[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.

6.2.26 BOE and Commission Meeting

Transcript