[0:19] All right. Go.
[0:21] >> Okay. I would like to welcome everyone
[0:23] to the board of equalization meeting on
[0:26] June 2nd, 2026. We're going to open this
[0:29] meeting at 3
[0:31] 56. It is running a little bit late
[0:34] because we had some technical
[0:35] difficulties. The in attendance we have
[0:39] Commissioner Trish Shaden, Commissioner
[0:40] Jacqu Kadler, Commissioner Brian
[0:42] Martinez, Commissioner Mayor Mcan,
[0:44] Commissioner Mike Mccertie, Commissioner
[0:46] Phil Winfield, and myself, Commissioner
[0:47] McCandless with our county attorney
[0:50] Steven Stocks, County Administrator Mark
[0:53] Tiner, and our clerk auditor, Dave
[0:54] Voytech. We will I'm going to recuse
[0:58] myself from the vote on this meeting, so
[1:00] I'm going to turn it over to a vice
[1:02] chair, Bill Winfield.
[1:05] All right, with that I will
[1:08] look for a motion for approval of the
[1:10] minutes for the meeting of March 3rd,
[1:12] 2026.
[1:14] >> So moved.
[1:16] >> Second, Commissioner Martinez. Second,
[1:18] Commissioner Hadler.
[1:20] All in favor?
[1:23] Passes unanimously. And we will move on
[1:26] to the tax exemption request for the
[1:29] National Ability Center. And I believe
[1:32] we are going to hear from our county
[1:33] attorney on this.
[1:35] >> One one thing that we wanted to note is
[1:37] if the if the applicant is present,
[1:39] they've submitted additional documents
[1:40] to them. We wanted to provide them with
[1:42] the opportunity to be heard if the if
[1:44] the vice chair would permit that to
[1:45] start.
[1:46] >> Sure. And who is going to do that from
[1:49] the applicant?
[1:51] >> I'm I'm not sure who is going to speak
[1:54] on their behalf, but they were here last
[1:56] time and we just wanted to provide them
[1:58] the opportunity. if you are here from
[2:00] the National Ability Center, if you
[2:01] would unmute your microphone and let us
[2:03] know who you are. Um, otherwise we would
[2:05] assume that you don't didn't want to
[2:07] speak further.
[2:09] >> Great. Yeah, my name is Willie Ford. I'm
[2:10] CEO of the National Ability Center.
[2:12] Along with us is Michelle Blanc and Mike
[2:15] Schultz, who's our chief operating
[2:16] officer. Uh, we've applied for the tax
[2:19] exemption in Moab. Um, as the as all of
[2:22] you know, we're um putting plans in
[2:25] place to uh build um uh facilities and
[2:30] programming in Moab uh for the community
[2:33] and for others with disabilities. Uh we
[2:35] believe that this qualifies
[2:36] appropriately for a tax exemption. Um
[2:40] and we've put the application in place
[2:42] to uh hopefully bring that forward uh so
[2:45] that we can move forward with our
[2:47] planning and project on our side. Mike
[2:49] Schulz, did I forget anything or do you
[2:51] want to add anything?
[2:57] » Uh, no, that's that's correct. It's a
[3:00] gift of the community per the statute,
[3:02] the state statute. Um, but I would
[3:07] agree. I think we we qualify for that.
[3:09] So,
[3:16] » okay. If there's nothing further, then
[3:17] I'm going to turn it over to our county
[3:19] attorney.
[3:20] >> So, commissioners, before uh the or
[3:23] sorry, DOE members, um historically when
[3:26] we reviewed this application, we've the body request additional information
[3:31] um provided to you from the National
[3:34] Ability Center. They provided a
[3:35] memorandum supporting their position and
[3:37] requesting uh that the commission
[3:39] consider their property to be uh under
[3:43] the under the rules to allow its
[3:46] exemption. We've provided and forwarded
[3:48] to the to the board three different
[3:50] flavors of a motion language that was
[3:54] that's in your email. Um one has an
[3:56] approval, a partial approval permitting
[3:59] one partial number and the other not a
[4:01] denial and an approval. Additionally,
[4:04] for the board's consideration, we have
[4:05] also uh provided findings of fact. These
[4:09] findings um make the statement uh the
[4:12] draft version here makes a statement
[4:14] that there is sufficient information to
[4:15] believe that they fall within the
[4:18] charitable use um exception and they
[4:22] explain the basis for that. In the event
[4:24] that the board finds that this does not
[4:26] qualify, we will draft findings to
[4:28] indicate the same um and and a basis for
[4:30] the denial. Um so that's the background
[4:33] information. Um historically there were
[4:35] additional questions regarding um to
[4:38] what extent the National Mobility Center
[4:39] provided uh services that were
[4:41] considered charitable. Um they provided
[4:44] an email response and additional
[4:46] information and I believe that's been
[4:47] circulated with the commissioners. Um so
[4:50] based on that information we do believe
[4:52] that there is sufficient evidence to be
[4:54] able to support a finding. um their
[4:57] request is for a full uh full finding
[5:00] and it's our position that it should be
[5:03] separated providing that benefit to one
[5:05] parcel but not the other. However, there
[5:07] is sufficient basis to either deny or
[5:09] approve in full or in part depending on
[5:12] the uh findings that the the board would
[5:14] like to make.
[5:17] >> Commissioner,
[5:19] >> so right now we're we're looking at
[5:21] what's currently being operated on,
[5:23] correct? about what the future use is to
[5:25] be.
[5:26] >> Correct.
[5:26] >> And so, um, can I ask the applicants a
[5:29] question? Sure.
[5:30] >> Yes.
[5:31] >> Um,
[5:33] what is the current use of the three
[5:35] properties? Um, we have one that's
[5:37] listed as 48, one that's listed as 70,
[5:40] and one that's listed as 01.
[5:46] » I'll jump in on that if if that's okay.
[5:49] Mike Schultz. Um, no relation to the
[5:52] speaker of the house, by the way. So,
[5:54] uh,
[5:56] um, so of the three parcels, one is, I
[6:00] believe, the old Elks Club where we've
[6:02] demolished it. It's currently a vacant
[6:04] lot, and we're looking to u at some
[6:07] point build a build a facility there. We
[6:10] also, one of those properties is a house
[6:12] we use as a guide house and the other is
[6:15] a garage where we use for the boat house
[6:18] for our rafting operation.
[6:24] And I I'm not sure which number lines up
[6:26] with which one. Um,
[6:30] >> if if the commission makes their intent
[6:32] clear, we can make sure the parcel
[6:33] number matches which building is
[6:35] connected.
[6:37] >> Anyone else? I have question Steve. So
[6:40] say we decided that the persons that are
[6:42] in use uh get the tax exempt and the
[6:45] ones that are not being used not uh
[6:49] after they succeed in creating their uh
[6:55] >> sure
[6:56] >> facilities they come back.
[6:58] >> Yes. And there's there's a requirement
[7:00] that they provide an updated notice each
[7:02] year.
[7:09] » Yes, Commissioner.
[7:11] >> Thank you. Is is it is it the opinion of
[7:12] the attorney that that a use such as
[7:14] housing falls under I to me like the
[7:17] garage is a bit of a a no-brainer using
[7:19] that for their active business. Um
[7:23] how see the difficulty is under the
[7:26] under this statute you have to make u
[7:29] the statement that they're providing a
[7:31] charitable gift to the community that is
[7:33] an obligation normally uh the burden is
[7:36] normally felt by the government and by
[7:38] them providing that additional
[7:39] information or by by providing that
[7:42] charitable gift it alleviates the
[7:43] government from providing those services
[7:45] and that's why we're reducing the amount
[7:47] of tax burden that they would have
[7:48] because they're offputting some of the
[7:50] government obligations.
[7:52] historically has not been an obligation
[7:55] of the government.
[7:57] >> There have been creative arguments about
[7:59] this in the past, but I don't think it's
[8:01] the strongest argument.
[8:03] >> Thank you. Commissioner Martinez,
[8:05] >> can I ask the applicant another
[8:06] question,
[8:07] >> please?
[8:08] >> Um, the housing, is that housing for
[8:11] full-time employees or does that also
[8:13] include the volunteers?
[8:18] the the the housing is for our guides.
[8:21] Um they're usually season seasonal um
[8:25] staff who are trained according to being
[8:29] able to deliver programming for people
[8:31] with disabilities
[8:32] um on the on the
[8:35] local rivers that we operate on.
[8:39] >> Thank you.
[8:41] >> We we do not we do not charge them um
[8:44] for that. um we we offer the housing um
[8:50] so that we can actually operate uh w
[8:52] without being able to supply that
[8:54] housing. We believe that it would be
[8:56] hard to to hire the staff needed to
[8:59] operate um our our rafting uh operation.
[9:03] Um, and you know, as everybody knows,
[9:06] uh, we're a nonprofit and we subsidize,
[9:09] um, a lot of the the program costs, um,
[9:13] and we we lose money, uh, through our
[9:18] MOAB operation every year due to the
[9:19] cost associated to the programming that
[9:22] we deliver.
[9:25] » Thank you, sir. And then I've got a
[9:27] question for the county attorney. Is
[9:30] this housing similar to the housing that
[9:33] we um allow to be tax exempt for the
[9:36] hospital?
[9:38] >> The housing for the hospital. Got to
[9:41] refresh my
[9:42] >> It's been years ago that we had a couple
[9:44] of houses come before us that were
[9:46] requested to be exempt um for the
[9:49] hospital. They were out on Spanish
[9:51] Valley. One of them I don't know where
[9:52] the other one was.
[9:55] My impression is that our our position
[9:57] has remained the same that housing
[9:59] doesn't normally fall within the
[10:00] government obligation. Um but I can I
[10:03] can search and see if that was uh
[10:05] approved previously. Do you know the was
[10:08] it from the Mo Regional Hospital or
[10:10] >> Moab Regional Hospital? Yes.
[10:12] >> Yeah. There were two there were two
[10:14] houses that they purchased and came
[10:16] before us asking for this exclusion on.
[10:21] It's been my first year in office would
[10:24] be my guess. So I don't
[10:26] >> I think that I I
[10:28] can reme I can see the
[10:31] >> Yeah,
[10:31] >> remember
[10:32] >> I'll look up and see if I can find
[10:33] information. My gut says that was
[10:36] denied, but I'm not. If if you'll permit
[10:38] me a moment.
[10:40] >> Sure.
[10:45] [clears throat]
[10:47] » Yes, Commissioner. Um, of the people you
[10:52] serve, how many of them are Grand County
[10:54] residents?
[10:58] » I don't have the exact percentage off uh
[11:01] the top of my head. Uh, we we can get
[11:03] back to you on that.
[11:06] Um,
[11:08] >> that's who we as a county would serve
[11:12] if we had any obligation.
[11:15] I I do know that we have multiple
[11:18] individuals within the county. I know
[11:20] that Nancy or is one of them, Colon
[11:22] Frier that help with this organization.
[11:25] They're a big part.
[11:26] >> Yeah, they are. Great job.
[11:31] » Yeah, I don't I I you know, we do serve
[11:33] a significant amount of grant of
[11:35] participants out of Grant County. I just
[11:37] don't have that percentage off the top
[11:38] of my head and don't want to misspe
[11:40] here, but we can report back to you on
[11:41] that.
[11:42] It's uh really important to us to serve
[11:44] a local community and uh you know uh
[11:49] that's something we take seriously. So
[11:51] it's it's it's a big part of what we do.
[11:55] » Yes. Commissioner Mcc question for uh
[11:58] Mr. Stocks. Uh
[12:01] on on a question of approval of entire
[12:05] request.
[12:06] >> Yes. Would that uh yearly update also if
[12:10] they build a new building, would that
[12:12] come at that time, not within a year
[12:14] scope?
[12:14] >> They have a they have an obligation to
[12:15] file with the assessor's office each
[12:18] year and ensure that they're in
[12:19] compliance and continuing to utilize the
[12:20] property for the non the charitable gift
[12:23] or the non uh nonprofit basis for
[12:26] whatever they're utilizing. They have to
[12:27] confirm that chair. And does that
[12:31] would that come up say they do it they
[12:34] get approval they did it in three months
[12:35] would that come back up or they build
[12:37] the building in three months they come
[12:38] back up at that or or the yearly
[12:40] >> it's on an annual basis when they do the
[12:42] assessments and they have to they have a
[12:44] certain time time frame that they have
[12:46] to apply in and the board of
[12:48] equalization had this issue in the past
[12:50] for a different parcel. Um the timing is
[12:52] in the spring and then we have a certain
[12:54] period of time that we have to respond
[12:56] to it.
[12:57] >> Okay. Yes, Commissioner Mcan.
[13:02] » So, does it come up every year or does
[13:04] it only come up the years that are
[13:06] assessed?
[13:07] >> So, every year they're going to apply
[13:08] with the assessor, but it doesn't
[13:09] guarantee that it's going to come before
[13:11] the BOE unless there's a unless there's
[13:13] a new request or an appeal.
[13:15] >> Okay.
[13:18] » Yes. Commissioner Martinez,
[13:21] >> go ahead and make a motion to impart the
[13:25] property tax exemption sub by the
[13:27] National Ability Center for partials
[13:29] number um
[13:32] boat house,
[13:34] parcel number guide
[13:39] under the based on the findings of
[13:41] charitable use under the Utah code 592
[13:45] 1101 and authorize the chair to sign the
[13:48] finding of fact, conclusion of law and
[13:51] decision to be prepared in the finalized
[13:54] by the Grand County Attorney's Office.
[13:56] Um, parcel number vacant move uh is
[14:01] denied.
[14:04] >> Yes, Commissioner.
[14:06] >> All right. Motion by Commissioner
[14:07] Martinez, second by Commissioner Hadine.
[14:09] Is there any further discussion?
[14:12] >> Sure. Just following up the previous
[14:14] comment, the one that we can find that
[14:17] was previously before the commission
[14:19] regarding housing was through community
[14:21] rebuilds,
[14:21] >> right?
[14:22] >> That was the only one that I can find.
[14:24] >> Yeah,
[14:24] >> it was and it was denied. And there is
[14:28] not trying to confuse the issue, but
[14:29] there is um a charitable purpose that is
[14:32] to find out that they talk about a
[14:34] nonprofit hospital or a nursing home as
[14:36] being something that would be permitted.
[14:38] But I I can't see any hospital if the if
[14:42] the body wanted to
[14:44] recess this for a moment. I could do a
[14:46] deeper dive, but this is that's that's
[14:47] initially what I found so far. I just
[14:49] don't want to leave that question on any
[14:51] >> my memory too.
[14:53] >> Not that it failed, but that it was a
[14:55] rebuild. That would make it
[14:59] that makes it awkward because then that
[15:02] if we've denied one organization
[15:05] charitable organization
[15:07] and then turn around and give it to
[15:10] another I I I
[15:14] would make a substitute motion that uh
[15:16] we offer the tax exempt for the
[15:21] storage of the the garage.
[15:26] and deny the others according to the
[15:30] >> Could you help me?
[15:31] >> Yes. And let's go to our guest online
[15:36] and guide house is what I called them.
[15:38] >> Yeah. I just wanted to clarify in the
[15:41] memo that we sent uh per the Utah code
[15:45] 592
[15:47] 1101.
[15:49] the gift of the community. It it was
[15:51] less about lessening of the government
[15:52] burden onto the subsection F2. It was
[15:57] the provision of a significant service
[15:59] to others with that immediate
[16:00] expectation of material reward. And we
[16:03] do operate at a loss um significant loss
[16:06] and these are to offer people with
[16:08] disabilities to engage in the recreation
[16:12] activities in Grant County specifically
[16:15] that most other outfitters don't provide
[16:18] because of the specialty training. And
[16:20] so I just would again reiterate our
[16:23] position is about the um the service to
[16:26] others without immediate expectations of
[16:28] material award. And so I
[16:35] Yeah, thanks Mike. Um, I also I guess
[16:39] the the housing one still causes me a
[16:42] little bit of question because isn't
[16:44] that what housing at Sea Haven does or
[16:48] housing at a multitude of different
[16:50] nonprofits? I mean, I'm just wanting
[16:53] some clarity here. So, I'm fine with
[16:55] Mary's substitute motion if we're going
[16:57] to bring this back and make sure that
[16:59] we're treating everybody equally here.
[17:02] >> Vice Chair, I don't know that the
[17:03] substitute motion got a second.
[17:05] >> I do.
[17:06] >> No,
[17:07] >> I'll second that.
[17:08] >> Okay. Motion by Commissioner Man, second
[17:10] by Commissioner Adine. Yes, Mary.
[17:13] >> I just want to say that when we did vote
[17:15] for the U
[17:18] Milab community rebuild, I was I voted
[17:22] in favor. I just wanted people to know
[17:25] that, you know, I I like the idea of
[17:27] helping them out, but I don't think we
[17:28] can treat one organization differently
[17:31] than we need the other.
[17:32] >> It it returned and we we did the
[17:35] commission the body did approve it based
[17:37] on educational Yeah. portion as
[17:39] education.
[17:40] >> To answer Commissioner Winfield's
[17:43] question,
[17:44] >> the difference between CCA and that's
[17:46] more temporary housing. Um that's that's
[17:49] different than long-term housing for
[17:51] guides. The other thing that when we
[17:52] look at this application, they do it at
[17:55] a reduced amount. And so that does kind
[17:57] of play into the consideration that it's
[18:00] not wholly um philanthropical. Instead,
[18:04] it's uh there's a there's a bit of
[18:06] analysis as well as they're charging
[18:08] some individuals for the services and
[18:11] not others. But like we said, I do think
[18:13] that there's sufficient basis that you
[18:15] could make a defensible uh defining on
[18:19] the way that the body fuels appropriate.
[18:23] >> Yes, Commissioner Mark Jamus. Yeah, I
[18:26] just I think that that for this this
[18:28] service to remain inside of our
[18:30] community and and and I' I I've sent
[18:32] folks over to the National Ability
[18:34] Center and Spore previously um for for
[18:38] decades, you know, when I've gotten
[18:40] calls um you know, for all types of
[18:42] different things. I think it's a it's a
[18:44] great organization here and I'm not
[18:46] basing the uh my my my vote off of that
[18:49] which is really where my heart is at.
[18:51] But the the idea is is that I don't see
[18:54] how that operation runs without that
[18:56] specialized training. Having known the
[18:58] guides that are there, I do think that
[19:00] it's a specialized type of training to
[19:02] be able to take these folks down the
[19:04] river. And for that that's the reason
[19:06] that I really kind of wanted to stick to
[19:08] this idea that the housing is included
[19:10] in that. Now, the vacant lot I I mean
[19:13] the same reason that we kind of pushed
[19:15] off the uh u wabi in the last in the
[19:18] last meeting. I think that this all that does not qualify right now, but I
[19:22] do think that the housing is is a little
[19:24] bit different just based on the
[19:26] specialized training that's required to
[19:28] take these folks down the river because
[19:30] and I've been on the trips. I mean, it
[19:31] is it's a lot, you know. I mean, it
[19:34] takes it takes a lot and it does take a
[19:36] lot of specialized training.
[19:39] >> Yes, Commissioner Mcan. I I suppose this
[19:41] is for the owners. Um do you do any ed
[19:46] is there any education provided at your
[19:50] housing because I know that's what we
[19:52] had to do with us on community rebuild.
[19:55] So it's to change it from housing to
[19:57] education
[19:59] if these guides are receiving special
[20:02] training any of the training going on in the house.
[20:06] >> Yes. In in fact, we just got done about
[20:09] three weeks of it now in preparation of
[20:12] the season. So, uh we have our lead
[20:14] guide um who's really well known in this
[20:17] space and and uh the the current house
[20:20] that we're referring to is also a place
[20:22] where we do a lot of the training, the
[20:24] conversations, the classroom
[20:25] discussions, uh that's not out in the
[20:28] field. So, uh education is a big part of
[20:31] what we do. I would say that we we train
[20:34] uh as much if not more than any other
[20:36] outfitter because of the uh really
[20:38] high-risisk situations that we're in. Uh
[20:40] you know, we're bringing nonverbal uh 84
[20:44] different types of disability we served
[20:46] last year. We're taking them down the
[20:47] river. Uh and uh it's really challenging
[20:51] stuff that we do. And the reason that
[20:53] we're a nonprofit is that u we subsidize
[20:57] although you know a couple minutes ago
[20:58] we were talking about the program
[20:59] revenue that's established by our uh
[21:02] operation in Moab but we subsidize uh
[21:05] the majority of it and if you if you
[21:07] aren't able to pay we scholarship that
[21:09] so as a whole the national ability
[21:11] center last year you know we scholarship
[21:14] almost $7 million worth of programming
[21:17] uh because people with disabilities
[21:20] unfortunately are usually in a place
[21:22] where they need greater financial
[21:24] assistance. So, our whole objective here
[21:26] is to make sure people in Grand County
[21:28] and Utah and other places if they want
[21:31] to visit the area, they have access to
[21:32] it. And our scholarship uh process is
[21:35] really we don't ask any questions. If
[21:36] you express a need, we'll we'll figure
[21:38] out a way to support you.
[21:41] >> Thank you.
[21:43] >> Yes, Commissioner McN. I I I think all
[21:46] everyone on the dis supports your
[21:48] organization and I know myself I would
[21:52] you probably give you from my heart
[21:54] every every exemption but we have to
[21:58] move forward uh fairly with everyone.
[22:02] Stephen, um, if they added the
[22:06] educational part to the housing, would
[22:11] we have to have him come back or could
[22:13] we amend it right here?
[22:16] >> I I think the commission has a
[22:18] sufficient basis to resolve it with the
[22:21] findings that we've drafted. I think
[22:23] adding the housing the housing element
[22:25] again, I I think it's nuanced. I would
[22:28] just keep it narrowed to the findings
[22:31] that we currently have.
[22:33] That would be my
[22:34] >> I'm sorry to interrupt you too. I don't
[22:35] know how to actually raise my hand on
[22:36] Zoom. So
[22:37] >> Oh, no problem. I see you now. My
[22:39] apologies. I should have been watching.
[22:41] >> No worries. It's my understanding that
[22:43] the current parcel that the house is on
[22:46] has been exempt from taxes in the past.
[22:50] So is this
[22:53] no longer going to be exempt moving
[22:54] forward or
[22:58] I'll find myself.
[22:58] >> Um, we haven't got to the actual vote
[23:01] yet, sir, but I would like to weigh in
[23:04] here and it's nothing against Mary's
[23:08] substitute motion,
[23:09] >> but I'm going to vote against the
[23:11] substitute because I would prefer to see
[23:14] it fail and that we allow this for the
[23:16] House. I know that there are multitudes
[23:19] of different ways that different
[23:22] nonprofits utilize our
[23:35] I think we lost you. Or at least I did.
[23:40] » Dana, can you hear us by chance?
[23:44] » I can totally hear you. And the chambers
[23:47] camera just came back, so the audio went
[23:50] out with it. They I don't think they
[23:52] ever left.
[23:53] >> Hang on. Stand by. I won't vote for my
[23:56] own
[23:58] >> right.
[24:00] >> Yeah. And it's nothing against your
[24:01] motion, Mary. I I just feel I don't know
[24:04] that we have audio.
[24:05] >> Do Can you hear us yet, folks?
[24:07] >> You just came back. Yeah.
[24:09] >> Okay. Thank you. And I was just stating
[24:11] the fact that I would prefer to see the
[24:13] substitute fail and that we would vote
[24:16] on the original which would include the
[24:18] house. And that's just my personal
[24:21] feelings on it, of course, as an
[24:22] individual commissioner. So, we haven't
[24:25] called for that vote yet. Yes,
[24:26] Commissioner Martinez.
[24:28] >> Can I call for the vote on the
[24:29] substitute?
[24:30] >> Sure. All right. With that, I'll call
[24:32] for a vote that um Mary Mcan made a
[24:35] substitute motion and Commissioner
[24:37] Hadine seconded for just the garage lot.
[24:40] All in favor of the substitute motion?
[24:45] All opposed.
[24:47] All right, that fails. And we will move
[24:49] back to the original motion. correct me
[24:52] if I'm wrong, which was Commissioner
[24:53] Martinez
[24:55] and Commissioner Hadler as a second.
[24:59] >> Commissioner had my apologies.
[25:01] >> Vice Chair, what was the vote on that?
[25:03] >> That vote um filled seven, let's see,
[25:07] zero in favor, seven
[25:10] >> six against because
[25:12] >> Macan was recused herself. Thank you.
[25:14] Sorry. All right. So then I will call
[25:16] for a vote on the original motion which
[25:19] would include the two pieces of property
[25:21] that currently have use happening on
[25:25] them and excludes the vacant lot.
[25:30] Motion by Commissioner Martinez and
[25:32] second by Commissioner Haden. All in
[25:34] favor of that.
[25:37] Any opposed? All right, that passes. Six
[25:41] in favor, one abstaining.
[25:45] What else do we need?
[25:47] >> Um, and I and I didn't catch if it was
[25:50] included in the motion that they would
[25:53] adopt the findings and conclusions that
[25:55] were drafted.
[25:56] >> I think you did.
[25:57] >> Yep. Okay. It did.
[26:00] >> He raised it.
[26:02] >> I saw.
[26:03] >> Okay. All right. With that, I believe
[26:06] we've come to the end of the BOE
[26:08] meeting. Correct. Nothing else that
[26:09] needs to be dealt with. All right. With
[26:11] that, I will close this meeting at 4:22.
[26:15] And do we want to take a brief recess or
[26:18] go straight?
[26:19] >> Could I Thank you for that. That was
[26:20] good. Could I just ask one quick
[26:22] question?
[26:22] >> Sure.
[26:23] >> So, on the vacant lot, uh, understanding
[26:26] the vote and all that. Wonderful. Thank
[26:28] you. Uh, we're putting our plans in
[26:30] place now to do a capital campaign. The
[26:32] capital campaign is going to be between
[26:33] 6 and 11 million for the building that
[26:36] we hope to build on that vacant lot.
[26:38] It's going to be uh you know lodging
[26:41] built for people with disabilities. It's
[26:43] going to be conference rooms and some
[26:45] offices for our team. What's the process
[26:48] to make do our best to make sure that parcel once we build the building
[26:53] will also be tax exempt? Will we go
[26:55] through this process again just because
[26:57] the potential of having taxes on that um
[27:00] value would be really tough on our
[27:03] budget. So, I just want to make sure we
[27:04] have clarity on that before we move
[27:06] forward with any build.
[27:07] >> I would say that we would or that you
[27:10] would want to get with the county
[27:12] attorney moving forward and to get some
[27:15] clarity on that, but it will require
[27:17] another vote is my understanding.
[27:20] >> It go through the assessor's office.
[27:22] >> The assessor's office. Thank you.
[27:24] >> Okay.
[27:25] >> All right.
[27:26] >> Thank you so much.
[27:27] >> All right. So with that we will close
[27:29] this meeting at 4:23.
[27:32] Move straight into commission meeting.
[27:34] All right.
[27:35] >> Thank you.
[27:39] >> Goodbye.
[27:42] >> Okay. We are going to move into our
[27:45] regularly scheduled Grand County
[27:47] Commission meeting for June 2nd and open
[27:49] this meeting at 4.3.
[27:52] And we have in attendance the same uh as
[27:56] we have for our board of equalization.
[27:58] And just those of you that are coming in
[28:00] late, we're finishing that up. So we
[28:01] will go into our citizens be heard right
[28:05] after our pledge of allegiance. Stand
[28:07] with me
[28:11] to the flag of the United States of
[28:14] America and to the republic for which it
[28:16] stands. One nation under God,
[28:19] indivisible, with liberty and justice.
[28:33] » All right. So, we are going to move on
[28:35] to our assistant to be heard. Do we have
[28:37] anyone in the audience that would like
[28:38] to come up and speak?
[28:41] Come on up.
[28:48] I want to bring up something that's not
[28:50] on the current commission um agenda.
[28:55] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Pete Gross. I just want
[28:57] to bring up a subject that may come up
[28:59] before the commission, maybe not, but
[29:01] worth me planting some seeds of thought
[29:02] to you if for if and when it does. This
[29:05] is about people who don't learn history
[29:08] are doomed to repeat it. um the history
[29:11] of the nuclear. So operation gigawatt
[29:13] which is related to the data centers
[29:15] that are proposed Boxelder County and
[29:16] all that controversy. Professor Cox has
[29:19] his operation gigawatt which gigawatt
[29:21] which emphasiz strongly emphasizes
[29:24] nuclear power. I'd like to point out
[29:26] that of 253 nuclear reactor orders in
[29:29] the United States less than half of
[29:31] those were ever built. Most were
[29:33] cancelled. Some of them were abandoned,
[29:35] partially constructed. By 1978, nuclear
[29:38] reactor orders had plummeted to zero,
[29:42] except for right at the end of the year,
[29:43] there were a couple last minute ones.
[29:45] Both of those ever got constructed again
[29:48] because there was no business case for
[29:49] it. After a 30-year high hiatus of
[29:52] nuclear reactor or
[29:54] during the Bush administration, the 2005
[29:57] energy policy act
[29:59] had another billions of dollars to
[30:01] subsidize nuclear crickets. Nothing
[30:04] happened. During the Obama
[30:06] administration, Obama implemented 8.3
[30:09] billion in loan guarantees. Still
[30:12] nothing. Finally, couple of states,
[30:14] South Carolina and Georgia, passed what
[30:17] they call sort of euphemistically
[30:20] advanced cost recovery programs, which
[30:22] meant that they could bill rateayers in
[30:24] advance for the construction of a
[30:26] nuclear reactor regardless of whether it
[30:28] actually generated any electricity. So
[30:31] what happened in uh South Carolina? The
[30:34] emergency summer ordered fume reactors.
[30:37] They started construction. They got
[30:39] about like five or six years into it
[30:42] about $9 billion and they abandoned them
[30:44] bankrupt. So Vodal nuclear reactors in
[30:49] three units three and four were ordered
[30:52] after about 10 years I think something
[30:54] like 10 years behind schedule. They
[30:57] finally completed them and they cost
[30:59] about twice the had the budget. I've got
[31:02] less than 60 seconds left.
[31:05] So what about all these other countries?
[31:07] Finland Oki Luoto unit 2 ordered it
[31:11] built by the French
[31:14] took about 15 years to construct about
[31:17] triple the original budget. So France,
[31:20] the country that supposedly does nuclear power, right? Flamingville unit
[31:25] 3 AP- 10000 nuclear reactor,
[31:28] took 17 years to complete and came in
[31:31] quadruple to whatever seven times the
[31:33] original budget. Meanwhile, solar cost
[31:36] is plummeting. Utah has superior
[31:39] um solar resources, just a smidgen right
[31:42] behind Arizona. And I should probably
[31:45] wrap up here. So anyway, um, let's not
[31:48] have history repeat itself in Utah.
[31:50] Thank you.
[31:52] >> Okay. Do we have anyone else in the
[31:54] chambers that would like to come speak?
[32:09] » My name is Alison Matis. I'm a resident
[32:11] of Gran County. I'm here to exercise my
[32:14] first amendment rights of free speech
[32:16] and to petition the government for a
[32:17] redress of griev grievances.
[32:20] I'm going to use an adaptation of an
[32:22] adage among lawyers. Part of it says if
[32:25] you have the facts on your side, pound
[32:27] the facts. If you don't have the facts,
[32:30] pound the table and yell. Two weeks ago,
[32:33] we saw a whole lot of figuratively
[32:35] pounding the table and figuratively
[32:37] yelling from three commissioners, Mr.
[32:39] Martinez, Mr. Winfield and Miss McCamas.
[32:43] Um, and I think that's because defects
[32:45] are not on their side. This is related
[32:47] to the shuttle um the shuttle system
[32:50] that they would have put in for a tune
[32:52] of $3 million of which half a million
[32:54] comes from basically us. The TRT
[32:57] mitigation fund basically comes from us.
[33:00] What we got instead was a whole bunch of
[33:02] ad hominant attacks, um, disparaging
[33:05] comments about engaged in informed
[33:09] citizens, other diversionary tactics and
[33:12] what I considered to be unprofessional
[33:14] conducts and serious logical fallacies
[33:16] that were so extreme that they made the
[33:19] interpretations the particular
[33:20] commissioner said based on facts into
[33:23] turn them into things that are not true.
[33:26] There were very few, if any, actual
[33:28] facts in support of Grand County
[33:30] spending half a million dollars on the
[33:33] shuttle system. I believe that it was
[33:35] particularly telling that one of the
[33:36] main arguments in shuttle of the shuttle
[33:38] system was that Mr. Winfield and Mr.
[33:41] Martinez were saying they were getting
[33:43] things done. I asked, what's the point?
[33:46] Why do something just to get something
[33:47] done if that something is not positive
[33:50] or beneficial to the citizens of the
[33:52] county? Particularly when it's
[33:54] incredibly expensive and it's taking
[33:56] money for other high priority needs for
[33:59] the county. Again, what's the point of
[34:01] doing something just to get things done?
[34:03] This makes me think of a well-known Ed
[34:04] Abby quote. Growth for the sake of quote
[34:08] growth is the ide ideology of the cancer
[34:11] cell. In terms of getting things done,
[34:13] Mr. Winfield said two two weeks ago,
[34:15] quote, I ran on affordable housing and
[34:17] strong economy and fiscal transparency.
[34:19] End quote. What does Winfield's track
[34:22] record have to do with affordable
[34:24] housing? I hopped online, looked at the
[34:26] TI, and what I saw reported was a
[34:28] $200,000 loan last winter. I didn't see
[34:31] any other uh uh accomplishments from my
[34:34] internet search. So, what I'm seeing is
[34:37] $200,000 for housing and $500,000 for
[34:41] the shuttle. That seems really distorted
[34:43] to me. Um,
[34:46] and also, Mr. Winfield has been the
[34:49] exact opposite of transparency related
[34:51] to all this public land uh, management
[34:53] stuff going to the gardener study to the
[34:56] uh, December one public lands meeting
[34:58] and whatever is happening now with
[35:00] Department of Interior officials uh,
[35:03] right now. Um, I thought two weeks ago
[35:06] was a bad day for the financial
[35:07] well-being of this county and I also
[35:10] thought it was a pretty shameful day for
[35:12] this commission with the ad hommon and
[35:14] attacks and the distortions
[35:17] that were just so extreme. I know I'm
[35:21] about out of time so I will wrap things
[35:23] up. One of the things that and I had a
[35:25] lot more to say that I was particularly
[35:27] concerned about was Mr. Winfield saying,
[35:29] "I will say there's a lot of local
[35:31] keyboard warriors that are spreading
[35:33] misinformation from day one about this.
[35:36] I find that and there's more to this
[35:38] quote. I'm just going to say I find that
[35:40] extremely troubling. I think
[35:42] commissioners should welcome an informed
[35:44] and engaged citizenry, not disparage
[35:46] them." Thank you for your time.
[35:49] >> Do we have any other citizens in the
[35:51] audience that like to speak?
[35:55] What about online?
[35:58] >> We do have
[35:59] >> Oh, go ahead and unmute.
[36:03] >> Yes. Thanks uh commissioners for your
[36:05] time today. I appreciate you letting me
[36:08] speak. Um I got a couple things. One is
[36:11] on the agenda tonight and I'm not sure
[36:12] what item number it is, but it's on the
[36:14] asphalt out at the airport. Um, I just
[36:18] want you guys to look at that very
[36:20] carefully because I I was at the meeting
[36:23] last night and they didn't specifically
[36:25] say exactly what that was going to be
[36:28] paved in front of. I know that a lot of
[36:31] the hangers that are already built, if
[36:34] that's where it's going, then that's a
[36:35] different story. But if they're not
[36:37] built, the county um in their
[36:41] um they they actually make them um pay
[36:45] for that if they're building a new
[36:46] building. So, I just hope that you guys
[36:49] will look at that, make sure that that's
[36:51] not going in front of buildings that are
[36:53] getting built because the person is
[36:56] building that building needs to be uh
[36:58] pay for that asphalt.
[37:01] Um, also I don't I don't know where that
[37:03] money came from, but that's uh an
[37:05] interesting one for me. Also, um, last
[37:09] meeting I at the council meeting I was
[37:11] shut down for, um, wanting to talk
[37:14] again. I, um, wanted to mention that you
[37:19] guys talked about the help for the
[37:21] ranchers and the farmers in our area,
[37:25] which was great. Um, but there is a lot
[37:28] of other businesses in our county that
[37:30] are struggling with the water shortage.
[37:32] So, I would was hoping that you guys
[37:35] would add that to your uh list of things
[37:38] to send to the state. So,
[37:41] um, thank you for your time. Um, have a
[37:44] good meeting.
[37:46] >> Thank you.
[37:48] >> All right. Anyone else in the chambers
[37:52] and no one else online? All right. We
[37:54] are going to move on to our
[37:57] department reports. So we have our IT
[37:59] department with
[38:04] » sending service.
[38:06] >> Hi everybody.
[38:07] >> Hey
[38:09] >> I can talk here. I can talk here
[38:13] this for you.
[38:18] » As noted I can kind of walk around this
[38:20] room as you all know and we can hear
[38:22] each other. Um, so you know everybody on
[38:26] peanut gallery when they comment it also
[38:29] shows up online too.
[38:32] The reason I start this off with that is
[38:34] that I'm standing here not in front of a
[38:37] microphone and I guarantee you that any
[38:39] one of the AI notetakers that are
[38:41] actively being used in everybody's
[38:42] pockets and listening to this meeting
[38:45] are transcribing every little tiny word
[38:46] that I'm going to say whether I say it
[38:49] like this say it like this
[38:52] please be aware of the technology that's
[38:54] around you. I like to start stuff up
[38:56] sometimes a little bit of theatrics,
[38:58] right? About I was going to come
[39:00] in here and like flash the lights and
[39:04] won't give you a stroke or something.
[39:05] So, um I have a report for you. It's in
[39:10] your packet. Um I don't know if you've
[39:13] taken the time to read the report. It's
[39:16] in essence the same report that I
[39:17] provided here for the last 15 years. um
[39:22] in my 16th year of employment here at
[39:24] the county and I am your IT director. My
[39:26] name is Matt Sanoseros. Um and my
[39:29] department have a mission statement and
[39:31] goals because I really believe in
[39:33] strategic planning. Uh if we don't have
[39:35] a focus on the way that we're working as
[39:37] an organization and the people that
[39:39] we're leading behind us are kind of back
[39:41] [clears throat] there flailing and
[39:43] picking up scraps the best we go. My
[39:45] mission statement is for our department
[39:47] is that Grand County Information
[39:48] Technology Services provides reliable,
[39:51] robust and integrated technology which
[39:54] improves the ability of a county to
[39:56] serve its constituency.
[39:59] And our goals [clears throat]
[40:00] very simple is that we just strive to
[40:02] provide solutions that improve the
[40:04] efficiency, the accessibility, and the
[40:08] security of the communications and data
[40:09] that we have. Those are the same mission
[40:12] and goals that I've had for our IT
[40:15] department for a long time at this
[40:17] point. Try to stick to them. Um,
[40:21] I don't have a nice polished speech to
[40:23] give you all. Um, I give you this report
[40:27] every year in the same basic format,
[40:30] hoping that you read it and I come to
[40:32] you with a little bit of theatrics and
[40:33] hope that you have some questions for me
[40:36] because as you see in my report, there's
[40:39] lots of words on here, guys. I'm
[40:41] responsible for a lot of different
[40:42] things here at the county. Um, and I'd
[40:45] be happy to talk and take the 15 minutes
[40:48] of my department report and give you
[40:51] back something that's of use to you as a
[40:54] commission. So, to that end, I open it
[40:57] up initially with questions and if not,
[41:00] I'll just keep talking and
[41:03] please [clears throat]
[41:05] >> you uh Sorry.
[41:07] >> Yeah, please.
[41:09] >> You spoke about the uh computer screen
[41:11] behind you.
[41:11] >> Yes.
[41:12] >> Yeah. needs on budget.
[41:14] >> Yes, sir.
[41:14] >> Okay. All right.
[41:15] >> Please.
[41:16] >> From my perspective, I need to know. It
[41:19] is really nice to know those before
[41:21] budget season.
[41:22] >> Heck yeah.
[41:22] >> Uh so we don't see them pile up come
[41:24] budget season. Uh so thank you for
[41:26] saying that today. So we we know the
[41:28] ball is rolling. I mean it's
[41:31] >> rather see those preemptively than uh
[41:33] come budget season. and uh everyone it's not a sense of everyone's hands out
[41:38] but it does consume the totality of uh
[41:43] my capabilities to go over line by line
[41:45] at that time this time of year it's been
[41:47] really nice to know
[41:48] >> absolutely and to that end I appreciate
[41:51] the question um this is very early in
[41:53] the year for department reports um I
[41:56] made it a point when the schedule came
[41:58] out this year said you know what I put
[42:00] mine at the top of the list
[42:02] >> because I don't I don't want to get this
[42:04] washed into
[42:06] >> budget time. Anything else?
[42:09] I'm seeking to get our GIS person
[42:11] reclassified because his jobs have
[42:15] increased. His roles have increased. He
[42:17] does a great job. Fantastic staff. I
[42:20] think that we need to award and
[42:24] really hold on to the key players and
[42:26] staff that we have here. Um, and to that
[42:30] end, there is certainly budget on top of
[42:33] everybody's mind. Um, and God knows
[42:36] there's a whole lot of hot topics that
[42:37] I'm going to try to
[42:40] not step on here. But, um, to that end,
[42:43] I it's not cheap. Um, you know,
[42:45] sometimes you pay for what you get. Um,
[42:49] I'd be happy to go along about any one
[42:52] of these particular things. You brought
[42:53] up TV. Thank [clears throat] you so
[42:54] much. Um, I tried to make this room as a
[42:57] hybrid type of a solution so that you
[43:00] don't have to have a dedicated EV person
[43:04] here. You've got Quinn.
[43:07] deserves a round of applause
[43:10] as well as all the comm community the
[43:13] commission administration staff. They do
[43:14] a great job of moderating make sure all
[43:17] stuff runs. But by and large, it does
[43:19] run on Zoom. Zoom is the key to keeping
[43:21] this whole system running. It's hybrid.
[43:24] Um, in the room itself, you have this
[43:27] lovely thing which was a touchcreen. It
[43:29] was purchased as a touchscreen by
[43:31] request from the commission because you
[43:33] all wanted to get up here and touch it.
[43:35] Nobody uses it.
[43:37] We really love to put this somewhere
[43:39] where it does get used like out at the
[43:40] EOC or some of our training facilities
[43:42] or something else.
[43:44] >> We've talked about putting like a video
[43:45] wall here. I can clean all this up. All
[43:48] your wires go here. Give you a lot more
[43:50] platform to be able to see. have
[43:52] different cameras, different pieces we
[43:54] can add into this. I'm all ears for what
[43:57] you want to go with. So, please
[43:59] absolutely.
[44:01] >> Right.
[44:05] » Um, so you spoke of vision right there.
[44:06] Um, one of the things when uh, uh,
[44:09] myself and Commissioner Winfield were up
[44:10] at the NATO conference, was the WC A2,
[44:15] which is a requirement that uh, uh, that
[44:17] counties uh, um, become or or uh,
[44:20] governments become ADA compliant. And
[44:23] then I just looked it up here. So, it's
[44:24] April 26, 2027 that uh, all counties
[44:28] over 50,000 people are required to be
[44:30] compliant. And then it's April 26, 2028
[44:34] that all counties underneath 50. So that
[44:36] would be our deadline right there.
[44:37] Correct.
[44:38] >> Um are you working on on on bringing us
[44:40] up into those those standards?
[44:42] >> Yes.
[44:42] >> Uh WAG is the web content accessibility
[44:46] guidelines 2.0. Um and as noted there's
[44:50] some dates in there depending on
[44:52] population for government websites very
[44:54] specifically to become accessible for
[44:58] all sorts of people. Um, we just heard
[45:01] from DOE there's all sorts of people in
[45:04] this world that have disabilities and we
[45:06] as government it's kind of we're
[45:10] negligent in some regards if we're not
[45:12] able to provide it in the way that they
[45:14] can consume it whether they're blind,
[45:17] whether they're deaf, whether they're
[45:18] part of scene. There's all those pieces
[45:21] that go into the website so that you
[45:22] have all your metadata tags, all of
[45:25] those pieces that uh provide that
[45:27] accessibility translation, uh lookup
[45:30] features, uh being able to even use
[45:33] eyesight to be able to read. Um there's some really cool interesting
[45:38] things when it comes to disability
[45:39] pieces and we're very much on top of it
[45:42] on on top of it. We're working on it to meet that 2028 date. Um, I'm trying
[45:46] to throw that in priority with all the
[45:48] other pieces that potentially are out
[45:50] here, but absolutely on our radar.
[45:53] >> As things are updated, we're making sure
[45:55] that we keep that in.
[45:56] >> Absolutely. Yes. Absolutely. And when we
[45:58] went through, we did a redesign of our
[45:59] website not too long ago. It's been a
[46:01] couple years by now. Um, but we did do a
[46:03] thorough review at the time of our
[46:05] website redesign. Um, picking up all the
[46:09] various WG
[46:11] violations, if you want to call it that.
[46:12] Uh we went through a significant effort
[46:14] going through cleaning up pieces, making
[46:16] sure the metadata and all the stuff was
[46:18] on pictures as part of that redesign
[46:20] branding. Um and with our uh website
[46:23] post, um they help provide that service
[46:26] as well too. But you bring up cost,
[46:30] a lot of these companies out there will
[46:31] just give you a report, it fix it. So
[46:35] there's definitely man [clears throat]
[46:37] hours and other pieces. And the way our
[46:38] website is has a content management
[46:40] system in it.
[46:41] >> And so each department is actually
[46:43] responsible for updating their section
[46:45] of the website. And so as the public is
[46:47] sitting here listening to this and you
[46:49] guys look at our website, if you have a
[46:51] particular page that's not updated, it's
[46:54] that department head, that elected
[46:56] official, they have access into it. They
[46:57] should be able to update it.
[46:58] >> And so those costs would then be that
[47:00] department's costs to
[47:02] >> it. It just kind of yep
[47:03] >> filters out into the ether essentially
[47:05] as
[47:06] >> with our Adobe software
[47:07] >> basically. Um kind of same.
[47:12] >> Any other questions?
[47:14] >> Um not a question but just a comment and
[47:16] that was that your report was not in the
[47:19] packet but Dana has since uploaded it
[47:21] since you mentioned that we should have
[47:23] read it. So, it's now in there for the
[47:26] public and for us to look Yeah.
[47:28] >> is now good because I looked through all
[47:30] my email.
[47:30] >> I I I looked in there this morning and I
[47:33] saw that it was checked for some reason
[47:35] to not be in the agenda, but it was
[47:38] definitely attached to your
[47:41] >> I just wanted people to know.
[47:42] >> No, please. I Yeah, absolutely. There's really not a whole lot of stuff
[47:45] in here that is
[47:49] there's nothing in here that is
[47:51] proprietary or you know security minded
[47:53] or is going to reveal any super secrets
[47:57] or that kind of stuff. Uh any other
[47:59] questions?
[48:00] >> We just want you to know why we're not
[48:01] prepared.
[48:04] I I thank you. That's what I was going
[48:05] to say. I really appreciate that. Um to
[48:07] that end I I I know that I want to be
[48:10] respectful time actually. Yeah. So, you
[48:13] opened with uh you were you made a uh
[48:16] made a remark about AI note takers and
[48:18] such and that made me realize that just
[48:19] today I I literally had three different
[48:21] AI note takers send me uh summaries from
[48:24] that I didn't ask
[48:25] >> you had no idea that you
[48:26] >> absolutely that came into my email and
[48:28] so what since you brought that up is
[48:30] [clears throat] is there jeopardy there
[48:32] and if so absolutely
[48:33] >> what is it
[48:34] >> very much so and and you please correct
[48:37] me if I'm wrong Mr. shocks. Um, and this
[48:42] is actually kind of interesting because
[48:43] I I brought this up um part of my role
[48:47] in as I've worked here I with UAC and
[48:49] whatnot. You all might remember I am on
[48:52] the cyber security commission for the
[48:53] state of Utah. Uh a couple meetings ago
[48:56] we had of the capital had discussion
[48:59] with governor and everybody else and
[49:02] some of this bit was about literally
[49:04] about AI noteakers and same kind of
[49:06] story of oh my gosh I just participated
[49:09] in this meeting I've got all these notes
[49:12] that verbatim shows all these pieces.
[49:14] The reason I opened with that is that
[49:17] out of that meeting the CIO for the
[49:20] state of Utah and otherwise came back
[49:22] and they kind of looked at all of what
[49:25] is happening with note takingaking and
[49:26] all of this uh within the cyber security
[49:30] commission there is uh representatives
[49:31] from the attorney general's office and
[49:33] otherwise and they have come back with
[49:35] essentially the same guideline if you
[49:38] want to call it that is that as
[49:40] notetakers and AI is a very very
[49:43] interesting animal and AI can mean lots
[49:45] of different things. Um, I'm happy to go
[49:47] down any one of those pieces, but AI
[49:50] notetakers, it's taking a large language
[49:53] model, listening to yourself, as putting
[49:55] out a document.
[49:57] That's fine in and of itself because as
[49:59] we take notes in an official capacity,
[50:02] your notes aren't necessarily
[50:05] subject to grammar. They're just your
[50:07] own
[50:09] population of your own thoughts.
[50:11] note taker that is through a source and
[50:15] been processed and otherwise it's given
[50:17] back to you as a document that's still a
[50:20] note.
[50:21] As soon as you take that note and you
[50:24] modify it and you save it, that note is
[50:27] now a document
[50:29] and that document is now subject to
[50:31] grandma.
[50:33] >> So don't do that.
[50:36] >> I don't know how else to end that
[50:37] statement other than a big smile.
[50:40] um be very cautious as you go about
[50:42] things. Not saying that anybody is
[50:44] trying to hide anything by any stretch
[50:46] of the imagination being grandma. Um but
[50:49] Utah, you know, we're certainly working
[50:51] on the Utah data privacy act. Um I am
[50:55] your chief officer for data privacy.
[50:58] We're doing data privacy program
[51:00] implementation across the board, record
[51:02] series and all of this. And the reason I
[51:05] bring it up from a conversation at the
[51:07] capital literally with CIO and attorney
[51:09] general's office and otherwise and the
[51:12] advice that they come back with is to be
[51:14] very very careful with your note takers
[51:17] i.e. don't use them to create some other
[51:20] official type of a document. If you
[51:23] [clears throat] want to, please use your
[51:25] notes. I'm not saying to not use a
[51:27] notetaker, but if I can leave you with
[51:30] anything about AI and if you can
[51:31] remember anything out of anything I say,
[51:33] I appreciate you're not prepared for
[51:35] this, but you have to keep the human in
[51:38] the loop and any AI product that you
[51:41] have, you can't just directly rely on
[51:44] that it's verbatim what it is. Part of
[51:46] the reason I have with a paper or some
[51:48] other people coming in here and saying,
[51:49] "Oh, this is exactly transcript."
[51:52] Probably close,
[51:54] but is it actually official? And across
[51:57] the state of Utah, it's becoming more
[51:58] and more an accepted thing that people
[52:01] are taking AI noteakers
[52:05] as your minutes.
[52:08] Just caution you on that's the biggest
[52:10] advice of my
[52:11] >> Thank you, Matt.
[52:12] >> Absolutely. Thank you for the question.
[52:15] I have one last question for you. Um, so
[52:17] when I remember a few months ago you
[52:19] asking for some help with the a dead
[52:22] horse point for some radio
[52:24] >> Yes, ma'am.
[52:24] >> towers. How did that end up?
[52:27] >> Still in progress.
[52:28] >> Okay.
[52:29] >> Um,
[52:30] it's only been August since I came and
[52:32] saw you, so it hasn't even been a whole
[52:33] year since I've stood up in front of
[52:34] you. Um, the dead horse point one. Um, I
[52:37] did go up to the capital to advocate for
[52:40] an appropriations bill from Senator
[52:42] Harper and Senator Albreight to continue
[52:45] funding for the Utah Cyber Center.
[52:47] That's why I left the capital. Um, I
[52:50] just so happened in [clears throat] that
[52:51] appropriations meeting to ask for my own
[52:53] personal privilege and they let me talk
[52:55] about Dead Horse Point. That kind of
[52:58] started a fire in so many different ways
[53:00] and I've had emails and other pieces and
[53:03] included you all on it. Grant County as
[53:06] well as San Juan County has signed a
[53:07] letter of support for it. Um what we're
[53:10] trying to do is to place a VHF radio
[53:13] tower um around Dead Horse Point. Um
[53:18] where I initially advocated for at the
[53:21] visitors center geologically speaking is
[53:24] not going to work well for the ideal
[53:27] rescue sites to be there. um possibly
[53:31] pushing it all the way out to the point
[53:34] itself and putting it on the large shape
[53:36] structure that's out there potentially
[53:39] may work. Um but in all of this I've
[53:42] also come to find that me like so many
[53:46] things in this world um that there was
[53:49] already a grant that was approved for
[53:50] this and there's was equipment that's
[53:52] purchased and that's part of why I've
[53:54] just pressed my the brake pedal for a
[53:55] minute black. So, I have some equipment
[53:58] that's sitting in a warehouse. I have a
[54:00] tower, apparently. Batteries, charger, a
[54:02] couple other pieces. And they uh
[54:05] apparently lined out a location that is
[54:08] out on East Mesa is what I call it. Uh
[54:12] from Dead Horse Point
[54:15] Center out there, it's just a mess
[54:17] that's right on the edge of it. And what
[54:19] we're really trying to do with this is
[54:21] reach down into the canyons and
[54:23] specifically Cane Creek and up over
[54:26] Harra Pass. And if I'm able to get up
[54:28] over Harra Pass, we can see back down
[54:30] into Cane Creek and Cane Creek and all
[54:34] of that area is very, very heavily
[54:36] traffked. There's some very, very
[54:38] complex rescues that happen out there.
[54:40] And communications is
[54:44] they become professionals at workounds,
[54:46] let's put it that way. And that's what
[54:47] this effort is to try to help. Uh to
[54:50] answer your question very shortly
[54:51] though, um because of the fact that I
[54:54] found that I have equipment now sitting
[54:55] in a closet somewhere, I'm going to use
[54:57] that equipment. I'm going to really kind
[54:59] of focus on this East Mesa area. Um but
[55:03] that has some different archaeological
[55:05] pieces and some other possible approval
[55:08] steps to be able to get out there. Uh,
[55:12] I think it's totally doable though and
[55:14] I'd like to be able to see some sort of
[55:15] traction by the end of the year because
[55:17] apparently half it's sitting in a
[55:19] warehouse already. So
[55:20] >> cool. Thank you.
[55:22] >> Thanks for the question.
[55:24] >> Okay.
[55:25] >> Anything else? I I'll make the rest of
[55:27] this very very quick. I I promise.
[55:30] >> No questions.
[55:31] >> Yeah. Thank you so much for for for
[55:33] asking a few of them. Um, and please uh
[55:36] read this over. I I'm not going to read
[55:38] it verbatim since you now have a copy of
[55:40] it, but please look it over. If you want
[55:42] to go ahead, throw it in a chat GPT and
[55:45] tell it to summarize and say what the highlights of it were. It's a
[55:48] great way of summarizing all this stuff.
[55:50] Um, with being short in time, I will
[55:54] just leave you with some notable
[55:56] achievements and anticipated budget
[55:58] needs. Um, since I talked to you guys
[56:01] last, uh, we've rolled out, uh, managed
[56:04] detection and endpoint response. It's a managed system that lives on
[56:10] endpoint computers. Uh it's real time.
[56:13] It tracks and blocks unbought software,
[56:17] gives you reports, all sorts of things.
[56:19] And that uh is in conjunction
[56:21] [clears throat] with Utah Cyber Center.
[56:24] We are working back and forth with um
[56:27] again I'm on the cyber security
[56:28] commission for the state.
[56:30] the uh
[56:32] last government session, they were able
[56:35] to get the appropriation that I was just
[56:38] speaking of from Harper and Alrech to
[56:41] continue the small uh state local
[56:44] government programs which takes care of
[56:46] this endpoint response, takes care of
[56:49] some education, trainings, other pieces,
[56:52] but they've also this year uh able to uh
[56:56] bring in K through 12 and that is a big
[57:00] lift uh bringing on K through 12. Um I
[57:04] was able to vote and say yes, do it. But
[57:07] we appropriated over $30 million
[57:10] of
[57:12] cyber security funds from the state of
[57:14] Utah to directly assist small, state,
[57:19] local, territory governments and our K
[57:22] through 12. I bring that up because it's
[57:25] really unique in the state of Utah or
[57:28] not in the state of I'm sorry in our
[57:29] country. The fact that state of Utah is
[57:31] adopting this whole state, they're
[57:33] actually standing behind it. They're
[57:35] funding it. They're doing it. It's
[57:37] something completely different than what
[57:38] you're going to find in even some of our
[57:40] neighboring areas. The the way that
[57:42] cyber happens and how fast it happens
[57:45] relies on us to all work together.
[57:48] Um, we've migrated a whole bunch of our
[57:51] core servers, upgraded our storage
[57:53] systems. There's over 20 servers and 30
[57:55] terabytes of data. My new CIS admin has
[57:57] been very helpful in all of this. Um, I
[58:00] said privacy program been implementing.
[58:03] I've been able to extend uh desktop life
[58:06] cycles, saves money. Uh, we had a
[58:10] emergency purchase the end of last year.
[58:11] Our phone system failed. um that upfront
[58:15] is a onetime cost, but the savings that
[58:18] we're going to get by dropping all the
[58:20] other superfl
[58:24] that system within probably about a year
[58:26] or two, a more capable system. Um
[58:32] working on policy, procedures, disaster
[58:34] control.
[58:37] Then you may have seen uh some pieces in
[58:39] Facebook and otherwise um I've put
[58:42] together been designed, sourced,
[58:45] configured, continue figure um our
[58:49] sheriff's office trucks. Um I've been
[58:52] able to
[58:54] work out a deal that saved us about
[58:56] $18,000 in modems. Um that puts
[59:00] fancy modem in each one of our trucks.
[59:02] Uh each one of our vehicles now has
[59:04] Starlink on it and a firstn net cellular
[59:08] device and they will automatically fail
[59:11] over when the cellular device drops out.
[59:13] It will pop back into the Starlink
[59:16] radios and whatnot can actually switch
[59:18] over and they can talk over Wi-Fi. So it
[59:20] kind of helps in some of these
[59:22] situations where you're in cany bottom
[59:24] don't have a VHF resource or something
[59:26] out there and you need to be able to
[59:28] talk back to dispatch. It's kind of the
[59:30] only way of doing it. We're pretty
[59:31] unique in the state by doing it the
[59:33] right way the first time. Um there's
[59:35] been a few different ways that people
[59:37] have thrown it together. This is the
[59:39] plainest way of doing it. So been able
[59:41] to save us quite a bit of money on
[59:44] implementing all of that as well. Um as
[59:47] far as budgetwide, um I've asked for the
[59:50] last several years that the commission
[59:53] make a priority towards adopting access
[59:55] controls. um that's essentially putting
[59:57] key cards on this building, cameras, all
[1:00:00] the other fun stuff that goes along with
[1:00:02] it. That's still a high priority list
[1:00:04] and I will continue to keep coming back
[1:00:06] with it. Um since it's been kind of
[1:00:09] pushed back every time, I am left to
[1:00:12] just go back to all my department heads
[1:00:13] and electeds and say if it is critical
[1:00:16] to you, please bring it up at budget
[1:00:18] time. I'm bringing it up again now to
[1:00:20] plant a seed that everybody needs this.
[1:00:22] It's something that be much easier and
[1:00:25] cheaper if we did it all at once. Um
[1:00:28] banning network. Uh you might see some
[1:00:31] stuff in the next year um like next year
[1:00:34] about network things. Um rolling out
[1:00:37] some other advanced pieces of security.
[1:00:40] Uh changing out end of life equipment.
[1:00:42] This building itself uh needs a likely a
[1:00:47] radio distribution system or called a
[1:00:49] BDS. It's a building distribution
[1:00:51] system. Um, it's for emergency
[1:00:53] communications. Again, emergency
[1:00:55] responder radios. Um, essentially puts
[1:00:58] antennas on the outside of the building
[1:00:59] and it runs a feeder cable through the
[1:01:02] deep parts of the building, i.e. like in
[1:01:04] the jail and places where it's really
[1:01:07] hard to get a cell phone reception when
[1:01:08] you're covered. Um, it's not cheap. And
[1:01:12] then we talked a little bit about data
[1:01:13] privacy and whatnot. that cost is going
[1:01:16] to be kind of absorbed in so many
[1:01:18] different ways by various departments
[1:01:19] and whatnot, but you'll probably see
[1:01:20] some one-offs and things during budget
[1:01:22] meetings regarding some of those. Um,
[1:01:28] other than that, I will just leave you
[1:01:29] with one final little statement of
[1:01:32] and this one came from chat GPT and
[1:01:35] telling me how to sync all of this. and it says
[1:01:42] technology services are no longer
[1:01:44] isolated support functions.
[1:01:47] They are embedded in nearly every county
[1:01:50] operational communications
[1:01:52] records, emergency response and public
[1:01:55] facing process.
[1:01:57] Yet all the while the cyber security
[1:01:59] threat landscape with rapid advances in
[1:02:02] artificial intelligence are changing the
[1:02:04] way the world works.
[1:02:07] To that end, I thank you so much for
[1:02:08] taking some time and listening to me
[1:02:09] chat. And if you ever have any
[1:02:12] questions, don't hesitate to reach out.
[1:02:14] More than happy to chat about any one of
[1:02:15] these particular things and listen to me
[1:02:18] and even just know go on for hours.
[1:02:21] Try not to be longwinded. Um but I'll
[1:02:23] give you one more opportunity any
[1:02:24] [clears throat] other questions if that
[1:02:25] might rattle.
[1:02:29] » All right. Well, thank you so much.
[1:02:31] Appreciate y'all.
[1:02:32] >> Thank you.
[1:02:34] >> All right. Moving along to our general
[1:02:37] business action items, discussion and
[1:02:40] consideration of approval. So number one
[1:02:42] is our commission member disclosures and
[1:02:45] future considerations. Mike
[1:02:47] >> uh disclosure my wife works for the
[1:02:50] sheriff's department.
[1:02:51] >> Okay.
[1:02:52] >> Accentuate.
[1:02:53] >> Any other disclosures and future
[1:02:55] considerations?
[1:02:58] » Okay. We'll move along to approval of
[1:03:00] consent agenda items. A is approval of
[1:03:03] meeting minutes for May 19th, 2026.
[1:03:07] B is the ratification of payment of
[1:03:09] bills and those are
[1:03:12] second.
[1:03:18] So total bills is 1,800
[1:03:21] 32,53.16.
[1:03:24] Total payroll is $447,6561
[1:03:30] for total bills and payroll of
[1:03:32] 2,280,18.77.
[1:03:37] C is a ratification of the change order
[1:03:40] number two Canyon Lands Airport
[1:03:43] additional asphalt. D ratification of
[1:03:46] the OI amendment for contract 251763-1
[1:03:52] Mud Springs. E. Approval of a partial
[1:03:55] refund of property taxes for parcel
[1:03:57] 02-0-000046
[1:04:03] for the 2025 tax year. And F is a
[1:04:06] renewal ofou with the Mon Valley Fire
[1:04:08] Department administration impacts.
[1:04:12] Trish,
[1:04:13] >> I have a question. Can I ask a question
[1:04:15] or do you want me to pull the item and
[1:04:17] ask a question? How would you like that
[1:04:18] done?
[1:04:19] I think with the consent agenda items,
[1:04:21] we need to pull it
[1:04:22] >> and then ask it. So, which one do you
[1:04:24] want to pull?
[1:04:24] >> Um, the ratification of change order
[1:04:26] number two.
[1:04:30] » Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I'm forgot my
[1:04:33] computer. This is the first time I've
[1:04:34] ever done
[1:04:34] >> I was wondering why.
[1:04:36] >> I know. The first time I've ever done
[1:04:38] that.
[1:04:39] >> So, yeah. C is the ratification of order
[1:04:41] number two for Kenny Lens.
[1:04:43] >> We'll pull that and we will discuss that
[1:04:45] right after number three because
[1:04:48] our director here. So, we'll just move
[1:04:50] that one. Go ahead, Jacques.
[1:04:52] >> Uh motion to approve uh consent agenda
[1:04:54] as presented minus item C. Okay. Second
[1:04:58] by Commissioner Winfield. All in favor?
[1:05:02] That passes 70. And we will move along
[1:05:04] to number three, which is our
[1:05:07] reallocation of previously approved
[1:05:08] airport pavement funding at to another
[1:05:11] location at the airport. I'm gonna ask
[1:05:15] Stephen to come up here and then we'll
[1:05:17] also discuss the next one. Remember,
[1:05:20] >> I thought I thought she was pulling both
[1:05:23] then.
[1:05:24] >> Well, C is three is not on the on the
[1:05:26] consent. Got
[1:05:27] >> so the reallocation of the previous I
[1:05:29] think that's like $54,000. We're going
[1:05:31] to talk about and then the other one's
[1:05:33] like $1,000, but we'll we'll talk about
[1:05:37] both and
[1:05:38] >> Okay. So, yeah. And uh because it was
[1:05:41] public comment. I'll explain a little
[1:05:42] bit how that how we got that money. So
[1:05:45] if you remember we had to build we built
[1:05:47] taxiway fox trot um that was a county
[1:05:51] funded project. So we borrowed basically
[1:05:53] $700,000
[1:05:55] from the county which is being paid back
[1:05:57] as we build hangers through an impact
[1:06:01] plan. It's a onetime fee per linear
[1:06:04] foot. That's how we're paying it back.
[1:06:05] We calculated that all based on that
[1:06:08] total amount of $70,000. As it turns
[1:06:11] out, the FAA requires that asphalt be
[1:06:14] laid down as a test
[1:06:17] strip. That's kind of a tongue twister
[1:06:19] first to make sure that it meets the
[1:06:21] qualifications for that heavier ramp
[1:06:24] that the FAA funded. We had them lay
[1:06:26] that test strip down on Fox Trot because
[1:06:30] it had a lower threshold um because it
[1:06:32] carries less weight. Turns out that the
[1:06:35] test strip failed by the FAA standard,
[1:06:38] but it
[1:06:40] made it by the FAA standard for this
[1:06:43] particular um area. So, we basically got
[1:06:46] $54,000 of free asphalt, which means the
[1:06:49] project that we were doing had $54,000
[1:06:53] left over from the appropriate 700,000.
[1:06:57] So, since we've already calculated
[1:06:58] everything to pay it back based on the
[1:07:00] 700,000, we wanted to take that 54,000
[1:07:04] and use it to um renew and restore the
[1:07:09] asphalt in front of countyowned hangers.
[1:07:14] So, the hangers in questions are are the
[1:07:16] two two hangers right now that Red Tail
[1:07:19] operates. And Rory in his comment is
[1:07:22] correct. When somebody builds a new
[1:07:23] hanger, we require them to put the
[1:07:26] pavement in. These are hangers we own
[1:07:30] um and charge rent for and a lot of that
[1:07:32] pavement in front of it is failing. So,
[1:07:34] as long as we've got the mobilization to
[1:07:36] do the ramp project that we have, it
[1:07:39] makes sense for us to fix that part
[1:07:42] that's broken in front of our own
[1:07:44] building that we're charging people to
[1:07:46] be in.
[1:07:47] >> Question.
[1:07:48] >> So, we're gonna currently get I'll let
[1:07:49] you go. We're gonna currently
[1:07:53] So the $700,000 that was a loan from the
[1:07:55] county to the airport to box shop is
[1:07:59] already set to be repaid at that amount
[1:08:01] of linear foot that's going to equal
[1:08:03] $700,000 in repayment. So in essence,
[1:08:07] the people that are going to build the
[1:08:08] hangingers out there are going to pay
[1:08:10] for the $54,000 of asphalt that is going
[1:08:13] to help our county hangers.
[1:08:16] >> Correct.
[1:08:16] >> Okay. So it's not going to stop us from
[1:08:19] getting repaid that $54,000. So that's
[1:08:21] already going to be that will be repaid,
[1:08:24] >> correct?
[1:08:25] >> All right. So it's just a bonus for the
[1:08:26] county.
[1:08:27] >> Go ahead, Mike.
[1:08:28] >> You already asked my question,
[1:08:29] >> Mary. How long is it going to take
[1:08:32] >> to get repaid? We put the 10 years in
[1:08:35] there. Um it just depends on how quickly
[1:08:37] we we can get hangers built. Right now,
[1:08:39] I've got um two leases, not counting the
[1:08:42] two leases that are already signed. So
[1:08:44] we've got four leases um ready to go to
[1:08:47] start building anchors taxiways. So that
[1:08:50] revenue is going to start generating
[1:08:53] pretty soon here because they have to
[1:08:55] pay it at signing of lease.
[1:08:58] >> Trish, did we ever get a contract or
[1:09:01] anou? I remember that the night that we
[1:09:04] um that we obligated those funds 669
[1:09:10] 670
[1:09:10] >> somewhere. There was no contract. And
[1:09:13] did we ever have get a contract
[1:09:17] to say that we'll be repaid? Yeah. Um,
[1:09:20] no, but we can we can write one. We we
[1:09:23] just did it on
[1:09:26] the 10-year payback. You just voted on a
[1:09:28] 10-year payback and we just went that
[1:09:31] direction, but we can put together.
[1:09:33] >> That was my memory that night that we
[1:09:35] were supposed to get some type of
[1:09:36] contract, which I I spoke to Mark about
[1:09:38] that yesterday actually when I was going
[1:09:40] over some of this information and I
[1:09:42] said, "We need to get that just to make
[1:09:43] sure that when none of us are around
[1:09:45] that everybody still knows that it's
[1:09:46] happening." And so I think that Mark's
[1:09:48] going to work with you to make sure that
[1:09:49] we have
[1:09:50] >> that contract. And then I mean obviously
[1:09:52] you already have anou that's created
[1:09:54] that you're giving to the hanger people
[1:09:57] that is that states that that money is
[1:09:58] going in there. We're just getting that
[1:10:00] contract.
[1:10:00] >> It's actually written into the lease.
[1:10:02] >> Written into the lease. Yeah. Yeah.
[1:10:04] >> So then we have that when none of us are
[1:10:06] around in seven years. You never know.
[1:10:08] >> Exactly. No, I understand. That makes
[1:10:10] sense to me.
[1:10:11] >> All right. Um Jock.
[1:10:13] >> Yeah. Um, so had this 54,000 not come
[1:10:16] up, is this was this like a priority
[1:10:19] spot or is this kind of like, oh, we
[1:10:20] have 54,000, let's find something to do
[1:10:23] with it?
[1:10:24] >> No, no, no. It's priority spot. It's
[1:10:25] failing asphalt that is not FAA eligible
[1:10:28] in front of a hanger that we own.
[1:10:29] >> Okay. And then would that have so that
[1:10:31] is that on a priority list then?
[1:10:33] >> Yeah, we would have had to find a way to
[1:10:34] do it
[1:10:36] >> on our own. We would have for a week.
[1:10:38] And then the my other question is if we
[1:10:40] didn't allocate this for that this money
[1:10:43] is basically county money because it's
[1:10:44] not getting lent. So it would remain in
[1:10:46] our capital uh capital fund to be used
[1:10:48] on other projects that might correct
[1:10:50] needed. Okay. Thank you.
[1:10:52] >> I'm going to go Mike and then D.
[1:10:55] >> I'd like to make the motion. And I move
[1:10:56] to approve the use of $54,000 saved in
[1:10:58] the taxi link F project to repair the
[1:11:01] pavement in front of the county owned
[1:11:03] hangers during the apron reconstruction
[1:11:06] project commencing June 8th.
[1:11:12] » Brian
[1:11:14] and then Trish had a comment. So is this
[1:11:16] on your capital um projects list? Yeah,
[1:11:22] >> it's because I I I do it under project.
[1:11:26] It's it might I don't know that it's
[1:11:27] exactly on it to fix that 50 ft.
[1:11:29] >> Yeah, I didn't see it,
[1:11:32] >> but we can we can certainly put it on
[1:11:33] it. It should be on it.
[1:11:34] >> It's not on.
[1:11:35] >> It absolutely should be on that list
[1:11:37] because there is a section of it that is
[1:11:39] completely
[1:11:40] >> un
[1:11:41] so
[1:11:43] Okay. So, I'd like to make some comments
[1:11:45] if possible. And Gabe, did you sign up
[1:11:47] too, but Gab's first
[1:11:50] >> you were already gone. You keep
[1:11:52] >> Okay. So,
[1:11:54] um [clears throat] I guess I'm
[1:11:56] struggling and I I guess I'll start with
[1:11:58] the long range um capital plan. I looked
[1:12:01] at that today and that's why I know it's
[1:12:02] not on the list. So, on that on that
[1:12:05] list, we have eight departments, 60
[1:12:08] projects. And of the 60 projects in
[1:12:11] those eight departments, only four have
[1:12:13] been approved and they're all for the
[1:12:14] airport. So the remaining 54,
[1:12:20] there's a lot of departments that are
[1:12:22] not getting any attention.
[1:12:24] >> And this is it towards you, Steve. So
[1:12:26] please don't
[1:12:26] >> I totally understand that
[1:12:29] not going to be paying you back over
[1:12:30] time.
[1:12:31] >> Well, we don't have a contract. So until
[1:12:33] I see a contract, I have a hard time
[1:12:35] believing we're going to get paid back.
[1:12:36] I hope so. Um, but I did ask for a
[1:12:39] contract that night, which that's been
[1:12:41] quite some time ago that I didn't write
[1:12:43] down the dates.
[1:12:43] >> Okay, if I'm missing that contract
[1:12:45] written, I apologize.
[1:12:46] >> Um, [clears throat]
[1:12:48] >> so I'm struggling with this concept. If there was money saved, I think it's
[1:12:53] fabulous, but that is county money that
[1:12:56] we obligated out of general fund capital
[1:12:59] projects. And so for a department to
[1:13:02] say, well, we saved it, so let's just
[1:13:03] move it around and use it again. It's
[1:13:05] like, no, that's county money.
[1:13:07] that there are endless needs in this
[1:13:10] county on that that are on the list that
[1:13:13] I think would be better utilized in that
[1:13:16] manner. Um I'm really concerned that
[1:13:21] we have one department that's absorbing
[1:13:23] a huge amount of unbudgeted. I'm going
[1:13:26] to make this very clear. We keep
[1:13:28] spending money that is unbudgeted. Th
[1:13:31] this f this this spend was not within
[1:13:34] budget and it was a huge thin that I'm
[1:13:37] going to go back to that night. There
[1:13:39] was no fiscal impact on the agenda.
[1:13:42] There was like two sentences and you did
[1:13:44] a great job when you presented but none
[1:13:47] of that was in the packet. So the
[1:13:49] community had no idea, the commissioners
[1:13:51] had no idea. Um I was I came in and was
[1:13:56] kind of taken aback. So, I really think
[1:13:59] this money should just be well, it's not
[1:14:01] going to be returned because it's still
[1:14:03] just in our account and we distribute it
[1:14:06] if if we feel I don't think we should
[1:14:09] distribute it at all.
[1:14:10] >> We're in as stated before in fiscal
[1:14:14] crisis. We are well over budget for 2026
[1:14:18] and I don't think we should spend it.
[1:14:20] >> Excuse me.
[1:14:23] >> Okay, Gabe, did you have a comment?
[1:14:25] Yeah, I I just want to say it's it's
[1:14:27] very completely valid to sort of bring
[1:14:30] up the savings on this other project and
[1:14:32] as as a part of a narrative to support
[1:14:34] an expense like this and and I love
[1:14:37] learning about the idea that the payback
[1:14:39] is going to be paid in full and won't
[1:14:40] reflect that savings. That's great to learn. But from from a
[1:14:44] budgetary standpoint, this is this is
[1:14:46] just a separate appropriation. It's it's
[1:14:48] just really is its own appropriation.
[1:14:50] And so the way the motion reads, I think
[1:14:52] it's confusing. It makes it sound like
[1:14:54] it was kind of shoehorned into the same
[1:14:56] appropriation of funds and that's just
[1:14:58] really not how the budget works and I
[1:15:00] just want to make sure that that's clear
[1:15:02] for anyone tuning in.
[1:15:05] sense Mike
[1:15:08] >> uh
[1:15:12] to validate Chris uh Trish's concerns
[1:15:14] here uh I I understand those concerns
[1:15:18] even if we don't put 54,000 out of this
[1:15:22] uh the need's still there right so we're
[1:15:25] going to take 54,000 from anything else
[1:15:28] to repair that
[1:15:32] » and stop
[1:15:34] charging for the hanger. I mean, it's our responsibility. Yeah. To make
[1:15:39] sure that that's usable and you taxi
[1:15:42] over it.
[1:15:42] >> Yeah.
[1:15:43] >> And it's very quickly in in one section.
[1:15:45] There's one section that's not too bad,
[1:15:47] but in one section, um it's very close
[1:15:50] to unusable. Anybody ever visited the
[1:15:53] airport, I'd be happy to show it to you.
[1:15:56] And just to answer, I know that we've
[1:15:58] come hat in hand. I get it. Um,
[1:16:02] like I tried to explain the last time,
[1:16:04] these FAA grants and opportunities come
[1:16:07] in waves. This is my and I get that this
[1:16:10] isn't part of that, but it's because
[1:16:11] we've already got the mobilization out
[1:16:13] there and it's the same. It's just
[1:16:15] [clears throat] another section right
[1:16:16] there close,
[1:16:17] >> right?
[1:16:17] >> It comes in waves. So,
[1:16:20] you just try and ride the wave when you
[1:16:22] get it. And I don't I I don't know how
[1:16:26] else to explain it to you, but I
[1:16:27] understand what you're saying that we've come a lot. Yeah.
[1:16:32] >> And Bill, Bill, go ahead.
[1:16:34] >> Yeah. I I struggle also. I struggle with
[1:16:38] somebody that doesn't understand that
[1:16:40] the airport is an economic driver that
[1:16:42] provides the funds to keep this county.
[1:16:47] >> Mary, were you speaking or was I?
[1:16:49] >> I said point of order.
[1:16:52] That's I I I just don't want this
[1:16:55] meeting to turn into the meeting that it
[1:16:57] was before. So when possible, let's uh
[1:17:00] not point fingers.
[1:17:02] >> So again, as I continue here with the
[1:17:04] fact that I'm struggling that folks
[1:17:06] don't understand this is an economic
[1:17:08] driver and this county has been four
[1:17:10] years in an economic slump. People have
[1:17:14] described it as a disaster what's gone
[1:17:17] on here for the last four years. So, as
[1:17:19] we put a little bit of money back into
[1:17:21] this airport to keep it up and running
[1:17:23] to provide for this county, for the
[1:17:26] employees that work here, for staff, for
[1:17:29] commissioners, we all live off the
[1:17:32] economy of the taxes that are derived
[1:17:34] here. So, I I would like to
[1:17:38] agree with Mary that it would be nice if
[1:17:40] the political games would stop and that
[1:17:42] we would just move forward and work on
[1:17:46] bringing this county back to just a
[1:17:48] positive
[1:17:50] financial situation rather than a
[1:17:52] negative one. And if we want to continue
[1:17:55] going down this road as we have been, we
[1:17:57] could point fingers as to who caused the
[1:17:59] economic slump that we're in.
[1:18:02] over budget. Where are you getting those
[1:18:05] numbers from? I would like to see those
[1:18:07] statistics and have those pointed out
[1:18:09] clearly because as I look over what the
[1:18:13] counties come in, and I know Gabe has
[1:18:14] supplied us with some information
[1:18:17] and as I've looked at what we're doing,
[1:18:19] we're currently seeing a positive
[1:18:23] with what's coming into this economy for
[1:18:25] I believe at least the last five months.
[1:18:28] So to continue drag us down when we're
[1:18:32] trying to help turn this economy around
[1:18:35] and bring it back is as Mary said is
[1:18:38] kind of a political game. So these are
[1:18:41] county-owned hangers. We have an
[1:18:43] obligation to keep them up or as I think
[1:18:46] Steve mentioned we could stop charging
[1:18:48] rent to the FBO that utilizes them. And
[1:18:53] the FBO is a big driver out there at the
[1:18:57] airport of bringing in taxes for this
[1:19:00] county. They sell fuel
[1:19:03] which we benefit from. They provide
[1:19:07] parking spaces which we derive some
[1:19:09] income off of. There's all kinds of
[1:19:12] services that when somebody pulls up,
[1:19:14] whether they're in a single engine
[1:19:15] airplane or a jet, that we benefit at
[1:19:18] this county tax-wise for. So, I I would
[1:19:21] appreciate if we would look at this as
[1:19:24] an investment in one of our largest
[1:19:26] economic drivers of this county and
[1:19:29] continue to help bring whatever we can
[1:19:32] back to keep our finances in a positive
[1:19:35] situation.
[1:19:38] >> Trish, go ahead.
[1:19:40] >> I'm not going to respond to a lot of
[1:19:41] that because it's just just whatever.
[1:19:45] It's Yeah. What my concerns are ine inequities
[1:19:52] um throughout the county. Where we put
[1:19:54] where we where are we putting our
[1:19:56] resources that again were not budgeted
[1:20:00] and absolute needs that are becoming and I'm not saying this isn't a need.
[1:20:06] I'm sure it is a need. But I've I've
[1:20:09] been to many facilities throughout this
[1:20:11] county and I'm going to tell you there's
[1:20:14] a lot of needs out there. One concern
[1:20:16] I'm very concerned about right now is
[1:20:18] solid waste. We're getting into a defcon
[1:20:20] five phase. You know, it's solid waste
[1:20:22] district. Um the weeds and and and
[1:20:26] mosquito abatement building is literally
[1:20:28] falling down around them. There's so
[1:20:30] many needs in this county.
[1:20:33] That that's my concern. My concerns with
[1:20:35] that and with the budget and being over
[1:20:38] budget. And we did go into this year
[1:20:41] 350K is where we pulled from in reserves
[1:20:45] um when in final budgeting at the end of
[1:20:47] 25. And so all of these spins are over
[1:20:51] budget. Now the fiscal outlook might be
[1:20:54] looking great and that's great. But the
[1:20:56] reality is we we are over budget for
[1:20:59] 2026. Um so those are my concerns and
[1:21:02] that's why I will continue to vote
[1:21:04] against spends that are outside of
[1:21:06] budget. I'll just continue because we've
[1:21:08] got to pull in the reins at some point
[1:21:11] and these are needs that could be
[1:21:12] addressed in 27. I think they should go
[1:21:14] on the capital improvements list with
[1:21:16] all the other departments. I would
[1:21:18] encourage all commissioners to look at
[1:21:20] that list. I'm happy to send it out to
[1:21:22] you to see the needs that are being
[1:21:24] asked for um with these with the various
[1:21:27] departments. So, that's where I'm coming
[1:21:29] from.
[1:21:30] >> Hey, just real quickly, you're right.
[1:21:32] Yeah, we could we could bandate it or
[1:21:35] whatever and wait till 27, but we won't
[1:21:38] already have a contractor out there
[1:21:39] holding it.
[1:21:40] >> I know. I know. I've heard that. I heard
[1:21:42] that. That's why we did the the six the
[1:21:45] 670 or 69 reality.
[1:21:48] >> Yeah. I pulled up the capital's list
[1:21:49] while I was sitting here talking about
[1:21:50] that and I think you said that like
[1:21:52] >> I counted six projects got done, but I'm
[1:21:54] counting well over a dozen and every
[1:21:57] department had something done. This is
[1:21:59] the most updated list that I got today
[1:22:02] and out of all the departments that only
[1:22:05] I saw I saw
[1:22:08] four approved out of 60 and they were
[1:22:11] all
[1:22:11] >> Well, maybe that's because all the other
[1:22:12] ones that we approved in February have
[1:22:14] already been taken off there. So, we did
[1:22:16] a whole bunch of them.
[1:22:17] >> Okay. So, I'm looking this is this is
[1:22:19] the updated list that I
[1:22:21] >> and there's a whole bunch that we've
[1:22:22] approved and that are being worked on
[1:22:23] and that are that are taken care of. So
[1:22:25] maybe those were all taken off of the
[1:22:26] list and this is the list I got today.
[1:22:30] >> So all right and I think Jacques had one
[1:22:32] more comment and then I'll call for a
[1:22:33] vote.
[1:22:33] >> Yeah, I I Yeah, this is a tough one. I I definitely see the value in spending
[1:22:38] the 54 out of the airport and as Steve
[1:22:41] said, we already have a contractor out
[1:22:43] there. I think uh we just heard a
[1:22:46] department report where Matt said he had needs. I think every single uh
[1:22:50] person every single department in the
[1:22:51] county is going to come before us and
[1:22:52] say that they have needs as well. I it's
[1:22:55] tough, but I think my personal
[1:22:56] preference would just be to see the
[1:22:58] 54,000 go back to capital projects and
[1:23:01] be spent um or or at least decided on in
[1:23:04] a more holistic manner. So spent that
[1:23:06] way. But that that's all I have to say
[1:23:08] and I' I'd love to hear a vote call.
[1:23:10] >> Okay, I'm going to go ahead and call for
[1:23:12] a vote. So we had a motion by Mike and a
[1:23:14] second by Brian to go ahead and fund the
[1:23:15] $54,000. Well, yes, basically we are
[1:23:18] funding the $54,000 with this project.
[1:23:20] So all in favor
[1:23:23] and all post that passes the four to
[1:23:26] three with Commissioner Mcan,
[1:23:27] Commissioner Heather, Commissioner Dean
[1:23:28] in opposition. May I ask you a question?
[1:23:31] >> Yeah. For just future considerations, I
[1:23:33] would love to see that contract once it
[1:23:36] goes to Stephen and I I'm not expecting
[1:23:37] it to be on the next meeting, but I'd
[1:23:39] love to see it in the next month.
[1:23:41] >> I would too at the latest on the
[1:23:44] >> Y.
[1:23:46] I appreciate it.
[1:23:47] >> Thank you.
[1:23:52] Oh, we're talking about another one.
[1:23:53] >> Sorry.
[1:23:53] >> It's just a quick question.
[1:23:55] >> We're all good.
[1:23:56] >> It's just about change order number two
[1:23:58] for CNY. So, some additional asphalts.
[1:24:02] Yeah.
[1:24:02] >> And that all looks good. And I
[1:24:04] understand the the match and all that,
[1:24:07] but it it is a thousand bucks or a
[1:24:09] little over a thousand bucks, but it did
[1:24:10] not have it's not within budget
[1:24:13] >> and it doesn't say where the money's
[1:24:15] coming from. Do you know who's going to
[1:24:17] pay for that? where the 10,000 is coming
[1:24:19] from.
[1:24:20] >> Is that coming out of your budget?
[1:24:21] >> We can take it out of my budget.
[1:24:24] >> And if somewhere down there,
[1:24:26] >> then we'll have to request some more
[1:24:27] later, but but we can.
[1:24:29] >> Well, it doesn't say where it's coming
[1:24:31] from,
[1:24:31] >> right?
[1:24:32] >> Okay.
[1:24:33] >> Usually,
[1:24:33] >> I mean, if it's coming out of the
[1:24:34] county,
[1:24:34] >> all of our all of our matches have been
[1:24:36] coming out of the county. So, when we do
[1:24:38] an AIP project and we send it through,
[1:24:40] it comes out of the county. So, my
[1:24:42] anticipation was that was where this
[1:24:43] would come as well.
[1:24:44] >> So, um,
[1:24:45] >> so maybe it's a grant. I don't know how
[1:24:48] this usually works and maybe you you the
[1:24:50] admin can help me. Um when you guys are
[1:24:52] or or uh the chair could help me like
[1:24:55] when you guys are putting together the
[1:24:57] agenda. Um I think the fiscal impact
[1:25:00] should always be there and then just the
[1:25:02] budget line item where it's coming out
[1:25:04] of I think it'd be really good to just
[1:25:07] have for for me I get really
[1:25:09] uncomfortable when I don't know where
[1:25:10] that money is coming from. I would
[1:25:12] imagine it makes her feel a little
[1:25:13] uncomfortable also.
[1:25:16] So that's all I'm asking is that we have
[1:25:19] a line item. I don't know why it's
[1:25:21] funny. I don't think it's funny. I think
[1:25:22] it's very serious. We have a line item
[1:25:24] where that money is coming from.
[1:25:25] >> I think that's I'm not
[1:25:27] >> I know. I'm saying I think that's
[1:25:29] doable. We just We have an AIP project
[1:25:31] that's already underway.
[1:25:33] >> And already done one change order to it.
[1:25:35] >> This isn't on you, Steve. I'm saying
[1:25:37] there's a process up here that to this
[1:25:39] is not on you.
[1:25:42] >> What I think it's a change order. It was
[1:25:43] something that had to be done and the
[1:25:44] county, it does say county share. So on
[1:25:47] the fiscal impact says $1,50, it says
[1:25:49] county share. So the county would be
[1:25:51] paying that. And generally in our um
[1:25:54] purchasing policy, things that are under
[1:25:56] $5,000 don't come before the commission.
[1:25:58] So this but this is a ratification. This
[1:26:01] is I signed this change order for this
[1:26:03] and that's why it's here is because it
[1:26:05] was a ratification from the chair to
[1:26:07] sign. So those are generally the the way
[1:26:09] that it's that's how it's been working
[1:26:11] since I've been a commissioner.
[1:26:13] I'd like to see some budget line items.
[1:26:15] I think that's an easy ask.
[1:26:17] >> It's already signed. Yeah. And I don't
[1:26:19] know that Gabe already always knows
[1:26:21] where that's going to go in the budget.
[1:26:26] » Answer that, Gabe.
[1:26:26] >> It's an AIP project. So that's fund 56
[1:26:29] that's associated with the airport. Um
[1:26:31] and the county share it
[1:26:34] because this is a capitalizable asset.
[1:26:38] Um, you know, even though what we're not
[1:26:40] spending more than $5,000 on it, it
[1:26:42] would be most appropriately attached to
[1:26:44] as a capital like I would I would tend
[1:26:46] to go towards capital projects because
[1:26:48] it is um, you know, the overall project
[1:26:51] and its overall cost is applicable to
[1:26:53] that fund. Um,
[1:26:56] that's how I would shoot that.
[1:26:58] >> That sounds good.
[1:27:00] >> Take it out, put on your capital
[1:27:01] project. I just want to know that stuff.
[1:27:04] Mike,
[1:27:05] >> that
[1:27:06] >> we have we need to vote on this. So,
[1:27:08] I'll propose the motion. I move to
[1:27:10] approve the ratification of change order
[1:27:12] number two, CNY, additional asphalt in
[1:27:14] the fiscal impact of $1,50 for the
[1:27:17] county share.
[1:27:20] >> And Bill second. All in favor?
[1:27:24] Okay, that passes 70. Thank you, Steve.
[1:27:27] I voted for that.
[1:27:28] >> Thank you. I appreciate [laughter] it.
[1:27:30] >> Mary, go ahead. I just u may I I you
[1:27:34] know was listening and trying to figure
[1:27:35] out what's happening and I think maybe
[1:27:37] there's some confusion when
[1:27:41] uh some people are talking about the
[1:27:43] budget they're talking about how much
[1:27:45] money we have coming in
[1:27:48] and then when other people are talking
[1:27:49] about the budget they're talking about
[1:27:51] what we budgeted for
[1:27:56] and and so if you're thinking about the
[1:27:58] money coming in there's more money
[1:28:01] coming in we expected. So that's up. But
[1:28:04] we have spent money that wasn't in our
[1:28:08] budget. So I think I I'm seeing that
[1:28:13] they're they're they're talking about
[1:28:15] budget but they're referring to
[1:28:16] different we have money coming in but
[1:28:19] >> and and I I'm hoping that you know that
[1:28:23] could help with the this with the
[1:28:26] understanding of one person saying that
[1:28:28] we are under budget and the other person
[1:28:30] saying we're over. I think it's just
[1:28:32] being looked at differently. Well, and
[1:28:34] I'm talking about the approved 2000.
[1:28:36] >> Move on to item number six, which is the
[1:28:38] 2026 cooperative wildfire system
[1:28:41] agreement. That is with I don't think
[1:28:44] Kate's
[1:28:45] >> she's online. She is
[1:28:47] >> Kate's online. And then Stephen, are you
[1:28:50] going to be helping with this one as
[1:28:51] well?
[1:28:51] >> Yes.
[1:28:52] >> Okay.
[1:28:55] » Good afternoon. Could I get some
[1:28:57] indication that I am being heard?
[1:28:59] >> We can hear you.
[1:29:01] >> Perfect. Okay. County Attorney STAX. I
[1:29:04] thought I could just do a quick overview
[1:29:06] of the system and then you could move
[1:29:08] into your comments. Does that work?
[1:29:10] >> Yes.
[1:29:12] >> Great. So, the cooperative wildfire
[1:29:14] system is a system in which local
[1:29:17] government, so counties and
[1:29:19] municipalities
[1:29:21] >> commit to certain mitigation actions and
[1:29:25] preparing these activities.
[1:29:28] In exchange, the state provides
[1:29:30] financial protection for catastrophic
[1:29:33] wildfires.
[1:29:35] >> Outside it's
[1:29:38] coming from Kate. I think that she's got
[1:29:40] some background noise.
[1:29:41] >> Kate's got a little bit of background
[1:29:42] noise. While she's um while she's
[1:29:44] adjusting that, um my office is
[1:29:47] reviewing this contract and this
[1:29:48] document. Um if the commission would
[1:29:50] like to pass this this evening, we're
[1:29:52] just asking for additional time for this
[1:29:54] to be um or to be approved contingent on
[1:29:56] the attorney's office review. There's a
[1:29:59] couple contracts that uh UAC is
[1:30:01] reviewing in connection with the um
[1:30:06] the entity uh the Utah Division of
[1:30:09] Forest, Fire, and State Lands going
[1:30:12] through and discussing that. and then
[1:30:14] whenever Kate wants to continue on. Um
[1:30:19] I don't there she goes.
[1:30:20] >> I'm back.
[1:30:22] >> So yeah, so this agreement would
[1:30:27] continue the commitment that we've been
[1:30:29] engaging in. So it covers us in 2026 and
[1:30:32] then for five years moving forward.
[1:30:37] » That's all I have. I can answer any
[1:30:39] questions.
[1:30:41] >> Okay. Mike,
[1:30:42] >> I'd like to make a motion. I move to
[1:30:44] approve the 2026 cooperative wildfire
[1:30:46] systems agreement as amended pending
[1:30:49] attorney's office review.
[1:30:52] >> A second.
[1:30:54] >> And Mary, did you have a comment?
[1:30:58] >> Okay. Ryan
[1:31:00] and I uh um I talked with commission
[1:31:02] admin administration. There's also the
[1:31:05] uh wildlands urban interface um
[1:31:08] cooperative agreement that will leave
[1:31:09] with FFSL. So, while this is being
[1:31:12] reviewed, if we could just make sure
[1:31:13] that there's not going to be any
[1:31:15] conflicts between those two contracts.
[1:31:17] Um, I did send it over to Mark, but
[1:31:19] Stephen, I'll get that over to you as
[1:31:20] well, just so that we can make sure that that's able to pass as well. I
[1:31:24] think that we have to have that done.
[1:31:25] Um, coming up in the next month, um, and
[1:31:28] then as well, just on an update on that,
[1:31:29] we'll also be uh reviewing the uh um the
[1:31:33] high-risk map that should be coming out
[1:31:34] as well.
[1:31:36] >> Yep, we can definitely do that. Thank
[1:31:37] you. Okay,
[1:31:39] >> any other comments?
[1:31:42] All right. Um all in favor of the motion
[1:31:46] and that passes 70 oh and sorry everyone
[1:31:50] that number four is being um postponed
[1:31:53] and it will be presented after the MTAB
[1:31:55] review and number five also we're
[1:31:58] waiting on some information from the
[1:31:59] applicant and so that was postponed
[1:32:01] until further notice. So moving on to
[1:32:03] number seven is the first amendment to
[1:32:06] contract ABC Thompson LLC and Cassie
[1:32:10] Hines and I'm presenting that. We don't
[1:32:13] have I don't see that we have Santa
[1:32:15] Kerry here. Uh from the information that
[1:32:18] I don't know if Mark feel both
[1:32:19] comfortable to give a report of the last
[1:32:21] conversation he had.
[1:32:25] I did speak with Carrie and ask her if
[1:32:30] she wanted to continue with preparing
[1:32:33] the agreement. Uh I think there were
[1:32:36] several mentions of returning funds that
[1:32:39] the county had had provided, but she did
[1:32:42] indicate that she wanted to continue the
[1:32:45] process. So I indicated that we would
[1:32:49] continue to work on the agreement, get
[1:32:50] that to her.
[1:32:54] Um I recently reached out to her and I
[1:32:56] did not receive any response. So I'm had
[1:33:00] told her last week that or the last
[1:33:02] meeting that we would be presenting this
[1:33:04] one. So we have drafted the first
[1:33:06] amendment to the contract. I have
[1:33:08] provided some background information. I
[1:33:10] think December you are here. Um and then
[1:33:14] as far as the contract goes, what is
[1:33:17] included is a pretty tight timeline. Um
[1:33:21] we have site plan should be submitted by
[1:33:23] July 15. Um and then that approval of
[1:33:27] that site plan needs to be done by
[1:33:28] August 25th. Um I have business licenses
[1:33:32] uh being acquired by December 1st. Uh
[1:33:35] COOs by December 1st and then open for
[1:33:38] business on December 31st. Um we've
[1:33:41] tightened default repayment clawback and
[1:33:44] then acknowledgements um and then
[1:33:47] extended the contract period. So, all
[1:33:50] that is lined out with a tighter
[1:33:52] timeline. Um,
[1:33:55] I don't know if you guys have any
[1:33:56] questions. Mary, go ahead.
[1:33:58] >> Just I I just want I tried to remember
[1:34:01] from the last. So, if she if the
[1:34:06] contract fails on the first say the
[1:34:08] first one, does that mean then we ask
[1:34:11] for repayment?
[1:34:13] >> Yeah. So, so basically what would happen
[1:34:14] is if let's say on July 18th um we don't
[1:34:17] have a site plan that has been submitted
[1:34:20] uh with everything that is needed um
[1:34:23] then it could potentially come back to
[1:34:25] you for extension. But if that extension
[1:34:28] isn't expressly um submitted in writing
[1:34:32] before that July 15th that would be a
[1:34:34] default and then there would be 30 days
[1:34:37] to return full funds. So if we vote for
[1:34:39] this tonight, then it's automatic return
[1:34:42] funds.
[1:34:43] >> Yes. If there's default, if she
[1:34:46] >> That's what I meant. If there's a
[1:34:47] default
[1:34:49] once this agreement is is
[1:34:53] >> executed, what we vote for and it's
[1:34:55] executed, then if there won't be coming
[1:34:58] back to us to ask for an extension.
[1:35:00] >> Correct. And and if you look at the the
[1:35:02] attachment, so it's the three-page
[1:35:04] attachment on item three, it says
[1:35:06] default unless the county commission
[1:35:08] approves a written extension failure to
[1:35:10] any milestone identifi identified in
[1:35:13] section two by the required deadline. It
[1:35:15] is considered a material default. Um and
[1:35:18] that means that we would be able to seek
[1:35:21] um the terms uh including the repayment
[1:35:23] and clawback. One of the other things
[1:35:26] that was said during the last meeting
[1:35:28] was that there was never an obligation
[1:35:29] to open the business. That's not true.
[1:35:32] In the uh in all of the documents and
[1:35:34] original documents, there was the
[1:35:36] requirement to open and in fact she put
[1:35:39] reopen the cafe. Um she had even more
[1:35:42] than just the cafe. There was a um
[1:35:46] sandstone time I can't remember what
[1:35:49] >> sundial Thank you. Sundials. there was
[1:35:52] going to be a five for five event and it
[1:35:54] looks like from the additional
[1:35:55] documentation that she provided to Mark,
[1:35:57] there has been a lot of work that's done
[1:35:58] out there with the White House building,
[1:36:01] the original cafe landscaping, a lot of
[1:36:04] those things have been done, but we're
[1:36:06] trying to reallocate efforts um to be
[1:36:09] directed at the beginning stages of the
[1:36:11] site plan and going through that
[1:36:12] process. And so what Chrissy's drafted
[1:36:15] is a really good walkthrough of all the
[1:36:17] obligations that she has written in
[1:36:19] plain English so that everybody knows
[1:36:20] what's expected of her and what the
[1:36:22] county expects from us. We will work
[1:36:24] with her as best we can to achieve all
[1:36:27] the milestones. Um she has access to uh
[1:36:32] John and Andrew's team and the building
[1:36:34] department. Everybody has done a
[1:36:36] wonderful job of being willing to sit
[1:36:37] down. We've had commissioner sit down in
[1:36:39] my office sit down. So this is the best
[1:36:42] we could possibly do to provide her all
[1:36:45] of the support necessary to be able to
[1:36:47] go forward on the project.
[1:36:49] >> So Stephen, so for example, a is that
[1:36:52] the site plan should be submitted by
[1:36:54] July 15th. And if that does not happen,
[1:36:57] then that's an immediate fallback and it
[1:36:59] won't come before us. That'll just
[1:37:02] >> we don't we don't have the ability to
[1:37:03] sue without permission. It'll be a
[1:37:06] conversation.
[1:37:06] >> Okay. But that's basically that's our
[1:37:08] first
[1:37:09] >> that's yeah that's what we're going to
[1:37:10] do because what we've
[1:37:13] you know I can't say what has been said
[1:37:15] in the past but it has been our
[1:37:17] intention from the attorney's office to
[1:37:19] bring forward cases and claims whenever
[1:37:22] we feel they're appropriate but to make
[1:37:24] the decision to to sue or to take action
[1:37:27] has to be done with the permission and
[1:37:28] approval from the commission. So, we
[1:37:31] think that we've done through this year
[1:37:33] uh the best efforts and intents of the
[1:37:35] commission to make sure that this
[1:37:36] individual complies with the start grant
[1:37:38] and the original intent. That's why we
[1:37:40] met with them in January. We're just
[1:37:42] really hoping that the commission
[1:37:44] understands I will bring this back to
[1:37:46] you all and say this person has or has
[1:37:50] not completed the obligations and this
[1:37:52] is again we're making it very clear to
[1:37:55] both us and the applicant what the
[1:37:58] expectations are.
[1:38:00] Brian,
[1:38:01] >> um I got two questions. So, the first
[1:38:04] one is the um application. Is that where
[1:38:09] the uh uh uh intent to open was listed
[1:38:12] or was it in the actual contract or was
[1:38:14] it in both?
[1:38:15] >> It was in it was in both. The original
[1:38:17] contract referenced the application.
[1:38:19] >> So, it did it did include that and make
[1:38:20] that as part of the
[1:38:21] >> Yes. And they're both attached. The
[1:38:23] original contract's attached and so is
[1:38:25] the her um application are both
[1:38:28] attached. must dismiss and I didn't see
[1:38:30] where that was where the application was
[1:38:31] included as part of the contract
[1:38:33] >> application is included as part of I
[1:38:34] think it's called attachment B is the
[1:38:36] application and it's incorporated I
[1:38:38] believe in like the section I might have
[1:38:41] missed it I just wanted just to clarify
[1:38:43] the chat was that and then second
[1:38:47] um would it be possible under three on
[1:38:50] default to take the unless the county
[1:38:52] commission approves a written extension
[1:38:54] basically just signifying that there
[1:38:56] that we're not that we're not going to
[1:38:57] issue an extension
[1:38:59] If the timelines are not met,
[1:39:01] >> I think there the only way I mean we can remove that. We're just trying to
[1:39:06] make it
[1:39:08] I I think there are certain
[1:39:09] circumstances like say for example she
[1:39:12] provides the site plan to us. Let's say
[1:39:14] she gets to the 14th and she goes
[1:39:16] through and meets a lot of the
[1:39:17] obligations. But let's say for example
[1:39:20] she doesn't get the business license but
[1:39:22] thinks she can get it instead of
[1:39:23] December 1st on December 6th. Do you
[1:39:26] guys do you guys want us to come back
[1:39:28] and say, "Hey, you know, hey, you missed
[1:39:30] December 1st, cancel the whole thing,
[1:39:32] clown back the money." I think there are
[1:39:34] certain circumstances in which we we
[1:39:36] could have a conversation about the
[1:39:37] extension. We're asking to leave that a
[1:39:40] little bit flexible. We don't want to
[1:39:42] have to come back to the commission for
[1:39:44] every little thing. That's the
[1:39:46] information to give a little bit more
[1:39:47] time. I would point out that um in
[1:39:49] section six it does reference in here
[1:39:52] that this amendment constitutes the
[1:39:54] final extension of the agreement.
[1:39:56] >> Yeah.
[1:39:56] >> Um that language was purposeful to I
[1:39:59] think alleviate what you're actually
[1:40:01] asking.
[1:40:04] » Has a motion been put forth in that I I
[1:40:08] move to approve the first amendment to
[1:40:09] the sustainable and resilient star
[1:40:11] business grant contract between Grant
[1:40:13] County and ABC Thompson LLC.
[1:40:17] Second.
[1:40:17] >> Okay.
[1:40:19] Any other com discussion? Go ahead,
[1:40:23] Jacques.
[1:40:23] >> No, thank you guys for working on this.
[1:40:25] I think this is super fair, more than
[1:40:26] fair, and um I very much look forward to
[1:40:29] a resolution one way or the other on
[1:40:31] this. So, appreciate it.
[1:40:34] >> Okay, we'll go ahead and call for a
[1:40:36] vote. Those in favor
[1:40:38] and that passes 60 with one absentee
[1:40:42] she
[1:40:45] » All right.
[1:40:47] time that run.
[1:40:48] >> Um, number eight is amending the CIB
[1:40:50] list to add a planning grant for the MAR
[1:40:52] information center which is the M they
[1:40:54] call it for remodel and or rebuild.
[1:40:58] I'm going to turn this over to Mark to
[1:41:01] talk about
[1:41:04] » we had talked about the possibility of
[1:41:06] applying for a CB grant for a
[1:41:08] feasibility study u at the M if we
[1:41:13] wanted to do a total revamp of that of
[1:41:16] that facility. Um
[1:41:19] my recommendation is if we are only
[1:41:22] looking at restrooms to possibly forego
[1:41:25] this until we get to a point that we
[1:41:28] need to do a total rehab of that
[1:41:30] building.
[1:41:33] » So this this item is just to just to put
[1:41:36] it in front of the CIB, right?
[1:41:39] >> I'll I'll give you a little background
[1:41:41] on this. So obviously we we know that uh
[1:41:43] the McBths have been
[1:41:45] >> Yeah.
[1:41:46] important and it's been a long long run
[1:41:49] with it. Um
[1:41:51] there's there's been some discussion on
[1:41:53] possibly moving the mob office of
[1:41:55] tourism over to that building and
[1:41:58] expanding it and and making bigger. So
[1:41:59] when we're talking an agenda review, we
[1:42:02] thought, well, if we approve bathrooms
[1:42:04] and spend $200,000 on bathrooms and then
[1:42:06] we do a remodel, is that just a waste of
[1:42:08] money? And so maybe we could go ahead
[1:42:10] and get a CI grant to see what it would cost us to expand
[1:42:18] it and if the bathrooms would fit in
[1:42:21] that as like phase one and then phase
[1:42:23] two. But I think with some more
[1:42:25] conversation and looking at the lease,
[1:42:27] which we had the leases attached here,
[1:42:29] the MC lease and stuff that we probably
[1:42:32] and and and an agenda review, I really
[1:42:34] wanted to move forward with the
[1:42:35] bathrooms um because it's been a a theme
[1:42:39] time. It's been a long time coming. I
[1:42:41] think it reflects poorly on our
[1:42:42] community. Those bathrooms are well used
[1:42:44] and it's a big maintenance issue for
[1:42:47] Sean. He's always there. And so, I think
[1:42:49] it's kind of went back and forth and so
[1:42:51] we brought it forward to the commission
[1:42:53] to say, "Hey, do we want to do a CIB um
[1:42:57] grant to look at a remodel there or do
[1:43:00] we want to just do the bathrooms?" And I
[1:43:01] think that the vote could go either way
[1:43:03] with that. I think after some more
[1:43:04] discussion and thought, maybe we don't
[1:43:06] want to go on with the CIB and we just
[1:43:08] want to do the bathrooms. But welcome to
[1:43:10] any others discussion, but that's where
[1:43:12] that's all coming from.
[1:43:13] >> So, so basically a vote for the to
[1:43:15] putting it on the CIB is a vote in favor
[1:43:18] of looking at a bigger remodel, probably
[1:43:21] taking more time, more expense, but
[1:43:23] pushing it down the road, whereas a vote
[1:43:24] against it would be more for, hey, let's
[1:43:26] do some of the bathrooms right now
[1:43:28] because they're in dire condition.
[1:43:29] >> Yeah. And I would Yeah, I think we could
[1:43:31] even entertain a motion to do the
[1:43:33] bathrooms.
[1:43:34] >> Yeah,
[1:43:34] >> at this time that's what we want to do.
[1:43:36] So,
[1:43:38] um,
[1:43:39] >> we have a fiscal impact on the bathrooms
[1:43:41] right now
[1:43:42] >> or is that the 40,000?
[1:43:45] >> No, that's right.
[1:43:47] >> Yes,
[1:43:48] >> I can go ahead and speak a little. So,
[1:43:51] um, having talked to folks, the, uh, um,
[1:43:53] the bathrooms from the the state
[1:43:55] contractor, um, were quoted, I think, at
[1:43:58] $200,000 or just a little bit under
[1:44:00] that, $199,000.
[1:44:02] Um, and so for that quote right there,
[1:44:05] um, I believe that Shawn talked with
[1:44:07] the, uh, um, the contractor, the state
[1:44:09] contractor, and they would be willing in
[1:44:12] the contract, I think it said, you know,
[1:44:13] I think you had what, four months, I
[1:44:16] believe it was, to go ahead and act on
[1:44:17] it. but they said that they would still
[1:44:18] honor that that cost right there. Um,
[1:44:21] looking on where these funds could come
[1:44:23] out of, these funds I believe are
[1:44:25] eligible to come out of the rec film and
[1:44:27] convention funds um supporting the
[1:44:29] information center and so we could pull
[1:44:31] the funds from rec film and convention
[1:44:34] to go ahead and do those bathrooms.
[1:44:37] the um idea. I do think that it's
[1:44:40] something that that that would be a wise
[1:44:43] move in the future um to make that to to
[1:44:46] move the Moab Office of Tourism up on
[1:44:48] top of the um the Moab information
[1:44:51] center, but I just don't know if right
[1:44:53] now is exactly the time that we need to
[1:44:54] do it. I think right now I think there's
[1:44:56] a a desperate need for restrooms right
[1:44:58] there. And um and I do like the idea
[1:45:01] that we do still have some wreck film
[1:45:03] and convention money left over um from
[1:45:06] previous years. Um and so I think this
[1:45:09] would be a good use as the the main user
[1:45:11] of those restrooms are tourist. Um we
[1:45:14] could have the tourist actually fund a
[1:45:15] service that they're using.
[1:45:19] >> I have a question for Stephen. Um
[1:45:23] I know I lean towards just fixing the
[1:45:25] bathrooms at this point. I like the idea
[1:45:27] of the remodels of putting it on the CIB
[1:45:30] list. I don't know why we couldn't do
[1:45:32] that then then do the planning even
[1:45:35] after the bathrooms are completed. But
[1:45:38] that's not my question. My question is
[1:45:41] it's not on the agenda to approve the
[1:45:43] money to fix uh bathrooms. It's on the
[1:45:47] agenda to put it on the CIB list. So
[1:45:51] moving forward, Stephen, can we we am I
[1:45:55] right? And we can't really make a motion
[1:45:58] to to spend that money on the bathrooms
[1:46:02] tonight.
[1:46:03] >> No, I mean
[1:46:06] give our we can maybe do a straw poll
[1:46:08] say that is our intent so that we can
[1:46:10] start moving forward forward it
[1:46:13] >> but we'd have to approve it in the next
[1:46:15] meeting. Am I correct?
[1:46:16] >> Correct.
[1:46:17] >> Thank you. Can we put this on the CIB
[1:46:20] list for I'm sorry to let Mike go before
[1:46:25] myself. Go ahead.
[1:46:28] >> Can we I I still like the idea. I think
[1:46:30] it's a great idea to move the office of
[1:46:32] tourism over there and then where that
[1:46:35] would free up that lot and we could, you
[1:46:37] know, I think it's a great idea, but I
[1:46:39] don't know if that fixing the bathroom
[1:46:42] excludes the remodel or going out for
[1:46:45] the bid for uh the grant for the
[1:46:48] planning grant. I I think couldn't we
[1:46:51] put that on the CIB list, but that
[1:46:53] wouldn't mean that cancellation of the
[1:46:55] bathrooms. Well, I kind of feel like we
[1:46:57] would want to wait to do the CIV list
[1:46:59] till let's or do that after we did the
[1:47:02] bathrooms because then the person's
[1:47:03] going to come and do we're going to do a
[1:47:06] >> master plan or you know planning grant
[1:47:09] and that way we'll just hold off and
[1:47:11] maybe think about this for our next CIB
[1:47:13] list.
[1:47:14] >> General, can I Yeah, go ahead.
[1:47:16] >> There's there's a difference between the
[1:47:17] planning grant and the CIB list. The CIB
[1:47:19] list would be for the big budget and and
[1:47:21] Commissioner Winfield, feel free to
[1:47:22] speak to this. you're more familiar with
[1:47:23] it than I am, but the planning grant is
[1:47:26] generally offcycle and can be awarded at
[1:47:28] any time as long as it's less than
[1:47:29] $50,000. And that would deliver just
[1:47:31] simply a plan for the bathrooms. It
[1:47:33] would deliver nothing else. And so that
[1:47:35] is one thing. And then actually getting
[1:47:37] a building if that was the case is a
[1:47:39] different that's the CIB list. So
[1:47:41] there's a difference between the
[1:47:42] planning grant and the actual CIB list.
[1:47:44] Just keep that in mind as well.
[1:47:45] >> But I don't think we're planning a
[1:47:46] planning grant for just bathrooms. No, I
[1:47:48] don't think we need a planning grant for
[1:47:49] bathrooms,
[1:47:51] but we could, if you guys want, attempt
[1:47:54] to put it on a planning grant and then
[1:47:56] have a three or four year timeline to
[1:47:58] actually remodel the building. And I I
[1:48:00] don't know.
[1:48:01] >> That's what I was thinking of because
[1:48:02] the CIB list doesn't obligate us to do
[1:48:05] it right the next time the CIB comes up,
[1:48:08] right? It's when we want to pull pull
[1:48:11] all the information together and create
[1:48:14] the app.
[1:48:14] >> Sure. Sure. I think the intent, and
[1:48:16] correct me if I'm wrong, Chairman
[1:48:17] Campless, but I think the intent was to
[1:48:18] for the put it on the CIB list for a
[1:48:20] planning grant when we were in agenda
[1:48:22] review. Is that correct?
[1:48:23] >> Planning grant for the Moab information
[1:48:25] center like a long-term plan,
[1:48:27] >> which is different than the actual CI
[1:48:28] list.
[1:48:30] >> So, do we need to
[1:48:33] ask
[1:48:35] >> Hey, go ahead, Mike.
[1:48:37] >> Um, this is for Dave here. uh in in
[1:48:42] where it was uh looking to be pulled
[1:48:43] from out of uh red film and convention
[1:48:45] previously restricted funds. Uh do we
[1:48:49] have that balance that would encompass
[1:48:51] the $200,000
[1:48:53] uh on a later discussion about the
[1:48:55] bathrooms let alone the 40,000 now?
[1:48:59] Like do we have that balance in there on
[1:49:01] that?
[1:49:01] >> It was $200,000.
[1:49:03] >> So the recreation TRT recreation film
[1:49:05] and convention.
[1:49:06] >> Yeah, like the previously regulated
[1:49:08] funds. uh my the I did an analysis on
[1:49:10] February 25th um and 2.08 million um is
[1:49:15] my current estimate as to the reserves
[1:49:18] um that could be used for that purpose
[1:49:20] based on when they were collected and
[1:49:21] what's been spent.
[1:49:22] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:49:25] >> So we can either just we can approve
[1:49:29] this or we can deny it or we can
[1:49:33] postpone it and then we can go forward
[1:49:36] and the next meeting we can have the
[1:49:38] bathroom votes.
[1:49:40] Brian has his hand up. Can
[1:49:42] >> I make a suggestion that Yeah. Uh um
[1:49:45] that we table the fe feasibility plan
[1:49:49] and
[1:49:49] >> postpone it unless you want to do it
[1:49:50] today.
[1:49:52] >> Uh postpone it. That's fine. can
[1:49:55] postpone it and then um and then we can
[1:49:57] move to um just give a thumbs up to
[1:49:59] create an RFP because this will have to
[1:50:01] go up for RFP I believe because it's
[1:50:03] over our $50,000
[1:50:06] um state contract
[1:50:08] >> that that's different. So the state
[1:50:10] contractor can just be awarded
[1:50:14] » have to have a vote yeah next meeting
[1:50:15] for that. Yeah, but you guys would have
[1:50:16] to prove these.
[1:50:20] >> I was just making
[1:50:23] » I I have a question for um Stephen and
[1:50:27] maybe collectively do you guys feel that
[1:50:30] it's an appropriate spend out of rec
[1:50:32] film and convention?
[1:50:36] » Uh does this expense serve to solicit
[1:50:38] advertise or market or enhance transient
[1:50:40] guest spending?
[1:50:44] I'm more than happy to create a memo.
[1:50:46] >> That'd be great. That'd be wonderful. I
[1:50:48] just want to make sure that we're
[1:50:50] nowhere near the line as we've discussed
[1:50:52] in the past. That'd be great.
[1:50:56] >> I make a motion that we postpone item
[1:50:59] eight, amending the CIV list to add a
[1:51:02] planning grant for the Moab information
[1:51:04] center.
[1:51:07] >> Second.
[1:51:10] >> I didn't hear you, Mary. I totally was
[1:51:11] looking at you and my brain was like,
[1:51:13] "Can you somewhere else?"
[1:51:16] >> I was somewhere
[1:51:18] taking [laughter] a walk. Um I I me I my
[1:51:23] motion was postponed.
[1:51:24] >> Okay.
[1:51:25] >> So I did ask a question. Did anyone plan
[1:51:28] on answering it or
[1:51:29] >> what did you
[1:51:32] >> Is this expense we thinking that it
[1:51:34] serves to solicit advertise or market or
[1:51:36] enhance transient guest spending?
[1:51:39] >> Stephen was correct.
[1:51:41] So that was Yes. Yes.
[1:51:44] >> Because we have an understanding that
[1:51:45] those funds have to be used in that way.
[1:51:47] Are we acting like we don't know that?
[1:51:51] >> I thought we could use it.
[1:51:55] » Well, the state auditor Tina Cannon was
[1:51:59] quoted saying exactly that that these
[1:52:01] funds have to be used to solicit
[1:52:03] advertise or market or enhance transit
[1:52:05] against spending. So it seems like we've
[1:52:08] forgotten that directive that came
[1:52:09] directly from the state of Albert
[1:52:11] >> and those are the film Americans
[1:52:13] >> film and convention. Yes. The reason we
[1:52:15] gave back $600,000 last year.
[1:52:19] >> So I guess we don't care about now what
[1:52:21] the R thinks about how to use those
[1:52:23] funds or we we forgot about it. That's
[1:52:26] interesting.
[1:52:26] >> I would request the defensible position
[1:52:30] or not.
[1:52:31] >> And I'm I'm happy to draft up a memorial
[1:52:33] position that's coming. Yeah,
[1:52:36] >> right.
[1:52:38] >> I would think that an information center
[1:52:41] would answer your questions right there
[1:52:42] of to solicit market or enhanced transit
[1:52:46] bathroom for an information center.
[1:52:48] >> Well, it's for the information center.
[1:52:49] >> The information center and I believe I'
[1:52:51] I'd have to go ahead and pull it back up
[1:52:53] again.
[1:52:53] >> Okay, [clears throat] great. I'd look
[1:52:55] forward to that uh that you know
[1:52:58] justification.
[1:52:59] >> I have no problem sitting down with it.
[1:53:00] >> Do you have the code in front of you
[1:53:02] right now? The emphasis and intent of
[1:53:03] the code is to bring people from outside
[1:53:06] the county into the county for tourism,
[1:53:07] recreation, film, and conventions. Um,
[1:53:11] and so I think we came to a pretty clear
[1:53:13] understanding that we have to attach
[1:53:15] these any of these expenses has to be
[1:53:17] attached to a marketing campaign to
[1:53:19] directly bring people from outside the
[1:53:21] county into the county to spend funds.
[1:53:24] It's pretty unequivocal. Like I I don't
[1:53:26] know why we're under like why we're
[1:53:28] acting like we have like a new
[1:53:29] understanding now. Oh, okay. Well, I I'm
[1:53:32] offended by this because it's been my
[1:53:34] like my job has been on the line due to
[1:53:36] this stuff.
[1:53:41] » Doc and Bill.
[1:53:42] >> Yeah, I mean there there's nothing I'd
[1:53:44] like more than to spend those those
[1:53:45] funds on this. I think I think it'd be
[1:53:47] great. But as as it's been frequently
[1:53:49] pointed out, I was personally scolded by
[1:53:52] the state auditor along these exact same
[1:53:56] lines. And at the time it was discussed
[1:53:59] that we in this body I think that we we
[1:54:01] don't want to walk up to that line. I
[1:54:04] again there's nothing I'd rather spend
[1:54:05] the money on. I think those bathrooms
[1:54:07] are in dire need and we have million
[1:54:09] bucks of reconvention sitting there. So
[1:54:13] >> it's it's a tough one and I'd appreciate
[1:54:14] the memo from our county attorney.
[1:54:16] >> Yeah.
[1:54:17] >> And I guess I could call point of order
[1:54:19] and then all of our conversation can end
[1:54:21] because we're not doing the bathrooms on
[1:54:22] this vote. We're not doing the bathrooms
[1:54:24] today. So I think that this information
[1:54:25] can come forward
[1:54:27] >> on our next conversation about the
[1:54:29] bathrooms.
[1:54:31] >> Sorry Sharon [laughter]
[1:54:33] >> and thanks Mel for approaching this
[1:54:35] because I know it's it's been brought up
[1:54:37] multiple times and I appreciate you
[1:54:38] taking the whole by the horns on this
[1:54:40] one.
[1:54:40] >> It's affecting our maintenance.
[1:54:42] >> Yeah, it's I think there's a lot of
[1:54:43] things that are being affected by it and
[1:54:45] we'd like to get it resolved but we need
[1:54:46] to make sure that we do it the correct
[1:54:48] way. So we are going to take a vote on
[1:54:51] the postpone. Do we have a second on
[1:54:53] that? I'll second that.
[1:54:54] >> You don't necessarily have to
[1:54:56] >> post one second.
[1:54:56] >> Yeah, we have to postpone it. We can
[1:54:58] just be done with it.
[1:55:01] >> Move along to number nine and that is
[1:55:04] the proposed letter of support policy.
[1:55:06] Oh, this is when discussion mode. I
[1:55:09] think that's all. We're all done with
[1:55:11] our
[1:55:14] action items and we're going to do move
[1:55:16] on to discussion items which is a
[1:55:18] proposed letter of sec policy
[1:55:19] discussion. So com admin has been
[1:55:22] working on this proposed
[1:55:26] policy and it's attached here so we can
[1:55:30] just have a discussion on it if anybody
[1:55:31] has any comments or questions or
[1:55:36] go ahead John.
[1:55:37] >> Thanks Melody and thanks for putting
[1:55:38] this on. It's it's um um I definitely
[1:55:43] appreciate the spirit in which it's
[1:55:45] presented and and I get it at the same
[1:55:49] time. I think having been on this uh
[1:55:51] commission for five and a half years and
[1:55:53] seen a few letters
[1:55:56] on in front of us, it's I would guess we
[1:56:00] get between five and 10 requests for a
[1:56:03] letter support a year. And my overall
[1:56:06] feeling about it is that it's it's not
[1:56:09] an arduous process and it's not broken
[1:56:13] process. Um, I will say that my my
[1:56:16] thinking about this was uh was
[1:56:19] influenced because literally as I was
[1:56:21] reading through this item, a letter came
[1:56:24] through from the museum director asking
[1:56:26] for a letter of support for a um or a
[1:56:31] cooperative advertising grant. Um, and
[1:56:35] that GR he he asked me as the museum
[1:56:38] liaison to what what my opinion was on
[1:56:41] that and and if I could help him with
[1:56:43] that letter of support. Now the the crux
[1:56:46] of it is that the letter support needs
[1:56:48] to be done by um June 10th would require
[1:56:51] obviously there wasn't enough time to
[1:56:52] get it on those commission meetings. So
[1:56:54] it require a you know a the signature
[1:56:57] from the chair and a ratification later
[1:56:59] which and obviously having been chair
[1:57:01] for a while that is absolutely the
[1:57:03] discretion of the chair whether that's
[1:57:05] something that um the chair considers to
[1:57:07] be a uh controversial subject or not.
[1:57:10] But I bring that up because a lot I
[1:57:13] think that's more often the case than
[1:57:15] not is that these letters of support um
[1:57:19] you know most of the the bodies that ask
[1:57:21] for these maybe only meet once a month.
[1:57:23] I think a lot of these come out of our
[1:57:24] committee assignments etc. They come out
[1:57:26] of things like motorized trail committee
[1:57:28] or trail mix or the museum and and
[1:57:31] they're timely and there's frequently
[1:57:34] not you know it's like hey we need
[1:57:35] something in the next five or six days
[1:57:38] if possible. Um, so that I'm just uh
[1:57:44] wondering about a provision for that or going forward where it might kill it
[1:57:49] if we have to go through the the whole
[1:57:51] formal process is outlined here. And and
[1:57:53] again, I'm just opening that up for
[1:57:54] discussion as something that that
[1:57:55] occurred to me while I was reading that
[1:57:57] because it was it was very odd that not
[1:58:00] as I was reading this agenda item, a
[1:58:02] letter of support.
[1:58:02] >> Yeah. Well, it it gives 15 days, which I
[1:58:05] think that that would allow it to go on
[1:58:07] to the commission because that is the
[1:58:08] issue, Jac 100%. And all the ones I
[1:58:11] signed this year were not signed because
[1:58:14] I didn't know if they'd be controversial
[1:58:16] and I had to send them back and say,
[1:58:17] "I'm sorry, I'm not these." Because
[1:58:20] they're coming at it last minute. And I
[1:58:21] would think that if you're complying for
[1:58:22] a grant in general, you would know 15
[1:58:26] days prior to the grant application
[1:58:29] being due that you were going to need a
[1:58:30] letter of support. So, I think it's just
[1:58:32] pushing that back on those um entities
[1:58:34] that are wanting letter support from the
[1:58:36] county to be a little bit more prepared
[1:58:38] to know what they want and to come and
[1:58:40] ask for it. That gives us that gives the
[1:58:42] com the county more time to be prepared
[1:58:44] as well to make sure okay, is this
[1:58:47] conflicting with any grant that we're
[1:58:48] looking at as a county? Um it allows us
[1:58:51] to bring it forth to the whole
[1:58:53] commission and have a conversation about
[1:58:54] it if if it is something. So, it really
[1:58:57] protects the entity that's asking for it
[1:59:00] and the county. I think it's a it's a
[1:59:01] win-win for both. I know it
[1:59:04] >> requires them to be a little bit more um
[1:59:06] prepared because I got that same request
[1:59:08] today. I saw it and it's you know the
[1:59:10] 10th it's due. So that's eight days from
[1:59:12] now. Um and that's including weekend. So
[1:59:15] that doesn't really give us a lot of
[1:59:16] time and the same as quite a few of them
[1:59:18] that we've had this year have all been
[1:59:20] like I need this in two days and that
[1:59:22] just isn't enough time. I mean, even as
[1:59:26] a chair, I mean, I'm not always
[1:59:27] available in two days to to read it to check with the all the other entities
[1:59:31] that may be going forward or or check
[1:59:33] with our department. So, I see value in
[1:59:36] this. I think 15 days is is really
[1:59:38] reasonable. Um, but I discussion. Th
[1:59:43] those are awesome points, Melody, and I definitely agree, but I do there
[1:59:46] are t like would it be disqualifying if
[1:59:49] say something like this came up? Like,
[1:59:51] you know, I mean, grants, a lot of these
[1:59:53] entities, especially nonprofits and
[1:59:55] such, are pretty they're they're they're
[1:59:56] extremely busy and a grant might just
[1:59:58] come to light, you know, maybe a week
[2:00:00] ahead of time and they're they're
[2:00:02] struggling to to procure this money.
[2:00:05] Would it understand would there be a
[2:00:07] provision whereby
[2:00:09] it could still happen if if the 15 days
[2:00:12] wasn't um you know was wasn't possible
[2:00:16] for that entity
[2:00:18] >> I don't know
[2:00:21] about it you have a comment
[2:00:23] >> well I I see where Jacques is coming
[2:00:25] from if we have those but is there a
[2:00:28] mechanism already that we can just pass
[2:00:31] I mean I didn't read the museum one I
[2:00:34] haven't yet but certainly it's not that
[2:00:38] we do it on a regular basis is contact
[2:00:41] each other for hey are you supportive of
[2:00:43] this is it and for me I'd have to say I
[2:00:46] didn't even read it yet to go look at it
[2:00:48] >> I understand that
[2:00:49] >> but I think we have that option already
[2:00:51] amongst ourselves I don't know about
[2:00:53] this specific one but we have on other
[2:00:56] ones and then ask the chair to sign them
[2:00:59] and we ratify them later but I think
[2:01:02] that we're not out line asking other
[2:01:05] commissioners what their thought.
[2:01:08] So I I see an avenue already exists to
[2:01:11] get around this when we do have I don't
[2:01:13] want to say an emergency but uh we need
[2:01:16] this right now add something in there to
[2:01:19] the prerogative of the chair. I mean,
[2:01:21] you know, we could add that language
[2:01:23] like this is our expectation
[2:01:25] >> for the people that are asking for a
[2:01:28] letter of support from the county, but
[2:01:29] there could be a exception which would
[2:01:32] be the progative of the of the chair.
[2:01:34] And then at that point, for example,
[2:01:36] we're just using sorry museum. We're
[2:01:38] just as an example
[2:01:40] >> example because you just came in. But um
[2:01:42] you know, if it was close to that
[2:01:44] deadline and you called me because
[2:01:46] you're the liazison for that or called
[2:01:47] the chair. Doesn't have to be a paper.
[2:01:49] Um and and then I and then we did that
[2:01:51] straw pull of like, oh yeah, we're going
[2:01:53] to go ahead and and do this. So maybe we
[2:01:54] could add that caveat in there, but we
[2:01:56] do want to we don't we want to
[2:01:58] streamline these. We want to have a
[2:01:59] little bit more um information there.
[2:02:02] That could be Go ahead, Brian.
[2:02:04] >> Yeah, sorry. I wasn't I wasn't fully
[2:02:06] engaged right there. I was looking up
[2:02:07] the uh previous the previous thing
[2:02:10] because I do have information to bring
[2:02:12] back and I'll bring that up maybe after
[2:02:14] this agenda item right here just to
[2:02:17] commission's knowledge. But yeah, I was
[2:02:18] the one who brought this forward. Um
[2:02:20] we're seeing a couple of different
[2:02:21] things. So, first off, we're getting uh
[2:02:24] um the Department of Outdoor Recreation
[2:02:26] has added the Office of Tourism as a
[2:02:29] signer for letters. now. Um, and the
[2:02:32] reason that they did that was for
[2:02:34] certain certain uh grants, but then they
[2:02:37] also say you can have basically the land
[2:02:39] management agency, the office of tourism
[2:02:42] or the commission. So, when folks see
[2:02:44] that they have to bring something
[2:02:45] forward, they're like, who is the
[2:02:47] easiest person for me to get this letter
[2:02:49] of support and they're going to the
[2:02:50] office of tourism? And that's not fair
[2:02:52] on our staff, right? Our staff shouldn't
[2:02:54] be placed in that position to where they
[2:02:56] have to make a decision on if they
[2:02:58] support something or if they do not. So
[2:03:00] this this was part of the reason that I brought this forward and asked uh
[2:03:04] commission uh administrator Tiner to
[2:03:07] help us out to get a policy in place.
[2:03:09] The second is is it has become not the
[2:03:11] exception but it has become the standard
[2:03:14] from my perception that letters of
[2:03:16] support have been brought to the
[2:03:17] commission and they are they're they're
[2:03:20] people's emergencies, right? Oh, I I
[2:03:22] just noticed I need to have this signed
[2:03:23] to get onto this grant right here. And
[2:03:25] this grant is so important. And I
[2:03:26] understand if it's the exception, but it it's not become the exception. It's it's it happens almost happen
[2:03:32] stance every day. Um now for I think you
[2:03:36] know when I when I was looking at that,
[2:03:37] I'd like to make you know maybe a small
[2:03:39] change on that is to make sure that it's
[2:03:41] for you know for our staff of course we
[2:03:43] want to make sure that we give them all
[2:03:44] the leniency as possible. But for people
[2:03:47] who are outside of Grand County, I do
[2:03:50] think that there should be a solid rule
[2:03:52] that they come to the county and that
[2:03:54] gives us time to make sure that it fits
[2:03:56] in with our future plans of how we want
[2:03:58] to see the county, right? Because it's
[2:03:59] it it's also unfair to us when someone
[2:04:02] brings us a letter and we don't have
[2:04:03] time to really see how that fits in the
[2:04:06] whole thing. You know, we have all kinds
[2:04:07] of these structures. We have an outdoor
[2:04:09] rec subcommittee that's set up, right?
[2:04:11] We have an office of tourism. You know,
[2:04:13] we have all these boards and committees.
[2:04:15] And I think it's it's just fair that we we honor that process as well by
[2:04:19] bringing these letters and saying, "Hey,
[2:04:20] does this fit in with this board's
[2:04:22] purpose? Does this fit in over here?"
[2:04:24] So, and and and it stinks because, you
[2:04:27] know, a lot of these things we're all
[2:04:28] like, "Yeah, I definitely support that,
[2:04:30] right?" Like, I totally support the
[2:04:32] museum going and getting this grant,
[2:04:33] right? But it would be nice if we were
[2:04:35] able to bring that to the MTA board and
[2:04:37] say, "Hey, MTA, like you guys are, you
[2:04:39] know, the, you know, the folks that
[2:04:41] we've chosen to help us with our
[2:04:42] marketing, right? like can what what is
[2:04:44] your opinion on that? Um, so that's kind of where this came from. And once again, it's I I want to make
[2:04:50] sure that we have room for the
[2:04:52] exception, right? But I don't want the
[2:04:53] exception to be the rule, which has been
[2:04:55] my experience here so far on the
[2:04:57] commission.
[2:04:59] >> Trish, Brian, that helps a lot to
[2:05:01] understand kind of what your thought
[2:05:03] processes or the background and having
[2:05:05] that thought process process in order. I
[2:05:07] appreciate it. Um, I'm I'm supportive of
[2:05:10] that. I do think we need to have a
[2:05:12] little bit of flex in there and I know I
[2:05:13] agree. you put a little bit of flex and
[2:05:15] then you're worried that everybody's
[2:05:16] going to take it and run with it. But I think putting in there, Mel, something
[2:05:20] like that's prerogative of the chair.
[2:05:23] Any something that just gives a little
[2:05:25] bit of leniency will help for those that
[2:05:27] are up against deadlines that Yeah.
[2:05:30] maybe they didn't realize they were
[2:05:32] pushed up against.
[2:05:33] >> Okay.
[2:05:35] >> And I'm good with that, too. I wonder
[2:05:37] also as far as um disseminating this
[2:05:39] information like like getting it out to
[2:05:41] folks. We get we get letters of support
[2:05:43] out of out of left field sometimes and
[2:05:45] all kinds of organizations. So just
[2:05:46] making it making it easy for people to
[2:05:48] un you know find where our policy on
[2:05:50] this is like maybe sending a letter out
[2:05:52] to all the nonprofits in town or I don't
[2:05:54] know that
[2:05:54] >> I think that we need to definitely send
[2:05:56] this once we decide that [clears throat]
[2:05:57] this is what we're going to do. We need
[2:05:58] to send it out to spe you know if we can
[2:06:00] look at who we sent letters of support
[2:06:02] to recently and just all the nonprofits
[2:06:05] so that they have that this at the
[2:06:06] forefront of you know expectation when
[2:06:08] they start reading their grant.
[2:06:11] >> Go ahead. Uh, Commissioners Martinez and
[2:06:13] Haden, you'll help me recall the
[2:06:15] institute that came [snorts] down. What
[2:06:17] was the name of that agency? Nonprofit
[2:06:19] alliance
[2:06:21] likely you could provide whatever letter
[2:06:23] to
[2:06:24] >> write the letter to them and they'll all
[2:06:26] the different nonprofits they had like
[2:06:28] 75 I can't remember
[2:06:30] >> the 75% of the nonprofits in this
[2:06:32] community already a part of that agency.
[2:06:34] >> Yeah, that's perfect. And then just
[2:06:36] maybe in that letter that we kind of put
[2:06:37] out, just let folks know that most of
[2:06:39] the time when they're going to be
[2:06:40] applying for grants that they're going
[2:06:42] to need letters of support. So to make
[2:06:43] sure that if they're thinking that, hey,
[2:06:45] we're going to need money for something
[2:06:46] that they keep that in the forefront of
[2:06:48] we probably should go ahead and get our
[2:06:50] letter of support into the county so
[2:06:52] that we can get that process started.
[2:06:54] >> Yeah. That and that local agency or that
[2:06:56] state agency could probably be very very
[2:06:58] helpful on communicating some of these
[2:06:59] issues to the nonprofits.
[2:07:01] >> Yeah.
[2:07:02] >> Can I just give an anecdote if you don't
[2:07:04] mind? So, I was doing that UR grant and
[2:07:06] I think there was 83 cells to fill out
[2:07:09] and the letters of support are some of
[2:07:11] the last ones. And yes, it would have
[2:07:12] made sense for me to look through the
[2:07:14] whole thing and go, okay, start this
[2:07:15] before this, but I'm very one of these
[2:07:17] like start with number one, right? And
[2:07:19] so by the time I get to 83 or whatever,
[2:07:22] let's say 80. And now, you know, my time
[2:07:25] frame because I think it was January to
[2:07:27] March is that time frame. And it is
[2:07:30] amazing how fast that time goes, right?
[2:07:32] like when you're just kind of plugging
[2:07:33] away doing your other, you know, you're
[2:07:35] the same way, three jobs or whatever
[2:07:37] you're doing. Um, so I I I have some
[2:07:40] empathy and understanding for for where
[2:07:42] people are coming from. But yeah,
[2:07:44] >> no, but [clears throat] it's smart to
[2:07:46] >> look at it holistically and go, okay,
[2:07:48] start that before that.
[2:07:50] >> So I assume we'd polish this up a little
[2:07:52] bit and then I would come back for the
[2:07:56] >> review as well. So, if you guys have any
[2:07:58] comments that you want to email um to
[2:08:01] Mark because he's been working on this.
[2:08:03] So, maybe to Mark and then we can get it
[2:08:06] polished up and bring it back before us
[2:08:07] for a vote to to do that. Okay. Is was
[2:08:10] there another comment here?
[2:08:12] >> I'll speak with Mark about it. It's open
[2:08:14] to
[2:08:14] >> Okay, Brian.
[2:08:16] >> Um can I add just a quick discussion
[2:08:17] item or a clarification to a previous
[2:08:21] item that was on the agenda?
[2:08:23] >> Sure.
[2:08:24] >> Okay. So, um, so first off, I I I do not
[2:08:27] appreciate the clip auditor attacking.
[2:08:29] Um, and as as noted, he's not here
[2:08:31] anymore. Um, I did ask for an extra
[2:08:34] second to actually go through and review
[2:08:36] the uh uh the documents. So, I do have
[2:08:39] it right here. I took me a second to
[2:08:40] pull it up. So, establishing and
[2:08:41] promoting number two, recil convention
[2:08:44] end right here. So, number B right here
[2:08:47] is convention meeting rooms, exhibit
[2:08:49] halls, visitor information centers. It's
[2:08:51] specifically listed in the legislation.
[2:08:54] And then to go through just to make sure
[2:08:56] that I was not was not falsely stated, I
[2:08:58] also have the email here to uh um county
[2:09:02] attorney stalks where I clarified that was his legal interpretation of it
[2:09:06] right here. Um so I just want to let
[2:09:08] folks know that I was not stepping out
[2:09:09] saying getting close to the line. Trish,
[2:09:12] I'm glad to hear that that that you also
[2:09:14] respect that that we need Yeah. Yeah.
[2:09:15] that we need to stay away from the line,
[2:09:17] but I did do the research on that when I
[2:09:19] made that statement. So I just wanted to
[2:09:21] clarify that. Thank you for the
[2:09:22] opportunity.
[2:09:23] >> Brian, is that from the is that from
[2:09:24] this version of TRT or the previous one?
[2:09:27] >> There is no reconvention in this TRT. So
[2:09:30] this is the previous and so I I've taken
[2:09:32] it right here and I got it all
[2:09:33] highlighted right here in this little
[2:09:34] document. Send it over to uh uh County
[2:09:37] attorneys and then his reply was is that
[2:09:39] his reading was the same as mine right
[2:09:41] here in this email. And I can forward
[2:09:42] that to the commission as well.
[2:09:44] >> Will you? Because I'm sure this
[2:09:45] conversation is going to come back up
[2:09:46] again.
[2:09:47] >> Absolutely. And as we move into our
[2:09:50] budget amendments coming into mid year,
[2:09:52] which we're scheduled to do, I'm sure
[2:09:53] that between this and also the OTAA um
[2:09:59] it was the uh fire the fire hydrant
[2:10:01] system would also I think be included in
[2:10:03] this. So these will be conversations
[2:10:04] that I'll want to make sure that we
[2:10:06] bring up that we bring up when we're
[2:10:08] doing our midyear amendments right then.
[2:10:09] So
[2:10:11] >> Mike,
[2:10:11] >> uh those conversations will come up in
[2:10:13] those midyear uh amendments. And just to
[2:10:16] clarify for the public what we're
[2:10:18] talking about uh as previously stated
[2:10:21] two 2.1 million give or take uh dollars
[2:10:27] of previously uh regulated underneath
[2:10:32] >> correct so previous uh it was previous
[2:10:34] TRT uh regulated funds that we have
[2:10:38] banked.
[2:10:39] >> Yeah. So in in fund 47 there is a
[2:10:41] reserve account and so we're talking
[2:10:43] about the composition of what's inside
[2:10:45] of that reserve account right there.
[2:10:48] >> This is not current funds.
[2:10:50] >> Yeah. And then under current TRT law,
[2:10:52] right, you're only allowed to have one
[2:10:54] reserve account. So the accounting on it
[2:10:56] is I I would say it's got to be a
[2:10:58] nightmare trying to keep up with all of
[2:11:00] the different um you know changes that
[2:11:03] have been made and how that account has
[2:11:05] actually been applied. So, you know, I
[2:11:07] do understand that that's a very
[2:11:08] difficult thing to to come up with the
[2:11:10] composition of the account, but that's
[2:11:12] what we're talking about is there are
[2:11:14] some different there are some different
[2:11:15] funds that are identified in the fund 47
[2:11:19] reserve account that might have a couple
[2:11:20] of the
[2:11:24] » All right, we are going to move on to a
[2:11:26] workshop and it's going the policies and
[2:11:29] procedures of the governing body and I
[2:11:31] think we want to do six o'clock 65. Oh
[2:11:34] yeah, six o'clock citizens to be here.
[2:11:36] Sorry about that. And I might even take
[2:11:38] five minute break because this could be
[2:11:40] a discussion,
[2:11:42] but we'll start with the citizens of
[2:11:44] her. Do we have anyone?
[2:11:46] >> Do you want to talk? No, let's see.
[2:11:48] Anybody online?
[2:11:49] >> No, that's all for Andrew.
[2:11:51] >> Andrew. [clears throat]
[2:11:53] [laughter]
[2:11:55] All right, we're gonna So six o'clock
[2:11:57] citizens be heard. We don't have
[2:11:58] anybody. We are going to take just a
[2:12:00] five minute break and then we're going
[2:12:01] to come back to our workshop. I could
[2:12:03] wait
[2:17:15] Okay, we are revening after a five
[2:17:18] minute break for the workshop. It's
[2:17:21] number 10 on the agenda, the policies
[2:17:23] and procedures of the governing body. I
[2:17:25] think Quinn's going to bring those up on
[2:17:27] the screen so that we can
[2:17:28] >> Oh, that would make it so that would
[2:17:30] make
[2:17:30] >> Yeah, we have them printed out, too.
[2:17:32] >> Excellent. But we also gonna have this
[2:17:34] would be nice because this is
[2:17:37] >> sometimes
[2:17:37] >> well I just appreciate the red lines and
[2:17:39] the comments that really helps a lot
[2:17:41] because I was like
[2:17:42] >> did I make my comments and then they
[2:17:44] just got erased and I was like but no
[2:17:46] this is I
[2:17:48] >> yeah it's a little tiny but okay it's
[2:17:50] perfect. So, we're just going to start
[2:17:52] on page one and go through some of
[2:17:55] these. We have a five.
[2:17:58] >> Um, we're going to do we're going to
[2:17:59] talk about it for 30 minutes.
[2:18:02] >> Very good. If we
[2:18:04] >> Yeah.
[2:18:04] >> 45ish, we'll move into our close
[2:18:07] session. So,
[2:18:08] >> Okay. Okay. So, our first one is
[2:18:13] some changes on the um table of
[2:18:17] contents. I don't think there's any
[2:18:21] issues there.
[2:18:24] And moving on to page
[2:18:27] six
[2:18:29] is
[2:18:31] still just table of context.
[2:18:35] Page seven is the start.
[2:18:41] » And how do you guys I mean do you want
[2:18:43] me to read these? There's no comments on
[2:18:45] any of these. So
[2:18:46] >> to read I think it's Let's go page by
[2:18:49] page and maybe if anybody wants
[2:18:50] >> Yeah. If there's anything Yeah. But
[2:18:51] there when there's no comments on the
[2:18:53] side, we won't I'll just if you guys
[2:18:55] want to interrupt me. So on page seven
[2:18:58] of the policies of proced introduction,
[2:19:01] there's just some changes. A lot of it
[2:19:03] just
[2:19:05] >> um
[2:19:08] page eight
[2:19:12] on this page. put down the top.
[2:19:23] I don't know. I mean, I'm the one who
[2:19:26] made that comment, I guess. I don't
[2:19:28] know. Like, I I actually I did not use
[2:19:31] AI, but I did kind of just go out and
[2:19:33] looked up other websites and how they
[2:19:35] defined county administrator. And so, this is county administration.
[2:19:40] So, that's the only thing I want to
[2:19:41] point out to you. I I'm in agreement
[2:19:43] with what you you're a county
[2:19:45] administrator. Okay.
[2:19:47] >> But the actual uh number 12 is the
[2:19:50] commission administration.
[2:19:51] >> I didn't catch that.
[2:19:51] >> So this is like the the body of them is
[2:19:54] how I read it.
[2:19:55] >> Okay.
[2:19:56] >> I don't know. I mean it's that's that is
[2:19:58] how it
[2:19:58] >> read. Yeah. So it's it's actually about
[2:20:00] the entire you know that commission.
[2:20:03] It's the three of them and how they are
[2:20:05] they work together. Yeah. Um, I don't
[2:20:08] know if there's a spot where we define
[2:20:10] the We'll keep going. We have a spot we
[2:20:12] define the county administrator. Maybe
[2:20:14] we can come back to that comment.
[2:20:15] >> Oh, sorry. I didn't catch. That's my
[2:20:17] bad.
[2:20:17] >> Yeah, just I was reading that today. I
[2:20:19] was like, I think that's um So,
[2:20:21] department head staff.
[2:20:23] >> These do a lot of reading and editing.
[2:20:25] Just so you
[2:20:26] >> It's a lot of reading. I read the whole
[2:20:27] thing. I
[2:20:29] >> Well, just
[2:20:32] so number now we're on page nine.
[2:20:36] I made I made the comment on number two
[2:20:38] and I think I think they comment on
[2:20:39] three of the whating should have been
[2:20:41] made takes care of that. I just don't
[2:20:43] think it should be
[2:20:45] um it's just like I like I said in there
[2:20:48] math doesn't work out and uh I think I
[2:20:50] think everyone may have the opportunity.
[2:20:52] >> What it said before was the commission
[2:20:54] shall make its best effort to elect or
[2:20:56] appoint a different commission member as
[2:20:58] chair each year.
[2:20:59] >> Yeah. And I think that the comm admin
[2:21:02] put in there that each commissioner
[2:21:07] Yeah. should or may and maybe it needs
[2:21:08] to say each commissioner
[2:21:12] may have the opportunity to serve as
[2:21:14] chair or vice chair within their charity
[2:21:16] because of course saying the math
[2:21:18] doesn't that's a that's a great
[2:21:20] addition.
[2:21:21] >> So he said I'm the one who
[2:21:23] >> comments don't how do you want to are
[2:21:26] you guys going to write it down on your
[2:21:27] paper? I'm just going to write down. So
[2:21:29] I think on number one on the commission
[2:21:31] members with the appointment of the
[2:21:35] chair and the vice chair. I mean I do
[2:21:37] like the word should because
[2:21:40] if we all made a concerted effort to to
[2:21:43] make a new person be the chair or vice
[2:21:46] chair within the term of office versus
[2:21:49] may I mean not necessarily that they
[2:21:51] want to have it. I mean, some people
[2:21:52] maybe don't want to be the chair, the
[2:21:53] vice chair, but we we they should be
[2:21:56] able to have the opportunity. I don't
[2:21:58] know. I'm I'm I'm partial. Go ahead.
[2:22:01] >> I'm just curious. So,
[2:22:06] this So, would it still be voted on? It
[2:22:08] would still be.
[2:22:11] >> Okay.
[2:22:13] Anybody that Yeah, you can ask.
[2:22:15] >> I use the word may, but
[2:22:18] I'm obviously not shackled to it.
[2:22:20] >> Yeah. I definitely think we need to add
[2:22:22] >> Steven though would really love to
[2:22:24] >> I think we need to definitely add chair
[2:22:27] question
[2:22:28] >> or vice chair
[2:22:31] that way
[2:22:33] >> everyone could have a turn that wanted
[2:22:34] to have a term
[2:22:35] >> yeah and really I look at these their
[2:22:38] recommendations
[2:22:39] >> yeah ultimately there's nothing that's
[2:22:42] >> and then are we we've never should imply
[2:22:44] obligation may is permissive
[2:22:46] >> so may
[2:22:47] >> let's put may
[2:22:48] >> depends what you want
[2:22:49] >> well I don't I mean there's not an
[2:22:50] obligation to serve as a chair vice
[2:22:52] chair. Right.
[2:22:53] >> Well, my question is, are we taking away
[2:22:55] the power of the vote?
[2:22:57] >> Definitely not. That's that's what we
[2:22:58] should not
[2:22:59] >> That's what it feels like a little bit.
[2:23:01] >> Exactly. So,
[2:23:03] >> anyway, but the word may would make it
[2:23:04] not feel so
[2:23:06] >> so may. So, each commissioner may have
[2:23:08] the opportunity to serve as chair or
[2:23:10] vice chair within their terminal office.
[2:23:13] >> Panelist.
[2:23:13] >> Yes.
[2:23:14] >> Dana's gonna just rewatch the meeting
[2:23:16] and capture all the comments. So, you
[2:23:17] guys feel free to
[2:23:18] >> Okay.
[2:23:19] >> And then one more point. I don't think
[2:23:20] since I've been on we've never voted for
[2:23:22] a chair pref would this add in a vote so
[2:23:24] that that would be a third vote at the
[2:23:27] beginning
[2:23:27] >> they're both not here
[2:23:28] >> right yeah
[2:23:30] >> well what we did last one time when
[2:23:32] there were both chairs were we post we
[2:23:35] >> we did it was yeah and it was Kevin took
[2:23:37] over
[2:23:38] >> No when you and I went to
[2:23:40] >> No you and Gabe were actually in
[2:23:42] leadership and you went to a summit and
[2:23:44] then Kevin took over but we I think we
[2:23:47] voted on that at the meeting
[2:23:51] Yeah, Stephen has a comment. Let's see.
[2:23:54] >> In this context, you probably want the
[2:23:55] word should. Here's why. And I mean,
[2:23:58] otherwise, it's it's an obvious
[2:23:59] statement. Each comm well, and it's
[2:24:01] actually not necessarily true, but may.
[2:24:04] If you say each commissioner may have
[2:24:07] the opportunity to serve, well, that's
[2:24:08] always been the case. That's stating the
[2:24:10] obvious. So, it doesn't increase or
[2:24:12] change anything. If you put should then
[2:24:14] it puts an obligation or more of an
[2:24:16] elevated status that the body as a
[2:24:18] collective effort are trying to make
[2:24:20] that good fa effort uh that each
[2:24:22] individual should have that opportunity
[2:24:25] >> depends have the opportunity to be voted
[2:24:28] on correct that's the way
[2:24:29] >> that's where I think
[2:24:31] >> well should they should if you want to
[2:24:32] use should have the opportunity to be
[2:24:34] voted on otherwise you're taken away
[2:24:36] >> voted into office
[2:24:38] >> well are we using item number one the
[2:24:41] laugh line on item to one. So it reads
[2:24:44] each commissioner should have the
[2:24:45] opportunity to serve as chair should say
[2:24:48] chair or vice chair within their term of
[2:24:50] office. So if you have it should then
[2:24:54] that creates kind of an obligation that
[2:24:57] each person should have that opportunity
[2:24:59] to be either chair or vice chair. Now,
[2:25:00] if you say should have the opportunity
[2:25:03] to be voted on as share by sheriff, of
[2:25:04] course, anybody should have that right
[2:25:06] to be voted on as share by sheriff. And
[2:25:08] in fact, that doesn't make sense. Um,
[2:25:10] and may wouldn't make sense if you're if
[2:25:13] you're creating it with some sort of
[2:25:14] authority or desire that they actually
[2:25:16] serve. Serve is the correct word. That's
[2:25:18] the intent of that phrase currently is
[2:25:21] I'm a I'm a commissioner. I should have
[2:25:24] the opportunity to be a chair, vice
[2:25:25] chair. If it doesn't happen, I think
[2:25:28] there's there's nuances to that, but the
[2:25:30] idea is in your term, you would you
[2:25:33] should have the opportunity to be either
[2:25:34] chair or vice chair. So, I think that
[2:25:36] does create some idea like if you had
[2:25:40] I'm sorry, I'm going to start using
[2:25:41] examples. If you had uh you know,
[2:25:44] Commissioner Hadler, it would be going
[2:25:46] into next year, his third year in
[2:25:48] office. And if during this term he then
[2:25:51] would kind of have a better argument to
[2:25:53] serving as chair of vice chair because
[2:25:55] he would say hey look I'm in my second
[2:25:57] year or third year of my term
[2:25:58] [clears throat] I should have that
[2:25:59] ability and same with commissioner had
[2:26:02] the later years if they haven't
[2:26:03] accomplish that then they should have
[2:26:05] that opportunity if that's what the
[2:26:07] commission wants to do but that's that's
[2:26:09] how you guys would have to play with it
[2:26:10] going forward is you'd have to look and
[2:26:12] say you know that's what it is and and
[2:26:14] it does create and and I would say that
[2:26:16] does create an idea of fairness Um, if
[2:26:18] each individual commissioner does have
[2:26:20] that ability and and should be involved,
[2:26:22] I from what I've seen, chair and vice
[2:26:25] chair have a substantially different
[2:26:27] role that just the normal commissioners.
[2:26:29] Not to say that there's not uh
[2:26:32] >> but but there's no obligation.
[2:26:35] >> It doesn't say must.
[2:26:37] >> Should should is different than must.
[2:26:39] Um, you know, strongly encouraged. You
[2:26:41] can there's different flavors of words
[2:26:43] that create higher probability
[2:26:45] requirements. Is there some need that
[2:26:47] we're even messing with this? Because
[2:26:49] regardless, we're going to come down to
[2:26:50] a vote, right?
[2:26:51] >> And a majority is certain rule on this.
[2:26:53] So why are we appointed?
[2:26:55] >> Well, then should we just leave what the
[2:26:57] words were before? The commission shall
[2:26:58] make its best ever to elect or appoint a
[2:27:00] different commission member as chair
[2:27:01] each year.
[2:27:02] >> Well, I mean it does it speaking in this
[2:27:06] is this is the commission to decide. It
[2:27:08] does change how a person is elected and
[2:27:10] in the position that they're in, whether
[2:27:12] that is what the body wants to do or
[2:27:14] doesn't want to do. I mean, all of you
[2:27:16] have been in this role for a couple
[2:27:19] years at least or going on a second
[2:27:21] year. Do you feel like everyone should
[2:27:23] have that opportunity during their full
[2:27:25] term to be the chair of the vice chair?
[2:27:26] And if you if you say no, you know what,
[2:27:28] as the dice is cast, however we vote,
[2:27:30] the majority votes, that's a different
[2:27:32] conversation than saying, you know what,
[2:27:33] if I'm elected, I know one year I'll
[2:27:36] either get to be the chair, the vice
[2:27:37] chair, that's what should happen. Um,
[2:27:39] and then if you guys don't honor that,
[2:27:41] or if the commission doesn't vote that
[2:27:43] way, you know, that's a conversation
[2:27:45] you'd have with the future commission.
[2:27:47] But I do I do think that that does
[2:27:49] change the level of service that a
[2:27:50] commission give or individual
[2:27:52] commissioner gives and it brings for
[2:27:54] meaning to it. Now, that's not what the
[2:27:55] body wants to do. You don't have to do
[2:27:57] it, but it does change the way in which
[2:28:00] you serve.
[2:28:01] >> You want to do a straw poll on that
[2:28:03] board that we're
[2:28:05] >> like to make a suggestion real quick.
[2:28:07] >> Go ahead, Greg.
[2:28:08] >> Yeah. Thanks. So, you know, in the in
[2:28:10] the idea of fairness, I think that maybe
[2:28:13] compromise to that and I don't know if
[2:28:14] we're going to ever come to an agreement
[2:28:16] on the way that that should be would be
[2:28:18] that each commissioner should have the
[2:28:20] opportunity to attend agenda review.
[2:28:25] And I think I think that that would I
[2:28:27] think that that would be a great spot
[2:28:28] for that so that each commissioner does
[2:28:30] have the chance to see see how the uh
[2:28:33] the soup's made. And
[2:28:35] >> again, it's just a different level of
[2:28:36] participation.
[2:28:39] Yeah, I think that's Sorry, go ahead.
[2:28:42] You had your hand up.
[2:28:42] >> Oh,
[2:28:45] >> what if
[2:28:47] Chair McCandless doesn't make motions?
[2:28:50] She makes occasional seconds as chair.
[2:28:53] >> No, not even seconds. Why would I want
[2:28:55] to do that?
[2:28:59] » You don't have the opportunity. You
[2:29:01] don't have to
[2:29:02] >> I mean I understand the other work
[2:29:03] because I'm part of us but I don't want
[2:29:05] to be locked out of making motions or
[2:29:08] >> but I do think there's a different level
[2:29:10] of I mean I served on I served as the
[2:29:13] chair on the change of formal government
[2:29:14] committee and it's different being the
[2:29:16] chair. You learn when you were chair and chair you know former chair Hadler
[2:29:21] and Winfield can can speak to how it is
[2:29:23] being chair. It's a different meeting
[2:29:24] when you're in this. I I fully agree
[2:29:27] with you on that
[2:29:28] >> and public
[2:29:28] >> and the workload is different.
[2:29:29] >> Correct. So there's there's a lot of
[2:29:31] nuances, but there's no obligation if it
[2:29:32] said you have the right to service the
[2:29:34] chair or the vice chair. It's no
[2:29:35] obligation if you're the chair. Agreed.
[2:29:38] >> It's just that you get the it would be
[2:29:39] just be a greater challenge for all of the
[2:29:43] commission to look at it and say, you
[2:29:45] know what,
[2:29:46] >> Mike, you haven't served yet. Would you
[2:29:48] like
[2:29:49] I don't really want to. And then they
[2:29:51] would they did their d their duty and
[2:29:53] then they go on to the next person. I
[2:29:54] mean, that's what it would do if the
[2:29:56] commission wanted to stick with should.
[2:30:00] That would make everyone think about,
[2:30:02] okay, people are getting toward the end
[2:30:03] of their office at this term, their 40
[2:30:06] years, and they haven't had an
[2:30:07] opportunity. We should
[2:30:10] >> see if they would like that opportunity.
[2:30:12] And if they don't want it, then we go
[2:30:14] back to and bottom line, it goes to a
[2:30:16] vote anyways. So, I could think that
[2:30:18] Mike should do it. Bill could think that
[2:30:20] Mike should do it. Mike is willing to do
[2:30:23] it, but then you for vote no. You know,
[2:30:25] I mean, that's that's just how
[2:30:27] >> the county attorney has stated that this
[2:30:29] is going to put an obligation. And if
[2:30:32] you're going to put an obligation that
[2:30:33] supersedes, I'm not in favor of it.
[2:30:36] >> It doesn't super the word doesn't
[2:30:38] supersede it. You should eat vegetables.
[2:30:41] You should do certain things. Now, I
[2:30:43] think it's a different conversation. So
[2:30:44] if for example next year Mike says,
[2:30:47] "Hey, I'd be interested in doing this
[2:30:48] and I've well I'm using let me let me
[2:30:51] use the commissioners that are in their
[2:30:52] third years." So Commissioner Martinez,
[2:30:56] Haden Hadler, if if Commissioner
[2:30:58] Martinez said, "Hey, look, I've never
[2:31:00] during my term served as the chair. I'd
[2:31:01] really like to do that." And
[2:31:02] Commissioner Haden states the same, then
[2:31:05] you guys should consider giving them
[2:31:07] that opportunity. Doesn't mean you have
[2:31:09] to. I mean maybe maybe that's what the
[2:31:11] language you change you know uh the
[2:31:14] commission will consider whether an
[2:31:17] individual has served in a leadership
[2:31:18] role during their term and and that way
[2:31:21] you could say you know what we
[2:31:22] considered if uh you know commissioner
[2:31:24] Martinez wanted to serve as chair but we
[2:31:26] don't mind that he doesn't in his term
[2:31:28] or not there's hundreds of flavors of it
[2:31:31] go ahead Mary I I I don't think see
[2:31:34] there's any need to add this I mean it
[2:31:38] all comes down to a vote
[2:31:40] I mean, uh, my experience over the years
[2:31:43] is it's some almost harder often times
[2:31:46] to get people be chair than to have the
[2:31:49] people want
[2:31:52] for a long time.
[2:31:54] >> I was
[2:31:55] nobody wanted to be
[2:31:57] >> other than me and I said, "Okay, I'll do
[2:31:59] it." So, I I think it's unnecessary and
[2:32:02] I think we're spending too much time on
[2:32:03] it. I'd leave it as it was. I would just
[2:32:05] want not worry about it. Well, and one
[2:32:07] devil's advocate, anybody that wasn't
[2:32:10] going to be voted, anybody that was, you
[2:32:13] know, going back in time this year, we
[2:32:16] had an individual in the majority say,
[2:32:18] "Hey, look, I really want to be vice
[2:32:20] chair." And when when Commissioner
[2:32:21] Winfield was in the minority, or sorry,
[2:32:23] in the minority on both, people
[2:32:25] requested to have this this same
[2:32:27] opportunity when they were in the
[2:32:28] minority. And so what it does is is it the easiest thing to do? No. Is it
[2:32:34] creating more fairness across the board?
[2:32:36] Yes. And so
[2:32:39] I I what whatever the commission wants
[2:32:40] to do at the end of the day, but this
[2:32:42] does elevate it to at least having that
[2:32:44] consideration because when the shoes on
[2:32:46] the other foot, I I think anybody would
[2:32:48] love to have even the ability to say,
[2:32:50] "Hey, look, we're the minority. You guys
[2:32:51] should consider this." And whether they
[2:32:53] want to say on the record, hey, look,
[2:32:55] uh, we've considered it. We know you're
[2:32:57] on your third or fourth year of your
[2:32:58] term. We're not going to give it to you
[2:33:00] either. It's at least giving that
[2:33:02] recognition of having that requirement.
[2:33:04] >> Well, I think that's a different goal. I
[2:33:06] mean, I what I'm hearing from you is you
[2:33:08] want equal opportunity for both uh
[2:33:11] points of view because I know one time
[2:33:14] uh you know because oftentimes Curtis
[2:33:15] Wells I didn't agree but we we served as
[2:33:18] chair and vice chair and it worked and
[2:33:20] it worked great. So I I would think if
[2:33:23] that's what your goal is to say uh you
[2:33:26] know have you know do your best to have
[2:33:30] uh the chair the vice chair uh have not
[2:33:34] I don't know how you'd put it not be
[2:33:36] from the same party not be you know if
[2:33:39] that's the goal but this doesn't say the
[2:33:41] goal this is this isn't getting at the
[2:33:44] goal I just think you know I I don't I I
[2:33:48] don't know any board or anything that
[2:33:50] does that I think it's always I I I just
[2:33:55] I'll go with the bolt, but I just think
[2:33:57] it's unnecessary.
[2:33:58] >> There there are many commissioners
[2:33:59] commissions out there that do rotating
[2:34:01] chairs.
[2:34:02] >> Well, we we encourage and it says right there do our best to off uh to
[2:34:07] appoint a different commission member as
[2:34:09] chair every year.
[2:34:11] >> Correct.
[2:34:11] >> And so, uh you know,
[2:34:14] I I think it's already stated. I I I
[2:34:17] think you know it's almost confusing
[2:34:19] here and it could add ambiguity
[2:34:22] to the to the situation.
[2:34:26] » Okay, we're going to skip this one for
[2:34:29] the moment
[2:34:30] >> because we're taking up a lot of time.
[2:34:32] So we're going to have to come come back
[2:34:33] to that discussion or maybe we can
[2:34:36] >> figure out if
[2:34:39] >> All right. So um number two it has the
[2:34:42] chair and the commission administration
[2:34:43] office must be notified that is
[2:34:47] >> page
[2:34:48] >> uh still
[2:34:49] >> on page nine.
[2:34:50] >> Oh okay.
[2:34:51] >> So yeah if you're not going to make it
[2:34:52] to a meeting be notified that added in
[2:34:54] the chair and commission administration
[2:34:56] that generally happens um and
[2:34:59] participation.
[2:35:01] No more comments.
[2:35:11] All right, flipping on to page 10.
[2:35:24] I I did the comment number five and it
[2:35:26] says if you read that I I could be wrong
[2:35:28] on this, but it it it appears to me that
[2:35:31] um that that you does this does it
[2:35:35] require the chair's approval? Um
[2:35:37] >> tell me what number one I'm sorry
[2:35:39] >> number H10 number 10.
[2:35:41] >> Before we go past number six, can I just
[2:35:44] note one quick thing on number six?
[2:35:46] >> This was brought up in the past.
[2:35:48] >> Does the commission want a commission
[2:35:51] member elect to have Cool.
[2:35:55] >> We we brought that up once upon a time.
[2:35:57] >> What?
[2:35:59] >> To back up to number six.
[2:36:00] >> Yeah.
[2:36:00] >> May I?
[2:36:01] >> Yes.
[2:36:02] >> Depending on the number of licenses we
[2:36:04] have with our Google account, our Google
[2:36:06] corporate whatever you workspace,
[2:36:09] >> we we try and keep that as low as
[2:36:12] possible because we're charged for every
[2:36:13] account. So from a budgetary standpoint
[2:36:16] >> and and a limit on the number of emails,
[2:36:19] the fewer we have at any given time, the
[2:36:20] better. I see your point too. But but at
[2:36:22] most you're
[2:36:22] >> an elect isn't adding one.
[2:36:25] >> Well, adding one that'll be there at the
[2:36:27] first of the year anyway.
[2:36:28] >> Well, the issue that we've ran into in
[2:36:30] the past is when individuals and when we
[2:36:34] for my personal exper Well, for the
[2:36:35] attorney, it's weird, but for
[2:36:36] commissioners when folks start, it's
[2:36:39] really hard because you have no county
[2:36:42] email. And I don't want to go down the
[2:36:44] road of I I don't want to encourage
[2:36:46] people cram on people's email addresses,
[2:36:48] their personal email addresses, but once
[2:36:50] you're elected, you we really should
[2:36:52] step into having a county email address
[2:36:54] and having county information.
[2:36:56] >> So So the most we could have is four.
[2:36:59] That's extremely unlikely. Generally
[2:37:01] after an election, we usually get on
[2:37:02] average, I'd say, two new commissioners.
[2:37:04] Right.
[2:37:05] >> Right. And I' I'd exclude I'd exclude
[2:37:07] anybody that's going to be the attorney,
[2:37:09] assessor, recorder, treasurer, any of
[2:37:12] those positions because I think that
[2:37:13] creates confusion and issues. But for
[2:37:15] commissioners,
[2:37:17] I do think it's part of the it's really
[2:37:19] hard to get them to sign up
[2:37:21] immediately in January. If you can do it
[2:37:23] in December and start doing the
[2:37:25] onboarding,
[2:37:26] >> Quinn, what what does two extra accounts
[2:37:27] for two months cost?
[2:37:29] >> Two is probably not going to have
[2:37:30] because we they come in packages. Two is
[2:37:32] probably not going to be a big deal. I
[2:37:34] mean obviously the the very most you
[2:37:36] could have is four on everything.
[2:37:38] >> I can see value. I know that that first
[2:37:41] month after I mean there was a lot
[2:37:43] happening and I was using my getting my
[2:37:45] personal email and I was asking for it
[2:37:47] and then even even until I was sworn in
[2:37:49] on January 7th but that meeting we had
[2:37:52] >> we had a whole bunch of public comment
[2:37:54] that got had to get forward my personal
[2:37:56] email I didn't get to see it. So,
[2:37:58] >> oh that's a fair question. I think I think that that's a good idea to
[2:38:01] at least for
[2:38:02] >> So would we add this in the commission
[2:38:04] email communication policy that we would
[2:38:06] add in a look or there's some like
[2:38:08] further down here there's like what we
[2:38:10] do for brand new
[2:38:12] >> there's an onboarding section
[2:38:14] >> the onboarding section
[2:38:15] >> in some and I just saw email I brought
[2:38:17] it up in some um in some other locations
[2:38:21] they also put additional and again I'm
[2:38:23] not trying to create chaos they also put
[2:38:25] some additional restrictions on
[2:38:27] individual uals for individuals that are
[2:38:30] not either renewing office or that are
[2:38:33] not reelected at that point. So, for
[2:38:35] example, they they I think Salt Lake
[2:38:37] County prohibits travel from people that
[2:38:41] are
[2:38:42] >> lame ducks.
[2:38:43] >> Correct.
[2:38:43] >> Yeah. So there there's some other
[2:38:45] onboarding things that other localities
[2:38:48] do, but I just saw email and I knew that
[2:38:50] was kind of a nightmare and I can't
[2:38:52] remember
[2:38:52] >> we had brought it up I think when
[2:38:54] Commissioner Martinez and yourself
[2:38:57] >> were were coming on because you guys had
[2:38:59] that weird nuanced way where you guys
[2:39:00] didn't have access to county information
[2:39:02] and resources and emails.
[2:39:06] >> Hey, you can ask me. Do we need to have
[2:39:07] that in the policies and procedures
[2:39:08] though or can we just have that as a
[2:39:10] >> No, it needs to be in policies and
[2:39:11] procedures. Uh, I think maybe we need to
[2:39:13] put it let's put it on boarding section
[2:39:15] like that's toward the end. I made a
[2:39:18] note. We'll figure out where it goes.
[2:39:20] Actually, Dana will probably figure out
[2:39:22] where it goes.
[2:39:23] >> Um,
[2:39:25] >> thank you.
[2:39:27] >> Back to number nine.
[2:39:30] >> So, yeah, engaging in staff. How does
[2:39:32] this how do you think this reads,
[2:39:32] Stephen? I does it does it so and then
[2:39:36] does the chair have the chair obviously
[2:39:39] with their the chair's own approval can
[2:39:42] engage with staff
[2:39:43] >> so the commission administrator anytime
[2:39:45] they want
[2:39:46] >> so I and I've looked at other ones in
[2:39:48] the past other places look at projects
[2:39:51] based on a sectioned off approach about
[2:39:54] how long the task is going to take be it
[2:39:57] a small task of like five or 10 minutes
[2:40:00] I I think you could do it the way that
[2:40:01] that's suggested here, but the increase
[2:40:04] of the ask or the increase of the
[2:40:06] information, the more ownorous on the on
[2:40:08] the department. And so I think Salt Lake
[2:40:11] County or a different county broke it
[2:40:12] down into like if the request is less
[2:40:14] than 15 minutes, then you you can ask um
[2:40:18] I I think they can just generally ask
[2:40:20] like any commissioner can ask of a
[2:40:21] project of like 15 minutes just like any
[2:40:23] member of the public could do that. Like
[2:40:24] if you roll into uh the weeds department
[2:40:26] or like hey can you please explain weeds
[2:40:29] you know blah blah blah. The next level
[2:40:31] is between that [clears throat] 30
[2:40:33] minutes uh you know from an less than an
[2:40:36] hour is how Salt Lake did it is you go
[2:40:38] to the department head before you ask
[2:40:39] this staff employee and then the next
[2:40:41] level above an hour you get comm admin
[2:40:44] approval. Um that's how they broke it
[2:40:46] down in Salt Lake County on this. I I
[2:40:49] think it does work. You guys should you
[2:40:52] know you can work through the chair and
[2:40:54] then go through com admin. Yeah, I think
[2:40:58] that also works. The question is to what
[2:41:01] degree or what is the item that
[2:41:04] restricts communication. So if if
[2:41:07] somebody was like hey I need to know
[2:41:09] what our current ad campaign is are you
[2:41:12] guys going to go through the chair then
[2:41:13] comm admin to get basic information
[2:41:15] about that.
[2:41:16] >> Well this says specific commission
[2:41:18] member initiatives. So it's not like
[2:41:20] just a request like if you just want to
[2:41:23] ask a request of someone if you were
[2:41:25] working on a specific
[2:41:27] >> initiative for example if I
[2:41:32] wasn't the chair and I wanted to go and
[2:41:34] talk to
[2:41:37] >> the leads department on a specific thing
[2:41:39] or well let's use Cody because he's
[2:41:40] sitting right here and I wanted to go
[2:41:42] talk to Cody but it was like outside of
[2:41:44] the purview of what the normal
[2:41:45] commission is doing you know so that's
[2:41:47] what I think that this is it's it's
[2:41:50] helping staff because if they are
[2:41:52] getting direction from the commission
[2:41:53] right here, but there's one commissioner
[2:41:55] that's not necessarily happy with what
[2:41:57] the full commission goes for and then
[2:41:59] they're going to go to Cody and be like,
[2:42:01] I don't really care what the commission
[2:42:03] voted, but I think that we need to work
[2:42:04] on this road by my house. That's that's
[2:42:08] a big issue and I think that that has
[2:42:10] been happening throughout the years at
[2:42:12] the county. I'm not going to say it
[2:42:14] here, but I think it's important to make
[2:42:16] sure that our staff are not being pushed
[2:42:19] in um having to make decisions that
[2:42:22] they're going to go against the majority
[2:42:25] of the comm commission or the one
[2:42:27] commissioner that's sitting in their
[2:42:28] office. And so if the chairs appraised
[2:42:31] of it say, you know, hey, I really want
[2:42:32] to go talk to Cody about the flooding
[2:42:35] issues. Great. Go ahead. Go work with
[2:42:38] Cody on the flooding issues and let
[2:42:39] admin know that you're doing that, you
[2:42:41] know. But if it was something different
[2:42:43] then and if you were in the minority and
[2:42:45] you didn't like what the commission was
[2:42:47] doing then you may come and go against
[2:42:50] it and that's where just keeping
[2:42:51] everything aligned and really to protect
[2:42:53] staff. Yeah, that's what where I see it.
[2:42:55] So with initiatives is what you're
[2:42:58] referring to is
[2:43:00] you know because you can engage with
[2:43:02] staff if you want to call them and say
[2:43:04] uh
[2:43:06] >> when are you having that workshop on you
[2:43:09] know
[2:43:10] >> yeah it's generalally it's initiatives
[2:43:13] are when you are asking to do something
[2:43:15] that will uh create more work after the
[2:43:19] phone call I mean if you do a quick
[2:43:22] phone call for a quick question.
[2:43:23] >> Okay. I mean would project be a better
[2:43:25] word than
[2:43:26] >> I think project might
[2:43:29] >> or or or member uh commission members
[2:43:32] who wish to engage with staff
[2:43:35] commission members
[2:43:37] >> maybe requests on specific commission member requests. I mean
[2:43:42] really what you're doing here is you're
[2:43:44] trying to limit what a commission member goes to an individual
[2:43:48] employee and request them things of
[2:43:49] them. playing devil's advocate. I would
[2:43:53] do everything I can if you didn't define
[2:43:54] the word initiative. I could say, "Well,
[2:43:56] that wasn't technically an initiative. I
[2:43:58] was just thinking of a potential
[2:43:59] project."
[2:44:00] >> Well, maybe we say initiative project.
[2:44:02] Would that be more clear?
[2:44:04] >> Sure. or just say or or make it so that
[2:44:07] we don't is that uh commission members
[2:44:15] cannot
[2:44:17] get uh direct staff
[2:44:20] in manners that causes more work or they
[2:44:23] really shouldn't be directing staff.
[2:44:28] » No, they shouldn't be. But there are
[2:44:29] people that go
[2:44:30] >> through the administrator. Yeah.
[2:44:32] >> Yeah. [clears throat] They if you if you have to
[2:44:37] >> how about how about commission members
[2:44:39] who wish to um let's see who wish to
[2:44:42] make requests of staff shall first
[2:44:45] receive comm chair approval
[2:44:49] >> request is like hey can you give me an
[2:44:51] update on flooding or can you give me an
[2:44:53] update I mean I don't know that that's
[2:44:54] inappropriate if you know that requests
[2:44:58] are different than initiatives. Go
[2:44:59] ahead. I think the way that you have it
[2:45:01] right here commission member I it
[2:45:03] specifically says a member right
[2:45:05] initiative right and I think that that clarifies it's not something
[2:45:09] that you're working on that the whole
[2:45:10] body has come up with it's not your it's
[2:45:14] not your you know your the the board
[2:45:15] that you're a liazison to I mean this is
[2:45:18] something that you are you're going I
[2:45:19] think outside of
[2:45:21] >> you know this is a specific members
[2:45:24] initiative
[2:45:26] and at least that's how I read it maybe
[2:45:27] I'm maybe I'm wrong Now, that's how I
[2:45:30] read it and that's what I think the
[2:45:32] intent is. It's just so that everyone's
[2:45:34] working on the same page and our staff
[2:45:35] is not being directed to different
[2:45:37] directions because we are their boss and
[2:45:40] if we tell them something there is they
[2:45:42] have a real feeling that I have to do
[2:45:45] this.
[2:45:46] >> And I would argue that that this
[2:45:47] language too is becomes important for
[2:45:49] any staff member that feels like, oh
[2:45:51] man, I have this one commissioner that
[2:45:52] wants me to work on this thing that's
[2:45:53] going to take nine hours. I'm going to
[2:45:55] go to admin and just make sure that this
[2:45:57] is okay. It gives staff a way to like
[2:45:59] confirm that what they're working on is
[2:46:01] the will of the commission.
[2:46:02] >> I think that's important too.
[2:46:05] >> Okay. Would you want to just use the
[2:46:07] word initiative or change it to project
[2:46:08] or
[2:46:09] >> I don't have a strong preference on the
[2:46:10] word itself.
[2:46:12] >> Even I guess that's project. I I like
[2:46:14] project
[2:46:15] >> project.
[2:46:17] I might question one's attachment double
[2:46:21] X. Okay. I'm good with it. Um
[2:46:25] commission's rule is put on the
[2:46:26] legislative.
[2:46:29] >> Where was this number
[2:46:32] attachment?
[2:46:33] >> Amendment XX.
[2:46:36] » I think that's the form of government we
[2:46:38] were going to attach. We're going to try
[2:46:39] to make this really complete by
[2:46:41] attaching all the
[2:46:43] documents that
[2:46:44] >> could could perhaps we put
[2:46:46] >> before commission members engage with
[2:46:48] staff on specific commission member
[2:46:50] initiatives.
[2:46:53] um about 10 things or whatever we did
[2:46:55] that resolution was where that was going
[2:46:57] to be.
[2:46:57] >> Thumbs up. I understand the word
[2:46:58] >> doesn't exist yet.
[2:46:59] >> Okay.
[2:47:00] >> They're all out of order. I mean like no
[2:47:02] one's messed with them until you guys
[2:47:03] are done.
[2:47:03] >> Yeah.
[2:47:05] >> So go ahead Stephen what we saying?
[2:47:07] >> I would just change the paragraph
[2:47:08] slightly. So before commission members
[2:47:12] engage with staff on specific commission
[2:47:15] member initiatives instead of who wish
[2:47:17] to engage with staff. It's a really
[2:47:19] weird phrase.
[2:47:20] >> I like that. Stephen four commission
[2:47:22] members
[2:47:23] >> engage with staff on specific commission
[2:47:25] member initiatives.
[2:47:26] >> Let's go first. I think that does clear
[2:47:28] it up.
[2:47:29] >> Thank you.
[2:47:32] >> Okay, we're going to move on to number
[2:47:34] 10, which is the commission's policy.
[2:47:39] » We talked about this before. I know
[2:47:43] there's a comment about it.
[2:47:45] >> Yeah. And if if if you don't mind and
[2:47:48] you guys can do whatever you want, but I
[2:47:50] would like to leave that comment there
[2:47:52] and then we if in the end we when we're
[2:47:55] approving this if we go through the last
[2:47:58] couple if we have a couple points of
[2:48:00] contention and we just vote on them, I'm
[2:48:02] okay to to lose the vote. But that is
[2:48:05] definitely something I have a strong
[2:48:07] opinion about.
[2:48:13] or if you want to do a straw bowl right
[2:48:14] now, whatever you want to do. Madam
[2:48:16] chair, I just I I personally think that
[2:48:19] these um [clears throat] our
[2:48:21] communications that are going out should
[2:48:23] go through um entire commission or
[2:48:26] disapproval.
[2:48:28] >> Is this based off of
[2:48:30] our communications as in Grand County?
[2:48:33] >> Yes. Yeah. communication. All official
[2:48:35] communications on behalf of the Grand
[2:48:37] County
[2:48:38] >> shall align with the adopted policies
[2:48:40] and current priorities of the commission
[2:48:41] majority.
[2:48:43] >> So be grounded in verifiable facts and
[2:48:45] serve to inform and educate residents
[2:48:47] while supporting healthy civic
[2:48:48] discourse. So communications do not
[2:48:50] require prior commission approval and
[2:48:52] know the responsibility of
[2:48:53] administrative staff prepared as needed
[2:48:55] in collaboration with mission
[2:48:56] administrator to ensure consistency with
[2:48:58] the county's governance direction and
[2:49:00] policy commitments.
[2:49:02] And that's where C's ask for it to be
[2:49:05] approved by the whole commission. I
[2:49:07] don't see that same almost the same idea
[2:49:09] of when we're talking about the um
[2:49:13] you know not enough time. If we're if we
[2:49:16] just have a commission meeting and we
[2:49:17] make a a plan to go forward with
[2:49:20] something the commission and then our
[2:49:23] point our information officer puts out
[2:49:24] information about that. if it was going
[2:49:26] to come back before the commission for
[2:49:28] approval, that's going to be another two
[2:49:30] weeks later before that information goes
[2:49:32] out to the community and that's just too
[2:49:33] far away. So, I think when you have a
[2:49:35] majority makes a decision and something
[2:49:37] goes out to the community, that's what it is and and admin's fully
[2:49:43] involved in that and that's
[2:49:45] >> I thought we were already there.
[2:49:48] >> Go ahead, Trish.
[2:49:51] I guess I'm struggling with our current
[2:49:54] well and maybe we're going to get to
[2:49:55] that Mel. So adopted policies and
[2:49:58] current priorities. We obviously don't
[2:50:00] have that currently. We don't have our
[2:50:02] current priorities but I think we are
[2:50:04] going to get to that. So I'm okay with
[2:50:07] this idea that maybe at the beginning of
[2:50:09] the year which I think we'll get to that
[2:50:11] we are going to workshop and outline our
[2:50:13] priorities. I mean we do have a general
[2:50:15] plan. We have the general 2030 plan
[2:50:17] which technically should be our guiding
[2:50:19] principles right and so
[2:50:21] >> right those don't have our current
[2:50:23] >> we don't have no I wish I was like had
[2:50:27] been way ready to be the chair and I
[2:50:29] would have done a lot of things
[2:50:29] differently but I'm we're getting there
[2:50:31] maybe halfway through and I'm going to
[2:50:32] send out a priority list once we finish
[2:50:34] these policies and procedures and and go
[2:50:37] that way so so hopefully that direction
[2:50:39] would follow that and it would go for I
[2:50:41] mean it's not it's going to go it's
[2:50:44] going to go one way or the what whatever
[2:50:46] the majority of the commission and
[2:50:47] that's the same thing as for the staff
[2:50:50] it doesn't say anything think okay well
[2:50:52] I was working on this project two years
[2:50:53] ago for the commission but now the
[2:50:55] commission changed and I I basically
[2:50:56] need to leave that project alone and be
[2:50:58] working on something else and it's to me
[2:51:01] it's just still being kind to the staff
[2:51:02] to make sure that they know what their
[2:51:05] directives are and where they're coming
[2:51:07] from but we can start
[2:51:15] potentially and this is just another
[2:51:17] suggestion. I think as commissioners,
[2:51:20] all of you are deemed to be the most
[2:51:22] knowledgeable county issues in the
[2:51:24] community. If anybody has questions
[2:51:25] about the county, I think if the county
[2:51:27] is going to give out a press release, I do think that it would be a good
[2:51:32] suggestion to be able to have that
[2:51:34] circulated or at least provided to the
[2:51:36] commission prior to release. Um, the
[2:51:39] reason why is because not that they get
[2:51:41] object and say, "Hey, don't send this
[2:51:43] out." Um, but at least publishing it.
[2:51:46] And the reason why is there have been
[2:51:48] I'm not going to use Well, there have
[2:51:51] been times that it has been I I think
[2:51:54] electeds have found out about the
[2:51:56] county's official stance regarding an
[2:51:58] item online before they received it.
[2:52:01] Now, whether or not commissioners will
[2:52:03] have the ability to say they shouldn't
[2:52:04] print that or not, I do think it's it's
[2:52:07] reasonable to assume that commissioners
[2:52:08] are going to get information before the
[2:52:11] public. And I think as they're elected,
[2:52:13] they should have that heads up or other
[2:52:15] electeds that are involved. Um, so maybe
[2:52:18] you
[2:52:19] kind of said that prior, but we
[2:52:22] obviously didn't put it into
[2:52:24] put it in writing. So I I like the idea
[2:52:26] >> noticed before so that everyone gets a
[2:52:28] copy of before it's published.
[2:52:31] >> I like that. That'd be great. That way
[2:52:33] you know you're not blindsided whenever
[2:52:36] I felt like I' I've been blindsided a
[2:52:37] few times and I think
[2:52:38] >> that's information only.
[2:52:41] >> Yeah. This is on we're still talking
[2:52:42] about number policy. So, if we were
[2:52:45] going to post something, so anything
[2:52:46] that's going to be posted on our on our
[2:52:49] >> county website or shared on social media
[2:52:52] will just be shared with in the
[2:52:54] commission members before I even if it's
[2:52:57] five minutes before it's posted.
[2:52:58] >> If you don't check your email, it's your
[2:52:59] own problem.
[2:53:00] >> Yeah. So, you're up, you know, where
[2:53:01] it's going to be.
[2:53:03] >> You don't have people coming up to you
[2:53:04] and you're going, "Huh?"
[2:53:05] >> And one other thought, I mean, this is what the Supreme Court does. I
[2:53:09] mean, if you really want to have a solid
[2:53:12] statement, although there is no
[2:53:14] obligation, considering what the
[2:53:17] opposing side is going to say is
[2:53:18] somewhat helpful. Um, so I just I put
[2:53:21] that nugget in. Makes your majority
[2:53:24] statements better when you know what the
[2:53:25] descent is going to say. And that's
[2:53:27] helpful for uh the press release as well
[2:53:30] because if you say X, Y, and Z, somebody
[2:53:33] that might not agree with the statement,
[2:53:35] knowing that they're not going to stop
[2:53:36] the statement and say, "Hey, look, I
[2:53:38] know you guys are going to publish this,
[2:53:39] but I really think maybe modify the
[2:53:41] language." That's it. They don't get to
[2:53:43] stop the statement. It's providing
[2:53:45] additional thoughts. They're I'm just
[2:53:48] again I'm just telling you guys what
[2:53:50] happens in in the court system.
[2:53:52] >> Go ahead.
[2:53:52] >> Um I've got a couple of thoughts. If
[2:53:54] we're going to go that far, then maybe
[2:53:56] before somebody starts posting on social
[2:53:58] media, we should be approving their
[2:54:00] posts as a commissioner. I'm being
[2:54:03] sarcastic. Please forgive me. But then
[2:54:05] my other thought is I think we really
[2:54:06] need to put a time limit tonight and
[2:54:09] come back and finish this at a different
[2:54:11] time because we're on very few pages
[2:54:14] here and we're not going to get through
[2:54:16] this.
[2:54:16] >> Yeah. No, we're not. And actually, we
[2:54:17] are at that time limit that I put on
[2:54:19] there. So,
[2:54:20] >> thank you.
[2:54:21] >> Do you have any other comments before I
[2:54:22] let anybody else talk? I'm not like the
[2:54:24] other.
[2:54:24] >> We're gonna calling you and Mike and
[2:54:26] then we're going to wrap up. Um I love
[2:54:28] this. I appreciate the return of the
[2:54:31] workshop. I'm not being sarcastic. I'm
[2:54:33] being s very sincere, Madam Chair, that
[2:54:36] I appreciate this. I feel like it's just
[2:54:39] a better way to engage the entire
[2:54:41] commission. We can have dissent. We can
[2:54:44] have this agreement. But I felt like
[2:54:46] this was a great process and I really
[2:54:47] appreciate having Stephen and having
[2:54:49] your input because this is obviously
[2:54:51] your your your gig and so um this was a
[2:54:55] great process. I appreciate it. And
[2:54:56] we're going to have our next meeting and
[2:54:57] now even we all print the copies. I feel
[2:54:59] like it's so much easier.
[2:55:01] I love we just try to keep it.
[2:55:04] >> Yeah. Yeah. Keep it.
[2:55:06] >> Yeah. Keep your theme. Bring it back.
[2:55:07] Make your copies people. That's
[2:55:09] expensive.
[2:55:10] >> Yeah. I think you can go ahead and we
[2:55:12] maybe not open up the online but if you
[2:55:14] make your comments on here and that way
[2:55:16] you will follow up next meeting and Mike
[2:55:19] go ahead.
[2:55:19] >> Uh continue the good work. It's it's
[2:55:23] going well. This was good. I move
[2:55:27] >> all right and we are going to so we're
[2:55:29] going to wrap up our workshop for today
[2:55:31] and follow up next meeting and we're
[2:55:34] going to move on to um we have some
[2:55:36] close sessions. Do I have a
[2:55:39] >> just real quick just before we move into
[2:55:40] close session just so the commission
[2:55:42] knows um last week I was uh voted on as
[2:55:45] uh uh the representative for
[2:55:46] southeastern Utah to the Colorado River
[2:55:48] Authority Court?
[2:55:50] >> Congratulations.
[2:55:51] >> Nice.
[2:55:54] >> Quick question. Uh are all listed in
[2:55:57] need or
[2:56:00] the close session? Yeah, if there is a
[2:56:02] potential conflict for an individual,
[2:56:03] then they would be excused and we would
[2:56:05] document that within the close session.
[2:56:07] >> Okay. Uh in that I I move to go into
[2:56:10] close session
[2:56:12] uh to discuss purchase, exchange, lease
[2:56:15] or sale of real property. Number two to
[2:56:18] discuss the character, professional
[2:56:19] competence, physical mental health of an
[2:56:22] individual. Number three, to discuss
[2:56:24] pending a reasonable or imminent
[2:56:26] litigation.
[2:56:27] >> Bill seconded that. So, we are
[2:56:29] >> actually I was asking to make comment
[2:56:31] before going in there because we're
[2:56:33] making one motion to go into close
[2:56:35] session on three different items and I
[2:56:37] know that I asked at least three times
[2:56:40] to seize some statute for going into
[2:56:43] close session about another elected
[2:56:45] official and I've yet to see a reason
[2:56:47] that we would go in and discuss. Now, if
[2:56:50] we're going to vote to go into close
[2:56:52] session on all three of these, I'd like
[2:56:54] a little bit of an explanation on why
[2:56:56] we're going to be doing that and some
[2:56:58] statutes back it up. And the
[2:57:00] commissioner is requesting that this is
[2:57:01] done in a public setting.
[2:57:04] >> I can I can
[2:57:05] >> I'm asking for statute. That's all. I
[2:57:07] just want to know what right we have to
[2:57:09] go in and discuss another elected
[2:57:11] official.
[2:57:12] >> The the the statute will identify the
[2:57:15] individual. So I can give that statute
[2:57:18] if that's what the chair the
[2:57:19] commissioner is requesting.
[2:57:21] If there's statute to support the
[2:57:24] request, even a simple phone call to me
[2:57:27] would have provided that answer.
[2:57:31] That's all I'm saying is we're going
[2:57:32] into a close session here. Um I will
[2:57:35] support it. I'll second it and I'll
[2:57:36] support going in. that on public record
[2:57:39] here we're going in to discuss an
[2:57:41] elected official and no backup or
[2:57:44] statute has been provided to do so. So
[2:57:46] second the motion chair.
[2:57:50] >> Okay.
[2:57:50] >> Uh
[2:57:52] mine wasn't to go into talking about
[2:57:54] elected.
[2:57:57] » I know that
[2:57:58] >> without naming
[2:58:00] >> I know that and this is really why the reason is to to go into close
[2:58:05] session. So there's a motion to go in
[2:58:07] for more session if there's a basis
[2:58:09] within there. That motion hasn't been
[2:58:11] seconded. Sure.
[2:58:15] » Okay. All in favor?
[2:58:18] >> All right. Seven. I'm going to go into
[2:58:20] cold sessions.
[2:58:24] Naze.