[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.