[0:17] Maybe ask if you can hear us.

[0:20] >> Hey, can you hear us?

[0:22] >> Yeah, I can hear you guys perfectly.

[0:24] Thank you.

[0:25] >> Great. Okay. I'd like to call this

[0:28] workshop for the Grand County Commission

[0:31] to order at July 7th.

[0:35] And today we are going to be talking

[0:37] about tax and current finance options

[0:41] with Brandy Grace and Sher Durgen from

[0:45] Utah Association of Counties. Thank you

[0:47] for traveling so far and speaking with

[0:49] us in person.

[0:51] >> Thank you. Actually, let me call um and

[0:54] present we have Jacques online. um Trish

[0:57] Haden, Brian Martinez, Mary Mcan, Mike

[1:01] McCertie, Bill Winfield, and myself,

[1:03] Melody Mandless, as well as county

[1:06] attorney administrator.

[1:12] » And I think that yes, online is the

[1:14] handout. I think that anybody that's

[1:16] following along online, there's a

[1:17] handout that you can find our packet

[1:20] discussing that.

[1:22] >> Okay,

[1:25] dive in.

[1:26] >> Yeah. Go ahead.

[1:27] >> I'll give a little bit of a brief

[1:30] overview if you want. I know this came

[1:32] about. Um there's been several meetings

[1:34] that were had. There's been some

[1:36] interest in putting a copper recycling

[1:40] plant out at the Crescent Junction area,

[1:43] which then drew interest in

[1:46] what would be the best way to do that would benefit the county the most

[1:50] is where we started getting a little bit

[1:52] involved. And then there was some more

[1:54] education that came along with the

[1:57] boxelder data center and the need for

[2:00] some protection around that. And then of

[2:03] course you guys had your

[2:06] summit day of education or whatever that

[2:08] a couple of us traveled up and attended

[2:11] so that we could be prepared for some of

[2:13] that. So, we're kind of combining all of

[2:15] these into a little bit of education for

[2:18] the seven commissioners and the public

[2:20] on some of the different options we have

[2:23] is how we got to today.

[2:26] >> All right. And I just want to say I

[2:28] think that taking this very thoughtful

[2:30] approach is is worthwhile. We've seen

[2:32] where in other counties things haven't

[2:34] gone quite so well. Um, so I think this

[2:37] is a very thoughtful approach at looking

[2:39] at what options do exist for youth in

[2:42] statute and then making a decision that

[2:44] works best for Gran County. Typically

[2:46] what we have seen as also what happened

[2:49] in Boxelder County. I mean it's the most

[2:51] obvious because it was all of the news

[2:54] kind of what happened there. But it's

[2:56] very typical of a developer um to seek

[2:59] tax incremental financing as they're

[3:01] starting to think through the potential

[3:04] for a development. There's so many other

[3:05] things to consider as well, but in order

[3:08] to determine the viability of a project,

[3:11] they typically look at tax incremental

[3:12] financing. And so they get a little

[3:14] ahead of themselves and county

[3:17] commissioners are left um responding to

[3:20] questions that really aren't even in

[3:23] your purview. And so that that's typical

[3:25] of what we've seen as well, whether it's

[3:27] through um the proposal for tax

[3:29] increment financing or for a land use

[3:32] application for whether it's a solar

[3:34] development or a data center or some

[3:36] other type of development. Um they

[3:38] usually start there and all of a sudden

[3:40] you're asked you're being asked

[3:41] questions about water and noise and all

[3:44] these other things that have a separate

[3:46] permitting process. And so I think that

[3:49] Gran County um saying, "Hey, let's slow

[3:52] down. Let's let's be very methodical

[3:55] about this. It's worthwhile. So, I'm

[3:57] happy to be here. Um Sher and I have uh

[4:01] spent a lot of time over the past

[4:03] several years on tax incremental

[4:05] financing projects. Not necessarily was

[4:07] it something that UAC had offered as a

[4:09] service, but historically

[4:13] you would see um a lot of a lot of

[4:16] developments happening in incorporated

[4:17] areas. So, they were very common from

[4:19] municipalities. And then of course you

[4:21] know Maida had a military component to

[4:24] it. That's why it was created as a state

[4:25] authority. Inland was created I think in

[4:29] 2017 around that time frame for the

[4:31] purposes of uh establishing an inland

[4:35] port. And the original concept was a an

[4:39] inland port in Salt Lake County with

[4:40] maybe three or four satellite locations.

[4:43] Um but over time their limitations were

[4:47] removed from statute and so they

[4:48] basically can serve anywhere which has

[4:51] some benefits to that as well. Um but

[4:54] with the the need for additional energy

[4:57] development because of the energy

[4:58] shortage that the state has been dealing

[5:01] with that was hurting economic

[5:02] development we started seeing more and

[5:05] more um a lot of solar devel there are

[5:08] other types of developments as well but

[5:10] a lot of solar developments happening in

[5:11] unincorporated areas. So all of a sudden

[5:14] counties were dealing with tax

[5:15] incremental financing where counties

[5:17] really hadn't had much exposure um to

[5:20] those requests. The problem that we have

[5:23] seen is that when a developer um starts

[5:27] going down this path, oftentimes they're

[5:29] much more familiar with statute and what

[5:31] is available to them than you all are.

[5:34] And they hire attorneys, law firms that

[5:37] are very familiar with the process. And

[5:40] it has kind of put counties at a

[5:42] disadvantage in those negotiations.

[5:45] And so Sher and I kind of stepped in and

[5:48] said, you know, let us help you navigate

[5:49] this. Um you shouldn't be giving up tax

[5:53] um property tax revenue unnecessarily.

[5:55] That doesn't mean that there's not some

[5:57] value in a financing project of some

[6:00] sort. And I I use the example of you

[6:03] wouldn't you wouldn't utilize other

[6:05] resources or necessarily even have

[6:07] access to the funds to put in

[6:09] infrastructure in an outlying area of

[6:11] your county. But if a development is

[6:13] coming in and they're willing to use

[6:15] some of that property tax revenue to put

[6:17] the infrastructure in that can then that

[6:19] can kind of boost other types of

[6:21] development. So there's worthwhile

[6:23] reasons to give up property tax. Um so

[6:26] what um that's kind of just to give the

[6:28] history of how we ended up involved and uh the landscape of what has

[6:33] happened around tax incremental

[6:34] financing over the past decade or so.

[6:36] There are legislators that are very

[6:38] interested in monitoring what is going

[6:40] on. There's a lot of attention now on

[6:43] the amount of tax increment that has

[6:44] been given up. Is it appropriate? Are

[6:46] the appropriate questions being asked?

[6:48] Is the right analysis being done to

[6:50] determine what's appropriate and what's

[6:52] not? Um, and that work will continue.

[6:56] But the purpose of today was to kind of

[6:58] outline for you what what does exist,

[7:01] what is currently available. As

[7:03] Commissioner Winfield mentioned, there

[7:04] is talk of a proposed development um,

[7:07] the copper recycling plant. And we

[7:09] became aware of this in the

[7:11] conversations with Commissioner Winfield

[7:12] because again, as we've seen happen

[7:14] numerous times, the developer had

[7:17] already started figuring this out for

[7:19] themselves and not necessarily having

[7:21] conversations with Grant County. Um,

[7:24] which is also similar to what happened

[7:27] in Boxelder County where the developer

[7:29] already was working with Mid and having

[7:32] conversations and those county

[7:33] commissioners were hearing rumors but

[7:36] not approached. Um, and so we encourage

[7:38] all of them as soon as you're aware of a

[7:39] development, whether it's Maida or in

[7:41] Leaport, the first thing you should do

[7:43] is at least make the county

[7:44] commissioners aware that there's a

[7:45] proposed project. And from there, we can

[7:47] navigate what's best for your community.

[7:50] Any questions before I dive into the

[7:54] details of our spreadsheet? Okay,

[7:58] >> I think that's great so far. Okay. So,

[8:00] yeah, this was really just to outline

[8:02] Title 17C, which is a community

[8:04] reinvestment um agency. You can create a

[8:08] project area. Do you all already have a

[8:10] CRA for the if you're familiar with

[8:13] title 17C and your own ability to create

[8:16] a project area as an agency yourself?

[8:20] >> Um so, that's one option. Utah and

[8:22] Lumpur, um another option. And then

[8:24] HB507 of the 2026 legislative session.

[8:28] This is newly passed legislation created

[8:31] regionally significant development

[8:32] zones. This could be used for other

[8:35] types of development but it is required

[8:37] for any data centers. Um that that is

[8:40] the pathway for tax increment on any um

[8:43] they define large load user um has to be

[8:46] in an RSTC that takes effect in 2027. It

[8:50] doesn't mean it couldn't be used right

[8:52] now though. But for any data center

[8:54] after January 1, 2027 has to be in RSDZ.

[8:59] Um,

[9:00] so this just goes through and I and I'll

[9:03] take the time. I think we've got time,

[9:04] but I can get through this pretty

[9:05] quickly and just kind of go through what

[9:07] we've tried to do is differentiate

[9:10] between each one of them um kind of the

[9:13] different statutory

[9:15] um guidelines and restrictions and

[9:16] flexibility and then also what we kind

[9:18] of see as the pros and cons towards the

[9:20] end of it. So um you know the purpose

[9:23] there for each one I

[9:25] >> and the port was originally like more

[9:28] logistics and trade focused obviously by

[9:30] the name but they have successfully been

[9:33] used for other types of projects and

[9:35] there's not currently a statutory

[9:37] limitation on the type of project that

[9:39] can be in an inapore project area.

[9:43] um created by this we feel like is kind

[9:46] of a big deal because then it it kind of

[9:49] um indicates the level of local control.

[9:52] So obviously with the CRA it's your your

[9:56] agency you're in charge of the project

[9:58] area you have a lot of hands-on um

[10:01] involvement in that Utah and the Port

[10:04] Authority they have a board but they

[10:06] cannot come into your county and create

[10:08] a project area unless you invite them

[10:10] in. And in our conversations with Ben

[10:13] Hart, the director of Inland Fort, he's

[10:17] um he's very aware of some of the

[10:19] challenges that have existed um and and

[10:23] you know some examples recently of of

[10:26] some of the

[10:28] um public feedback that county elected

[10:31] officials are getting about having state

[10:33] authorities come in. He's willing to

[10:35] address that through additional

[10:37] interlocal agreements. So the way that

[10:39] they've worked historically is they may

[10:42] come in, they're aware of a development,

[10:43] but you have to invite them in. You have

[10:45] to say we're okay with you creating a

[10:47] project area in our county and from

[10:49] there they've had some ability to work

[10:52] with their board to determine

[10:54] appropriate tax increment and would have

[10:57] some input with the county. I you know

[10:59] there's different perspectives on how

[11:01] much input from the various camps there

[11:03] has been but we do have a commitment

[11:05] from Ben Hart that going forward he will

[11:08] be much more mindful of how important it

[11:10] is to have local input and would enter

[11:12] into he actually said anou not an

[11:15] interlocal I apologize for that. So, if

[11:19] you chose to go the Inland Port

[11:21] Authority route, I would just really

[11:22] encourage you to make sure that that

[11:24] relationship and agreement between Grand

[11:27] County and the Inland Port Authority

[11:29] really covers what you need it to so

[11:31] that you have the level of local input

[11:33] control that you would want and are

[11:36] expected to have by the people who voted

[11:38] you.

[11:40] um RSDC, we had a lot of input into this

[11:45] um this legislation and it kind of

[11:49] strikes the balance um of what we saw

[11:53] why some were using inland port instead

[11:55] of a CRA. So a CRA

[11:58] which has local control inland um you

[12:02] give up some of that but with a CRA

[12:04] there are um interlocal agreements that

[12:07] have to be negotiated with all taxing

[12:09] entities and some of our counties have

[12:12] had projects that didn't go forward or

[12:16] development that they didn't feel was uh

[12:19] they felt like it was a misfortune. And

[12:23] I'll use the example of a solar

[12:24] development where there's short-term

[12:26] construction jobs but not not a lot of

[12:29] long-term jobs. And if the school

[12:31] district doesn't um agree to the

[12:34] proposal, then oftentimes it's it can't

[12:37] go forward because they have the biggest

[12:38] portion of the tax revenue. And that's

[12:41] been disappointing to some county

[12:43] officials who have felt like there's not

[12:45] really an impact to the school district

[12:47] that the school district wouldn't

[12:49] approve an agreement but the project

[12:51] didn't bring kids and so um within port

[12:56] those interlocal agreements are not

[12:58] required um

[13:01] so why did the school district not if

[13:04] they did wasn't taking any of their

[13:06] taxes why do they object I got confused

[13:09] there for a They didn't want to give up

[13:11] um they didn't want to participate in

[13:14] the project and give up tax revenue. The

[13:16] county felt like that was

[13:17] >> that's where I got confused. So you

[13:18] >> the county felt like that was

[13:20] >> you give up tax revenue as well as tax

[13:23] revenue with the CRAAS,

[13:25] >> right? Yeah.

[13:27] >> Thank you for the clarification.

[13:29] >> So the RSDZ kind of strikes the balance

[13:32] where the county would be the creating

[13:34] entity and you would hold a public

[13:37] hearing. You have to notify the school

[13:39] district and any other taxing entity in

[13:41] your county. You have to notify them if

[13:43] you hold a public hearing, but it's your

[13:45] proposal that you put together and you

[13:47] take to um a new board that's been

[13:50] created that will be overseas by go. And

[13:53] so it's kind of the balance of the two

[13:55] taking um what some perceive to be the

[13:58] real benefits of of title 17C and some

[14:01] of the flexibility that exists in the in

[14:02] the for statute and then created RSDZ.

[14:06] That's right.

[14:07] Um those are kind of significant things.

[14:10] Another another um real distinction is

[14:14] on the maximum property tax increment

[14:16] with the CRA. There's no maximum. You

[14:19] can give up to 100% of tax increment. I

[14:22] know of a project where that happened at

[14:25] this [laughter] mistake. So, you know,

[14:27] but again, again, it's really making

[14:30] sure that you're thoughtful and that the

[14:33] tax increment that is granted to the

[14:35] developer is appropriate, whatever that

[14:37] number is. Um, and Leaport has a

[14:40] statutory limitation of 75%

[14:44] um of their 75% they also receive 5% of

[14:49] an advent fee that the inland authority

[14:53] gets for administering the projects. Um,

[14:56] and then on the new RSDZ's 60% up to 60%

[15:00] real property and up to 100% of personal

[15:03] property. That's the maximum that can be

[15:06] granted through tax incremental

[15:08] financing for each one of those types of

[15:10] project areas.

[15:12] Um,

[15:14] sales tax increment. Um, again with

[15:18] title 17c

[15:20] um fully negotiable, a lot more

[15:22] flexibility there. um in Leaport has a

[15:25] statutory allocation of 20% within the

[15:28] project area and then um not included as

[15:32] part of an RSDZ

[15:34] and then we outline typical term 20 25

[15:38] years but um and Leaport does have a

[15:41] reauthorization option theirs for an

[15:43] additional 15 years. So these are these

[15:46] are just typical terms of an initial

[15:48] project area and you know 20 25 years

[15:52] down the road it's possible that some of

[15:54] them would be renewed and I think a lot

[15:56] of that has to do with new development

[15:58] that may happen in the project area.

[16:01] Um set aides this is this is going to

[16:05] become really interesting because I'm

[16:07] aware of some legislative intent of what

[16:09] they would like to see happen. So,

[16:11] currently on a CRA, there's a there's a

[16:14] requirement to take 10% of the project

[16:16] area funds as a set aside for affordable

[16:19] housing. And the CRA board, I mean,

[16:22] there's some statutory guidance of what

[16:24] affordable housing is and what you can

[16:26] use that money for, but um you do have

[16:29] to take 10% specifically for affordable

[16:31] housing. in Emery County right now

[16:33] they're starting to see because those

[16:35] solar projects in Emery County have

[16:37] triggered they're starting to see um

[16:39] some revenue coming in now that 10%

[16:42] housing set aside. We are in the process

[16:45] right now of helping them develop a

[16:47] housing plan that basically includes a

[16:49] down payment assistance for first-time

[16:51] home buyers, um home renovation for, you

[16:54] know, certain qualifying criteria, but

[16:57] they also didn't want to see their

[16:58] existing housing stock um not be taken

[17:01] advantage of where there's some

[17:02] opportunity there. And so that's been

[17:05] really rewarding now to have worked on

[17:07] their solar projects with them for so

[17:09] long to see the revenue start to come in

[17:11] and now helping them figure out how to

[17:13] deploy those dollars for their

[17:15] community, especially at a time where

[17:17] there's been uh a little bit of

[17:19] criticism of the public, you know, from

[17:21] the public officials. When I say this,

[17:23] I'm talking in generalities. I'm not

[17:24] saying everyone hates solar or whatever,

[17:27] but the the commissioners have taken on

[17:29] some criticism and so it's really

[17:31] rewarding to be able to help them take

[17:33] the money that did come in and put that

[17:35] back into the community [clears throat]

[17:37] for community good and other. So, we're

[17:40] really enjoying spending time with them

[17:41] on that. Um, in Leaport, there's no uh statutory um set aside.

[17:49] And then on the new RSDZ's um up to 10%

[17:53] for public infrastructure.

[17:55] Now, that wasn't really well defined and

[17:58] we talked a lot about that during the

[18:00] legislative session of what that money

[18:01] might be used for. I will tell you

[18:04] there's an interest from some

[18:06] legislators

[18:08] as they see these big projects um and

[18:11] I'll just say data centers because

[18:12] they're they're like they're

[18:15] multi-billion dollar projects when they

[18:17] go into one county um some legislators

[18:20] don't necessarily feel like that's

[18:23] because of that county or the benefit to

[18:25] that county is um relates to the

[18:31] [clears throat] population of that

[18:32] county or different um uh demographics.

[18:36] So what they're looking for is if we

[18:39] have billion-dollar investments going in

[18:41] anywhere in the state, is there a way

[18:43] that the entire state can benefit from

[18:45] that? And so they are considering some

[18:47] of them. There are conversations about

[18:50] taking some of that set aside

[18:53] um from RSDZs and potentially something

[18:57] else will pop up as we work through

[18:59] interim and go into the 2027 legislative

[19:01] session. But there is some talk about

[19:03] pulling some of that money from property

[19:05] tax and putting it into income tax to

[19:09] reduce state income tax for all Utah. So

[19:14] I know I defend property tax all day

[19:16] every day. Thank

[19:19] I get it. I'm like, especially from a

[19:21] county perspective, right? Because

[19:22] school districts have the um statewide

[19:26] um the basic school levy. Municipalities

[19:29] get more sales tax like, you know, I

[19:32] mean, all taxing entities have revenue

[19:35] in order to take care of their

[19:37] obligations. And I get that, but

[19:39] counties primarily operate on property

[19:42] tax. So, we don't have some of the

[19:43] revenue streams that others do. one. So

[19:45] I get get really protective of that.

[19:48] However, in um HB507 along the lines of

[19:53] uh that conversation, we were successful

[19:56] in um getting a municipal energy tax

[20:00] that counties can now impose. So

[20:02] historically, municipal en energy tax

[20:04] was only for municipalities. HB507

[20:08] authorizes a county by ordinance to

[20:10] impose up to a 6% energy tax. Um so

[20:15] think of the data centers and that

[20:17] energy tax would be applied to the end

[20:19] user. You do need to adopt an ordinance

[20:21] in order to make it effective. But just

[20:23] think of you know energy users in um

[20:26] unincorporated areas and the revenue

[20:28] stream that that could bring in. So

[20:30] something to consider.

[20:35] we [clears throat] have kind of

[20:36] outlined, you know, best use as we see

[20:39] it. Um kind of the original intent of

[20:43] what they were, but like I said, so so

[20:45] much of that limitation has been removed

[20:46] and um really any of the the pathways to

[20:50] tax increment can be considered. Um and

[20:53] then I've kind of already covered this,

[20:54] the county advantage being local

[20:56] control, your ability to negotiate

[20:58] there. One of the advantages with um in

[21:02] Leaport is they do this over and over

[21:04] again. They're they have quite a a

[21:07] routine process in place for those

[21:10] negotiations and what they authorize and

[21:12] like I said with the strengthened um

[21:15] agreement between the county and inland

[21:17] that's a possibility. Um and then RSDZ's

[21:21] I think this was Representative Robert's

[21:24] bill um floor sponsor with Senator

[21:26] Colar. I think they're really excited.

[21:28] There's not been one yet. There's a

[21:30] proposed RSDC in Tula County and one in

[21:32] Juwab County, but I think that they're

[21:34] looking at this as like will kind of

[21:36] solve some problems with others and are

[21:38] very um excited about what what

[21:41] potential that has.

[21:43] Um, I've kind of already covered some

[21:46] things, but uh that are on the pros and

[21:49] cons, but also from a developer

[21:50] perspective,

[21:53] in my experience, most developers

[21:56] are talking to lobbyists and then the

[21:59] lobbyists are the ones that are like,

[22:00] "Oh, we'll just go here or we'll just go

[22:02] do this and we can, you know, negotiate

[22:04] this for you." So again, I I'm really

[22:06] pleased that Grant County became aware

[22:08] of this and kind of pumped the brakes

[22:10] for a minute and said, "Let us figure

[22:12] out for ourselves because you're also

[22:13] mindful of developers in your

[22:15] community." I know you're mindful of the

[22:17] business sector and what's best for your

[22:18] community. So it's not to say that we

[22:21] don't want a state authority in our

[22:23] business. We want to handle this

[22:24] ourselves, but you should be thoughtful

[22:27] about the different pathways, what's

[22:29] best for your citizens and also

[22:31] potential development coming into your

[22:33] town. So,

[22:35] um

[22:37] I miss anything.

[22:47] » Thank you for all that.

[22:49] >> It's a bit taxing is

[22:52] >> I know when we

[22:54] already feel like I have a better

[22:55] understanding. So, thank you. I kind of

[22:57] laugh that there's probably only a

[22:58] handful of people that really understand

[23:00] taxing financing and how it works. But

[23:03] >> I know when we tried to do it before it

[23:05] was school district that all the other

[23:08] taxing entities agreed to. We wanted to

[23:11] do some development around USU.

[23:15] So,

[23:15] >> so you've had an experience like the

[23:16] example I described to meetings and

[23:20] visited with the differentities and you

[23:23] know,

[23:23] >> you know, it was unfortunate. Um, I was

[23:26] aware that there had been a development

[23:27] that happened in Salt Lake County and

[23:30] one of the school districts up there

[23:32] because they felt burned had adopted a

[23:35] policy that just said we will not

[23:37] participate in tax and calling and a lot

[23:39] of the school districts became aware of

[23:41] that and they started um they started

[23:45] just adopting it because of that one

[23:47] experience. Well, what they missed is

[23:50] that with energy projects or data

[23:53] centers and even some of your industry

[23:55] type projects, the majority of the value

[23:57] is personal property. And unless you put

[24:00] it in a project area, you don't capture

[24:02] that new growth. And so it's like they

[24:05] did a blanket policy based on an example

[24:08] that really then hurt school districts

[24:11] in other areas where they would have

[24:12] been able to generate more revenue had

[24:15] they been willing to participate in a

[24:16] project area. I spent I don't know

[24:19] better part of two years going as these

[24:22] projects would come up going to school

[24:24] boards on at the request of counties

[24:27] trying to help educate them of why that

[24:29] project was different than this proposed

[24:31] project and the way that property tax is

[24:34] calculated the way the tax rate is set

[24:36] and how you generate new revenue and so

[24:38] it was really unfortunate but that theme

[24:39] kind of went around the state based on

[24:42] one experience in Salt Lake County. I

[24:44] don't think our district said that

[24:48] to my knowledge.

[24:50] >> I have a couple of questions on the

[24:53] inland port. Um, and some of that came

[24:55] from not getting enough clarity maybe

[24:58] out of the summit that we attended.

[25:00] >> Oh, yeah. But there was mention that

[25:02] somebody used an interlocal agreement

[25:05] with the inland court and I was

[25:07] wondering if that is the case. Would it

[25:11] be possible to get a copy of that

[25:13] documents?

[25:14] >> I have once.

[25:15] >> Oh, you do?

[25:15] >> Yep. I'm happy to share it with you.

[25:17] Following um these conversations, you

[25:19] know, that I've had with director Ben

[25:22] Hart, he has shared with me um an

[25:25] agreement that they had with Beaver

[25:27] County. They also have a project area in

[25:29] Amry County where there's some the

[25:31] counties expressed some concerns because

[25:33] an area where they had been providing

[25:35] input is now proposed annex they sent

[25:37] into rangeville I think it is. So the

[25:40] counties expressed concern and so in

[25:42] response to that and lumpur has shared a

[25:45] proposed interlocal. So I really think

[25:47] that you know if there's any good that

[25:49] can come from know the situation that

[25:52] happened in Boxelder it's that the state

[25:53] authorities are much more mindful of the

[25:56] role of local government and I would

[25:59] encourage you to be mindful of that if

[26:02] you were to choose to go down the path

[26:03] of a state authority I would I would

[26:06] make sure that there's an interlocal

[26:08] agreement or something in place that

[26:10] covers all of the things that you would

[26:13] want it to such as you know your input

[26:15] in the the um the tiff structure, how

[26:21] much is the developer getting, what's

[26:22] being required, what you know, what

[26:24] involvement do you want to have? And I

[26:26] would really emphasize that because I've

[26:29] told them this, they they charge 5%

[26:32] admin fee because they're administering

[26:35] the project area. That doesn't mean that

[26:37] your county auditor and your county

[26:39] treasurer and your county assessor don't

[26:41] still have responsibilities related to

[26:43] these project areas that they then still

[26:46] have to figure out the parcels and what

[26:49] the value is, what portion is, is going

[26:52] through um through the the tax

[26:55] structure. And so he has even suggested

[26:58] a willingness to share some of that

[26:59] admin fee with the county where the

[27:02] project um is located and has even

[27:05] offered to support UAT because of the

[27:06] help that we are also giving to UAC

[27:09] because I I I think I've made a pretty

[27:11] compelling argument that the admin fee

[27:13] that's authorized in statute is for

[27:15] admin and there are administrative costs

[27:18] or administrative burdens that others

[27:20] have that with no revenue coming in to

[27:23] satisfy that. Some of the counties have

[27:24] needed um to use some of those fees to

[27:27] then hire their own consultants or

[27:29] additional attorney resources to help

[27:31] navigate a tiff, you know, structure

[27:34] with the developer or renegotiate a

[27:36] participation agreement with the

[27:38] developer. That's the purpose of the

[27:39] statutoily authorized admin fee. So, um

[27:43] take advantage just know that you're able to collect some revenue to

[27:46] help you through the nuances of this

[27:48] [clears throat]

[27:49] >> and that's if you're using the inlet

[27:51] port. So, in a CRA, you can also charge

[27:55] an admin fee. Um, in Lumpur, it's 5%

[28:00] just statutoily. We're just telling them

[28:02] that through an interlocal agreement

[28:04] with the county, they should be willing

[28:06] to share some of that admin fee. Um,

[28:10] they they do take on the bulk of the

[28:12] work with, you know, the negotiations

[28:14] with the developer and um going to their

[28:17] board and figuring out, you know, what

[28:19] should the incentive be? what is the bug

[28:21] for analysis that should be done each

[28:23] time you authorize tax increment. Um so

[28:26] they can handle a lot of that but it

[28:28] doesn't totally eliminate the county's

[28:29] responsibilities. So um the other thing

[28:33] I would mention that uh we have done in

[28:36] other counties where there has been a

[28:39] CRA if a developer has come in and

[28:42] proposed a CRA we've helped them

[28:44] negotiate um a cost reimbursement

[28:46] agreement. It's a different CRA only

[28:48] pays for a CRA, but a cost reimbursement

[28:51] agreement where essentially the

[28:53] developer pays the county upfront for

[28:56] the costs of hiring a consultant and in

[28:59] some cases they've hired us at UWAC to

[29:01] consult and negotiate with the developer

[29:03] on the county's behalf. And then once

[29:06] the project triggers and they're then

[29:08] collecting that admin fee from the tax

[29:10] increment, the developer then gets

[29:12] credit for what they fronted the cost

[29:14] of. So, we've we've done some things to

[29:16] try and lessen the burden on the

[29:18] counties even at the onset of these

[29:20] conversations and negotiations because

[29:22] you won't see any benefit from the

[29:24] project until there's actually

[29:26] development that you're collecting

[29:27] property tax on.

[29:30] >> One one other question that wasn't

[29:32] cleared up for me and most of the

[29:34] questions I have are around the Finland

[29:36] port because of the extreme amount of

[29:39] negative press that they've been

[29:41] getting. But the question I have is when

[29:44] you invite them into your county, are

[29:47] you giving control of the entire county

[29:50] they can utilize anywhere or are you

[29:52] able to say, "Okay, you can have this

[29:54] spot right here." I mean, for lack of a

[29:57] better word.

[29:58] >> Yeah. So, they um they define a project

[30:02] area and it's parcel specific. And I

[30:04] would I would be really careful with

[30:06] this because what what has happened they

[30:08] have to author that you have to

[30:10] authorize it. But when you invite them

[30:12] in and they say, "Here's the proposed

[30:14] project area and here's the parcels

[30:17] associated with that, then it's it's

[30:20] limited to that area." However, we have

[30:22] seen in other counties where then

[30:24] there's another development and within

[30:26] the same project area, they're adding

[30:29] parcels that aren't even um contiguous

[30:32] to a specific area. They they have the

[30:36] ability to do that. It's going to be a

[30:38] little bit tricky. We're trying to, you

[30:40] know, I think that there's probably an

[30:42] expectation from the development

[30:43] community and from some in the

[30:45] legislature to have that level of

[30:47] flexibility. It does become pretty

[30:48] complex for your property tax um your

[30:51] elected officials involved in property

[30:53] tax administration just the way that you

[30:56] set up nomenclature for areas of your

[30:59] county that are subject to different tax

[31:01] rates. And so having an area like even your city boundaries are you know a

[31:09] contiguous area and so to have project

[31:11] areas where it's not contiguous it we're

[31:14] trying to figure out how to help you

[31:16] know with the software end of that to

[31:17] make it a little more user friendly but

[31:20] it does become a little tricky and they

[31:23] can also trigger by parcel. It's not

[31:27] >> excuse me.

[31:28] >> So where um you have a project area

[31:31] let's say there's 10 different parcels

[31:33] in that project area and they trigger

[31:37] meaning that all right starting like the

[31:39] year that they trigger the following

[31:41] year is when they're going to start

[31:42] capturing tax increment. They can

[31:45] trigger by parcel not the entire project

[31:48] area. So someone has to manage within

[31:50] that project area the parcels that have

[31:52] triggered at which time and they could

[31:54] be there's you know there's no

[31:56] limitation for the variation of time

[31:59] span that that could have statute allows

[32:02] them up to 25 years to trigger. So you

[32:04] could have one that triggered now and

[32:06] then 25 years later you have another one

[32:08] that triggers and it goes on for years.

[32:10] >> Are they looking at remedying that?

[32:14] >> I think they're looking to make it more

[32:15] flexible than that.

[32:21] first.

[32:22] >> I'm good. Wait, Trish first.

[32:25] >> Okay. Um just just um I'm kind of

[32:29] sitting here looking at you like with a

[32:31] blank stare because

[32:34] I I think some of us, not all of us,

[32:37] have a fairly large knowledge gap, not

[32:39] as to these programs per se, but where

[32:42] this came from. So, I'm just asking that

[32:45] and I think this has been in the works

[32:47] for a while because you know, Bill, on

[32:50] your social media, you mentioned that

[32:51] like April 1 and and I know that you

[32:54] guys have been going to some meetings

[32:55] regarding it. So, what I would love is

[32:57] if we had a workshop on it to discuss

[33:01] kind of where you guys are going, give

[33:02] us some foundations like where this came

[33:05] from, right? What's the thought

[33:08] processes, where it's going, so we have

[33:10] some understanding because I kind of I I

[33:14] know you're gonna find this quite crazy.

[33:16] Can you please not do that, Bill?

[33:17] Please.

[33:18] >> What am I doing?

[33:19] >> Please just stop.

[33:22] You're gonna find this a little

[33:26] >> We're not doing anything, Trish. We're

[33:28] listening to you. We want to hear what

[33:29] you have to say.

[33:30] >> Please

[33:32] try not to. I know it's difficult to be

[33:34] civil, but please Thank you. So, I'm I'm

[33:38] into it. I think a recycling center is a

[33:40] great idea. We have a very linear

[33:43] society economy and it's a bad thing. We

[33:46] consume a ton and it usually goes to

[33:49] waste. And so I love this idea,

[33:52] but I feel a little like left out like

[33:54] there's this gap and all of a sudden

[33:56] we're jumping to this without

[33:58] understanding this. So it'd be great to

[34:00] kind of back up. And I'm not saying

[34:02] today. I'm saying in the future, give us

[34:05] some kind of foundation as to where this

[34:07] came from, what the thought process is,

[34:10] what we might be getting, what we might

[34:12] be giving to do something like this. If

[34:15] that makes some sense, just just a

[34:18] comment. And then that way I think we'd

[34:19] feel a little bit more engaged. I feel

[34:22] right now like I'm learning about

[34:24] something like what are we learning

[34:25] about? I don't know about the copper

[34:27] recycling center. This is, like I said,

[34:30] I've heard little tiny inklings. A Moab

[34:34] legislator told me a little bit more,

[34:35] but you know, I've heard nothing from

[34:37] the county. So,

[34:38] >> I think it it's not just for the copper

[34:40] recycling. There's lots of other um I

[34:42] mean, obviously, our county already

[34:44] created a CRA for a reason or CR

[34:46] whatever it is along, you know, Mary's

[34:48] familiar with it. So, it's not like this

[34:50] is something new. And uh you know we

[34:52] were I think we were all invited out to

[34:55] Lisbon you know Mariana Minerals when

[34:57] they were their information they talked

[34:59] about it there so it's not you know so I

[35:01] think you show up to the meetings then

[35:03] >> Lisbon's in San County and I I am

[35:06] perfectly aware of that and I couldn't

[35:07] go because I teach during the day but

[35:09] this I just came to you know ga gathered

[35:12] some local knowledge that this would be

[35:14] in our county and that's all I'm saying

[35:15] is

[35:15] >> but it applies best to giving us some

[35:18] background so that we're all like a you

[35:21] know these these components and these

[35:23] steps right I mean again I'm together

[35:26] Trish go ahead Mike

[35:28] >> bring it back down here

[35:30] >> uh thank you

[35:31] >> set aside requirement thank you thank

[35:33] you for explaining that uh I would uh

[35:36] being part of revenue and taxation

[35:38] underneath UAC

[35:40] >> uh I would like some information on the

[35:43] regionally significant development zone

[35:45] if you see some legislation coming out

[35:48] uh I I would really like to know um just

[35:52] to see what it that money could be set

[35:54] aside for. Uh I love your uh story of

[35:57] Emer County uh being set uh the solar

[36:00] fields being directly put to housing.

[36:02] That that's that's great. And most of

[36:04] our community won't it's not a direct

[36:07] throughput. Uh you can't see it in short

[36:10] timelines. Uh so it would be clear to

[36:13] line out of what we're uh if money was

[36:16] set aside on a project where it was

[36:18] going uh and what we're putting to but

[36:20] I'd like to know that within that

[36:22] revenue and taxation if if changes are

[36:24] being made please tell me by would love

[36:27] to come up and during open session like

[36:30] always

[36:31] >> uh but I like to know so thank you on

[36:34] both sides uh for the information today

[36:36] and for revenue and taxation side of

[36:38] UAC.

[36:39] >> Thanks for participating. I think Brian

[36:41] had a comment and then Mary. Thank you.

[36:45] >> Yeah. So, u um I think I'll just start

[36:47] by addressing Trish's comments that she

[36:49] had there. Um there's there's no reason

[36:51] that we shouldn't use the 30 minutes

[36:53] that we have right now, I think, to kind

[36:55] of catch up to see where we are on this

[36:57] project. There's nothing that's being

[36:58] hidden. There's nothing that's that's

[36:59] been happening behind closed doors.

[37:02] >> I would disagree with that statement,

[37:03] but go ahead.

[37:06] >> I was respectful when you when you

[37:08] spoke. if you would please offer me the

[37:10] same privacy. I I would appreciate that.

[37:13] >> Thank you very much in the audience. Um

[37:16] so yeah, the the conversation started at

[37:19] the opening of the Mariana Mons when it happened. Um I think that was in

[37:24] April. The what what had happened over

[37:26] there, this is just my understanding, is

[37:29] they have uh um been purchased and they

[37:32] were doing some some new studies on how

[37:35] to be more efficient in their mining. So

[37:37] they were uh um they brought in you know

[37:40] like AI vehicles they're you know um

[37:42] trying to have more efficient mining

[37:44] processes as they're um out there mining

[37:47] for the copper. One of the things that

[37:48] they found out is that in that process

[37:52] there's a great opportunity to recycle

[37:54] copper at the same time. So we you know

[37:58] that we and as the copper comes in there

[38:01] they're like that's a that's a great

[38:02] opportunity to recycle copper. Um the

[38:06] idea is how do you get the copper in,

[38:08] how do you get the copper out, right,

[38:10] for a project like this. Um there were

[38:12] conversations that were had outside of

[38:15] this commission um between uh San Juan

[38:18] County inland and Mariana Mont. We found

[38:21] out about these conversations. We said,

[38:23] "Hey, hold on. Let's pump the brakes.

[38:25] Let's figure out what's going on. Let's

[38:27] see if what's best for our our our

[38:29] county right here. And let's make sure

[38:31] that if this is coming into our county,

[38:32] it doesn't have to come into our county,

[38:34] right? I mean, it could just as easily

[38:36] go into Emory County, right? Is this

[38:38] something that we want to see coming

[38:40] into Grant County? Is this is this a

[38:42] project right here that that makes

[38:44] sense? Um the idea is is that copper

[38:47] would come in on the rail, right? be

[38:51] able to be offloaded strict at that

[38:53] little uh um right there at this little

[38:56] uh uh um call it a what did you call it

[38:58] a community investment zone or you know

[39:01] >> that's what we call

[39:02] >> yeah CRA or just just an opportunity

[39:04] zone right so we could have spot where

[39:07] the hopper is unloaded it is stripped

[39:09] right we might be able to take advantage

[39:11] of the uh uh the landfill on the plastic

[39:13] that kind of comes out however that's

[39:15] figured out and then it would be then

[39:17] trucked spot down to Mariana in San Juan

[39:20] County for the recycle, right? And then

[39:22] it would be trucked back up to the spot.

[39:26] The reason that we're looking at a

[39:28] couple of these different options right

[39:30] here is is is what fits best, I think,

[39:33] both for the county and what also is

[39:36] going to fit best for the tenant. Um

[39:38] because there is no there is no um there

[39:43] is no economic development. There are no

[39:45] future taxes if there's not a tenant.

[39:47] there's not someone that's going to be

[39:49] ultimately interested in providing

[39:51] something in that area. So, what we're

[39:53] looking for is this something a that

[39:55] Grand County residents would find that

[39:57] they want to see inside of our county.

[39:59] Um I I agree. I personally think that

[40:02] copper recycling is a great thing. Um

[40:05] it's one of those weird things that I've

[40:07] studied, you know, prior actually.

[40:10] um or the world of copper, we take all

[40:14] of our copper recycling and we send it

[40:16] on ship out to China. And the reason is because those ships basically head

[40:21] out there empty. So this this provides

[40:23] bow weight, you know, ships going out

[40:26] there in those contracts um between US

[40:30] suppliers and China. They actually have

[40:33] that if you leave the market, if you

[40:35] decide that you're going to try

[40:36] something different, you will never be

[40:38] allowed in the market again. And so

[40:40] these restrictions have made it to where

[40:42] people are are are they're they're very worried about leaving the

[40:48] uh uh the Chinese market as far as the

[40:50] recycling goes. Now that's the supplier.

[40:52] Now the buyers of copper, they go ahead

[40:54] and they pay those higher prices, right?

[40:57] Because they then have to pay for that that um that copper to be shipped

[41:01] back to the United States. They're two

[41:03] different entities most of the times. At

[41:05] least that's just kind of my

[41:06] understanding of how this all works. Um,

[41:09] this is one of the first times that I've

[41:11] heard that we actually have a really

[41:12] good opportunity of having copper

[41:14] recycling with a solid hold on it here

[41:17] in the United States. So, it is a it's a

[41:19] very very unique uh opportunity that we

[41:22] have here. I think that it would be

[41:24] great for our community. Um, copper is a

[41:27] huge a huge component of renewable

[41:31] energies, right? I mean, we don't have

[41:33] any wind here. We don't have any solar

[41:35] here. Um, but you know, we could we

[41:38] could uh uh join the renewable energy

[41:40] with copper. So, these are some of the

[41:42] things that I'd like to see in it and

[41:44] you know, I really thank you for coming

[41:45] out here and kind of explaining some of

[41:47] these tools that might be used to

[41:50] further a project like this. Um, we're

[41:53] just at the beginning stages of all

[41:55] this. Um, I would hope that Mariana

[41:57] would come on in here and explain much

[41:59] better than I have exactly what they're

[42:01] doing and what they would like to see.

[42:03] Um, but I think that before we even have

[42:05] those conversations, I think that we

[42:07] need to understand as a commission kind

[42:10] of what we would like to see and what we

[42:11] would be willing to do, [clears throat]

[42:13] right, if we were interested in this

[42:16] type of economic development.

[42:19] >> Thank you, Mary. You're next. I'm going

[42:21] back to the CRA.

[42:23] Uh I I've

[42:27] looking through my memory and if I

[42:29] remember right, one of the things that

[42:31] some of the districts got very excited

[42:34] about when they were willing to join in

[42:37] doing the CRA was that I'm trying to

[42:41] remember how it works and this is what I

[42:43] need your help with is

[42:46] they would be giving up that tax for a

[42:49] period of time but the tax is manable

[42:52] usually because there's not any

[42:53] development or anything really going on

[42:55] in that area. And then once the project

[43:01] or whatever the CRA was developed for

[43:04] happens, then

[43:07] usually it pan it pencils out, but they

[43:10] end up getting more taxes kind of like I

[43:13] called it a balloon payment

[43:16] when once the taxes

[43:19] started to be regenerated for those

[43:21] districts. Am I remembering that

[43:24] correctly? Yeah, that's that's a pretty

[43:27] good summary. You're taking an area that

[43:29] hasn't had a lot of economic oper or

[43:31] economic activity and you're

[43:33] incentivizing it through the use of

[43:35] property tax. And so an argument can be

[43:37] made that you have an area where you're

[43:39] not generating much tax at all. A lot of

[43:42] the energy development around state are

[43:44] on property that's in green belt and not

[43:47] generating a lot of property tax

[43:49] revenue. And then you have that

[43:50] development happen. Even though you're

[43:52] giving up a portion of it to the

[43:54] developer, in the in the end you end up

[43:57] getting more tax than you otherwise

[43:58] would have if it had gone undeveloped.

[44:01] >> And then they get Okay, I want to make

[44:03] sure I understand this. So the developer

[44:05] gets the tax

[44:08] or the [clears throat] period of time

[44:10] before the CRA comes to fruition or when

[44:15] or do they continue getting the tax

[44:18] after the development is completed.

[44:21] >> It's subject to a participation

[44:23] agreement. So that's part of the

[44:24] negotiation. You'll negotiate a

[44:26] participation agreement with the

[44:27] developer that will outline how much

[44:29] they're getting for how many years, what

[44:32] their obligations are. All that's

[44:35] negotiable. And that's helpful because I

[44:38] was really not remembering that

[44:42] part of when we were working really hard

[44:45] to get this done quite a few years ago.

[44:51] >> Yeah. the um where this all started was

[44:54] after the meeting when the Mariana Mine

[44:58] opened up down there. And I just want to

[44:59] clarify for Trish that the conspiracy

[45:02] theories that everybody's pushing around

[45:04] here and try and get some of that out

[45:06] here. But it was made clear that

[45:08] conversations were going on about Grand

[45:11] County without Grand County being

[45:13] involved. And we all received an invite,

[45:17] all of the commission did, to a meeting

[45:19] in Lasal, I believe it was. I'm not sure

[45:21] why you didn't go. I didn't go because I

[45:24] didn't want to go. I made it clear. I

[45:26] made a phone call to the mine and said,

[45:28] "Why is there a meeting about Grand

[45:30] County happening in San Juan County?"

[45:33] And so I didn't attend because I didn't

[45:36] want to go to a meeting down there about

[45:38] Grand County. But after hearing that

[45:40] there were rumors out there, I contacted

[45:44] Brandy and requested some information

[45:47] which we have received today. And then I

[45:50] attended the summit that they had up

[45:52] there because not only did the rumor

[45:56] about a copper recycling then started

[45:59] with everything that was going on in

[46:00] Boxelder County that also left the

[46:04] suspicion of I wonder what's going on

[46:06] around data centers in Grand County and

[46:08] hence the reason that we have Mr.

[46:10] Jackson was something on our agenda

[46:13] today to put a moratorum on data centers

[46:16] until the county can get a better grip

[46:19] on what we want if we want them at all

[46:22] which I'm not saying that I do but by

[46:24] putting a moratorum in place we blocked

[46:27] something from happening in the future.

[46:29] Now that that's the the story of how we

[46:32] got to where we are here today. The

[46:34] other side of this that maybe you know

[46:37] Brian didn't delve into as deep and that

[46:39] I know that I've talked to Mary about at

[46:41] length is there is a huge part of this

[46:44] copper recycling that would benefit the

[46:47] landfill

[46:48] and the process as my understanding is

[46:53] electrolysis separates the copper from

[46:56] the plastic sheathing that's on it and

[47:00] there's all this plastic that's left

[47:02] over that would then be transported to

[47:04] our landfill, which would have a huge

[47:07] benefit to the taxpayers in this

[47:09] community

[47:11] because that helps subsidize the costs

[47:14] considering that our county subsidizes

[47:17] already the solid waste district. So,

[47:21] there's a benefit to the county

[47:23] regarding the waste side of it. And the

[47:26] other side of it that has an interest

[47:27] for me also is that the copper

[47:29] recycling,

[47:31] the only water that gets used is for

[47:33] sanitation needs of the employees at the

[47:36] plant. There's no water involved in it.

[47:38] So to me, it seemed like somewhat of a

[47:41] win-win situation for the county if we

[47:43] could get control and decide which

[47:46] taxing increments that we wanted to

[47:49] utilize, if at all. why that there were

[47:52] some benefits to being ahead of this

[47:54] rather than behind it. So

[47:57] >> Mike and then Trish then you Mary

[48:00] >> two quick things I threw around like

[48:03] everyone knows the acronym uh UAC is

[48:06] Utah Association of Counties which we

[48:07] are a part of. Thank you guys uh again

[48:10] uh and thank you again for explaining

[48:12] tax incremental financing tools uh the

[48:15] different tools uh that are we have an

[48:19] ability to use uh because this project

[48:21] that we've been talking about back and

[48:22] forth uh will thank you Brian for your

[48:26] explanation. Thank you Bill for your

[48:27] explanation. It'll bring jobs that are

[48:29] not tourism related to Grant County.

[48:31] That that's the best of our work guys.

[48:33] Great jobs to Grant County for more of

[48:35] our residents. I I know it has a

[48:38] recycling part. I know it has low water

[48:40] usage. Great. But it'll bring jobs to

[48:42] Grant County and that's where I see the

[48:44] benefit.

[48:46] >> Trish. Um just really quick on the

[48:48] water, the actual recycling, the the bit

[48:51] of research I did uses about 3,700

[48:53] gallons per ton in the recycling

[48:56] process. Now, it doesn't sound like

[48:58] that's what we would be doing. It sounds

[48:59] like Mariana would be doing that. But I do want to state that that it does use

[49:04] water. Um,

[49:07] but I I like where this is going. I like

[49:10] that we have a little bit of knowledge

[49:12] and I'm just asking that we stay a prize

[49:14] and if we have Mariana come, whatever

[49:16] might be the case, I would love that. I

[49:19] think the more the open we are not only

[49:21] with fellow commissioners but with the

[49:23] community, the more they're going to be

[49:24] on board, right? And and just getting

[49:27] that knowledge out. That's why that's

[49:29] where push back comes from is just

[49:31] feeling left out, right? or feeling

[49:33] uneducated. And so I think the more that

[49:36] if we're moving in this direction, if we

[49:37] can have them come and give a

[49:39] description of where they're going, the

[49:42] better.

[49:43] >> Can I can I comment on that? I Yeah, I

[49:46] do think that's the reason for this

[49:48] visit today and exactly what we've

[49:50] encouraged the developer because I don't

[49:52] know if there were other conversations

[49:54] going on. I know the conversation I had

[49:56] was the developer had already made

[49:58] mention of this proposed project to the

[50:01] mining association. The mining

[50:03] association had already gone to inland

[50:05] port. That is a repeat of what we saw

[50:07] happen in Boxelder. The developer went

[50:09] to Maida. Maida started negotiating the

[50:12] terms of an agreement before they ever

[50:13] even went to Boxelder County Commission.

[50:17] >> And when I became aware of this and it

[50:19] was a call from Commissioner, he's like,

[50:20] "We're hearing rumors. I don't know a

[50:22] lot of the details, but it sounds like

[50:24] they're already talking to the court." I

[50:25] said, "We've seen this happen. Let's get pause things." And so I think

[50:30] that's the reason of being here today is

[50:32] to provide you education. And I don't I

[50:36] don't know if the mining association is

[50:38] continuing to have conversations, but I

[50:41] think you're absolutely right. It's

[50:42] unfortunate that because these it's

[50:45] fortunate for different reasons,

[50:47] unfortunate for some other reasons

[50:49] depending on perspective. But because

[50:51] the state authorities aren't limited on

[50:54] the types of projects they can oversee,

[50:57] it's easy for a lobbyist representing a

[51:00] developer to just go to a state

[51:02] authority and you wouldn't necessarily

[51:04] know about it. There's a lot more

[51:06] attention on that now because of of

[51:08] Strata the Stratus project. Um, but this

[51:11] was potentially a repeat of that type of

[51:14] behavior that fortunately some of you

[51:18] found out that there was at least some

[51:20] conversations going on and that's why

[51:23] we're here is to stop that and not let

[51:25] that be a repeat of what had happened.

[51:27] So, I appreciate it. Thank you.

[51:29] >> Did you have another question?

[51:31] >> I think I got it answered.

[51:32] >> Okay.

[51:33] >> I I It was for Bill. So I got a little

[51:36] confused because we we throw both terms

[51:39] back and forth. To me, it looks like

[51:41] we're looking at the one in Cresjuction

[51:44] as being more like a transfer station

[51:46] and not a recycle center

[51:49] or we take

[51:50] >> No, they would recycle the copper which

[51:52] is typically wire and it comes in with a

[51:55] plastic sheathing on it and the

[51:58] byproduct the waste product is then the

[52:01] plastic and the copper is utilized to be

[52:04] turned back into new wire or bars or

[52:07] whatever they use it for. So the

[52:09] byproduct, the waste product would then

[52:11] end up in a landfill somewhere which we

[52:15] have talked you and I have had

[52:16] conversations the one conversation with

[52:18] Chris Scoville about it as a benefit to

[52:22] the county.

[52:24] >> Okay. So if I answer real quick I think

[52:27] I can answer your question.

[52:29] >> Okay.

[52:29] >> So I think that you're looking at two

[52:31] processes, right? And I think you're

[52:33] looking at process one when the copper

[52:35] wire arrives that they're going to strip

[52:38] the copper wire and that would be

[52:39] happening that process would be

[52:41] happening in Crescent Junction. Okay.

[52:44] >> Would then go on to trucks and it would

[52:46] be trucked down to San Juan County where

[52:48] the actual recycling of the copper would

[52:50] happen. And that's where that was the

[52:52] spot that I said that I think that they

[52:54] found that that while they were milling

[52:56] that copper, right, that there's an

[52:58] opportunity at that same time that they

[53:00] could be recycling copper at the same

[53:03] time gaining those efficiencies and then

[53:06] the final product would then come back

[53:08] to would then come back to Grand County

[53:10] and hop on the rail and head on out.

[53:12] >> That's how I understood. I bet I got

[53:15] just I just confused you. I'm sorry.

[53:17] >> Excuse me, Bill. You confused me.

[53:19] >> Any more questions for Brandy or Sharon

[53:22] before?

[53:25] >> Thank you. Yes.

[53:30] » It's so good to see Mary. However you

[53:32] decide to act is happy to help.

[53:34] >> Thank you. Yeah.

[53:37] >> Okay. And we're going to take five six

[53:39] minutes. discuss. We'll be back with

[53:41] more

[53:42] regular

[1:00:50] Welcome everybody. Leaving early

[1:00:53] commission on July 7th

[1:00:56] >> at 4:00. We're opening this meeting at

[1:00:58] 42. Um we have an attendance dog online.

[1:01:03] Brian Martinez.

[1:01:05] Oh, I guess we should wait for Mary and

[1:01:07] sorry. Sorry about that.

[1:01:11] We have

[1:01:13] Commissioner Trish Dean, Commissioner

[1:01:15] Mayor Mcan, Commissioner Mike Mccertie,

[1:01:17] Commissioner Bill and myself,

[1:01:19] Commissioner Mccandas, along with County

[1:01:21] Attorney Stevens and Commission

[1:01:23] Administrator Mark Kaiser.

[1:01:26] >> We have Gabe online. No, [clears throat]

[1:01:29] » these are the soccer games.

[1:01:30] >> I already got Jacques. Yeah, we're good.

[1:01:32] And I'd like to start this meeting out

[1:01:34] with the pledge of allegiance. You all

[1:01:35] stand.

[1:01:38] >> I

[1:01:40] the United States of America and to the

[1:01:43] republic for which it stands. One nation

[1:01:46] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:01:49] justice for all.

[1:01:54] » Hey, and Commissioner Winfield has asked

[1:01:56] to speak before you get going.

[1:01:59] >> Um, I know that Trisha, you mentioned um

[1:02:02] and brought to attention the county

[1:02:04] should we should have our flags at half

[1:02:06] staff. And if you'd like to say anything

[1:02:08] about the firefighters, I'm welcome to

[1:02:10] let you do it. If not, I'd like to say a

[1:02:12] few things.

[1:02:12] >> That'd be great.

[1:02:14] >> And I do want to say that that was

[1:02:16] prompted by a citizen saying, "Hey, I

[1:02:18] think this would be really good for you

[1:02:20] guys to do this." So, I want to thank um

[1:02:21] it was Bob Phillips. I want to thank him

[1:02:23] for for inspiring that.

[1:02:27] >> The the firefighters were Emily Baker,

[1:02:30] 38, from Clinton, Michigan. Nick Hutchin

[1:02:33] Hutcherson 27 from Glendale, Arizona.

[1:02:37] Sydney Watson, 27, from Warrior,

[1:02:41] Alabama.

[1:02:43] That sounds interesting. But anyway, we

[1:02:45] lost heroes in that fire that started in

[1:02:48] Grand County and moved to Mesa County in

[1:02:52] Colorado.

[1:02:54] And I just want to acknowledge that they

[1:02:56] gave all. They gave their lives trying

[1:02:59] to protect a natural resource, to

[1:03:01] protect something that we all hold dear

[1:03:03] here. And it it's hard to not

[1:03:06] acknowledge them. And I I did attend the

[1:03:10] memorial for them. I got there a little

[1:03:12] bit late, but

[1:03:14] enough to know that there wasn't a dry

[1:03:16] eye in that place and there were 500 to

[1:03:19] a,000 people. I'm not good at crowd

[1:03:21] measurement, but um I was there when the

[1:03:25] they received their last call and it's a

[1:03:27] tribute that they do for firefighters

[1:03:29] that are lost in the line of duty. And

[1:03:31] when they do not answer,

[1:03:34] well, that's that's the end for them.

[1:03:37] That's the end of their duty. And the

[1:03:38] other firefighters are promising to pick

[1:03:41] up and to carry on for them. I just I

[1:03:44] tell you, it hits pretty hard when it's

[1:03:46] that close to home. I have a son that

[1:03:49] works fights fires. Um probably have

[1:03:52] some grandsons that will follow him into

[1:03:54] that line and it's an incredible battle

[1:03:57] that we see taking place out there in

[1:03:59] our state right now, especially just

[1:04:01] right across the line to the south. So

[1:04:03] we're surrounded with it. But I I do

[1:04:07] want to acknowledge that they gave all.

[1:04:10] So thank you.

[1:04:11] >> Thank you, Bill. Thank you.

[1:04:14] >> I do want to remind commissioners to use

[1:04:16] their mics. It's good for the people

[1:04:18] online

[1:04:20] as well as the audience out here. I

[1:04:21] think it goes out there. So, you can use

[1:04:23] your mics. That would be greatly

[1:04:24] appreciated by the audience.

[1:04:28] >> And Mike,

[1:04:29] >> can I uh am I able to speak now or

[1:04:31] should I wait for Go ahead.

[1:04:33] >> Okay. Go ahead.

[1:04:34] >> Uh thanks, Bill, for doing that. Uh two quick statements. As it is uh

[1:04:41] July 7th, mere days after our nation's

[1:04:44] uh 250th day of independence

[1:04:46] celebration, I wanted to bring it back

[1:04:48] to the local level and uh say thank you

[1:04:51] to every one of our guests and citizens

[1:04:53] uh in Grand County for the awesome no

[1:04:55] incidents, no fire uh from fireworks on

[1:04:58] the 4th of July. It's a big deal. our

[1:05:00] local fire teams have reached out. Our

[1:05:03] uh Grant County Fire Department has

[1:05:05] reached out and uh posted it. But want

[1:05:07] to say thank you to everyone for uh no

[1:05:10] it no fire incidents whatsoever on the

[1:05:12] 4th of July. That's big as we know

[1:05:15] they're going around this year. Uh

[1:05:17] second thing uh Grand County Fair uh was

[1:05:20] absolutely awesome. Was well attended.

[1:05:23] Uh and I'm already looking forward to

[1:05:25] next year's uh I hope many others also.

[1:05:29] Uh glad I got to be a part of it. Uh see

[1:05:31] so many friends and people out. Uh a

[1:05:34] huge sectionist community was out there

[1:05:36] guys. Uh all sorts. Uh even even

[1:05:40] opponents were out there as we can see.

[1:05:42] But if any of you missed uh I want to

[1:05:45] say Thursday night uh was the junior

[1:05:47] rodeo. Uh considered a huge loss and I

[1:05:50] expect to see you out there next year.

[1:05:52] It was absolutely a sight to see. Uh so many youngans. uh five year five

[1:05:59] years old to teenagers uh just showing

[1:06:02] absolute courage and their ability uh to

[1:06:06] uh in many rodeo aspect. It was awesome

[1:06:09] to see uh just on a Thursday night in

[1:06:11] Grand County. I I am so glad the OSA

[1:06:14] staff and the fair board uh put that

[1:06:16] together. It was absolutely awesome and

[1:06:18] I was glad to see everyone uh from our

[1:06:21] community out there. So, hope to see you

[1:06:23] next time.

[1:06:26] Okay. And then I just wanted to mention

[1:06:29] today that regarding item four on the

[1:06:32] agenda, which is the data center

[1:06:33] temporary land use regulations, that we

[1:06:36] do not actually have a formal

[1:06:37] requirement for a public hearing as it's

[1:06:40] administrative decision. So we are um we

[1:06:43] will allow dedicated comments pertaining

[1:06:45] to this topic. You can have them now

[1:06:47] during citizens to be heard or I will

[1:06:50] allow that after item number three. But

[1:06:54] um we are going to consider this a

[1:06:55] little bit later. Sorry. Oh my the smoke

[1:07:00] is getting to me. It's not. Um anyways,

[1:07:03] we'll consider that later this this

[1:07:05] evening. So with that, we will have some

[1:07:08] things to be heard. Who would like to

[1:07:09] come up and speak?

[1:07:13] Come on.

[1:07:21] I just Mary O'Brien Bastel Valley. I

[1:07:24] just attended the workshop on tax

[1:07:27] increment financing which um I had heard

[1:07:32] about

[1:07:34] rumors about a copper in cycling center

[1:07:38] had no information what how this was

[1:07:40] coming up. Um, and so, um, I sent a

[1:07:45] grammar request, um, and I asked for all

[1:07:49] communications, including, but not

[1:07:51] limited to documents transmitted to and

[1:07:53] from, and personal communications,

[1:07:56] emails, phone notes, meeting notes to or

[1:07:59] from Bill Winfield, Brian Martinez,

[1:08:01] andor McCandvas, and all other persons

[1:08:04] and entity entities concerning um, any

[1:08:08] of the following words: Umpra, Water

[1:08:10] Rights, Crescent Junction, copper

[1:08:12] recycling and the date range of

[1:08:15] documents from January 1st of this year

[1:08:17] to June 4th when I sent the grandma. I

[1:08:20] have recre received no response at all.

[1:08:25] The um grandma was um initially denied

[1:08:29] because the time had passed and the

[1:08:32] three of you hadn't responded. So I have

[1:08:34] appealed it and I still have no

[1:08:38] response. This is over a month. And if

[1:08:41] this is the kind of secrecy that's going

[1:08:43] to go on regarding tax improvement

[1:08:45] financing, which is a subsidy to

[1:08:47] development that diverts from p um taxes

[1:08:51] for public

[1:08:53] um I I looked up I have tax increment

[1:08:56] financing, copper recycling.

[1:08:59] Why do we have to subsidize copper

[1:09:01] recycling if it's such a good idea and

[1:09:04] such a good um business, which it is

[1:09:06] very good to recycle copper? And I just

[1:09:10] looked up on the web community

[1:09:11] redevelopment areas which were being

[1:09:14] talked about today anti uh taxing

[1:09:18] financing and it just said face

[1:09:21] significant critiques most notably that

[1:09:23] they divert profit taxes away from

[1:09:26] public services like schools and

[1:09:28] subsidized developers for projects that

[1:09:31] might have happened anyways. Um that was

[1:09:34] the Lincoln Policy Institute. Um,

[1:09:37] another one was the heading why tax

[1:09:39] increment financing often fails and how

[1:09:42] communities could do better by um, uh,

[1:09:46] and that was Lincoln Institute and

[1:09:49] Kansas Policy Institute. The hidden

[1:09:51] costs of tax increment financing

[1:09:53] subsidies that drain prosperity. All of

[1:09:57] which I have not read that

[1:09:59] those materials. I don't know about TIFF

[1:10:02] or CRAAS. I certainly don't know where

[1:10:06] this copper recycling meetings came, but

[1:10:08] clearly at the last in the last hour

[1:10:12] they'll refer to meetings that you've

[1:10:14] gone to and yet zero response on grandma

[1:10:19] on on the public records act. So it's

[1:10:22] better it better be more public process

[1:10:26] than what it has been up to now. Thank

[1:10:29] you.

[1:10:31] >> Uh go ahead. our county attorney back to

[1:10:33] speak.

[1:10:33] >> Yeah.

[1:10:33] >> Just just briefly. So, the county in an

[1:10:35] election year always sees a substantial

[1:10:37] uptick in the amount of grandma

[1:10:39] requests. We understand the the public's

[1:10:41] patience with this. Um I think your

[1:10:43] request yielded 1,998

[1:10:46] separate emails. And so what I have to

[1:10:48] do is I have to go through every single

[1:10:50] one of those emails. We have to redact

[1:10:52] them and take that information out.

[1:10:53] That's on my desk. Um, that's I think

[1:10:56] we've got multiple grandma requests that

[1:10:59] are coming in and all of them we have to

[1:11:01] pull all the emails. We have to go

[1:11:03] through them. We have to sit through

[1:11:04] them, make sure that they're uh legally

[1:11:06] compliant to be able to release and then

[1:11:08] all the information is redacted that

[1:11:10] should be redacted. Um, so we do do have

[1:11:12] a number of requests that are working

[1:11:14] through the process. Um, I think

[1:11:16] normally in a small community like this,

[1:11:18] we have staff that are completely

[1:11:20] dedicated to be able to do those those

[1:11:22] requests. We're a really small community

[1:11:24] and I think this year's grandma requests

[1:11:26] and the size and the magnitude of the

[1:11:28] requests that we've received has been I

[1:11:31] think anything you know substantially

[1:11:33] more probably like two or 300% more than

[1:11:35] what we see in a normal year. And so we

[1:11:37] have to address all of those things. So

[1:11:39] I understand the frustration from the

[1:11:41] public on on those requests. We're

[1:11:43] trying to get through them. I I do have

[1:11:45] literally the count was 1,998 pages that

[1:11:48] I have to go through.

[1:11:49] >> I appreciate that. But I think these

[1:11:53] grandma requests wouldn't be coming in

[1:11:55] if there we weren't having um ACE

[1:11:58] development coming out of nowhere. Um

[1:12:01] $60,000 to an inst economic institute

[1:12:05] coming out of nowhere. Ending time entry

[1:12:07] out of nowhere. You would grant a

[1:12:11] feeling that open process.

[1:12:15] Thank you.

[1:12:17] >> Okay. Any who would like to speak next?

[1:12:24] You can sit the table or stand up.

[1:12:30] My name is Dave Vagner. Live up the

[1:12:32] street.

[1:12:34] In regards to the firefighters, I'd like

[1:12:36] you to acknowledge there were two badly

[1:12:38] burned, badly injured firefighters that

[1:12:41] are struggling right now.

[1:12:44] Okay. I have a couple other comments.

[1:12:46] Any water decisions need to be account

[1:12:49] for current residents and businesses

[1:12:51] needs going forward. In some places in

[1:12:55] Arizona, the developers must be able to

[1:12:57] provide water. They can't ask the public

[1:13:00] to do it. I think we are approaching the

[1:13:04] time when that's going to happen for us.

[1:13:07] Second, the Arches shuttle. It is

[1:13:10] obvious to me and others that a two-week

[1:13:12] window to provide bids is absolutely

[1:13:15] ludicrous. But since you appear to be

[1:13:18] working with one provider, it will

[1:13:20] probably be the only. [clears throat]

[1:13:23] This is not competitive bidding, not

[1:13:26] acceptable, and the four of you are

[1:13:28] treading on thin ice. You ignore input

[1:13:31] from the voters, your constituents, and

[1:13:34] do what you want to do. It's going to

[1:13:36] come back on you. Thanks for your time.

[1:13:41] Thank you, Dave. Who would you like to

[1:13:43] speak?

[1:13:44] Come on up.

[1:13:56] » Um, I just wanted to to My name is Scott

[1:13:59] Sullie. I'm representing Grant County

[1:14:00] Search and Rescue. and I wasn't going to

[1:14:02] be here for the next meeting, but I

[1:14:04] wanted to give you an update on uh one

[1:14:07] of the the grants that we had uh applied

[1:14:10] for last year. Um back in uh September

[1:14:16] of last year, we had been awarded a

[1:14:19] grant and approved an 82 just over

[1:14:21] $82,000 to purchase two UTVs.

[1:14:25] Um, we were able to purchase those

[1:14:27] starting in in January of this year. And

[1:14:31] instead of just going for the the

[1:14:34] newest, latest, and greatest, we chose

[1:14:35] to actually purchase uh vehicles that

[1:14:38] were a year old in excess in inventory.

[1:14:41] And that ended up saving uh around just

[1:14:44] over 122,000

[1:14:47] in our grant.

[1:14:49] Um,

[1:14:51] we purchased those vehicles on the 31st

[1:14:54] of January and then we had to make a lot

[1:14:56] of modifications to them so that we can

[1:14:58] go out and and bring people who are

[1:15:00] injured and baskets, you know, back from

[1:15:03] all places like Hell's Revenge and

[1:15:05] Poison Spider and Slick Rock and and

[1:15:07] many other places.

[1:15:10] Um, we completed those modifications

[1:15:13] um

[1:15:15] uh at the end of uh at the end of May.

[1:15:19] and we put those uh vehicles into use

[1:15:21] just this last month, which actually was

[1:15:23] one of our busiest June that we've seen

[1:15:26] um in a long time. [clears throat]

[1:15:30] I kind of wanted to break it down so

[1:15:32] that the citizens of uh Grant County

[1:15:34] kind of know how we're spending our

[1:15:35] money.

[1:15:37] So, of the uh [clears throat]

[1:15:41] $82,000

[1:15:43] um a little more than that that we were

[1:15:44] awarded, we ended up spending under

[1:15:46] $65,000.

[1:15:49] Of that money,

[1:15:53] threequarters of that was paid for by

[1:15:54] the DNR and that grant comes from the

[1:15:58] offhighway vehicle registration dollars.

[1:16:00] So people that buy or people that

[1:16:02] register like snowmobiles, motorcycles,

[1:16:05] boats, ovs, they they pay into this

[1:16:07] fund. Um and that's come around to help

[1:16:10] our county. Um [clears throat] so the

[1:16:14] remaining balance of uh

[1:16:18] the um

[1:16:20] of the money that was not uh um given to

[1:16:23] us by the the DNR.

[1:16:26] uh we had don't put in $10,000 of our

[1:16:29] own donation funds.

[1:16:32] So of the so basically, you know, there

[1:16:35] was $16,000

[1:16:37] uh plus that Grant County had to come up

[1:16:41] with to purchase these these two

[1:16:42] vehicles. Um and and of that $16,000, we

[1:16:46] put in $10,000 of our own money. and

[1:16:49] then it's very likely that we'll submit

[1:16:51] this to the search and rescue state

[1:16:52] board and we'll actually get um at least

[1:16:56] half of that money reimbured to us. So

[1:16:59] in the end there's actually probably

[1:17:00] going to be more money going into the

[1:17:02] Grand County general fund than uh than

[1:17:06] we needed to actually have our citizens

[1:17:08] put forth. So I just wanted

[1:17:10] our citizens know that. Thanks.

[1:17:12] >> Thank you.

[1:17:14] >> You

[1:17:16] okay? Do we have

[1:17:18] >> uh is this time to talk about the data

[1:17:20] centers?

[1:17:22] >> Um [clears throat]

[1:17:23] >> either time wait till the time or

[1:17:26] >> either way you can talk about it right

[1:17:28] now. It's not really a public hearing on

[1:17:29] that. So if you want to talk about it

[1:17:30] right now go ahead.

[1:17:31] >> Yep.

[1:17:33] We will include those on our comments on

[1:17:37] that tonight anyway. So

[1:17:38] >> uh great. I just wanted to say I'm very

[1:17:40] pleased that you're considering a

[1:17:42] moratorum. It's going to be one of the

[1:17:44] times that we make it a semino decision

[1:17:47] out of you. I'm really hoping that we

[1:17:49] do. The other thing I want to say about

[1:17:50] the mortorium of course is after the

[1:17:52] moratorum we have work to do on what

[1:17:55] it's going to look like for data

[1:17:57] centers. You know what is the minimum

[1:17:59] size as somebody on the planning

[1:18:00] commission says it can't be a couple of

[1:18:03] uh uh uh uh servers sitting in the

[1:18:07] basement somewhere because that's not

[1:18:09] quite a data center. So we're going to

[1:18:10] have to make good clear definitions. The

[1:18:13] other thing I'd really love to see is

[1:18:15] some workshops

[1:18:17] because I think it's real important to

[1:18:19] get public input on this. Is this

[1:18:22] something people want to see for the

[1:18:24] community? And I also know yes indeed

[1:18:26] there are businesses that might be

[1:18:28] interested in doing it. But I think here

[1:18:30] when we will eventually have a

[1:18:32] legislative decision on what this looks

[1:18:35] like, it's important to get public

[1:18:37] opinion which is not clamor when it

[1:18:40] comes to a legislative decision. Thank

[1:18:42] you.

[1:18:43] >> Thank you. I think I have um someone

[1:18:46] online that wants to speak. AJ.

[1:18:50] >> Hey. Yep. Can you hear me? All right.

[1:18:52] >> Yeah.

[1:18:54] >> AJ Throg Martin, thanks for letting me

[1:18:56] speak. Uh I wanted to speak briefly to

[1:18:58] the patriotic crosswalk that we did over

[1:19:00] the last week and just give a few shout

[1:19:02] outs to that. It's a bit of a list who

[1:19:04] all chimed in and helped out, so bear

[1:19:07] with me here. But um first we started

[1:19:09] with Sheriff Wiggins helped put me in

[1:19:11] touch with some members of the sheriff's

[1:19:13] department as well as a couple of

[1:19:14] inmates that came out and helped out

[1:19:16] with that effort. The BFW chipped in,

[1:19:19] Commander Kho over there. Dan Sto, a

[1:19:22] local Trudy Henches, Commissioners

[1:19:25] McCandless and two of her kids came out

[1:19:27] to help out. Commissioner Winfield

[1:19:29] chipped in.

[1:19:31] Local community member Shaylee Holland

[1:19:33] helped out. And then getting it approved

[1:19:35] through the city was a collaborative

[1:19:37] effort too. We had a lot of help from

[1:19:42] city manager Michael Black very helpful

[1:19:45] in helping get approval for that and

[1:19:47] seeing what I needed to get complete to

[1:19:49] uh to even just get started on the work.

[1:19:51] City roads department came out helped us

[1:19:53] con everything off and block it off. Uh

[1:19:56] members of the mark provided a ton of

[1:19:58] valuable input on prepping the canvas

[1:20:01] that was our crosswalk materials to use.

[1:20:04] Um I'm sure I'm missing a few folks, but

[1:20:07] it was a huge team effort and and I'd

[1:20:09] call out that I I first got that idea

[1:20:11] from a municipality in New Jersey that

[1:20:13] did it. Um and as we were actually

[1:20:16] working on it, saw pictures of St.

[1:20:18] George and a few other communities doing

[1:20:20] that similar kind of patriotic display

[1:20:22] on the canvas of a crosswalk. So that

[1:20:25] coupled with all of the hoots and

[1:20:28] hollers, people driving by, I guess it

[1:20:30] was like um maybe cat calling, they were

[1:20:33] all in support driving by. And so it was

[1:20:35] really warming to see that uh the

[1:20:37] community took notice and and was

[1:20:39] supportive of that show of national

[1:20:41] unity.

[1:20:42] And then to wrap that down to the local

[1:20:44] level, the services that people like the

[1:20:47] sheriff's department do chipping in on

[1:20:49] that effort along with helping protect

[1:20:50] us day in day out. I think it also

[1:20:53] pertains that level of service to those

[1:20:55] firefighters and the heroes that

[1:20:56] Commissioner Winfield spoke about a

[1:20:58] little bit ago. Um that sense of service

[1:21:01] and and national unity goes to each of

[1:21:04] you and the services you provide as

[1:21:06] well. It can definitely be a thank

[1:21:08] thankless job that you can get involved

[1:21:10] with here. But in that you're tasked

[1:21:13] with making some really hard decisions

[1:21:14] to impact the quality of life and our

[1:21:17] viability as our community. So, well,

[1:21:20] thank you to all of you and to to all of

[1:21:22] those service members.

[1:21:25] Yeah. Thank you.

[1:21:27] >> Thank you, AJ.

[1:21:28] >> I know it wasn't said earlier. That is

[1:21:30] absolutely beautiful. Thank you guys.

[1:21:32] Uh, thank you, AJ. Thank you guys for

[1:21:34] working on that.

[1:21:36] >> Very fun. If you haven't seen it, go and

[1:21:37] walk right across the street.

[1:21:39] [clears throat]

[1:21:40] >> Did you want to come up? You ready?

[1:21:43] >> I never want to, but

[1:21:45] >> No, you sit up there.

[1:21:48] and sweat. Name is Pete Ghost, web

[1:21:51] resident for the last third of a

[1:21:52] century. Um, first of all, several

[1:21:55] months ago, I stood here at one of the

[1:21:57] public hearings and Lynn Jackson was

[1:21:59] sitting in the audience and I pointed

[1:22:01] out when Lynn Jackson and I agree on a

[1:22:03] topic. Wow, that's pretty important. And

[1:22:06] he even commented, I'm making note of

[1:22:09] that. And what I'm speaking in reference

[1:22:12] to is the Arches Shuttle that Lynn

[1:22:15] Jackson had written an op-ed about what

[1:22:17] a monumental waste of money it is. And I

[1:22:20] totally agree with Lynn once again. Um

[1:22:24] I don't think I even need to go into the

[1:22:25] details why, but it's so poorly thought

[1:22:27] out. You know, just what's going to

[1:22:29] happen at 5:00 p.m., you know, when when

[1:22:31] they leave? What about the people that

[1:22:33] are stranded? They missed the last one.

[1:22:34] How is that, you know, there's just so

[1:22:36] many unanswered questions. I think it's

[1:22:38] being rushed. That needs to be

[1:22:40] [clears throat] taken into account. Um,

[1:22:43] regarding the water use and preservation

[1:22:46] element, um, as has been pointed out, as

[1:22:49] far as I know, there's no consideration

[1:22:51] of climate change in there. And while

[1:22:54] some people seem to think it's not a

[1:22:55] hoax, I studied thermal sciences. The

[1:22:57] science is solid. It was worked out back

[1:23:00] in the 1800s. Um, and also the notion

[1:23:04] that we could tap into the Colorado

[1:23:05] River. The infrastructure required that

[1:23:09] would again that would be a monumental

[1:23:10] waste. It's like the Colorado River is

[1:23:14] already overallocated.

[1:23:17] I don't need to say any more about that.

[1:23:19] And Grand County water rights are junior

[1:23:20] to any existing rights.

[1:23:23] The Burr Oaks reszone, I'm not sure if

[1:23:25] this is the right time to raise that

[1:23:27] issue.

[1:23:28] >> It's not. If you want them um if you

[1:23:30] want them to be on the record for those

[1:23:32] specific public hearings, then you can

[1:23:33] speak at that time.

[1:23:34] >> Okay. Then I will

[1:23:35] >> want to speak at be the public to be

[1:23:38] heard, you can say whatever you want

[1:23:39] about them. But if you want it to be on

[1:23:41] that specific record,

[1:23:42] >> I will save it for that. Yeah. So just

[1:23:45] [snorts] and I'd also like to remind

[1:23:47] that that a number of the members of

[1:23:49] this commission voted I mean campaigned

[1:23:52] on fiscal responsibility and

[1:23:54] transparency and we're not seeing that

[1:23:57] at all if anything from those same

[1:23:58] people who anyway I think that's kind of

[1:24:03] hypocritical. Thank you very much.

[1:24:07] >> You have anyone out there want

[1:24:10] you're next Alison?

[1:24:18] Hello, I am Jim Webster and I'm speaking

[1:24:21] as a private citizen on this. Uh I spent

[1:24:24] my career working on the protection safe

[1:24:26] for the protection safety of of national

[1:24:28] park visitors and resources. Uh I have

[1:24:31] some questions and comments about the

[1:24:33] shuttle. Uh I'm still concerned that

[1:24:36] this project was sprung on the community

[1:24:38] with very short notice uh due to this

[1:24:41] lack of transparency and little to no

[1:24:43] effort was made to engage the community

[1:24:45] to educate us about the project and to

[1:24:48] gain our support in my opinion. I'm also

[1:24:52] concerned that there's been very little

[1:24:53] visible public engagement

[1:24:56] uh or support by local, regional, or

[1:25:01] even national park service leadership on

[1:25:04] this shuttle. See, it [clears throat]

[1:25:05] still seems to me that it see this seems

[1:25:08] to be a project created and driven

[1:25:10] almost entirely by a county commission

[1:25:12] subcommittee of advocates developed and

[1:25:15] now soon to be funded mostly out of the

[1:25:18] public eye. I'm concerned about the

[1:25:20] large amount of local public funds, uh,

[1:25:24] the $500,000 match, if you will,

[1:25:26] expected to come out of TRT funds. Uh, I

[1:25:30] have also heard that there is a question

[1:25:32] about whether the specific TRT funds

[1:25:34] will be even available this year or that

[1:25:38] uh, an unbudgeted TRT diversion to the

[1:25:40] project might impact funding for the

[1:25:42] sheriff's office. I also heard that

[1:25:45] there uh is a possibility that some or

[1:25:49] local match may eventually need to come

[1:25:51] out of the general fund.

[1:25:53] Uh lastly, uh who will manage this

[1:25:56] project on the grand county side of

[1:25:58] things? Uh will it be an additional duty

[1:26:01] filed on top of an existing employee or

[1:26:03] an unbudgeted new hire at taxpayer

[1:26:06] expense? Now, I'm concerned that the

[1:26:09] $1.5 million pledged by the park service

[1:26:12] is not yet committed, approved, nor

[1:26:15] appropriated as of the last that I've

[1:26:17] heard. Uh, this project is scheduled to

[1:26:20] start in less than two months. More than

[1:26:23] half of the funding is not even there.

[1:26:26] If for some reason the park service

[1:26:28] funding does not come through and this

[1:26:31] contract is is awarded tonight, are we

[1:26:34] local taxpayers obligated to come up

[1:26:37] with an additional $1.5 million

[1:26:41] to cover the park service portion in

[1:26:42] order to honor this contract that you

[1:26:45] may be voting that you will be voting on

[1:26:47] tonight? Grand County certainly has

[1:26:49] other immediate needs including funding

[1:26:51] a municipal water storage facility out

[1:26:54] in Spanish valley. Uh that funding

[1:26:57] request was re recently forwarded by

[1:27:00] this commission I think on a on a

[1:27:01] unanimous vote. Uh but to the community

[1:27:05] impact board but as you know was

[1:27:07] unanimously

[1:27:09] voted down by the CIB. Is this shuttle

[1:27:12] really a higher priority

[1:27:14] uh than a water storage facility? Now,

[1:27:17] it seems to me that the foundational

[1:27:19] document of this project

[1:27:22] uh is a cooperative management agreement

[1:27:26] between Grand County and the park

[1:27:27] service. That is of the 20 June 20th

[1:27:31] 22nd issues of the RFB which I did look

[1:27:34] at which did have three responses to uh

[1:27:38] it in fact was in draft form only as in

[1:27:42] stated in section A1. It's a leap of I

[1:27:46] think it's a leap of faith on the part

[1:27:47] of the awardee to have to trust that the

[1:27:50] requirements of an unsigned CMA

[1:27:54] does not or may not adversely affect

[1:27:56] this this contract. Has the CMA been

[1:28:00] signed and finalized? Is it in effect?

[1:28:03] When will the public and the contractor

[1:28:05] for that matter be led?

[1:28:08] Another example I think of a rush

[1:28:10] project in a case of putting the cart

[1:28:12] for the horse. Now this pilot pilot

[1:28:15] program will not make a dent in the

[1:28:17] traffic or crowding issues at Arches.

[1:28:20] Even at full shuttle capacity, a tiny

[1:28:23] [clears throat] proportion of the

[1:28:24] vehicles that enter the park because of

[1:28:26] the diversion of of cars to shuttle

[1:28:31] buses and a tiny proportion of visitors

[1:28:34] will enter via shuttle. Now lastly, I'm

[1:28:38] concerned about visitor safety and the

[1:28:40] RV. I see that the shuttle will only

[1:28:41] work from 8 to 5. 5:00 is certainly not

[1:28:45] the end of the day for a visit at

[1:28:48] Arches.

[1:28:49] Uh I anticipate shuttle users will be

[1:28:52] stranded at bus stops because of full

[1:28:55] buses at that end of the day exit rush.

[1:28:58] Uh some of them will probably have to

[1:29:00] wait in the heat and the sun for later

[1:29:02] buses to pick them up or they may not

[1:29:04] even get picked up. I expect many will

[1:29:07] not make the less scheduled shuttle

[1:29:09] because they're still out hiking. What

[1:29:12] happens to them? And don't get me

[1:29:14] started on the abrupt elimination

[1:29:17] cancellation of the time entry program.

[1:29:20] Not only arches but yoseite, glacier,

[1:29:22] rocky mountain have faced chaos this

[1:29:25] summer because of the programs sessation

[1:29:28] by department interior the political

[1:29:31] appointees this spring. In closing, in

[1:29:34] closing, I wish the commission,

[1:29:38] our taxpaying citizens or

[1:29:40] [clears throat] visitors to Grand County

[1:29:42] and Arches and the Kron contractor

[1:29:45] awardee good luck as we collectively

[1:29:49] embark on this project. Thank you for

[1:30:03] I don't think our timer worked for Jim.

[1:30:04] He got lots of extra time.

[1:30:06] >> Nice.

[1:30:10] [laughter]

[1:30:11] >> I'm Alison Matthysse. I'm a resident of

[1:30:13] Moab and Grand County. I have several

[1:30:15] comments. First off, uh, in response to

[1:30:18] something that attorney Stock said about

[1:30:21] grammar responses, I would like to point

[1:30:23] out that the time period to respond to a

[1:30:25] grammar uh, request is by law. Um, so

[1:30:29] that's um, the first thing I want to

[1:30:31] bring up. Second thing I want to bring

[1:30:33] up is that

[1:30:36] um uh there's a vote related to a

[1:30:39] resolution related to policies and

[1:30:41] procedures of the uh governing body here

[1:30:45] uh in February. Those very policies and

[1:30:48] procedures were used in an effort to

[1:30:52] restrict my ability to exercise my first

[1:30:54] amendment rights as I am doing right now

[1:30:56] to petition the government for um the

[1:30:59] redress of grievances. And um I finally

[1:31:02] got a very late grammar response that

[1:31:04] laid it out in emails that this request

[1:31:06] came from Mr. Martinez to um uh Chair

[1:31:10] McCannless and it was uh in part, and

[1:31:13] I'm paraphrasing a little bit, he didn't

[1:31:15] like something I said in an email um a

[1:31:19] response, which is nothing in your

[1:31:21] policies and procedures. That language

[1:31:23] needs to be changed. Also, the fact that that the documents related to this

[1:31:28] weren't put out until sometime before uh

[1:31:31] 10 o'clock yesterday morning, which was

[1:31:33] when I found them late Sunday night.

[1:31:35] They were not there. U the public hasn't

[1:31:37] had a chance to review this. Delay that

[1:31:40] vote and let the public be involved. And

[1:31:42] you need to change that so that there's

[1:31:44] no chance of what happened to me. The

[1:31:46] threat to throw me out of these chambers

[1:31:48] can happen to anybody else in

[1:31:50] curtailment of their first amendment

[1:31:52] rights. Um, next I want to talk about

[1:31:54] the shuttle system. I think Mr. Webster

[1:31:56] made a lot of really good points and one

[1:31:59] of the most important things is that

[1:32:01] this uh request for proposals is

[1:32:03] premature. I'm going to quote from the

[1:32:06] meeting minutes that were part of the

[1:32:09] June 2nd uh package that said attorney

[1:32:13] stated that legal review was not

[1:32:14] applicable for this particular action

[1:32:17] and that the cooperative management

[1:32:18] agreement would meet review after this

[1:32:21] approval. I'm going to s sideestep and

[1:32:23] say that um hasn't you guys haven't

[1:32:27] voted for that. Back to the uh quote,

[1:32:30] the current approval is centered around

[1:32:32] a funding commitment. McCoy spoke to the

[1:32:34] collaborative process involved in

[1:32:37] getting the current proposal and

[1:32:38] clarified that VIA has no sick. There's

[1:32:41] a typo in there already been selected as

[1:32:44] a vendor to run the shuttle system. So

[1:32:46] there is no CMA in place. How can a

[1:32:49] request for proposal go out? I have a

[1:32:51] question, a couple of questions. Why the

[1:32:54] rush and who on earth is this uh shuttle

[1:32:57] proposal for? It's not for the public.

[1:33:00] Uh Mr. um Webster made a lot of comments

[1:33:03] about the safety issues. Out of

[1:33:05] curiosity, today's a hot day, but we're

[1:33:07] only a few days from June. This is

[1:33:08] supposed to run through June of next

[1:33:11] summer. At 2:20 this afternoon, I took

[1:33:13] my thermometer and left it in the sun

[1:33:15] for a few minutes. I recorded a

[1:33:17] temperature of 147 degrees Fahrenheit.

[1:33:21] There's no shade, very little shade out

[1:33:23] there. Uh the thing says that they're

[1:33:25] going to carry water. How much? Plus,

[1:33:27] you know, the other use of water on a

[1:33:28] hot day is for cooling. There shuttles

[1:33:31] can't carry enough to soak everybody

[1:33:33] down. It is a hazard. There is no

[1:33:36] evidence to support the things that uh

[1:33:38] Mr. Martinez said that a shuttle system

[1:33:40] would uh improve the quality of life for

[1:33:44] locals. It would cost us a lot of money,

[1:33:46] as Mr. Webster pointed out money that we

[1:33:49] need for other things. There's no

[1:33:50] evidence that it would support or

[1:33:52] protect park resources. There's no real

[1:33:55] evidence that it would uh uh benefit

[1:33:58] businesses. Um and in fact, it would uh specifically hurt I've got one or two

[1:34:05] more points uh if you would allow me. Uh

[1:34:08] that that this free shuttle system would

[1:34:10] directly compete against some some

[1:34:12] businesses. So that would hurt them. Um

[1:34:15] this is extremely um expensive only nine

[1:34:18] hours a day ending at um five o'clock in

[1:34:22] the afternoon. Assuming a 15seater van,

[1:34:25] it's $60 for 72 cents per passenger.

[1:34:29] That's not economic for a uh free

[1:34:32] shuttle system. Again, who is this for?

[1:34:35] Uh I've heard certain commissioners like

[1:34:37] Mr. Winfield say we're out here to get

[1:34:39] things done, but what's the purpose if

[1:34:41] it's not benefiting uh county residents

[1:34:44] and the public? Thank you.

[1:34:45] >> Yes. You have anyone else that would

[1:34:48] like to come speak?

[1:34:50] All right. I'm going to move along to

[1:34:53] our

[1:34:56] presentations. Let's see. We have Do we

[1:34:59] have any elected officials around that

[1:35:01] want to speak? I saw

[1:35:07] » No, we have a Grand County active.

[1:35:10] >> I saw Maddie here.

[1:35:11] >> Here. Yeah, she's here.

[1:35:13] >> We haven't

[1:35:19] county active trails of transportation

[1:35:21] director Maddie Logitz.

[1:35:24] Okay, I'm going to

[1:35:26] share my screen.

[1:35:32] Hang on.

[1:35:36] Can see.

[1:35:51] Okay.

[1:36:21] So, my name is Maline Logitz. I'm

[1:36:24] the director of the Graham County Active

[1:36:26] Transportation and Trails Department, we

[1:36:28] call GCAT. Um, and this is my annual

[1:36:31] report. So, for this report, I'm going

[1:36:33] to give you a very brief overview of

[1:36:35] what the department looks like 2026.

[1:36:37] We're going to do a 2025 year in review

[1:36:39] since it's been quite a while since I

[1:36:41] did a report. Um, and then we're going

[1:36:42] to talk about what's uh happened spring

[1:36:45] 2026 and what we're expecting next for

[1:36:47] this year. And I timed it. I'm hoping no

[1:36:50] more than 13 minutes. So,

[1:36:53] >> good job.

[1:36:54] >> Okay. Um, so this is an overview of what

[1:36:57] the department looks like this year. We

[1:36:58] had some changes from last year. So, the

[1:37:00] main takeaways from this are basically

[1:37:02] that now we have um two programs. We

[1:37:05] have a non-motorized advisory committee,

[1:37:07] a non-motorized infrastructure program

[1:37:09] and a motorized advisory committee and a

[1:37:11] motorized trail infrastructure program.

[1:37:14] And then we also uh work very closely

[1:37:16] with a lot of partners.

[1:37:20] This is what our funding looks like for

[1:37:22] this year. So um every year we apply to

[1:37:24] grants uh and this year we've been lucky

[1:37:27] in that we've had a lot of grants

[1:37:29] awarded. So, it's grants are primarily

[1:37:31] funding our staff and um materials for

[1:37:34] projects this year.

[1:37:37] All right. So, we're going to go back to

[1:37:38] 2025.

[1:37:41] So, last year, our primary construction

[1:37:43] project we worked on was part one of

[1:37:45] phase one of the Mud Springs trail

[1:37:48] system. So, there's a photo of that and

[1:37:51] this is in San Juan County.

[1:37:54] Here's some photos of uh we had our

[1:37:56] trail crew out. Uh we had volunteers, we

[1:38:00] had some help from the state trail crew,

[1:38:01] and then we also had dirt tech trails, a

[1:38:03] contractor out there building with a

[1:38:04] mini X.

[1:38:07] This shows uh this is what we currently

[1:38:09] have on the ground that's open to the

[1:38:11] public. And then those photos show the

[1:38:13] soft opening where we had um community

[1:38:15] members come out and help packet the

[1:38:17] tread bikes.

[1:38:21] We also started to work on the Falcon

[1:38:23] Climb Trail as another construction

[1:38:24] project.

[1:38:26] So this is in Sandslats. Uh it's part of

[1:38:29] the Raptor route and we completed three

[1:38:31] out of the four miles, so about 75%. And

[1:38:34] once it's complete, you'll be able to

[1:38:35] ride, you'll be able to link Falcon

[1:38:37] Climb with Falcon Flow, so it'll be a

[1:38:39] standalone um eight mile attraction

[1:38:42] that's relatively close to town. That's

[1:38:43] it level, which is something the

[1:38:45] community's been voicing they want for

[1:38:47] quite a while.

[1:38:53] be there. Nice.

[1:38:56] >> And then on top of the construction, um

[1:38:59] we're responsible for maintaining

[1:39:00] everything that Gran County has built

[1:39:02] over the last two decades. So we balance

[1:39:04] the construction projects with the

[1:39:05] maintenance projects.

[1:39:08] So this is this shows um all these black

[1:39:10] pins show uh maintenance issues that we

[1:39:13] identified and that we completed in um

[1:39:16] 2025. So if they're black, it means we did them. And we usually, you know,

[1:39:20] we go where needed based on reports, but

[1:39:23] we do try to focus on um more intensive

[1:39:26] maintenance projects in certain areas,

[1:39:27] usually grant funded. So last year, we

[1:39:30] had a grant to fund an overhaul of the

[1:39:32] horse thief trail system, which is up on

[1:39:33] 313. So again, all those black show spot

[1:39:36] areas we did. We also worked on lots of

[1:39:38] spots in between those major points,

[1:39:40] doing sort of a freshening up. And we

[1:39:43] refreshed all of the larger rock

[1:39:45] features in that area. And we also as

[1:39:47] part of the grant um we eliminated all

[1:39:49] pinch points on the trail that are under

[1:39:51] 38 in. The reason for this is that hand

[1:39:53] cycles that's the they can't um they

[1:39:56] can't access the trail if there's any

[1:39:57] part under 38 in. So this really opens

[1:40:00] it up to the groups that come here with

[1:40:01] hand cycles.

[1:40:04] We also work with the forest service

[1:40:06] every year.

[1:40:08] Um so these are just some some photos of

[1:40:10] us working alongside the forest service

[1:40:12] trail crew. Uh last year we worked on a

[1:40:15] few bridge projects, a few sort of large

[1:40:18] wood and infrastructure projects and

[1:40:20] then uh rock work and brushing.

[1:40:23] And then again I kind of threw these all

[1:40:25] together but we kind of we go where

[1:40:28] needed. Um so these are just a few other

[1:40:30] areas that came up last year. So we did

[1:40:32] some spots on pipe dream as well as kind

[1:40:34] of throughout the system.

[1:40:38] We also worked on the 2025 non-motorized

[1:40:40] trails master plan project which

[1:40:42] involved a lot of public outreach and

[1:40:44] surveys um which have been really

[1:40:45] helpful. So we put out one survey that

[1:40:48] we got um it's on the right hand side

[1:40:50] here. We got a lot more responses from

[1:40:52] residents than visitors. But for

[1:40:54] residents for um those folks who

[1:40:57] identified as you know biking, hiking

[1:40:59] and trail running um they all put more

[1:41:02] close to home trails as their top desire

[1:41:05] which we kind of had heard through the

[1:41:06] community but it was helpful to get that

[1:41:07] feedback. So again that's why we've kind

[1:41:09] of been focusing on um you know

[1:41:12] maintaining pipe dream and adding the

[1:41:14] falcon climb to create that loop close

[1:41:16] to home. And then visitors, we had less

[1:41:19] input, but they all said, see that my

[1:41:22] mouse is on it. Um, connection between

[1:41:24] existing trails. So, connectivity was

[1:41:25] some feedback we got from visitors.

[1:41:31] Volunteers are integral to how we kind

[1:41:34] of cover the massive area that we need

[1:41:35] to cover for maintenance. Um, so I won't

[1:41:37] read all of these, but basically some

[1:41:39] highlights are that we did spring spruce

[1:41:41] up last year. Um, I think it was

[1:41:42] actually the largest event we had for

[1:41:44] spring spruce up. And then during the

[1:41:46] Mud Springs build, we had an open call.

[1:41:48] So we had um a lot of school groups, we

[1:41:50] had a lot of businesses, and then we had

[1:41:51] a lot of locals coming out a few days a

[1:41:53] week and helping our trail group.

[1:41:57] We actually surpassed our record for

[1:41:59] donated volunteer hours last year. So we

[1:42:01] got 2,200 hours donated by the community

[1:42:04] um which is equivalent to $76,000.

[1:42:07] And we're able to use that match. It's

[1:42:09] in some ways it's value. theoretical

[1:42:13] money, but we can actually use that as a

[1:42:14] match on grants and get cash and that

[1:42:16] pays for our staff. So, it's pretty

[1:42:17] important to us to have that community

[1:42:18] involvement. Shows a lot of buyin.

[1:42:22] Um, we also participated and led some

[1:42:24] trainings last year. The one I want to

[1:42:25] highlight is uh we worked with the

[1:42:27] National Ability Center to learn about

[1:42:29] hand cycle equipment. So, they actually

[1:42:31] brought out equipment for our staff to

[1:42:33] use to ride the trails to really

[1:42:34] understand because it is quite different

[1:42:36] in some ways than traditional bikes. Um,

[1:42:38] so that was a great opportunity for our

[1:42:39] staff just to really understand how to

[1:42:42] maintain trails in a way that serves

[1:42:44] this user group as well.

[1:42:47] This is another page that I will not

[1:42:48] read, but basically this is just a

[1:42:51] breakdown more of that grant funding.

[1:42:52] So, um, the first section shows grants

[1:42:56] that we applied to before 2025, but

[1:42:58] they're multi-year grants. So, we were

[1:43:00] like working on them throughout 2025.

[1:43:02] And then the ones that we applied to and

[1:43:04] were awarded in 2025 that we're using

[1:43:06] now and onwards.

[1:43:10] And this is a photo of our this is our

[1:43:12] end of year volunteer appreciation

[1:43:13] party. So it's um staff volunteers and a

[1:43:17] lot of our partners show up today.

[1:43:20] Okay. We're going to move on to 2026.

[1:43:25] So, uh, GCAT staff have been involved in

[1:43:27] a variety of like the bigger ongoing

[1:43:29] active transportation projects or paved

[1:43:31] infrastructure projects. And again, I

[1:43:33] think each of these could be its own

[1:43:35] presentation. So, I'm not going to go

[1:43:37] into them too much, but I thought this

[1:43:38] would be a helpful overview for you all

[1:43:41] and the public just to kind of see all

[1:43:42] the different things that are going on

[1:43:43] at both the county and the city. So, of

[1:43:46] course, we have the Spanish Valley Drive

[1:43:47] multi-use pathway, um, which if all goes

[1:43:50] as planned, we're anticipating

[1:43:51] construction will start in 2027.

[1:43:54] Moab city and Grand County are also

[1:43:56] working on a safe streets for all safety

[1:43:58] action plan. So we've been working with

[1:44:00] them as has the ruins department and

[1:44:02] planning and zoning the county. And then

[1:44:05] the city is also working on a wayfinding

[1:44:06] signage project. So wayfinding signage

[1:44:08] is the the signage that shows you where

[1:44:10] you are, where you're going. Um so the

[1:44:12] hope is that that will help uh residents

[1:44:15] and visitors navigate on our existing

[1:44:17] paid pathways at bike paddle.

[1:44:21] Uh a newer project is that both the city

[1:44:24] and the county are also exploring boat

[1:44:26] access and just river access uh at Lions

[1:44:30] Park and at the town boat ramp. So those

[1:44:32] are two newer projects, but they kind of

[1:44:35] uh both serve the same purpose in that

[1:44:37] same general area. So we've we've been

[1:44:39] working on that a little bit. And then

[1:44:42] um our partner Arches National Park is

[1:44:44] also exploring uh improving bike access

[1:44:47] to and within Arches.

[1:44:51] And then finally, two other big

[1:44:52] projects. So UD do has um a branch for

[1:44:56] active transportation and they've been

[1:44:58] working on Utah Trail Network, which is

[1:45:00] a statewide initiative. And so the

[1:45:02] Colorado River Trail Gap, which

[1:45:04] everyone's probably familiar with

[1:45:05] because there's a stoplight there now.

[1:45:07] Um that's actually the first project in

[1:45:09] the whole state. So, that's something to

[1:45:10] be quite proud of. Uh, and then the Boat

[1:45:13] Canyon Pathway Extension, which will

[1:45:15] extend the current path that goes north

[1:45:16] of town to Utah Raptor Visitor Center,

[1:45:19] that's been approved for funding as

[1:45:21] well. So, um, yeah. So, I'm pretty

[1:45:23] excited. DOT's definitely investing in

[1:45:24] our community.

[1:45:28] 2026 funding. So, we applied to two

[1:45:31] grants this spring, the non-motorized

[1:45:33] RTP grant and the motorized RTP grant.

[1:45:36] Um, they put those in different buckets.

[1:45:39] So, we applied to both. Um, we were

[1:45:41] awarded the full amount for motorized

[1:45:42] and we're awarded a partial for

[1:45:44] non-motorized, which has become quite

[1:45:45] competitive. And then we plan to apply

[1:45:48] for two more grants this year. Uh, the

[1:45:50] OVR to continue funding the OC trail

[1:45:53] coordinator position and then the ORI

[1:45:55] grant for what we're calling phase 2B of

[1:46:00] um, Blood Springs.

[1:46:03] So, one of our big changes this year is

[1:46:05] that we have a motorized show pro

[1:46:08] program. So previously we had worked in

[1:46:09] motorized education and started to build

[1:46:11] out a program but now we've moved fully

[1:46:13] into infrastructure and working on

[1:46:15] maintenance on the motorized trails.

[1:46:17] So um Kelton our OV trails coordinator

[1:46:22] primarily was working on uh program

[1:46:24] development since that position started

[1:46:26] January 1st. There's a lot of foundation

[1:46:28] to lay. So this is an app that he

[1:46:31] developed. So it's very similar to the

[1:46:33] one we have on the non-motorized side.

[1:46:35] Um but volunteers can also use it. So

[1:46:38] the idea is that he can or the community

[1:46:41] can scout, identify and then work

[1:46:43] towards prioritizing projects which will

[1:46:45] then go on to the work schedule. So the

[1:46:46] ultimate goal is having projects lined

[1:46:48] out and shovel ready.

[1:46:51] Also did um some trainings. there was a

[1:46:54] multi- department multi- agency UTV

[1:46:56] driving training felt led

[1:46:59] and then also um he was keeping up with

[1:47:01] outreach as well. So he did participate

[1:47:03] in Eastern Jeep Safari that

[1:47:07] so the the big change here is the field

[1:47:09] work that he was working on this year.

[1:47:11] Uh so he was working with the motorized

[1:47:13] trailers committee MTC. And so this is

[1:47:16] an example of an MTC project um in Sand

[1:47:19] Flats with other staff and then the

[1:47:22] really the main goal I would say or the

[1:47:25] main responsibility of this position is

[1:47:27] working with the new DNR state trail

[1:47:30] crew or it's an existing crew but we

[1:47:32] have a new relationship with them with

[1:47:33] the contract where they're focusing on

[1:47:34] motorized. So suddenly we have a lot of

[1:47:36] capacity to do motorized projects. Um,

[1:47:39] so there's a greater need to really have

[1:47:41] that to-do list ready to go.

[1:47:44] So, what we've done with them so far,

[1:47:46] um, our whole trail crew went out and

[1:47:47] helped with a project in Salt Wash that,

[1:47:50] um, we also did as a grip hoist

[1:47:52] training, which is a tool you can use on

[1:47:54] motorized single track as well as

[1:47:55] non-motorized single track. So, this is

[1:47:57] some before and after after pictures of

[1:47:59] this project.

[1:48:02] Here's a picture of uh, Kelton out with

[1:48:06] Alex, who's the regional lead. So again,

[1:48:08] just talking through some of these

[1:48:10] problem areas and coming up with the

[1:48:11] approach.

[1:48:13] And then this is all the work they've

[1:48:14] completed so far that state trail. So I

[1:48:17] won't read it all, but um in case you're

[1:48:19] wondering where they've been, they've

[1:48:20] really hit the ground running. And

[1:48:22] currently they're up on the sit block in

[1:48:25] the Los Alis, and they'll they'll

[1:48:27] probably be up there until the weather

[1:48:29] cools down.

[1:48:31] Here's just some photos of their work.

[1:48:40] And then Kelton, I did want to just put

[1:48:43] a thank you out to him because he did

[1:48:44] spend three years really uh building out

[1:48:48] this whole new program and he moved to

[1:48:50] Oregon for some new adventures. But

[1:48:51] we're really grateful. He's really set

[1:48:53] up that state trail crew to just uh

[1:48:56] start right away, which is great. And

[1:48:57] also whoever uh we hire for that role is

[1:49:00] also going to be kind of set up to

[1:49:01] succeed. So thanks Nelson. And we're

[1:49:04] hiring.

[1:49:07] Okay. Um, I'm getting to near the end

[1:49:09] here. So, for the non-motorized trail

[1:49:11] program

[1:49:13] again, these are all the points we

[1:49:14] worked on just this spring. So, our main

[1:49:16] focus was Navajo rocks, which is another

[1:49:18] grant funded project. So, um, horse last

[1:49:22] year Navajo rocks this spring.

[1:49:25] These are all the points we worked on.

[1:49:27] Um, and again, same thing, doing a lot

[1:49:28] of intensive maintenance on, um, some of

[1:49:31] like the bigger rock structures. and

[1:49:33] then also um going through those

[1:49:36] projects thinking about hand cycles as

[1:49:37] well. And then for the brands, we have

[1:49:40] an ongoing project. We're on phase one

[1:49:42] of a grant, but we're focusing on making

[1:49:45] uh uh improvements throughout that

[1:49:47] network. So, there's nine different

[1:49:50] short new trails we're building to kind

[1:49:52] of um just improve the flow out there,

[1:49:55] uh improve the bottleneck areas, and

[1:49:56] then add some more true beginner and

[1:49:58] true advanced trails out there. So, this

[1:50:00] is the true advanced trail, Rusty

[1:50:02] Spursburg. Um, and you can see we

[1:50:04] actually cut like a family out with

[1:50:05] their little kid on it as we were

[1:50:06] driving out.

[1:50:10] Some other things that popped up, uh, we

[1:50:12] did a little bit of work on the snotch,

[1:50:14] which is sort of a famous feature on the

[1:50:15] whole enchilada, and then we, um, hiked

[1:50:20] out [laughter] a whole lot of signage to

[1:50:22] some of the more remote parts of the

[1:50:24] stack system.

[1:50:27] Um, again, I won't read all of these,

[1:50:28] but just our volunteers have been

[1:50:30] showing up, which is awesome. Um, so

[1:50:32] we're at about 650 hours so far, which

[1:50:36] is uh pretty normal for us. Usually in

[1:50:38] the fall we have our construction

[1:50:39] projects when we get more big groups

[1:50:41] out.

[1:50:45] This is the fourth annual spring spruce

[1:50:47] up. Um, so it was uh pretty it was

[1:50:51] successful. It was pretty similar to the

[1:50:52] one we had last year. So we had 90

[1:50:54] participants and the goal of this event

[1:50:56] is really to um try and get all the

[1:50:58] different user groups involved. So

[1:51:00] hikers, equestrians, mountain bikers,

[1:51:02] motorized um and then also cover a whole

[1:51:05] variety of land management agencies. So

[1:51:07] BLM, Forest Service, Sitla, state parks.

[1:51:11] Um so this is these are the project

[1:51:13] hosts we had this year. So we had nine

[1:51:16] different project hosts in nine

[1:51:17] different areas.

[1:51:19] Here's some photos from that.

[1:51:22] And we [clears throat] got these nice

[1:51:22] t-shirts donated every year.

[1:51:27] All right, so what's coming up next? So,

[1:51:29] I mentioned for the motorized trail

[1:51:30] crew, uh, they are currently up in the

[1:51:33] Lasowl and today is actually the first

[1:51:35] day of GCAT's trail crew season as well.

[1:51:38] So, they get two weeks off between

[1:51:40] their, um, spring and summer seasons.

[1:51:43] And we do have a mix of Forest Service

[1:51:46] funding and grant funding for this

[1:51:48] season. And so, our scope is actually a

[1:51:50] bit more narrow than it has been in past

[1:51:52] years. So, the grant is specifically for

[1:51:55] um, areas that were impacted by the Pack

[1:51:56] Creek fire. there's still some deferred

[1:51:58] maintenance there. So, uh, as of today,

[1:52:01] they are working up there. And then a

[1:52:04] little bit later when things cool down,

[1:52:06] uh, in the fall, we're going to be

[1:52:07] continuing part two of phase one of

[1:52:09] Blood Springs. So, that's those dotted

[1:52:11] lines on the map is what we'll be

[1:52:13] building. It's about three and a half

[1:52:14] miles.

[1:52:17] And then this winter, we're going to

[1:52:20] push it as long as there's no snow. Uh,

[1:52:21] we're going to complete Stockton Climb

[1:52:23] Trail and then continue working on those

[1:52:25] branch editions. So, all those yellow

[1:52:26] lines are the brand editions.

[1:52:32] Okay, any questions?

[1:52:35] >> From the looks of it, you got your work

[1:52:36] cut out for you.

[1:52:37] >> Yeah, we have a lot lined up.

[1:52:38] >> All lined up.

[1:52:39] >> Go ahead, Trish.

[1:52:40] >> I don't have a question. Just phenomenal

[1:52:42] work. Um, it just [clears throat] Yeah,

[1:52:45] you just do tremendous work and it

[1:52:47] really benefits the community. It

[1:52:49] benefits our economy. It's

[1:52:52] Yeah. Awesome.

[1:52:56] Go ahead, Brian. Oh,

[1:52:58] >> I agree with what Trish had to say. I

[1:52:59] did have a couple other questions. Um,

[1:53:02] it happens every month once. Um, uh, the

[1:53:06] mountain bike messaging, how's that come

[1:53:08] out with Vikes?

[1:53:10] Do you feel like we've been successful

[1:53:11] so far? Is there more work that needs to

[1:53:13] happen on that?

[1:53:14] >> That's a great question. Um, I don't

[1:53:18] feel like we've been as involved in

[1:53:20] education this fall. So our staff have

[1:53:23] been primarily in the field work on

[1:53:24] infrastructure. So I know we kind of

[1:53:26] delegated out to Steuart Moab to help us

[1:53:28] with that. So I do know that they got

[1:53:31] some stuff in the shuttles, but our

[1:53:34] involvement has been more work than

[1:53:38] >> Thanks.

[1:53:40] >> Yes. Thank you. You guys have been busy.

[1:53:42] Do great.

[1:53:44] >> Have a great evening.

[1:53:45] >> Thank you. Or let me unshare your

[1:53:48] >> Hey, Melody. I just want to Yes.

[1:53:52] That's all right.

[1:53:53] >> Uh yeah, thanks Maddie. I think the

[1:53:55] additions have been amazing as as

[1:53:57] obviously the coach of the Nika team.

[1:53:58] We've it's having Mud Springs to

[1:54:00] practice at and looking forward to the

[1:54:01] race out there has been great, but also

[1:54:04] uh it's bringing people in. I know I've

[1:54:05] been contacted by coaches from like six

[1:54:08] or seven other teams that are going to

[1:54:09] be racing here that have brought their

[1:54:10] whole teams down to Moab for for like a

[1:54:13] weekend to pre-ride the course. And

[1:54:14] obviously they're staying here and

[1:54:16] spending money. So that's a financial

[1:54:18] boon to the county as well. and the um

[1:54:20] the new the new trails, the uh rusty

[1:54:23] spur we used almost every day at

[1:54:25] practice and the falcon climb has been

[1:54:27] great, too. So, I think I think GCAT's

[1:54:30] an awesome asset to Ground County and

[1:54:33] thanks for the report and thanks for

[1:54:34] everything.

[1:54:35] >> Thank you. Also, I forgot to show one of

[1:54:36] those photos was the whole Nike team

[1:54:38] carrying rocks out of the France, but

[1:54:40] they're in there.

[1:54:41] >> That that was a fun day.

[1:54:43] >> Great. Thanks everyone.

[1:54:45] >> Thank you.

[1:54:47] Okay. So, our next presentation is going

[1:54:49] to be our land use code audit findings

[1:54:52] with our planning and zoning director

[1:54:54] Andrew Jackson.

[1:55:07] » I am Andrew Jackson

[1:55:09] County planner and this is Daniel

[1:55:11] Jensing.

[1:55:13] He's both a JD and an AICP planner. Um,

[1:55:18] so I bunch of initials after his name,

[1:55:20] but I have a lot of faith and confidence

[1:55:23] in the work that he's been doing in

[1:55:25] Orlando for the Peter went out and

[1:55:29] meeting those deadlines um every step of

[1:55:32] the way. And he's going to be making a

[1:55:34] presentation on the audit which was

[1:55:37] included in your packets. But also I

[1:55:40] would request that um so this is the fir

[1:55:44] this is the end of the first phase and

[1:55:46] the second phase then is to take those

[1:55:48] auto findings and we could go out to a

[1:55:50] different company to see if they could

[1:55:51] do the second phase which actually

[1:55:53] writing the document or stay with

[1:55:55] Sunrise and I recommend we stay with

[1:55:57] Sunrise on it. Um Denny's does some

[1:56:00] great work, very [clears throat]

[1:56:01] professional. Um and I've got full

[1:56:04] support in them or full support in them

[1:56:07] to um continue on the project. But

[1:56:10] unless you have any questions for me,

[1:56:13] I'll turn over to Daniel. But one thing

[1:56:14] I also wanted to do is we talk about the

[1:56:17] temporary land use regulation a little

[1:56:19] bit later in the meeting and I want to

[1:56:22] make sure that this is done at that

[1:56:23] meeting. but also um we're going to be

[1:56:26] working with Sunrise to prepare

[1:56:30] a document for the dancers over the next

[1:56:33] 180 days. So just a little

[1:56:36] furry information

[1:56:38] >> and then let Daniel talk about

[1:56:45] » everybody

[1:56:47] kind of back here. So, a little bit of

[1:56:50] background, land use code and

[1:56:52] subdivision code update, very standard

[1:56:54] procedure. As you all know, the Utah

[1:56:56] legislature likes to make changes every

[1:56:58] single year. And so, as the public

[1:57:01] should know, updating a lane use code is

[1:57:04] very normal and it seems like it's been

[1:57:06] a while since there's been a

[1:57:07] comprehensive land use code update. And

[1:57:09] what that has done and the first thing

[1:57:12] in here that's mentioned as an audit is

[1:57:15] as code updates have occurred in the

[1:57:16] past seems like we've kind of created an

[1:57:19] update thrown it in

[1:57:21] thrown at the end of the land use code

[1:57:23] or the subdivision code and moved on.

[1:57:25] And so that's created some

[1:57:27] inconsistencies

[1:57:28] uh every time you go and you change a

[1:57:30] code and u you really have to look at it

[1:57:33] comprehensively otherwise there's some

[1:57:35] changes there's some conflicts with

[1:57:37] definitions or you know citations those

[1:57:40] sorts of things. Um so that's one of the

[1:57:42] first things that really stood out.

[1:57:45] The updates haven't all been included in

[1:57:48] the code itself and there hasn't been as

[1:57:51] much of a comprehensive global review.

[1:57:53] And so that's part of this process is to

[1:57:55] look at the code globally, make sure

[1:57:57] it's cohesive, make sure it flows, make

[1:57:58] sure all the terms used correctly, make

[1:58:00] sure it lines up with the definition

[1:58:02] section, make sure the citations are

[1:58:04] correct and all that sort of thing. Um,

[1:58:06] so cleaning up the code is a big part of

[1:58:09] this and a reorganization to a structure

[1:58:12] that is more intuitive for a property

[1:58:16] owner who's pulling up the code, trying

[1:58:18] to read it, and understand the code.

[1:58:21] Right now, the code is quite topical,

[1:58:23] which doesn't always uh flow as well for

[1:58:27] a property owner who's wondering what

[1:58:29] can I do or what can't I do with my

[1:58:31] property. So, we want to set it up so

[1:58:33] that that way a property owner can go

[1:58:35] through and say, here's what I want to

[1:58:36] do. Clearly, I need to look at chapter

[1:58:38] one, chapter 2, okay, chapter 3, four,

[1:58:41] and five aren't going to apply and and

[1:58:43] they can move on um sequentially. But

[1:58:46] right now, it's kind of all

[1:58:48] intermingled. And so you'd have to read

[1:58:51] all I can't remember the number of

[1:58:52] pages, 180 pages or whatever to know

[1:58:54] what I can and can't do with my

[1:58:56] property. And so we want to move away

[1:58:58] from that and create a more uh intuitive

[1:59:01] structure and a better flow.

[1:59:04] Um, one of the things also that stood

[1:59:06] out is the overlay districts. We want to

[1:59:10] make sure that's very clear. So in

[1:59:12] zoning, so the public understands an

[1:59:14] overlay, whatever public's nerdy enough

[1:59:16] to want to listen to this, which is

[1:59:18] great. An overlay allows a property

[1:59:20] owner to do additional things with the

[1:59:22] property on top of the bundle of rights

[1:59:25] that they have in their base zone. And

[1:59:28] right now, the code uh the chapter that

[1:59:31] addresses overlay also brings in a

[1:59:34] different type of we can call them

[1:59:36] overlays, but they're really not. Um

[1:59:40] what what are we going to call them

[1:59:42] here? Uh

[1:59:45] >> yeah. Yeah. sight specific

[1:59:47] characteristics, things like SEMA or

[1:59:50] wildland urban interface or utilities

[1:59:54] overlay, those sorts of things that

[1:59:56] aren't uh additional rights that you

[1:59:59] have, but they're restrictions. There

[2:00:01] are things that you would walk into

[2:00:04] someone like Andrew to a planner and the

[2:00:05] planner would say just so you know your

[2:00:08] property is located in a FEMA flood zone

[2:00:12] or has a wetland on it and you need to

[2:00:14] get a wetland delineation study or that

[2:00:17] sort of thing. So that's not a land use

[2:00:19] application that is a restriction that

[2:00:21] they need to be aware of that is sight

[2:00:23] specific. So, we want to make sure those

[2:00:24] are split and those are very intuitive

[2:00:26] and so property owners understand

[2:00:29] uh the ramifications of the information

[2:00:32] that they receive from the planning

[2:00:33] department when they step in if they

[2:00:35] submit an application. Um, so those are

[2:00:38] some of the big things there. There were

[2:00:40] a lot of things I pulled out in the

[2:00:43] audit that relate to some of the uh

[2:00:47] updates that have occurred or changes

[2:00:49] over time like changes to conditional

[2:00:51] use permits or subdivisions.

[2:00:54] Those, as you know, have been frequently

[2:00:56] changing over the last decade. So, we

[2:00:58] just want to make sure they're updated

[2:01:00] and they're consistent or compliant with

[2:01:02] current code. And then uh there are

[2:01:06] areas of the code that aren't addressed

[2:01:09] or aren't fully addressed. Some of the

[2:01:11] things are also modern things like for

[2:01:14] example group homes now has a lot of

[2:01:16] federal standards we want to make sure

[2:01:18] we're um complying with. Medical

[2:01:20] cannabis is a newer thing from the past

[2:01:23] 10 years but you know since this code

[2:01:25] has been updated. Um home occupations

[2:01:28] isn't really fleshed out. Now, those are

[2:01:30] going to be a little bit harder for me

[2:01:32] because up until this point, most of the

[2:01:34] things I'm talking about are more of a

[2:01:35] reorganization and a review of flow and

[2:01:38] word choice, things like that. Um, we

[2:01:40] step a little bit more into policy and

[2:01:43] that's where I don't advise you guys

[2:01:44] what the policies are, but I can let you

[2:01:46] know um the gaps and where we need to

[2:01:49] know what your policies are and then we

[2:01:52] can fill in those gaps. But that's going

[2:01:54] to come in later, but we we're

[2:01:56] identifying those as we go through. A

[2:01:58] lot of those are identified here. So

[2:01:59] there's a propo proposed co code

[2:02:01] structure in here that outlines the

[2:02:04] various articles. So they're very

[2:02:07] standard and a lot of codes follow this

[2:02:09] process now where you have general

[2:02:11] provisions at the very front. These ones

[2:02:13] apply to pretty much all properties.

[2:02:15] That's why we put them in chapter one.

[2:02:17] Chapter two is your zoning district. So

[2:02:19] as you're thumbming through, you know,

[2:02:21] here's my zone. Here's what applies.

[2:02:24] Chapter three is specific use

[2:02:27] regulations. If I'm doing one of those,

[2:02:29] I know to look at them. If I'm not. If

[2:02:31] I'm not, I just move on. Number four is

[2:02:34] overlay. If I'm applying for one, I look

[2:02:36] at it. If not, I can skip it and move

[2:02:38] on. Five, development standards. This is

[2:02:40] where we're going to outline things that

[2:02:41] are going to apply to a lot of types of

[2:02:43] development like parking standards or

[2:02:45] signage, things like that. Um, six are

[2:02:48] those sight specific uh restrictions

[2:02:50] like FEMA or wildland interface or water

[2:02:53] source protection areas, airport uh

[2:02:55] restrictions, that sort of thing. And

[2:02:57] they're going to know that by talking to

[2:02:59] planning, right? Uh most people aren't

[2:03:02] going to know that they're in one of

[2:03:04] these zones unless they go in and find

[2:03:06] that out, right? But now they'll know to

[2:03:08] look there. Um seven is subdivisions.

[2:03:10] Right? Now, subdivisions is kind of like

[2:03:12] peace meal. It's spread throughout. So

[2:03:14] we're going to make sure all

[2:03:15] subdivisions is one uh article, which

[2:03:18] makes it easy. If you're doing that,

[2:03:19] that's where you look. If not, again,

[2:03:20] you move on. Eight is the administration

[2:03:23] and procedures. And so you'll go find

[2:03:25] the respective procedure you're doing.

[2:03:27] Pull that up and you'll see that right

[2:03:28] there in eight. And then in nine, that's

[2:03:30] the definitions. And right now, one of

[2:03:32] the things is making sure we're using

[2:03:34] the same term terminology throughout. Uh

[2:03:37] right now we'll use one term in the

[2:03:38] definitions and then we'll use a synonym

[2:03:40] in the code, right? That's undefined. So

[2:03:42] we want to make sure that we are

[2:03:44] consistent. And that's what happens over

[2:03:45] time because each time we update a code

[2:03:48] we we use a term that we all use and

[2:03:50] understand and don't realize that's not

[2:03:52] the term that's defined in the

[2:03:53] ordinance. So it's very normal. So with

[2:03:56] the phases here uh we did the code audit

[2:03:59] where we went through we looked at what

[2:04:01] are the things we need to do uh what's the best practice how do we go

[2:04:06] about this in a streamlined way and now

[2:04:08] our priorities um we want to insert all

[2:04:13] the code updates that we've done that

[2:04:15] have been adopted that are currently

[2:04:17] standalone documents. Make sure they're

[2:04:19] pulled into the code and then reorganize

[2:04:21] the code so it's in the structure that

[2:04:22] flows. That's going to help us where we

[2:04:24] see that's going to help us see where a

[2:04:26] lot of our redundant language is by

[2:04:28] having things kind of in different

[2:04:30] areas. We have introduced a process and

[2:04:33] you know chapter four then introduced it

[2:04:35] again in six and we have things written

[2:04:38] twice which introduces uh the likelihood

[2:04:40] of errors right where one process and

[2:04:42] the same process spelled out somewhere

[2:04:44] else. Very slightly different wording

[2:04:46] that might conflict and so we want to

[2:04:48] avoid that. consolidate it as much as

[2:04:50] possible, streamline it, make it more

[2:04:52] efficient and avoid those errors. So

[2:04:54] that's with the reorganization and then

[2:04:56] cleaning it up, making sure that all the

[2:04:59] code is accurate. And then in our last

[2:05:03] step as we work forward here is filling

[2:05:05] in the code. So filling in those gaps

[2:05:07] and those gaps will jump off the page

[2:05:09] once we have the structure

[2:05:10] >> right and there there the a lot of

[2:05:12] things I mentioned in the list code

[2:05:14] audit. Um,

[2:05:17] and then once that's all done, there

[2:05:19] could be some policy work, but I think

[2:05:22] that would kind of be a future phase

[2:05:24] where we've then identified where our

[2:05:27] pain points are that maybe aren't quite

[2:05:29] fleshed out in the code. Um, and we can

[2:05:32] do policy updates, but for this code

[2:05:34] update, we're really looking at

[2:05:36] reorganizing, making sure everything

[2:05:38] flows, and that's the scope. And I was

[2:05:43] just going to add to that one and live

[2:05:45] talk um [clears throat]

[2:05:46] while we've been going through this

[2:05:49] like for subdivisions for instance you

[2:05:51] have to look in section two section

[2:05:53] three section [clears throat] five

[2:05:54] section and seven section nine and so

[2:05:58] all those keep you know go back and

[2:06:00] forth and it's just you know uh hard to

[2:06:03] keep track of and something's going to

[2:06:04] be left out and so that's one trying to

[2:06:07] do is consolidate everything together um

[2:06:10] on

[2:06:13] It's like reading a pill.

[2:06:15] >> I just

[2:06:17] was I

[2:06:18] >> Yes, you were first.

[2:06:19] >> For sure.

[2:06:19] >> I couldn't see you. I can't see you. So,

[2:06:22] >> throw something.

[2:06:23] >> No. Uh, commissioner hat off. Uh, thank

[2:06:26] you as a land owner and a property owner

[2:06:29] in this valley. Uh number two and number

[2:06:31] three are uh dead serious to me in the

[2:06:34] recognize code to uh reorganize code to

[2:06:37] a coherent structure and to clean up

[2:06:39] language within the code uh hits home uh

[2:06:42] a lot with me. So thank you for that.

[2:06:46] And by the way, I did um submit this to

[2:06:50] the planning commission uh not at a

[2:06:52] meeting, but I sent it to them by email

[2:06:54] because um contractually Jamie had to

[2:06:58] make this presentation to you to meet

[2:06:59] the requirements of the RFP right now

[2:07:02] and then we'll have to follow up with

[2:07:04] planning commission on it. But they're

[2:07:05] aware of the audit findings

[2:07:09] sent to them.

[2:07:12] Actually,

[2:07:14] number three, it was something Daniel

[2:07:15] maybe you can help me with because when

[2:07:17] I look at these phases, they seem really

[2:07:19] broad and holistic and that makes sense

[2:07:22] and three to me seems like a one-off and

[2:07:24] it was actually brought to my attention

[2:07:26] by our old chair of the planning

[2:07:28] commission. She thought it was odd, too.

[2:07:30] So, can you just tell me where that one

[2:07:32] came from? because it does seem like

[2:07:34] it's a small thing short-term rentals

[2:07:38] >> um you know encompassed in these these

[2:07:41] very broad topics so I'm I was a little

[2:07:47] >> as to where that came from

[2:07:48] >> right so what we're focusing on is uh

[2:07:52] the priorities one through four so in

[2:07:54] phases code updates

[2:07:57] >> and then that's what this project is and

[2:08:00] then we have talked about future things

[2:08:03] that looking through your code

[2:08:05] >> need to happen but aren't part of this

[2:08:06] contract. So, um looking at everything

[2:08:10] once we've updated the code, the next

[2:08:13] thing that really makes sense is a

[2:08:15] general plan uh cleanup.

[2:08:18] Um once that's done, so once we have a

[2:08:22] code that works, we have a vision that

[2:08:24] we

[2:08:26] by and large agree on. Um then we want

[2:08:29] to be looking at the policy updates that

[2:08:32] need to occur and these are things that

[2:08:35] are kind of put there because at it it's

[2:08:38] clear they're not fully answered. So

[2:08:40] short-term rentals was one of those

[2:08:42] where right now it's addressedish in the

[2:08:45] code. It's done through an overlay

[2:08:47] process that maybe we want to kind of

[2:08:49] >> There's a bunch of things. Yeah. Okay.

[2:08:51] Well, I I'll just say it seemed a little

[2:08:54] >> Yeah, maybe we modified that statement

[2:08:57] to say there's a lot of policy gaps that

[2:09:00] need to be filled because this kind of

[2:09:02] like jumps out and it it it freaked some

[2:09:04] people out including myself. That's

[2:09:06] okay. So, maybe just say like gaps in

[2:09:09] policy that we need to

[2:09:10] >> Yeah, I should have said like such as

[2:09:12] Yeah, that's perfect.

[2:09:14] I just will be policy

[2:09:16] >> questions for the planning commission

[2:09:17] and the county commission to determine

[2:09:20] what you want to do because you got

[2:09:21] certain that that helps me because to me

[2:09:24] yeah that update right

[2:09:26] >> yeah no no I understand that helps me

[2:09:28] understand like because it did seem like I said these were really broad

[2:09:32] things and that's one very specific and

[2:09:33] I was like that seems odd and so it's

[2:09:35] great to go okay yeah just policy gaps

[2:09:38] such as

[2:09:39] >> yeah and I think one reason I put it

[2:09:40] there is so it's clear that in this code

[2:09:43] update we are not going to be

[2:09:45] >> I understand that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[2:09:46] Absolutely. Okay. That helps. Thank you

[2:09:49] Brian.

[2:09:50] >> Yeah. Just like to start with um you

[2:09:52] know given the complexity of of this

[2:09:56] rewrite and the volume of of um updates

[2:10:00] that have um I really appreciate that

[2:10:02] you guys delivered on time. So I mean

[2:10:05] that's that says a lot to both your your

[2:10:07] firm and to our planning department. So

[2:10:09] just start off with a great big kudos.

[2:10:11] Um second just a question for Andrew is

[2:10:14] are we uh on budget and um to not for

[2:10:18] the not to exceed for the entire project

[2:10:20] after phase one.

[2:10:21] >> Yeah. And so um they had to complete

[2:10:23] this first phase before they would get

[2:10:25] uh reimbured for that or paid for that

[2:10:28] invoice. And I think this meets those

[2:10:31] requirements of the RFP and it'll just

[2:10:34] be moving towards a second part of the

[2:10:36] RFP and um the bid from Sunrise came

[2:10:41] less than what we had originally

[2:10:44] budgeted. So within the budget and we're

[2:10:47] also on target with RFP as well. Now if

[2:10:49] we add things like um data centers or

[2:10:53] some of these other things to it then

[2:10:56] that'll be you know something additive

[2:10:59] and I'm really conscious about scope

[2:11:02] creep [clears throat]

[2:11:03] and making sure that we we hired

[2:11:06] somebody to do this this what we want

[2:11:08] them to do if there is a scope creep I

[2:11:11] mean there's going to be some things

[2:11:12] that some will say oh yeah well we're

[2:11:14] doing that anyway but then beyond say

[2:11:16] this is a little more complex tax wasn't

[2:11:19] in the original thing. So basically want

[2:11:21] to be mindful of that and understand

[2:11:23] that fun has to make money business but

[2:11:27] yeah

[2:11:27] >> I just I just appreciate the fact that

[2:11:28] you guys that we're on budget after

[2:11:30] phase one. So that's all I want to point

[2:11:31] out about is that we're on budget and

[2:11:33] then second it might be um a question

[2:11:35] for Stephen and um there's a um some

[2:11:39] comments in there about addendum A and

[2:11:42] the MFR.

[2:11:44] Um, oh yeah, and and that that right

[2:11:47] there seemed like it's it's something

[2:11:48] that I think that needs answering. Um,

[2:11:50] it's just because our the question that

[2:11:53] I have is is since we kind of had it in

[2:11:55] two places, both as both as an overlay

[2:11:58] and as a base as a base layer on our

[2:12:01] zoning, are there vested rights now in that or

[2:12:06] >> that was my question because I see it in

[2:12:08] the agenda. That seemed like what was on

[2:12:10] one of the most pressing pressing things

[2:12:12] in that audit that really stuck out to

[2:12:13] me right there is

[2:12:14] >> Yeah, because I didn't know what to do

[2:12:16] with that.

[2:12:17] >> There's a map there. It looks like maybe

[2:12:19] there are zones that used to exist

[2:12:22] >> and I ran into that when I was talking

[2:12:23] with Andrew earlier who looking at some

[2:12:25] of the maps.

[2:12:26] >> One of the other things that we'll want

[2:12:28] to address as well is we have some areas

[2:12:30] that are corner acre lots, but they're

[2:12:33] in one acre lot zoning. So people come

[2:12:36] in, they want to put something, you

[2:12:38] know, a shed or something in the

[2:12:39] backyard. Well, because they have to

[2:12:41] meet the current requirements for

[2:12:44] uh rural residential zoning setbacks

[2:12:47] versus quarter acre lots. That's one of

[2:12:49] the things that we'll want to uh address

[2:12:51] as well. And um can't remember that

[2:12:55] comment was going to be on your on your

[2:12:57] comment, but

[2:12:58] >> No, no, it's just And so that that you

[2:13:00] and you and Mr. Stocks are in contact

[2:13:02] over that or Mr. actually you had a

[2:13:04] chance to review this or no put that

[2:13:06] over

[2:13:06] >> no the audit report we received the

[2:13:08] information from the audit report and

[2:13:09] then we'll dig into it further we'll

[2:13:11] have conversations this is the first

[2:13:13] time been brought up so look into it and see how we can address it best

[2:13:17] >> great thanks so much

[2:13:20] >> yeah I would reiterate that that map

[2:13:23] could possibly giving somebody some

[2:13:25] property rights we've seen that here at

[2:13:28] this commission over other issues

[2:13:30] >> because it says in the code to see um

[2:13:35] attachment C for the map, but the map

[2:13:39] isn't labeled or exhibit C, but the map

[2:13:41] is labeled exhibit A. So, it's like,

[2:13:45] >> yeah,

[2:13:45] >> where's C?

[2:13:47] So, that's again we need to clear up.

[2:13:51] [clears throat]

[2:13:52] >> Well, thank you. Any other questions or

[2:13:54] comments?

[2:13:56] Okay.

[2:13:57] >> I don't know if it's appropriate then to

[2:13:59] get a notice to proceed on the second

[2:14:02] phase of this which is actually writing

[2:14:05] the plan. We kind of put that in there

[2:14:07] phase one and phase two in case we don't

[2:14:09] want to [clears throat] hire somebody

[2:14:10] for the whole thing if the phase one

[2:14:12] didn't work out right and Sunrise has

[2:14:15] met all these requirements and stayed

[2:14:16] within the budget. So my recommendation

[2:14:19] is just to continue on with phase two

[2:14:22] >> and that was included in the RFP that we

[2:14:24] awarded, wasn't it?

[2:14:25] >> Yes. Okay.

[2:14:27] >> So I just want to double check with you

[2:14:28] that's okay to move forward to that. I

[2:14:30] don't know all that needs wash or

[2:14:31] anything but just

[2:14:32] >> I don't think it was okay. We just move

[2:14:34] forward with the second phase

[2:14:35] >> right along with with what we already

[2:14:37] awarded. So

[2:14:38] >> yep.

[2:14:39] >> Thank you.

[2:14:44] » All right. So our next order of business

[2:14:48] is our public hearings. So we have two

[2:14:51] that are official public hearings and

[2:14:52] then we will take any comments on the

[2:14:53] data center if there are any. So the

[2:14:56] first one is the Bur Oats

[2:14:57] [clears throat] reszone and we will go

[2:14:59] ahead and have our

[2:15:02] zoning director Andrew Jackson talk

[2:15:04] about this

[2:15:05] >> me again. Um yes. So, uh, this is just

[2:15:09] an action to open up the comment period,

[2:15:13] um, before this zone change. It went

[2:15:16] through the planning commission with a

[2:15:19] 70 vote favor, uh, in [clears throat]

[2:15:21] favor of forward and on to the county

[2:15:23] commission and then um, we're requesting

[2:15:27] then open the public comment period,

[2:15:30] take public comments on it officially

[2:15:32] until I think it's the 17th, 5:00 p.m.

[2:15:35] or something like that.

[2:15:37] Okay. Yep. And then um basically we've

[2:15:41] got the proposal is reszone a vacant 5

[2:15:44] acre parcel 4500 south lane dislo the

[2:15:49] subdivision from rural residential to

[2:15:51] large lot residential. The change would

[2:15:53] allow about eight half or single family

[2:15:56] lots strange valley feature land use map

[2:15:58] in this area is modern scale

[2:16:00] neighborhood which allows some more

[2:16:02] housing than is proposed. So it would

[2:16:06] but the the general plan would allow

[2:16:09] higher leave than what the applicant is

[2:16:12] proposing. Um and so we're just

[2:16:15] recommending that uh you open up public

[2:16:18] comment but I'm happy to answer any

[2:16:21] questions.

[2:16:23] >> Okay. Do we have any public comment on

[2:16:25] the Bur Oaks resone?

[2:16:30] » I thought he wanted one and two, but he

[2:16:32] must have decided.

[2:16:34] Well, if you would like to put in

[2:16:35] written comments, you can. Those will be

[2:16:37] accepted till 5:00 PM on Wednesday, July

[2:16:40] 15th.

[2:16:42] >> I just had a question for Andrew really

[2:16:44] quick. And then will you just make sure

[2:16:46] in the next because it was just Oops.

[2:16:48] Sorry, I just diminished my screen. And

[2:16:51] it was just seemed a little unclear

[2:16:52] because you had January 7th but then it

[2:16:54] said Grand County Planning Commission

[2:16:56] meeting and and just anyways I was just

[2:16:58] a little confused and then you have your

[2:17:00] recommendations but not the planning

[2:17:02] commission right you'll just throw those

[2:17:04] in there that would help.

[2:17:06] >> Yeah. So is it July 7? Um

[2:17:09] >> meeting it was a 70.

[2:17:14] >> Yeah I I can do that

[2:17:17] >> better when it comes back for the actual

[2:17:19] action. Yes, that'd be perfect. Thank

[2:17:21] you, Andrew. Thank you.

[2:17:23] >> That's all.

[2:17:24] >> Okay.

[2:17:26] >> All right. Seeing no one having a

[2:17:28] comment, we will move on to number

[2:17:29] three, which is the water use and

[2:17:30] preservation elements. And Andrew,

[2:17:35] >> um, because this is a hot topic and it's

[2:17:39] been around for a while, wanted to get

[2:17:40] past a bit longer and my opening

[2:17:42] statement. I'm requesting that open for

[2:17:45] the public hearing. I'm chairless,

[2:17:47] members of commission, neighbors. Good

[2:17:49] afternoon. I'm Andrew Jackson, your

[2:17:51] planning and zoning director. It's my

[2:17:53] privilege to provide this opening

[2:17:54] statement for the public hearing on the

[2:17:56] water use and subservation element of

[2:17:58] the Grand County general plan. A state

[2:18:01] law is a required chapter of a general

[2:18:03] plan and uh and is a policy document not

[2:18:07] a regulation

[2:18:08] or land use decisions for the water they

[2:18:10] commit. The planning commission

[2:18:12] recommended approval uh June 22nd by

[2:18:15] vote 6 to1. Before I say a word about

[2:18:17] the document itself, let me say

[2:18:19] something about this place that we live

[2:18:21] in. Long before there was a tourism

[2:18:23] economy and long before there was a

[2:18:24] uranium boom put Moab on the map, this

[2:18:27] was a farming community. Orchards and

[2:18:29] integrated fields, water from Mil Creek

[2:18:32] and Pat Creek, a valley that existed for

[2:18:34] one reason and one reason only. And

[2:18:36] settlers could move water onto land uh

[2:18:39] onto the land. Moab and Swage Valley

[2:18:42] were built by people who understood that

[2:18:44] in this county nothing grows and no one

[2:18:46] stays without water carried deliberately

[2:18:48] to run as needed. Um and that was

[2:18:53] basis of the local economy for better

[2:18:55] part of a century. It's not giving us

[2:18:58] more than a year in making evolving from

[2:18:59] a short bulleted list into an exhaustive

[2:19:02] examination of every angle of multiple

[2:19:04] from multiple pupils. The document

[2:19:06] before use is a distillation of the

[2:19:09] previous documents. And by the way, it

[2:19:11] has been available since June 1st on the

[2:19:14] planning and sorting department website.

[2:19:17] Here's the fact uh here's the fact that

[2:19:19] the center of this plan about three of

[2:19:22] every five gallons of water our valley

[2:19:24] uses goes not to our kids rooms, not to

[2:19:27] our tabs, but to the outdoors, to

[2:19:30] irrigation and landscaping. Outdoor

[2:19:32] watering is our largest use of water and

[2:19:35] therefore our greatest opportunity to

[2:19:36] preserve it and the water we put on our

[2:19:39] yards does not need to be drinking

[2:19:40] water. So what replaces it? The

[2:19:43] portfolio of nonpable sources reclaimed

[2:19:45] water from our wastewater system

[2:19:48] irrigation that goes already uh delivers

[2:19:51] lowquality groundwater in the valley

[2:19:54] fill aquafer stored water baked from our

[2:19:56] wet years against the dry. But here's

[2:19:59] the honest accounting. Added together,

[2:20:01] those four sources are not today enough

[2:20:05] to replace all the drinking water we now

[2:20:07] pour on our ground. The only source

[2:20:11] large enough to close that gap is the

[2:20:13] Colorado River. Again, we're asking

[2:20:16] people to not use culinary water

[2:20:18] outside, but if everybody decided not to

[2:20:21] do that, we don't have pera doesn't have

[2:20:24] per capacity uh to make that a complete

[2:20:27] 100% uh swap there. Uh both the county

[2:20:31] and hold rights to it. It's also the

[2:20:34] most expensive and the certain option we

[2:20:36] have, but a responsible plan does not

[2:20:39] raise its largest option because it's

[2:20:41] hard. It names it honestly and lets

[2:20:44] future leaders weigh it with open eyes.

[2:20:47] Running beneath every one of those

[2:20:49] sources is the cheapest water we will

[2:20:51] ever have. [clears throat] The water we

[2:20:53] never use at all. Efficient irrigation,

[2:20:56] water landscaping, and trying tying land

[2:20:59] use approvals to demonstrated water uh

[2:21:02] are not sacrifices. They're the least

[2:21:04] expensive supply in the entire forfol

[2:21:06] port forfolio portfolio sorry

[2:21:10] um in this element and write in this

[2:21:12] element right puts that first also um I

[2:21:16] put a revised section five um on on your

[2:21:22] desks as well as it was in the backup

[2:21:25] material. Um the figures I prepared for

[2:21:27] section five make the make the case.

[2:21:30] These tables in charts are in several

[2:21:32] versions of plan that were removed

[2:21:33] before the last planning commission

[2:21:34] meeting. Our population is protected to

[2:21:37] grow roughly 40% by 2065 and left uns.

[2:21:41] Our water demand will climb with it from

[2:21:44] about 2400 acre feet to about 3500. But

[2:21:47] section 5 shows another path with

[2:21:49] determined conservation. Grant County

[2:21:52] can carry that growth um on most of the

[2:21:55] total water the amount of water we use.

[2:21:57] Now, I urge the commissioners that when

[2:22:00] you're looking at this and receiving

[2:22:02] public comment that you look at um this

[2:22:06] revised chap section five. A water plan

[2:22:10] without its data is a sermon. A water

[2:22:13] plan with its data is a foundation. Let

[2:22:16] me say something about our res say

[2:22:18] something that our residents have

[2:22:19] earned. Kudos. The state's conver

[2:22:22] conservation goal for our region is 267

[2:22:26] gallons per day by 2030. Grand County is

[2:22:30] already at about 220 gallons per day,

[2:22:33] below the 2030 target and near the

[2:22:35] state's projection for 2065.

[2:22:38] We do not gather as a community that's

[2:22:40] failed to conserve and must now be made

[2:22:42] to do so. We gather as one that has

[2:22:44] already led years ahead of years ahead

[2:22:47] of the rest of the sea. This element

[2:22:49] [clears throat] does not ask us to begin

[2:22:50] conserving. It asks us to keep the

[2:22:53] discipline that we've already shown.

[2:22:55] Three questions will come up in public

[2:22:56] comment. Maybe more than three

[2:22:58] questions, but um what we received

[2:23:01] previously public comment and I'll

[2:23:03] briefly touch on those first. Um there's

[2:23:05] [clears throat]

[2:23:06] been some comments about uh working and

[2:23:10] having Moab city part of this. Um city

[2:23:13] of Moab in coordination on the water

[2:23:15] preservation element. The city is

[2:23:17] updating its own water conservation plan

[2:23:19] right now. Good work. But this plan um

[2:23:24] but that plan, the water conservation

[2:23:26] plan of Moab City and also the water

[2:23:29] conservation plans of the different

[2:23:31] water providers,

[2:23:33] that's not what this is. This element,

[2:23:36] they're two different instruments at

[2:23:38] all. The law doesn't require the city

[2:23:40] produce a preservation element.

[2:23:43] This element covers the unincorporated

[2:23:45] county and commits us to coordinating

[2:23:47] with Moab on the aquifer we share.

[2:23:49] Second, supply. The detailed accounting

[2:23:52] of where our water comes from already

[2:23:54] lives in the conservation plans of the

[2:23:56] various water providers who hold the

[2:23:58] rights and answer the state engineer.

[2:24:00] This element doesn't duplicate that. It

[2:24:02] should be rightly in the conservation

[2:24:05] plans um and not in the element. Third,

[2:24:09] climate. This element contains no

[2:24:11] climate forecast by design. The statute

[2:24:14] dates this chapter to four themes.

[2:24:16] Effective development on demand,

[2:24:18] reducing demand for future users,

[2:24:20] reducing demand for current users, and

[2:24:22] reforming our own operations. Um, and

[2:24:26] not one of them is forecasting climate.

[2:24:28] One thing to note is um from GISA,

[2:24:31] they're estimating about 7% of water is

[2:24:35] uh leaked out of the system. So

[2:24:38] repairing some of those leaks will will

[2:24:40] also add to um the supply that we have

[2:24:44] that work uh forecasting a climate

[2:24:47] belongs to hydraologist and the state

[2:24:49] engineer and every recommendation here

[2:24:51] conserved irrigate efficiency move

[2:24:54] outdoor use to non-pottable water match

[2:24:57] growth to supply is sound no matter how

[2:24:59] the debate comes out and the desert has

[2:25:01] already been short of water this plan

[2:25:04] stands on its own terms.

[2:25:07] In closing, this is not a plan of limits

[2:25:10] for our own city. It intends for Grand

[2:25:12] County to keep growing, keep welcoming

[2:25:14] the visitors who sustain us, keep our

[2:25:17] children and grandchildren here, and

[2:25:20] keep us water. With that, Madam Chair, I

[2:25:22] respectfully recommend the commission

[2:25:24] open the public hearing, and I look

[2:25:27] forward to public comments.

[2:25:30] >> Thank you, Andrew. Okay, we will open

[2:25:32] this public hearing. There any comments

[2:25:34] in the audience?

[2:25:37] I have a question.

[2:25:41] Could could you send us your statement?

[2:25:43] It was I tried to take notes, but I

[2:25:45] couldn't.

[2:25:46] >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll send that to you.

[2:25:48] >> Okay.

[2:25:51] All right. If we don't have any public

[2:25:52] comments, you will be able to write

[2:25:55] comments.

[2:25:56] >> Sorry.

[2:26:04] Alison Matthysse, resident of Moab. Um,

[2:26:07] first off, I want to comment on the

[2:26:10] green grass in front of this building.

[2:26:12] My grass is brown and it has been all

[2:26:15] year. Um, so there's not a good water

[2:26:18] conservation message being sent by Grand

[2:26:21] County, Utah. Um, I think that this

[2:26:25] water I I'm going to mess up the title

[2:26:27] of this is unrealistic because it's not

[2:26:31] talking about climate change. Climate

[2:26:33] change is real. We are experiencing it. Not only are we

[2:26:39] experiencing it everywhere here in

[2:26:41] southeastern Utah, this is one of the

[2:26:43] hot spots in North America for increased

[2:26:47] temperatures, especially increased

[2:26:49] temperatures at night. That impacts

[2:26:50] snow. It impacts other things. And so to

[2:26:54] not have anything about climate change

[2:26:56] in this plan is not planning. Planning

[2:27:00] is based on reality. It is based on

[2:27:03] facts as this gentleman just said. And

[2:27:06] ignoring one of the most important

[2:27:08] things related to

[2:27:11] water in this community in southeastern

[2:27:14] Utah is not serving the public in any

[2:27:18] way, shape, or form. Also, frankly,

[2:27:22] the use of using Colorado River water

[2:27:25] for Grand County is a pipe dream. It is

[2:27:28] completely unrealistic. I understand

[2:27:30] paper water rights, they are not the

[2:27:32] same as real water rights. The Colorado

[2:27:34] River is overallocated.

[2:27:37] Um,

[2:27:38] it's running dry in the very near future

[2:27:42] unless something dramatic changes. And

[2:27:44] based on the weather and the forecast,

[2:27:47] it seems like this weekend coming up, I

[2:27:49] mean, this is just an antidote, but this

[2:27:52] antidote is part of a trend is among

[2:27:54] some of the hottest ever. It may be

[2:27:56] record-breaking.

[2:27:58] Um, but we get record-breaking all the

[2:28:00] time anymore. Um,

[2:28:03] so planning on Colorado River water is

[2:28:07] completely unrealistic. And then

[2:28:09] finally, we need to protect our aquifer.

[2:28:12] That is the only realistic basis that we

[2:28:15] have for

[2:28:18] being able to sustain southeastern Utah

[2:28:21] as a viable, vibrant community here in

[2:28:24] Moab and in other parts of the county.

[2:28:26] We have to protect our aquifer and we

[2:28:29] need scientists, hydraologists,

[2:28:31] um other types of geologists

[2:28:36] in order to understand the aquifer and

[2:28:38] to protect it because some things do not

[2:28:42] come back. I was just reading an article

[2:28:45] on the Salt Lake Tribune when I was

[2:28:46] sitting down in the hallway about how

[2:28:48] our community in Utah is basically run

[2:28:51] dry. It could happen here. We need to

[2:28:53] protect our water. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:28:56] I did. Sorry I overlooked. We do have a

[2:28:58] comment online as well. Pam.

[2:29:01] >> Um, yes. Can you hear me?

[2:29:03] >> Yes.

[2:29:04] >> Thank you. My name's Pam Hackley. Um, I

[2:29:07] live in Grand County and I'm Castle

[2:29:09] Valley resident. And I'd like to thank

[2:29:11] you commissioners as well as the

[2:29:13] planning commission board and staff for

[2:29:14] making this effort to conserve our water

[2:29:17] by adding the element to our general

[2:29:19] plan as mandated by the state.

[2:29:21] However, I do urge you to adopt four

[2:29:23] amendments that Mary O'Brien has

[2:29:25] submitted to you um and that will

[2:29:27] hopefully be discussed later. Um I also

[2:29:30] sent you a nine pa we all Mary and I

[2:29:33] sent you a nine-page um paper that

[2:29:37] quotes articles and gives studies that

[2:29:40] show

[2:29:42] uh the dire straits that we're in in the

[2:29:44] southwest um related to water in our

[2:29:47] aquifers.

[2:29:48] So, um I would say that adding these

[2:29:51] amendments will make the plan more on

[2:29:53] target to meet its title that includes

[2:29:55] the word preservation. And even though

[2:29:57] the state uh law does not specifically

[2:30:00] say preservation, that's the whole point

[2:30:03] as Allison was just saying as too. Um to

[2:30:07] date the public and some planning

[2:30:08] commission commissioners have repeatedly

[2:30:10] emphasized critical points that are

[2:30:13] missing and that are the element deals

[2:30:16] with water demand and deliberately

[2:30:18] leaves supply to the water providers as

[2:30:20] separate conservation plans. I would add

[2:30:23] that ideally this element that we are

[2:30:26] you are about to adopt um hopefully with

[2:30:29] the amend amendments put in there uh it

[2:30:33] would be great if we could get together

[2:30:35] with all of the water providers and the

[2:30:39] city of Moab and Grand County and

[2:30:42] produce a coordinated um and integrated

[2:30:45] um plan that would be maybe beyond what

[2:30:48] you're looking at tonight. It makes it

[2:30:51] makes only sense to look at it

[2:30:53] holistically.

[2:30:55] The element doesn't use the words

[2:30:57] climate change. Uh despite the abundant

[2:30:59] evidence that in is indeed that our

[2:31:02] climate is changing, we've experiencing

[2:31:05] extreme um weather events, unseasonal

[2:31:08] and beyond normal swings in

[2:31:09] precipitation and temperature and

[2:31:12] declining aquifer levels due to overuse

[2:31:14] and insufficient recharge. many

[2:31:16] communities in the state of Utah are

[2:31:18] experiencing this. And even though the

[2:31:20] state um allows, you know, some

[2:31:23] depletion of the water, groundwater, it

[2:31:26] doesn't make sense for us to, you know,

[2:31:28] just cavalerely go on and use our water

[2:31:32] um without um thinking about protecting

[2:31:34] the aquifers and the flow that comes out

[2:31:36] of them. Um I appreciate that, you know,

[2:31:40] what Andrew has said about um trying to

[2:31:43] conserve water. Um, however, I I don't

[2:31:47] think that the answer is in taking the

[2:31:49] water from the Colorado River as um

[2:31:52] other people previously and tonight have

[2:31:54] said. Um, it's expensive and it will be

[2:31:58] very difficult to do. And what are the

[2:32:01] rateayers going to re how are they going

[2:32:03] to react to this change? Um, it's

[2:32:06] already expensive enough to have water

[2:32:08] in our community.

[2:32:10] Um,

[2:32:14] [clears throat]

[2:32:16] so I guess I would just emphasize that I

[2:32:19] think it's important to acknowledge

[2:32:21] these other factors that are outlined in

[2:32:23] the amendment and um I don't think it's

[2:32:26] going to change the

[2:32:28] um the character of the plan, but it

[2:32:31] gives it a more holistic approach um

[2:32:34] because people who are going to read

[2:32:35] this or developers who are coming in and

[2:32:38] looking at this are not going to know

[2:32:40] that they are supposed to be looking at

[2:32:41] the water conservation plans for the

[2:32:43] water providers or Moab city. I don't

[2:32:45] think unless the county acknowledges

[2:32:47] them in this planning element. Thank you

[2:32:50] very much.

[2:32:52] >> Thank you.

[2:32:54] Okay.

[2:32:55] Make sure I'm not overlooking anybody.

[2:32:57] No more hands out there. Oh, come on.

[2:33:07] Uh

[2:33:09] well, so much to say and there's uh so

[2:33:11] little time. I agree with many of the

[2:33:13] comments that have been made. I look at

[2:33:15] this plan as looking at uh water demand

[2:33:18] and saying, you know, the amount of

[2:33:21] water that we're using can be less per

[2:33:24] person and therefore we could actually

[2:33:27] grow in population and use the same

[2:33:29] amount of water. But it just doesn't

[2:33:32] look at whether we're going to have the

[2:33:34] same supply of water. It assumes that

[2:33:36] we're going to have the same supply of

[2:33:38] water. But that's not what I want to

[2:33:40] talk about. I want to talk about

[2:33:41] protections for the soul source aquifer,

[2:33:43] which are a little bit different than

[2:33:44] the other protections that people have

[2:33:47] talked about. It's something I talk

[2:33:49] about with in the planning commission a

[2:33:50] lot. And I hope you'll listen carefully

[2:33:53] and I hope you'll sort of agree with me

[2:33:56] and maybe u move on this at some point

[2:33:59] in time. sooner the better. We have two

[2:34:02] soul source aquifers. Castle Valley soul

[2:34:05] source aquifer designated by the EPA and

[2:34:08] the Glen Canyon aquifer and they produce

[2:34:11] the drinking water basically the vast

[2:34:14] majority of drinking water for Vanish

[2:34:16] [clears throat] Valley and for uh Castle

[2:34:19] Valley. Uh these are sole source

[2:34:21] aquifers uh that the EPA has uh

[2:34:25] designated and gives very little

[2:34:27] protection to. It basically says if you

[2:34:29] spend federal money on these federal

[2:34:33] lands then the EPA is going to review

[2:34:36] what you're doing.

[2:34:38] So there's a lot of land in our sole

[2:34:40] source aquifer areas uh that some of it

[2:34:44] that belongs to the county. It's under

[2:34:46] the county jurisdictions and because of

[2:34:49] that it's the county's duty to try to

[2:34:52] protect those aquifers.

[2:34:55] Um

[2:34:57] let's see what else I want to say down

[2:34:59] here. Oh yes, we also already protect

[2:35:02] those soul source acers with the water

[2:35:04] source protection overlay zones. That's

[2:35:06] a really wonderful uh thing. It

[2:35:09] basically provides the springs and the

[2:35:12] uh wells that the water providers have.

[2:35:15] That's an excellent thing to have. But

[2:35:17] there's a lot of other land that belongs

[2:35:19] to the county in those two aquifers that

[2:35:22] are range and grazing lands. And those

[2:35:24] are the ones that I'm right now

[2:35:26] concerned with and we'll say there's

[2:35:29] some easy fixes to what we should be

[2:35:32] doing and this is just an example of one

[2:35:34] of them. Uh so this land that is uh

[2:35:38] range and grazing land that is in those

[2:35:41] aquifers I would suggest needs to for

[2:35:44] instance strip out the um at least some

[2:35:49] of uh the uh uh the conditional uses

[2:35:54] that are allowed here are conditional

[2:35:56] uses that are now allowed on that land

[2:35:58] in our sole source aquifers. You could

[2:36:01] have an asphalt or concrete batch plant

[2:36:05] in our acryer on range grains and

[2:36:09] grazing land production water disposal

[2:36:12] and recycling facilities

[2:36:14] waste storage treatment and disposal a

[2:36:17] public landfill. I'll be done fairly

[2:36:20] quickly. I think those things shouldn't

[2:36:22] be there. And we know that in this state

[2:36:26] you have a conditional use. it's very

[2:36:29] likely that you're going to have to

[2:36:30] approve of that conditional use or

[2:36:33] they're going to uh protest that that

[2:36:36] you denied it and they'll get that

[2:36:38] conditional use. So, I think the county

[2:36:41] needs to get rid of those conditional

[2:36:42] uses, but that's just the kind of start

[2:36:45] that I think we need to do and I'd love

[2:36:47] us to get to do it as soon as possible

[2:36:51] because uh if you zone it, that use may

[2:36:55] be used. Thank you.

[2:37:01] Okay, thank you. Do we have any comments

[2:37:03] on the data center stuff on there?

[2:37:07] >> Oh, is it okay if I if I Oh, speak up.

[2:37:10] Go ahead. Um, I did contact Andrew

[2:37:13] because I do think there's a number of

[2:37:14] amendments that have been requested and

[2:37:16] the planning commission, a lot of the

[2:37:18] commissioners goes to amendments. Um,

[2:37:21] and I spoke to Andrew and I said, "Well,

[2:37:23] how do you want me to broach that? Do

[2:37:24] you want do you want me to broach it as

[2:37:27] a action item? Where do you want me? He

[2:37:29] said, I think it's good to be mentioned

[2:37:31] here, then I'm not sure how we move

[2:37:33] forward with that. If I if I just

[2:37:35] mention it and then I try to at the

[2:37:38] action level try to be more specific and

[2:37:41] try to parse them out. I mean, I do

[2:37:43] think we have broken things down where I

[2:37:46] use HDHO as an example. I think we went

[2:37:48] by and we kind of voted on these little

[2:37:50] pieces of that overhaul. And so if you

[2:37:54] guys think that's appropriate, that'd be

[2:37:55] great. But I do think there are some men

[2:37:57] amendments that quite a few citizens

[2:38:00] have have conveyed concerns for um and

[2:38:03] again some planning commissioners. And

[2:38:05] so how do you want me to go about that?

[2:38:07] Do you want me to mention them really

[2:38:08] quick now or do you want me to just

[2:38:10] bring them up? Um what's the best

[2:38:13] avenue?

[2:38:15] >> Since this is a public hearing, I think

[2:38:17] that it would be more appropriate to

[2:38:18] bring it up when we actually vote on it.

[2:38:20] >> Okay. Um, do you want me to provide

[2:38:23] those to the commission in some manner

[2:38:26] like to Andrew so that he can put them

[2:38:28] in the packet?

[2:38:32] » Maybe might might be the easiest

[2:38:34] whenever we have multiple suggestions on

[2:38:36] a significant document like this.

[2:38:38] >> I encourage a redline version. You could

[2:38:40] redline version. Maybe if it's

[2:38:43] >> there may be multiple versions if people

[2:38:45] don't necessarily agree, but you could

[2:38:47] take the document, redline it, and then

[2:38:50] put comments. Okay.

[2:38:51] >> Otherwise, it's going to be a nightmare

[2:38:52] to track all

[2:38:54] >> change. Yeah. I just wanted to

[2:38:56] >> Word document helps

[2:38:57] >> to do that. I could sit to the word doc.

[2:38:59] >> Oh, that'd be awesome, Andrew. Thank

[2:39:01] you. So, okay, that'd be great. Okay. I

[2:39:03] just wanted to figure out what you guys

[2:39:05] wanted to do as far as efficiency.

[2:39:07] >> Okay. And maybe just put your comments

[2:39:11] in there and you could share it with us

[2:39:12] in advance. I wouldn't wouldn't be

[2:39:13] reading at all at the meeting.

[2:39:15] >> Yep.

[2:39:16] >> Brian, did you have a comment as well?

[2:39:17] >> The end is very similar. So, we're going

[2:39:19] to be then making comments at the next meeting and not at this

[2:39:23] meeting because I have quite a few

[2:39:25] comments and I think that there's quite

[2:39:27] a bit of background that I could provide

[2:39:29] right now of where some of the confusion

[2:39:31] might be lying in it. I also think that

[2:39:34] there is some mistruths that have been

[2:39:35] put out as well that I think that we

[2:39:37] could address tonight or I can address

[2:39:39] it at the vote. It's it's it's up to you

[2:39:42] John. Why? Because this is a public

[2:39:45] hearing. I think that usually the

[2:39:47] commissioners don't speak that, you

[2:39:49] know, maybe if we have to ask a

[2:39:50] clarifying question, but not a

[2:39:53] deliberation time. And so that is going

[2:39:55] to be the future meeting. But I think if

[2:39:57] we have this Google doc that goes

[2:40:00] around,

[2:40:01] >> we can add those comments in advance and

[2:40:03] that way we kind of have a little bit

[2:40:05] and and that will be shared and we'll

[2:40:06] all be able to talk about it next week

[2:40:08] when we do have a vote. Right. In that

[2:40:11] case, I just want to just make sure that

[2:40:12] we all understand one thing. I'm just

[2:40:14] going to read real quick what the water

[2:40:15] element is so that we understand what

[2:40:18] type of comments really should be made.

[2:40:20] And I think that that's really important

[2:40:22] and it's where everybody has been kind

[2:40:24] of losing the plot at right here. So,

[2:40:27] the water use element should a address

[2:40:29] the effect of permitted development or

[2:40:32] patterns of development on water demand

[2:40:34] and water infrastructure. B. Methods of

[2:40:38] reducing water demand and per capita

[2:40:40] consumption for future development. C.

[2:40:43] Methods of reducing water demand and per

[2:40:46] capita consumption for existing

[2:40:48] development. And D opportunities for the

[2:40:51] county to modify the county's operations

[2:40:54] or to eliminate practices conditions

[2:40:57] that waste water. Right. In drafting the

[2:41:00] water use preservation element, the

[2:41:03] planning commission shall consider

[2:41:06] applicable regional water conservation

[2:41:09] goals recommended by the division of

[2:41:12] water resources.

[2:41:16] Shall request feedback from the

[2:41:18] community water providers about water

[2:41:21] supply planning, including drinking

[2:41:24] water source and storage capacity. So I

[2:41:27] just wanted to make sure that that was

[2:41:29] clear of how that was that was phrased

[2:41:32] for for the state element or I'm sorry

[2:41:34] from the state when this water element

[2:41:36] cuts.

[2:41:38] >> Okay.

[2:41:38] >> And I'll see my pallets

[2:41:40] >> and and can you share that with us?

[2:41:42] >> That would be really helpful. Thank you,

[2:41:43] Bill. I was gonna suggest that to you.

[2:41:46] >> That just the state statute.

[2:41:52] » Okay. Melody, did you know I had my hand

[2:41:55] up for public hearing?

[2:41:57] >> I did not see your hand. Sorry. You can

[2:41:59] go ahead and come up. I've asked if I

[2:42:01] had my hand multiple times, so I missed

[2:42:03] you.

[2:42:07] » Ryan, I've read all of that that you

[2:42:09] read and that's the minimum. That isn't

[2:42:12] the limit of what can go in and should

[2:42:15] go in given that it's our would go in

[2:42:18] our general plan for preservation of

[2:42:22] water. So, let me make that clear.

[2:42:24] That's not a misunderstanding

[2:42:26] when we bring up climate change.

[2:42:29] It's a gap that the state isn't wanting

[2:42:32] to face. Thank you. Four water use

[2:42:35] amendments are being brought before the

[2:42:38] commission. If they are incorporated in

[2:42:41] the element, they'll show Grand County

[2:42:43] residents that our local government is

[2:42:46] receiving scientific information about

[2:42:48] how heat and drought combined to reduce

[2:42:52] natural water supplies and how future

[2:42:55] trends can be predicted. It will show

[2:42:58] county residents that this scientific

[2:43:00] information is actually being considered

[2:43:02] in land use decisions about the water

[2:43:05] that they depend on now and will depend

[2:43:09] on 50 years from now. Without these

[2:43:12] amendments, the current draft water use

[2:43:14] element element is like the proverbial

[2:43:17] monkey. See no climate information, hear

[2:43:21] no climate information, speak no climate

[2:43:25] information.

[2:43:26] One of the amendments will show that the

[2:43:28] commission understands that the two

[2:43:30] aquifers that supply nearly all the

[2:43:33] drinking water we have deserve

[2:43:35] particular attention regarding land use.

[2:43:39] And one of the amendments will assure

[2:43:41] county residents that their taxes and

[2:43:43] county work will focus on saving the

[2:43:46] finite water sources we have rather than

[2:43:49] chasing after water we don't have and

[2:43:52] will not have. Only by ignoring climate

[2:43:55] science and water law can the county

[2:43:58] maintain the fiction that downstream

[2:44:01] users will allow the county to stick its

[2:44:04] young spraw into a river that is already

[2:44:08] over consumed all the way to Mexico.

[2:44:12] Currently, the general plan never

[2:44:14] acknowledges anywhere that the county's

[2:44:18] finite water resources could decline due

[2:44:21] to insufficient recharge. amid heat and

[2:44:24] drought. Without these a new amendments,

[2:44:28] the message of this water use a element

[2:44:31] is this. If you cut back on water in

[2:44:33] year and fix some infrastructure leaks,

[2:44:37] the county's population can grow 43%

[2:44:40] larger supplied by an unchanging amount

[2:44:44] of drinking water.

[2:44:46] Commissioner Martinez has stated that

[2:44:49] including climate change in our planning

[2:44:52] means we're operating out of fear. No,

[2:44:56] it means we're operating out of reality.

[2:44:59] If this commission won't ensure us all

[2:45:03] that it is operating with reality,

[2:45:06] perhaps the next commission will.

[2:45:08] Thank you.

[2:45:12] » Can I respond to that?

[2:45:14] >> Sure. I can No, I'm not I'm not going to

[2:45:16] have I'm not going to continue to have

[2:45:19] >> this truth spread.

[2:45:21] No,

[2:45:21] >> we can't respond to the public during

[2:45:23] public hearing.

[2:45:26] >> But you can respond to them

[2:45:29] >> next to me or send email.

[2:45:30] >> Okay, that's fantastic.

[2:45:32] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[2:45:34] >> All right. Any other comments?

[2:45:39] » Okay,

[2:45:40] >> chair. I I would also say that and if

[2:45:43] that's the case that you should also

[2:45:45] make sure that when they come up for

[2:45:47] public comment they're not attacking a

[2:45:48] commissioner up here on this dis as just

[2:45:51] happened.

[2:45:52] >> Can I make a comment bill to you? No,

[2:45:56] >> I have in my tenure as a commissioner

[2:45:59] been attacked.

[2:46:01] Just

[2:46:03] been attacked. I mean, at one point

[2:46:05] threatened, you know, told, "Pick your

[2:46:07] head up and look at me." as somebody was

[2:46:09] pointing their finger at me. It's this

[2:46:11] is a part of our gig. This is a part of

[2:46:14] our service. We don't please everybody.

[2:46:17] And when pe, you know, we all take it.

[2:46:19] I've taken it. It's not very fun, but it

[2:46:22] is just a part of our citizenry being

[2:46:25] able to speak to us.

[2:46:27] >> It is. I think that it's something that

[2:46:29] we need to talk about. It's the decor

[2:46:31] that everyone needs to in this this

[2:46:34] room. You need to speak to each other

[2:46:35] nicely, not call each other out. That

[2:46:38] goes for the public as as well as the

[2:46:40] commissioners. So, everybody can just be

[2:46:42] nice to each other. Then we would get we

[2:46:44] get along. But that doesn't happen. And

[2:46:47] I don't like to be the referee about it.

[2:46:48] So, if people can be nice and keep their

[2:46:51] comments nice, I would I would

[2:46:53] appreciate it.

[2:46:54] >> I just wanted to point out the president

[2:46:56] that was set earlier at the meeting when

[2:46:58] we responded to public comment over a

[2:47:00] grandma request. So, that privilege was

[2:47:02] offered to the county attorney and I'm

[2:47:04] being denied. So, I just want to point

[2:47:05] that out.

[2:47:08] >> Okay.

[2:47:10] Do we have any more uh public comment on

[2:47:13] this item? Water use and preservation

[2:47:16] element for general mass.

[2:47:18] >> And I can forward you the comment that

[2:47:20] received to the planet.

[2:47:23] >> Okay. So this written comments will be

[2:47:25] accepted until 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday,

[2:47:27] July 17th. In the packet, sorry, July

[2:47:30] 15th. In the packet, it does say July

[2:47:32] 17th.

[2:47:34] >> I just gonna just clarify that. All

[2:47:36] right. So our next um order of business

[2:47:38] is that data center temporary land use

[2:47:40] regulation. We're not having this as a

[2:47:42] public hearing. Yes.

[2:47:44] >> Did we open the public hearing on the

[2:47:46] water element?

[2:47:47] >> Yes. Yes.

[2:47:48] >> Okay.

[2:47:49] >> Thanks for your work on that.

[2:47:51] >> Yes, we did.

[2:47:53] >> Okay. So I don't know if you wanted to

[2:47:56] speak to the data center. We should just

[2:47:58] wait until our public uh until item.

[2:48:04] Yeah,

[2:48:04] >> it's number 15. It's the ordinance.

[2:48:06] We'll just speak to it then.

[2:48:09] >> Okay. Unless unless there's anyone in

[2:48:11] the public that wants to come right now,

[2:48:13] it will be

[2:48:16] >> since it was listed as a public hearing.

[2:48:18] We're allow comments.

[2:48:20] >> It doesn't have

[2:48:24] good comment, Mary.

[2:48:26] >> Did you want to comment on the data

[2:48:28] center, Mary?

[2:48:28] >> A data center. Yeah. [laughter]

[2:48:31] >> Okay.

[2:48:37] I I sense that there is um a great will

[2:48:42] to have a moratorium on the data center

[2:48:44] for six months. My question is what is

[2:48:47] the process during the next six months

[2:48:50] in terms of public input

[2:48:53] in terms of process because

[2:48:56] process is so often lacking with this

[2:48:58] commission. And so if if if

[2:49:03] instituting a moratorum the commission

[2:49:07] can state how are we going to decide

[2:49:10] whether to have a data center at all or

[2:49:14] how are we going to get input on what

[2:49:18] kind of data center. So I would

[2:49:21] appreciate if the commission would state

[2:49:24] proactively what the public process is

[2:49:27] going to be during that six months of

[2:49:29] moratorum.

[2:49:32] Thank you.

[2:49:35] Okay. Any other comments?

[2:49:39] » All right. I think I had a request by

[2:49:42] the county attorney to

[2:49:44] >> go back to the land use code audit

[2:49:46] signings. He has some comments. Just

[2:49:48] noting there was uh some comments made

[2:49:50] by the director that kind of made um I

[2:49:54] [clears throat] just wanted to clean up

[2:49:55] the contract. The countyy's already

[2:49:57] engaged in a contract with this vendor.

[2:49:59] It was already phase one and two

[2:50:01] tonight. We weren't making an action

[2:50:02] item. There wasn't any agreement to to

[2:50:05] make an action item. It's already been

[2:50:06] budgeted for. It's 45,000. Um and it's

[2:50:09] not to exceed that amount. There was

[2:50:10] just kind of the inquiry whether the

[2:50:12] commission wanted to continue with that.

[2:50:13] wasn't on the table. It's not an

[2:50:14] option. We already have a contract. So

[2:50:17] you want to keep

[2:50:19] >> it's 45 for the next for the second and

[2:50:21] then 20 for the first.

[2:50:23] >> Okay. Sorry.

[2:50:23] >> I just it just came off a little odd and

[2:50:26] so then pull the contract and it's been

[2:50:28] signed and executed by

[2:50:30] >> Cool.

[2:50:31] >> Okay. Thanks for clarifying.

[2:50:34] >> All right. We're going to move on to our

[2:50:38] >> Yes,

[2:50:39] >> we're not there yet.

[2:50:42] >> General business action items discussion

[2:50:44] and consideration for approval. So,

[2:50:45] number five, commission member

[2:50:46] disclosures and future considerations.

[2:50:48] Go ahead, Mike.

[2:50:49] >> Uh, two for here. My wife works for the

[2:50:52] county uh for the sheriff's department

[2:50:53] and future considerations. Uh, we're

[2:50:57] already taking steps in the later part

[2:51:00] of the agenda on the

[2:51:04] uh commission chair's priority statement

[2:51:06] uh looking towards uh OSA developments.

[2:51:08] So, uh that is my future consideration

[2:51:11] is taking a more of a look at that. But

[2:51:14] thanks

[2:51:16] Mary,

[2:51:18] >> it might be premature, but and I I

[2:51:21] apologize because this is my mistake as

[2:51:23] well as under this bill brought up in

[2:51:26] the last meeting at some point that

[2:51:29] we're supposed to individually vote off

[2:51:32] bills. So, I'm requesting that we owe

[2:51:35] item B from the consent agenda as

[2:51:39] >> Oh, got it.

[2:51:40] >> Roll call vote.

[2:51:41] Yeah, we got clarification from the

[2:51:43] county attorney that we do not have to

[2:51:44] do that.

[2:51:45] >> Oh, okay. I didn't get that.

[2:51:47] >> That was an email to all of us.

[2:51:48] >> Well, I must not have read that email or

[2:51:51] read it poorly. So,

[2:51:52] >> yeah. So, we don't have to do that. No,

[2:51:54] it's up to the chair if they want to do

[2:51:56] roll votes on anything that has a

[2:51:59] monetary value.

[2:52:00] >> So, I missed that email or just skimmed

[2:52:03] over it. It's Yeah. Thank you.

[2:52:05] >> Okay. Thank you. So, we did not change

[2:52:07] that part in the policies and procedures

[2:52:08] that are going to be later on.

[2:52:10] >> I was just I goofed. I thought I goofed

[2:52:13] during agenda review. So,

[2:52:15] >> you're good. So, are you okay to leave

[2:52:17] on here or do you want

[2:52:18] >> Yes, I'm fine.

[2:52:20] >> All right. Any other um commission

[2:52:23] member disclosures and future

[2:52:24] considerations? Go ahead, Trish.

[2:52:26] >> Debating this one, but I'm going to say

[2:52:28] it. So, I I appreciate the earlier um

[2:52:33] tribute to the firefighters that have

[2:52:36] been working so hard, but I I want to

[2:52:38] make a comment about the last commission

[2:52:39] meeting that I missed. I think we just

[2:52:41] have to be very careful about who we pay

[2:52:44] tribute to in this commission. In the

[2:52:47] past, I have acknowledged the legislator

[2:52:49] that was murdered in Minnesota. I

[2:52:51] acknowledge the mayor that was killed in

[2:52:53] Green River. Um I think we have to be

[2:52:55] very careful. We pay tribute to an

[2:52:58] individual that passed away in our

[2:52:59] community. We have it happen

[2:53:02] like two times a week and we have

[2:53:05] amazing individuals that we lose weekly.

[2:53:08] Um and it was very very hard not only

[2:53:13] for myself to hear that but a lot of

[2:53:15] other individuals that that um that that

[2:53:20] person

[2:53:22] um caused a great amount of pain to. And

[2:53:24] so I I just hope that in the future we

[2:53:27] use a lot of discretion acknowledging

[2:53:29] who we tribute pay tribute to because it

[2:53:32] was it was very disturbing to me and

[2:53:35] other people and so quite hurtful and I appreciate chair mccandless

[2:53:40] acknowledging that when I sent that out.

[2:53:43] Um I appreciate that. Thank you.

[2:53:50] » Okay.

[2:53:50] >> Yep. So, because the close session

[2:53:52] concerning character and competence

[2:53:54] involves the evaluation of the county

[2:53:56] administrator who is a codefendant with

[2:53:58] me in active litigation and because the

[2:54:00] discussion may impact defense or

[2:54:02] settlement strategies, I'm declaring a

[2:54:04] conflict of interest. Also, because the

[2:54:07] upcoming discussion involves a

[2:54:09] performance evaluation intertwined with

[2:54:11] inner uh with active litigation, any

[2:54:13] commissioner who is a plaintiff suing

[2:54:15] the county or any named defendant has a

[2:54:18] direct personal conflict must make a

[2:54:21] disclosure.

[2:54:24] » Okay,

[2:54:26] >> Bill.

[2:54:27] >> Yeah, I I have the same conflict. I have

[2:54:30] a conflict of interest due to my being a

[2:54:32] defendant in active litigation against

[2:54:34] Grand County, myself, administrator

[2:54:37] Tiner, and one other commissioner

[2:54:40] previously mentioned as well as the HR

[2:54:42] department.

[2:54:45] >> Mike, did I see another hand up?

[2:54:46] >> Oh, we're good. I'm not in that one.

[2:54:48] >> Okay. Um Larry,

[2:54:50] >> I just want some clarification. To me,

[2:54:53] it's a discussion on getting an

[2:54:56] evaluation done, not on a parent or a

[2:54:58] person who involve litigation. It's more

[2:55:01] of a process that uh of a

[2:55:06] something that needs, you know, that is

[2:55:08] in our policies that has to happen

[2:55:10] yearly. And so, I don't see we can go

[2:55:13] into close session for a policy issue

[2:55:15] then. Um, we just have to discuss it in

[2:55:17] open session.

[2:55:17] >> Should we do that?

[2:55:18] >> Yeah,

[2:55:19] >> if that's what it is. I don't I was

[2:55:21] unclear, you know, I just get a comment

[2:55:23] of it. So, if you guys want to talk

[2:55:25] about that in the end of our

[2:55:27] discussions, okay, that'd be great.

[2:55:30] >> Mike,

[2:55:30] >> that's if if you're if we were to go

[2:55:33] into close session, everyone would have

[2:55:35] to disclose. I think we're okay.

[2:55:38] >> Just make it an open session discussion.

[2:55:39] That's great.

[2:55:40] >> Yeah. I mean, we can't go into close s

[2:55:42] if it's not a

[2:55:43] >> You're right. You're right.

[2:55:44] >> If it's not a

[2:55:45] >> You're right. Yeah. If it's just a

[2:55:47] policy thing to discuss, then we will

[2:55:49] just discuss it. Let's go at the end of

[2:55:51] agenda like it's going to be and we'll

[2:55:53] talk about it then. Okay. Thanks.

[2:55:56] >> All right.

[2:55:58] So, moving forward with any other

[2:55:59] >> We want to just move that up to the up

[2:56:01] to the beginning right now where we're

[2:56:03] at.

[2:56:03] >> Oh, let's there's people waiting here

[2:56:06] for uh things to go.

[2:56:08] >> Well, it's all at the close session then

[2:56:10] we don't need to we can just talk about

[2:56:13] it.

[2:56:15] Um, I also wanted to I know Andrew asked

[2:56:18] that we have a workshop to discuss the

[2:56:22] development agreement for the city water

[2:56:23] tank. And I know there's been citizens

[2:56:25] wondering about that. We had it on our

[2:56:26] agenda. We took it off. It wasn't ready.

[2:56:28] And so it must not it must need some

[2:56:31] information from us. So we could

[2:56:33] possibly I will be gone at that next

[2:56:35] meeting. Um I I will be zooming in. So I

[2:56:39] might just check and see if it's the

[2:56:41] best time to have it. I I can zoom in.

[2:56:43] I'll be driving. Um, but that is a

[2:56:46] future consideration have workshops. So,

[2:56:48] just like so that people know that that

[2:56:49] is still in the works. It hasn't just

[2:56:51] disappeared. Thank you.

[2:56:53] >> All right. And we will move on to the

[2:56:57] approval of consent agenda items. The

[2:57:00] approval. So, A is the approval of

[2:57:01] meeting minutes for June 16th, 2026.

[2:57:05] Ratification of payment of bills. Total

[2:57:07] bills of1,837,358.35.

[2:57:13] Total payroll of $169,176

[2:57:18] $677.18.

[2:57:20] Pillow bills and payroll of 2,6,5253.

[2:57:26] C is the ratification of local consent

[2:57:29] alcohol permits for the MA music

[2:57:30] festival venues and there is seven of

[2:57:33] those. The ratification of Utah wildfire

[2:57:36] resources between the Utah Division of

[2:57:39] Forestry, Fire and State Lands and Grant

[2:57:42] County Roads. Ratification of amended

[2:57:45] assignments order for all American Wash

[2:57:48] EWP.

[2:57:50] F is ratification of contract with Utah

[2:57:52] State Courts for bailiff services. G is

[2:57:55] ratification of backho rear end

[2:57:57] emergency purchase. H ratification of

[2:58:00] monument replacement grant application.

[2:58:02] I is the ratification of signatures on

[2:58:04] equipment transfer records and J is

[2:58:07] ratification of signature on 2026

[2:58:09] participation equipment for cooperative

[2:58:11] wildfire systems.

[2:58:14] A grant funded ITA for 150 foot trail

[2:58:18] section at Blood Springs. LF uh the

[2:58:22] fiscal year 27 invasive species

[2:58:24] mitigation grant the Utah Department of

[2:58:26] Agriculture and Food Groups Department.

[2:58:30] M is the sovereign lands general permit

[2:58:32] for the highway 128 bike path and N is a

[2:58:36] renewal of Grand County property lease

[2:58:38] with solid waste SSD number one.

[2:58:41] >> Mike moved. I'll second.

[2:58:44] >> All right. All in favor?

[2:58:46] >> I

[2:58:48] >> Oh, as I said,

[2:58:51] >> that passes six with one absence.

[2:58:55] >> That was an I for me.

[2:58:56] >> Thank you, Jacqu. I did that.

[2:58:59] Okay, moving on to number seven.

[2:59:01] Allocation of the secure rural schools

[2:59:03] act payment fiscal year 2026 commission

[2:59:06] administration mark.

[2:59:07] >> Yes, chair. This would be for a title

[2:59:10] one designation uh which would share a

[2:59:13] total amount of $22,72846

[2:59:17] and would be uh distributed to schools

[2:59:20] and roads.

[2:59:24] >> Okay, Mike. I move to approve the share

[2:59:26] of the state payment SRS of

[2:59:28] approximately $22,700

[2:59:30] with 100 with 100% of the funding to be

[2:59:34] directed as 50% to public roads and 50%

[2:59:37] to schools under title one.

[2:59:40] >> Okay.

[2:59:42] Second. All right. Any discussion?

[2:59:46] And all in favor?

[2:59:49] I.

[2:59:50] >> All right. That passes 61 with one

[2:59:52] absent.

[2:59:55] Number eight is the support of the 8th

[2:59:58] annual Moab art trails. I'll let

[3:00:01] Commissioner talk about it.

[3:00:04] Hopefully, we've made this short. It's

[3:00:06] been a long week already. Uh uh since

[3:00:09] the arts trail has begun, it has given

[3:00:13] us $119,000

[3:00:16] worth of public arts. And it has brought

[3:00:19] people into the community. It's

[3:00:21] beautified our community and I think it

[3:00:24] was through wording

[3:00:27] uh that could simply be changed that it

[3:00:30] was taken away from our practical impact

[3:00:34] uh funding and uh it is at risk of not

[3:00:39] continuing. And so I am requesting that

[3:00:43] we I recommend that we uh move to

[3:00:47] approve the $10,000 to make sure this

[3:00:51] grant continues. There's lots of great

[3:00:54] information in the packet. Christy and

[3:00:57] Grace are here. Oh, shoot. Sorry, Mike.

[3:01:01] [laughter]

[3:01:02] uh and I want to acknowledge them

[3:01:06] because this is uh the work that has

[3:01:09] gone into making this go on since 201 15

[3:01:14] 11 years has been solely a act of heart

[3:01:19] for them. They have given hundreds and

[3:01:22] hundreds of hours to this. They have

[3:01:25] dedicated their time and energy. they

[3:01:28] are not receiving any financial benefit

[3:01:30] for doing all of this great work which I

[3:01:34] think is

[3:01:36] significantly helps our community and

[3:01:39] its aesthetics.

[3:01:42] So with that I'll make a motion. I move

[3:01:45] to approve the allocation of 10,000

[3:01:49] uh dollars for the 8th annual art trail

[3:01:53] fund 2,000 approp reappropriated

[3:01:57] from the commissioner's travel budget

[3:01:59] and 8,000 from the commission.

[3:02:03] >> Okay,

[3:02:04] >> I'll second that. Melody,

[3:02:06] >> I think Mike had a

[3:02:08] >> discussion.

[3:02:09] Okay, so we got a second

[3:02:10] Jacques and then we'll go ahead and have

[3:02:12] Mike go ahead.

[3:02:14] >> Uh

[3:02:17] love this uh the art trails project. I

[3:02:19] would love to allocate 10,000 out of uh

[3:02:24] general fund, but reappropriating $2,000

[3:02:26] from Commissioner Began's travel budget.

[3:02:29] uh

[3:02:31] you can reappropriate that to general

[3:02:33] fund uh if if unused, but using that as

[3:02:37] a discretionary fund is is it's not the

[3:02:41] good not a good source of or shouldn't

[3:02:43] be used as the source of uh look where

[3:02:46] money should come from for this project.

[3:02:49] Uh other than that, I you totally have

[3:02:51] my vote for doing it, but where the

[3:02:55] money is coming from is not not

[3:03:00] a good reappropriation of funding.

[3:03:02] >> Like I think for because it was not this

[3:03:06] is out of budget expense and so for it

[3:03:08] to come out of the discretionary is a

[3:03:10] cleaner way. So the discretionary money

[3:03:12] came out of the general fund and so if

[3:03:14] we take it out of discretionary it's

[3:03:16] just a cleaner way to instead of adding

[3:03:18] a line ite to line item to our budget

[3:03:20] and putting it in there um it's a

[3:03:22] cleaner way of of um keeping our books

[3:03:26] and you know Mary our travel is actually

[3:03:29] our own discretionary money we can spend

[3:03:31] it we don't have to just spend it on

[3:03:32] travel we can spend it on books for the

[3:03:35] library if we wanted

[3:03:36] >> why wouldn't we use the full 10,000 from

[3:03:39] discretionary funds why would we use

[3:03:40] 2,000 from specific travel

[3:03:44] Mary wants to speak to that but so but

[3:03:46] at our budget um in the next two weeks

[3:03:49] we're going to be our budget hearing is

[3:03:50] going to be open next one and then we

[3:03:52] are going to be approving it and so if

[3:03:54] we want to add some more money to our

[3:03:56] discretionary from our general fund at

[3:03:58] that time to cover anything that might

[3:04:00] come up is just it's just the cleanest

[3:04:02] way to cover it so it's all coming out

[3:04:04] of our general fund anyways but it's

[3:04:06] just easier way to allocate those funds

[3:04:08] if we put it out of discretionary

[3:04:11] So, and I think that Bill, did you have

[3:04:13] a hand up? Mary has her hand up. And

[3:04:15] also,

[3:04:16] >> I would just give a note a point. Any of

[3:04:19] the funds that are in your GU's

[3:04:20] individual discretionary funds or your

[3:04:21] funds to do whatever you want with, I

[3:04:23] mean, within reason, government use,

[3:04:25] etc. However, you don't need a vote from

[3:04:27] anybody else. So, if you wanted to put X

[3:04:29] amount of money from your own

[3:04:30] discretionary fund, you could do do that

[3:04:32] without any vote from anybody else. I

[3:04:34] was just noting that if you wanted to

[3:04:36] subject that to a vote of other

[3:04:38] commissioners, you theoretically could.

[3:04:40] Um, but I don't think it's necessary. I

[3:04:42] think one can do with their

[3:04:43] discretionary fun.

[3:04:43] >> Thought it was a way to let people know

[3:04:45] where it was coming from.

[3:04:46] >> Sure.

[3:04:46] >> And I and I do think that you could you

[3:04:48] could make a statement you're going to

[3:04:50] give $2,000 of your discretionary funds

[3:04:52] to it and then do do the rest however

[3:04:55] you'd like.

[3:04:58] » So I guess then why is it called a

[3:05:01] travel budget? because we do have a lot

[3:05:03] of attack here from commissioners about

[3:05:05] a travel budget. So that that's a

[3:05:08] question and then I um I actually want

[3:05:10] to make a substitute motion.

[3:05:14] » Well, if if you guys if you want to

[3:05:16] relabel our discretionary budget to each

[3:05:20] commissioner, but right now it's a

[3:05:21] travel budget. So I'm in agreement with

[3:05:23] Mike, but I think that I'd like to make

[3:05:26] a substitute motion that we just take it

[3:05:28] all out of discretionary. then there

[3:05:30] isn't this back and forth and we move on

[3:05:33] and we get the art.

[3:05:36] I'm I'm just noting that if it's if it's

[3:05:38] something that you guys have the ability

[3:05:40] to have for discretion. I mean it's

[3:05:42] marked within an account for particular

[3:05:44] use if it's not utilized as m as uh the

[3:05:48] chair had said and as Mike had said if

[3:05:49] you don't utilize it drops to the

[3:05:51] general um I think it's sixes however

[3:05:53] you guys want want to do it I don't have

[3:05:55] >> Mary are you fine with it just all

[3:05:57] coming out of the discretionary

[3:05:59] >> I want to make a comment we last year

[3:06:04] we I uh a number of commissioners gave

[3:06:08] discretionary fund to help get

[3:06:11] a trail ambassador program put into a

[3:06:18] » a nonprofit and nobody nobody even

[3:06:21] thought anything of that. The year

[3:06:23] before I think I had the discretionary

[3:06:25] fund. I used it for I didn't have as

[3:06:28] much money in my budget because I was

[3:06:30] traveling a lot more the following year,

[3:06:32] but I had like $1,000 and I said, I'd

[3:06:35] like to use that $1,000 for and and I

[3:06:39] I'm just confused. I don't, you know,

[3:06:42] it's all in it's all coming from the

[3:06:45] same place eventually. So, I I guess I

[3:06:47] don't care. I just am very confused as

[3:06:50] to why this has become an issue this

[3:06:52] year when it's been happening for the

[3:06:55] last since I have been a commissioner.

[3:06:58] >> Well, I don't think it's an issue. I was

[3:07:00] just trying to find a bridge and be done

[3:07:02] with it and move on. But

[3:07:04] >> I the other benefit if if Mary's

[3:07:08] [clears throat] saying, "Hey, I'm going

[3:07:09] to have to use this on my travel

[3:07:10] account." the rest of you should say

[3:07:12] that's that's great because that takes

[3:07:14] it away from her ability to use it for

[3:07:16] travel and she's sacrificing that

[3:07:17] amount. Do whatever you want with it. If

[3:07:19] you guys don't take it out of her

[3:07:20] account that's been allocated to her

[3:07:22] expenditure that's just

[3:07:24] >> I think it's sixth in the end.

[3:07:26] >> Trish has a comment.

[3:07:27] >> Yeah, I'm on too. You're right.

[3:07:29] >> Um just really quick, I I I am fully in

[3:07:32] support of this and thank you to so much

[3:07:34] for all that you've done. I just want to

[3:07:36] return to the trail to tomorrow. I don't

[3:07:38] want that document to die because I I

[3:07:40] actually dove back in it today and

[3:07:42] there's so much in there that we talk

[3:07:44] about all the time. So I I do want to

[3:07:47] keep that document vibrant. One of the

[3:07:49] concepts that it talks about is pathways

[3:07:51] forward. And a few things that I wanted

[3:07:53] to point out. It said encourage creative

[3:07:55] hubs,

[3:07:57] fund initiatives to expand the county's

[3:08:00] art culture and then integrate art into

[3:08:02] our public spaces. and that you know so

[3:08:05] these are these are all things that it

[3:08:07] does and I fully support Mary using her

[3:08:10] travel budget to support this initiative

[3:08:12] if it's I don't [clears throat]

[3:08:16] I'm probably going to want to

[3:08:18] >> yeah just real quick I think that we

[3:08:20] find all seven commissioners up here

[3:08:22] they'll completely support that

[3:08:25] completely support the arts so I mean I

[3:08:27] think that's the that's that's the most

[3:08:28] important thing I will say that that

[3:08:31] last year we had the same exact

[3:08:32] conversation during dark skies and using

[3:08:34] our travel budgets to to fight the dark

[3:08:37] skies. So, it this has been going on at

[3:08:39] least since I've been a commissioner

[3:08:41] before. And I do think that that

[3:08:44] >> if we're going to call it a travel

[3:08:45] budget, it should be a travel budget and

[3:08:46] it should be used to travel. I mean, I

[3:08:48] can see two two pieces of legislation

[3:08:50] and policy that was brought up today

[3:08:52] that was due to us going out and

[3:08:54] traveling. Either a bringing money back

[3:08:56] here or b finding out policy and what we

[3:08:59] need to do to have resolutions and

[3:09:00] ordinances. So that that money does have

[3:09:03] a purpose. It's not it's not

[3:09:04] discretionary fund. We have an account.

[3:09:07] It's called discretionary fund, right?

[3:09:09] There were actually some commissioners

[3:09:10] that said that at the beginning or at

[3:09:12] the budget season that we should not

[3:09:14] have a discretionary fund. I'm totally

[3:09:16] fine with the discretionary fund. And I

[3:09:18] think that that this is a great example

[3:09:19] of what our discretionary fund should be

[3:09:21] used for, but let's just make sure that

[3:09:23] we're using the right accounts. And you

[3:09:25] know, I'm and I just I guess I'm just

[3:09:28] preempting a you know, attack on on

[3:09:30] travel budgets because when we do

[3:09:31] travel, we do bring back things for this

[3:09:33] community. And some of us commissioners

[3:09:35] have the time and are able to do it and

[3:09:37] others aren't. And there isn't any um

[3:09:40] you know stubbing our nose at at the

[3:09:42] folks that aren't able to travel. But

[3:09:44] I'd like to make sure that travel

[3:09:45] budgets are used for travel and that our

[3:09:47] discretionary funds are used for great

[3:09:49] projects like this.

[3:09:52] >> But I hope the budget just has our names

[3:09:53] on it. saying this is county commission

[3:09:56] and each of our names are listed in

[3:09:58] there with money. So I don't know that

[3:09:59] it's specific to travel and this has

[3:10:01] been happening since I've been a

[3:10:02] commissioner and even before when I was

[3:10:04] watching. So this doesn't feel

[3:10:07] >> call for a vote.

[3:10:08] >> Yeah, we're going to call for a vote. So

[3:10:11] Mike made a motion and Jacques No made a

[3:10:16] motion and Jacques did that.

[3:10:18] >> So what do we have? Go ahead. All in

[3:10:20] favor?

[3:10:22] Hi.

[3:10:23] >> Okay, that passes 70. Thank you.

[3:10:26] >> Thank you.

[3:10:27] >> Cut me off. It's okay.

[3:10:30] >> Just so you know, that was entirely a

[3:10:32] bookkeeping issue and that checkbook

[3:10:34] that we love. I mean, as you see, we all

[3:10:37] love uh

[3:10:40] >> Thank you.

[3:10:41] >> Welcome to our world. We sometimes like

[3:10:43] to take

[3:10:52] » All right. So,

[3:10:53] >> it is now 6 o'

[3:10:56] This may be our last six o'clock

[3:10:58] citizens to be heard before we vote in

[3:11:00] on season procedures. So, anyone would

[3:11:02] like to speak at six o'clock that did

[3:11:04] not speak at the four o'clock,

[3:11:07] we will take six o'clock citizens to

[3:11:10] public comment. Come on up, Teresa.

[3:11:15] » So, eventually there will not be a six

[3:11:17] o'clock public comment period. Is that

[3:11:20] what I'm hearing? According to the new

[3:11:21] rules, possibly.

[3:11:22] >> Yeah. The procedures that we've been

[3:11:24] more shopping for the last.

[3:11:26] >> So, so for someone to come at at 4:00

[3:11:28] and stuff is is somewhat difficult.

[3:11:30] >> It'll be after five o'clock.

[3:11:32] >> Okay. It'll be one after five o'clock.

[3:11:35] >> One time after five o'clock. And and

[3:11:37] real briefly, I I come from the time

[3:11:39] when I was involved with the TV station

[3:11:41] and we did these live, but we don't have

[3:11:44] YouTube now. And that was part of the

[3:11:45] reason that the things ended up at 4:00

[3:11:48] and at 6:00 because there was too many

[3:11:50] controversial things happening and they

[3:11:52] started to do the four o'clock thing

[3:11:53] besides other things, just so you know.

[3:11:55] But I'm happy that you guys are doing

[3:11:56] this. One of the things I wanted to talk

[3:11:58] about was of course being um very

[3:12:00] supportive of Art Trails because Arts

[3:12:02] Festival didn't happen this year. Arts

[3:12:04] Festival is going to donate $2,000 to

[3:12:07] the Moorm Art Trails to make this thing

[3:12:09] happen as it is a community thing. The

[3:12:11] arts are very important to Moab and I

[3:12:14] hope that the county does a lot more in

[3:12:16] the arts arena. Mary and I have been

[3:12:18] talking about this for quite some time.

[3:12:20] We'd love to expand the whole arts um

[3:12:24] involvement of the county in the art

[3:12:27] community in town. taking the arts hat

[3:12:30] off and putting my publisher of the

[3:12:33] advertiser hat off as far as what you're

[3:12:36] doing with the public notices. I want to

[3:12:38] say that I am disappointed and dismayed

[3:12:41] that you're not going to be able to

[3:12:43] publish public notices in the newspaper

[3:12:45] anymore. I understand that you're going

[3:12:47] to go with just what the state does. The

[3:12:50] state code is very very narrow and it

[3:12:54] does the absolute least amount of public

[3:12:57] notices to the public. And it depends on

[3:13:00] what your objective is. Do you want to

[3:13:02] do the spirit of the law or do you want

[3:13:03] to do the letter of the law? I myself

[3:13:06] for two years have been publishing all

[3:13:09] of the public notices, the jobs, the

[3:13:12] bids that have been happening in the

[3:13:14] county and the city for two years.

[3:13:18] Because why? I personally take it upon

[3:13:20] myself to let the people know in town

[3:13:23] how many jobs are open. People aren't

[3:13:24] going to look at the website all the

[3:13:26] time what bids are open. People aren't

[3:13:29] going to look at a certain thing. The

[3:13:31] shuttle is a great example. If somebody

[3:13:33] knows where to look, they found that

[3:13:34] bid. Yes, it is within the 10 days. Yes,

[3:13:38] all of the rules are being followed to

[3:13:40] the letter of the law. It depends on

[3:13:42] what your objective is. Do you want

[3:13:44] people to participate? Do you want them

[3:13:47] to know what's going on? That is up to

[3:13:49] you guys. And I and I say to myself,

[3:13:51] self-appointed, I try to gather the

[3:13:54] information, aggregate it, and

[3:13:56] disseminate it. That is just of my own

[3:14:00] doing. And I want to say in that

[3:14:02] particular thing, I wish you would

[3:14:04] reconsider how you involve the public in

[3:14:08] public notices. Thank you all for all

[3:14:10] you do. Appreciate it.

[3:14:20] Okay. All right. Any other six o'clock

[3:14:23] citizens be heard?

[3:14:26] >> No. Okay.

[3:14:28] And we are going to move on to number

[3:14:30] nine, which is the UD do transportation

[3:14:32] investment fund grant agreement. And Mr.

[3:14:36] Martinez.

[3:14:37] >> Yep. So, this is the contract right

[3:14:39] there from the uh uh the um Utah uh Utah

[3:14:43] Department of Transportation that they

[3:14:45] provided the $1 million to fund a Moab

[3:14:48] to Arches shuttle pilot. um the the

[3:14:52] contracts inside there and available for

[3:14:54] everyone to to purchase.

[3:15:00] » I move to approve the 1 million U dot

[3:15:03] grant to fund the Moab to Arches shuttle

[3:15:06] pilot.

[3:15:09] >> Second, Mike.

[3:15:10] >> Yeah,

[3:15:11] >> comment too.

[3:15:14] >> We're sitting pretty good on that. All

[3:15:16] right.

[3:15:17] >> I just

[3:15:19] double check before I end. Uh it says uh

[3:15:24] legal legal review went through on the

[3:15:26] contracts. Oh, good from the county

[3:15:29] side. Thank you.

[3:15:31] >> Okay, John.

[3:15:33] >> Thank you. Um I I appreciate the spirit

[3:15:37] that this has been presented to us in. I

[3:15:40] personally have been on record as not

[3:15:42] supporting the shuttle effort. Um, this

[3:15:46] is UDOT money. It's a million dollars.

[3:15:48] It's it's UDAB money is is public money.

[3:15:51] Um, I wonder what else and it is tiff

[3:15:55] money. I wonder what else the tiff money

[3:15:57] could be spent on such as the mo area

[3:15:59] transit or possibly bike paths. Um, a

[3:16:04] question whether this is the best use of

[3:16:07] this money and does it mean that other

[3:16:09] high needs projects in the Moab area or

[3:16:11] even other areas around the region of

[3:16:13] the state get funded? So, I will not be

[3:16:17] voting in favor of this item. Thank you.

[3:16:21] >> Okay, any other comments? Mary?

[3:16:25] Uh, I won't be voting for this as well.

[3:16:28] I've joked before that about the only

[3:16:30] time I've seen uh the county come

[3:16:34] together, both liberals and uh and

[3:16:37] conservatives, is with the Woodies, when

[3:16:39] they were going to close Woodies.

[3:16:41] But I must say this is surprising me how

[3:16:47] many conservatives I speak to who are

[3:16:51] flabbergasted

[3:16:53] that say that they are shocked that we

[3:16:56] are spending this kind of money. No

[3:16:59] matter where it comes from it's their

[3:17:01] money. It's it's public funds. This is

[3:17:04] coming from our Utah public funds and then it's coming from federal and

[3:17:10] it's coming from state and across the

[3:17:13] board. I have I think I've heard one or

[3:17:17] two [clears throat] people say they

[3:17:18] think it's a great idea. Otherwise, it's

[3:17:21] pretty much

[3:17:22] not not supported. It was a 70. It was a

[3:17:26] unanimous vote at EDOP. So surprising to

[3:17:28] hear that I said in MOA

[3:17:34] Um, I won't be voting for this either.

[3:17:37] I'll just reiterate. I I think that when

[3:17:39] we look at this, it's not just 500,000

[3:17:40] from the county. You know, this is all

[3:17:42] of our taxpayer dollars, whether it's a

[3:17:44] state level or a federal dollar, a

[3:17:46] federal level. So, it's $3 million a

[3:17:49] taxpayer dollars. I am not opposed to

[3:17:51] the shuttle.

[3:17:55] I [laughter] I

[3:17:57] >> Sorry,

[3:17:59] you guys really struggle with decorum.

[3:18:01] We want to talk about decorum. And Mel,

[3:18:02] that's the point right there. Having

[3:18:04] commissioners laugh at other

[3:18:05] commissioners, which this is how this

[3:18:07] meeting started. As the chair, you need

[3:18:09] to stop it.

[3:18:11] >> Okay. I'm just saying. I'm just saying.

[3:18:14] >> You can continue.

[3:18:15] >> I'm just saying. And so, you know, it's

[3:18:17] just you guys, it's like it's so

[3:18:19] sophomoric. I would wouldn't even say

[3:18:21] that it's fourth grade.

[3:18:23] >> So, you're calling people names now.

[3:18:25] That's just

[3:18:27] Mel. I mean, come on. They had

[3:18:29] commissioners laugh out loud at other

[3:18:31] commissioners.

[3:18:32] >> Sometimes it happens. Sometimes people

[3:18:33] laugh out loud. Sometimes you roll your

[3:18:35] eyes. I mean, I can't babysit you.

[3:18:37] >> I'm going to finish my statement with

[3:18:39] you.

[3:18:40] >> I'm not opposed to this idea. And I said

[3:18:43] that when when this kind of was rolling,

[3:18:45] I said, "What what I would love to see

[3:18:47] is a feasibility study. I'd like to

[3:18:49] backtrack, like to pull the reinss and

[3:18:52] update that feasibility study." And and

[3:18:54] I mean that, Brian. And you know the sad

[3:18:57] thing is you don't have support and you

[3:18:59] don't have support from the citizens of

[3:19:00] this community. I would say the same

[3:19:02] thing. I have not had one person

[3:19:05] conservative, liberal, wherever you want

[3:19:07] to say on the spectrum say that they

[3:19:09] support this. Um we are in dire straits.

[3:19:13] Our really our budget we and and also

[3:19:15] I'm going to use the 2026 budget.

[3:19:19] We went into the budget year in the red

[3:19:21] and we keep spending money out of

[3:19:23] budget. And that's I'm not talking about

[3:19:24] revenue. that's coming in. I'm talking

[3:19:26] about our budgets um to define that

[3:19:28] clearly and I want to make that really

[3:19:30] clear. We can't keep spending money out

[3:19:32] of budget and we continue to do so. Um

[3:19:35] so I'm not going to support this.

[3:19:39] >> Mike,

[3:19:41] I'm going to support this

[3:19:44] as the only Republican candidate and or

[3:19:47] sitting member of this commission.

[3:19:51] Conservative or not, we're doing

[3:19:53] something good for our local and our

[3:19:55] visitors alike. Love this. Um,

[3:19:59] you do threw a million in.

[3:20:04] Great. Thumbs up.

[3:20:09] » Okay.

[3:20:11] >> Yeah. Just going to make one quick

[3:20:12] comment right here. The the numbers for

[3:20:14] June are in. Um, TRT revenue is up 28%

[3:20:19] over projections. Total sales tax

[3:20:22] revenue is up 17% over projections.

[3:20:25] That's for the first four months. Over

[3:20:28] the last six months, TRT revenue is up

[3:20:31] 35% which is $951,000

[3:20:35] over projections. Total sales tax

[3:20:38] revenue is up 25%. This is $1.65 million

[3:20:43] over projections. Now, I don't expect

[3:20:46] those trends to continue at that rate.

[3:20:49] However, that is an example of what

[3:20:51] happens when you invest in the

[3:20:53] infrastructure of your economy.

[3:20:58] » So, I didn't expect u push back on grant

[3:21:02] money because generally that's not the

[3:21:04] case. So, I was going to discuss I was

[3:21:06] going to talk about this before we went

[3:21:08] into number 10, but I'm just going to go

[3:21:09] ahead and read a statement that I

[3:21:11] prepared to talk about um the vendor

[3:21:14] selection, but the shuttle working

[3:21:16] group. You know, we wanted to share why

[3:21:17] the why this pilot is even being

[3:21:19] discussed. And so, the best time to have

[3:21:22] built a shuttle system between Moab and

[3:21:24] Arches was was probably 15 years ago

[3:21:26] when Aadia and Zion were first figuring

[3:21:29] theirs out. But we didn't. Grand County

[3:21:31] has spent much of the last 10 years in

[3:21:33] response mode, fixing what floods,

[3:21:36] patching what cracks, catching up to

[3:21:39] provide infrastructure for growth that

[3:21:41] already happened. If we govern that way

[3:21:43] long enough, we aren't planning for the

[3:21:45] county. we want or for the county that

[3:21:48] we want, but we're reaching

[3:21:51] by what happens, reacting to what

[3:21:53] happens. We're attempting to do

[3:21:55] something different right now. We want

[3:21:57] to plan for a vision of a future of

[3:21:59] Grant County that's thriving and

[3:22:00] resilient. A a pilot shuttle is not a

[3:22:03] finished system. It will have rough

[3:22:05] weeks and hard learning. Many of the

[3:22:07] questions that people are asking about

[3:22:09] cost, about timing, about who pays for

[3:22:11] what are exactly the questions that this

[3:22:13] pilot exists to answer. And we'll answer

[3:22:16] them with real data instead of a study

[3:22:18] that sits on a shelf. An arch

[3:22:22] an arches shuttle pilot is not just

[3:22:24] about a shuttle. It's one piece of a

[3:22:26] larger question that this commission is

[3:22:28] trying to answer. What does it take for

[3:22:30] a regionally isolated rural gateway

[3:22:32] community to stay livable and thrive

[3:22:34] across the next 20 years? What does it

[3:22:37] take to create a place where a young

[3:22:39] family can afford to stay? Where an

[3:22:42] older resident can age without leaving?

[3:22:44] Where the people who cook the meals and

[3:22:46] guide the rivers can actually live near

[3:22:48] the work. Transit is one threat in that.

[3:22:51] So is housing. So is the kind of

[3:22:53] infrastructure that a modern gateway

[3:22:55] community needs. And we can't afford to

[3:22:57] defer or leave it to chance. So we'd

[3:23:00] rather plant the tree now and then

[3:23:03] explain in a decade why we didn't. We

[3:23:05] want to plan and build the foundation

[3:23:07] for a thriving, resilient Grand County

[3:23:09] in 20 years instead of chasing the

[3:23:11] growth that would inevitably happen on

[3:23:13] its own. So that's the vote in front of

[3:23:15] us right now. That's the vote in front

[3:23:17] of us in number 10, you know, and that's

[3:23:20] also something when we get to number 16,

[3:23:22] the commission chair's priority

[3:23:23] statement that I'm attempting to do for

[3:23:25] this county.

[3:23:30] » Go ahead, Brian.

[3:23:31] >> Call for a vote.

[3:23:33] >> So, let's go ahead. Call for a vote. We

[3:23:35] had a motion and we had a second. So

[3:23:37] those in favor

[3:23:40] and those opposed.

[3:23:42] >> Okay.

[3:23:43] >> So that passes for three with man

[3:23:48] and Heather opposed.

[3:23:51] We move along to number 10. Moa Archer

[3:23:53] shuttle service operator RFP selection.

[3:23:56] So since I already read the reasoning

[3:23:58] why we want uh to see this pilot shuttle

[3:24:01] work, it's not just for the shuttle

[3:24:03] system, not just for Arches but for our

[3:24:05] whole community. The we got three

[3:24:08] proposals

[3:24:10] and they were put in in in um our county

[3:24:13] website and this uh shuttle working

[3:24:15] group met and our recommendation is

[3:24:18] Abby. If you go through I think that uh

[3:24:22] our

[3:24:24] comments to those proposed are all

[3:24:27] public but that's that was the

[3:24:28] recommendation that we have.

[3:24:29] >> What was your recommendation again Mel?

[3:24:31] Sorry I'm sorry I missed that.

[3:24:34] >> Oh sorry it's not Abby via I know I was

[3:24:36] like I was like did I there's another

[3:24:38] one that's like I was three acronyms as

[3:24:41] well.

[3:24:42] >> That's okay. I was just sorry. VIA VA

[3:24:44] transportation is the the clear, you

[3:24:48] know, they're already here. They're

[3:24:50] already operating the mat. They have so

[3:24:51] much information to our community. You

[3:24:54] know, I would have liked to pick a

[3:24:57] different one, but there's no way. I

[3:24:58] mean, a Grip was in there. They they had

[3:25:00] a lot. They're Utah based company. They

[3:25:02] have a lot of great things to offer, but

[3:25:04] um you know, when we're looking at

[3:25:05] regional transportation, this is all

[3:25:06] inclusive.

[3:25:08] So, that was the recommendation. Go

[3:25:09] ahead, Mike.

[3:25:12] Uh, I'd like to make the motion. I move

[3:25:14] to award the Moab to Arches shuttle

[3:25:16] pilot op operator contract to

[3:25:21] full name is Via Transportation. Double

[3:25:23] check there.

[3:25:23] >> Yeah.

[3:25:24] >> Yep. Uh, two, Via Transportation.

[3:25:29] Second that.

[3:25:32] >> John,

[3:25:33] [clears throat]

[3:25:36] Mr. Harder, go ahead. He's

[3:25:40] muted.

[3:25:41] >> Y

[3:25:42] >> I I got it. Sorry, that was uh

[3:25:44] difficult. Um I first thing I'd like to

[3:25:47] ask Stephen, where where is legal on

[3:25:49] this, including the um an approval of a

[3:25:52] [snorts] potential contract?

[3:25:54] Um I sorry, I've been traveling a little

[3:25:56] bit and haven't heard any updates, but

[3:25:57] I'd like to to hear from him on that.

[3:25:59] And uh if this if and when this RFP is

[3:26:03] issued, what are the next steps as far

[3:26:05] as uh what we need to do? Do we need to

[3:26:08] ratify the contract, etc.? Thank you,

[3:26:11] Stephen.

[3:26:12] >> Yeah. Um, so the county doesn't have a

[3:26:14] fully drafted contract, but the RFP

[3:26:17] identifies things that the county would

[3:26:18] like to see from this vendor. The vendor

[3:26:20] has provided a proposal. We would move

[3:26:21] forward, draft a contract that

[3:26:23] encapsulates these terms and any of the

[3:26:25] other obligations that the county has um

[3:26:27] to the other partners. That would

[3:26:29] include considering uh the CMA uh

[3:26:32] agreement that we will eventually create

[3:26:33] with the N the NPS and the other

[3:26:36] providers. So the goal would be that

[3:26:39] this this vendor would be selected if

[3:26:40] that's what the county would like to do

[3:26:42] moving forward. We would isolate all of

[3:26:44] the terms that we expect them to do and

[3:26:46] we would bring back a finalized version

[3:26:49] of that contract uh to the body for the body to ratify at a later date. But

[3:26:54] again, it would have to accomplish all

[3:26:56] the goals in the other process that

[3:26:58] we're looking at, which is that CMA

[3:27:00] agreement that hasn't that that is

[3:27:03] nearing completion.

[3:27:04] >> It's completed on the draft site. It's

[3:27:06] just in lawyers. So, it's been um all

[3:27:08] the negotiations between the county and

[3:27:11] the National Park Service have been

[3:27:15] vetted out, discussed, figured out,

[3:27:17] everyone's in agreement on everything.

[3:27:18] And so, now we're just um between the

[3:27:20] park service attorney and our attorney.

[3:27:22] >> Correct.

[3:27:22] >> Um so, that when they get back with it.

[3:27:24] So, we're hoping to have it we could

[3:27:25] possibly have it on our next agenda on

[3:27:27] July 21st, but at no later than August

[3:27:30] 4th because that would allow um the

[3:27:33] proposer to go ahead and purchase all

[3:27:35] the vehicles and be ready to go by that

[3:27:36] September 1st.

[3:27:39] >> A question for you. I mean, doesn't it

[3:27:42] make it extremely tenuous though not to

[3:27:44] have that CMA in, you know, have that

[3:27:48] finalized and then be I mean, this it

[3:27:50] just seems again it was mentioned by I

[3:27:53] think it was Jim, you know, cart before

[3:27:55] the horse type of situation where if

[3:27:58] that CMA changes radically and we

[3:28:00] already have a contract with a vendor,

[3:28:03] you know, it just seems tenuous and

[3:28:05] maybe you could describe that process,

[3:28:06] what happens. And so full disclosure, I

[3:28:08] do I do have the ACMA in my queue to

[3:28:11] review. I received that last week. Um

[3:28:14] yeah, it makes it so that whenever

[3:28:16] you're trying to make a subsequent

[3:28:18] contract to satisfy conditions in

[3:28:20] another contract, it always makes it

[3:28:22] tricky. Um I think the RFP was designed

[3:28:26] by the same individuals that were

[3:28:28] looking at the CMA and from the position

[3:28:30] of the county. um from the policy makers

[3:28:32] at the at the county, they've kind of

[3:28:34] tried to guide that CMA to something

[3:28:37] that the county would be able to meet

[3:28:39] those obligations. So that's the hope.

[3:28:41] Yes. Does it make it more difficult when

[3:28:43] we are, you know, trying to nail down

[3:28:45] two different things that are in the

[3:28:47] year at once? Yes. Um can is it

[3:28:50] something that the county can do? Yes.

[3:28:52] uh but we need to isolate the CMA, make

[3:28:55] sure all those terms are set in place

[3:28:57] and then we would turn to finalizing the

[3:28:59] contract with this u with this vendor.

[3:29:02] And so at that point, if there were

[3:29:04] changes, that is a potential that you

[3:29:06] may have changes, you might have to go

[3:29:07] back to that vendor and say, "Hey, look,

[3:29:09] uh instead of X, Y, and Z, we're going

[3:29:11] to do S, X, Y, and Z." And so it adds on

[3:29:14] additional terms and additional things

[3:29:15] that that make it trickier. Um is it

[3:29:17] impossible to do? No. um will have

[3:29:20] sufficient time to be able to review

[3:29:21] this. Yes, uh this is something that we

[3:29:24] can do. It will be a quicker turnaround.

[3:29:26] Um but that's something that the

[3:29:28] contract hasn't been drafted yet for

[3:29:29] this RFP. Um but that's not necessarily

[3:29:33] uncommon. Sometimes we do have RFPs that

[3:29:35] go out and we are looking for new

[3:29:37] services for the county and then we have

[3:29:38] to come back and and look at a contract,

[3:29:40] draft the contract based on what the

[3:29:41] county has for our ICAS and then the

[3:29:44] proposal from the vendor.

[3:29:47] And there is still RFP to come. Um this

[3:29:50] is in in the works at the moment and

[3:29:52] that's that in it's been called traffic

[3:29:55] or u transportation liaison and our last

[3:29:59] meeting everybody decided that that name

[3:30:01] just doesn't really work. It's going to

[3:30:03] be shuttle attendance. So going forward

[3:30:05] it'll be an RFP for shuttle attendance.

[3:30:07] All three of the proposals um put forth

[3:30:10] that that they would all be interested.

[3:30:12] So it didn't matter which one we picked.

[3:30:14] that that they will be bidding on that

[3:30:16] next RFP. So that and in a perfect

[3:30:19] world, the shuttle attendance and the um

[3:30:24] shuttle operator would be the same. But that was like our our tie-up piece

[3:30:29] uh of conversation for the CMA. And so

[3:30:32] to move forward with the RFP for the

[3:30:34] shuttle so that it so that the people

[3:30:36] would have enough time to procure and

[3:30:39] get everything ready because that's the

[3:30:40] definite bigger piece of the puzzle. We

[3:30:43] decided to separate the two. So instead

[3:30:44] of including them together as one RFP

[3:30:47] shuttle attendance and shuttle operator,

[3:30:50] we separated them. That gave us time to

[3:30:53] come together as a group and decide

[3:30:55] exactly how that was going to look, what

[3:30:56] those shuttle attendants look like, what

[3:30:58] their responsibilities were going to be.

[3:31:00] And now that RFP will go out as well.

[3:31:02] And so they'll all they're all

[3:31:04] connected, but and that's a very that's

[3:31:06] a much shorter piece of putting things

[3:31:08] together. And that's why we separated

[3:31:10] them out and did and did them

[3:31:12] separately. And that's why that yeah,

[3:31:14] they've been called TLS or

[3:31:16] transportation leaison. And now we're

[3:31:17] gonna move that to shuttle um attendance

[3:31:20] just they're going to help you know get

[3:31:21] people on and off the shuttle and

[3:31:22] hopefully it'll you know it could be the

[3:31:24] same company. I know they've all

[3:31:26] expressed it but that RFP will come out

[3:31:28] soon. Do you mind if I ask you a couple

[3:31:30] questions and any of us welcome to tell

[3:31:33] you. So, um it it does seem very rushed.

[3:31:37] Um and I know that you guys address that

[3:31:39] a little bit in the in the things that

[3:31:41] you put out um to to your citizens, but

[3:31:45] um can you kind of talk about why it

[3:31:50] it's so like why this has to happen by

[3:31:53] September 1st? Can you just give me

[3:31:54] back?

[3:31:55] >> Well, when the first discussions

[3:31:56] happened, first of all, it was like, can

[3:31:59] this happen by spring? We're like, uh

[3:32:02] no. I mean, I look back at my first

[3:32:04] email from Lena was in February. So, I

[3:32:06] because somebody in the paper said that

[3:32:09] um that the the national park didn't ask

[3:32:11] for this and maybe the full national

[3:32:13] park didn't, but Lena sent me an email

[3:32:15] that asked for it. So, you know, I went

[3:32:17] back on my email and found Lena's email

[3:32:19] that said and so anybody want to grab

[3:32:20] that, I'll send it right over. Um you

[3:32:23] know, it's ask for us to help. And so we

[3:32:26] did. And that first meeting she was

[3:32:28] like, when can you have this um up and

[3:32:31] running? And it's like, well, you know,

[3:32:32] the county can do a lot more than what

[3:32:36] the park service can do. Are you saying

[3:32:38] Lena inspired the idea of the shuttle? I

[3:32:41] guess I'm confused. Where did what do

[3:32:42] you mean Lena asked for it? At what

[3:32:45] >> at what point

[3:32:47] >> when she said when she sent me the email

[3:32:48] and said, I have heard there's been

[3:32:51] discussion of a shuttle. Can you meet

[3:32:54] with me and and help us figure out this?

[3:32:56] And and

[3:32:56] >> Okay, that makes sense. That makes her

[3:32:58] to find funding. you know, I'll go look

[3:33:00] for money on my side. You go see what

[3:33:01] you can do.

[3:33:02] >> Okay, that makes more sense.

[3:33:04] >> Transportation, you know, whatever it

[3:33:06] has to be. So,

[3:33:07] >> um, we said we'd help you help. We'd

[3:33:08] help. And so, that's where we're at.

[3:33:10] That's what started this. And then now

[3:33:12] we're moving forward. And it took time

[3:33:15] and we didn't have the money. So, we had

[3:33:17] to get some money. And so, if we don't

[3:33:20] So, that so if we couldn't do it in the

[3:33:22] spring, can we do it in the fall? So,

[3:33:24] September 1st is if we don't do it by

[3:33:26] September 1st, then then why would we do

[3:33:28] it in the fall? you know, we don't want

[3:33:29] to start October 1st and then have it

[3:33:31] for a month and then then it's winter

[3:33:32] time. And if we don't if we don't push

[3:33:35] forward for it and we just let it all

[3:33:36] die and then, you know, and then it just

[3:33:39] comes in next year. I think that's part

[3:33:40] of funding. So, I'll let Brian talk

[3:33:42] about that.

[3:33:42] >> Yeah. And so, two things with that o or

[3:33:45] the uh September 1st that really makes

[3:33:46] sense, right? Is if we were to ask

[3:33:49] operator to come in and run for March,

[3:33:52] April, May, right? and then we want you

[3:33:54] to take June, July, August off, and only

[3:33:56] want you to come back September,

[3:33:57] October, they're they're not going to

[3:33:59] really be willing to do it. However,

[3:34:01] when you just switch things around and

[3:34:03] say, "Hey, the contract is for

[3:34:05] September, October, and then you can

[3:34:07] come back March, April, May, June, it

[3:34:09] sounds a little bit better inside of

[3:34:11] that little conversation." The other

[3:34:13] thing is just kind of where that nexus

[3:34:15] lines up between federal contracting,

[3:34:17] state uh uh uh state fund availability,

[3:34:20] right? And so there's just a small

[3:34:21] little window to where you're actually

[3:34:23] going to be able to get appropriations

[3:34:25] from the federal government and the

[3:34:27] state at the same time because they're

[3:34:29] on two different fiscal years. And so

[3:34:31] when we started looking at that, we

[3:34:33] needed to make sure that we were going

[3:34:34] to line that up, right? So even if it

[3:34:36] wasn't now, I mean, it looks like the

[3:34:38] best deal that we're going to be able to

[3:34:40] get would be a shuttle that operates

[3:34:42] September, October, right? March, April,

[3:34:45] May, June, which covers our by uh our

[3:34:49] peak tourism demand.

[3:34:51] >> Okay.

[3:34:52] >> Do you mind if I And Mike, you had your

[3:34:54] hand up, so I just had a couple more

[3:34:55] questions.

[3:34:56] >> Has his hand up.

[3:34:56] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Doc, do you want to

[3:34:58] go? And I'll

[3:35:00] >> Yeah, just to just uh Sorry, I'm having

[3:35:02] a hard time hearing here, but just

[3:35:04] Melody, did you say uh there would be a

[3:35:06] separate RFP for lot attendance, I

[3:35:10] believe, right?

[3:35:12] >> Yeah. Shuttle attendance. Yes.

[3:35:15] >> Is that where where is that getting paid

[3:35:17] from? Is that the same pot of money or is the county putting that bill?

[3:35:21] >> County is not putting that bill. It may

[3:35:23] be left over from the money that is in

[3:35:26] there. You know, the National Park

[3:35:28] Service is it's a it's a mandatory

[3:35:32] um request by them. And so I think it's,

[3:35:36] you know, it's we're not going to let it

[3:35:37] off the shuttle, but it's definitely

[3:35:39] something that's going to be have to be

[3:35:40] funded.

[3:35:42] Um the allocation has

[3:35:43] >> Oh, now he's%.

[3:35:48] » All right. So, we're not sure um how and

[3:35:50] then in the looking through the VIA um

[3:35:54] proposal, they said there'd be weekly

[3:35:58] meetings with the county and then and

[3:36:00] then more intensive uh monthly and

[3:36:03] quarterly meetings with the county. Have

[3:36:05] we figured out who the county contact is

[3:36:07] going to be on that? It seems like

[3:36:08] that's going to be a relatively large

[3:36:10] job. We already made that group.

[3:36:11] >> I think it'll stay the same people that

[3:36:13] are already involved.

[3:36:15] >> So, commissioners.

[3:36:16] >> Mhm. [clears throat]

[3:36:17] >> So, the commissioners will actually be

[3:36:19] the contact. I'm I'm sorry.

[3:36:22] >> Melissa,

[3:36:24] >> commissioners and Melissa.

[3:36:25] >> Yeah.

[3:36:28] >> Thanks.

[3:36:31] >> Have more questions, y'all. Trish has

[3:36:32] some more. You have more question.

[3:36:34] >> No, no, go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm good. I

[3:36:36] have just two I have just two questions

[3:36:38] and then later I'll go on to um on the

[3:36:42] county you know on what we put out to

[3:36:44] the public one of the things they

[3:36:46] mentioned was you know we wanted to get

[3:36:48] this done because of the funding that it

[3:36:52] was centennial funding that was only

[3:36:54] obligated until the the end of 2026. Is

[3:36:58] that correct? I don't feel like that's

[3:37:00] correct.

[3:37:00] >> They changed it.

[3:37:02] >> Okay. Can you can you explain that?

[3:37:03] >> Yeah. So the

[3:37:04] >> So I think we should change it on the

[3:37:05] county website too. Just saying because

[3:37:07] that's what it says on the county

[3:37:08] website.

[3:37:09] >> I believe that it did explain in the uh

[3:37:12] um the letter that Melissa had just put

[3:37:14] out. So as things were putting together,

[3:37:16] we were looking at the centennial

[3:37:18] funding. The uh National Park Service

[3:37:21] while we were in the working group said

[3:37:23] that that we're committing the funds,

[3:37:25] but we need to just kind of figure it

[3:37:26] out themselves. And so they actually

[3:37:28] found more flexibility in some other in

[3:37:30] another funding source that they can

[3:37:32] use. Okay.

[3:37:33] >> Um the the the uh uh requirements behind

[3:37:36] that funding source I'm not as familiar

[3:37:38] with because they didn't do any of the

[3:37:39] research with it. Um all I know is that

[3:37:41] they said that they've committed those

[3:37:43] funds for us once we get the this.

[3:37:46] >> Okay. So say yes so sorry that was what

[3:37:48] was on the county. And then the last

[3:37:50] thing it said that the National Park

[3:37:52] Service has reviewed all the RFPs. Is

[3:37:54] that correct?

[3:37:56] >> Okay. And do they make a recommendation

[3:37:58] or they just say yep we've reviewed

[3:37:59] them. We have no substantive comments.

[3:38:02] No, because the CMA authorizes the

[3:38:04] county to be the one that is executing

[3:38:06] this. So, they don't they don't have to.

[3:38:09] >> Yeah, we did send those. So, they I did

[3:38:10] send them all to Lena and then she sent

[3:38:13] them off to their procurement person to

[3:38:14] make sure that there was nothing in

[3:38:16] there that was um they had conflicts

[3:38:18] with

[3:38:19] >> and there was none.

[3:38:20] >> Okay, thank you.

[3:38:21] >> And there were long there were long

[3:38:22] discussions on how that scoring went and

[3:38:25] what we were looking for out of a

[3:38:26] vendor. So, this wasn't

[3:38:28] >> this wasn't done in the back end. And

[3:38:31] then just real quick, because again

[3:38:32] we're kind of working with the um with

[3:38:34] the CMA, how it's structured is that the county is agreeing to meet

[3:38:39] obligations set by the NPS and the

[3:38:42] partners to achieve certain goals. So

[3:38:44] that's what's creating the need for this

[3:38:47] additional RFP. So that's how it's how

[3:38:49] it's being structured is instead of them

[3:38:53] hiring them directly, the county is is

[3:38:55] obligated to to fulfill these uh

[3:38:58] additional elements and complete the

[3:39:00] whatever tasks are. And so that and

[3:39:02] that's the that's what's compelling will

[3:39:04] compel the county to continue that

[3:39:05] obligation through this campaign.

[3:39:10] » All right,

[3:39:11] we're good. We have first second

[3:39:16] comment or whenever

[3:39:20] you have you have a comment now. Go

[3:39:22] ahead. Sure. I mean just Yeah, since we

[3:39:24] have a first and second. So I won't be

[3:39:26] um I will not be voting for this. The

[3:39:29] issues that stand out to me are the fact

[3:39:32] that we do have a separation of the

[3:39:34] shuttle service and the probably

[3:39:37] whatever you want to call them parking

[3:39:38] lot attendance. That's concerning to me.

[3:39:41] I think it would have been better

[3:39:42] incorporated as one. I'm concerned about

[3:39:46] the amount of money in the short term,

[3:39:48] just the short-term availability of the

[3:39:50] shuttle, whether it be the limited time,

[3:39:53] the limited routes. Um, it is a

[3:39:56] tremendous amount of money. I'm a little

[3:39:58] concerned looking at the RFPs that

[3:40:02] just the verbiage in one of them, you

[3:40:04] know, said and and maybe it was just the

[3:40:07] way I was reading it said on the cover

[3:40:09] letter, "Our legal team has reviewed the

[3:40:12] terms and we find them acceptable." It's

[3:40:14] like they almost knew that they had

[3:40:16] already been chosen, but that's just my

[3:40:17] reading of it. So, I'm just stating my concerns. Um, and then the last big

[3:40:23] concern is I'm concerned for the

[3:40:25] subcommittee. I think this is a

[3:40:27] monstrous job

[3:40:30] and I hope you guys I hope you're okay.

[3:40:32] I mean hopefully you can do it.

[3:40:34] [laughter]

[3:40:34] Um my concern is that

[3:40:38] someday soon you'll return and ask for

[3:40:41] another position at the county level and

[3:40:43] we just I that that's my concern. Um I I

[3:40:48] don't want this to be a larger burden on

[3:40:51] the citizens of this community. I think

[3:40:53] it's it's an interesting prospect. I

[3:40:56] just don't want to put it on taxpayers

[3:40:58] backs and so hopefully we won't see

[3:40:59] that. Hopefully, you know, we have a

[3:41:02] team that will be able to handle putting

[3:41:04] that together and managing this system.

[3:41:06] But I think it's I think it's going to

[3:41:08] be I think it's big. I think it's a big

[3:41:10] undertaking.

[3:41:12] [clears throat]

[3:41:12] Mary,

[3:41:15] >> I just want to know

[3:41:18] this statement. I've uh spent a great

[3:41:21] deal of time with uh Miss Pace uh at

[3:41:24] Canyon Country Partnership and other

[3:41:26] meetings and she wanted to be part of

[3:41:30] the conversation.

[3:41:33] She never wanted

[3:41:36] to push having a shuttle this soon.

[3:41:39] And I I think it's important that we

[3:41:41] don't

[3:41:43] uh take that her willingness to be part

[3:41:46] of the conversation as her

[3:41:50] saying the shadow system is a great

[3:41:52] idea.

[3:41:57] » Go ahead, Mike.

[3:42:00] >> If you feel like

[3:42:01] >> Yeah, I'm ready to call. Yeah. Great. So

[3:42:03] all those in favor of um via

[3:42:06] transportation as the proposal

[3:42:09] and those opposed

[3:42:11] nay.

[3:42:12] >> Okay, that passes seven 43 with

[3:42:16] commissioner man, commissioner and

[3:42:17] commissioner opposed.

[3:42:20] We move on to our next one is the mod

[3:42:23] holiday festival the lights on through

[3:42:26] Christmas. This is number 11. So

[3:42:27] commissioner Martinez.

[3:42:31] » Yeah. So, this is just a continuation on

[3:42:33] what we did last year with the lighting

[3:42:36] of the bridge and the trees down there.

[3:42:38] Um, it uh will be combined with the what

[3:42:42] the city's doing, their lighting of the

[3:42:44] tree, which is on December 4th. The

[3:42:46] holiday craft fair which is on December

[3:42:48] 4th and 5th, the Moab Locals 10K which

[3:42:51] is on December 5th, the Electric Light

[3:42:54] Parade on Main Street which is December

[3:42:56] 5th. And then the uh uh the county

[3:42:59] holiday festival we're planning for on

[3:43:02] December 11th. Um and that's going to

[3:43:05] include the uh the tree and the bridge

[3:43:07] lighting. Um we're looking into a drone

[3:43:09] show and then a PR activation with camp

[3:43:13] stories um to promote latefall

[3:43:15] visitation including media pitching,

[3:43:17] journalist journalist hosting and

[3:43:20] content creation leading up to the

[3:43:23] festival. Um yeah, with lighting the

[3:43:26] bridgewalk and Santa Claus, all the

[3:43:29] bells and whistles. So

[3:43:32] the uh Oh yeah, just a pass off. So it

[3:43:34] did pass through the MTAB board with a

[3:43:36] favorable recommendation and it is I

[3:43:39] think it's pretty comparable to what was

[3:43:41] spent last year

[3:43:42] >> and it's funded from TRT promotion.

[3:43:45] >> TRT promotion. Correct.

[3:43:50] I move to approve up to $175,000

[3:43:54] for the Moab Holiday Festival. I think

[3:43:56] it sounds great.

[3:43:59] >> Okay.

[3:44:01] Did you have a hand up?

[3:44:02] >> I was just rubbing my head.

[3:44:04] >> Okay. Any questions, comments?

[3:44:07] And tab board approved this unanimously.

[3:44:10] Did you say that? Yep.

[3:44:13] Thanks. All in favor?

[3:44:18] Jock. Any opposed?

[3:44:20] >> I You're in favor, right?

[3:44:24] >> Yes. I

[3:44:25] >> Okay,

[3:44:26] >> that passes 70. Thank you.

[3:44:29] Okay, so number 12 is the resolution

[3:44:32] amending the policies and procedures of

[3:44:33] the governing body. And we have a couple

[3:44:36] different um pieces in the

[3:44:44] we have the old one. We have the

[3:44:46] redlinined one and we have an ordinance

[3:44:48] for that. And I don't know I I'm open to

[3:44:50] some discussion before we take take a

[3:44:53] vote or if we want to table this if we

[3:44:55] don't feel like we're ready. I know that

[3:44:56] there's been workshops for this.

[3:45:00] Couple commissioners absent but go ahead

[3:45:03] Trish. Um, I I really appreciate the

[3:45:06] workshops. It goes a long way. And so I guess I just have a couple comments.

[3:45:10] And this actually isn't to manipulate

[3:45:12] this document now. It's maybe just to

[3:45:14] put it on record so that someday if we

[3:45:16] modify it again, it's on record. I do

[3:45:19] think in this document it would be good

[3:45:20] for us to broach grandma requests and

[3:45:24] commissioners obligations to grandmas

[3:45:26] because we are seeming to have a lot of

[3:45:29] trouble with grandmas more recently. And

[3:45:32] I and I do think there's just a burden

[3:45:34] that is on um it's it's a it's become a quite a large burden. So

[3:45:40] that's just for the future. We don't

[3:45:41] need to modify anything now.

[3:45:43] >> We get paid fulltime because I mean it's

[3:45:45] like about it really like he said it

[3:45:48] comes in pulses. So you really don't

[3:45:50] want a full right like it's this pulse

[3:45:53] in a pulse

[3:45:55] time.

[3:45:55] >> Yeah, it does. But I don't think it it would it behooves us to hire another

[3:45:59] person. Um I already talked to him about

[3:46:01] that. And then the last one, and again

[3:46:03] this isn't to man manipulate this for

[3:46:05] now, just future um just future is just

[3:46:10] the commissioner's involvement in

[3:46:12] operational issues and and I don't think

[3:46:14] we really define that enough. And again,

[3:46:16] I don't want to manipulate the document

[3:46:18] now. I appreciate the workshop. I

[3:46:19] appreciate the work. And I'm going to

[3:46:21] call it good. So that being said, I'm

[3:46:24] not actually going to make a motion,

[3:46:26] which I never do anymore.

[3:46:29] Sit here quietly. I move to approve the

[3:46:31] resolution amending the policies and

[3:46:32] procedures of the governing body as

[3:46:34] presented and allowing commissioner comm

[3:46:37] admin to make what is that? What is that say?

[3:46:42] >> Minimal. It's like minimus. Minimus. So

[3:46:45] minimus. Thank you.

[3:46:47] >> I'm spelling things.

[3:46:48] >> Yeah. No. Correct. I thank you.

[3:46:51] Corrections to the document if necessary

[3:46:53] before signing.

[3:46:55] >> Mike second. But well, I'm everywhere

[3:46:58] too.

[3:46:59] >> Okay.

[3:47:00] >> Have any more any more discussion?

[3:47:05] I want to thank everybody for their time

[3:47:07] on this as well. I think it's turned out

[3:47:08] pretty good and it does have quite a

[3:47:10] bit. It doesn't address grandmas at all

[3:47:13] in there. Does it address grand? Because

[3:47:15] that is not ultimately

[3:47:17] >> our you have to get the information back

[3:47:19] to them.

[3:47:22] >> Time.

[3:47:22] >> I think commissioners need I respond. I

[3:47:24] do mine as fast as

[3:47:25] >> I know you do.

[3:47:26] >> It takes forever, too. I have to fit it

[3:47:27] in my day. I'm like, I don't know. But

[3:47:30] >> I I we I know we've talked about grandma

[3:47:32] some processes. We just we need to that

[3:47:34] needs to be a separate piece. I agree.

[3:47:37] >> 100%. So, figuring out what we're doing

[3:47:39] with those.

[3:47:39] >> Okay.

[3:47:40] >> Um and then I do think that we did add

[3:47:42] some extra language in here about

[3:47:44] commissioners and what their

[3:47:45] responsibility is, especially when it

[3:47:47] comes to staff,

[3:47:48] >> you know, getting directly telling them

[3:47:52] what to do and things. So there is some

[3:47:53] in there. We'll see how it goes. We can

[3:47:55] always check on this another year or

[3:47:57] two. Go ahead.

[3:47:58] >> I have had staff come to me and say they

[3:48:01] are very thankful that that we're

[3:48:02] putting something in the policies. They

[3:48:06] the commission cannot ask ask staff to

[3:48:10] do certain things. It has to be a

[3:48:13] commission decision. And I think but and

[3:48:16] that but then that becomes confusing. So

[3:48:18] I think maybe in the future when we look

[3:48:20] at this we might say because like if you

[3:48:22] call a staff and say how much did we

[3:48:24] spend on da

[3:48:27] you know for information should be just

[3:48:29] an okay thing to do but when you're

[3:48:32] asking them to do something that's going

[3:48:33] to take over a half hour then I think it

[3:48:36] has to go through admin. So anyway, but

[3:48:39] I think maybe that could tighten it up a

[3:48:41] bit for later because the staff feel

[3:48:45] very if a commissioner asks a staff

[3:48:48] member to do something, they feel

[3:48:49] obligated to do it and it puts them in

[3:48:52] an awkward work place, especially if

[3:48:55] they're already if they have a lot on

[3:48:57] their plate as when you come and ask

[3:49:00] them to do something.

[3:49:04] And sure, do do we know if the the

[3:49:06] breakdown of the agenda review was was

[3:49:08] added to

[3:49:08] >> it was added to?

[3:49:09] >> Yeah.

[3:49:10] >> Okay. Just I don't know if

[3:49:11] >> so yeah I don't know that was not

[3:49:12] discussed in the in any workshop.

[3:49:15] >> So we did add in there that the that the

[3:49:18] agenda review would have the chair the

[3:49:21] vice chair and a commissioner from the

[3:49:23] minority if that was not represented by

[3:49:26] the chair or vice chair. So that say

[3:49:28] we've been doing that since I became a

[3:49:29] commissioner. That's been happening and

[3:49:31] I think it's been great. Uh so we wanted

[3:49:33] to capture that in the agenda in the

[3:49:35] policies and procedures as well as the

[3:49:37] county attorney um are an admin. So that

[3:49:41] it just it just defines it in there and

[3:49:43] that was not

[3:49:44] >> that was not spoken about. I did

[3:49:48] >> sometimes I think we talk about it but

[3:49:49] maybe it didn't get captured but it's

[3:49:50] definitely in there now.

[3:49:54] » All right. So we would any other

[3:49:56] discussion on this?

[3:49:59] >> Thanks for leading the charge. Actually,

[3:50:01] thanks Tom Ad. Thank you very much for

[3:50:05] doing this. I know it was a lot of work

[3:50:07] and it's been a lot of work especially

[3:50:08] Dana. Dana, thank you. All right, we'll

[3:50:11] go ahead and call for a vote. Those in

[3:50:14] favor

[3:50:15] >> I

[3:50:17] passes 70. And that does mean that now

[3:50:21] citizens to be heard will be after 5:00.

[3:50:23] So that we were only going to have one

[3:50:25] citizens to be heard. That was a piece

[3:50:26] of it. Um

[3:50:29] we our goal is to get out of here before

[3:50:31] six o'clock if believe it or not you

[3:50:33] know and so um and and when we do that

[3:50:35] agenda review we'll try to make sure

[3:50:37] that anything that's going to be

[3:50:38] controversial that we put it after that

[3:50:40] citizens be heard time so that people

[3:50:43] can come and discuss it because we have

[3:50:45] a lot of business we can talk about that

[3:50:46] isn't necessarily controversial.

[3:50:49] All right, moving along to number 13 is

[3:50:52] the res resolution oiler lot line adjustment

[3:50:58] z

[3:51:05] Andrew Jackson

[3:51:07] planner

[3:51:09] Bo Oiler of Oiler Properties LC owns two

[3:51:12] neighboring lots and del soul he wants

[3:51:15] to move the lot line between them so the

[3:51:17] existing house on lot 26 has a required

[3:51:20] 10-ft sideyard. Lot 27 is vacant owns

[3:51:24] both the lots. Noted lot is created.

[3:51:27] Both lots stay well above the minimum

[3:51:29] size and utility easement moves with the

[3:51:33] lot line. State law allows the county to

[3:51:36] approve this without a public hearing

[3:51:37] because one owner holds both lots and no

[3:51:40] street or common areas touched. Staff

[3:51:43] check the survey math. Um I think

[3:51:46] there's a maybe a a um bearing that goes

[3:51:51] northeast instead of southwest.

[3:51:54] Uh the recorded plat neighborhood

[3:51:57] covenants they found no conflict

[3:51:59] recommended approval um again just a few

[3:52:04] clean up things before recording.

[3:52:06] [clears throat]

[3:52:06] And I also have to note that in the

[3:52:09] suggestion motion and in the resolution

[3:52:12] um many of you may be aware that in

[3:52:15] November of 2025 the state changed the

[3:52:19] county section code from 1727A

[3:52:23] to 1779.

[3:52:26] Some of those things were directly moved

[3:52:29] over from one to the other like two one

[3:52:32] in one is still two two one the other

[3:52:34] but some things didn't go eye for eye

[3:52:37] and tooth for tooth between them and so

[3:52:41] um this is actually should be 1779 EO6

[3:52:46] instead of 608 deals with wetlands

[3:52:51] um

[3:52:52] >> which just went that so if you look at

[3:52:55] like the subject motion and it says on

[3:52:57] the second line that's addressed motion

[3:52:59] Utah code 1778608

[3:53:02] that should be 1779 806

[3:53:05] >> 806 it was just so

[3:53:12] » okay go ahead

[3:53:16] » having considered the staff report the

[3:53:18] proposed amendment plat the recorded

[3:53:21] phase

[3:53:22] 13 plat the pesta soul covenants and the

[3:53:26] Utah code 17-79-806

[3:53:32] and finding that the petition is signed

[3:53:34] by the owner of all affected lots that

[3:53:37] no public street is vacated and that the

[3:53:39] amended plat is consistent with the

[3:53:41] recorded plat and the covenants. I move

[3:53:44] to adopt resolution number approving the

[3:53:48] final to be determined correct.

[3:53:50] Approving the final plat of pestad del

[3:53:52] soul page 13 lots 26 and 27 amended

[3:53:57] subject to the conditions in the

[3:53:59] resolution and to authorize the chair to

[3:54:01] sign the plot once the planning and

[3:54:04] zoning director confirms the conditions

[3:54:06] have been met

[3:54:07] >> and also sign the resolution. Sorry,

[3:54:10] just want to make sure the resolution. Yep.

[3:54:16] >> Mary, a second. Hey,

[3:54:19] any conversation? Any questions?

[3:54:23] All right. Those in favor?

[3:54:30] » Doc

[3:54:35] need my be out of there. So,

[3:54:36] >> I like it, but I wasn't.

[3:54:37] >> It's okay. We have five. That's going to

[3:54:39] pass five with one abstension and one

[3:54:41] absent.

[3:54:42] >> All right,

[3:54:44] moving along to the next one. Temporary

[3:54:46] Sims reszone number 14.

[3:54:50] >> Um, this proposal would change the

[3:54:52] zoning of a 1acre property along Highway

[3:54:55] 191 from a mix of highway commercial and

[3:54:57] general business to entirely highway

[3:54:59] commercial. The change eliminates split

[3:55:02] zoning on the parl creates consistent

[3:55:04] development standards and aligns with

[3:55:06] the countyy's general plan and

[3:55:07] surrounding highway oriented uh

[3:55:09] commercial uses. Staff recommends

[3:55:11] approval of this um

[3:55:15] it went to the planning commission like

[3:55:17] a couple months ago.

[3:55:18] >> Yeah, it's in there.

[3:55:20] >> And I think it was like a

[3:55:22] >> 70 I think

[3:55:23] >> 70 or something like that on this.

[3:55:27] It was

[3:55:28] >> or 61

[3:55:29] >> right there or 61.

[3:55:32] >> Yeah, Mary.

[3:55:34] >> Yeah.

[3:55:34] >> Or

[3:55:38] on this one, it didn't make its way to

[3:55:39] our our office. So, we would ask for um

[3:55:42] if it is approved tonight that it be

[3:55:45] approved pending.

[3:55:52] Mary,

[3:55:55] having considered the staff report of

[3:55:57] the recommendation, public comments

[3:55:59] testimony and the land use code finding

[3:56:02] that zone change eliminates split zoning

[3:56:05] is consistent with the general plan for

[3:56:08] most quarterly development. I move to

[3:56:10] approve the approval of the ordinance to

[3:56:13] amend the zoning map for partial

[3:56:16] 02-000017-165

[3:56:21] for a split of highway commercial and

[3:56:24] general business highway

[3:56:27] >> and legal review. Okay.

[3:56:33] All right. Any other discussion

[3:56:36] questions?

[3:56:38] Hearing

[3:56:40] none, I will call for a vote. Those in

[3:56:42] favor

[3:56:44] that passes six with one.

[3:56:47] >> Oh, there we go. Seven. Thank you, John.

[3:56:50] [clears throat]

[3:56:51] And moving on to number 15, ordinance

[3:56:53] temporary land use regulation for data

[3:56:56] centers. Andrew.

[3:56:57] >> Yeah. And so, just a little nomenclature

[3:57:01] um point. When you go to the grocery

[3:57:04] store and you buy a cantaloupe, 90% of

[3:57:07] the time it's not a cantaloupe, it's a

[3:57:09] muskmelon. But nobody wants to buy a

[3:57:11] musk melon. So a muskmelon by any other

[3:57:14] name cantaloupe is still a musk melon,

[3:57:17] right? And so sometimes we talk about

[3:57:19] moratoriums, sometimes we talk about

[3:57:22] temporary land use regulations. Fox

[3:57:24] Elder um did the ordinance as a

[3:57:26] moratorum and um talking with our

[3:57:31] attorney at BART um he requested this be

[3:57:36] identified as a temporary land use

[3:57:38] regulation versus a moratorum but it's

[3:57:42] you know

[3:57:45] » so madam chair members of commission for

[3:57:47] the record in Jackson planning and

[3:57:48] zoning director the second before you

[3:57:51] adopts a temporary land use regulation

[3:57:53] that pauses the county's acceptance,

[3:57:55] processing, and approval of applications

[3:57:57] related to data centers, static power

[3:57:59] plants, and associated digital

[3:58:01] infrastructure 180 days. Let me be

[3:58:04] [clears throat] clear at the outset

[3:58:05] about what this is and what this is not.

[3:58:08] a ban and it's not the

[3:58:10] county's final position on these uses.

[3:58:12] It's a limited time bounded pause that

[3:58:14] gives staff and commission the room to

[3:58:16] do permanent work properly. I want to

[3:58:19] also underscore um two or three times uh

[3:58:23] up upfront there's no pending data

[3:58:25] center applications before county. Um I

[3:58:29] haven't been in contact with anybody

[3:58:31] that's proposing one or any of that. So

[3:58:34] I I don't want people to think, oh,

[3:58:35] we've got some things in the queue or

[3:58:37] something. Nothing's in our queue.

[3:58:39] Nothing has been submitted. Nothing is

[3:58:40] being suspended by this action. This is

[3:58:43] pre precisely how um this is precisely

[3:58:47] why now is the right time to act. We're

[3:58:50] getting ahead of this proactively on our

[3:58:52] own time lane rather than reaching out

[3:58:55] to an applicant already in the on the uh

[3:58:57] counter application already on the

[3:58:59] counter. The pause simply preserves the

[3:59:01] clean slate while we finish the

[3:59:02] standards. The reason we need to pause

[3:59:05] is straightforward. Our land use code

[3:59:06] today contains no definition of a data

[3:59:09] center, no use classification one, no

[3:59:11] standards, water, power, noise,

[3:59:14] lighting, visual impact against which to

[3:59:17] evaluate an application. Meanwhile,

[3:59:20] Utah's in the middle of a rapid wave of

[3:59:22] data center developments with

[3:59:24] announcements proposed or approved

[3:59:27] facilities in Boxeller, Duchain,

[3:59:28] Millard, and Aaron County. There's

[3:59:31] several already in Utah County, Neo

[3:59:33] Mountain.

[3:59:35] If an application was submitted under

[3:59:37] our current code, we would re be

[3:59:40] reviewing it against the blank page.

[3:59:42] That's a compelling counterveailing

[3:59:44] public interest. The ETA code um section

[3:59:48] 1779504 ask you to find and why it's the

[3:59:52] statute let you act on temporary

[3:59:53] regulation without a prior planning

[3:59:56] commission recommendation. staff brought

[3:59:58] the full data center in Grand Canyon

[4:00:01] staff report which is in your packet and

[4:00:04] it was it was supplied to you in the

[4:00:07] packet uh when it was posted

[4:00:10] when the packet was posted um report to

[4:00:12] the planning commission on May 26

[4:00:14] commissioner received that report

[4:00:15] directly staff working on drafting a

[4:00:18] code um this temporary ordinance comes

[4:00:23] from sort of uh what it bid. And like

[4:00:27] every bid planner, you take a copy of

[4:00:29] something that's already passed and you

[4:00:31] modify it, right? Um that traffic is

[4:00:34] already underway for for a new orbits um

[4:00:39] for data centers and

[4:00:43] uh crypto [clears throat] mining centers

[4:00:45] and things like that. Working with

[4:00:47] Sunrise Engineering, which brings you to

[4:00:49] the point most relevant today, this

[4:00:51] origin is a placeholder. It's not a

[4:00:52] destination. The definitions in front of

[4:00:55] you for data center, data center,

[4:00:56] powerpoint, and digital infrastructure

[4:00:59] are all working definitions written to

[4:01:01] hold the line during the study period.

[4:01:03] The permit ordinance that comes back to

[4:01:05] you will very likely define these uses

[4:01:08] differently and will carry the

[4:01:10] substantive regulations that the

[4:01:11] temporary measures does not. size

[4:01:14] threshold, zoning classifications,

[4:01:16] distance criteria, um objective

[4:01:18] performance standards. The state and UAC

[4:01:22] and some of the other um folks in Utah

[4:01:25] are currently working on

[4:01:28] better definitions and um more thorough

[4:01:31] standards, etc. And so we'll be

[4:01:33] incorporating that over the next 100.

[4:01:37] Um, I'd also ask that the commission

[4:01:40] keep in mind that we're drafting against

[4:01:42] the moving targets. Again, state laws,

[4:01:44] governing data centers, water transfers,

[4:01:47] grid reliability is changing quickly and

[4:01:49] the approaches adopted by Conver

[4:01:51] counties are evolving right alongside

[4:01:53] it. Part of the value of these 180 days

[4:01:56] is that they left they let us align May

[4:02:00] Countyy's permit code with where the

[4:02:02] state law and pure jurisdictions

[4:02:05] actually land rather than locking in the

[4:02:07] language today that they be outdated by

[4:02:09] the time we adopted. We would rather get

[4:02:11] this permanent permanent standards them

[4:02:13] right then and get them fast to close as

[4:02:16] temporary regulations measured time

[4:02:18] limited preserves the status quo rather

[4:02:20] than expanding or foreclosing anything.

[4:02:23] It is necessary for the immediate

[4:02:24] preservation of the county's peace,

[4:02:26] health, and safety while the permanent

[4:02:28] standards are developed. Staff

[4:02:30] recommends approval effective

[4:02:32] [clears throat] immediately upon

[4:02:33] passage, and I'm happy to answer any

[4:02:35] questions.

[4:02:39] » Mike,

[4:02:40] >> I move to approve the ordinance pausing

[4:02:42] the county's acceptance and processing

[4:02:44] of all applications for data centers,

[4:02:46] data data center power plants, and

[4:02:49] associated digital infrastructure for

[4:02:51] 180 days. Second by

[4:02:54] >> um I have a question

[4:02:56] as we've had many people ask um what the

[4:03:01] so with our phase 2 land use news code

[4:03:03] update because that we're putting

[4:03:04] moratorium on this essentially because

[4:03:06] we are updating our land use code. So

[4:03:09] what does the public input look like

[4:03:11] during this next phase 2 process? So any

[4:03:14] changes to the code will go through a

[4:03:15] public hearing process before the

[4:03:17] planning commission and to the county

[4:03:19] commission uh with time to comment on

[4:03:22] that. We've got that worked into the

[4:03:24] schedule that we have um to finish later

[4:03:27] in the fall of this year which will

[4:03:30] it'll probably be somewhere in October

[4:03:31] and then rolling over into November for

[4:03:34] some of the public hearings maybe

[4:03:35] sooner. Not like a public workshop

[4:03:38] though, but only just did a hearing in

[4:03:39] front of the planning commission and

[4:03:41] then the hearing for the commission. So

[4:03:43] it's two opportunities on formal level,

[4:03:45] but nothing that's like informal.

[4:03:47] >> Yeah, I'm not looking so much for a

[4:03:49] workshop because a lot of this is going

[4:03:50] to be what state law governs,

[4:03:53] >> what our peer jurisdictions do, and kind

[4:03:57] of the resources that we from UAC and

[4:03:59] others to do this. Um,

[4:04:05] guess that's kind of what I'll do

[4:04:09] wide.

[4:04:09] >> Yeah. And and maybe if I could just add

[4:04:11] one thing to this, my son works in the

[4:04:14] tech industry and keeps close tabs on

[4:04:17] data centers and AI and all of that. And

[4:04:20] when I was having discussions with him

[4:04:22] this week, he pointed out that so

[4:04:25] [snorts] data centers have two issues.

[4:04:27] is one is ambient temperature, the other

[4:04:30] is ambient humidity. And so they've got

[4:04:33] a good solution for ambient temperature

[4:04:35] and they can do that with the various

[4:04:37] cooling mechanisms.

[4:04:40] Humidity, ambient humidity adds another

[4:04:43] requirement on what they have to do with

[4:04:45] the places they locate because if it's

[4:04:47] too humid, you get rust on the internal

[4:04:50] parts, you get corrosion, you get

[4:04:51] meltdown, you get all these different

[4:04:53] things. And so humidity is a big issue

[4:04:56] and that's why you're seeing these data

[4:04:59] centers moving from back east or

[4:05:01] population etc and moving towards the

[4:05:04] aid west because that takes away most of

[4:05:09] the humidity issue. [clears throat]

[4:05:12] >> Trisha, go ahead. Um I'm glad you asked

[4:05:15] that question Mel kind of to solidify. I

[4:05:17] mean I might recommend a workshop. I'm

[4:05:19] just going to recommend that or or maybe

[4:05:21] a survey. you guys did that great survey

[4:05:23] on aging. So, something like that just

[4:05:25] to get a more public input. I think the

[4:05:28] more public input we have, the better.

[4:05:30] Maybe you, you know, disseminate some

[4:05:32] information like here's here's the good,

[4:05:34] bad, and ugly, right? And then get some

[4:05:37] feedback. I think that would be really

[4:05:38] good. That's just my opinion. Um, I want

[4:05:40] to thank Erin Lindberg for bringing this

[4:05:42] up quite a long time ago. Um,

[4:05:44] Commissioner Lindberg. And then Brian, I

[4:05:46] want to thank you for taking the bull by

[4:05:48] the horns and and working with Andrew to

[4:05:50] move this forward. I really appreciate

[4:05:52] it.

[4:05:53] >> I I really appreciate it. I This scares

[4:05:55] the beeers out of me. So, I appreciate

[4:05:58] it. Thank you guys. And And Andrew,

[4:05:59] thank you for all the work.

[4:06:03] >> Mike,

[4:06:04] >> um just as a heads up to uh local

[4:06:07] publications, I will be placing an ad uh

[4:06:11] following along with public comment. If

[4:06:13] we no longer put that public comment

[4:06:16] period in in both advertiser and times

[4:06:18] and watchon, I will be covering it and

[4:06:21] getting the word out there for public

[4:06:23] comment for this.

[4:06:27] Okay, any other comments or questions?

[4:06:31] All right, let's call for a vote.

[4:06:34] All in favor of this resolution?

[4:06:37] >> I passes 70.

[4:06:41] All right. Thank you. That is the end of

[4:06:43] our action items for this evening. Now

[4:06:45] we're going to move on to our discussion

[4:06:46] items.

[4:06:48] Do anybody need a break? Do we want a

[4:06:50] break or do we want to just go?

[4:06:52] >> Okay. Okay. So number 16 is the

[4:06:54] commission chair statement and this was

[4:06:57] adopted in our policies and procedures

[4:07:00] of the governing body. So it's something

[4:07:02] new and I really think it's going to

[4:07:03] help move our

[4:07:06] you know and so I I have my own. This is

[4:07:09] the 10 that I came up with that I've

[4:07:11] been working on them for quite a while.

[4:07:12] I'm so excited to unveil them. I've

[4:07:14] shared them with the commissioners and

[4:07:15] taken some comments, but you know, as a as a continued priority with the

[4:07:20] chair so that our staff and our

[4:07:22] community has a has a vision of what's

[4:07:26] going forward and I do want I would like

[4:07:28] to see a a workshop at the beginning of

[4:07:31] the year. I was a goal that I had, but

[4:07:33] it's already July, you know. So if you

[4:07:36] have but if we hopefully if we have a

[4:07:38] basis and then we can move from that and

[4:07:39] go forward and work on this priority

[4:07:42] statement together you know ultimately

[4:07:45] it's going to be the majority of the

[4:07:46] commission whoever has it is going to be

[4:07:49] where this goes but I would hope that

[4:07:51] many things stay and and things change

[4:07:53] and it's fluid and I think it even will

[4:07:55] change if if we had adopted this at the

[4:07:58] beginning of the year I know that things

[4:07:59] would have changed and it's not really

[4:08:00] an adoption. So I'm just going to read

[4:08:01] the definition really quick. It says,

[4:08:04] "The priority statement is a plain

[4:08:06] language articulation of the majority's

[4:08:08] governing philosophy and the

[4:08:10] commission's current priorities updated

[4:08:12] regularly throughout the year. The

[4:08:14] priority statement is a working

[4:08:16] governance document, not an ordinance or

[4:08:18] resolution, and does not require a vote

[4:08:20] of the membership to adopt or update.

[4:08:22] The priority statement shall publicly be

[4:08:25] accessible on the county website,

[4:08:27] explicitly connected to the county's

[4:08:29] adopted Longreach plan." So I consulted

[4:08:32] the general plan on multiple levels to

[4:08:35] create this plan. So that is something

[4:08:36] that's been that's fully community input

[4:08:39] was put into that and then transmitted

[4:08:42] to all county boards, commissions and

[4:08:44] committees throughout the year with a

[4:08:46] brief summary from the chair identifying

[4:08:48] how each body's work relates to current

[4:08:50] commission priorities and it shall serve

[4:08:52] as the primary reference for the

[4:08:54] administrator in aligning staff

[4:08:55] resources and departmental work plans

[4:08:57] with the commission's direction. So

[4:08:59] that's the purpose of this document and

[4:09:03] we don't need to go down it line by

[4:09:05] line. It's in the packet. I think all

[4:09:06] the commissioners hopefully have looked

[4:09:08] over it and if there's any comments or

[4:09:10] questions I will take those.

[4:09:14] » I absolutely love what you've done here

[4:09:17] and in this in saying this document is

[4:09:19] explicitly connected to the Grant County

[4:09:22] 30-year general plan. Each priority is

[4:09:24] intended to advance the long range

[4:09:26] vision what the community adopted while

[4:09:29] translating it it into actionable

[4:09:31] near-term direction for staff. Uh that

[4:09:35] really we all knew government moves slow

[4:09:39] and a lot of times in that moving slow

[4:09:41] we the corner beer's off the road. So

[4:09:44] it's it's good having a road uh laid out

[4:09:47] and clear in front of us.

[4:09:49] >> Yeah. And it won't be the only thing.

[4:09:50] It's just a road map. Yep. So there

[4:09:52] still may be detours.

[4:09:54] >> Go ahead, Mary.

[4:09:55] >> Yes, this was a lot of work and I can

[4:09:57] tell you put a lot of work into it. I

[4:09:59] appreciate that. And uh there was a time

[4:10:02] when I you know I don't know how it

[4:10:03] happened that it stopped co did

[4:10:06] interrupt a lot. I don't know if that

[4:10:08] was what happened, but we used to have

[4:10:10] retreats. And during the retreats, we

[4:10:13] would come up with what we wanted to do,

[4:10:18] you know, in that year. And then we

[4:10:21] usually had a couple for like, you know,

[4:10:24] things that weren't going to be

[4:10:25] accomplished in that year. and and I

[4:10:27] won't be here next year, but that would

[4:10:29] be a nice thing to reconsider uh doing

[4:10:32] again because it helped on so many

[4:10:35] levels because it was time we worked

[4:10:38] together to try to come up with

[4:10:40] something and and

[4:10:44] be nice to get back to it. Okay.

[4:10:49] All right. Any other comments? We can

[4:10:51] move along. If there's no other comments

[4:10:53] on on this, this will be posted and I'll

[4:10:56] write a little note to all of our boards

[4:10:58] so that they can read it, maybe they can

[4:11:00] discuss it in their next meetings. Um,

[4:11:04] let's go on to number 17. This is

[4:11:06] Trish's item. Proactive code enforcement

[4:11:09] surrounding fire mitigation on private

[4:11:11] property.

[4:11:12] >> Yeah, I mean, this has just been

[4:11:13] inspired by, I guess, three-fold. One,

[4:11:16] catastro catastrophic wildfires that are

[4:11:19] engulfing our state. We now have the

[4:11:21] Babylon fire that is moving very close

[4:11:23] to to Monaceel which is extremely uh

[4:11:27] just just petrifying. um

[4:11:30] two f two um

[4:11:34] I think that at a local level

[4:11:37] you know we have a a pro excuse me a

[4:11:39] reactive code enforcement officer and

[4:11:42] that's really been mandated I I would

[4:11:44] say more by the commission we we just

[4:11:46] haven't directed um proactive code

[4:11:50] enforcement and this is one of those

[4:11:51] cases where I do think we should think

[4:11:53] about it and then lastly um I've just

[4:11:55] seen a lot of posts on social media and

[4:11:57] I'll give you a couple examples Right

[4:11:58] now down Spanish Valley Drive, there's

[4:12:00] two properties that have let all their

[4:12:02] trees die. And and and that's okay. I

[4:12:06] mean, people can do what they want to

[4:12:07] do, but inevitably it really produces

[4:12:12] a an issue about defensible space for

[4:12:14] not only themselves, but the surrounding

[4:12:17] neighbors. I will tell you of myself, I

[4:12:20] am surrounded on three sides by tumble

[4:12:22] weed, dry tumble weeds this high andor

[4:12:26] piles of wood and it petrifies me. I

[4:12:29] mean, there's nothing I can do about it.

[4:12:31] Once it hits one of those, I'm I'm

[4:12:33] engulfed. Um, and so I do think and I

[4:12:36] just want you guys to think about it. We

[4:12:37] don't need to make decisions, but I

[4:12:39] think this is something that we do need

[4:12:41] to be proactive about. I think that is

[4:12:43] something like let's say he visits 20

[4:12:46] properties a week and and says hey you

[4:12:49] have your properties engulfed in weeds

[4:12:52] that are dry or dead dead trees that

[4:12:55] need to be removed and all you do is

[4:12:56] send a letter like want to build

[4:12:58] defensible space for yourself and for

[4:13:01] your neighbors right and that's just my

[4:13:03] thought it's more of we can't do

[4:13:05] anything we can't obviously provide

[4:13:07] assistance at this time I don't want to

[4:13:09] site people I just want it's more of

[4:13:12] awareness as to fire danger because once

[4:13:15] we have something rolling, I'll tell you

[4:13:17] the other day I went to the mountain and

[4:13:19] somebody was shooting which is just

[4:13:20] petrified. It's like really somebody's

[4:13:22] shooting. It's like as soon as that hits

[4:13:24] that cheek grass and it comes down the

[4:13:26] valley,

[4:13:28] we're hos we're [laughter] hos. Um you

[4:13:30] know, so it was just a thought. I I

[4:13:33] think you know and I know obviously

[4:13:35] rimtorim's doing a tremendous amount. I

[4:13:37] appreciate the email that you sent out

[4:13:39] Brian from Izzy. Um I think that we're

[4:13:42] doing there you know a lot is going on

[4:13:44] but I think the county could get a

[4:13:46] little bit more involved also.

[4:13:48] >> Yeah.

[4:13:50] Oh, sorry, Brian. Uh, I don't know if

[4:13:53] they still do it, but I know sovereign

[4:13:56] lands

[4:13:58] used to go and talk to people, you know,

[4:14:02] in a very polite manner. I wonder if

[4:14:04] they still do that and and talk to them

[4:14:06] about how to create a safe,

[4:14:10] you know, barrier for themselves, like

[4:14:12] moving your wood pile away from and and

[4:14:15] Jason used to do that. I know he did

[4:14:18] that because he took me as a tour of the

[4:14:21] pack creek fire and showed me. He says,

[4:14:24] "It's so sad that person did everything

[4:14:26] possible across their home and talked

[4:14:29] about how found and talk." So, might be

[4:14:32] an idea to see if Sovereign Lands could

[4:14:34] help us with this,

[4:14:36] >> right?

[4:14:38] >> No, just continue to plug the uh um the

[4:14:42] fire break campaign that's being put on

[4:14:44] right now. Yes. by uh Grand County Weed

[4:14:46] Department. Um online there's a um

[4:14:50] www.fire

[4:14:51] or www.firebreakmoab.org

[4:14:54] orged

[4:14:57] fine fuels and there's a bunch of

[4:15:00] information on there for folks to kind

[4:15:01] of say, you know, what is fine fuels and

[4:15:04] also some of the ways that

[4:15:07] there's also a survey on there. And so,

[4:15:10] um, if you can find that survey as

[4:15:11] you're walking around, if you see spots,

[4:15:14] whether it's on your property, if it's

[4:15:15] on public property, or if it's on

[4:15:18] private property, as long as you're

[4:15:19] taking the photos from the, you know,

[4:15:21] the the, uh, public right away, um, it's

[4:15:24] a spot just to let us kind of have an

[4:15:25] idea of where those fine fuels are in

[4:15:27] the county. So, they're really trying to

[4:15:29] look to see how many responses we can

[4:15:31] get back on that survey.

[4:15:37] I would ask Andrew, does our code

[4:15:40] enforcement have the capacity to do

[4:15:42] this?

[4:15:45] » Well, and I don't expect him to, you

[4:15:47] know, I was thinking you spend an hour

[4:15:50] or two a week, you know, just slowly

[4:15:52] moving through the county, right? I

[4:15:54] don't expect it to be done tomorrow. I

[4:15:56] don't expect it to be done. And you

[4:15:57] know, it just might be one of those

[4:15:59] things that it's just a slow movement

[4:16:00] through the county looking at properties

[4:16:02] and just sending out a polite letter

[4:16:04] like, "Hey, need to build some

[4:16:06] defensible space linking them to fire

[4:16:08] break." Um, anyways,

[4:16:11] >> yeah. So, our code enforcement officer

[4:16:14] is of capacity right now. Um it may be

[4:16:19] something that uh

[4:16:23] fire

[4:16:25] marshall would be better suited to do

[4:16:28] this but right now we're pretty much

[4:16:32] capacity what we're trying to do right

[4:16:34] now.

[4:16:37] >> Look at lands. I think they'll have a

[4:16:39] comment.

[4:16:40] >> I was going to recommend the same thing

[4:16:42] as far as maybe the fire department if

[4:16:44] they had any interest in helping out

[4:16:46] with this. And I also would ask Stephen

[4:16:50] if we have the authority to get into

[4:16:53] people's yards. I I mean I think that

[4:16:56] there's probably a little bit of a legal

[4:16:57] issue for our code enforcement to be

[4:17:00] going around and telling somebody that

[4:17:02] your trees are dead or they're not dead.

[4:17:05] I might be wrong, but that's I mean if it's visible from the street but code

[4:17:09] enforcement does that. If there's uh

[4:17:11] allegations of them not complying, you

[4:17:13] there there are certain circumstances

[4:17:14] they can they can go on property. Um

[4:17:17] we've we've done that in certain certain

[4:17:19] situations when they were not trying to

[4:17:22] name specific examples but yes code code

[4:17:25] enforcement can go on in certain certain

[4:17:27] circumstances. Um education is helpful.

[4:17:30] the the difficulty that we run into as

[4:17:32] the commission. I think generally it is

[4:17:34] not a popular thing to prosecute uh and

[4:17:37] to go uh get after people for code

[4:17:39] enforcement. That is the other half of

[4:17:41] my job. Uh if there is a law on the

[4:17:44] books in the county, there's no sense in

[4:17:45] having a law on the books in the county

[4:17:47] if the county doesn't want to. So I I'

[4:17:50] I've always taken the same same stance

[4:17:52] on, you know, dark skies camping, etc.

[4:17:54] Uh and that continues to be something

[4:17:56] that is hard to wrestle with with the

[4:17:58] commission. It's exceptionally unpopular

[4:18:01] uh the prosecutor. So

[4:18:04] >> I ask Andrew another question. So when

[4:18:05] you're saying is over capacity like he's

[4:18:07] getting that many complaints. I mean his job is complaint driven. So

[4:18:11] >> well it's not completely complaint

[4:18:13] driven. He does uh zoning inspections.

[4:18:16] If somebody has a a site plan where

[4:18:19] they've gotten a a commercial property

[4:18:23] that's being built, he does a zoning uh

[4:18:25] compliance on that. Make sure they've

[4:18:27] got enough parking spaces, etc. Um he

[4:18:30] also does like goes out and at nights it

[4:18:33] does the dark sky compliance which isn't

[4:18:36] complaint based. It's just part of if

[4:18:38] you build a house or you build uh some

[4:18:41] other structure then you have to comply

[4:18:42] with that. So, he's out there doing a

[4:18:45] lot of things and um there's a lot of

[4:18:49] stuff that he does based off complaints.

[4:18:52] There's stuff that he does as he drives

[4:18:53] past and sees somebody

[4:18:56] moving a building onto a lot that hasn't

[4:19:00] gotten a building permit. So, there's

[4:19:02] some of those kind of things that that

[4:19:04] he does. Um, but I'm not so sure that

[4:19:09] his specialty would be in um looking at

[4:19:13] potential. I mean, obviously, if it's if

[4:19:15] it's um in violation of the weed

[4:19:18] ordinance, then somebody can complain

[4:19:21] and we'll have him go out there and look

[4:19:23] at it. uh but not necessarily I think

[4:19:27] driving around looking in people's

[4:19:30] um yards looking for things he's got a

[4:19:33] lot of stuff to do without going to find

[4:19:37] additional things but yeah I mean the

[4:19:39] county has a we ordinance

[4:19:43] » we have a lot of ordinances that we

[4:19:45] don't you know are we have a reactive

[4:19:48] code enforcement the city has a

[4:19:49] proactive code enforcement and it's just

[4:19:51] something to think about in the future

[4:19:52] like do we want to continue that um that

[4:19:56] model or do we want to

[4:19:58] >> I'm not sure label it completely as

[4:20:00] reactive.

[4:20:02] Um I mean we he does go out when he's

[4:20:06] driving around he's pretty much in the

[4:20:08] loop as to what's going on and he sees

[4:20:11] somebody doing a violation like we have

[4:20:13] a person who was moving a a structure

[4:20:16] onto their property and it was actually

[4:20:20] probably in the rightway of the road. Um

[4:20:22] so we will say hey look you didn't get

[4:20:24] building permit for this any of those

[4:20:26] kind of things and nobody takes those

[4:20:28] but there is the compliance with

[4:20:31] elements that occur and there's

[4:20:33] compliance with um we've got a a grantee

[4:20:37] out in Thompson Springs and he's gone

[4:20:40] out there to um identify that. Yeah,

[4:20:44] potentially potentially I mean it may be

[4:20:47] something like a priority scale that it

[4:20:49] might be more important to kind of look

[4:20:50] at this as opposed to dark you know dark

[4:20:52] skies issues. I'm not seeing um you know

[4:20:55] the complaints are not getting risen to

[4:20:56] my level for me to be able to see very

[4:20:58] many code enforcement issues. I think I

[4:21:00] get one every once in a blue moon, but

[4:21:03] that might be something that the county

[4:21:04] would consider and I'm looking to the

[4:21:06] commission administrator and and of

[4:21:08] course the director to look into some of

[4:21:10] those issues that have a more

[4:21:11] substantial impact to the community. I

[4:21:13] know dark skies is important, but when

[4:21:15] we have an issue regarding fires and and

[4:21:18] potential concerns, just noting that

[4:21:19] something for the county to consider.

[4:21:22] Uh just me reiterating in this entire

[4:21:25] conversation is again dark skies again

[4:21:27] with many of our other uh enforcement

[4:21:29] issues uh

[4:21:33] voluntary and uh voluntary compliance

[4:21:36] goes miles farther and uh than active

[4:21:40] enforcement. And that was my point,

[4:21:42] Mike, is just to send a letter to say,

[4:21:44] hey, you know, I didn't at all want and

[4:21:47] hopefully I didn't make that

[4:21:48] >> that I don't I tried to make that clear

[4:21:51] that I wanted it to be more of a letter

[4:21:53] that said, hey, you may, you know, this

[4:21:56] is for your own protection, for the

[4:21:59] protection of your I didn't want it to

[4:22:01] be

[4:22:01] >> I just know the buyin from voluntary

[4:22:03] compliance is

[4:22:05] well received far by

[4:22:07] >> Absolutely.

[4:22:09] So, I know that they send we send out

[4:22:11] like weeds um Noxious Weeds sends out

[4:22:14] like a along with em with Kate with EMS

[4:22:17] if we could put some kind of like clean

[4:22:19] up your yard [laughter]

[4:22:22] reminder or something. I don't know that

[4:22:23] just that we have that flyer that gets

[4:22:26] sent out pretty much on an annual basis,

[4:22:28] I think, reminding them to sign up for

[4:22:30] the emergency

[4:22:32] um information, the weeds.

[4:22:35] Yeah, that's just a hey, you know, clean

[4:22:38] up around your your yard. Check out

[4:22:40] fire. Maybe we add I don't know if fire

[4:22:42] breaks already. I know they send out

[4:22:45] their own information.

[4:22:46] >> This may this may be a great spot.

[4:22:49] >> I wasn't looking.

[4:22:51] So, just just a heads up. So, on

[4:22:53] Thursday, I'll be at the uh um the the

[4:22:55] WOI conversations over what has happened

[4:22:58] in the current legislation previously.

[4:23:01] And I know that a big part of that will

[4:23:03] be education. So, they're going to be

[4:23:05] coming, they're supposed to be coming

[4:23:06] out with some education tools that

[4:23:08] actually talk about firereaks that talk

[4:23:10] about this, especially towards folks

[4:23:12] that are inside of the uh uh wilderness

[4:23:16] urban interface. Um, but there's no

[4:23:18] reason that we can't take what the

[4:23:19] state's already written um from the the

[4:23:21] DWR DNR and then get that out to other

[4:23:25] folks as well as we see it. So, that

[4:23:27] might be an opportunity just to use that

[4:23:29] as our team kind of push out some

[4:23:32] literature. Yeah, you know, here's

[4:23:33] what's happening with wilderness uh uh

[4:23:35] urban interface, you know, as well. And

[4:23:38] then maybe on the back side, here are

[4:23:39] some of the mitigations even if you're

[4:23:41] not, you know, in this wilderness urban

[4:23:43] interface that you can go ahead and

[4:23:44] take. So,

[4:23:46] >> yes, I'll be on that call as well.

[4:23:47] >> Okay, will you?

[4:23:48] >> Yeah,

[4:23:50] >> go ahead, Mike. This might be a great uh call out plug for uh Solid Waste

[4:23:57] continuing to host uh uh free cleanups

[4:24:00] and free dumps. Uh it might be good to

[4:24:04] tie in with Solid Waste Special Service

[4:24:06] District and let them know when we have free cleanups, free dumps.

[4:24:12] >> Yeah.

[4:24:15] >> [laughter]

[4:24:15] >> We we do the vouchers twice a year and

[4:24:18] that's that that pushes our

[4:24:21] >> our capacities.

[4:24:22] >> Well, it may be a partnership fire solid

[4:24:26] waste.

[4:24:28] >> So,

[4:24:30] thank you.

[4:24:32] >> The um smoke I was up in Or for the

[4:24:35] fourth and the smoke that we had up

[4:24:37] there was probably the biggest deterrent

[4:24:39] to people using fireworks.

[4:24:42] any type of rule or regulation

[4:24:44] associated with it. It's just

[4:24:47] again it's it's knowing what it is and

[4:24:49] realizing what's going on and the smoke

[4:24:51] that we have. Um there may be more

[4:24:54] people that are um

[4:24:57] wanting to afford opportunities to

[4:25:00] reduce that uh load.

[4:25:02] >> Yeah.

[4:25:05] >> All right. Well, we'll see what our see

[4:25:06] what the state has to provide us. Yeah.

[4:25:09] uh education and and yeah back

[4:25:13] >> want to put it on our website and be

[4:25:15] great or social media that'd be great.

[4:25:17] >> All right.

[4:25:18] >> So now we are to the end of that. So

[4:25:21] we'll go ahead and add on discussion

[4:25:23] about your we can add the discussion on

[4:25:25] right now. So

[4:25:26] >> is that okay? Yep. And so I I have been

[4:25:29] asking so um within our employee

[4:25:33] handbook um our our county admin is

[4:25:36] supposed to be evaluated once a year. I

[4:25:39] believe that that should have been done

[4:25:41] in December and I've been asking for

[4:25:44] that since that time. Um and I

[4:25:47] understand people are busy and I respect

[4:25:49] that.

[4:25:50] I will state that as a commissioner I

[4:25:52] have never been the chair or the vice

[4:25:53] chair but I have evaluated both Chris

[4:25:56] Baird and Mallerie Nassau because I was

[4:25:59] you know it was just kind of pawned off

[4:26:00] not pawned off but it was like who wants

[4:26:02] to do it is my memory in meetings and then we would do it. I want to speak

[4:26:06] to why I think it's really important.

[4:26:10] Um, just anecdotally, I have not at the

[4:26:12] I've been with the school district for

[4:26:14] 20 years and I think the last evaluation

[4:26:17] I got, and I'm not making this up, was

[4:26:19] like 10 years ago. Steve Ren was the

[4:26:21] last person to evaluate me. And I think

[4:26:24] that that's really bad on so many

[4:26:26] levels. one, if there was ever a

[4:26:28] complaint that came in about me, um I

[4:26:31] really have no nothing in order to

[4:26:34] defend myself, right? Because at one

[4:26:36] time I did get when I was teaching with

[4:26:38] Mary, I got complaints and I had had at

[4:26:40] that time very good evaluations, but I

[4:26:42] was having a parents complaint and so I

[4:26:45] had this kind of you know record as to

[4:26:48] well here's her eval here's this even

[4:26:51] though she's getting these complaints,

[4:26:52] right? Um and and so what we've what

[4:26:56] I've done in my program is we just

[4:26:58] evaluate each other. There's three of us

[4:26:59] in my little program and I just

[4:27:01] completed it. I try to do right at the

[4:27:02] end of every academic year at least so

[4:27:06] we have some record. Um and I just think

[4:27:08] it's very important and I think at a

[4:27:10] county level it's very important so that

[4:27:13] department heads have the time and

[4:27:16] energy to provide that feedback. So, I

[4:27:20] just am asking that that be done. Um,

[4:27:23] that's all I can continue to do is ask

[4:27:25] that it be done. I know you guys are

[4:27:27] busy. Um, and I think it's really

[4:27:29] important for department heads to be

[4:27:31] able and other electeds to be able to

[4:27:34] give feedback as to county admin.

[4:27:38] >> Um, I think they'll have Senate first.

[4:27:40] >> Actually, Mike was first second.

[4:27:42] >> Go ahead.

[4:27:44] Um, I I agree that I think that it's

[4:27:47] important that it should be done under

[4:27:49] most circumstances.

[4:27:51] I would disagree that it should be done

[4:27:53] now. And I've explained to Commissioner

[4:27:55] Hadine that she has a conflict and and I

[4:27:58] think that we need to delve into this a

[4:28:00] little bit further, but any evaluation

[4:28:04] will pressure the administrator to act

[4:28:06] in a manner that either supports a

[4:28:09] settlement or puts him in opposition to

[4:28:12] a settlement. So continuing to force

[4:28:15] this from your position on the

[4:28:17] administrator is pressure for him to

[4:28:20] move something forward in a current

[4:28:22] litigation that's going on with the

[4:28:24] county. And I don't understand how you

[4:28:27] don't understand that you have a

[4:28:28] conflict. You cannot do this even though

[4:28:30] you've offered to do it. I can't do it.

[4:28:33] I could pressure the administrator for

[4:28:35] my side. You can't do it. Commissioner

[4:28:39] Martinez can't do it. Commissioner Mcan

[4:28:42] can't do it. So, there's a reason that

[4:28:44] we leave it alone until we get through

[4:28:46] the current litigation that we're in the

[4:28:49] middle of. And it isn't.

[4:28:52] It's it it just is. We're in this

[4:28:54] litigation and when we get past all of

[4:28:56] this, then it would be a good time to

[4:28:59] bring this back up. But it can't be done

[4:29:01] right now. Legally, it cannot be done.

[4:29:04] >> I disagree with you, but

[4:29:05] >> Well, I understand that you do,

[4:29:07] >> Mike.

[4:29:09] >> Phrase the point. How can anyone in this

[4:29:11] room be part of that conversation

[4:29:13] outside of me, Jacques, and Mel? I mean,

[4:29:16] even to even to you, even to you,

[4:29:20] everyone with a conflict, why are we

[4:29:21] talking about this except for me, Mel,

[4:29:24] and Jean?

[4:29:26] >> You can't even advise me right now

[4:29:28] because

[4:29:29] >> So, we don't So, a couple

[4:29:32] clarifications. One, I believe that the

[4:29:34] body would be best suited to discuss

[4:29:36] this in close. I'll state that now.

[4:29:39] probably the best best place to have

[4:29:41] this conversation. Second, the county

[4:29:43] has not uh the county has not been sued.

[4:29:45] There's a notice that's been filed. No

[4:29:47] litigation, no lawsuit has been

[4:29:49] initiated against the county. So, that's

[4:29:50] a cl that's that's a point I often find

[4:29:52] myself using the word sometimes. Uh but

[4:29:55] that's that's another sticking point.

[4:29:58] This this conversation, I think if the

[4:30:00] conversation is to be had, I think

[4:30:02] everyone should just be cautious about

[4:30:04] how how we're looking at it phrasing. I

[4:30:06] think the complaint is uh Commissioner

[4:30:08] Hines making the comment, "Okay, I'd

[4:30:09] like to see an evaluation." Period. I

[4:30:11] think that's where we should probably

[4:30:12] stick to the conversation. Um again, my

[4:30:15] advice is go to close session, discuss

[4:30:16] the matter if we'd like to uh discuss it

[4:30:18] in more further detail.

[4:30:21] >> I would just

[4:30:24] we're gonna let you Mary talk and Brian

[4:30:26] talk

[4:30:29] my hand up also.

[4:30:30] >> Sorry. And then you I've been involved

[4:30:32] in

[4:30:33] >> that's

[4:30:34] >> evaluations now for this would have been

[4:30:36] my 12th year if I was involved with them

[4:30:39] and I know u every one of the

[4:30:42] administrators that were really

[4:30:44] appreciated it especially when we went

[4:30:47] into post session oftentimes talked

[4:30:49] about what we were happy with and what

[4:30:51] we weren't happy or what could be

[4:30:53] improved and and how and and it was

[4:30:56] positive and it was I know Mark required

[4:31:01] Are you still splitting your

[4:31:02] evaluations? Do you do half of them or

[4:31:04] put do half of the evaluations of the

[4:31:07] department heads? That's how it was up

[4:31:10] there

[4:31:11] for a while. But anyway, because they

[4:31:13] have to do their evaluations, too. So

[4:31:15] people I just think it's good practice.

[4:31:18] That's all I want to say. And I don't

[4:31:20] know if we need to how far we have to

[4:31:22] discuss this. It's just good practice.

[4:31:25] >> I'm aware. I'm I'm aware. I've discussed

[4:31:27] this. I I um

[4:31:30] I think that one I inherited this. It

[4:31:33] wasn't done when I became the chair. Now

[4:31:35] it's July and I feel like doing one at

[4:31:37] this point in time when we're going to

[4:31:38] have to we're going to do one hopefully

[4:31:40] toward the end of the year for the our employees get two-year um

[4:31:45] performance evaluations and that gives

[4:31:47] them an opportunity to have a pay

[4:31:49] increase. And at this point to do it in

[4:31:51] July and then to turn around and do it

[4:31:52] again in November, it just seems to me

[4:31:56] unnecessary. I think that if there's

[4:31:58] something that you want to tell Mark

[4:32:00] that he's doing good or bad, then feel

[4:32:02] free to tell him. I mean, I talk to him

[4:32:04] all the time. I give Mark feedback

[4:32:06] constantly. If I heard feedback from

[4:32:08] someone else, I would give it to him.

[4:32:10] So, I think that it's not that you need

[4:32:12] to have an annual evaluation. I

[4:32:13] understand the duty. I understand it's

[4:32:16] there. I have been waiting for

[4:32:17] information. um hasn't happened. But we

[4:32:21] will at this point I will move forward

[4:32:25] and we will do it in November and we'll

[4:32:28] get it done and if I need to have

[4:32:29] Jacques and Mike and I be the ones that

[4:32:31] do it then that's what will happen and

[4:32:33] until then I mean you can email me every

[4:32:34] month. Trish has emailed me every month

[4:32:36] to remind me to do it and you can

[4:32:38] continue but I'm that's that's pretty

[4:32:39] much where I'm at right now. It's July

[4:32:41] and doesn't seem prudent to do it right

[4:32:44] now when we're already

[4:32:46] have a commit but I'm happy with that.

[4:32:48] Yeah.

[4:32:48] >> And I, you know, I just as a teacher, I

[4:32:51] always talk about Jack has a hand up and Brian have something else you want

[4:32:56] to say.

[4:32:56] >> Well, I'd like to speak first. Yeah.

[4:32:58] >> So, um, first off, Mr. Stocks, I think

[4:33:01] you're a named defendant in the notice

[4:33:04] of claim, I think that under rule 1.7 of

[4:33:06] the rules of professional conduct that

[4:33:08] there is a conflict there. I also ask

[4:33:11] that all members on this board who had a

[4:33:14] conflict disclose that. Right now, I

[4:33:16] don't see that there's been any advice

[4:33:18] given on that conflict. And I don't know

[4:33:20] if I can we can consider the advice that

[4:33:22] you would give right now to be

[4:33:24] independent or binding. I want to get

[4:33:26] back right here. So, Karns Tribune

[4:33:29] Corporation versus the Salt Lake County

[4:33:31] Commission, right? Under the advice that

[4:33:33] our attorney gave us to go into close

[4:33:35] session, this was the finding. Utah

[4:33:37] Supreme Court found bound that a public

[4:33:39] board cannot invoke the character and

[4:33:42] competence exception discuss its own

[4:33:44] internal management, generalized

[4:33:46] operations, the failure of board members

[4:33:49] to perform their duties. The court

[4:33:51] stated that political disagreements and

[4:33:54] structural procedure debates belong

[4:33:56] strictly in the public square. That's

[4:33:58] why we can't go into close session for

[4:34:00] this item right here. Second off, I'd

[4:34:03] like to just provide a small a quick

[4:34:04] update on the uh uh Utah

[4:34:07] anti-discrimination labor and division.

[4:34:10] No cause on eight of the claims that

[4:34:13] were filed. Right. The plaintiffs have

[4:34:16] every right to appeal right now and that

[4:34:18] belongs in a court of law. But clearly

[4:34:21] there's conflicts all around this

[4:34:23] commission right here as we're talking.

[4:34:25] Our county at our administrator needs to

[4:34:28] be insulated so that he can do his job

[4:34:30] for the public and neither side as Bill

[4:34:33] had spoke right of this pending

[4:34:35] litigation should be trying to influence

[4:34:38] pressure evaluate him and it is

[4:34:40] absolutely inappropriate to be

[4:34:42] suggesting that we do it in close

[4:34:43] session.

[4:34:47] » Thank you. Um I I have a few thoughts on

[4:34:50] this. I first off uh when Trish said she

[4:34:53] got recruited, we we did create a three

[4:34:55] member committee when I was the chair uh

[4:34:58] to do the evaluations for two years and

[4:35:01] I thought that was a successful

[4:35:02] paradigm. Um I am not, as has previously

[4:35:06] been stated, Melody and Mike myself are

[4:35:08] not conflicted. I would be more than

[4:35:11] happy to offer um myself up on an

[4:35:15] evaluation. I do think it's very

[4:35:17] important. I think that our

[4:35:19] administrator is the highest paid

[4:35:22] employee in Grant County and we are his

[4:35:24] boss. And I think that that um when I was running a company, I

[4:35:28] evaluated all my employees yearly and I

[4:35:30] think that's an important part of the

[4:35:32] process. Um I also think it's important

[4:35:35] to I I I think we have a very good

[4:35:37] paradigm for doing an evaluation. We've

[4:35:39] done it in the past. I've done it in the

[4:35:40] past. To Melody's point about doing it

[4:35:43] in November, I'm cool with that, but I I

[4:35:45] do think that we should get a start on

[4:35:47] that. It it it took about a month to do

[4:35:49] the evaluation. Uh we met in close

[4:35:52] session and looked at um at the results

[4:35:55] of uh the surveys that were given out to

[4:35:57] department heads as well as other

[4:35:58] electeds and then we met again. Um so

[4:36:02] the whole process, it it was a it was a

[4:36:04] fairly lengthy process and I think it

[4:36:06] was done very well. Um, I'm happy to

[4:36:09] discuss that, but Melody, I I'll I'll

[4:36:11] take you at face value and if we do do

[4:36:13] this, it's going to be budget season. I

[4:36:15] think we should get a start on it by I

[4:36:17] would say midepptember at the latest.

[4:36:20] Um,

[4:36:22] and again, I would be happy to do that.

[4:36:24] And if there is conflict, um, I I would

[4:36:28] suggest Mike and Melody and myself be

[4:36:30] the ones who do are a committee to run

[4:36:33] the evaluation. Thanks.

[4:36:36] Thank you, Mike.

[4:36:39] >> Um, perceived conflict all around. We

[4:36:42] love your idea later on. That solves all problems.

[4:36:48] So, I mean, I I'm surprised everyone's

[4:36:52] just yelling out today. And I mean,

[4:36:56] conflict, conflict, conflict. Utah is a

[4:36:59] disclosure state. That's why I say my

[4:37:01] wife works for the sheriff's department

[4:37:02] every day. Every time up here, if you

[4:37:05] have a conflict, you disclose

[4:37:08] >> on the agenda.

[4:37:10] >> Well, it is.

[4:37:12] >> It was on the agenda.

[4:37:13] >> On the agenda.

[4:37:14] >> I I wasn't thinking I was thinking of

[4:37:18] it. So, I apologize,

[4:37:20] but uh

[4:37:23] I'm done. I I move that we draw this

[4:37:26] conversation to both of

[4:37:28] >> Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. I I just

[4:37:32] want it on the record that you are

[4:37:34] pressuring the administrator every time

[4:37:36] you bring this up. Doc, you're

[4:37:38] pressuring the administrator as well.

[4:37:41] This needs to happen after this legal

[4:37:43] process finishes. And there's no

[4:37:46] pressuring the administrator, Bill.

[4:37:48] >> There is no reason to be pressuring the

[4:37:52] administrator one way or the other in

[4:37:54] this process. So,

[4:37:56] >> we have two commissioners who are

[4:37:58] regularly

[4:38:00] >> applying pressure to the administrator.

[4:38:03] >> They have a conflict.

[4:38:04] >> We're going to be done. We're done with

[4:38:06] this conversation.

[4:38:07] >> Thank you.

[4:38:08] >> Okay. All right.

[4:38:10] We will get the done.

[4:38:12] >> We're going to take the conflict to

[4:38:14] people out

[4:38:16] there next.

[4:38:17] >> I'm

[4:38:19] me. So anyways, our ending is our

[4:38:22] general commissioner for some future

[4:38:23] consideration that

[4:38:27] I I thought I sent my report but I just

[4:38:29] looked in my send and I didn't.

[4:38:32] >> Well, it's okay. She can still add

[4:38:35] >> who this questionnaire did you put it in

[4:38:38] yours because you were at the same

[4:38:39] meeting. Did you put the report? So

[4:38:41] people I'll send it to you tomorrow. The

[4:38:44] housing task force has a questionnaire

[4:38:47] on uh deed restrictions for volunteer

[4:38:51] deed restrictions and it would be great

[4:38:54] if we all did it. We all did it while we

[4:38:57] were in the meeting and so I will put

[4:38:59] that in the email so you can all get it

[4:39:02] and then I'll just put my seven page

[4:39:05] report in next week in next meeting. You

[4:39:08] can just send it to Dana and she can add

[4:39:10] it to

[4:39:12] you. It's

[4:39:13] >> pretty I thought I work.

[4:39:15] >> Yeah,

[4:39:16] >> I did notice it wasn't there. Mary, I'm

[4:39:18] not

[4:39:19] um but yeah, you can send it. She can

[4:39:21] add it in

[4:39:22] >> because I really want I had that at the

[4:39:23] very top. The questionnaire do this

[4:39:25] questionnaire and

[4:39:27] >> I probably I was probably watching the

[4:39:30] World Cup and uh forgot to push that.

[4:39:34] >> Does anybody have anything from their

[4:39:36] reports that they just need to share? I

[4:39:37] know we had a couple things at the

[4:39:38] beginning, but is there something else

[4:39:40] you have in mind like

[4:39:41] >> Thank you to everyone who participated

[4:39:42] in camp fair activities.

[4:39:45] I mean, this whole room is there. Uh,

[4:39:47] love seeing you all out. Again, I I

[4:39:50] can't say it enough every single year.

[4:39:52] Uh, and I actually am super excited. We

[4:39:55] might have December activities, too. So,

[4:39:58] uh, not too many local events are held

[4:40:02] specifically for locals. Uh but I I see

[4:40:05] a lot happen and I'm really happy to uh

[4:40:08] continue work with Kenny Farah and uh

[4:40:11] move into the next

[4:40:12] >> yeah two full weekends

[4:40:14] >> and everyone was there so it was great

[4:40:15] to see

[4:40:15] >> you have anything

[4:40:18] we're just beginning to work on budget

[4:40:21] information

[4:40:23] the year and also for next year as well

[4:40:26] and Chantel's helping with that a great

[4:40:28] deal as well as

[4:40:31] >> okay

[4:40:33] >> and we're working on following up on our

[4:40:37] budget or our audit from last year.

[4:40:41] >> Try to get that

[4:40:43] fine.

[4:40:44] >> Yeah.

[4:40:44] >> Are we any getting anywhere close to

[4:40:46] getting our

[4:40:49] audit

[4:40:50] >> turned in to the state? I mean, is that

[4:40:52] why our clerk auditor is not here? I

[4:40:54] mean,

[4:40:55] >> is it where is it where are we at in that

[4:41:00] process? So, we're waiting we're waiting

[4:41:02] on

[4:41:04] count to get us that information for the

[4:41:07] preliminary draft. So, that's where we

[4:41:10] are currently.

[4:41:12] Follow up with them.

[4:41:15] >> Okay. All right. And I'm going to

[4:41:17] adjourn this meeting at 7:42 on July 7.

[4:41:20] Thank you. They have

7.7.26 Commission Meeting

Transcript