[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