie in the sky to me.

[3:56:23] >> Oh, Bill, go ahead.

[3:56:24] >> Sure. I I do know that we've already

[3:56:27] started working with Lena on this. Um,

[3:56:30] and certainly I believe it's important

[3:56:32] that the mayor has a seat at the table

[3:56:34] here as well. There there's a bunch of

[3:56:37] points I'd like to counter that have

[3:56:39] come from both of you. um realistic

[3:56:44] um came from Commissioner Haden. I

[3:56:46] wonder who told the Wright brothers it

[3:56:48] was unrealistic to think of airflight.

[3:56:51] We have a responsibility to our

[3:56:53] community here. It is our responsibility

[3:56:57] as a collaborating

[3:56:59] community here with the National Park

[3:57:01] Service. I don't believe anybody here

[3:57:03] has any intentions of telling the park

[3:57:05] service how to operate, nor do we intend

[3:57:07] to take over management of that the

[3:57:10] Arches National Park as many have

[3:57:13] suggested. Um my my reasoning for saying

[3:57:18] that I don't agree with adding an

[3:57:21] obstructionist really because we have no

[3:57:24] housing, no shuttle, no no. So to bring

[3:57:29] somebody into a group to work and try

[3:57:32] and solve the problem of getting a

[3:57:34] shuttle available, which by the way will

[3:57:36] remove cars from the road. The visitors

[3:57:40] aren't the enemy in Arches National

[3:57:42] Park. It's the vehicles. It isn't the

[3:57:45] visitors. So why do we not have more

[3:57:50] openness from everybody and say, "Boy, I

[3:57:53] would love to get a shuttle system going

[3:57:55] into the park. What do we got to do to

[3:57:57] make that happen? Instead, we talk of

[3:58:00] all kinds of ways to come up with, well,

[3:58:03] it just can't or maybe in the future or

[3:58:06] there was a study done. We have all

[3:58:09] kinds of excuses to stay on the ground.

[3:58:12] The reality is that we need a shuttle

[3:58:15] system. We have the availability to do

[3:58:17] it. Not only are we working with Lena,

[3:58:19] we're working with the state. We have

[3:58:21] worked with the feds. Um, as Trish said,

[3:58:24] she would like to hear some of the work

[3:58:26] that we've done with the feds. There's a

[3:58:28] meeting with the feds Wednesday, I

[3:58:31] believe,

[3:58:31] >> tomorrow.

[3:58:32] right? So, there's all kinds

[3:58:34] of work going on. And do do we want to

[3:58:37] just give the finger to those folks and

[3:58:39] tell them to figure this all out on

[3:58:42] their own? No, we don't. We have to

[3:58:43] engage and we have to be in there. And

[3:58:47] whether we like it or not, this

[3:58:49] commission is getting things done and we

[3:58:51] might get a shuttle system done. We just

[3:58:55] might.

[3:58:56] So rather than sit back and say, "Oh, I

[3:59:00] don't think we can do it. Maybe in 20

[3:59:02] years or 10 years." No, we're going to

[3:59:04] work on this right now as a group and

[3:59:06] see if we can't accomplish something.

[3:59:08] And if we can't,

[3:59:10] then we can't. But at least we're going

[3:59:12] to try and and that's where we are. So,

[3:59:15] I'm [clears throat] I'm amazed that we

[3:59:18] just constantly want to say no.

[3:59:20] >> Okay, Mike.

[3:59:22] >> Mary, are you going to speak? I

[3:59:24] Everything that I was going to say has

[3:59:25] been said. So,

[3:59:26] >> Okay, Mary.

[3:59:29] [clears throat]

[3:59:31] >> If you if you know if you guys uh start

[3:59:33] a a study group, I it's not going to do

[3:59:35] any harm. I mean, it's not going to hurt

[3:59:38] anything. I just think uh

[3:59:43] having us do a study group would be like

[3:59:45] the park service or the BOM doing a

[3:59:47] study troop group to decide how we're

[3:59:50] going to organize and draw out and make

[3:59:54] our active trails in the county without

[3:59:59] having them the county be the driver

[4:00:03] of the group.

[4:00:06] I mean, the park service should be the

[4:00:08] driver of this. You can, you know, I

[4:00:11] think it should be park service and and

[4:00:14] you and I and I've spoken to enough park

[4:00:17] service. I mean, they're more or less,

[4:00:20] you know, they they don't see it as a

[4:00:23] possibility in the near future at all

[4:00:27] because a simple Google search, it's

[4:00:31] $2.5 million a year to run the shuttle

[4:00:36] system. Brian said three

[4:00:38] >> to buy to buy the buses is $33 million

[4:00:44] even if they're used to hire I mean

[4:00:48] you're going to it's not going to be two

[4:00:50] three buses or four buses it's to to do

[4:00:53] a shuttle system like you're suggesting

[4:00:55] you're talking massive numbers of buses

[4:00:58] >> 12 wouldn't do

[4:01:01] >> well you don't know so that's not that I

[4:01:04] don't want to get off the point I just I

[4:01:06] think uh that we're not in our lane

[4:01:10] that there's a lot of things to be

[4:01:12] working on in the county that is our

[4:01:14] lane and is something we should be

[4:01:17] working on. I believe it was pressure

[4:01:19] from uh you know that we had something

[4:01:22] that uh the four elected officials in

[4:01:26] this county out of 16 elected officials.

[4:01:32] There are 16 elected officials in this

[4:01:34] county including the city uh Castle

[4:01:37] Valley and us.

[4:01:40] Of those 16 elected officials,

[4:01:44] 12 of them

[4:01:47] agreed with the uh

[4:01:51] time entry system. 12 of them agree

[4:01:55] think that moving forward and trying to

[4:01:57] push a shuttle system when there's no

[4:02:00] money for is a waste of time. And uh

[4:02:06] I I I think it's the amount

[4:02:09] [clears throat] of work that Elena and

[4:02:11] uh the different types of people Lena,

[4:02:15] excuse me, in in the park service are

[4:02:16] being forced to do, which they know is

[4:02:19] probably not going to get anywhere for

[4:02:22] years to come. Many of us won't be I

[4:02:25] won't be many of us won't be on this

[4:02:27] board by the time we could see a shuttle

[4:02:30] system in place.

[4:02:32] And that's what they tell me. I've

[4:02:34] talked to a lot of park service people

[4:02:37] uh that are working right now and park

[4:02:39] service people who are retired and they

[4:02:41] say this a system like this would take

[4:02:44] years just to do the infrastructure.

[4:02:47] And so if you guys want to go ahead go

[4:02:50] for it.

[4:02:51] >> Thank you.

[4:02:52] >> I'm not going to vote for it because I

[4:02:54] [laughter] think it's ridiculous.

[4:02:56] I think just the whole thing is out of

[4:02:59] our lane and not something we should be

[4:03:03] spending energy on. It's the park

[4:03:05] services.

[4:03:09] Okay. First off, so I I read you at the

[4:03:13] request of the superintendent of the

[4:03:15] parks that we would come with the

[4:03:16] proposal.

[4:03:18] >> Right. So just just to answer that for

[4:03:20] everybody, right? That they asked they

[4:03:22] asked the three of us to meet with you.

[4:03:24] No, no, excuse me, Mary. I'm speaking

[4:03:27] right now if you don't mind. She asked

[4:03:30] us to come with a proposal. We were

[4:03:32] asked for a proposal, right?

[4:03:36] We came with a proposal. I've heard from

[4:03:39] the three commissioners here that it's

[4:03:41] not possible. There is inside of the

[4:03:43] packet a plan that it is possible.

[4:03:47] Right? It is. It is possible. There is a

[4:03:49] company that says it is possible to do

[4:03:51] this. Getting back to Walt Dabney's

[4:03:53] quote that you know the uh um talking

[4:03:56] about how this this won't work. This

[4:03:58] won't work. The goal is not that this shuttle system has to uh uh provide

[4:04:04] a service for every single visitor in

[4:04:06] Arches. This doesn't replace all of the

[4:04:08] cars, but what it would do is would

[4:04:10] relieve the congestion in the park and

[4:04:13] make a better experience for tons of

[4:04:15] people here. Right. I mean, it was

[4:04:17] originally brought up here that you know

[4:04:19] who wrote the ACE plan. How many times

[4:04:21] Trish have you mentioned that on social

[4:04:23] media or in other places? Right? Let me

[4:04:26] answer. I wrote the plan. Right? I have

[4:04:28] been involved since 2012 in all of these

[4:04:31] conversations. Right? I have been and I

[4:04:33] have commented on every single uh uh

[4:04:36] opportunity whether it's a private

[4:04:37] citizen as a business or now as a

[4:04:40] commissioner. I have been involved in

[4:04:41] this project and I don't remember seeing

[4:04:44] every single commissioner here at all of

[4:04:46] those discussions. Right. And so to say

[4:04:49] that that I don't have the experience

[4:04:51] that's necessary to do this, I think

[4:04:53] just undermines my credibility. And I

[4:04:55] got to tell you, I'm really tired of it.

[4:04:57] I do have that experience. I answered

[4:05:00] every single one of your questions that

[4:05:01] you and the National Park Service threw

[4:05:03] at me over the ACE plan originally right

[4:05:05] there on my computer at 10:00 at night.

[4:05:08] Right. I sat there and knocked them all

[4:05:10] out. So to say that I don't have the

[4:05:11] experience on this, I just it it is

[4:05:14] bothering me, right? Um, you know, the mayor brought up in her last op-ed,

[4:05:19] you know, that these are not new ideas.

[4:05:21] They're not new ideas. These ideas have

[4:05:23] been brought up for the last decade, you

[4:05:26] know, and in fact, every single one of

[4:05:28] these ideas have been put out to public

[4:05:30] com uh to public comment and they've had

[4:05:33] high levels of support in the visitor

[4:05:35] surveys. What is different today is that

[4:05:38] we have a governing body that's willing

[4:05:40] to explore their feasibility before

[4:05:43] dismissing it in favor of timed entry.

[4:05:46] That's what the difference is right now.

[4:05:48] I mean the what has happened to the

[4:05:52] politics here in Grand County. I mean we

[4:05:54] have the progressives that are against

[4:05:56] clean air, public transportation, bike

[4:05:59] paths. Yeah. And trail connectivity. I

[4:06:02] mean, these should all be things that

[4:06:04] you guys this that's what this plan is

[4:06:06] right here. I would imagine that we

[4:06:07] would have a commission that is jumping

[4:06:09] on board saying these are the things

[4:06:11] that we want. And it are they hard to

[4:06:14] get? Yeah, this is not going to be easy.

[4:06:16] It's going to take a lot of support and

[4:06:18] that's what this working group is going

[4:06:19] to do. We're going to gather the support

[4:06:21] that's necessary to try to bring these

[4:06:24] things to our community. We are moving

[4:06:26] forward, right? I have invited Jock to

[4:06:29] meetings right there and I invited

[4:06:31] Trish. I invited you to the December 1st

[4:06:33] meeting. I gave you ample notice that

[4:06:35] what was happening and the plan that I

[4:06:37] was trying to uh present.

[4:06:40] >> Which meeting did you invite me to?

[4:06:42] >> The the meeting with Lena Pace. Uh um

[4:06:45] and then uh um Curtis's staff member um

[4:06:49] Lee's staff member was there and

[4:06:51] Kennedy's staff member. We sat at a

[4:06:53] little table right there trying to

[4:06:54] discuss alternatives for the national

[4:06:56] park. And every corner that we've come,

[4:06:59] timed entry is the only answer, right?

[4:07:02] It's timed entry is the only way that we

[4:07:04] could solve this problem. And all other options that have been brought to

[4:07:08] the table are always turned around that

[4:07:09] they're not feasible, right? There's no

[4:07:11] way that we can get it done. Um and and

[4:07:14] that's the reason that you're that we're

[4:07:15] not inviting you to the table right now,

[4:07:17] right? Is there no one's coming to the

[4:07:19] table and saying, "Hey, well, maybe we

[4:07:20] can we can do this, right? Or maybe have

[4:07:23] you thought of trying to do this?" Every

[4:07:25] time that we've brought other folks to

[4:07:27] the table, all we get is no, it's not

[4:07:29] possible. No, that's not possible.

[4:07:31] Right.

[4:07:33] For me, the way that I'm seeing it is

[4:07:34] there's only one side that's providing a

[4:07:37] vision right here for Gran County and

[4:07:38] the improved quality of life for for our

[4:07:41] visitors, right? For for I'm sorry, for

[4:07:43] our residents. There's only one there's

[4:07:45] only one side that's offering an

[4:07:47] alternative, right, with solutions other

[4:07:49] than timed entry. And I from what I've

[4:07:52] been seeing here lately, there's only

[4:07:53] one side that's out here actually doing

[4:07:55] the work, right? There's another side

[4:07:57] that's just sitting here in opposition.

[4:08:00] You know, there there'll be an

[4:08:01] opportunity there'll be an opportunity

[4:08:03] to bird dog all of our solutions, right?

[4:08:05] Just, you know, just like we've had

[4:08:07] given the opportunity at every other

[4:08:09] point, right? You can put your defense

[4:08:11] up and then we'll have we'll have time

[4:08:13] to talk about it. But right now, that's

[4:08:15] not the time. We got to figure out a way

[4:08:16] that we can try to make this work.

[4:08:19] Anyways, that's all I got. Thanks.

[4:08:21] >> I called for a vote. Um, we got people

[4:08:24] to talk.

[4:08:24] >> I actually I was going to agree with

[4:08:26] Mary. I know we already called for a

[4:08:29] vote, but medically I'm going to have to

[4:08:31] step out if we don't get to a vote soon.

[4:08:33] I've been out of insulin for hours. Need

[4:08:34] to step out here soon.

[4:08:36] >> Oh, no. Okay, I I'll call for a vote

[4:08:38] then.

[4:08:40] >> Um, those in favor of the uh ACE planned

[4:08:44] shuttle working group say I.

[4:08:48] >> And those opposed?

[4:08:51] that with Commissioner Hadin,

[4:08:52] Commissioner Hather, and Commissioner

[4:08:54] McFar.

[4:08:57] I need insulin. Yes.

[4:09:00] >> Go. Are you leaving the meeting then?

[4:09:02] >> I am. I have [laughter] to depart.

[4:09:03] >> All right. Mike,

[4:09:04] >> please say

[4:09:05] >> take care of yourself.

[4:09:07] >> Blood sugar.

[4:09:09] >> Yeah, I'm good.

[4:09:11] >> Okay.

[4:09:13] So,

[4:09:13] >> our next meeting. So, now we are moving

[4:09:15] on to our discussion items.

[4:09:18] needed

[4:09:20] >> discussion items. So it uh number 14 is

[4:09:23] the chem gardener study discussion

[4:09:26] and

[4:09:27] >> yep I that was my item I put it on. Um I

[4:09:30] just wanted to I put it on for a few

[4:09:33] reasons. I wanted to update the public a

[4:09:35] little bit because I don't think we've

[4:09:36] done that previously.

[4:09:37] >> Before you start I just wanted to state

[4:09:38] that you know we did receive information

[4:09:41] on the chem gardener and it does have

[4:09:44] sensitivity protected information

[4:09:46] statement. So, just so we all remember

[4:09:47] that we're not talking about the actual

[4:09:49] >> couldn't agree more.

[4:09:50] >> Okay. Sorry.

[4:09:51] >> But I did I I I absolutely will not

[4:09:53] disclose anything that was in the

[4:09:54] report. Um but I did want to let the

[4:09:56] public know because we haven't yet that

[4:09:58] each commissioner here has received a

[4:10:00] draft report of it and we've all been um

[4:10:04] allowed to make comment and submit that

[4:10:06] comment. I I appreciate that. I think

[4:10:09] the public needs to know that. Um,

[4:10:12] and uh, as far as I know, I'm not told

[4:10:16] much, but we still expect the report by

[4:10:20] the end of the month deadline that we

[4:10:22] voted on in February. Has anyone heard

[4:10:23] anything to the contrary?

[4:10:26] >> Okay. Okay.

[4:10:27] >> Go ahead and ask Chris. I can answer if

[4:10:29] you have more question about that or

[4:10:31] not.

[4:10:31] >> Um, and uh, I also wanted to bring a few

[4:10:34] things up. There were

[4:10:37] we had uh information shared with us

[4:10:39] that hadn't been previously shared with

[4:10:40] us before. We were given emails that

[4:10:43] were um uh written between various

[4:10:47] commissioners and ChemC Gardener, things

[4:10:50] that uh various citizens have been

[4:10:52] interested in and have brought up. Um I

[4:10:57] and another thing I think that I think

[4:10:59] the most concerning thing to me is that

[4:11:00] the MOA that was signed with the ChemC

[4:11:02] Gardener by the former chairman um was

[4:11:06] signed without legal review. Um that

[4:11:09] contract when when we

[4:11:12] voted to

[4:11:14] um approve the study. Uh the motion did

[4:11:18] not include language that allowed the

[4:11:20] chair to sign the contract MOA and uh

[4:11:26] from emails that MOA was sent right to

[4:11:28] the chair who signed it. Um Stephen,

[4:11:31] correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe

[4:11:33] you never saw that contract before it

[4:11:35] was signed.

[4:11:35] >> We were provided the original proposal,

[4:11:37] >> the prop but not the contract that was

[4:11:39] signed.

[4:11:40] >> And normally normally the language that

[4:11:41] accompanies the motion, it wasn't here

[4:11:43] in this situation. Right.

[4:11:45] >> Normally there is the language that they

[4:11:47] authorize the chair to sign the

[4:11:48] documents. That language was not

[4:11:50] included in the in the standard motion.

[4:11:52] >> Right. And and generally I mean I was

[4:11:54] the chair for 3 years and I think every

[4:11:56] contract that I recall signed either was

[4:12:00] the result of such language or it came

[4:12:02] back to the commission for the contract

[4:12:04] to be ratified after after receiving

[4:12:06] legal review. But this this didn't there

[4:12:08] was something in that contract that I am

[4:12:11] still very much opposed to and that is

[4:12:13] that uh Commissioner Winfield was made

[4:12:15] the point of contact. Um as

[4:12:17] [clears throat] another email says

[4:12:21] um from December 2, Bill wrote to the

[4:12:24] Kemp Gardner and said that integrity of

[4:12:26] the report is paramount to us being

[4:12:27] useful.

[4:12:29] And I agree with that. And I think that

[4:12:32] the biggest um uh challenge to the

[4:12:35] integrity of the report is is having

[4:12:37] Commissioner Winfield who is obviously

[4:12:39] got uh political fris to fry on this

[4:12:43] being the contact point. I think it

[4:12:44] would have been much more

[4:12:47] um I think the report would have a lot

[4:12:49] more integrity if if Mark had been made

[4:12:51] the contact point from the beginning. Um

[4:12:56] uh also uh other things that came out of

[4:12:59] that email that people have wondered

[4:13:00] about. It it is clear from that that

[4:13:02] Brian's been uh the commissioner

[4:13:04] Martinez has been involved in meetings

[4:13:06] with the Kimy Gardener from August that

[4:13:08] was never disclosed. In fact, at another

[4:13:11] commission meeting, I believe it was the

[4:13:12] one in February, that we extended the

[4:13:16] deadline that um Bill stated that that

[4:13:19] he was the only one that was having

[4:13:21] contact with ChemC Gardener or at least

[4:13:24] implied that strongly. Um I never knew

[4:13:29] that Brian was on those meetings. I

[4:13:31] don't know why another commissioner was

[4:13:33] on those meetings. I think it still it

[4:13:35] should have been uh Mark that was on

[4:13:37] those and uh

[4:13:41] um also communication. The only

[4:13:44] commissioners that had communication

[4:13:46] with Chemcy Gardner were uh

[4:13:48] Commissioners Winfield and Martinez. Um

[4:13:52] I don't think any of the rest of us were

[4:13:54] given that opportunity. In fact, I think

[4:13:56] Trish was scolded for for trying to have

[4:13:59] contact with them.

[4:14:02] uh that

[4:14:04] I I how how did how did how did Brian

[4:14:08] get on those meetings? Um anyway, um

[4:14:13] I'll get back to a few other points, but

[4:14:15] I'll open that up for discussion.

[4:14:17] >> Okay, Bill.

[4:14:20] >> Yeah, I glad that we're continuing on.

[4:14:24] No, no, no. Here, stay on the ground and

[4:14:26] don't fly. I think we're splitting some

[4:14:28] hairs here regarding the contract. If

[4:14:31] there was a mistake made, it was not

[4:14:33] intentional that I signed that contract

[4:14:35] without the county attorney's approval.

[4:14:38] Um, what do we do? Go backwards. All I

[4:14:42] can say is I'm sorry that he didn't get

[4:14:45] consulted in that. Um, the implied

[4:14:50] that I was the only commissioner. I

[4:14:52] don't believe so. Um, from the very

[4:14:54] beginning, this plan to do this study

[4:14:57] was Commissioner Martinez's.

[4:15:00] It wasn't Commissioner Hadler's. It

[4:15:02] wasn't Commissioner Adines. It was

[4:15:03] Commissioner Martinez. And he has been

[4:15:06] involved in those meetings and those

[4:15:09] updates as much as he was involved again

[4:15:11] in the most recent one where we had

[4:15:14] administrator Tiner present with us as

[4:15:17] well. And when we talk about only two

[4:15:21] commissioners that have had access to

[4:15:23] the ChemC Gardener Institute, why don't

[4:15:26] we talk about the commissioners who are

[4:15:28] using their personal emails to attempt

[4:15:30] to influence this study and cause all

[4:15:34] kinds of problems with it. Um,

[4:15:36] Commissioner Haden's personal email is

[4:15:38] tied to this ChemC Gardener Institute

[4:15:40] study.

[4:15:41] >> I did I didn't I'm talking. Thank you.

[4:15:43] You'll get your opportunity when I'm

[4:15:45] done.

[4:15:45] >> I'm more than happy to say exactly. I'm

[4:15:47] not asking you questions. I'm simply

[4:15:50] stating that all of the commissioners

[4:15:52] have had the opportunity to be involved

[4:15:54] in this study and some of them have done

[4:15:57] it by going around and doing it with

[4:15:59] their personal emails rather than like

[4:16:01] mine. You're welcome to my emails. You

[4:16:03] don't have to gram them to get them. I

[4:16:06] don't hide things in my emails. I make

[4:16:08] them very public and I don't mind making

[4:16:11] them public. So again, um I I think that

[4:16:14] we're again just trying to find a way to

[4:16:17] say no to something here. Personally,

[4:16:19] it's just a study.

[4:16:21] >> Sorry. It's already happened.

[4:16:23] >> Yes. So thank you.

[4:16:24] >> Okay.

[4:16:24] >> So I'll just respond to that. Yeah. I

[4:16:26] did write Nate and I think it was Nate

[4:16:28] or Nate. Um because we had the

[4:16:34] understanding that you guys had met

[4:16:35] seven times. So I just said, "Oh, hey,

[4:16:37] can I have those initial findings?" and

[4:16:39] he said, "Contact

[4:16:42] Mark." And so I sent the exact same

[4:16:44] email that I sent to Kimy Gardener to

[4:16:46] Mark and he sent it forward. My

[4:16:48] understanding is when that email came

[4:16:50] back, that's when you sent the email

[4:16:53] that I think Mary read today. So that's

[4:16:55] fine. Um, I did send it through my USU

[4:16:58] email. I was on US I was working on my

[4:17:00] USU class at that time and so that's I

[4:17:02] sent it through trisha.haden

[4:17:05] usu.edu. You guys are welcome to Grandma

[4:17:07] all day long. Um, that's exactly what I

[4:17:10] asked. He was very cordial, very nice,

[4:17:12] and you know, I felt like I'm one of and

[4:17:14] I stated that I'm a county commissioner.

[4:17:16] Um, if there's been some initial

[4:17:18] findings, I'd like to have those. My

[4:17:20] only other um cuz I agree we're almost

[4:17:24] done with this. Amen.

[4:17:26] um is

[4:17:28] if there were some initial findings and

[4:17:32] we are concerned about the integrity of

[4:17:34] that

[4:17:36] document.

[4:17:38] My concern is how did they get the

[4:17:40] Hancock and I'm not I'm not going to use

[4:17:42] study because it wasn't a study. Um

[4:17:46] again I'll go back to this concept of

[4:17:47] what a study is. It's peer-reviewed and

[4:17:50] eventually it's published. Not always

[4:17:52] but it's published. Um, and that was

[4:17:54] none of the above. And I did make that,

[4:17:56] and you guys probably saw my comments to

[4:17:58] you, uh, University of Utah that they

[4:18:01] should throw that out as a reference.

[4:18:03] It's just really a poor reference when

[4:18:06] you have something that you should be

[4:18:08] able to Google everything on Google

[4:18:09] Scholar and it pops up.

[4:18:12] And that does not, it's not a published

[4:18:14] document. It's not a study. It's

[4:18:16] somebody taking their information. She

[4:18:18] did a very nice job. Emily just produced

[4:18:21] a study that I can you I can disseminate

[4:18:24] to you guys that she did an

[4:18:26] extraordinary job also, but is not a

[4:18:28] peer-reviewed study. And so it does not

[4:18:30] get it's not does not get published. And

[4:18:34] so I would I would assume hopefully you

[4:18:36] that they will take that into account

[4:18:38] and pull that out because I that's you know manipulating if you're

[4:18:43] providing that entity with the sources

[4:18:47] that you want them to look at. you're

[4:18:49] trying to manipulate that study.

[4:18:54] » Go ahead, Brian.

[4:18:56] >> Yeah. So, let's start with let's see

[4:18:59] here. I think Jock, you had talked about

[4:19:02] the update right there. So, from the the

[4:19:05] last update right there, and I included

[4:19:07] it in there, the comments were all

[4:19:09] received by the ChemC Gardener and I

[4:19:12] made sure that the commission will have

[4:19:15] written response to all of our comments.

[4:19:18] Um, and then once again, they did have

[4:19:20] further questions on a couple of people.

[4:19:22] I told them to reach out. They reached

[4:19:24] out to me on a couple of the things that

[4:19:26] I brought up and said, "Hey, can I can I

[4:19:28] see this study?" And I sent that to

[4:19:29] them. Um, I'd like to get back to

[4:19:32] >> So, are you point of contact now, Brent?

[4:19:34] >> No. No. I was with Bill and Mark. I have

[4:19:37] been with Bill and Mark since the start.

[4:19:39] This was my idea to bring this up and and let's get to that right there.

[4:19:43] So, if we can let's let's draw the whole

[4:19:46] timeline. We presented the the Hancock

[4:19:49] report right there, the the study that

[4:19:51] he had done right there. And

[4:19:53] Commissioner Habine had said, "Hey, this

[4:19:55] is not a study. This is not peer

[4:19:57] reviewed. We can't accept any of these

[4:19:59] findings." And we said, "Great. Well,

[4:20:00] let's go ahead and let's go to the

[4:20:03] source."

[4:20:04] that was identified through

[4:20:06] the National Park Service was ChemC

[4:20:09] Gardener. We have we have that. They

[4:20:11] said that that yes, we have some data

[4:20:13] when we did our RCC, which also was not

[4:20:15] a study, right? That was just that was

[4:20:17] just a contractor that came out and did

[4:20:19] their little economic study right there

[4:20:22] was RCC and Associates said, "Okay,

[4:20:24] yeah, well, here you go." And they used

[4:20:25] that and they made tons of decisions on

[4:20:27] that. And that was not a study. It was

[4:20:28] not peer-reviewed. And I don't know if

[4:20:30] you could look it up in the Google

[4:20:31] Scholarly or if it was published, right?

[4:20:33] But I do know that when you said that,

[4:20:35] hey, we need to have make sure that this

[4:20:37] study or the results of this study are legitimate, we said, great. Let's go

[4:20:42] take it to the source. And we did,

[4:20:44] right? we took it to come see Gardener

[4:20:46] and the the the fact that I wouldn't be

[4:20:49] involved in in the the the the um the

[4:20:52] item that I brought to the commission.

[4:20:54] That's that's just that's that's strange

[4:20:56] that you guys think that I wasn't going

[4:20:57] to have

[4:20:58] >> You never owned that, Brian. What's

[4:20:59] that?

[4:20:59] >> You never owned that previously.

[4:21:01] >> Never did. I've never been asked.

[4:21:04] [laughter]

[4:21:04] >> You've been asked by I've talked with

[4:21:08] >> You've been asked by many people.

[4:21:10] >> Let's let him finish.

[4:21:11] >> Do you mind? Do you mind if I go?

[4:21:12] Thanks. Thanks. Right. So I yeah I was

[4:21:15] there I I provided them information

[4:21:17] right and then to talk about the

[4:21:19] transparency of it all right I said I

[4:21:22] saw that there were folks doing grammar

[4:21:23] there was there was the newspaper coming

[4:21:25] in with their own interpretation of

[4:21:27] stuff and I said Mark we need to get all

[4:21:29] of this information together and then we

[4:21:31] came up with the idea to disseminate it

[4:21:33] to every single commissioner right I

[4:21:35] wanted everybody to have an equal

[4:21:37] playing foot on what was going on with

[4:21:39] this and then yeah I did see Trish's

[4:21:41] email and you guys got to see all my

[4:21:43] emails I'm not trying to hide anything.

[4:21:45] I'm actually trying to show you what

[4:21:47] was, you know, this is what has been

[4:21:48] happening so that you can follow it. I

[4:21:50] don't know why you're upset with the

[4:21:52] fact that the uh uh ChemC Gardener has

[4:21:55] Matt Hancock study so that they could

[4:21:57] look at that information. They also had

[4:21:59] the IRC back in 2018. They also had the

[4:22:02] uh uh the 2021, the 2022, and the 2016

[4:22:06] visitor spending experience surveys.

[4:22:09] They had all of that information right

[4:22:11] there. They also had the vape. they they

[4:22:13] didn't they they needed to find a way to

[4:22:15] source all that information and all I

[4:22:17] did was send them links and you can look

[4:22:18] inside the emails and you can see that

[4:22:21] that's exactly what I did. Oh, you need

[4:22:23] that information? Perfect. Here you go.

[4:22:25] Right. There's not there hasn't been

[4:22:26] anything of us trying to guide this

[4:22:29] study. Um you can also look at those

[4:22:31] emails and you can see the the one email

[4:22:33] that Bill sent that said all I want you

[4:22:35] guys to do is follow the MOA. Right?

[4:22:38] whatever whatever is happening, just

[4:22:40] please follow the MOA. Um,

[4:22:43] >> spin job is unbelievable. Great work.

[4:22:47] >> Yeah, you know, I'm tired of your

[4:22:49] comments, man. I have to call point of

[4:22:50] order.

[4:22:51] >> Call point of order.

[4:22:52] >> Thanks, dude. Cuz, you know, I'm tired

[4:22:53] of of being being interrupted. I let you

[4:22:56] talk when you want to go, right? Even

[4:22:58] when I disagree with you, which is most

[4:22:59] of the time.

[4:23:01] >> Sorry. Go ahead. Are you done?

[4:23:03] >> I'm done.

[4:23:03] >> Okay. Just real quick, we how we follow

[4:23:07] an MOA that we hadn't seen. We hadn't

[4:23:10] seen it. We didn't approve it. It was

[4:23:12] signed by bill without commission

[4:23:15] approval, which

[4:23:17] that's a bad deal. We did not see the

[4:23:20] MOA until recently. I want to say

[4:23:23] February. We never saw that MOA last

[4:23:25] year. We did not.

[4:23:29] It was signed by bill without without

[4:23:32] the county attorney reviewing it. Never

[4:23:35] came to the commission. We did not

[4:23:36] approve that MOA. We approved the

[4:23:39] proposal like to Yes. We you know

[4:23:41] >> what was what was the difference between

[4:23:42] the MOA and the proposal?

[4:23:44] >> The bill was the point of contact. I'd

[4:23:46] have to go back and pull all that.

[4:23:48] >> No, no, no. I mean, if this is such a

[4:23:50] major thing and you you've gone through

[4:23:51] it, Trish, please tell me exactly what

[4:23:53] is driving this.

[4:23:54] >> I don't have that information right now.

[4:23:56] You just

[4:23:57] >> So, now who is who is driving it?

[4:23:58] Because [clears throat] if this is the

[4:23:59] major rub that you have, please tell me.

[4:24:02] >> It's not the It's not the major rub that

[4:24:03] I have.

[4:24:04] >> Okay, then I'm I'm good then.

[4:24:06] >> Mary,

[4:24:10] » I think there was withholding.

[4:24:14] Maybe not lying. There was definitely

[4:24:16] withholding and not not not, you know,

[4:24:18] just kind of keeping people in the dark.

[4:24:21] But I I think this uh conversation

[4:24:23] should be brought to a close. I mean, we

[4:24:26] are good. we could spend the next five

[4:24:29] hours and we're going to go around and

[4:24:31] around in circles and see things. Uh I

[4:24:35] think I felt like there was a lot of things

[4:24:42] that could have been done that would

[4:24:43] have made uh people feel say uh better

[4:24:46] about things.

[4:24:49] >> Bill wants to say one more thing.

[4:24:50] >> Yeah. I number one I want to start with

[4:24:52] I don't think you should end a

[4:24:54] conversation going out insulting another

[4:24:56] commissioner. If you want to insult me

[4:24:58] as you just did withholding information

[4:25:00] keeping people in the dark then you have

[4:25:02] to allow a rebuttal.

[4:25:03] >> Oh okay.

[4:25:04] >> So I think that's extremely rude. Number

[4:25:07] one is I could probably point to times

[4:25:09] that Jacques has been less than honest

[4:25:11] or I could point to something Dean has

[4:25:14] done or Commissioner Martinez but I

[4:25:16] don't do that. That isn't my mo motus of

[4:25:19] operande here. What we are going to do

[4:25:21] is eventually get a study or we can just

[4:25:25] we don't let's pull the 60,000 or pay it

[4:25:28] and not get the study. Let's ask them to

[4:25:30] not do a study. What difference does it

[4:25:31] make? I assure you that when we get that

[4:25:34] study, there are going to be things in

[4:25:36] it I don't like. There are going to be

[4:25:39] things in it that you don't like. But

[4:25:41] when we get it, I'm not going to insult

[4:25:44] you and tell you you're withholding

[4:25:46] information and you're keeping us in the

[4:25:48] dark and play this this I don't know

[4:25:51] what game you guys want to call this.

[4:25:52] It's so insultive. I don't know how to

[4:25:54] deal with it. I'm so insulted. It's

[4:25:57] ridiculous. And and please already

[4:26:01] level professionalism here. We want to

[4:26:04] have a meeting with the city. We want to

[4:26:06] do we want to go over there and do our

[4:26:08] dirty laundry with the city? No, we

[4:26:11] don't. We want to be professionals. All

[4:26:13] of us. Let's act like it. Let's quit

[4:26:15] playing back and forth and insinuating

[4:26:18] that there's some sensor thing here. I I

[4:26:21] just We wanted a report because you

[4:26:23] didn't like the Hancock one. They asked

[4:26:26] for four reports when they did their

[4:26:29] study. They asked for the the three that

[4:26:31] the park service had done and the

[4:26:33] Hancock one. They watched our meeting.

[4:26:36] They didn't go into this blind to do the

[4:26:38] Chem Gardener Institute. They studied

[4:26:40] it. They wanted to know what all the

[4:26:42] issues were. They wanted it. So, it was

[4:26:44] provided to them. Commissioner Martinez

[4:26:46] sent them the Hancock study. They're

[4:26:49] smart enough that they can decide if it

[4:26:51] needed a peer review. We don't need to

[4:26:53] continually hear Mr. Hancock's name drug

[4:26:56] through the mud either. It's It's like

[4:26:58] it's a game. He's an amateur or he

[4:27:00] doesn't know what he's doing or it

[4:27:02] should have been thrown away or they

[4:27:03] should I hope they're smart enough to

[4:27:05] not use that. Please already try and be

[4:27:08] positive. Let's put a message out to the

[4:27:10] people that are listening to us that

[4:27:12] we're professionals.

[4:27:14] I'm done.

[4:27:16] >> And I would just state that I've known

[4:27:18] that that Brian's been on the

[4:27:20] conversations with Bill. I mean, but I

[4:27:22] usually in a meeting it's actually

[4:27:23] usually after agenda review. They they

[4:27:25] would go and he's like, I got a meeting

[4:27:26] with Kemp Gardner afterwards, you know,

[4:27:28] and Brian would be meeting and then I'd

[4:27:30] follow up and that's why I always knew

[4:27:31] what was going on. You know, I I I

[4:27:33] talked to Bill and then I'd call them

[4:27:35] afterwards and be like, what's going on?

[4:27:37] They're like, "Well, they're wait, you

[4:27:38] know, they're working on it. They're

[4:27:39] working on it." And so, there was never

[4:27:40] in my eyes anything that was

[4:27:44] in the dark. They're not withholding.

[4:27:46] You know, I know we did not see I agree

[4:27:48] with you that we did not see the signed

[4:27:50] um

[4:27:52] uh document until I asked for it when,

[4:27:55] you know, after I became the chair and I

[4:27:57] said, you know, we haven't seen that.

[4:27:58] And people have been saying we haven't

[4:27:59] seen it, so let's see it. I mean, I

[4:28:02] assumed that what we voted on was what

[4:28:04] was in there. And so, you know, and I

[4:28:06] know there's a few different changes

[4:28:08] Mary O'Brien's showed them. She's

[4:28:10] emailed us about them. I don't feel like

[4:28:12] the changes that are in there from the

[4:28:14] agreement versus what we voted on are

[4:28:16] that much that are like, "Oh my gosh,

[4:28:18] this is the end of the world." Um, and

[4:28:20] so that's just how I I feel about it. I

[4:28:22] just want you to know, and I've never

[4:28:23] been asked if if Brian was if I knew

[4:28:26] Brian was there. And when I was asked, I

[4:28:28] absolutely was like, "Yes, I knew he was

[4:28:29] there. It's Bill's and and it's Bill's

[4:28:31] meeting, and he can invite who he

[4:28:32] wants." Just like the meeting with Lena

[4:28:33] and this off subject, but you know, the

[4:28:35] meeting with Lena was with me. She

[4:28:36] called me. I'm the chair of the

[4:28:37] commission and I invited Brian and Bill

[4:28:39] to come along, you know, and you can see

[4:28:41] it all in all the emails. You guys have

[4:28:43] all the emails. They're all easy to be

[4:28:44] seen. We're sharing them all and now we

[4:28:47] have a working group that way. We don't

[4:28:48] have you guys saying we're doing

[4:28:50] something that we're hiding from the

[4:28:52] community because we're not hiding it.

[4:28:53] You know, we're working with everybody.

[4:28:54] We're trying to get this done. And

[4:28:56] that's, you know, that's the end of this

[4:28:58] discussion. So, the next discussion that

[4:29:00] we're going to have is um the county

[4:29:03] commissions with the media. And I'm just

[4:29:05] going to start off and probably end it

[4:29:07] with a fact that I'm working on a

[4:29:09] commission communication policy that

[4:29:10] will go in the policy uh and procedures

[4:29:13] for the commission that all official

[4:29:15] communications issued on behalf of Gran

[4:29:17] County shall align with the adopted

[4:29:19] policies and current priorities of the

[4:29:22] commission majority be grounded in

[4:29:24] verifiable facts and serve to inform and

[4:29:26] educate residents while supporting

[4:29:28] healthy civic discourse. Communications

[4:29:31] do not require prior commission approval

[4:29:33] and are the responsibility of

[4:29:35] administrative staff prepared as needed

[4:29:37] in collaboration with the commission

[4:29:39] administrator to ensure consistency with

[4:29:41] the county's governance direction and

[4:29:43] policy commitments. Staff exercising

[4:29:46] this authority do so in administrative

[4:29:48] capacity, giving effect to adopted

[4:29:50] policy rather than making or

[4:29:52] interpreting policy independently. So,

[4:29:54] this isn't going to be voted on today. I

[4:29:56] didn't put on here because we're going

[4:29:57] to add it into the policies and

[4:29:58] procedures. you'll all be able to read

[4:29:59] it and see it and we can discuss it in

[4:30:02] future. But that's how I I my stance on

[4:30:05] with county communication is that

[4:30:07] they're going to represent what the

[4:30:08] majority of the commission is working

[4:30:09] on.

[4:30:11] And that's Go ahead. Okay. So, all I

[4:30:14] wanted to I wanted this to be very

[4:30:16] casual. I don't want it to be

[4:30:18] contentious. Um, just know that, you

[4:30:21] know, as commissioners, we have

[4:30:23] constituents come to us when, for

[4:30:26] example, items come out in the

[4:30:28] advertiser and that was a very I think

[4:30:30] the essential air stuff, I heard nothing

[4:30:32] about that. The ACE plan, I heard a lot.

[4:30:35] And so, I'm a representative of this

[4:30:37] community and so as such, I want to

[4:30:39] bring those concerns forward. My

[4:30:43] hope,

[4:30:44] my ask is that it if it is an item of

[4:30:48] contention,

[4:30:50] once it is put together, it does come to

[4:30:52] the commission for approval. And just

[4:30:53] like you said, if the commission

[4:30:55] majority approves it, I'm good with

[4:30:57] that. And then the community knows. And

[4:30:59] then I also have some feedback when

[4:31:01] those people are coming to me. I mean, I

[4:31:03] was a little blindsided when they were

[4:31:05] coming to me because I hadn't seen the

[4:31:06] advertiser yet. And I'm like, I don't

[4:31:08] know what you're talking about. And if

[4:31:10] that makes sense. And so I think if it's

[4:31:11] an item of contention, I think it's

[4:31:14] simple enough [laughter] to pass it by

[4:31:16] the commission before it goes out so

[4:31:18] that we're all apprised of it. We're

[4:31:20] ready to you know face our constituents

[4:31:24] when they're calling when they're blown

[4:31:25] us out. That's all I'm going to say. I

[4:31:26] don't want to I and you know Dana this

[4:31:28] policy it may be that I just send you

[4:31:30] the chair where whoever the chair may be

[4:31:32] at the moment it's me in the future

[4:31:34] it'll be someone else you know but the

[4:31:35] chair would send out you know like this

[4:31:37] is the communication that's going out.

[4:31:38] It's not going to be that's funny. We're

[4:31:39] not going to direct our staff on fine,

[4:31:42] you know, but that way maybe just a

[4:31:43] heads up.

[4:31:43] >> That would be great.

[4:31:44] >> No, a heads up so that you don't

[4:31:45] >> I would like I would love that because

[4:31:47] like I said, I think it's more of just

[4:31:49] having that awareness so when community

[4:31:52] members like I said and I haven't seen

[4:31:55] what's coming out in the

[4:31:56] >> I would appreciate that

[4:31:57] >> advertiser or what's coming. I also I

[4:31:59] mean I would like to share that with you

[4:32:00] because we have a lot of things that go

[4:32:02] on our social media and not everyone's

[4:32:04] on social media and so they don't see it

[4:32:06] and I follow Grand County and probably

[4:32:08] it's the only thing that I look at is

[4:32:09] our Grand County social media on

[4:32:11] Facebook because I want to see what's

[4:32:13] being put out and so I just can send

[4:32:14] that to you guys in an email.

[4:32:16] >> I would appreciate that because it

[4:32:17] usually is going to be something that

[4:32:19] goes on our website

[4:32:20] >> or on our um social media

[4:32:23] >> or it appears

[4:32:24] >> or that that would go there.

[4:32:25] >> Okay. Oh, I appreciate that.

[4:32:27] >> And I, you know, cuz I am think during

[4:32:28] the airport stuff, maybe there was

[4:32:29] things you guys didn't know were going

[4:32:31] on, but I was reading it on our county

[4:32:33] website and I was like, "Oh, [laughter]

[4:32:34] I'm going to go and I'm going to go to

[4:32:35] this." You know, I appreciate that.

[4:32:37] >> If we can give you guys some more

[4:32:38] information, that would be wonderful. I

[4:32:40] would appreciate that.

[4:32:40] >> All right. Thank you.

[4:32:41] >> And just just one quick point, there's

[4:32:43] there are seven of you folks and I think

[4:32:46] one of the things that sometimes is hard

[4:32:48] is I try to have for me personally,

[4:32:50] speaking to my working experience, I try

[4:32:52] to call you guys when I'm going through

[4:32:53] and try to call all 70 of you guys. we

[4:32:55] might have seven different conversations

[4:32:57] about different pieces. I cannot imagine

[4:32:59] what Mark and Quinn have to do as well.

[4:33:01] And so it's it's really hard sometimes

[4:33:03] when we're trying to get messaging and

[4:33:05] trying to communicate because

[4:33:06] Commissioner Hadler's question might be

[4:33:08] different than Commissioner Lean's

[4:33:09] question, it might be different from the

[4:33:10] chairs. And so balancing all of that, I

[4:33:13] think there's a lot of information that

[4:33:15] you folks have and that you guys have

[4:33:17] the opportunity to provide that

[4:33:18] information to the public and you all

[4:33:20] speak to different facets and sex of the of the entire thing. So I think

[4:33:25] that's one thing that's really important

[4:33:26] to remember because you guys have a lot

[4:33:29] of information. You guys have different

[4:33:31] groups you talk to

[4:33:32] >> and so I think that's really helpful.

[4:33:33] >> I appreciate that. Thank you.

[4:33:36] >> And one announcement after that.

[4:33:38] >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Well, go ahead.

[4:33:39] I'm going to let you do your

[4:33:41] commissioning [laughter]

[4:33:41] >> just super quick if you guys elected

[4:33:44] >> the blue pin wheels out. It is child

[4:33:46] abuse awareness month. These are being

[4:33:48] put out by the family support center. Um

[4:33:50] grab them. It's a good cause. The family

[4:33:52] support center did an open house and um

[4:33:54] just want to remind people that there

[4:33:56] are really good things the county does.

[4:33:58] Uh a lot of people came out to the um

[4:34:00] family support center and we're looking

[4:34:02] at um trying to raise raise awareness

[4:34:04] for this really important topic. And so

[4:34:06] that's all I'm going to say. I don't

[4:34:08] want to take away from that cuz that's

[4:34:09] the most important thing.

[4:34:10] >> That is awesome. I was going to It was

[4:34:12] on my calendar. I didn't make it um to

[4:34:14] that yesterday and then or Friday. No,

[4:34:18] yesterday. Yesterday [laughter]

[4:34:19] >> and then if anybody I mean we're here.

[4:34:21] It is 8:34. But if there's anybody that

[4:34:24] Do we want to listen to Brian and Bill

[4:34:26] tonight or do we want to put that on the

[4:34:27] next agenda? It's up to

[4:34:28] >> Let's go through it. I mean I'll pull

[4:34:29] that.

[4:34:30] >> Okay. Hold up. And then if anybody else

[4:34:32] has anything specific from their

[4:34:34] commission report that they want to

[4:34:36] share. Um yeah, go ahead, John.

[4:34:38] >> I have a really quick plug for spring

[4:34:40] spruce up on Saturday. Uh that's the

[4:34:43] annual event that uh Trailmax has been

[4:34:45] putting on for the last four years. And

[4:34:47] it's an awesome volunteer opportunity to

[4:34:50] get out and and do some community

[4:34:52] service, work on trails, work on on

[4:34:54] beautifying town and our uh public

[4:34:57] lands. So check it out, sign it up. You

[4:35:00] can you can uh do a Google search for spring spruce up or I think it's on

[4:35:06] the I'm not sure. [laughter] I'm not

[4:35:10] Yeah, I'm not a social media guy, but you'll be able to find it and uh

[4:35:13] it's super rewarding.

[4:35:14] >> Okay. And I'm going to uh so just

[4:35:16] reminder, we do have the city county

[4:35:18] meeting next Friday, the 17th at noon,

[4:35:21] and they're going to do lunch. So, if

[4:35:22] you want to get there a little bit

[4:35:23] early, she said that they'd have it

[4:35:25] there. And the agenda will come out next

[4:35:28] week. I'll have that all for you. And

[4:35:30] then I've been working with the Utah

[4:35:31] Renewables community and if you could go

[4:35:34] to my notes and and go to the website

[4:35:37] link, it's going to explain to you a lot

[4:35:39] what's going on. So, it's going to be a

[4:35:40] $4 increase to our community and that's

[4:35:43] what we will be voting on. And it's we

[4:35:46] have to have this done by June 2nd. And

[4:35:48] so, I have the ordinance. I'm working on

[4:35:49] the ordinance that'll be coming up the

[4:35:50] next few meetings. But, I just want you

[4:35:53] guys all to have a heads up, reach out

[4:35:55] to me with questions. And um you know, I

[4:35:58] think that it's the opportunity. We're allowing our community to choose

[4:36:02] to do that. If they don't want to do it,

[4:36:04] they can opt out. But if we vote no,

[4:36:06] then they don't have that opportunity.

[4:36:09] So, I think that there's, you know, I I

[4:36:10] think affordability in our community is

[4:36:12] super important, but I also think we're

[4:36:13] a community that values sustainability

[4:36:15] and value, you know, has these values

[4:36:17] that I have spent a lot of time. It's

[4:36:20] been a it's been a big thing, but not

[4:36:22] nearly as much, but all the other people

[4:36:24] have. I mean there is some amazing

[4:36:26] people that have put this all together

[4:36:28] and so it's going to create more more

[4:36:30] >> power. Yeah, it's going to create more

[4:36:32] power. Anyways, so I'm going to that's

[4:36:34] all I have on mine, but if you could

[4:36:36] look at that website prior to and it

[4:36:38] will be coming up, but

[4:36:40] >> we'll start with Brian. Do you want to

[4:36:42] start first?

[4:36:43] >> Yeah. So, let's go Spanish Inquisition

[4:36:45] style here. I'll go ahead and just read

[4:36:48] all the meetings and if there's a

[4:36:49] meeting that you're interested in, just

[4:36:50] stop me if we can go through exactly

[4:36:53] kind of what was discussed right there.

[4:36:55] Okay. So, and I'm going to start on the

[4:36:57] 19th because we did have some meetings

[4:36:59] in Salt Lake prior to leaving to DC. So,

[4:37:02] at first we met on the 19th with

[4:37:04] Representative Kennedy and uh um at that

[4:37:07] meeting we talked about the uh uh

[4:37:08] Colorado River drought funding that's

[4:37:10] available, the upfront legislation and

[4:37:13] adding the pipeline to the Crescent

[4:37:15] Junction. We al also talked about Alice

[4:37:17] and Farm Bill funding to find out where

[4:37:19] that was at. Um later that day we met

[4:37:22] with Steve Waldrip. Um and we talked

[4:37:24] about the uh uh demand more uh demand

[4:37:27] more supply program which was really

[4:37:29] cool. Um he's got this great big post

[4:37:32] report that was up of all these people

[4:37:35] that had gotten houses under this

[4:37:37] program and it was it was really

[4:37:39] inspiring to see that right there. and

[4:37:42] uh um and it just talks about the cost

[4:37:44] to build a home here in Utah. Um I had a

[4:37:47] meeting that day as well with the

[4:37:48] Colorado River Advisory meeting um and

[4:37:51] we had updates from Jean Shawcraft on

[4:37:53] the negotiations and where things were

[4:37:55] standing on that. Um and then we also

[4:37:57] discussed the possible outcomes. Um and

[4:38:00] I think I've updated most folks on kind

[4:38:01] of where we're at with that. Um later

[4:38:04] that day we had a meeting with uh

[4:38:06] Representative Monson and we updated on

[4:38:08] uh HB473 which was a bill that we were

[4:38:11] working on which was uh also dealing

[4:38:14] with the Colorado River Compact. Um we

[4:38:16] updated him on SB 165 which is the uh um

[4:38:21] the economic mobility or the

[4:38:23] affordability plan which I will be

[4:38:25] heading up to um Salt Lake on Wednesday.

[4:38:29] So, I'll miss you guys all up 16 million

[4:38:32] pounds because that is getting signed

[4:38:33] into legislation. So, I'll be there when

[4:38:35] that does get signed. That's it's pretty

[4:38:37] exciting. Um, and then HB501, which was

[4:38:40] the water modification bill right there.

[4:38:43] Um, we also met with United Way on that

[4:38:45] day once again supporting SB 165 with

[4:38:49] Senator.

[4:38:51] Um on the 21st

[4:38:53] um we uh uh were at Niko and we uh um

[4:38:58] the JD Clark who was the president he

[4:39:00] kind of gave a big introduction and kind

[4:39:02] of let everybody know what was

[4:39:04] happening. Um I went to a presentation

[4:39:07] that day with Tom Schultz um from the

[4:39:09] Forest Service and listened to him talk.

[4:39:11] Um, I listened to Bill Graphy present on

[4:39:14] multiple use stewardship. And this is at

[4:39:16] a uh uh this was at like a in a

[4:39:18] conference style type of meetings right

[4:39:21] here. Um, and then we had a a dinner

[4:39:24] where uh where we were invited by

[4:39:26] Representative Mallaloy to go out and

[4:39:28] she was a she was a gracious host and we

[4:39:30] all had a nice little Italian dinner.

[4:39:33] Um, and that was the uh entire Utah uh

[4:39:37] um UAC uh um representation that was up

[4:39:40] there. Um, let's see here. On the 22nd,

[4:39:43] I was part of the Rural Action Caucus,

[4:39:45] which was another giant group meeting.

[4:39:47] Um, we were met with Eric Schmidtz, and

[4:39:50] he was from Mike Johnson's office, and

[4:39:52] Bill Joerger, um, who talked about

[4:39:54] unlocking local leadership. It was kind

[4:39:57] of a cool presentation. I can get you

[4:39:59] some of the handouts from that if you

[4:40:01] want. And then Brienne Miller talked

[4:40:03] about infrastructure and data centers

[4:40:06] and kind of what's happening with that

[4:40:08] around the nation. So listening to those types of things. Um

[4:40:12] and then also I kind of did some more

[4:40:15] research on the 2026 farm bill

[4:40:17] reauthorization. That was one of the big

[4:40:19] things I was up there looking for was to

[4:40:21] find out if it's going to be possible

[4:40:23] for that bill to actually move through

[4:40:25] Congress right now. Um which we're not

[4:40:27] sure if it is or not

[4:40:29] >> or anything move through Congress.

[4:40:31] >> It's it's tough right now. Yeah, that

[4:40:33] was exactly it. Um on the 23rd uh we

[4:40:36] went to the uh uh the West region

[4:40:38] meeting. Uh we had Aaron Hurley. She

[4:40:41] presented on federal policies and

[4:40:42] updates and then John uh uh Matelska and

[4:40:46] then he talked uh it was really

[4:40:48] interesting uh um ADA compliance and

[4:40:52] technology. And so what that was about

[4:40:54] was making sure that your county

[4:40:57] websites are ADA compliant um which is

[4:41:00] one of the big things that we will

[4:41:01] probably be seeing moving on down the

[4:41:03] line. Um, we also had MueL Fuks from uh

[4:41:07] um oh, I'm trying to think of his name.

[4:41:10] Goss is I believe it's it's

[4:41:13] representative Goss anywhere from uh

[4:41:15] Cookanino County. Um she presented right

[4:41:18] there and was able to make contact with

[4:41:20] her and talk about, you know, some of

[4:41:22] the similarities that we have basically

[4:41:24] on the other side of the dam right now.

[4:41:26] Um because, you know, Cookanito County

[4:41:28] is uh uh is where the Grand Canyon is

[4:41:31] at. So, just as we're moving through the

[4:41:33] Colorado River negotiations, I think

[4:41:35] it's always a good idea to make to make

[4:41:37] those contacts right there with folks

[4:41:39] across the way. Um, we went up and met

[4:41:42] with Kevin Lily at his office and

[4:41:45] discussed the ACE plan. He invited us up

[4:41:48] there and then that evening we had a

[4:41:50] capital tour with Representative

[4:41:52] Kennedy. So, Representative Kennedy

[4:41:53] invited us uh in the evening to go out

[4:41:56] and go walk through the capital and it

[4:41:58] was it was a great tour um to be up

[4:42:01] there and kind of, you know, there was a couple of really neat

[4:42:04] moments to where he took us to not just,

[4:42:07] you know, not just to go see some of the

[4:42:08] statues and stuff, but you know, to to hear what they meant to him. His

[4:42:12] father was there, so he was a little bit

[4:42:14] sentimental at the time, and it was just

[4:42:16] it was a really nice little tour that we

[4:42:18] did with him. Um on the 24th we met with

[4:42:21] Senator Curtis's staff. Um we updated

[4:42:24] them on the ACE plan. They had some

[4:42:26] questions about that. Um and then also

[4:42:29] HR72

[4:42:31] um which is a bill that that will be

[4:42:32] follow I'm hopefully we'll be following

[4:42:35] as things move on which is the health

[4:42:38] >> HR702

[4:42:41] which deals with Alice funding. And so

[4:42:43] Alice funding is asset limited income

[4:42:46] constrained educated. And so what that

[4:42:49] is is that's folks who basically make

[4:42:51] too much money to qualify for subsidies

[4:42:54] but don't make enough money to uh uh um

[4:42:58] to pay their bills,

[4:42:59] >> right? Yep. To survive. And if you do a

[4:43:02] study or the reason that that you see so

[4:43:04] [clears throat] much of this um we did a

[4:43:06] study here, one out of every other

[4:43:08] household in Grand County is an Alice

[4:43:10] household. Right? So when we look at

[4:43:12] poverty that way, we're one of the

[4:43:14] highest in the nation. Um most poverty

[4:43:17] is kind of off of this 302010.

[4:43:20] Basically 20% of your population has

[4:43:23] been under the poverty level for 30

[4:43:25] years. You get 10% of all federal

[4:43:27] funding. The only county in Utah that's

[4:43:30] a 20 uh 203010 is San Juan County,

[4:43:34] right? However, if you were to include

[4:43:37] and and Grant County sits at 17%. We're

[4:43:40] just right underneath that line. But

[4:43:42] when you include the uh um the cost of

[4:43:45] living, San Juan County drops down to

[4:43:48] 17% and Grand County jumps up to 34%. So

[4:43:52] anyways, I've just been trying to keep

[4:43:53] an eye on some of these bills that are right there at that at that

[4:43:58] teetering level. Um the big conversation

[4:44:00] that we're using when we're talking

[4:44:02] about these is that, you know, it's

[4:44:04] you're not you're not giving away money,

[4:44:06] right? $10. $10 to someone who's at the

[4:44:09] teetering line, right, can save you

[4:44:11] hundreds or if not thousands of dollars

[4:44:13] for somebody who falls in. And it's

[4:44:15] incredible when you actually talk to

[4:44:16] folks about this, you know, they're

[4:44:18] like, "Oh, yeah. What have what if it's

[4:44:19] a major a major there's a major um you

[4:44:22] know, you have a major medical thing."

[4:44:23] I'm like, "Major medical thing?" Like

[4:44:25] we're talking about people where if you

[4:44:26] lose your brakes, right, on your truck,

[4:44:28] you're like, "Do I get brakes or do I

[4:44:30] eat?" That's kind of the folks that

[4:44:32] we're at. Um anyways, we also talked

[4:44:34] about LFPA funding and then u the Green

[4:44:37] River pipeline. Uh we met up later with

[4:44:41] uh uh Representative Kennedy that day um

[4:44:44] and we talked about grant requests for

[4:44:46] uh appropriations. So with that cycle

[4:44:49] right there um to put on in one of them

[4:44:51] of course was for the Colorado River

[4:44:54] drought funding that will be available

[4:44:56] this year. So we had a chance to ask

[4:44:59] some of his staff some questions. Um,

[4:45:01] and then we had the UWAC co caucus

[4:45:03] speaker meetings. And so this was all

[4:45:05] the UWAC uh uh representation that was

[4:45:08] up there. And we listened to uh

[4:45:10] Representative Kennedy spoke,

[4:45:11] Representative Mallaloy spoke,

[4:45:13] Representative Owens spoke,

[4:45:15] Representative Moore spoke, uh, Senator

[4:45:17] Curtis spoke, and Senator Lee spoke. Um,

[4:45:21] we met up a little bit later uh, uh,

[4:45:23] with Senator Curtis himself, and then we

[4:45:26] spoke about the UMPra bill and kind of

[4:45:28] where we were at with that. Um, we also

[4:45:31] spoke about the ACE plan and

[4:45:34] then we had a meeting with uh the

[4:45:37] Department of Energy over at UMP. I

[4:45:39] remember we had to literally like race out of Curtis's office, jump in a

[4:45:43] cab, and try to make it over there cuz,

[4:45:46] you know, it takes a little while to get

[4:45:47] checked in at the Department of Energy.

[4:45:49] Um, when we met with Joselyn over there,

[4:45:52] um, the the big thing was we were making

[4:45:54] sure that funding was in place to

[4:45:55] complete the project for UPMPRA with

[4:45:57] everything that was going on. Um, we had

[4:46:00] a little surprise visit from Tim Walsh.

[4:46:03] Um, he came on in there and said hi and

[4:46:05] that was that was pretty neat to to get

[4:46:07] the chance to meet him. Um, you know,

[4:46:09] and and his big thing is is that they're

[4:46:12] committed to working with the community.

[4:46:14] That was the message that he wanted to

[4:46:16] kind of spread um to Grand County here.

[4:46:19] Um, and then we kind of talked a little

[4:46:20] bit about the assets that needed to be

[4:46:22] transferred. Um, one of the things that

[4:46:25] I asked about is the ride ofways and the

[4:46:27] Green River pipeline when that comes

[4:46:29] over. Uh, and then just kind of the idea

[4:46:33] that what we're doing is we're actually

[4:46:35] taking over a liability for the federal

[4:46:38] government by doing this, right? Not

[4:46:40] only do we want that water up there in

[4:46:42] Thompson and Crescent Junction, you

[4:46:44] know, but also, you know, they're going

[4:46:46] to need that water up there at the uh um

[4:46:48] at the Crescent Junction site anyways.

[4:46:50] So allowing Grand County uh uh water

[4:46:53] conservancy to be able to take that over

[4:46:55] is it it does it relieves that stress of

[4:46:57] them having to provide that maintenance

[4:46:58] on that line. So uh uh being able to to bring that over and uh uh talk about

[4:47:05] you know all of the other things that we weren't really sure of, you

[4:47:08] know, like the water rights, where does

[4:47:09] that sit? Does that is that included in

[4:47:11] the assets when we look at that bill? Um

[4:47:14] you know, the discharge permit that's involved over there at uh um at

[4:47:18] UMPra down here. um all those things.

[4:47:21] So, we had a chance to ask some of those

[4:47:22] questions and their response basically

[4:47:24] was we don't know. But it's good that

[4:47:25] we're starting to have these

[4:47:26] conversations because we're at that

[4:47:28] point right now figuring out where we

[4:47:30] are.

[4:47:31] >> Um on the 25th we had breakfast. Can

[4:47:33] >> I ask you a question?

[4:47:34] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[4:47:34] >> Did you discuss uh when they said he was

[4:47:36] committed to working with the community?

[4:47:38] Did you discuss the steering uh

[4:47:39] committee and what they um

[4:47:40] >> or the future sites? future sites and

[4:47:43] what they

[4:47:46] >> what their vision is

[4:47:47] >> or with the DOE period

[4:47:48] >> with the DOE. No, I didn't we didn't go

[4:47:50] into that right there with them.

[4:47:53] [clears throat]

[4:48:05] » And you know, well,

[4:48:07] >> that helps. No, I appreciate it. Brian,

[4:48:10] >> do you want me to keep going or

[4:48:12] Yeah.

[4:48:12] >> Well, I keep going all night. I mean, we

[4:48:14] was

[4:48:15] >> I don't want to go all night.

[4:48:15] >> Right. Okay. Well, it was a very

[4:48:17] productive trip and we we were

[4:48:18] definitely in and met with a lot of

[4:48:20] folks.

[4:48:21] >> Good. And that's all in your commission

[4:48:22] report.

[4:48:23] >> All it's all right there. So, and if you

[4:48:24] ever have any questions, I mean, I do

[4:48:26] have a lot of meetings and things like

[4:48:28] that. If you have questions, please feel

[4:48:29] free to reach out and ask me. Give me a

[4:48:31] quick phone call and I'll go through the specifics on all the notes. I

[4:48:34] haven't read your report, but some some

[4:48:36] people's reports are just like met and

[4:48:39] they don't really go over what you

[4:48:40] talked about. I try to when I do my

[4:48:42] reports do some fairly elaborate notes

[4:48:45] like yeah, this is what was going on.

[4:48:47] So it and I'm

[4:48:49] just kind of conveying that to the

[4:48:50] entire commission when it just says here

[4:48:52] here's who I met with. That doesn't

[4:48:54] convey a lot to the community. And so people just want to know, you

[4:48:58] know, the these again are pressures that

[4:49:00] I'm getting from my constituents, right?

[4:49:03] They they want to know if we're spending

[4:49:05] money and we're traveling. They want to

[4:49:06] know what folks are up to.

[4:49:08] >> Yeah, it's it's it's all in there. I

[4:49:10] appreciate that.

[4:49:11] >> Went through write the report that's

[4:49:13] online. That's

[4:49:14] >> exactly what I just read. So,

[4:49:17] >> Bill, did you have some different

[4:49:18] meetings than Brian? I know you guys

[4:49:20] split up a little bit.

[4:49:21] >> I'm going to take off. I'm on my bike.

[4:49:24] [laughter]

[4:49:26] >> So, sh but my husband gets really

[4:49:28] worried. He really does.

[4:49:32] Hey, get home safe. Text us when you get

[4:49:34] there.

[4:49:37] » We um did have some different meetings.

[4:49:40] I know that Brian was in some stuff up

[4:49:42] at the capital that I was not in and

[4:49:44] he's mentioned most of that. Um I was

[4:49:46] with Steve Walder in that meeting. Um

[4:49:49] I'm pretty sure that I'm the one Trish

[4:49:51] is um referring to when she says people

[4:49:54] just put things with who they met in

[4:49:56] there. I'm always open to anybody that

[4:49:58] wants to um reach out to me. I'm glad to

[4:50:00] go over what my meetings and what we

[4:50:02] discussed in those meetings, but I'm not

[4:50:05] going to write a dictionary for every

[4:50:08] commission report that we put in here.

[4:50:11] So I I will say that um the Malloy

[4:50:14] dinner that we went with her was

[4:50:17] extremely valuable with the connections

[4:50:19] that we had there and that was with the

[4:50:22] UAC group. But Mo um Representative

[4:50:26] Mallaloy is part of the appropriations.

[4:50:30] And so that that was extremely important

[4:50:32] to make that connection with her that

[4:50:34] day. That that's [clears throat] what

[4:50:36] stood out with the dinner. I couldn't

[4:50:37] tell you what we ate. I have no idea.

[4:50:40] Um, it was Italian because Brian said I

[4:50:42] wouldn't even have remembered that part.

[4:50:44] >> Where was which restaurant?

[4:50:47] >> I have no idea.

[4:50:49] >> All right.

[4:50:49] >> It was right next to it was right next

[4:50:51] to the capital and it was in the

[4:50:52] basement.

[4:50:53] >> Okay.

[4:50:53] >> And I guess it was a place that they

[4:50:55] always kind of visit.

[4:50:57] >> And um the Kennedy tour I thought was um

[4:51:00] extremely educational for me. Um, we

[4:51:04] actually got to see the crypt where

[4:51:06] supposedly George Washington was planned

[4:51:08] to be buried, but his wife said no. So,

[4:51:12] somewhere else. So, I I do believe there

[4:51:15] was one president that lied there in

[4:51:18] state and that was it or something. But,

[4:51:21] I thought the crypt was pretty cool. We

[4:51:23] also got to go into the house where the

[4:51:25] president gave his State of the Union

[4:51:28] speech. Um, I will say that it's the

[4:51:30] only State of the Union speech that I've

[4:51:33] ever listened to, I believe. Um, I did

[4:51:36] so because the very next day we had

[4:51:39] meetings with both Curtis and Lee and

[4:51:41] with their staff and I wanted to at

[4:51:43] least say that I paid attention while I

[4:51:45] was in DC. the the work that we did with

[4:51:49] both Lee and Curtis mostly, as Brian has

[4:51:53] already stated,

[4:51:55] was all around the Umpra and the Green

[4:51:58] River pipeline. The extreme

[4:52:02] um need to make sure that those assets

[4:52:06] get transferred over to the county. And

[4:52:07] then on the Green River pipeline, the

[4:52:09] rideaways and working also with the fact

[4:52:13] that that Green River pipeline I believe

[4:52:15] crosses the railroad three times is

[4:52:17] extremely important that we get those

[4:52:19] easements moving forward in the future

[4:52:22] and that we don't have to recreate that.

[4:52:25] Uh what else was there? I know Brian

[4:52:28] touched on the majority of everything

[4:52:30] that we did. I will say that we had one

[4:52:32] of the meetings at the NAO conference

[4:52:36] that had every supposedly entity in DC

[4:52:41] there and we were able to go around

[4:52:43] although it was quite crowded and visit

[4:52:45] BLM, the Forest Service and and get a

[4:52:49] little bit of education from every one

[4:52:51] of those. Um I forget the name of the

[4:52:54] head of the Forest Service. He spoke at

[4:52:56] one of the meetings. Schultz, I believe

[4:53:00] was his name,

[4:53:01] >> who's the head of our forest service.

[4:53:03] So, um, he had a very good presentation

[4:53:05] and opened up dialogue

[4:53:07] >> and I stood up. I think maybe half a

[4:53:11] dozen people stood up and asked

[4:53:12] questions. Mine was about forest

[4:53:14] management, especially surrounding

[4:53:18] the fact that we'd had the huge fire,

[4:53:20] which wasn't in Grand County, but our

[4:53:22] mountain range, as I like to refer to

[4:53:25] the Lasals. Um so just forest management

[4:53:28] was the discussion and the questions I

[4:53:30] had for him and what the plans were of

[4:53:32] the future because our forest um in my

[4:53:35] mind is undermanaged and that's a big

[4:53:38] part of the problem. We have so much

[4:53:40] standing dead up there.

[4:53:43] Oh let's see here. The Utah caucus was

[4:53:47] extremely good. Every single person that

[4:53:50] represent state of Utah spoke there.

[4:53:52] Brian already mentioned that I had never

[4:53:55] um met Burgess Owens and the other what

[4:54:00] was the young gentleman

[4:54:01] >> Blake Moore had never met him. So super

[4:54:04] nice guy.

[4:54:04] >> Both had um a lot of information. They

[4:54:07] all kind of come at it at different

[4:54:09] directions. I think Lee is also part of

[4:54:12] appropriations.

[4:54:14] Curtis is over a different portion. Um

[4:54:17] it was just all very educational. It was

[4:54:20] probably the biggest civic education in

[4:54:25] how our government works that I've ever

[4:54:26] been involved in. And I know that I went

[4:54:30] through most of my history and social

[4:54:31] studies classes here in Moab, but

[4:54:34] [laughter]

[4:54:35] Washington DC was a huge education. And

[4:54:38] then being able to get underground was

[4:54:42] pretty interesting because then you

[4:54:44] could go from one the Senate to the

[4:54:46] House. You never even see daylight

[4:54:48] really. I mean, kind of when you come up

[4:54:50] out of the tunnels, but

[4:54:53] I I I learned a lot in DC and I I think

[4:54:55] that we did a good job of representing

[4:54:57] our county while we were there and some

[4:54:59] of the issues that we're facing here in

[4:55:01] the future. The the mobility and the

[4:55:03] farm bill was some of the biggest stuff

[4:55:05] that we spent, I would say, the most

[4:55:07] time on of anything. And if I want to

[4:55:09] say

[4:55:11] um his name was Connor with um

[4:55:13] Representative Kennedy who was probably

[4:55:16] helping us the most. And I I would say

[4:55:18] we met with him three or four times

[4:55:20] regarding

[4:55:21] the farm bill. Um as well as

[4:55:27] Justin and I can't remember the lady's

[4:55:29] name that we met with also. We spoke and

[4:55:32] discussed the farm bill with her with

[4:55:35] the two of them. Justin, I don't

[4:55:37] remember his last name. I've got it at

[4:55:40] his business card. But um I think that

[4:55:44] we accomplished a lot while we were

[4:55:45] there.

[4:55:46] Okay, I thank you. I really appreciate

[4:55:48] that.

[4:55:50] >> You got it.

[4:55:50] >> One of one of the things that always

[4:55:51] strikes me when I go back there is just

[4:55:53] how young all the people are. The

[4:55:56] staffers are like kids. Everybody's

[4:55:59] young. Really important jobs. Some of

[4:56:01] them you don't think they're out of high

[4:56:03] school, but that might be because of my

[4:56:06] >> Okay. Thank you. So, we're going to

[4:56:08] adjourn this meeting on April 7th at

[4:56:12] 8:57

[4:56:13] p.m.

4.7.26 Commission Meeting

Transcript