[1:39] telling that to the public.

[1:44] » He's he's going to read a statement.

[1:46] >> Exactly. The beginning of the work.

[1:48] >> Yes.

[1:50] >> All right. You ready?

[1:52] >> Okay. I will open this Grand County

[1:55] Commission workshop

[1:57] at 4 o'clock on July 21st at 2026. We

[2:01] have present Commissioner Hadine

[2:04] somewhere slipped out. She'll be back

[2:06] and Commissioner Hadler, Commissioner

[2:08] Martinez, Commissioner Mcan,

[2:10] Commissioner Mccertie, myself,

[2:12] Commissioner Winfield, and I believe

[2:14] Commissioner

[2:16] Mccandas was going to be online, but I

[2:18] don't see her yet. As far as elected

[2:20] officials, we have a county attorney

[2:22] Stephen Stalks. We have um Gabe Witty,

[2:25] our clerk auditor, and administrator

[2:28] Mark Tiner. And just before we get going

[2:31] here, there's a couple of little

[2:33] announcements I'd like to make. Number

[2:35] one, I'd like to give our condolences to

[2:38] Cody Stewart and his family for the

[2:40] their loss. And then on another note,

[2:44] like to introduce Lynn Citrid,

[2:46] who is replacing Larry Ellerson and will

[2:50] be our representative for John Curtis's

[2:53] staff here. And so with that, we will

[2:56] start the workshop. And I'm going to let

[2:58] the administrator start us off here.

[3:02] As we begin today's workshop,

[3:05] Chair Mccandalas would like to remind us

[3:07] that our purpose here is simple but

[3:09] vital to ensure the financial stability

[3:12] and integrity of Grand County.

[3:15] You all have different perspectives and

[3:16] that diversity is a strength when it's

[3:19] focused on solutions. But today, let's

[3:21] set aside political rhetoric and

[3:24] concentrate on the numbers, the needs,

[3:25] and the responsibilities that are shared

[3:27] to serve our residents. The budget isn't

[3:30] about ideology. It's about stewardship.

[3:33] Every dollar represents trust placed in

[3:35] you by the people of this county. Honor

[3:38] that trust by working collaboratively,

[3:40] listening carefully, and keeping our

[3:42] attention on what truly matters,

[3:44] building a sustainable path forward.

[3:48] Your responsibility today isn't to win a

[3:50] debate or defend a position. It's to

[3:52] ensure that Grant County remains

[3:54] financially strong and able to serve its

[3:56] people well. Stewardship means looking

[3:58] beyond politics and focusing on what

[4:00] sustains our community, fiscal

[4:02] responsibility, transparency, and

[4:05] collaboration. The numbers won't be into

[4:07] ideology, but they will respond to

[4:09] teamwork. So, please work together, stay

[4:12] focused, and make decisions that reflect

[4:14] that shared stewardship of this county.

[4:17] Let's make this workshop about progress,

[4:20] not politics, about stewardship, not

[4:23] partisanship. Thank you, Melody McCann.

[4:27] Thank you. Yeah.

[4:28] >> Thank you, sir. And with those words,

[4:31] we'll do our best. Paramelo. And I would

[4:34] like to start off with Tess and her

[4:37] presentation here possible.

[4:40] Or were we going to go with Do we want

[4:43] to do an overview of the amendment and

[4:46] kind of see where things stand and then

[4:48] go? You know,

[4:48] >> that that's great, Kate. Please do.

[4:51] Following Dana's advice there, but let's do the overview.

[4:55] >> Let's see.

[4:57] Maybe if we can get uh sharing

[5:02] get some sharing.

[5:04] It's okay.

[5:06] >> Give me one sec. [clears throat]

[5:22] » All right, we should be good. So,

[5:29] I prepared in the packet a number of

[5:31] documents that are is teeing up the

[5:33] upcoming mid-year budget amendment that

[5:35] you all will be considering. Um, the

[5:38] first meeting in August will have to

[5:40] entail the opening of public hearing

[5:42] with approval and the second meeting of

[5:43] August is how that process will have to

[5:46] go. Um, and so there's a I provided

[5:49] summary documents and detailed

[5:51] documents. Um so so rather than having

[5:54] to look at a long 30-page budget

[5:56] document um which has the entire chart

[5:59] of accounts that Grant County um

[6:01] administers um I created this summary

[6:03] document that's displayed right now that

[6:05] in some in some aspects combines um some amendments into a single line so we

[6:11] can see some totals um as well as just

[6:14] kind of breaks it down in a little bit

[6:15] more of a digestible format. So, when I

[6:18] talk about the when we talk about the

[6:20] budget with a capital B, oftentimes

[6:22] we're really talking about the general

[6:24] fund, which is fund 10. Um, and that

[6:27] houses the unrestricted funds that the

[6:29] county uses. Um, that that largely um

[6:32] funds most of the operational expenses

[6:34] and salary and benefits. Um, and really

[6:37] where the rubber meets the road or the

[6:39] when we talk about the bottom line of

[6:40] the general fund is we're we're often

[6:42] looking at this line right here, which

[6:44] is the contribution from the fund

[6:45] balance.

[6:47] And so what that means is

[6:48] >> Sorry, Gabe. I didn't see which line you

[6:50] pointed.

[6:51] >> Oops. Um, it's right here. It's row

[6:53] nine. [sighs and gasps] Yeah,

[6:54] >> this

[6:56] >> in the it's in your packet. Yes.

[7:01] » And so what that is that that's a

[7:03] revenue that we have to budget in in

[7:05] order to balance the budget. So, and as

[7:08] um as it relates to governmental

[7:10] accounting, each fund has to be

[7:12] balanced, meaning all expenses need to

[7:14] um equal revenues. um to net out to

[7:18] zero. So if we have expenses um that are

[7:22] exceeding the amount of expected actual

[7:24] uh expected revenues that we might

[7:26] expect to receive that um that deficit

[7:28] needs to be made up by what we have in

[7:30] savings or what other in other words

[7:32] what we also call the fund balance. And

[7:35] so the approved original 2026 budget had

[7:37] a draw in the fund balance to make up

[7:40] that deficit and bring the fund to

[7:42] balance of 345,824.

[7:46] With a variety of adjustments that are

[7:48] being proposed in this amendment, um

[7:50] that that draw from from savings to

[7:53] bring the fund to balance um is reduced

[7:55] to 243,633.

[7:59] Um the main features of this amendment

[8:01] um are a variety of uh updates to

[8:05] projections uh of the sale largely of

[8:09] the sales and use taxes that make up a

[8:11] large um amount of the revenues um that um that come into the general fund.

[8:18] Um, and just just I'll I'll come right

[8:21] back to the general fund, but the rest

[8:23] of this summary just displays um mostly

[8:25] minor amendments as they relate to the

[8:28] other funds um which are for the most

[8:31] part um they administer restricted funds

[8:34] and are sort of self-funded via those

[8:36] restricted funds and are kind of

[8:38] self-containing. Um some of the some of

[8:40] the other funds do receive um funding

[8:43] support from the general fund such as

[8:45] the children's justice center or the

[8:46] family uh support center. Um but largely

[8:49] these um you know a fund like the roads

[8:51] is funded by its own types of sales

[8:54] taxes that are restricted for the

[8:55] purposes um of those departments. And so

[8:58] these the largely the other uh

[9:00] amendments proposed down through these

[9:02] other funds largely relate to

[9:04] adjustments in revenues um that fund

[9:07] those funds or for example say library

[9:10] capital projects um that's where we just

[9:13] administer the capital projects they had

[9:15] a large hback um project that we all

[9:17] know about um and so the you know there

[9:20] has to be an amendment or a budgetary

[9:22] action showing the the draw from the

[9:24] savings that have put in been put in

[9:26] over the years in that fund. in order to

[9:28] cover a large expense such that as was

[9:30] just made for the library for that HVAC

[9:33] purpose. Um the other main um update uh

[9:38] proposed in this amendment are um

[9:40] adjustments to the expected yearend

[9:44] expenditures related to salary and

[9:46] benefits of staff and the general fund.

[9:50] And so, you know, as a total combined

[9:53] amount, what was originally budgeted in

[9:55] 2020 at the beginning of for 2026 was

[9:58] this 15.69 million. Um, and up updated

[10:02] projections show that that is now at uh

[10:05] 15.92 million. And so the overall

[10:07] difference um and so now we expect to um

[10:10] to spend $234,000

[10:13] more than we originally budgeted for the

[10:15] purpose of salary and benefits. Um and

[10:18] then there's a number of smaller

[10:19] adjustments um operational expenses um

[10:23] as as in as much as I could at this

[10:25] point in the year. I try to um see some

[10:28] of the department expenses um and use

[10:31] what I know about the budget to um

[10:33] reduce the budget on certain lines when

[10:34] I know when I know that you know the

[10:36] spending just wouldn't be there. And

[10:38] likewise there are some expenses that

[10:40] had to be raised because the uh year-to-

[10:43] date actuals were already showing um at

[10:45] or above budget. And we we always want

[10:47] to make sure to to amend the budget to

[10:49] reflect those actual expenses and and

[10:51] not be overbudget on any given line as much as as possible in regards to

[10:56] just general compliance practices.

[11:00] Um and let's see uh and then other

[11:02] revenues as well. So things like

[11:05] building permits and business licenses

[11:07] and the other fees that we collect that

[11:08] would be um that would be um contained

[11:11] in this sort of other revenues catchall

[11:13] line. and I tried my best um to reduce

[11:18] or increase any of those revenues given

[11:21] um you know the information that we have

[11:23] on hand right now um a little over

[11:25] halfway through the year

[11:28] and then so the last thing I'll touch on

[11:29] here

[11:33] is the just diving in a little bit more

[11:35] into these um you know this sort of this upper area here this general sales

[11:41] tax quarter percent sales tax TRT and

[11:44] TRCCA.

[11:47] Um there's more detail available in the

[11:51] um agenda packet documents.

[11:53] Sorry, this toolbar is in the way. Okay.

[11:58] Um and so this is a summary sheet and

[12:01] this um this first tab and this appears

[12:03] in the agenda packet as it as its own

[12:05] document titled summary. Um this just

[12:07] goes into a little bit more specific

[12:09] level um and also provides some

[12:11] historical reference for each of these

[12:13] different uh fund revenue sources. Uh

[12:17] the ones shaded here. So right here and

[12:20] then this entire block is kind of a

[12:21] light gray shading. Um th those revenues

[12:25] um for uh in large part um are able to

[12:28] end up into the general fund and

[12:30] offsetting and offset general fund

[12:32] expenses. So they're generally

[12:34] unrestricted in in most ways. Um, and

[12:37] you can see that either here where this

[12:39] GL code follows the revenue title that

[12:43] you see this one goes this we pull that

[12:45] revenue directly into the general fund.

[12:48] Um, these ones 23 is the TRT promotion.

[12:51] So that obviously doesn't go into the

[12:53] general fund, but this 26 side that's

[12:55] the mitigation TRT fund. Um, and so that

[12:58] is the portion of this line that goes

[13:00] into the general fund. 22 is for TRCCA.

[13:03] So that makes up um [clears throat] this

[13:05] tax and the bottom three in this chart.

[13:07] And um those um were were able to use

[13:10] entirely as a general fund offset.

[13:13] >> And which document are you working off

[13:15] of there, Gabe?

[13:16] >> Um let's see. This one is titled proposed 2026 amended tax revenue

[13:27] projection summary.

[13:30] Um

[13:32] >> and so

[13:35] the the so in um in regards to the the

[13:39] projection methodology and the update

[13:41] that we used. Um one thing that we were

[13:45] able to do now is um so we we created

[13:47] this this this this column here displays

[13:50] the revenue projections that we crafted

[13:53] and entered into the 2026 budget. At at

[13:56] that time we only had a certain amount

[13:58] of um revenue. you know, it was still,

[14:00] you know, we're talking about still end

[14:02] of November. We only had revenue through

[14:04] that time. We had strong months through

[14:06] the end of the year. Um, and that caused

[14:08] our our that admittedly caused our

[14:11] projections to be like pretty light and

[14:13] pretty soft and but it's definitely

[14:14] better to to to project conservatively

[14:17] and and overperform um than um than get

[14:20] too far out ahead. Um and so you know it puts us in a position a more

[14:25] advantageous position to see revenues

[14:28] that are actually coming in um higher

[14:30] than we expected so that we um you know

[14:32] can have more flexibility in budgetary

[14:34] decisions.

[14:36] So the largely the with um I guess the

[14:40] last thing I'll say is the transient

[14:42] room tax

[14:44] for every revenue other than transient

[14:46] room tax all the the methodology that we

[14:50] used is we took the fullear totals from

[14:52] 2023 2024 2025 along with totals the

[14:58] along with the totals from January and

[15:00] June and we kind of plotted those all

[15:02] out in a graph and then created just a

[15:04] simple linear trend line that you that

[15:07] um and and extrapolated that trend line

[15:10] out until the end of 2026. Um and

[15:13] wherever that wherever that point held

[15:15] at the end of de December 2026 um you

[15:18] know illustrated to us the that you know

[15:21] what we would expect to be the the

[15:23] projected total um given all of the

[15:25] updated data that we have on hand. And

[15:28] so that that resulted in in several

[15:30] increases with the TRT projection. We

[15:33] took a a slightly different approach and

[15:35] this can be found in the amended

[15:38] proposed amended budget or revenue

[15:40] projection um detail on the um there's a page specifically for TRT um

[15:48] and there's just a number I tried to

[15:49] color code it so it was as easy to

[15:52] follow as possible here um but the the

[15:55] challenge the main ch one of the main

[15:57] one of the challenges here with TRT is

[15:58] we recently had a rate change from four

[16:01] and a quarter to 4 and a half percent.

[16:04] Um that rate change um as it relates to

[16:06] our actual collections that we received

[16:08] from the tax commission um started with

[16:11] the December 2025 distribution that we

[16:14] received from the tax commission. Um and

[16:17] the the 2026 budget amount that is

[16:20] entered in the budget did you know at

[16:22] the time that I was preparing the budget

[16:24] I did factor in that change to happen.

[16:26] Um however in order to compare 23 24 25

[16:31] to and then create a projection for 2026

[16:34] we had to uh make sure that we were

[16:36] adjusting for that rate change in the

[16:38] appropriate way in order to compare

[16:39] apples to apples. Um and so basically I I adjusted the December 2025 number as

[16:46] though the rate had been four and a

[16:49] quarter still. Um and then created a

[16:51] linear projection based on that. Um and

[16:54] then using that data with that linear

[16:56] projection I was just able to just

[16:57] convert these numbers as though there we

[17:00] were operating with a four and a half%

[17:01] rate change.

[17:04] my uh my initial projection u figure um

[17:08] you operated with this um this linear

[17:12] this four and a half% linear projection

[17:14] and then but also factored in the

[17:16] January to June overperformance that we

[17:20] that we've experienced or in other words

[17:23] the actual receipts that we received

[17:24] this year versus the um that 4 and a.5%

[17:29] adjusted projection. Um and so basically

[17:32] as you can see the summary down here

[17:34] that I I had initially um entered a

[17:36] projection that included that four and a

[17:38] half% linear projection with the

[17:40] overperformance at the request of

[17:47] » um at the request of the chair what what

[17:51] is currently entered into this amendment

[17:53] and and in all the documents that that

[17:55] you see um what I ended up doing was

[17:58] taking the year-to-day actuals this this

[18:01] uh the these pink cells right here and

[18:03] then um the 2025 actuals from July to

[18:09] December. So that would that would um

[18:11] you know filling out the rest of this

[18:13] year. Um and then converted converted

[18:16] those as though it were a 4 and a half%

[18:19] rate. And so basically right now the

[18:22] projection assumes that we're going to

[18:23] have a flat uh a flat revenue

[18:26] environment through the end of the year

[18:28] compared to 2025 year-over-year with the

[18:31] rate change adopted. Um and so I think

[18:34] I've been speaking a lot at a pretty

[18:37] rapid pace about all these numbers and

[18:40] at risk of um creating any confusion or

[18:43] losing you. I I think I'll stop there.

[18:45] That's a I think that's a pretty good

[18:46] overview of the amendment being proposed

[18:48] at this time.

[18:53] And so Dave, do you have any projections

[18:56] of I know that we looked at the numbers

[18:58] on your first graph there. Let me get

[19:00] back to that

[19:06] showing that we were our contribution

[19:08] was now at a 243,633

[19:13] and then with salaries and benefits at

[19:15] 234

[19:17] and 062. Is that correct?

[19:20] >> Right. that that's the amount over

[19:22] that's that's the amount sort of um that

[19:25] we have to increase because it's it's more than we budgeted for 234.

[19:31] >> Right.

[19:32] >> Okay. Thank you. And then just for the

[19:35] public and the rest of the

[19:36] commissioners, we now have um commission

[19:38] chair Melody McCandless is with us

[19:40] online.

[19:42] >> You're up.

[19:43] >> Yes. Go ahead. Yeah.

[19:46] So, I mean, we're talking projections.

[19:50] Um, so what happens if we don't meet

[19:54] those projections? So, this number that

[19:56] we're pulling from reserves is kind of

[19:58] the way I

[20:00] pulling from savings just to simplify

[20:02] it. If we don't meet these object

[20:05] projections, that number could be

[20:07] larger. Uh yeah, that there there would

[20:11] be a larger drop from the fund balance

[20:12] if if those re revenue projections

[20:15] aren't met and all expenses that are

[20:17] currently in the budget are are

[20:18] executed.

[20:19] >> Okay.

[20:20] >> No, that just I just kind of just for

[20:22] the general public I want to kind of

[20:23] have some ideas. I mean projections are

[20:25] what they are. They're projections.

[20:27] >> So hopefully

[20:29] >> Commissioner Mccertie

[20:31] >> um just in these projections the general

[20:33] sales taxes were ahead 174,000.

[20:36] >> That's correct. Yep.

[20:37] >> And then

[20:40] 174,000 uh county quarter% sales tax

[20:42] ahead 14 grand.

[20:45] >> Mhm.

[20:45] >> Uh TRT mitigation ahead ahead 160,000

[20:50] TRCC

[20:52] Leopard uh 12,800 so 13,000

[20:57] >> and other revenues were down 65,000. Okay.

[21:02] >> Yeah.

[21:03] And then contributions from fund

[21:05] balance. That's the extra the 102,000.

[21:09] >> Yeah. So we're we're we're the amendment

[21:12] proposes that we're going to be pulling

[21:13] less from savings to balance the budget.

[21:15] So it's a better situation than we

[21:18] started with the year with.

[21:19] >> That that that was the the outcome that

[21:21] I was hoping to have stated. It's a

[21:23] better

[21:24] >> situation.

[21:26] Is a better situation that we're in for

[21:27] our constituents than we thought we

[21:29] would be in.

[21:30] >> Commissioner Hadler. And and to clarify

[21:33] um so the the

[21:35] 243 draw does that include the

[21:38] additional uh 234 in salaries?

[21:40] >> Yes.

[21:41] >> That takes into account that. Okay.

[21:42] >> Yes, it does.

[21:42] >> Thank you.

[21:47] » Anyone else?

[21:50] >> Then I think we can transition over to

[21:53] you, Tess, if you're ready to

[21:56] walk us through all of that.

[21:58] >> I am. Thank you.

[22:03] If it's agreeable,

[22:05] >> you're just fine.

[22:08] >> If it's agreeable to each

[22:18] » Thank you, Quinn.

[22:19] I will begin with uh the cost of living

[22:25] adjustment scenarios that my department

[22:27] created and then can transition into

[22:29] sharing the uh new position and

[22:32] reclassification proposals.

[22:35] So to begin,

[22:38] um, my department has generated a number

[22:40] of cost of living adjustment scenarios

[22:44] for the commission. And for a reminder,

[22:48] the 2026 cost of living adjustment that

[22:52] was adopted um for the Social Security

[22:54] Administration was 2.8%.

[22:58] We were not able at the beginning of the

[23:01] year to adopt any modified cost of

[23:04] living adjustment percentage and the

[23:06] commission at during budget season

[23:08] indicated that you all would be

[23:09] interested in us coming back at the

[23:11] midyear point once we had a better idea

[23:13] of where we were going to be for our

[23:15] year um to present this proposal again.

[23:19] So again context is 2.8% 8% was the 2026

[23:22] adopted cost of living adjustment for

[23:24] the Social Security Administration.

[23:26] Projected cost of living adjustment or

[23:29] 2027 is currently estimated somewhere

[23:31] between 3.7 to 3.8%.

[23:34] Um a few months ago it was somewhere

[23:36] between 3.8 to 4.2. It is based on uh

[23:40] the easiest way to put it is inflation

[23:42] and so it will continue to fluctuate but

[23:45] we there is that pattern of it being in

[23:47] the high 3% range and the official cost

[23:52] of living adjustment is published every

[23:53] October. So we won't have a a firm

[23:55] number to work with until October which we're we're used to working with

[23:59] the projected amount and then um

[24:02] updating the commission as we go through

[24:04] the budget season. So with that, um the

[24:07] first scenario that I will show is if we

[24:09] were to adopt the 2.8% cost of living

[24:13] adjustment without retroacting as of pay

[24:16] period ending August 2nd, 2026. Um so of

[24:20] course we'll be working through this

[24:22] workshop today. We then have to have the

[24:24] public hearing and then adopt the the

[24:26] amended budget. And so um this isn't

[24:28] saying that it would absolutely need to

[24:30] go into effect as of August 2nd, 2026.

[24:33] Those are just simply the numbers that I was working with. Um, so for us

[24:37] to adopt a 2.8% COLA starting pay period

[24:41] ending B26

[24:44] would be $226,491.

[24:48] Of that 179,5

[24:52] uh $558 would be from the general fund.

[24:55] And I apologize I try to make this a

[24:57] little bit bigger. It's a little a

[25:00] little tough to with this many lines. Uh

[25:03] so again highlighting that general fund

[25:05] number because that that is typically

[25:07] what we're most uh most conscientious

[25:09] of. But but the the total would be the

[25:14] 226,490.

[25:18] » Um

[25:18] >> and can I clarify that's to put into

[25:22] place on August 2nd a 2.8% cola that

[25:26] would finish the rest of the year. that

[25:28] wouldn't backtrack to the people.

[25:29] >> That's correct. This is not this is not

[25:31] a retroactive proposal which

[25:34] >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And so when I

[25:36] say pay period ending August 2nd, 2026,

[25:40] um that that means that it would be the

[25:42] pay period essentially. It's a pay

[25:43] period that we're currently in. Again,

[25:45] these are these are just simply the

[25:46] projections that I that I made for the

[25:48] purposes of this. What I will say is

[25:50] with the 2.8% cola, um the rub amount

[25:54] per pay period is about $20,000. And so

[25:57] if we uh determined that we weren't able

[25:59] to adopt it until later on and say we

[26:01] wait one or two additional pay periods,

[26:04] it would reduce by approximately 20 to

[26:06] $40,000 based on uh when it were to go

[26:09] into effect. And those are again all all

[26:12] numbers and projections that we that we

[26:13] can certainly amend based on um what the

[26:16] commission deems u appropriate,

[26:18] feasible,

[26:20] prudent.

[26:24] » Um yes sir. I I know this is a workshop

[26:28] and we're working through this. Can I

[26:30] also see I look thank you for the

[26:31] projections by the way. It really helps

[26:33] me out in uh doing math. But can I also

[26:35] see for a projection uh minus elected

[26:38] officials

[26:40] >> with not very much. It's like 290 bucks.

[26:44] >> I see commission. I see

[26:47] >> Oh, you want you want all elected

[26:48] official?

[26:48] >> Yeah. All elected officials.

[26:51] >> Um [clears throat] yes, I I'm more than

[26:52] happy to put that together.

[26:53] >> What that? Yeah. what that I could do

[26:56] the math. It just take me a little

[26:58] longer right now.

[26:59] >> That's no that's no problem. Um so so as was indicated um we do have the the

[27:05] commission broken out separately.

[27:07] However, if we were looking at um all

[27:10] classified elected positions then I be

[27:12] able to put that together.

[27:14] >> No problem.

[27:17] Um, so for this next

[27:21] scenario, um, and and I'll preface that

[27:23] these were these were the requested

[27:25] scenarios for us to put together. Um,

[27:27] it's it's not our full range of options.

[27:29] We we of course have other options

[27:31] available to us, but but for the

[27:32] purposes of this workshop, I I went

[27:34] ahead and used um the the projected

[27:37] percentages that I was requested to to

[27:40] come up with. So, if we were to

[27:42] implement a modified 1% cost of living

[27:44] adjustment, um, so if the 2.8% 8% is is

[27:47] not a number that would be appropriate

[27:49] or feasible at this time to adopt.

[27:52] Again, using that pay period ending

[27:54] August 2nd, 2026 without any

[27:56] retroacting, the total cost of a cost of

[28:00] living adjustment um to go into effect

[28:02] as of that pay period ending 826 through

[28:05] the end of this year would be a total of

[28:07] $82,783.

[28:11] And of that, the general fund would uh

[28:15] would account for $66,12

[28:19] of that adjustment.

[28:27] And I'll go ahead and keep ticking

[28:28] through scenarios, but please feel free

[28:30] to ask me any questions that you have as

[28:32] we're as we're going through this

[28:33] exercise.

[28:35] So [clears throat] this next scenario is

[28:37] again another scenario that uh was

[28:39] requested for my for my office to

[28:41] calculate on and that was using a 1.8%

[28:44] cost of living adjustment. So again,

[28:46] another modified percentage and again

[28:49] using that pay period ending August 2nd,

[28:52] 2026 through the end of this year, um

[28:55] that projected calculation is $145,52

[29:01] approximately with a general fund

[29:03] accounting for $115,425

[29:08] of that total amount.

[29:13] » I have a question. Can you also provide

[29:15] us what this would do for a full year as

[29:18] well because this decision just isn't

[29:20] for you know August through December.

[29:24] This is what we will be adding to the

[29:25] budget for 2027 as well unless we would

[29:28] be looking to take colas away. So I just

[29:30] want to make sure that I understand what

[29:31] that number is as well.

[29:34] >> Um yes absolutely and I I can put those

[29:36] numbers together for 2027 specifically.

[29:40] Um that'll take a little bit more time

[29:42] but absolutely able to do that.

[29:44] >> Um

[29:44] >> you could estimate it almost just

[29:46] doubling it and adding a hair. I mean

[29:48] just a little

[29:50] starting in August which one

[29:53] >> um thank you. And and so to speak to

[29:55] that point actually if if we were to

[29:57] look at again retroacting the 2.8% cola

[30:01] from January of 26 through the end of

[30:03] this year. Um this is our most I would

[30:06] say rudimentary calculation and that's

[30:08] because we have had a number of staff

[30:11] changes um you know since the beginning

[30:13] of the year. But if we were just working

[30:15] off of the staff that we currently have

[30:17] now the positions that we currently have

[30:19] filled um the projected calculation for

[30:22] cost of living retroacting from the

[30:24] beginning of this year through the

[30:25] through December of this year is

[30:27] $543,722.

[30:31] » What did you say? Excuse me. and cancel

[30:33] by 44.

[30:34] >> Oh yes, 543,722

[30:39] and of that the general fund would

[30:42] account for $432,88

[30:46] of that. Um so as Commissioner Havler

[30:49] spoke to um again for a really

[30:50] rudimentary calculation of a 2027 it

[30:53] would be that 543

[30:57] or 544,000

[30:59] um with with likely a little bit

[31:02] additional um certainly depending on if

[31:05] we're you know back filling all of our

[31:06] positions um you know based on staff

[31:10] achieving milestones and exemplary

[31:12] increases based on on the paper

[31:14] performance plan etc. Sure.

[31:20] Yes, sir. Just just a a cur curious

[31:23] question. If one of the proposals is

[31:24] considering retroactively filling in, is

[31:27] there a different tax implication? And I

[31:29] that might be a off the cuff question. I don't know if you know if going

[31:34] forward in lie of doing that you do a

[31:36] higher percentage but I'd hate to

[31:38] retroactively do it and then everybody's

[31:40] met with a surprise tax bill that they

[31:42] wouldn't have necessarily had but for it

[31:45] being implemented in the beginning of

[31:46] the year.

[31:47] >> That's an excellent question. Thank you for calling that out. So, so

[31:50] with that there are specific

[31:52] considerations if we were to take a

[31:53] retroactive approach as opposed to say

[31:56] um rating it different say pro you know

[31:58] pro-rated cost living adjustment through

[32:00] the end of this year. Um some of those

[32:02] considerations do include that if staff

[32:04] do receive a fairly large back pay sum

[32:08] um then there there can be tax

[32:10] implications for that. Oftentimes if we

[32:12] have staff in that situation they go

[32:13] except for a pay period. There's some

[32:15] other considerations such as um uh

[32:18] backay adjustments that we would need to

[32:19] need need to make to Utah retirement

[32:21] systems because of course those URS

[32:23] adjust or those URS contributions are

[32:25] based on salary and so if we are

[32:28] retroactively adjusting salary um from

[32:31] the beginning of the year to date then

[32:33] we would also need to be making some of

[32:35] those adjustments. So, it would um take

[32:38] uh quite a bit of administrative work,

[32:40] which is which is okay. And it would

[32:41] also mean that we would really need to

[32:44] do a great job of communicating to the

[32:46] staff exactly what those different

[32:48] implications look like so that they can

[32:49] make fully informed decisions. And then

[32:52] one other note off that it'd also

[32:54] probably be interesting or somewhat

[32:57] difficult if we had employees that

[32:58] previously worked for the county in the

[33:00] last in the year and then maybe they departed or retired or whatever and

[33:04] then calculating whether those

[33:05] individuals would get the the raise or

[33:08] the back pay as well which might be

[33:09] difficult.

[33:11] >> Yes. And and what I would say is is my

[33:13] response to that would be that we

[33:14] wouldn't be able to to pay non-employees

[33:17] essentially for that retractured amount.

[33:20] um which is which is the case for for

[33:22] you know any any situation. Um, but if

[33:25] we were to, again, there are other

[33:27] options that we could look at, whether

[33:28] it be that we um, they say subsidize

[33:31] this with uh, and and I'm not saying

[33:33] that any of these ideas are superior to

[33:35] others, but just different ideas we've

[33:36] been kicking around. Um, is, you know,

[33:39] anything from uh, one-time bonuses that

[33:42] we come up with some type of

[33:43] calculation. Um, whether it be that

[33:46] again, we do some type of

[33:48] essentially supplemental cost of living

[33:50] adjustment. The the caution that I would

[33:52] have with that would be again what is

[33:54] the feasibility of carrying that into

[33:56] 2027. I wouldn't want to give staff say

[33:58] a a 4% cost of living adjustment and

[34:00] then say we have to take it down

[34:02] starting 2020 you know January 1 of

[34:04] 2027. Those would be really difficult um

[34:08] you know situations for staff to figure

[34:10] out how to to navigate budgetarily etc.

[34:12] So I wouldn't want to put that burden on

[34:13] them. Um but again we have a we have

[34:16] different options and scenarios that we

[34:18] can certainly u continue to explore

[34:20] based on what the commission deans is.

[34:30] » Yes.

[34:31] >> Are we done with the cola discussion

[34:33] then or meaning like are you done with

[34:35] your part of the

[34:36] >> these were all of the scenarios that I

[34:37] have ready to present for you all today.

[34:39] So I just have a recommendation for the

[34:41] chair and obviously you don't have to

[34:43] take it but I'm just wondering if we

[34:44] chip away at these one by one right now.

[34:48] We discuss coal as we do a straw poll so

[34:50] we make a decision. We've we've been

[34:52] fairly budgeting is I think really hard

[34:56] for all of us and we don't like to make

[34:57] decisions but I think we need to chip

[34:59] away at this and and make some

[35:00] decisions. So that would be my

[35:03] recommendation

[35:05] and I'd make a recommendation on colas

[35:07] right now. I'm I'm open to other

[35:09] thoughts, but my own thought is is that

[35:11] I'd like to get through the end of this

[35:13] and see what we've got and then come

[35:15] back and start making those

[35:18] modifications once we've got a full

[35:21] picture of everything. I think it'll

[35:22] help me at least.

[35:26] So, I

[35:28] Yes, sir. I think getting through the

[35:30] workshop and seeing where we're at. I

[35:31] know this is going to be I know budget

[35:34] talks are going to go into the next and

[35:36] into decision- making. So I would I

[35:38] would like to get through through our

[35:41] workshop today into uh

[35:45] how would you say this an action item or

[35:48] up to action items in the next next in

[35:50] the future.

[35:52] >> Go ahead Steve.

[35:53] >> Sorry I I have one more fund fund

[35:55] inquiry question. So some of these and

[35:57] not very many of these items are also

[35:58] going to be funded some of them wouldn't

[36:00] be funded out of the general fund like

[36:02] TRT positions.

[36:04] >> That's correct. Yes. And so we broke it

[36:05] down by fund. So again, general fund,

[36:07] office of tourism, rose, library, sand

[36:09] flats, etc. Um,

[36:11] >> let's raise that additional.

[36:12] >> Yep. Yep. Thank you.

[36:15] >> Yes, Brian.

[36:16] >> And so we just have two more uh things

[36:18] to consider, right? We have the

[36:19] reclassifications and then the

[36:21] contributions.

[36:24] >> Um, for for my presentation, I just have

[36:26] the new positions and reclassifications

[36:29] and that's it.

[36:31] >> Okay. But but can I have Yes. Go ahead.

[36:34] But

[36:36] Leaving this workshop, Gabe, it'd be

[36:39] great if you had some decisions so that

[36:41] you're ready for the public hearing with

[36:44] the amended budget. Is that correct? We

[36:46] need to make some decisions

[36:47] >> if if you all want any additional

[36:50] adjustments to the amendment that I

[36:52] prepared.

[36:52] >> Okay, great.

[36:56] >> Thank you.

[36:59] >> [clears throat]

[37:01] » I'll go ahead and move into the new

[37:03] position and reclassifications.

[37:15] So, a few notes to first start off us

[37:18] off just to set the scene for this. So,

[37:20] estimated cost differences that are

[37:23] being shown. Oh, I will do my very best.

[37:26] I hopefully will.

[37:27] >> Okay, there we go. Is that is that a

[37:29] better everybody? Okay, wonderful. Thank

[37:30] you. Um, thank you for that. So, these

[37:33] estimated cost differences do not

[37:35] include a proposed major cost of living

[37:38] adjustment. And again, largely that's

[37:39] because we are considering a number of

[37:41] different or different scenarios have

[37:43] been proposed. Um, and so just to keep

[37:46] it simple, these are as our current

[37:48] grade and step chart is designed with no

[37:50] cost of living. Those are the estimated

[37:52] cost differences that are going to be

[37:54] presented in this. The new

[37:56] reclassification

[37:58] requests that were made at the midyear

[37:59] point have not been reviewed by the

[38:01] commission administration's office or

[38:03] the personnel services department for

[38:05] recommendation. And so if the commission

[38:08] deems that again it's prudent um

[38:10] appropriate feasible to move forward

[38:13] with any new position or rec or excuse

[38:15] me reclassifications

[38:17] um then we can certainly put together a

[38:20] list of recommendations based

[38:23] um unapproved new position and

[38:25] reclassification requests were brought

[38:27] back from the 2026 budget season as had

[38:30] been discussed um in budget season with

[38:33] the exception of the MOAS Moab office of

[38:35] tourism requests. So again um with our new director and the mob office of

[38:40] tourism some of those departmental

[38:42] restructures etc have have been handled

[38:44] separately. So those are exclusive.

[38:50] So the one new position request that is

[38:53] being brought back is from the 2026

[38:56] budget season. It was also presented

[38:57] during the 2020 budget season and that is for a full-time OSA maintenance

[39:03] technician.

[39:06] And the justification for this request

[39:08] has uh remained consistent and that is

[39:12] that uh this is a 65 acre property that

[39:16] they're often covering a 7-day work

[39:18] schedule. The event schedule has

[39:21] continued um to to increase more and

[39:24] more booked from from year to year. Um

[39:26] on the note of of over time um with the

[39:30] increase in compensatory time maximum

[39:33] from 24 hours uh to 80 hours overtime

[39:38] budget for OSA has been much more

[39:40] managed. Um but it does mean that staff

[39:42] are more compensatory time meaning that

[39:44] they need to take more time away from

[39:46] the office meaning that uh we continue

[39:48] to to see a need for an additional

[39:50] full-time employee at the arena.

[39:59] Yes, Commissioner Mart.

[40:00] >> Can I also add in I know you only have

[40:02] the one position right there. I'd like

[40:03] to add in another request for an

[40:05] economic development specialist at

[40:08] part-time without benefits.

[40:16] » Yes. and I can work with the commission

[40:18] administration office on on the

[40:19] specifics of that. Thank you.

[40:24] » Um and so for the cost estimate through

[40:28] the end of this current year, so again,

[40:31] if this was granted midyear, um the

[40:33] estimated cost difference would be

[40:36] $40,659.

[40:39] And as as um Commissioner Martinez spoke

[40:42] to, it's also important for us to look

[40:43] forward and ask the question, what does

[40:46] this impact in future years and full

[40:48] years? And so um we did put together the

[40:50] 2027 estimates. And so the 2027 um the

[40:54] estimated cost total would be $96,430

[40:59] for the um for the addition of this

[41:01] full-time position.

[41:09] Moving into reclassification requests.

[41:12] I'll go through these one at a time.

[41:16] So the first reclassification request

[41:18] was for elected officials and this is an

[41:21] item that we do feel is important for us

[41:24] to do as a county on an annual basis. Um

[41:28] so elected officials are of course

[41:30] different um than our regular employees

[41:32] who have access to our paper performance

[41:34] program which includes milestone and

[41:38] exemplary increases. milestones are

[41:40] tenure based raises and exemplary

[41:42] increases are performance-based raises.

[41:44] And so with that, it is uh important for

[41:47] us to continue to make sure that we are

[41:49] paying our electeds

[41:52] appropriate and and market rate wages so

[41:55] that we continue to uh have really

[41:59] qualified excellent folks being

[42:02] interested in serving our community in

[42:04] this capacity. So with that we use the

[42:06] same methodology um that that has been

[42:09] used in previous years which we look at

[42:11] um first class Utah counties with the

[42:15] exception of county because they went a

[42:18] quite a few years without without any

[42:20] increases and looked at those counties

[42:23] averages for each of the positions and

[42:24] compared them to ours. Um so if we were

[42:27] to adopt all of basically these average

[42:30] adjustments for our positions and as

[42:32] you'll see the elected positions that

[42:33] are left off include um county attorney,

[42:36] sheriff and commissioners. Those are

[42:37] because those positions are at or above

[42:40] the average um of the other counties

[42:44] compensation and so that it was

[42:46] appropriate to put to put them on the

[42:48] list um in the 2026 budget season. But

[42:51] if all of these adjustments were

[42:53] adopted, it would uh for this year total

[42:56] 500 $5,240

[42:59] and for a full year it would be

[43:00] calculated to 12,57

[43:04] and compensation vendor elected.

[43:13] Last reclassification request is another

[43:15] one that has been brought back from the

[43:17] 2026 budget season and this is to

[43:20] reclassify the part-time administrative

[43:22] assistant position at our airport to

[43:25] full-time. The justification for that is

[43:29] that billing has become much more

[43:30] complex and as this team needs more

[43:34] assistance working through leases etc.

[43:37] um that moving the part-time to a

[43:40] full-time position would increase the

[43:42] capacity of the staff at Cany Lands

[43:44] Regional Airport. So for the cost

[43:47] difference through 2026, that's

[43:49] estimated to be $25,576

[43:53] and the cost difference between for 2027

[43:56] in its entirety would be $60,200.

[44:00] and and largely anytime we see a

[44:02] part-time to full-time reclassification,

[44:04] the vast majority of the cost difference

[44:07] is based on benefits.

[44:11] » What is the cost of that employee and

[44:12] then in total

[44:14] >> the full cost of the employee?

[44:16] >> Yeah.

[44:16] >> Um

[44:18] I don't have that off the top of my

[44:19] head, but for the majority of our

[44:21] part-time positions in this range, um I

[44:25] would estimate that right now it's about

[44:26] 35,000. So it would go from uh so for

[44:30] their part-time 20 hours a week right

[44:32] now I I would estimate that it's 35 to

[44:37] 40 but I can get that that exact number

[44:39] for you certainly.

[44:41] >> Okay. And and if um that is another

[44:44] number that the commission would like to

[44:45] see is current if if a position is

[44:48] currently filled the current annual uh

[44:52] amount for position and then the

[44:54] adjustments I can I can adjust that for

[44:57] our next meeting.

[44:58] >> Sure.

[45:07] » Next request is a midyear request. So,

[45:10] it uh was not presented during the 2026

[45:14] budget season and that's because this

[45:15] was actually presented as a new position

[45:17] during the 2026 budget season and was

[45:19] approved by the commission and that is

[45:21] for the victim's advocate position in

[45:23] the Grand County Attorney's Office. So,

[45:26] as you all likely remember, ourou

[45:29] between Grand County and the city of

[45:30] Moab, it was expiring and we do have an

[45:33] obligation to provide services. And so,

[45:36] with that, um, we determined that it was

[45:38] most appropriate for us to move forward

[45:40] with hiring our own victim advocate

[45:42] under the Grand County Attorney's Office

[45:44] umbrella to serve Grand County

[45:45] Attorney's Office, uh, Children's

[45:48] Justice Center, and the Grant County

[45:49] Sheriff's Office. So that part-time

[45:51] position was approved as of January 26

[45:54] and the reclassification request is for

[45:57] this position to be reclassified from

[45:59] part-time to full-time. Um so with that

[46:02] the cost difference through 2026 would

[46:04] be $19,847

[46:08] and the cost difference for a full year

[46:12] and that being 207 is estimated to be 46

[46:15] 46,950.

[46:18] And I've got a couple questions. The

[46:20] same one that Commissioner Martinez had

[46:22] last time. It'd be nice to know what

[46:24] that total is going to be for the year.

[46:25] It'll help us with the 2027 budget. And

[46:29] then will this position be budgeted

[46:33] through three different departments

[46:35] considering that they're sharing it or

[46:37] will this all be coming out of the

[46:39] budget?

[46:42] >> Yeah, I can speak to that. Historically,

[46:43] the position was we had an agreement

[46:45] between the city and the county and we

[46:48] were all paying a portion of it. For

[46:50] whatever reason, at that time, we

[46:52] allocated funds from the CJC, the

[46:53] sheriff's department, my office to pay

[46:56] the three or the three different chunks

[46:58] of it to the city directly. Now, it

[47:01] should be eliminated from the sheriff's

[47:02] budget, from the CJC budget, unless

[47:05] there's a benefit to be able to utilize

[47:08] some of the CJC funds. the victim

[47:10] advocate certified to be able to work

[47:11] with children at this point. Um, and

[47:13] we're also applying for grants. We

[47:16] haven't received those. We haven't

[47:17] received those yet. They'll be submitted

[47:19] soon. If we do receive those grants,

[47:21] obviously we would reduce the cost to

[47:23] the county. Uh, but more than more than

[47:27] you ask for,

[47:28] >> a little bit, but it was my

[47:30] understanding that part of the reason

[47:32] for this going from part-time to

[47:34] full-time was because of the need at the

[47:37] sheriff's department. Correct. And what

[47:39] we've done is we've um we've focused on

[47:42] the court element of it, which is the

[47:44] major one of the major obligations.

[47:45] Right now, the victim advocate is

[47:47] working Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

[47:48] Those are all court days. Um alternating

[47:51] Mondays are bail hearings. Tuesday is

[47:52] the district court day, and Wednesday

[47:54] the Wednesday is the justice court day.

[47:56] We do provide services. The difficulty

[47:58] is there's just not enough time in the

[48:00] day to provide the services uh that we

[48:03] have in the three in the three days that

[48:04] we have. Um, we're utilizing because we

[48:07] didn't hire until later in the year,

[48:09] we're utilizing as much as we can of

[48:11] that budget, but not to exceed the

[48:12] amount that would be the threshold for

[48:15] that would trigger benefits. And so, we

[48:18] want to expand the amount of work that

[48:19] the victim advocate is doing, but we're

[48:21] simply we simply just don't have enough

[48:23] time to be able to address all of those

[48:25] things in in the limited time that we

[48:27] have per week. and all good information,

[48:32] but I guess I'm still not seeing it. If

[48:34] we were paying from three different

[48:35] departments to the city, why wouldn't we

[48:38] then continue to split that position

[48:41] into three different departments or the sheriff and the CJC won't be using

[48:46] that position? It's going to be fully

[48:47] underutil. They will they will be

[48:49] utilizing the position. I mean, it's

[48:51] ultimately coming coming out of the same

[48:52] source. The only the only the only

[48:54] nuance though

[48:56] >> is there are grant fundings that come

[48:57] into the CJC and there may be some

[49:00] grants and funding that comes to the

[49:01] sheriff's office. That might be the only

[49:03] reason that we might want to put some of

[49:05] that expense in the CJC line item. Uh

[49:07] but they have strict requirements for

[49:09] the CJC that they have to be working uh

[49:10] with the children. Uh the vict victim

[49:12] advocate is is here uh and and she had

[49:15] to take classes to be able to be able to

[49:17] provide those services to the CJC folks.

[49:19] So, if there's a way that we can

[49:20] structure it to utilize the most amount

[49:22] of grant funding that we possibly can,

[49:25] of course, we'd like to do that. And and

[49:26] when we get closer to budgeting time,

[49:28] we'll we'll be discussing with our

[49:30] partners on how how to do that. And

[49:31] again, we are um we are drafting a grant

[49:34] application as we speak. And I think

[49:36] that goes in beginning of August.

[49:39] >> And I wasn't trying to imply that I'm

[49:42] against this request. I'm just curious

[49:44] if it was divided between three

[49:46] previously. My question was why wouldn't

[49:48] we be doing the same moving forward. So

[49:50] yes, Commissioner, you add it correctly.

[49:52] >> Please keep me apprised of the grant

[49:54] application process.

[49:55] >> I want to see if they go through.

[49:57] >> Okay. Yes, Commissioner Hadler.

[49:59] >> Are are we in danger of not meeting our

[50:01] obligations if we don't approve this

[50:02] position? Is it is it a situation where

[50:04] they

[50:06] >> We do absolutely uh as much as we can.

[50:09] Sometimes we have short timelines for

[50:11] turnarounds. What we're doing is we're

[50:13] allocating the time Monday, Tuesday, and

[50:14] Wednesday because those are all court

[50:16] days. If there's a victim that needs

[50:18] assistance right now on like a Friday or

[50:20] on the weekend, what we'd hope to have

[50:23] the victim advocate uh be able to have

[50:25] calls. If there's a serious a really serious incident,

[50:29] sorry, but like a serious rape or a

[50:31] murder or a stabbing or something that's

[50:33] very graphic, the goal would be to call

[50:35] myself, have me go out with the victim

[50:38] advocate on the scene. That's how the

[50:39] MOP PD does it. Uh do I think we're

[50:42] being deficient with our services that

[50:43] we're pro providing the victims? No. Um,

[50:46] do I think we could do better? Yes, of

[50:47] course. And so having an additional

[50:49] amount of time uh that the victim

[50:51] advocate is allowed to be able to be on

[50:53] the clock uh that would be very helpful.

[50:55] Right now we stay away from uh

[50:57] triggering the need for benefits and we

[50:59] don't pay um any overtime, but I don't

[51:02] think we're deficient.

[51:03] >> Okay. Uh

[51:06] >> thank you. Thank you

[51:09] >> all. Great conversation.

[51:11] All right. Excellent. This next request

[51:14] completion request is another request

[51:16] that uh came in at the midyear point. Um

[51:18] so this is the first time that the

[51:19] commission has seen it and that is in

[51:22] the IT department. The request is to

[51:25] reclassify the GIS specialist to GIS

[51:28] administrator

[51:30] um reclassifying this position from a

[51:31] grade 12 to a grade 13. Uh the

[51:34] justification for this is that the GIS

[51:36] role at the county has expanded um

[51:39] providing services to other departments.

[51:41] for instance, working closely with the

[51:43] emergency management uh emergency

[51:46] management director, planning and

[51:48] zoning, etc. Um, and with that expansion

[51:52] of responsibility, duties, etc. Um,

[51:55] comes that the request for a one grade

[51:58] adjustment. The cost difference through

[52:00] 2026 would amount to $1,817

[52:03] and the cost difference in 2027 would

[52:05] amount to $4,423.

[52:13] » [clears throat]

[52:18] » And this next reclassification request

[52:21] is within the commission administration

[52:23] office and it is for the economic

[52:24] development and public relations

[52:26] coordinator. Reclassify this position to

[52:28] the economic development director. Um

[52:31] going from a grade 11 to a grade 14 and

[52:33] going from hourly to exempt. Um and so

[52:38] with exempt that um that would that

[52:41] adjustment would happen both because of

[52:42] the compensation increase as well as the

[52:44] increase in job duties,

[52:46] responsibilities. Um so it would be both

[52:48] a compensatory as well as the

[52:52] essentially the type of job that that it

[52:54] would become and and reclassification to

[52:57] exempt status would be most appropriate

[52:59] based on how we have our other positions

[53:00] classified. Um the justification for

[53:04] this is this position was established

[53:06] approximately one year ago. So it had

[53:07] been 2025. Um the position's workload

[53:10] and level of responsibility has

[53:11] surpassed what it it was originally um

[53:15] written for and designed for for the job

[53:17] description. And with this position

[53:19] frequently uh requiring compensatory

[53:22] time and overtime, this right

[53:23] classification uh would would have a a

[53:28] fairly netneutral budget adjustment um

[53:30] with it. But with that being said, in

[53:32] terms of because overtime is its own

[53:34] budget line item that is separate from

[53:36] salary and benefits, the total personnel

[53:39] um cost difference with salary and

[53:41] benefits for the rest of this year would

[53:43] be 7,660

[53:46] more dollars. And then in 2027 is

[53:48] estimated to be $16,680.

[53:53] » And I think it goes without saying on

[53:55] all of them now moving forward, you'll

[53:57] have us what that total number would be

[53:59] for that position. Absolutely.

[54:02] >> Thank you.

[54:06] This

[54:06] >> next reclassification request is uh in

[54:10] the planning and zoning department and

[54:12] the request is to classify the planning

[54:15] and zoning director to the community

[54:17] development director. A caveat with this

[54:20] is that this reclassification also would

[54:22] involve an organizational restructure

[54:24] from having a separate planning and

[54:26] zoning department and building

[54:29] department to combining these offices

[54:31] under one which would then be renamed

[54:35] the community development department. Um

[54:39] and the justification provided for this

[54:42] is again the consolidation of these two

[54:45] separate departments under one. Um and

[54:49] this were this reclass or with this

[54:51] restructure subsequent A3 staff levels

[54:54] oversight responsibilities would include

[54:56] a wage increase. Um and that requested

[55:00] increase would be from a grade 20 to a

[55:01] grade 24. Uh the cost difference through

[55:04] 2026 would amount to $7,828

[55:08] and the cost difference for 2027 would

[55:10] amount to $18,5.

[55:22] This next reclassification request is um

[55:24] also tied to a back bill request that is

[55:28] on the consent agenda for this evening.

[55:30] Currently in the Grand County Jail, we

[55:32] do have budgeted two part-time jail

[55:35] nurses. So for the Grand County Jail, we

[55:38] are required, we're mandated to provide

[55:41] medical services to housed inmates.

[55:44] Currently, part of how we uh meet this

[55:47] mandate is by having part-time a

[55:49] part-time jail nurse on staff. um

[55:51] anytime our jail nurse is unavailable

[55:54] then the way that we provide this

[55:56] require you know provide um health care

[55:59] is through Mo regional hospital so for

[56:02] transporting inmates to the local

[56:04] hospital um so for this request it is to

[56:08] instead of having the two part-time

[56:10] positions to reclassify it into one

[56:13] full-time general nurse position to have

[56:15] on staff with us 40 hours a week

[56:19] to the justification for This includes

[56:22] um reduced liability, providing more

[56:24] educational opportunities for our staff.

[56:29] >> Question.

[56:30] >> Happy to answer your question.

[56:31] >> Isn't this this is from mitigation

[56:34] funds? Is this or is this from general

[56:36] funds?

[56:38] >> Um so I I did put it under general fund,

[56:41] but mitigation does go to the Grant

[56:43] County Sheriff's Office. So, so

[56:44] dependent on our our mitigation

[56:48] amount then it would thank you for

[56:54] >> and my question would be if we have two

[56:56] part-times and we're going to one

[56:58] full-time those numbers are

[57:02] >> great

[57:02] >> two parttime where only costing is

[57:04] 33,000.

[57:06] So, one of those part-time positions is

[57:08] actually vacant, and part of that is

[57:09] because it's been difficult to recruit

[57:11] for part-time. Um and so this this does

[57:15] combine the two very part-time um

[57:19] positions into one in that additional

[57:22] increase of so so yes the the shorter

[57:25] answer is yes these numbers do reflect

[57:26] if we were to combine the total hours

[57:29] that we currently do have set aside and

[57:30] budgeted for our two part-time positions

[57:33] although we only have the one currently

[57:36] uh occupied.

[57:37] >> Okay. And another question would be then

[57:41] do you see filling that position with

[57:44] the existing employee that the same

[57:46] employee is going to go from part-time

[57:48] to full and I see the head in the back

[57:51] shaking in the back.

[57:55] » You're welcome to join us on this.

[57:57] >> I was like join us on this issue. Yeah.

[58:00] >> You're welcome to come up if you'd like.

[58:02] >> Yeah.

[58:04] Um, no. That's one of the reasons why

[58:06] it's on the back wheel is because our

[58:08] current registered nurse is found a

[58:11] different part-time job. So, she is

[58:13] going to leave. She's going to hang out

[58:14] for another month or so to help us with

[58:17] trying to find somebody else. But when I

[58:20] brought this to test, she said we had to

[58:21] put it on the back field. My intentions

[58:23] though this year was to try and request

[58:25] or create a full-time position. So, the

[58:27] idea was is might as well just ask for a

[58:29] full-time position instead of trying to

[58:31] fill a part-time position just to change

[58:33] it to a full-time position maybe

[58:34] possibly this fall or winter and then I

[58:37] lose that person because that's what

[58:39] we've been running it to is

[58:42] the people that are looking for

[58:43] part-time are happy where they're at

[58:45] working at hospital per se. Um, so

[58:48] they're they don't want fulltime. That's

[58:49] what I've kind of ran into. So, the idea

[58:52] would be to create full-time position to

[58:53] where I don't have to sit here like

[58:55] they're applying for a full-time

[58:57] position, but I'm afraid that if we hire

[59:00] another person for a part-time position,

[59:02] they're not they may like the job they

[59:05] have that they're already doing. This is

[59:06] just side. So, the idea is to create a

[59:09] full-time position that they're applying

[59:11] and they're going to be here long term.

[59:14] >> Then my one other question would be Oh,

[59:16] go ahead. You're okay. Um

[59:17] >> you're answering all my question.

[59:18] >> So this is mandated position is this I

[59:21] mean we're required to we're required to

[59:24] provide medical right um the part the

[59:28] bare minimum to house state inmates.

[59:32] We're required that's the part-time part

[59:34] is we're required that minimum standard

[59:36] which was what we had with our current

[59:39] three times a week couple hours a day

[59:41] for that. [clears throat] That's the

[59:43] bare minimum. Um, we've been trying to

[59:45] seek more because right now, like a lot

[59:48] of rural jails that don't have full-time

[59:50] medical, when I don't have the nurse

[59:52] available, we do pill pass. I that puts

[59:56] it all the liability off my staff to do

[1:00:00] medication for the sending their

[1:00:02] medication, which we're allowed to do.

[1:00:04] It's per, you know, I've looked into it.

[1:00:05] It's perfectly legal. It's just you're

[1:00:08] taking on a lot of liability. It's

[1:00:09] accounting for medical staff. They had

[1:00:12] no medication. uh my opinion and I

[1:00:14] imagine a lot of other opinions um and I

[1:00:18] just we really need full time

[1:00:20] >> my my question was just pointed is was

[1:00:22] this an unfunded mandate from the state

[1:00:24] or something or my curiosity was so

[1:00:27] >> so no it's it's we're not yeah it's not

[1:00:30] mandated I should say other housing

[1:00:32] state inmates so but yeah we're required

[1:00:36] to provide medical for the inmates

[1:00:39] general so it's either we have a nurse

[1:00:41] on staff or I have to take them to the

[1:00:43] hospital all the time. This is what we

[1:00:46] did before before we have the part time.

[1:00:49] >> Thank you.

[1:00:53] » And general questions to you. This this

[1:00:56] will give you the ability to a full-time

[1:00:59] position gives you the ability to hire

[1:01:00] better is in the end.

[1:01:02] >> I would hope so. Is that what you're

[1:01:03] looking for?

[1:01:03] >> Yes, I would hope so.

[1:01:05] >> The intent is to have more longevity out

[1:01:07] of the position.

[1:01:10] Because again, part as somebody makes

[1:01:12] more money over there that full time,

[1:01:14] losing time, they don't want to have

[1:01:16] second jobs. So, they end up dropping

[1:01:18] out. That's what happened to the last

[1:01:20] >> Yeah.

[1:01:20] >> RN we had before that. It's just

[1:01:22] >> they made more money at their current

[1:01:24] position. So, they didn't need the

[1:01:25] part-time income anymore and then they

[1:01:27] left. Then, we were lucky enough to get

[1:01:28] the nurse that we currently have, but

[1:01:32] >> same same situation.

[1:01:34] >> Thank you. [clears throat]

[1:01:34] >> Thank you. Anyone else? All right. Yes,

[1:01:37] you can move on. Thank you. Thank you,

[1:01:40] sir.

[1:01:42] >> All right. Thank you all very much. This

[1:01:44] is the last reclassification request

[1:01:47] that I have to present to you all today.

[1:01:49] And this is under Sand Flats Recreation

[1:01:51] Area. This is a request to reclassify

[1:01:55] one of their recreation technician

[1:01:57] positions to a lead recreation

[1:02:00] technician position. The lead recreation

[1:02:02] tech position did previously exist. um

[1:02:05] they went away from it a number of years

[1:02:06] ago, but this reclass request would

[1:02:10] include the addition of uh some

[1:02:14] increased supervisory responsibilities,

[1:02:16] oversight duties, coordination of

[1:02:18] projects, etc. It would come with a two

[1:02:21] grade adjustment from a grade seven to a

[1:02:22] grade nine. This position is seasonal.

[1:02:25] It would remain seasonal. It's simply

[1:02:27] that the job title and subsequent

[1:02:30] responsibilities would increase. Um and

[1:02:32] so that cost difference through 2026 is

[1:02:36] estimated to be 1,715

[1:02:38] and through 2027 would be 8,1

[1:02:43] » same as same as the last one. Uh is this

[1:02:47] directed at general fund or

[1:02:49] >> Slats is an enterprise fund so they're

[1:02:51] separate from us and um I have been

[1:02:54] working with Andrea Bran Sandflat's

[1:02:56] director um she has confirmed that based

[1:02:59] on where they are revenue wise they're

[1:03:00] under budget and over protection

[1:03:02] forever. So this is not a concern

[1:03:05] related to the budget for6.

[1:03:07] >> Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Trish. Oh

[1:03:10] sorry I thought you raised your All

[1:03:13] right. We have anything else?

[1:03:15] >> That is all that I have for you all this

[1:03:17] evening. Unless you have any questions

[1:03:19] for

[1:03:20] >> anybody questions for Tess.

[1:03:23] All right, with that I will end this

[1:03:25] workshop at 502 and I'm going to

[1:03:29] recommend we take a fivem minute break

[1:03:31] and we will resume somewhere around 507

[1:03:35] with the regular meeting. Um, we want to

[1:03:38] just go real quick and get give the

[1:03:41] clerk.

[1:03:42] >> Are you talking through this here or the

[1:03:44] >> Yeah, through this. We come back

[1:03:47] shop or we

[1:03:51] >> um Yes, Trish.

[1:03:52] >> I think Jacqu was first.

[1:03:53] >> It doesn't matter. Yes, Trish.

[1:03:55] >> I five is citizens to be heard now. Is

[1:03:57] that correct?

[1:03:58] >> No, six.

[1:03:59] >> No.

[1:03:59] >> Oh, I thought it was five.

[1:04:01] >> I thought it was five at approximately 5

[1:04:04] p.m.

[1:04:05] >> Okay.

[1:04:06] I've thought and I do think we should I

[1:04:10] agree, Brian. I think it'd be great to

[1:04:11] come back and make some decisions so

[1:04:13] that these guys could

[1:04:15] >> if it's just a quick I'm doing it right

[1:04:17] now and we can break afterwards and

[1:04:19] start our meeting.

[1:04:20] >> Okay.

[1:04:20] >> Yeah.

[1:04:23] One more. Did we want to talk about

[1:04:27] >> one more?

[1:04:28] >> The that was the uh the distributions

[1:04:30] based on the mitigation that we had

[1:04:32] discussed during budget season last

[1:04:34] year. There's there's entities. I think

[1:04:35] there's an email that went out earlier

[1:04:37] um like the museum solid waste. There's

[1:04:41] a few others. SSD wreck SSD, I'm sorry.

[1:04:44] >> I'm open to discuss if we want to.

[1:04:47] >> Another another option I was thinking is perhaps another hour workshop

[1:04:51] sometime next week. Um I know that's

[1:04:54] it's it's soon, but I would certain I

[1:04:56] think I think these are important issues

[1:04:57] and and

[1:04:59] >> thumbs up for me. happy to go that way

[1:05:02] than making quick decisions right now.

[1:05:08] » Sorry, Gabe.

[1:05:08] >> Would that work for you?

[1:05:10] >> Yeah, that works for me. Um, you know, I think

[1:05:17] um so I created this sheet real quick

[1:05:19] that summarizes these um these budget

[1:05:22] allocation reductions that were made to

[1:05:23] outside entities just to speak to what

[1:05:25] was referenced before. Um, but you know,

[1:05:27] I just I just want to remind the

[1:05:28] commission that we um we started the

[1:05:31] year with a budget uh a budgeted draw

[1:05:35] from the fund balance of 345,000.

[1:05:37] I feel like this amendment firms up a

[1:05:39] lot of the expenses. Um, you know, and

[1:05:42] largely the revenue projections are are

[1:05:44] our best guess and I I think that

[1:05:46] they're, you know, pretty solid, but you

[1:05:48] know, currently we still have a draw

[1:05:49] from the fund balance to balance the

[1:05:51] budget. So, I guess I would just say as

[1:05:53] far as f you know, decision- making as

[1:05:55] we go going forward with the current

[1:05:57] position that we're at, I I you know, it

[1:06:00] wouldn't my office I guess I'll just go

[1:06:02] out and say that my office wouldn't

[1:06:04] recommend adding any additional general

[1:06:06] fund expenses to this budget. Um, you

[1:06:08] know, certainly you you might you know,

[1:06:10] you might make an argument to to enter

[1:06:12] in adjustments as as um as you see fit.

[1:06:16] Um and certainly revenues after a few

[1:06:18] more months we could continue to see

[1:06:20] strong revenues and and that position

[1:06:22] could start go you know going becoming

[1:06:24] positive as it relates to that

[1:06:26] situation. Um but I guess we just I I

[1:06:30] think any decision right you know

[1:06:31] correct me if I'm wrong but it seems

[1:06:33] like most decisions

[1:06:35] you in a vacuum you know would involve

[1:06:38] adding general fund expenses when when

[1:06:40] our budget position is still in the red.

[1:06:42] So I just wanted to kind of point that

[1:06:44] out. Not saying they can't be made, but

[1:06:46] yeah,

[1:06:47] >> my suggestion would be to the two

[1:06:50] entities, and I'm just throwing that out

[1:06:51] there. We can push this off to the third

[1:06:54] quarter. I do believe that they've

[1:06:55] received larger than 50% talking about

[1:06:59] the museum and solid waste.

[1:07:01] >> You there's also wreck SSD. I'm sorry.

[1:07:05] Yeah, there's there's a list. There's I

[1:07:07] think 5%

[1:07:08] >> 75%.

[1:07:10] >> Yeah. So I I would say that we postpone

[1:07:13] that decision of adding that money at

[1:07:15] this point based off of what the clerk

[1:07:17] auditor is suggesting. Mayor Trish, go

[1:07:19] ahead.

[1:07:20] >> Do these entities know that they won't

[1:07:23] if if [clears throat] they're not

[1:07:25] getting their full aotment, have they

[1:07:27] been notified of that? So if they don't

[1:07:29] get their Q4 aotment, do they know that

[1:07:32] that's going to be the case?

[1:07:34] >> Most of their liaison are in the room

[1:07:36] with us, so they should

[1:07:37] >> I'm just I'm just making sure.

[1:07:40] Well, I mean, if we'd like to have the

[1:07:42] clerk auditor or something, then let's

[1:07:45] >> staff here can more than let them know,

[1:07:47] but I I know the museum's present. I

[1:07:50] know Mary's with SSD. Um,

[1:07:52] >> I'm Rick.

[1:07:53] >> Rick. [clears throat]

[1:07:55] >> So,

[1:07:56] >> yes. Go ahead, Mary.

[1:07:59] I just want to So what you're suggesting

[1:08:02] is that

[1:08:04] we uh hold off on deciding whether or

[1:08:07] not we go to the 75%.

[1:08:10] >> We are at 75.

[1:08:13] >> So go to the 100%.

[1:08:15] >> Go to the 100% and look at our

[1:08:17] >> 100%

[1:08:19] uh after we see revenues from the TRT

[1:08:23] and

[1:08:25] the end of our third quarter. What's

[1:08:27] that?

[1:08:28] That's at the end of September.

[1:08:32] >> Yes. Commissioner Martinez,

[1:08:33] >> can I just make a suggestion that we uh uh just hold off on all the

[1:08:39] decision- making just for a second.

[1:08:40] Let's set up a budget uh workshop

[1:08:42] sometime in the next week because it

[1:08:44] [laughter] it appears that we have some deeper conversations that we need

[1:08:48] to have and let's just make sure that we

[1:08:49] have time for that.

[1:08:50] >> I would agree. I agree, Brad.

[1:08:53] >> Do we want to look at schedules now?

[1:08:55] Sure.

[1:08:56] >> Sure.

[1:08:59] I'm even be by the end of this week. You

[1:09:01] know,

[1:09:03] >> is it I'm gone this week, but is a

[1:09:05] Tuesday,

[1:09:07] >> Monday, Tuesday is always good for me?

[1:09:10] >> Sure. Can I ask just a bald question?

[1:09:13] >> Sure. It's it's my understanding that

[1:09:15] the payments that they've received, they

[1:09:16] received full payments for quarter 1,

[1:09:18] quarter two, quarter three. When is the

[1:09:20] normal date that they would receive the

[1:09:22] quarter four payment?

[1:09:24] I'm just getting quarter three payments

[1:09:26] now.

[1:09:28] Um, so that would put us, you know, like

[1:09:31] it would be September, but certainly,

[1:09:33] yeah, at that's when those invoices

[1:09:35] would start rolling in. It was easy to

[1:09:37] hold them and not pay them obviously in

[1:09:39] lie of

[1:09:40] >> pending decisions.

[1:09:41] >> I've got time Thursday or Friday of this

[1:09:43] week. Just as a shortcut, I already

[1:09:45] relayed to rec SSD that August was the

[1:09:48] expected uh expected uh timeline on that

[1:09:52] just to prior comparatively speaking to

[1:09:54] prior year.

[1:09:56] >> I just can I suggest two dates with

[1:09:58] Monday a Monday or a Tuesday?

[1:10:01] >> Monday or Tuesday?

[1:10:05] » Monday's good for me.

[1:10:08] >> I'm good Monday also. Uh, anytime after

[1:10:12] 10.

[1:10:14] >> Chair

[1:10:17] Melody, what's your Monday look like?

[1:10:20] >> I don't know. You guys need to use your

[1:10:21] microphone so I can hear you though

[1:10:23] because I can't hear most of you.

[1:10:26] >> Sorry, Melody. Uh, we're looking at uh

[1:10:30] setting up a budget workshop next week

[1:10:32] after and the dates proposed are either

[1:10:34] Monday or Tuesday and it looks like most

[1:10:37] of us can attend on Monday if that works

[1:10:39] for you.

[1:10:40] What [clears throat] time are we talking

[1:10:41] about?

[1:10:43] >> I can do Monday after 2 o'clock.

[1:10:49] » I think that works for most of us. Does

[1:10:51] that anybody have a problem with that

[1:10:53] time?

[1:10:53] >> Helps me.

[1:10:54] >> Does that work for you, Gabe?

[1:10:56] >> I'm going to be traveling, but I can

[1:10:59] definitely call in.

[1:11:00] >> Okay, I think so.

[1:11:03] >> We want to set Monday at 2 o'clock.

[1:11:06] >> Okay.

[1:11:14] All right, you guys.

[1:11:17] >> Thank you.

[1:11:17] >> So, and and the goal in that workshop

[1:11:20] will be to

[1:11:23] uh look closer at each I'm sorry, Melody

[1:11:26] here, I'm leaning back. I'm sure you

[1:11:28] couldn't hear me. Uh so the goal for

[1:11:32] that uh workshop would be to go through

[1:11:35] each of the requested

[1:11:38] uh

[1:11:40] classifications and added uh positions

[1:11:44] and determine whether or not that is

[1:11:47] something we feel we can afford and to

[1:11:49] look at colas. Is that what our goal is

[1:11:52] going to be? What's the goal? I want to

[1:11:54] know what the goal is.

[1:11:55] >> Dr. Martinez,

[1:11:56] >> I think that uh Commissioner Man, our

[1:11:58] goal is to go through these and make

[1:12:01] sure that we provide uh uh the clinical

[1:12:03] auditor with the clarification so that

[1:12:05] he can present us uh um a budget for the

[1:12:08] public hearing um that following

[1:12:10] meeting.

[1:12:11] >> So, we'll be looking at So, we'll be

[1:12:13] looking at the positions and we'll be

[1:12:16] talking and the contributions

[1:12:20] look at the three convents up thumbs

[1:12:22] down and go from there.

[1:12:24] >> Sounds great. Good.

[1:12:26] >> All right, we're all good. Okay, once

[1:12:28] again, I will close this meeting at 511

[1:12:31] the workshop and we will be back here in

[1:12:33] five minutes to proceed with the regular

[1:12:35] meeting.

[1:12:38] >> Thank you for the break.

[1:18:53] Okay, with that I will start the regular

[1:18:55] commission meeting tonight at 517. Those

[1:18:58] present are the same that were here for

[1:19:00] the workshop minus the clerk auditor it

[1:19:02] looks like. And so we will start off

[1:19:05] with the pledge of allegiance.

[1:19:10] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:19:12] United States of Americans

[1:19:17] one nation under God indivisible with

[1:19:20] liberty and justice for all.

[1:19:29] » We will start off with our public

[1:19:31] comment period and I will ask for folks

[1:19:36] to come up. Please introduce yourself

[1:19:39] and we have a timer that will be set.

[1:19:42] you'll be able to see when it starts

[1:19:43] flashing. You'll know that your time is

[1:19:45] getting close up and then I think it

[1:19:47] goes red when it's final. And please, as

[1:19:50] always, let's um keep a level of decorum

[1:19:53] as we proceed with these meetings.

[1:19:56] And so, let's begin. Who would like to

[1:19:58] come up first?

[1:20:01] Yes, please.

[1:20:07] Bubble Brian Cash Valley. It'll be short

[1:20:09] and sweet, of course. Uh I just want to

[1:20:12] be sure that uh it's understood that the

[1:20:14] water and preservation element may

[1:20:17] include a variety of topics that concern

[1:20:20] water besides the topic of water demand.

[1:20:24] I will provide a few quotes from the

[1:20:26] state code that required counties to add

[1:20:30] this element to their general plans.

[1:20:32] That state code is 17-40

[1:20:35] uh 79-43.

[1:20:37] And I'm going to read from section

[1:20:39] three.

[1:20:41] The proposed general plan may include,

[1:20:44] this is out of the plan that did the

[1:20:46] element, uh, an environmental element

[1:20:48] that addresses to the extent not covered

[1:20:51] by the county's resource management

[1:20:53] plan, the protection and conservation.

[1:20:57] Uh, and then it lists a lot of things

[1:21:00] like air, forest, but I'm interested in

[1:21:03] groundwater

[1:21:04] and other waters. It goes on to ne

[1:21:09] another section but still section three

[1:21:11] under I I the regulations of the land

[1:21:15] use on hillsides streams channels and

[1:21:19] environmentally sensitive areas. Another

[1:21:22] place that you can actually apply this

[1:21:25] in D the preservation and enhancement of

[1:21:28] watersheds and wetlands. I would say it allows you to protect our two soul

[1:21:35] source aquifers and any other element

[1:21:38] that the county considers appropriate.

[1:21:41] So whatever you decide to do with regard

[1:21:44] to changes in the proposed water use and

[1:21:47] preservation element, it is likely to be

[1:21:50] explicitly include included in the

[1:21:53] proposed general ma uh general plan may

[1:21:56] include according to the state code

[1:22:00] 17-79-43.

[1:22:03] I want to thank you for allowing us to

[1:22:04] speak. Thank you.

[1:22:08] Next.

[1:22:10] Yes. Um, ma'am, then we'll go with you,

[1:22:12] Mr. Gross.

[1:22:15] [clears throat]

[1:22:22] » Good evening. I'm Dale Weiss with the

[1:22:24] Grand Water and Sewer Service Agency.

[1:22:27] I'm speaking on behalf of the Grand

[1:22:30] Water and Sewer Sandwater and Sewer

[1:22:33] Service Agency today. Uh recent public

[1:22:37] comments have raised questions about

[1:22:39] WISA's expertise, governance, and the

[1:22:41] decisions we make regarding our

[1:22:43] community's water resources. Rather than

[1:22:46] respond to individual criticisms, I

[1:22:48] would like to provide some important

[1:22:50] context. Grand Water and Sewer Service

[1:22:53] Agency was created by Grant County to

[1:22:55] serve as a steward of our local water

[1:22:58] resources. Our board is not

[1:23:00] self-appointed. It is made up of

[1:23:02] representatives from three public

[1:23:04] entities whose members are elected

[1:23:06] appointed by the grand county commission

[1:23:09] appointed by the city of Moab or

[1:23:11] appointed by the governor of Utah

[1:23:13] through established public processes.

[1:23:15] This structure was intentionally

[1:23:17] designed to bring together the region's

[1:23:19] water expertise under one governing

[1:23:22] body.

[1:23:24] Collectively, our board and staff

[1:23:26] represent decades of experience in water

[1:23:28] rights, engineering, utility operations,

[1:23:32] infrastructure planning, conservation,

[1:23:35] public administration, and regulatory

[1:23:37] compliance. More importantly, Gwissa

[1:23:40] itself has more than a century of

[1:23:42] accumulated operational experience and

[1:23:45] water management. Every decision we make

[1:23:48] is governed is guided by public

[1:23:50] stewardship, regulatory compliance, and

[1:23:53] the long-term sustainability of our

[1:23:56] water supplies. Our policies are based

[1:23:59] on facts, operational data, engineering

[1:24:02] analysis, and the requirements

[1:24:04] established by our board, the state of

[1:24:06] Utah, and federal regulatory agencies.

[1:24:10] We continuously monitor our groundwater

[1:24:12] wells, aquifers, storage, res

[1:24:14] reservoirs, and water demand. We review

[1:24:17] scientific research and planning

[1:24:19] documents, but we also rely on decades

[1:24:21] of local data and operational

[1:24:24] experience. That information guides our

[1:24:27] actions. When conditions require it, we

[1:24:29] act. This year, we implemented water

[1:24:32] restrictions because of drought

[1:24:33] conditions for surface water. We have

[1:24:35] adopted tier tiered water rates to

[1:24:38] encourage conservation. At the same

[1:24:40] time, we continue evaluating long-term

[1:24:42] projects that will strengthen our

[1:24:45] region's water future, including

[1:24:47] responsible development of our existing

[1:24:50] unutilized water rights. Healthy public

[1:24:54] discussion is important and differing

[1:24:57] opinions are a valuable good part of

[1:24:59] good government. But water policy should

[1:25:02] be grounded in sound science, reliable

[1:25:05] data, and the experience of those who

[1:25:07] have been entrusted by the public to

[1:25:09] manage these critical resources. WISA

[1:25:12] remains committed to re working

[1:25:14] collaboratively with Grant County, the

[1:25:17] city of Moab, our partner agencies, and

[1:25:19] the public to ensure a reliable and

[1:25:22] sustainable water future for generations

[1:25:24] to come. Thank you.

[1:25:27] Uh, I'm going to hand a letter to

[1:25:30] someone uh that is written by Grand

[1:25:32] Water and Sewer Administrator

[1:25:34] >> and I have Ben Mistleman Ben Messleman

[1:25:36] here uh if you have any questions for us

[1:25:39] regarding water.

[1:25:41] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[1:25:49] » Yes, Mr. Gross.

[1:25:56] » Thank you. My name is Pete Gross. Been a

[1:25:59] resident of Moab for a little over a

[1:26:01] third of a century. Um I was about 3:30

[1:26:04] on the clock. Thought, "Oh, I better

[1:26:06] hurry and get here because citizens be

[1:26:08] here. It starts at 4:00." And it was

[1:26:10] only a friend of mine happened to say,

[1:26:12] "Oh, it's at 5:00 now." And that's an

[1:26:14] approximate time. Um,

[1:26:17] some of us are starting to wonder if

[1:26:18] this is really citizens to be ignored.

[1:26:21] Um, you know, it seems like I've been

[1:26:24] involved in, you know, just political

[1:26:26] feedback for about a half century and

[1:26:28] most elected officials that I've worked

[1:26:30] with welcome feedback from their

[1:26:31] constituents. They're happy to hear from

[1:26:33] them. So, I'm a little bit disappointed

[1:26:36] to find that, you know, it seems like

[1:26:37] we're making it harder for citizens to

[1:26:39] be heard.

[1:26:41] Okay.

[1:26:42] >> [clears throat]

[1:26:42] >> On another um topic, the water element

[1:26:46] um climate change needs to be taken into

[1:26:48] account. As we know, if you look at the

[1:26:50] climate models, Colorado plateau is is a

[1:26:54] high impact area. We have an uncertain

[1:26:57] water supply and so we should be

[1:26:59] monitoring that very carefully,

[1:27:00] especially when it comes to

[1:27:02] approving up zones where you increase

[1:27:04] the density because

[1:27:07] we might not have enough water to serve

[1:27:09] the people who already live here.

[1:27:11] Um, another thing regarding high impact

[1:27:13] events when I first moved here 35 years

[1:27:15] ago, I remember Fat [clears throat] Tire

[1:27:17] Festival was a major event brought like

[1:27:20] two to 3,000

[1:27:22] mountain bikers and um other similar

[1:27:25] events, the Canyon Lands Half Marathon

[1:27:27] brings almost 5,000 runners, Moab Trail

[1:27:30] Marathon and others about 2,000 runners.

[1:27:32] Dead Horse Ultra 1500 participants,

[1:27:34] Arches Ultra, etc. Moa run the rocks 5

[1:27:37] to 600 skinny tire festival 5 to 600 the

[1:27:39] grandfather 3 to 500

[1:27:42] a lot of those you scarcely would know

[1:27:44] they're even occurring if you didn't

[1:27:46] happen to be aware of what's going on

[1:27:49] whereas when you have a fraction of that

[1:27:52] number like compared to the half

[1:27:53] marathon of 5,000 runners you have say

[1:27:56] 300 motorized

[1:27:59] recreationists you hear it all over town

[1:28:01] oftentimes so anyway I would just like

[1:28:04] to contrast going also to the the

[1:28:06] Gardener Institute study which you guys

[1:28:09] funded which I thought was probably ill

[1:28:12] advised. Um if at the very least it

[1:28:15] could have expanded

[1:28:17] uh issues to concern itself. If you

[1:28:19] really want to optimize tourism there's

[1:28:21] a branch of applied math called

[1:28:23] operations research deals with

[1:28:24] optimization. And the chem Gardner

[1:28:26] Institute at least the last time I

[1:28:28] looked even had a person who's an expert in operations research on their

[1:28:32] staff. I would be surprised if they

[1:28:34] hadn't advised you should at least

[1:28:35] consider some other options and I think

[1:28:37] you might find that you know you were a

[1:28:40] little bit remiss in having such a

[1:28:41] narrow focus. Thank you for your time.

[1:28:46] » Anyone else?

[1:28:48] Yes, please. Matt

[1:28:55] O'Brien from [clears throat] Passouth.

[1:28:58] Almost every comment submitted in person

[1:29:01] or digitally to the planning commission

[1:29:04] during the months the commission toggled

[1:29:06] between a dozen page draft, an 81page

[1:29:09] draft, a 31page draft.

[1:29:13] Every comment urged the commission to

[1:29:15] consider the county's current and future

[1:29:17] supply of water under climate change

[1:29:21] and/or the need to change what is

[1:29:23] conditionally allowed in the watersheds

[1:29:25] of our only two drinking water sources.

[1:29:29] A letter came from the Colorado

[1:29:31] Rivereper,

[1:29:33] and I'd love to see a debate between him

[1:29:35] and any of you who really think we're

[1:29:38] going to get water from uh for

[1:29:40] irrigation from the Colorado River.

[1:29:44] Another letter came with extensive

[1:29:46] science references linked for

[1:29:47] downloading.

[1:29:49] The planning commission made no response

[1:29:51] to any of these comments. The word

[1:29:54] climate appears three times in the draft

[1:29:57] water use element.

[1:29:59] All three times it is hyphenated for

[1:30:02] climate adapted plants or climate

[1:30:05] adapted landscaping.

[1:30:08] Climate adapted. What climate? Is there

[1:30:12] really a climate that needs to be

[1:30:14] adapted to?

[1:30:16] You on the county commission have

[1:30:18] similarly received extensive science

[1:30:21] information and links to actual

[1:30:23] documents. You have received comments

[1:30:26] from county residents. the constituents

[1:30:29] you supposedly serve, urging

[1:30:31] consideration of the impacts of climate

[1:30:34] change on our drinking water

[1:30:37] aquifers, our irrigation water aquifer

[1:30:40] and on the Colorado River. Fortunately,

[1:30:43] Commissioner McCandless has assured

[1:30:46] Commissioner Hedin that each of the four

[1:30:48] proposed general plan amendments which

[1:30:51] you have been provided last week by

[1:30:53] Trish

[1:30:55] which are based on consideration of

[1:30:57] climate will be discussed and voted

[1:30:59] [clears throat] upon by the commission

[1:31:01] tonight.

[1:31:03] Any or all of the four amendments can be

[1:31:05] added to the element tonight. They are

[1:31:08] allowed under the state law mandating

[1:31:10] the element. Their addition would not

[1:31:13] further delay passage of the element

[1:31:16] which meets the state mandate for

[1:31:18] consideration of per capita water use

[1:31:21] reduction.

[1:31:23] They none of the amendments require

[1:31:25] going further over budget.

[1:31:29] I hope the commission doesn't by choose

[1:31:32] by 4 to three to dismiss all the county

[1:31:35] residents calls for consideration of

[1:31:38] climate science and the realities of the

[1:31:41] wet water. Thank you.

[1:31:43] >> Thank you.

[1:31:48] I don't see anybody online. Quinn.

[1:31:51] All right. Anybody else? Yes, sir. Mr.

[1:31:54] Johnson,

[1:31:56] [clears throat] then I'll get to you,

[1:31:57] ma'am. Next.

[1:32:01] » [clears throat]

[1:32:06] » Every time I come here, Dwight Johnston,

[1:32:09] every time I come here, people are

[1:32:11] complaining and complaining about the

[1:32:12] job you're doing. So, I'd like to

[1:32:15] congratulate you. I think you guys have

[1:32:17] made an awfully wonderful impact on

[1:32:19] Moab, and I'm grateful for it. So, I

[1:32:22] just heard today TRCN comes up.

[1:32:26] That's a real good sign. And the money's

[1:32:27] being spent, right, for a change. But

[1:32:32] it's it's really rewarding to see the

[1:32:35] increase in tourism because every

[1:32:37] business up and down this this town, you

[1:32:39] know, relies on it. We So, we're just

[1:32:43] grateful. I also think you've done a

[1:32:45] great job with handling the impact at

[1:32:47] Arches,

[1:32:49] solving that problem without chasing

[1:32:51] people away. I think that's a wonderful

[1:32:52] move.

[1:32:55] And I also think that you solve the

[1:32:57] low-income housing crisis. The stuff

[1:33:00] that's under construction right now when

[1:33:01] it's finished, I think we'll be able to

[1:33:04] quit complaining about the lack of

[1:33:05] low-income housing. There's going to be

[1:33:07] plenty of it. So, especially for you

[1:33:10] four members, I want to thank you,

[1:33:13] congratulate you for a job well done,

[1:33:15] and encourage you. Please just keep up

[1:33:16] the good work.

[1:33:19] >> Thank you, sir. M next.

[1:33:30] » My name is Stephen Starks. I'm the Grand

[1:33:31] County attorney and this is Kylie

[1:33:33] Hosteder. She's gonna give a statement.

[1:33:35] I'm going to pass something out while

[1:33:36] she's doing that.

[1:33:37] >> Thank you, Stephen.

[1:33:39] Good evening.

[1:33:41] Thank you so much for allowing me this

[1:33:44] opportunity to present

[1:33:46] and consider this request.

[1:33:50] Again, my name is Kylie Hosteder and I

[1:33:53] serve as the victim advocate with the

[1:33:55] Grand County Attorney's Office.

[1:33:58] Today, I am asking for your support in

[1:34:00] approving a full-time budget for this

[1:34:03] position.

[1:34:04] As domestic violence cases continue to

[1:34:07] require a coordinated victim-entered

[1:34:10] response, this investment would allow us

[1:34:13] to meet that need with greater

[1:34:15] consistency, collaboration, and care.

[1:34:19] This request is about more than

[1:34:21] increasing hours. It is about increasing

[1:34:25] our ability to respond to some of the

[1:34:27] most vulnerable members of our community

[1:34:31] during the most difficult moments of

[1:34:32] their lives.

[1:34:35] As a part-time advocate, my work is

[1:34:37] largely limited to cases that have

[1:34:39] already reached the county attorney's

[1:34:42] office. However, many victims need

[1:34:45] support long before a case is

[1:34:47] prosecuted.

[1:34:49] With a full-time position, I would be

[1:34:51] able to respond alongside the sheriff's

[1:34:54] office during acute domestic violence

[1:34:56] incidents, helping reduce immediate

[1:34:59] trauma, provide safety planning, and

[1:35:03] connect victims with critical resources

[1:35:05] when they need them the most.

[1:35:08] I would also be able to support victims

[1:35:10] whose cases never make it to

[1:35:12] prosecution. Often law enforcement

[1:35:15] responds to reports of abuse, but there

[1:35:18] isn't enough evidence to make an arrest.

[1:35:21] Those cases may remain under

[1:35:23] investigation while in evidence is

[1:35:25] gathered. During that time, victims are

[1:35:28] often left to navigate fear,

[1:35:31] uncertainty, and isolation on their own.

[1:35:34] It may be a mother trying to safely

[1:35:38] leave her abuser with her children

[1:35:41] or a man struggling to make someone

[1:35:44] believe that he is being abused,

[1:35:46] manipulated, and made afraid to leave.

[1:35:50] Regardless of where the a case ends up,

[1:35:53] every victim deserves support, advocacy,

[1:35:56] and connection.

[1:35:59] Expanding this position to full-time

[1:36:01] would allow me to bridge the gap between

[1:36:04] law enforcement's initial response and

[1:36:06] the legal process while strengthening

[1:36:09] collabor collaboration between the

[1:36:12] county attorney's office, the sheriff's

[1:36:15] office, law enforcement, health care

[1:36:17] providers, local nonprofits, and other

[1:36:20] community partners.

[1:36:23] With the time to build and maintain

[1:36:25] those partnerships, we can create a

[1:36:27] smoother, more coordinated, and more

[1:36:29] efficient response system. One that

[1:36:32] connects victims to the right support at

[1:36:35] the right time. Instead of asking them

[1:36:38] to navigate a complex network of

[1:36:40] services on their own,

[1:36:42] the value of this position isn't

[1:36:44] measured only by the thesis we

[1:36:46] prosecute. It's measured by the people

[1:36:48] we help find safety, stability, and hope

[1:36:52] before they ever walk into a courtroom.

[1:36:56] Thank you for your consideration and for

[1:36:58] your continued commitment to the safety

[1:37:00] and well-being of the people of Grand

[1:37:03] County.

[1:37:04] >> Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:37:06] >> Before you commissioners, you have

[1:37:07] packets. These are the victim packets

[1:37:08] that are received. You can look through

[1:37:10] them tonight's evening or at tonight's

[1:37:12] meeting and then I'll collect them at

[1:37:13] the end. Thank you.

[1:37:15] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:37:18] >> I'd like to leave one here for Melody

[1:37:20] when she returns if that's possible.

[1:37:22] [laughter]

[1:37:22] >> Trish.

[1:37:24] >> All right. Who would like to come up

[1:37:26] next?

[1:37:31] » All right. Please do. Mr. Clyde.

[1:37:33] [clears throat]

[1:37:37] My name is Kevin Clyde. I would like to

[1:37:40] uh

[1:37:42] express my appreciation for

[1:37:45] the county commission's uh

[1:37:50] the importance they place upon the

[1:37:52] institutions that have been established

[1:37:54] here in Grand County. Particularly, I'm

[1:37:57] talking about the water

[1:37:59] stewards, which would be the Grand Water

[1:38:03] and Sewer Social Sewer Agency, Grand

[1:38:07] County Water Conservation District. I've

[1:38:10] been listening to planning commission

[1:38:12] meetings. I've also

[1:38:15] uh

[1:38:16] been in uh the water district meetings

[1:38:19] when these topics that have been

[1:38:21] mentioned tonight have been discussed. I

[1:38:24] think they've been discussed broadly and

[1:38:27] widely and thoroughly.

[1:38:29] Uh I recognize that um

[1:38:34] some of the u ideas that uh members of

[1:38:39] the public want to have more uh emphasis

[1:38:42] placed on them

[1:38:44] haven't been really uh considered

[1:38:48] greatly because institutions of this

[1:38:51] county have been thinking about those

[1:38:54] things and placing them in their in

[1:38:56] their versions of Water L and in the

[1:38:59] planning documents that are regularly

[1:39:02] produced. But anyway, I want to uh thank

[1:39:05] you for doing that. I think it's a very

[1:39:06] important u part of what the county

[1:39:09] commission does and encourage you to uh

[1:39:14] use that consideration in your decisions

[1:39:16] tonight. Thank you.

[1:39:18] >> Thank you. And when I'm told that by

[1:39:21] Dana that there is somebody online,

[1:39:24] >> it was agent.

[1:39:26] >> Okay.

[1:39:28] All right. Yes, Susie, please come up.

[1:39:38] » Hello, I'm Susie Johnston and I just

[1:39:40] wanted to dive a little bit deeper in

[1:39:42] one of the things that you guys have

[1:39:43] done that's huge and you probably don't

[1:39:45] even think about it anymore, but when we

[1:39:47] moved back here, everybody was clamoring

[1:39:50] for housing. There were employees living

[1:39:52] in their cars in vans in tents. They I

[1:39:56] mean you can imagine how fun that would

[1:39:58] be in the heat of the summer with no

[1:39:59] water, no toilets, and no bath. The no

[1:40:03] bath park was one that got me. But

[1:40:05] anyway, um now there's down I guess it's

[1:40:08] not down from us. It's north of us

[1:40:10] across from you the university. There's

[1:40:13] new housing going in. I just want to pat

[1:40:15] on the back. I mean that happened fast

[1:40:17] and there was a long time here we were

[1:40:19] clamoring for housing and none happened.

[1:40:21] None. And so I thank you guys for that.

[1:40:24] And I know that these employees, the

[1:40:26] kids that have a nice place to live now,

[1:40:28] a decent place to live, too. So, keep up

[1:40:31] the good work.

[1:40:33] >> Thank you.

[1:40:38] » All right. Do we have anybody else? Yes,

[1:40:40] sir.

[1:40:47] » I'm Shane Firestack, Grand County. I'd

[1:40:49] like to thank the members of the

[1:40:51] commission for the hard work that you

[1:40:53] do. It's a often a uh difficult scenario

[1:40:57] when uh you're continuously met with

[1:41:00] challenges and disagreements and

[1:41:02] [clears throat] would like to thank you

[1:41:03] for the time that you spend doing this,

[1:41:06] the amount of time that you've taken

[1:41:07] away from your families and your jobs

[1:41:09] and everything else. It's a it's a very

[1:41:11] difficult scenario and uh I'd just like

[1:41:14] to thank you for everything you do.

[1:41:17] >> Thank you.

[1:41:23] All right. Anyone else?

[1:41:27] And still nobody online. Quinn,

[1:41:30] >> we have some people online, but they're

[1:41:31] here for a delayed item.

[1:41:33] >> Okay. Well, with that, we will move on

[1:41:37] to our next item. And we have a public

[1:41:40] hearing at 6, but we're going to skip

[1:41:42] that until 6 o'clock arrives.

[1:41:46] And

[1:41:49] That will bring us our general business

[1:41:51] action items, discussions and

[1:41:53] considerations approval. And we will

[1:41:55] start with mission member disclosures

[1:41:58] and further consider future

[1:42:01] considerations.

[1:42:02] >> Commission member disclosure works for

[1:42:04] the sheriff's department.

[1:42:06] >> All right. Anyone else? Yes,

[1:42:08] Commissioner Houdin.

[1:42:09] >> Um future considerations. I want to

[1:42:11] continue to

[1:42:13] um inspire an evaluation of county admin

[1:42:17] and my understanding is that would be

[1:42:19] led by Melody, Jacques and Mike. And

[1:42:22] then secondly, I do want us to start

[1:42:26] looking closely at grandma policies and

[1:42:29] procedures. I think that the clerk

[1:42:31] auditor is doing a really good job in

[1:42:33] trying to get those and process them,

[1:42:35] but [clears throat] falling apart at a

[1:42:38] certain point. And so I think it is

[1:42:40] something that we need to visit as as a

[1:42:42] county. How do we get those grandma

[1:42:44] requests fulfilled um effectively or or

[1:42:48] efficiently and effectively? I know that

[1:42:51] I have one um constituent that's been

[1:42:54] reaching out for I don't know six months

[1:42:57] maybe still doesn't have her grandma

[1:42:59] request. Um so I think that you know as

[1:43:02] a county it's something that we need to

[1:43:04] look at.

[1:43:06] >> All right. Anyone else?

[1:43:10] Okay, we will move on to the approval of

[1:43:14] the consent agenda and the clerk auditor

[1:43:16] let me know that there were no minutes

[1:43:18] loaded. So we will skip over that one

[1:43:21] and move on to the ratification of

[1:43:23] payment of bills. The total bills were

[1:43:26] 1,884,65.36

[1:43:32] with a total payroll of $572,8764

[1:43:41] with a grand total bills and payroll of

[1:43:44] $2,457,482.

[1:43:50] And moving on, we will see ratification

[1:43:54] of match letter for the FEMA FMA flood

[1:43:57] mitigation assistance 10% county match

[1:44:00] letter for grant application.

[1:44:03] D ratification of the chair signature on

[1:44:06] the sidewalk plans for the east holio

[1:44:08] plane project. E ratification of Utah

[1:44:12] wildfire

[1:44:13] resourceou between Utah Division of

[1:44:16] Forestry Fire and State Lands and Grand

[1:44:19] County Emergency Management.

[1:44:22] F. Ratification of Google Advertiser

[1:44:25] verification for Discover Moab.

[1:44:28] G. Letter of support to BLM for Colorado

[1:44:31] River Trail. National Recreation Trail

[1:44:34] designation.

[1:44:36] H. Letter supporting NIKA's request for

[1:44:40] additional parking at Brands Trail to

[1:44:42] BLM.

[1:44:44] I grant award contract motorized trail

[1:44:47] maintenance initiative.

[1:44:49] J. Grant award contract non-motorized

[1:44:52] trail optimization for class one EMTB.

[1:44:58] Hey, contract amendment for master

[1:45:00] services agreement between Khagen

[1:45:03] Madden, which is formerly Madden Media

[1:45:07] and Grand County Moab Office of Tourism.

[1:45:11] And L, Children's Justice Center

[1:45:14] contract amendment, renewal,

[1:45:18] M, approval of IPAW and emergency alerts

[1:45:22] addendum to emergency management

[1:45:24] regional mutual aid agreement.

[1:45:27] N USGS salinity study amendment to

[1:45:30] contract.

[1:45:32] Oh, GCSO position backfill requests.

[1:45:37] >> Oh, yes, Commissioner Martinez.

[1:45:39] >> Just real quick, um, question. Should we

[1:45:42] move the GS uh, uh, GCSO position

[1:45:45] backfill off of the consent agenda as

[1:45:48] it's one of the items that we're going

[1:45:49] to be discussing in the budget, or is it

[1:45:51] best that we allow that to scale?

[1:45:54] >> If I remember correctly, that's

[1:45:57] people that left the county that were

[1:45:58] just replacing them.

[1:46:00] >> Okay. I just I just wanted to make sure

[1:46:02] that's what I reminded.

[1:46:04] >> Okay. Great. Thank you for that

[1:46:05] question.

[1:46:07] >> They're just replacing hire people that

[1:46:09] have already quit that are quitting and

[1:46:11] that we need to replace.

[1:46:14] >> Okay. Yes. Commissioner Mccertie still

[1:46:16] moved.

[1:46:17] >> Second. Okay. We have a motion by

[1:46:20] Commissioner Mccertie, second by

[1:46:21] Commissioner Adler. All in favor?

[1:46:24] I

[1:46:25] >> I that passes six

[1:46:29] with one absent commissioner had 60 I

[1:46:32] guess. All right, we will move on to

[1:46:35] special events. And I thought I saw Jen

[1:46:38] Beth online.

[1:46:41] Did we lose her? She's there.

[1:46:43] >> I'm here. Can you hear me?

[1:46:46] >> Yeah, there you are now. Thank you.

[1:46:49] >> Hello. How are How is everybody today?

[1:46:52] >> Great. Thank you for being with us even

[1:46:54] though you're gone.

[1:46:56] >> Yes. Can Can you hear me? Okay.

[1:46:59] >> Yes.

[1:47:00] >> Okay. So, I'm Jenny Beth Jones. I am the

[1:47:04] special events

[1:47:06] um person here at the county. Uh we do

[1:47:10] have four events that are looking to be

[1:47:13] approved. Um the first one is taking

[1:47:17] place in November, so a winter event.

[1:47:20] Um, it is a brand new motorized event.

[1:47:25] Um, it's an off-road rally that will

[1:47:27] invite all motori oh, excuse me,

[1:47:30] motorized vehicle type owners and

[1:47:32] operate as a nonprofit with net proceeds

[1:47:35] being donated to 501c3 organ

[1:47:38] organizations

[1:47:40] to promote responsible use of our public

[1:47:43] lands. Um, it is put on by the Utah

[1:47:47] Public Lands Alliance. It is November

[1:47:49] 12th through the 14th and they will be

[1:47:52] utilizing OTAA.

[1:47:54] Uh the next three events are all uh

[1:47:57] recurring events and they're all from

[1:47:59] the same sponsor. Uh we have Moab Run

[1:48:02] the Rocks which is March 5th through the

[1:48:05] 7th of 2027. We're looking at about 800

[1:48:09] participants

[1:48:11] and it's recurring for the past 5 years.

[1:48:15] >> [snorts]

[1:48:15] >> Um, it's a three-day running event

[1:48:18] taking place on several trails. This

[1:48:20] event brings an average of 600 people

[1:48:22] into town along with their friends and

[1:48:24] families. In April of 27, we have the

[1:48:28] Desert Gravel event, also sponsored by

[1:48:31] Trans Rockies. It is a cycling event.

[1:48:34] Uh, we're looking at about 1,500

[1:48:36] participants. It is also recurring for

[1:48:39] the last five years. and it is a gravel

[1:48:42] bike race that begins and ends in Fruda.

[1:48:45] However, it does um cross over into the

[1:48:48] border of Grand County partly. And then

[1:48:53] in May, we have another cycling event

[1:48:56] for Trans Rockies. Uh we're looking at

[1:48:59] about 800 participants. This one has

[1:49:02] been recurring for 13 years. And it is a

[1:49:05] weekend of biking featuring a 3-day

[1:49:08] mountain biking event, a single day road

[1:49:10] event, and a single day gravel event.

[1:49:14] And that is what I've got for you today.

[1:49:18] >> All right. Thank you, Jenn. Um,

[1:49:20] Commissioner,

[1:49:23] >> um,

[1:49:25] a motion and a question for Jacques,

[1:49:27] actually. Uh,

[1:49:30] >> I'd like to make the motion. And I move

[1:49:31] to approve the high impact event

[1:49:33] submissions as presented. And if there's

[1:49:36] a second for that, but I also have a

[1:49:38] comment for

[1:49:39] >> Okay. Motion by Commissioner McCertie,

[1:49:41] second by

[1:49:42] >> Martinez.

[1:49:45] >> Um, and then the question being,

[1:49:47] >> have you participated in the gravel one?

[1:49:49] >> Yes. And all actually all of those

[1:49:51] events.

[1:49:52] >> Okay.

[1:49:52] >> Yeah. We I didn't personally participate

[1:49:54] in the gravel, but our these events hire

[1:49:57] the uh mega team.

[1:49:59] >> Yeah. and contribute significantly to

[1:50:01] our to our fundraising efforts. They

[1:50:03] give our kids an opportunity to

[1:50:04] volunteer and they pay us well for them

[1:50:06] to to help facilitate like crowd control

[1:50:09] and directions for the riders and such.

[1:50:12] Um and I've written in the other events.

[1:50:15] >> Okay.

[1:50:15] >> Yeah, it's great to hear local

[1:50:17] participation

[1:50:19] from our bike team. Thank you.

[1:50:21] >> Absolutely. Commissioner Hine Beth, I

[1:50:25] have a question for you. So, my

[1:50:27] understanding of special events and the

[1:50:30] application process is we should have

[1:50:32] seen the ITA

[1:50:34] for this off-road America in January of

[1:50:38] 2026. Is that for for quarter 3 events?

[1:50:42] We're supposed to see them in the first

[1:50:46] meeting in January. Is that correct?

[1:50:50] >> That that is correct. Um, however, I

[1:50:52] didn't receive the ITA in time for that

[1:50:55] one.

[1:50:56] >> That meeting,

[1:50:59] >> was it in the second meeting then? Did I

[1:51:01] miss it? I I I tried to find the ITA and

[1:51:04] I never found it.

[1:51:08] >> Um, I apologize. I don't know when they

[1:51:10] submitted it, but I can get you that

[1:51:12] information when I'm back in the office.

[1:51:14] Um,

[1:51:15] >> I then

[1:51:16] >> I just figured I'd present it to you.

[1:51:19] >> Okay. I am uncomfortable approving this

[1:51:22] because I I think we should have seen it

[1:51:25] at the appropriate time frame. And when

[1:51:28] I went back to that meeting, we approved

[1:51:32] this was January 20th. We approved

[1:51:34] Building Man, Red Rock Rally, Raptor on

[1:51:37] the Rocks, and the Grenadier

[1:51:39] um event. And and I will state that, you

[1:51:44] know, 75% of those events were

[1:51:47] motorized. So, I'll get into that. But

[1:51:49] I'm uncomfortable approving this event

[1:51:51] if we if it is not following our special

[1:51:55] events procedures.

[1:52:00] » Noted. Thank you.

[1:52:02] >> Commissioner McCartney

[1:52:05] >> in the discussion it uh

[1:52:09] I understand why your thoughts there,

[1:52:11] but you have concerns if they come too

[1:52:13] early and you have concerns if they come

[1:52:15] too late. And there's concerns when they

[1:52:18] come on time, but it's specifically to

[1:52:19] motorized events. Every one of those

[1:52:22] questions has been directed at motorized

[1:52:25] events.

[1:52:26] >> Can you give me examples of that, Mike?

[1:52:28] >> Red Rock Rally.

[1:52:30] >> We passed.

[1:52:31] >> They're coming too early. That was your discussion. I mean, I can pull the

[1:52:35] minutes from the meeting.

[1:52:36] >> I didn't do that.

[1:52:37] >> I think your point's made, Mike. Um,

[1:52:40] Commissioner McCandless.

[1:52:42] So, in the special events um ordinance,

[1:52:45] it allows them, I think, 60 days. So,

[1:52:48] that doesn't have to come before us at

[1:52:50] specific times. Um it's just that if

[1:52:53] their application is in within that time

[1:52:55] frame that they can be in there, but

[1:52:57] they can also apply. I believe it's 60

[1:52:59] days. Um I will find it. I'm going to

[1:53:01] look for it. So, they're definitely well

[1:53:04] within their um application and they're

[1:53:07] not breaking any rules by putting it in

[1:53:09] for approval right now.

[1:53:12] Okay.

[1:53:13] >> Yeah, I think you're right. The

[1:53:16] >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to

[1:53:17] cut you off.

[1:53:19] >> Um, the new ordinance doesn't specify

[1:53:22] that it needs to be in like the the

[1:53:26] quarterly anymore. It's just when they

[1:53:28] apply. I think you're right, Mel.

[1:53:33] » Okay. I think Mary had her hand up,

[1:53:35] Brian. And then Jock. I think Mary Beth

[1:53:38] answered my question because I was

[1:53:40] confused about that as well because I

[1:53:43] remember one reason we wanted to do that

[1:53:45] in class was because so often things the

[1:53:49] way things were piling up and all of a

[1:53:50] sudden coming to us at last minute and

[1:53:54] um so so I I was remembering the

[1:53:59] ordinance prior to

[1:54:01] I guess update or change

[1:54:04] uh and

[1:54:07] I I I want to mention I think some of us

[1:54:11] were not opposed to the Red Rock Rally.

[1:54:14] We were concerned about it being on the

[1:54:17] same weekend as the car show.

[1:54:21] >> Hey, Commissioner Martinez.

[1:54:24] [clears throat]

[1:54:24] >> Yeah, thanks. Um just kind of drawing

[1:54:27] this back. I mean, total tax revenue

[1:54:29] collections yearto date were up $8

[1:54:32] million,

[1:54:33] right? That's $1.6 6 million over

[1:54:36] projections, right? Total tax revenue

[1:54:39] came in at 212,000

[1:54:42] over projections for June alone. Right?

[1:54:45] We're up 35% on our collections of TRTS.

[1:54:49] And [clears throat] I really think that

[1:54:50] a good portion of that is because we

[1:54:52] welcomed people back here, everybody

[1:54:54] back here to come here and recreate and

[1:54:56] we're willing to share our home with

[1:54:58] other people and have them come. Um, I'm completely in support of all of

[1:55:02] these events, whether it's a running

[1:55:04] event, a biking event, or an off-road

[1:55:06] event. Um, I think this is this is a

[1:55:09] great a great opportunity to to invite

[1:55:11] more people to our to our place and um

[1:55:14] and and allow our community to keep

[1:55:17] thriving. So,

[1:55:19] >> thank you. Yes, Commissioner Hadler. Uh,

[1:55:21] I'm going to make a substitute motion to

[1:55:23] approve the uh the last three events and

[1:55:28] um talk about the off-road event

[1:55:31] separately and then if I get a second on

[1:55:33] that, I'd like to continue the

[1:55:34] discussion.

[1:55:35] >> Yeah, I'll second that.

[1:55:37] >> Um, I'm Can I call that out?

[1:55:40] >> Yes, please.

[1:55:41] >> Thank you. We've got a substitute motion

[1:55:43] made by Commissioner Hadler and seconded

[1:55:46] by Commissioner Hadin with further

[1:55:48] discussion by Commissioner Hadler.

[1:55:50] >> Thanks.

[1:55:51] Um,

[1:55:53] >> I just wanted to make sure I understand

[1:55:55] the motion is what we're doing is voting

[1:55:59] for those uh now.

[1:56:01] >> Yeah.

[1:56:02] >> So they don't get mixed up with Chris

[1:56:04] and then have a discussion on the uh

[1:56:08] what is it called? What's the name of

[1:56:10] it?

[1:56:10] >> The motorized

[1:56:12] >> the uh off-road American Moab rende.

[1:56:16] >> Yeah. And the reason I want to do that,

[1:56:17] I think the um I think the uh the Trans

[1:56:19] Rockies that puts on the other three

[1:56:21] events has a long established um

[1:56:24] relationship with the county. They've

[1:56:26] done a great job. They've been um uh

[1:56:28] good stewards and this is this is a

[1:56:31] brand new motorized event. Um I'd like

[1:56:35] to consider it separately. I've

[1:56:36] personally had a few bad experiences

[1:56:38] with motorized events this year and um I

[1:56:43] I'm happy to discuss that further, but I

[1:56:45] would uh before that I'd love to call

[1:56:48] for a vote of my motion.

[1:56:52] All right, we'll go for a vote on the

[1:56:54] substitute motion by Commissioner

[1:56:56] Hadler, seconded by Commissioner Hadine,

[1:56:59] which was a motion to approve the three

[1:57:04] events that were non-motorized. Correct.

[1:57:06] >> That's correct. Thank you.

[1:57:08] >> Okay. All in favor of the substitute

[1:57:10] motion?

[1:57:13] Those opposed?

[1:57:15] >> I

[1:57:16] >> All right. substitute fails and we will

[1:57:19] go back to the original motion with some

[1:57:22] discussion. I believe commissioner

[1:57:23] Hadler wanted to start and then I will

[1:57:26] go to commissioner man.

[1:57:28] >> Yeah, you want to read out did you want

[1:57:30] to read out the result of the vote?

[1:57:32] >> Oh, thank you. Thank you. So, sorry the

[1:57:36] substitute motion failed on a vote of

[1:57:38] three in favor, four opposed. Those

[1:57:41] opposed were commissioned.

[1:57:43] >> Oh, never mind. Never mind. Commissioner

[1:57:45] Martinez, Commissioner Mccertie, myself,

[1:57:47] Commissioner Winfield, and Commissioner

[1:57:50] McCandless online. Thank you, Jo.

[1:57:53] >> Thanks. Yeah, I just wanted to make it

[1:57:55] clear that I very much support those other three Trans Rockies events.

[1:57:59] Um, I won't be voting for this again.

[1:58:03] I've had and I'm not going to go into

[1:58:05] details, but I've had um poor

[1:58:08] experiences with two separate motorized

[1:58:11] events uh just this year. Um, I was not

[1:58:16] in favor of the Red Rock Rally moving

[1:58:18] into the into the busy season this year

[1:58:21] and I heard from many people that they

[1:58:24] were impacted by the um by that event.

[1:58:28] Uh, I I see this as something similar.

[1:58:32] Um, and uh it's not something that I

[1:58:38] currently support. Um, I'll leave it at

[1:58:41] that.

[1:58:44] next.

[1:58:46] Um,

[1:58:46] >> Commissioner Man's next and then I'll go

[1:58:49] to Commissioner.

[1:58:50] >> I I appreciate that that that event is

[1:58:53] on uh in November. I think that's a a

[1:58:57] good time for it. I mean, that seems a

[1:58:59] real busy time like it was when we right

[1:59:02] on top of the car show, which I do think

[1:59:05] we should reconsider for next year. Uh but uh on on the application, I I

[1:59:13] guess what I wanted was when I I know

[1:59:15] when I know it was Kent Green that came

[1:59:17] and gave this really great presentation

[1:59:19] on on what they were going to do to

[1:59:22] mitigate

[1:59:23] whatever and how they, you know, and

[1:59:26] then there was going to be a process for

[1:59:29] us to really make sure that it didn't

[1:59:31] negatively impact community. And I guess

[1:59:34] I missed that on this one that I felt

[1:59:37] like because it's one reason we're not

[1:59:40] hearing the clamor anymore is because

[1:59:42] we've done a good job of you know it's

[1:59:45] not it's not the issue at point was uh

[1:59:50] six years ago, seven years ago when

[1:59:53] motorized you know pe many people were

[1:59:56] we were getting hundreds and hundreds of

[1:59:58] uh letters about from across

[2:00:01] uh a political spectrum. are concerned

[2:00:04] about the noise, especially in loud. So,

[2:00:07] I I guess what what bothers me about

[2:00:09] this is we're not we're not getting any

[2:00:12] of that type of information for a brand

[2:00:15] new a high impact event and the high

[2:00:20] impact events are high impact and that's

[2:00:23] why we vote on them separately and I I

[2:00:26] guess I would I would have appreciated

[2:00:28] the same type of presentation that was

[2:00:32] presented to us for the before the first

[2:00:35] year that they hadn't been rally.

[2:00:38] >> Okay, I'm going to go to Commissioner

[2:00:40] Haden and then Commissioner Mccury,

[2:00:42] Commissioner Martinez, and then I will

[2:00:45] follow up.

[2:00:46] >> I'm online, too.

[2:00:48] >> Okay. And I'm sorry I didn't see your

[2:00:50] hand, but now you're on the screen. All

[2:00:52] right. I'll go to following Commissioner

[2:00:55] Martinez.

[2:00:56] >> I I think over the Am I Is it my turn?

[2:00:59] >> It is your turn.

[2:01:00] >> I think over the years we keep modifying

[2:01:02] special events and the process. I'm

[2:01:05] trying to come up with a process that is

[2:01:08] you know as BR our website you know we

[2:01:11] really want to provide we put sporting

[2:01:13] cultural entertainment and competitive

[2:01:15] events and maintain the health and

[2:01:18] welfare of our community and I think we

[2:01:21] were kind of out of spot at one point

[2:01:23] because we were trying to look at whole

[2:01:25] you know holistically like are we having

[2:01:27] a variety of events are they not laying

[2:01:29] over the top of one another and I feel

[2:01:34] like We're getting away from that. I do

[2:01:36] feel like we're getting back to where

[2:01:37] large events and this one is not the

[2:01:38] case, but we did have Red Rock Rally

[2:01:40] laying over the top of car show. Um, and

[2:01:43] I don't think we're getting, you know,

[2:01:45] the diversity of events that we were

[2:01:47] seeking. Again, I'll pull up that, you

[2:01:49] know, when I looked up the January 1st

[2:01:51] IAS, three out of the four were

[2:01:54] motorized. I'm not anti-motorized. I

[2:01:57] just think, you know, the objective

[2:01:58] should be to have a variety of events

[2:02:01] that are seeking to pull in a variety of

[2:02:05] users. Um, I would I I agree. I think

[2:02:08] that having Kent affiliated with Red

[2:02:11] Rock has helped a lot because we have

[2:02:12] that local affiliation. He obviously was

[2:02:15] born and raised here and he cares very

[2:02:17] much for this community. So, he's going

[2:02:19] to make sure that that event is not

[2:02:21] impacting the this community. And so, I

[2:02:24] agree, Mary. think I would have liked to

[2:02:26] have seen these event holders come and present to us and assure us that

[2:02:33] it's not going to impact our community.

[2:02:35] These this is an event holder out of St.

[2:02:38] George

[2:02:39] >> and so you know

[2:02:42] >> that event holders are online just to

[2:02:44] >> Yeah. And and once we get through a few

[2:02:46] more discussions here from commissioners

[2:02:48] I'll let the event owner speak up.

[2:02:50] >> Yeah, they could ask. So, it was

[2:02:53] Commissioner McCertie and then

[2:02:55] Commissioner Martinez and then

[2:02:57] Commissioner McCandless.

[2:03:00] >> Uh, everyone heard we're up. It's

[2:03:04] because we're starting to allow the

[2:03:06] events back in. They're a big provider

[2:03:10] for our economy here. You're not hearing

[2:03:12] the clamor from so many people about the

[2:03:15] past events because you cancelled them

[2:03:16] all. There's no clamor when you deleted

[2:03:19] all the motorized events.

[2:03:22] And now that they're coming back and

[2:03:25] they're trying again, they're not

[2:03:27] deterring other events from going on.

[2:03:30] It's not like authorizing this event

[2:03:33] tells the I'll use the pow-ow doesn't

[2:03:36] tell the pow-ow that no, you can't

[2:03:38] happen.

[2:03:40] Having a motorized event doesn't drop

[2:03:43] from diversity. Allowing the motorized

[2:03:46] event and another event to happen at the

[2:03:48] same time allows for diversity.

[2:03:51] >> [clears throat]

[2:03:52] >> Commissioner Martinez.

[2:03:54] >> Thank you, Chair. Um, just to clear up a

[2:03:56] couple of things. And Commissioner

[2:03:59] Began, you might have missed this right

[2:04:00] here. Um, but we will also involve a

[2:04:03] local charity, most likely Grand County

[2:04:05] Search and Rescue as a beneficiary of

[2:04:07] the event. And this is right here under

[2:04:10] the uh um event descriptions right here.

[2:04:12] And at the end right there, it also

[2:04:14] says, "We will endeavor to use local

[2:04:16] vendors for this event. Education is the

[2:04:19] key to promotion of responsible

[2:04:21] recreation, teach how to work with land

[2:04:23] managers and local government agencies

[2:04:26] to foster relationships and address

[2:04:28] community concerns. That sounds like a

[2:04:30] pretty good deal to me. Um and then also

[2:04:33] I just wanted to just quickly um address

[2:04:35] the idea of the events and that we're

[2:04:38] keying into certain events and these

[2:04:40] larger events. Um the Moab Office of

[2:04:43] Tourism has gone out and specifically

[2:04:46] offered funds to help bring in new

[2:04:49] events, different events, um more

[2:04:52] variety events. I mean, I I don't have

[2:04:54] the exact list of all of the things, but

[2:04:56] we were trying to bring things that came

[2:04:58] in on the off season, right? And things

[2:05:00] that we don't see here um that would add

[2:05:03] to the local character of the community.

[2:05:05] So, I just I don't know if I'm if I

[2:05:06] completely agree with either of those

[2:05:08] statements. So, I just wanted to point

[2:05:10] that out. Thanks,

[2:05:12] >> Commissioner McCandless.

[2:05:14] >> Yeah, and I I wanted to point out what

[2:05:16] Brian had said and that also they they

[2:05:18] spoke about um you know, not just

[2:05:20] focusing on trail activities, but also

[2:05:22] education and trail maintenance projects

[2:05:24] in cooperation with the county and land

[2:05:26] managers. So, I see there's lots of

[2:05:28] great stewardship happening with this.

[2:05:30] And then I did find the spot in the high

[2:05:31] impact events that um intent to apply

[2:05:34] must be submitted at least six months

[2:05:36] but no more than 18 months prior. And

[2:05:38] this event came in the last edited dates

[2:05:41] says May 12th, which is exactly 6 months

[2:05:43] prior to the event. So they're right in

[2:05:46] line with um what they're supposed to be

[2:05:49] doing.

[2:05:52] » Thank you. And then you have the events

[2:05:54] on who is it that's online?

[2:05:57] >> I

[2:05:59] they said the event holders. I just had

[2:06:01] one question for him.

[2:06:02] >> Yeah, Lauren Campbell is the event

[2:06:04] holder and I I do see him online.

[2:06:08] maybe he could unmute and come up if

[2:06:11] he's listening and he wants to.

[2:06:14] >> You're welcome to speak here um about

[2:06:16] your event and then I do have one

[2:06:18] commissioner with a question. Um

[2:06:23] » we can't hear you. You're going to have

[2:06:24] to unmute. Lauren,

[2:06:27] you still have your mute button on.

[2:06:29] There you go.

[2:06:30] >> There we go. All right. Thank you. Um, I

[2:06:34] am the president of Utah Public Lands

[2:06:36] Alliance and I was at the Moab Broad Red

[2:06:39] Rock Rally this year. Uh, I've known

[2:06:41] Kent Green for quite a long time and

[2:06:43] you're right in respecting him. He

[2:06:46] really does value the community. Uh,

[2:06:48] I've also grown to know Mark Pat Pat

[2:06:50] very well. Um they have both committed

[2:06:54] uh along with uh Slick Rock, they have

[2:06:57] all committed to what we're planning on

[2:07:00] doing with this event and they are fully

[2:07:02] behind it. They said they would support

[2:07:04] us in every way to make sure that it's

[2:07:06] successful. I I appreciate what you

[2:07:09] mentioned about the education event

[2:07:10] because we intend to have a fun event

[2:07:13] where we go out and enjoy the trails

[2:07:15] responsibly, but we also want to have

[2:07:17] educational processes during the trail

[2:07:20] uh lunches on on the trails. And then in

[2:07:23] the evenings, we want to come back to

[2:07:25] the arena and have different vendors

[2:07:28] talk about different subjects that are

[2:07:30] of interest to off-roaders. And our

[2:07:33] intent this first year is to include uh

[2:07:37] full-size 4x4 operators and sidebyside

[2:07:41] ATV operators. Uh for the first year, we

[2:07:44] have chosen not to bring in dirt bikes

[2:07:47] because it just increases the complexity

[2:07:49] of planning the event and we want to

[2:07:51] make sure that we've got it successful.

[2:07:53] Um we chose the date very carefully to

[2:07:57] make sure that this did not overlap with

[2:07:59] any other events. So, the month of

[2:08:02] November, there are virtually no events,

[2:08:05] no off-road events from the middle of

[2:08:07] October all the way till the first of

[2:08:10] the year when Winter 4x4 Jamberee kicks

[2:08:13] off in St. George. So, um, Utah Public

[2:08:17] Lands Alliance is a statewide

[2:08:19] organization. We have two members there

[2:08:22] in Moab, Melissa Fiser and also Cliff

[2:08:26] Counz, who I think you probably know

[2:08:28] both of them. um they they have been on

[2:08:31] our board for a number of years. Uh

[2:08:34] we're committed to making the the event

[2:08:36] successful and

[2:08:38] we don't want this just to be a one

[2:08:40] time. We want this to be u um a a

[2:08:44] succession of events like this because

[2:08:47] we want to do bring education and

[2:08:49] stewardship more into the event mix. Um

[2:08:53] I guess last thing is um it is going to

[2:08:58] be a charitable event. The event

[2:09:01] promoter or organizer has agreed to not

[2:09:04] charge any fees to produce this event.

[2:09:07] Um they are going to do it free of

[2:09:09] charge and it's basically going to be

[2:09:10] done all by volunteers.

[2:09:14] So I'd be glad to answer any questions.

[2:09:16] Uh, also, um, uh, Bruce Huntington is

[2:09:19] also on the call and he's been coming to

[2:09:22] Moab for events for many, many years and

[2:09:24] has a a longtime relationship with

[2:09:27] Angie, um, at the OSDA. Um, so

[2:09:33] I think that's pretty much my pitch. I'd

[2:09:36] be glad to take any questions.

[2:09:38] >> Okay, I've got Commissioner Mcan with a

[2:09:40] question and then we'll go to

[2:09:41] Commissioner Haden. Uh, one thing that

[2:09:44] uh, Kent did that I really appreciated

[2:09:47] is he uh, talked a lot about because

[2:09:50] probably the I don't think people are so

[2:09:53] much upset about the motorized events

[2:09:56] and such. They're more upset about uh,

[2:09:59] the noise they make when they're driving

[2:10:02] through town. So, do you have any plans

[2:10:06] as far as where how are you going to get

[2:10:08] to the trails? What are your plans to

[2:10:11] get to the trails to lower the uh impact

[2:10:15] on neighborhoods

[2:10:17] and uh you know how you know the uh

[2:10:21] education around uh respecting uh

[2:10:25] residential areas.

[2:10:27] >> Great. And I think that's one thing that I know is very important with

[2:10:31] stewardship. It's not just stewardship

[2:10:32] on the trails. It's stewardship in your

[2:10:35] host communities as well. So that is

[2:10:37] going to be an important thing. And our

[2:10:39] plan for getting to the trails is the

[2:10:41] same one that Red Rock Rally uses. So,

[2:10:44] we will meet at remote locations. We

[2:10:46] won't be lining up at at uh OSTA. We

[2:10:50] won't be lining up at the arena. We'll

[2:10:52] be uh having our staging areas at remote

[2:10:55] locations. So, people will go

[2:10:57] individually. They won't be parading

[2:10:58] through town in groups. Does that answer

[2:11:01] your question?

[2:11:03] >> Pretty much. Yes. I I think so. because

[2:11:06] that's uh you know everybody's concern

[2:11:08] is is their ability.

[2:11:11] >> Yeah, we think Red Rock Rally did a

[2:11:13] great job at that because we know that's

[2:11:15] been a concern and um uh we plan on just

[2:11:20] following their path.

[2:11:22] >> The year they had it, the first year

[2:11:24] they had it where they didn't uh have it

[2:11:27] on the same weekend as the car show. I didn't hear any

[2:11:34] complaints that I think just the impact

[2:11:37] of having so many people at town I

[2:11:41] caused. So, thank you for answering that

[2:11:43] question.

[2:11:44] >> Commissioner Hine,

[2:11:45] >> I guess I'm I'm going to dive into that

[2:11:47] just a little bit more. I think I'm the

[2:11:49] only commissioner that lives that far

[2:11:50] out the valley. I know Mike's a little

[2:11:53] Well, but you're in Holio, so I'm pretty

[2:11:55] much the only commissioner that lives

[2:11:56] out in the valley.

[2:11:57] Um, often with those events, when you

[2:11:59] say remote locations, they're still

[2:12:01] driving out of OSA. So, I will tell you

[2:12:03] the south end of Spanish Valley is is

[2:12:06] quite loud um during these events often.

[2:12:10] Um, so what can you like break that down

[2:12:12] a little bit more? Like are they going

[2:12:14] to be at OSA and then driving to those

[2:12:17] remote locations? Are you encouraging

[2:12:19] trailering? Because I know with Kent, he

[2:12:21] really encouraged trailering.

[2:12:23] you know, we're going to have um first

[2:12:26] of all, this is going to be both

[2:12:28] full-size vehicles, so street legal

[2:12:30] vehicles. So, those vehicles um those

[2:12:35] don't produce any noise.

[2:12:37] >> So, that's going to be about we expect

[2:12:39] about half of our attendants will be

[2:12:41] full-size vehicles. Uh the other half of

[2:12:44] them will be side by sides and quite

[2:12:47] frankly, we haven't talked about that,

[2:12:49] but we could adopt the same trailering.

[2:12:52] um recommendations,

[2:12:55] maybe requirements. I think at this

[2:12:56] point I would prefer to say

[2:12:58] recommendations to trailer to the trail

[2:13:01] heads, but we'd probably use the staging

[2:13:03] areas, the same ones that they use for

[2:13:05] Red Rock Rally.

[2:13:09] >> Yeah, thank you.

[2:13:10] >> And oh my, sorry, I had one more

[2:13:13] question for him. Is that okay?

[2:13:14] >> Yes.

[2:13:15] So Lauren, you said um

[2:13:19] you want to make it charitable, but then

[2:13:21] you're not going to charge fees. So how

[2:13:24] So I guess to me charitable means you're

[2:13:26] going to take proceeds and then

[2:13:28] disseminate them to some nonprofit. So

[2:13:30] what do you I I guess I was a little

[2:13:32] unclear there.

[2:13:33] >> Yeah. the the organizer, the person

[2:13:36] that's going to actually be producing

[2:13:38] the event that will be responsible for

[2:13:40] the day-to-day operations will be uh

[2:13:43] Off-Road 360. And Ranch Pratt is on the

[2:13:46] call as well. He's the president of

[2:13:48] Off-Road 360. And um they normally

[2:13:53] produce these events for a fee. It's a

[2:13:56] for-profit company, but they are not

[2:13:58] charging any events for the produc for those services. Um, so the only fees

[2:14:04] that we will incur will be, you know,

[2:14:07] the arena fees, all the food costs, all

[2:14:10] the catering costs, all those incidental

[2:14:13] costs that we're trying to get a handle

[2:14:15] on right now. And then the pro the net

[2:14:18] proceeds will be distributed as

[2:14:20] charitable donations. Uh, Utah Public

[2:14:23] Lands Alliance is a 501c3,

[2:14:25] but our intent also is to not retain any

[2:14:29] of the funds. So, we will also not be uh

[2:14:33] participating in retaining any of the

[2:14:36] funds from the event. They will all be

[2:14:38] donated out.

[2:14:42] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:14:43] >> Thank you. I'm just going to follow up

[2:14:45] and then I'm going to call for a vote on

[2:14:47] this. Um, I, you know, I want to bring

[2:14:50] this back to the fact that that we're

[2:14:52] trying to balance the impact on our

[2:14:56] local citizens against the impact of

[2:15:00] blocking all events on our workforce and

[2:15:04] our businesses. And both of those have

[2:15:07] to be considered in an equation here.

[2:15:09] when we're working in this county, we

[2:15:11] have a huge workforce that depends on

[2:15:15] the only economy that we have because we

[2:15:18] haven't been able to diversify away from

[2:15:19] tourism. And so I I just think that

[2:15:22] we're at a point where we have to

[2:15:24] balance that. And I think there's a good

[2:15:26] balance here. This is coming in in

[2:15:28] November. It isn't stacked on top of any

[2:15:31] other event. And it, you know, I want to

[2:15:34] go back to the, you know, Jacques, I

[2:15:36] know you said you've had some bad

[2:15:37] experiences, but I've gone to every

[2:15:40] motorized event that's been in town. Not

[2:15:42] because I participate because I don't,

[2:15:45] but because I want to watch and I want

[2:15:48] to see how they're treating the property

[2:15:50] at the OA and I want to see how they're

[2:15:52] they act around town. And so I've been

[2:15:54] more aware and I've attended those

[2:15:56] events and showed up at different spots

[2:15:58] and I have yet to see an incident

[2:16:00] anywhere. I um was very appreciative of

[2:16:04] the Red Rock Rally and the of the extra

[2:16:07] effort that they went to and I think

[2:16:10] that we've got to call out the positives

[2:16:13] if we're going to call out the

[2:16:14] negatives. So, I I um I think that we

[2:16:18] need to thank the consideration they're

[2:16:19] putting into this. I think that we need

[2:16:21] to realize that it is a balance on both

[2:16:23] our constituents and our workforce and

[2:16:26] businesses when we make these decisions.

[2:16:29] And again, just thank you for the

[2:16:31] considerations you have and I I really

[2:16:35] encourage you to on the education

[2:16:38] portion of that because it is critical

[2:16:40] for our future events in this valley.

[2:16:44] And when we have negative

[2:16:47] impacts from individuals, single

[2:16:50] individuals because of the lack of

[2:16:52] education, I think that's really what's

[2:16:54] hurt this industry more than anything.

[2:16:57] So with that, I'll call for a vote on

[2:17:00] this. Um, the original motion was made

[2:17:02] by Commissioner McCertie, seconded by

[2:17:05] Commissioner Martinez,

[2:17:08] and I will call for vote. All in favor?

[2:17:11] >> I.

[2:17:13] >> Any opposed?

[2:17:15] The motion passes 5 to2 with

[2:17:17] Commissioner Hadine and Commissioner

[2:17:19] Hadler opposed.

[2:17:21] And with that, we will go back to our

[2:17:24] public meeting that was supposed to

[2:17:26] happen at 6:00.

[2:17:30] » Thank you everyone.

[2:17:32] >> Thank you Canada. Thank you for coming

[2:17:34] with us.

[2:17:35] >> Of course.

[2:17:38] » Let's see. We have a ordinance amending

[2:17:42] ordinance 725 dealing with the major

[2:17:45] utility overlay. Yes,

[2:17:49] >> that's been held. What's that? It's It's

[2:17:52] on hold.

[2:17:53] >> Oh, that's on hold.

[2:17:54] >> Yeah.

[2:17:55] >> What's on hold?

[2:17:56] >> The public hearing still proceed with

[2:17:59] the public hearing.

[2:17:59] >> So, there's there's a requirement that

[2:18:04] this item will have to go to planning

[2:18:05] commission. Um, at this time, we can

[2:18:08] either have comments from the public,

[2:18:10] but it's going to be redone. I know

[2:18:13] there's likely individuals here that are

[2:18:15] talk about it that are here to talk

[2:18:16] about it. So, that is an option. Um, we

[2:18:19] can see that feedback, but it will have

[2:18:21] to go back through the planning

[2:18:22] commission and there will have to be a

[2:18:23] public hearing as well.

[2:18:24] >> Okay. My my loss. You guys tried to tell

[2:18:27] me that earlier and I totally spaced it

[2:18:29] out.

[2:18:30] >> So, we're here just for any public

[2:18:33] comments on this item. Um, you have

[2:18:36] questions, mayor.

[2:18:38] >> I know there was some concern from the

[2:18:40] city that this semi timely.

[2:18:44] >> Correct. My understanding is the

[2:18:45] planning commission is going to they're

[2:18:48] in discussions uh talking on the 3 on

[2:18:51] August 3rd to set a special meeting um

[2:18:53] to be able to get that

[2:18:56] so that it is not going to hurt the

[2:18:58] timeline.

[2:19:02] » That's my understanding is they're

[2:19:04] trying to meet as quickly as possible

[2:19:06] that

[2:19:06] >> yes commissioner had

[2:19:08] >> I I I think it's imperative that this

[2:19:12] get done. Um, I know that the city has a

[2:19:15] very strict timeline. Um, the mayor

[2:19:19] called me right before I walked in here

[2:19:22] very, very, very upset that this wasn't

[2:19:24] being done, that this isn't done. Um, I

[2:19:27] think she said they started this process

[2:19:29] in November. So, whatever we can do at a

[2:19:33] planning commission level, county

[2:19:34] commission level to help them get this

[2:19:36] done, we need to get it done.

[2:19:38] >> And I think that we are doing that. I

[2:19:40] mean, hopefully she's not upset with the

[2:19:43] process here because there is a legal

[2:19:45] process that we have to follow and

[2:19:47] that's what we're going to do.

[2:19:49] >> We we will move forward and we'll open

[2:19:52] this up to any comments from any

[2:19:55] citizens who happen to be here to speak

[2:19:58] on this major utility overlay if there

[2:20:01] are any

[2:20:02] >> and they may have left.

[2:20:03] >> So, that being said, we're opening it.

[2:20:05] So that time that will be done on our

[2:20:07] end the public hearing

[2:20:10] >> since we're opening it.

[2:20:12] >> I'm I'm sorry. Can you re can you

[2:20:13] rephrase that now if we want to open it?

[2:20:15] If we open it now, we're going to have

[2:20:16] to do it again.

[2:20:18] >> I just wanted maybe to suggest may want

[2:20:21] to do that if there's somebody that's

[2:20:22] been sitting here for two hours.

[2:20:24] >> Y gota

[2:20:26] Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Thank you.

[2:20:29] >> Okay. Once again, I will open this up to

[2:20:31] citizens to speak if there are any on

[2:20:34] this item. If not, we are going to

[2:20:37] postpone this and send it back to the

[2:20:39] planning commission. I know they're

[2:20:40] attempting to put together a a meeting

[2:20:43] as soon as possible to keep this thing

[2:20:45] moving forward for the city. And I I

[2:20:47] think we all realize the need for haste

[2:20:50] on this and we'll do the best we can to

[2:20:52] move it forward.

[2:20:55] I do not see anyone overly eager to come

[2:20:58] up here and speak. So with that, Andrew,

[2:21:01] I think that we can wrap this one up.

[2:21:05] >> I'm for the next item on the agenda.

[2:21:10] » Okay. Next,

[2:21:14] we will move on to number six.

[2:21:18] Or are we?

[2:21:20] We're postponing. We're items six and

[2:21:22] seven and moving to item eight. Yes.

[2:21:24] Thank you.

[2:21:26] >> I'm sorry. Item nine

[2:21:28] >> or no I'm sorry eight. We are going to

[2:21:30] move on to ordinance water use and

[2:21:32] preservation element of the general

[2:21:34] plan. Mr. Jackson again, planning and

[2:21:37] zoning director.

[2:21:39] >> Vice chair, members of the commission. I

[2:21:41] am Andrew Jackson, the Grand County

[2:21:43] Planner. Before you tonight is the final

[2:21:45] adoption of the water use and

[2:21:47] preservation element of the Grand County

[2:21:49] General Plan under Utah code 17795043.

[2:21:55] This element's been in the process for

[2:21:57] over a year. Staff drafting, planning

[2:22:00] commission review, public comment,

[2:22:01] several rounds of revision. The document

[2:22:03] in your packet is not the one that we

[2:22:05] started with. That's because we listen.

[2:22:09] Let me say one thing plainly. The

[2:22:10] residents of this county have already

[2:22:12] been doing the work. Demand reduction

[2:22:15] here um is not just not a goal here, but

[2:22:20] it's a measure of performance. Our water

[2:22:23] users have already cut their per capita

[2:22:25] use. In fact, it's lower than what the

[2:22:29] um state is recommending for 2030. So,

[2:22:33] we've already reduced our demand below

[2:22:35] what the state recommends for 2030. This

[2:22:38] element does not ask residents to start

[2:22:40] conserving. They ask the county to plan

[2:22:43] around conservation it's already have.

[2:22:46] Ask commission ask that the commission

[2:22:50] include [clears throat]

[2:22:51] the new section five with the graphs in

[2:22:54] the element as adopted that was

[2:22:56] submitted um at your last meeting to you

[2:23:00] and if you need copies of that I've got

[2:23:03] extra copies here. Basically what it

[2:23:05] does is it adds graphs that detail what

[2:23:09] could happen if there is uh conservation

[2:23:12] and reduction on demand. Uh again the

[2:23:16] gra graphs do something the text cannot

[2:23:19] then let people see what demand

[2:23:21] reduction actually accomplishes. How

[2:23:23] much of our future we need uh how much

[2:23:26] of our future need we can meet by

[2:23:29] conserving instead of building new

[2:23:30] supply comments.

[2:23:34] Now the comments we received they fallen

[2:23:37] into four areas. climate change, water

[2:23:40] supply, use of the Colorado River, and

[2:23:42] coordination with Moab.

[2:23:45] All four are already addressed in the

[2:23:48] water utility resource management plan

[2:23:51] for the Moab Spanish Valley.

[2:23:53] So if I look at this water element which

[2:23:57] is a chapter in a general plan and then

[2:24:00] they also look at conservation plans

[2:24:02] it's kind of like doctors and you have a

[2:24:05] specialist who's a specialist that's a

[2:24:07] dermatologist and you have another

[2:24:08] specialist that's a cardiologist. So,

[2:24:11] they're both medical doctors and can do

[2:24:13] certain things, but their specialties

[2:24:16] break off and branch off. And that's

[2:24:18] what we have with um our chapter of the

[2:24:21] general plan that deals with water

[2:24:24] and water conservation plans. They both

[2:24:27] deal with water, but they branch off in

[2:24:29] different directions. But the key is I

[2:24:32] think here with the questions and

[2:24:34] comments that we've received and what

[2:24:37] most of those comments that we have

[2:24:39] received are about climate change water

[2:24:42] supply use of the Colorado in

[2:24:44] coordination with Moab. Again, all four

[2:24:47] of these are addressed in detail in the

[2:24:51] water utility resource management plan

[2:24:53] for mom and Spanish valley which also

[2:24:55] included

[2:24:57] um portion of uh San Juan County that is

[2:25:00] in Spanish valley. This was done as a

[2:25:03] half a million dollar study. They took

[2:25:06] two years to do it. They made the

[2:25:08] presentation last summer at Moab City in

[2:25:11] Tiga and

[2:25:15] those questions are answered in that

[2:25:18] study. They shouldn't be in this chapter

[2:25:24] because those are already answered

[2:25:25] someplace else and we don't have the

[2:25:28] time and energy to redo what they've

[2:25:31] already done because it's already been

[2:25:33] done.

[2:25:35] The plan is a coalition effort. We lab

[2:25:38] city is full full participating partner

[2:25:41] alongside GISA and the San Juan Spanish

[2:25:44] Valley District.

[2:25:46] That analysis does not need to be

[2:25:48] repeated here. If we duplicate it, we

[2:25:51] end up with two documents

[2:25:52] [clears throat] that drift apart and

[2:25:53] contradict each other in a few years.

[2:25:55] This element references that work and

[2:25:58] stays consistent with it. So

[2:26:00] coordination with MOAB is something this

[2:26:02] element proposes

[2:26:04] already exist. This element is written

[2:26:07] to fit inside of it. In closing,

[2:26:12] this element does not restrict any

[2:26:14] property or property owner deny. It's a

[2:26:17] policy framework.

[2:26:19] It also doesn't um have any impact on

[2:26:22] agricultural

[2:26:24] watering.

[2:26:26] Implementation comes back to you later

[2:26:28] as ordinances with their own hearings

[2:26:31] and their own findings. Staff recommends

[2:26:34] adoption of the water use and

[2:26:35] preservation element including the

[2:26:37] revised section five graphs and I'd be

[2:26:40] happy to answer any questions.

[2:26:44] >> All right. I'm going to start with

[2:26:46] Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner

[2:26:48] Mccury, and anybody else?

[2:26:51] >> I'll go ahead and start with the motion.

[2:26:53] I move to approve the Grand County water

[2:26:55] element as presented with the graphs.

[2:26:59] >> Motion by Commissioner Martinez, second

[2:27:02] by that a second.

[2:27:03] >> That was a second because he stole my

[2:27:05] motion. It's okay.

[2:27:06] >> By Commissioner McCertie. Um, further

[2:27:08] discussion. Did you have further

[2:27:10] discussion, Brian, or were we

[2:27:12] >> Yeah, I mean, I guess I can go ahead and

[2:27:14] start and bring in a couple.

[2:27:15] >> Trish had her hand up. I wasn't sure if

[2:27:17] you were

[2:27:17] >> I think I made the motion. I think that

[2:27:18] I still have the floor. Please do.

[2:27:22] So, um, just, you know, I'd like to

[2:27:24] clear up a couple of things. Um, so

[2:27:27] tonight we were we were brought the

[2:27:28] state code that detailed how this water

[2:27:32] element is supposed to be. So in that

[2:27:35] code it says that Grand County will make

[2:27:37] demand right reductions

[2:27:41] >> and that we will go to our water

[2:27:43] suppliers to talk about the supply and

[2:27:46] then we will go to the division of water

[2:27:48] quality to talk about any overlay

[2:27:51] protection zones. Also inside of that

[2:27:54] same state code, they talk about

[2:27:56] transportation element, right? The word

[2:27:58] element as in a section, right? We also

[2:28:01] talk about the economic development

[2:28:03] element that's inside there.

[2:28:05] [clears throat] And in those elements,

[2:28:07] it says shall as in we will do these

[2:28:11] things. We will have all of these things

[2:28:14] in. And then it also says inside of your

[2:28:16] general plan, you may have an

[2:28:20] environmental element.

[2:28:22] >> Inside that chapter right there is all

[2:28:25] of the things that we seem that we are

[2:28:27] trying to go ahead and put in. So for

[2:28:29] the folks who are really trying to come

[2:28:31] up with all of these environmental

[2:28:33] protections that requires an

[2:28:36] environmental element inside of the

[2:28:39] plant. So I just wanted to go ahead and

[2:28:41] clear that up. And then I have quite a

[2:28:42] few other things that I that I wanted to

[2:28:44] bring up here. Um, you know, Grand

[2:28:47] County's uh culinary water is primarily

[2:28:49] groundwater, right? Pumped through

[2:28:51] valley aquifer and the Glen Canyon

[2:28:53] aquifer and springs, right, which

[2:28:56] recharges slowly via the West Sale

[2:28:58] Mountain Snow. And Trish, I did go

[2:29:00] through the uh uh um or some apologies.

[2:29:03] Commissioner Hadine did go through

[2:29:08] » by

[2:29:09] >> the uh the red lines that you had and uh

[2:29:11] um and and actually went

[2:29:14] >> went through the uh um the additional

[2:29:17] sources that you that you brought up.

[2:29:19] And I also brought those sources to the

[2:29:21] Grand County water uh uh uh to Grand

[2:29:24] County Water and Sewer and they have

[2:29:26] considered those elements or those uh uh

[2:29:29] studies right there when they did their

[2:29:31] conservation plan. So those those

[2:29:34] studies have been considered inside of

[2:29:36] the conservation plan. They are keeping

[2:29:39] track of that right there. Um and

[2:29:41] there's there's just some mistruths that

[2:29:43] have been spread both in the public

[2:29:45] right in print and up here at the dis.

[2:29:48] and and I'd like to take a couple of

[2:29:50] minutes just to go through and address

[2:29:51] those. So, first off, the claim that

[2:29:54] Grand County Water plans to mine the

[2:29:56] aquifer, right? Grand County Water

[2:29:58] monitors culinary wells once a month and

[2:30:01] the USGS monitors approximately 30 wells

[2:30:05] in Spanish. Surprisingly, some of those

[2:30:07] are up and some of those are down.

[2:30:10] That's that's that's where we are. um

[2:30:13] from the Grand County Water Conservancy

[2:30:15] Plan, right? It emphasizes responsible

[2:30:18] groundwater management through continued

[2:30:21] monitoring, conservation, diversified

[2:30:24] water supplies, and adaptive planning to

[2:30:26] asssure long-term sustainability of the

[2:30:29] AY's water resources. I believe pretty

[2:30:31] close to what Gail had mentioned right

[2:30:33] here. Um the second thing that I that

[2:30:36] I've heard about is that uh uh that

[2:30:39] Grant County Water is a private water

[2:30:41] seller and because of this forecast

[2:30:43] should not be relied on because the

[2:30:45] agency benefits from selling more water.

[2:30:48] Right. GISA is a service agency not a

[2:30:51] private company whose objective is

[2:30:53] maximizing profits. Water rates are

[2:30:56] established to recover cost of operating

[2:30:59] and maintaining water systems. Funds are

[2:31:02] also used for investing in

[2:31:04] infrastructure complying with state and

[2:31:06] federal regulations, planning and water

[2:31:08] needs as the public water provider for

[2:31:11] its service area. It has a legal ob

[2:31:15] obligation to provide services in

[2:31:17] accordance with applicable law, water

[2:31:20] rights, system capacity and agency

[2:31:23] policies.

[2:31:27] Number three that I had was that water

[2:31:29] planning primarily relies on obtaining

[2:31:32] additional water supplies. Right. The

[2:31:34] 2025 water conservation plan places

[2:31:37] conservation at the forefront of the

[2:31:40] agency strategy. The plan emphasizes

[2:31:43] that reducing demand through water

[2:31:46] conservation, leak dete detection,

[2:31:49] system efficiency,

[2:31:51] public education, tiered water rates,

[2:31:54] irrigation efficiency, and ongoing

[2:31:56] moderate monitoring before considering

[2:31:59] the development of additional water

[2:32:01] supplies. Right. And then the fourth one

[2:32:04] which gets to some of the red lines is

[2:32:07] that water planning does not address

[2:32:09] climate change and long-term uh

[2:32:12] uncertainty. The water conservation plan

[2:32:14] discusses the impact of drought changing

[2:32:17] hydraologic hydraological conditions

[2:32:21] uncertainty in future water availability

[2:32:24] groundwater monitoring and the need for

[2:32:26] adaptive management. These issues are

[2:32:29] recognized through the plan and are

[2:32:31] incorporated through the long-term

[2:32:33] conservation strategies and our supply

[2:32:36] was based off in our general water plan.

[2:32:40] Okay. Couple of other things.

[2:32:42] Historically, the state of Utah has had

[2:32:44] a per capita water use averaging 223

[2:32:48] gallons per person per capita. Gran

[2:32:51] counties per capita daily consumption is

[2:32:56] 184. Our residents deserve the credit

[2:32:58] for the work that they have done so far.

[2:33:01] Right? Moab average is 269

[2:33:04] and the state 2030 goal is 187 already

[2:33:09] below the 2030 goal. Um the other thing

[2:33:14] that has been brought up is tourism. And

[2:33:16] so to help understand the impacts of

[2:33:19] tourism on water, we can measure sewer

[2:33:22] plant inflows which direct directly

[2:33:25] capture indoor water use including

[2:33:28] hotels and restaurants. The data shows

[2:33:30] that at peak times of tourism, indoor

[2:33:33] water use remains remarkably flat year

[2:33:37] round and even year uh year-over-year.

[2:33:41] While indoor consumption stays stable,

[2:33:44] total municipal and district water usage

[2:33:47] skyrockets during hot summer months,

[2:33:50] which also was mentioned inside of the

[2:33:52] studies that that you presented on

[2:33:54] Commissioner Ed. Looking at yearly uh uh

[2:33:57] total water usage, early summers, right,

[2:34:01] equal more watering, right? That's

[2:34:05] the hotter it gets. The earlier it gets,

[2:34:07] the more people start using that outdoor

[2:34:09] water. That plus the wildfires, right,

[2:34:13] are the biggest spikes that we see in

[2:34:15] our poor water use on a total system uh

[2:34:18] outlook. Um talking about the Colorado,

[2:34:21] I mean the Colorado River, there's a lot that we need to clear up

[2:34:24] there. When we talk about the Colorado,

[2:34:27] we're talking about the future

[2:34:28] development of secondary irrigation

[2:34:30] water, right? So we can protect our

[2:34:33] primary groundwater from being depleted.

[2:34:36] every drop of secondary water that we

[2:34:39] use is saved inside of our underground

[2:34:43] storage. That's a concept I think that

[2:34:45] we really need to all start taking into account. Um when we start looking

[2:34:51] at places like Ashley Creek or up on the

[2:34:53] Duchine River system, right, they talk

[2:34:56] about curtailment. The curtailment there

[2:34:58] is when natural flow has dropped. There

[2:35:01] is not enough water, right? It's just

[2:35:04] physically not there. That's the

[2:35:06] curtailment that that folks are talking

[2:35:08] about right now. It's not a curtailment

[2:35:10] on their Colorado River whites rights.

[2:35:13] It's just physically not there. Um Grand

[2:35:16] County's primary vulnerability regarding

[2:35:19] junior water rights, which our water

[2:35:21] rights are actually in from the 1950s.

[2:35:24] So they're middle of the pack um when

[2:35:26] you look at them, um is tied to a

[2:35:28] compact call. And if curtailment occurs,

[2:35:32] junior rights would be legally cut off

[2:35:35] to satisfy downstream arm obligations

[2:35:38] regardless of whether is water flowing

[2:35:40] past Moab at that moment or not.

[2:35:43] However, the state engineer is

[2:35:45] responsible the general administration,

[2:35:49] supervision, measurement, appropriation

[2:35:52] and distribution of those water. Right

[2:35:55] now currently the state is creating a

[2:35:58] priority distribution model. It would

[2:36:02] provide localized data engineering

[2:36:04] models legal analysis and it will

[2:36:07] improve our decisionmaking process.

[2:36:09] There's two things that we need to

[2:36:11] consider when we look at the

[2:36:12] curtailment. The first right is do you

[2:36:15] have water rights and what is your water

[2:36:16] rate date right your priority but second

[2:36:19] what is the availability of the water

[2:36:22] itself right are you is there actually

[2:36:24] going to be water available so those two

[2:36:27] things right there will score where

[2:36:29] you're going to be at on that

[2:36:30] curtailment they plan on having that out

[2:36:33] by the end of the year as we look at

[2:36:35] into it um claiming our Colorado router

[2:36:40] river rights are not valid right? Out of

[2:36:43] immediate fear of curtailment, I believe

[2:36:46] is just nothing more than a strategy to

[2:36:48] create artificial water scarcity. Right?

[2:36:51] I think that if the goal is to restrict

[2:36:54] regional growth, then let's all just be

[2:36:56] direct and saying that that's what we're

[2:36:58] out for. Thank you,

[2:37:01] >> Commissioner Haden. And then

[2:37:02] Commissioner McCertie.

[2:37:04] >> Will I be afforded the same amount of

[2:37:05] time?

[2:37:06] >> I um

[2:37:07] >> I don't want to talk that long. I'm

[2:37:09] joking. I don't want to talk that long.

[2:37:11] anybody off

[2:37:11] >> try to do the best I can. Um so it has

[2:37:16] been a really laborious process. The

[2:37:19] planning commission has worked really

[2:37:20] hard. I have tried many times to you

[2:37:24] know um be involved in this and was told

[2:37:26] at multiple levels even the last um

[2:37:29] public hearing that I could come with

[2:37:31] the red line and we could move through

[2:37:33] the red line. I did ask for this to be a

[2:37:35] workshop. I was denied that. Um, and

[2:37:38] then I I spoke with um, Chair McCandless

[2:37:41] and she said, "Yeah, we we'll allow you

[2:37:43] to go through it." [clears throat]

[2:37:45] I I I'm just like I'm I'm exhausted at

[2:37:48] this point, but I do want to point out

[2:37:50] the things that I recommended and then I

[2:37:52] want to go through a few comments um,

[2:37:54] additional comments. So, the the things

[2:37:56] that I think that I recommended

[2:37:59] um I think are honestly pretty benign

[2:38:04] um but I think they would have been nice

[2:38:06] additions to our general plan. I think

[2:38:08] one using climate information and

[2:38:11] planning to make sure that we are not

[2:38:14] exceeding our capacity for development

[2:38:17] is important. And so just acknowledging

[2:38:20] climate and natural water supply. God

[2:38:23] forbid we use the term climate change,

[2:38:25] but the reality is the climate is

[2:38:28] changing and our water supply is

[2:38:30] diminishing. I did listen to the Gwissa

[2:38:32] meeting from Thursday and you know I

[2:38:35] heard a lot of angst surrounding the

[2:38:38] level of Kins Lake. Like I know that you

[2:38:41] guys know what's happening and and and I

[2:38:43] know that what's happening and so it was

[2:38:45] simply just acknowledging that. Second,

[2:38:49] um establishing a subcommittee, which we

[2:38:51] now have many of them, to assemble

[2:38:54] climate informed water data for

[2:38:57] considering and planning decisions. And

[2:38:59] those experts could be a variety pack.

[2:39:01] They could be people from WISA, they

[2:39:03] could be people from UGS, etc., and so

[2:39:05] on. But I think it's something to

[2:39:07] consider as we move forward because the

[2:39:10] reality is the planning department is

[2:39:13] very much a component of the development

[2:39:17] of this valley. Lista is a water service

[2:39:19] provider. Thompson Springs special

[2:39:21] service district is a water service

[2:39:22] provider. But the reality is we are in

[2:39:25] charge of development in this county pro

[2:39:29] making sure that we are protecting our

[2:39:33] EPA designate designated soul source

[2:39:36] aquifers and I think that's just a

[2:39:38] really simple thing like that's not

[2:39:40] asking much. It is our culinary water.

[2:39:43] It's extremely important to um take care

[2:39:46] of that water. And then lastly,

[2:39:48] um, just manipulating that verbiage. Of

[2:39:51] course, I think using Colorado River

[2:39:53] water for irrigation is a fabulous idea.

[2:39:55] Like, don't for secondary water, I think

[2:39:56] it's a great idea, but just

[2:39:58] acknowledging that that is really

[2:40:01] theoretical

[2:40:03] and and that's that's the verbiage that

[2:40:05] I would have put in there. And just

[2:40:07] acknowledging, you know, with that

[2:40:09] hydraologic system is under extreme

[2:40:11] pressure from supply and demand

[2:40:13] imbalances, climate induced reductions

[2:40:15] and snowpack recharge and depletions of

[2:40:17] our storage reservoirs. And I wrote that

[2:40:20] and I believe in it and so I will state

[2:40:22] that. So those are the things that I was

[2:40:24] concerned about. Here's here's my

[2:40:26] additional comments to say that the

[2:40:29] planning commission listened or that

[2:40:31] we're listening. I'm going to disagree

[2:40:33] with that statement. You had a lot of

[2:40:36] public reaching out that wanted some

[2:40:38] additions to this planning commissioners

[2:40:40] that wanted some amendments. That didn't

[2:40:42] happen. This idea that we're using the

[2:40:45] best available science,

[2:40:47] maybe we are, but what I asked for again

[2:40:50] and again is that those were referenced

[2:40:51] in that document. And there's no

[2:40:53] referencing. And this is just me, the

[2:40:55] professor coming out, but when we're

[2:40:57] saying the best available science, I

[2:41:00] want to see that science in that

[2:41:01] document. And that's a simple that's a

[2:41:03] simple ask, you know.

[2:41:05] little foot footnote and providing a

[2:41:07] reference. So to hear like best

[2:41:08] available science, best available

[2:41:10] science, like where is it? Um I do think

[2:41:15] we're doing an okay job conserving

[2:41:18] water, but but I want to make this

[2:41:19] clear. Utah has the highest per capita water use in the United States.

[2:41:24] The highest per capita. The average is

[2:41:27] 82 gallons a day. We're up around, would

[2:41:30] you say, 180 to 200 gallons a day. So,

[2:41:33] yes, we're doing better than the state

[2:41:35] average, but could we do can

[2:41:37] [clears throat] we start comparing

[2:41:38] ourselves to the national average?

[2:41:40] Probably not a bad idea. Um,

[2:41:44] and then I guess I'm a little like yes,

[2:41:48] we have the rump and we have the

[2:41:50] conservation plan via, but this is a

[2:41:53] part of our general plan. So, you know,

[2:41:56] the county wasn't a part of the water

[2:41:58] resource utility management plan. I went

[2:42:00] to some of those planning meetings, but

[2:42:02] we weren't a part of that. This is our

[2:42:05] little own piece. So to keep saying,

[2:42:07] well, it's already been done

[2:42:11] that that doesn't alleviate our

[2:42:13] responsibility to put something that is

[2:42:17] to me holistic and acknowledging what's

[2:42:20] happening in our own document. So I

[2:42:23] won't be voting for this. I do

[2:42:25] appreciate the amount of work that

[2:42:27] Andrew put into this that the planning

[2:42:29] commission put into this that Brian that

[2:42:31] I've tried to put into it. I did I went

[2:42:33] through this document again and again and again and put a lot of and it never was anyways never came to

[2:42:39] fruition but um that's kind of where I'm

[2:42:42] Thank you.

[2:42:43] >> Thank you. doing that.

[2:42:46] >> It came right at the right time. Right.

[2:42:48] >> Commissioner,

[2:42:50] you're next. Commissioner Hler,

[2:42:52] >> as is in the room, uh, thank you for the

[2:42:55] I just want to tell you, thank you. I

[2:42:57] know we're we're talking about this

[2:42:58] right now, but thank you for the uh

[2:43:00] explanation you actually put on for uh

[2:43:03] candidates and elected officials. I know

[2:43:05] there people in the room can't be seen

[2:43:07] right now, but thank you for doing that.

[2:43:09] It was honestly eye opening to not think

[2:43:12] that this is uh some of this is

[2:43:15] theoretical. It was it it's actually in

[2:43:18] practice. So thank you for that

[2:43:21] >> commissioner. Thanks

[2:43:24] >> Marine. Sounds wonderful.

[2:43:27] >> You can all listen here.

[2:43:29] >> Um yeah, again yeah definitely thank you

[2:43:32] to everyone who who participated in

[2:43:33] this. Um, I'm I think I think Trish's

[2:43:37] recommendations are are common sense,

[2:43:39] reasonable, that they don't clash with

[2:43:42] what's mandated by the state. I I would

[2:43:44] absolutely prefer to see those in this

[2:43:46] plan. I will vote for this plan. I I we

[2:43:49] need it. Um,

[2:43:52] but I think we could I think we could do

[2:43:53] better and I think it's also the general

[2:43:56] plan is a living document. Things can change and can be adapted.

[2:44:00] So, I look forward to to that in the

[2:44:02] future. Thanks.

[2:44:06] » Okay. Mary, did you have anything? Or

[2:44:08] Commissioner McCandless, did you want to

[2:44:10] weigh in?

[2:44:19] » Yeah.

[2:44:20] >> Did you have anything, Commissioner

[2:44:22] McCandless? Um, I just think that the

[2:44:24] planning and zoning department or

[2:44:26] commission went over this back and forth

[2:44:29] and back and forth and I'm happy to

[2:44:31] accept their recommendation and pass it

[2:44:33] tonight.

[2:44:36] >> All right. Thank you. Um, I'll make a

[2:44:38] few comments and then call for a vote if

[2:44:40] you don't have anything, Mary.

[2:44:42] >> Right. No, I don't.

[2:44:43] >> Okay. I'm glad to see that um Trish that

[2:44:47] you see that the Colorado River using

[2:44:49] that water for irrigation is a good idea

[2:44:51] because I really think that if we want

[2:44:54] to get serious about protecting our

[2:44:56] aquifer in this valley that that that's

[2:44:59] going to come at a price.

[2:45:02] Any secondary water is going to come at

[2:45:05] a price. whether we pump it from the

[2:45:07] Colorado River or we utilize flood

[2:45:11] mitigation efforts to protect, you know,

[2:45:14] not only our homeowners in the valley,

[2:45:16] but then to um utilize that water for

[2:45:19] future irrigation. There there's a lot

[2:45:21] of different things that we can be

[2:45:22] doing. And there's a lot of counties in

[2:45:25] the state of Utah that are already

[2:45:27] making those efforts. They're planning

[2:45:29] for the future because Utah is a very

[2:45:31] arid, dry, deserty state. And we have to

[2:45:36] look to the future and part of the

[2:45:38] future is the Colorado River and our

[2:45:41] water rights there. And any secondary

[2:45:44] water comes at a cost whether it's there

[2:45:48] and and to get us on secondary water. I

[2:45:50] wish that I had it at my house. I wish I

[2:45:53] had irrigation water. So I I do see the

[2:45:56] value in moving towards some secondary

[2:46:00] water for the entire valley and the

[2:46:02] conservation that would do on our

[2:46:03] aquifer. I I do know that we constantly

[2:46:07] have a lot of people who voice their

[2:46:09] opinion from Castle Valley on protecting

[2:46:12] this aquafer when I wonder if their

[2:46:16] efforts wouldn't be better utilized

[2:46:18] protecting the Castle Valley aquafer.

[2:46:20] And until Castle Valley starts looking

[2:46:24] towards a sewage treatment,

[2:46:28] they're not protecting their own

[2:46:29] aquifer. There has to be sewage

[2:46:32] treatment at some point when the entire

[2:46:34] or the majority of Castle Valley aquifer

[2:46:37] is overlaid with a gravel bar. It it

[2:46:40] it's just natural that those septic

[2:46:42] systems are leeching into their own

[2:46:44] aquifer. And I think there's plenty of

[2:46:46] room in that aquafer to be protecting it

[2:46:49] as well. But with that, um, again, I

[2:46:52] think that I appreciate your work,

[2:46:54] Andrew. I appreciate the work of the

[2:46:56] planning department. And with that, I'll

[2:46:58] call for a vote. All those in favor of

[2:47:01] this motion.

[2:47:03] Those opposed.

[2:47:06] And Melody, I didn't see your hand. Was

[2:47:09] Did you put it? Okay. Thank you. All

[2:47:11] right. So, that passes. Six in favor

[2:47:15] with one opposed. Commissioner Hadine.

[2:47:17] And with that, we can move on to

[2:47:22] I believe the bur oaks

[2:47:24] subdivision

[2:47:30] and the rain.

[2:47:32] >> Ready? [clears throat]

[2:47:33] >> Yes, sir.

[2:47:35] Uh, this proposal would reszone a vacant

[2:47:38] 5 acre parcel at 4500 South Zimmerman

[2:47:41] Lane just south of the Blue Vista

[2:47:43] subdivision from rural residential to

[2:47:45] large lot residential. A change would

[2:47:48] allow about an 8 and a half acre uh,

[2:47:51] excuse me, about eight halfacre single

[2:47:54] family lots. Obviously, we're not

[2:47:56] discussing the subdivision at this

[2:47:57] point. This is just the zones. The

[2:48:00] Spanish Valley future land use plan uh

[2:48:03] maps this area as moderate scale

[2:48:05] neighborhood which allows somewhat uh

[2:48:08] more housing than what is proposed

[2:48:11] even though we can't talk about that.

[2:48:13] staff recommends commission take public

[2:48:15] comment uh which you've already received

[2:48:17] some at the previous meeting and I think

[2:48:19] there's been two um public comment that

[2:48:23] was received uh digitally and was in

[2:48:26] your backup material um that you review

[2:48:30] it and then [clears throat] um make a re

[2:48:33] well and make a recommendation for

[2:48:35] approval or denial. One of the questions

[2:48:37] though or not a question but a comment

[2:48:39] on this is we have seen a a number of

[2:48:44] subdivisions or subdivision requests in

[2:48:46] this general area and I think it would

[2:48:50] probably be good if we could maybe um as

[2:48:54] the county um

[2:48:58] sponsor a limited subreional

[2:49:02] transportation traffic analysis

[2:49:06] um on study on this general area so we

[2:49:09] can figure out does this road need to go

[2:49:11] through, does that road need to go

[2:49:12] through? Does the city be widened? How

[2:49:15] will we want to have access to this just

[2:49:18] because we've had several active um

[2:49:21] applications in this area as well as

[2:49:23] several people that have come to me just

[2:49:26] in the department and ask about um

[2:49:29] development in this area. And so I'd

[2:49:32] recommend we we can't do it at zone

[2:49:35] change that's appropriate at um actually

[2:49:39] the subvision stage to request uh a tra

[2:49:43] traffic information traffic analysis

[2:49:46] plan um just because the zone change it

[2:49:49] could still be one house or it could be

[2:49:52] eight houses but once uh subdivisions

[2:49:55] applied for um look at that but I think

[2:49:58] it's a bigger p picture that we need to

[2:50:01] look at. And it's not just this straw

[2:50:03] that breaks the camel's back. Look at

[2:50:14] questions,

[2:50:16] thoughts, motion.

[2:50:22] I'll start with some questions. Are you

[2:50:24] ready?

[2:50:26] Go ahead.

[2:50:27] >> I know that we

[2:50:29] didn't approve the Novak zone because of

[2:50:32] the very issues that are brought up by

[2:50:35] two of the letters that we have in here.

[2:50:38] And that's the impact on Zimmerman going

[2:50:40] through there. And it was my

[2:50:43] recollection that we asked or that I

[2:50:46] asked specifically that we look to do a

[2:50:49] traffic study in that area before we did

[2:50:52] any upzoning in that area. And and with

[2:50:56] the NOVAc, help me if I miss it, but um

[2:51:00] I think that they were

[2:51:01] >> Yeah, they it never we didn't they

[2:51:03] pulled their application. We still had

[2:51:05] conversations and said that there was

[2:51:09] traffic was a big issue.

[2:51:10] >> You're correct. We they did pull it. It

[2:51:12] was not voted down.

[2:51:14] >> Yeah.

[2:51:15] >> So again, that is an issue. Now, you

[2:51:19] know, for the record, I have a son that

[2:51:20] lives on Zimmerman and um he hasn't, but

[2:51:24] his partner has is one of those against

[2:51:28] this. So, I just want that out there for

[2:51:30] the disclosure, but that's not my

[2:51:33] concern.

[2:51:34] The concern is is that this area has a

[2:51:38] huge traffic issue.

[2:51:41] >> That that sub area definitely needs to

[2:51:44] have traffic analysis of that sub area.

[2:51:47] that we

[2:51:48] >> and and honestly I just think it needs

[2:51:50] to happen before we can upzone anything

[2:51:53] to allow for that. Commissioner Edin, go

[2:51:55] ahead.

[2:51:56] >> Well, I I think in general reszones and

[2:52:00] I and I really wish and I know Andrew I

[2:52:03] know that it's an ordinance, but I in

[2:52:06] the end it's a reszone and so I would

[2:52:08] appreciate because I think for the

[2:52:10] general public they're used to that term

[2:52:11] reszone, but I would love to just kind

[2:52:13] of keep that title. Um

[2:52:17] I think in the end this is where

[2:52:20] [laughter] and I keep saying it I keep

[2:52:22] saying it. I think we need to pull on

[2:52:25] the R pull the reinss on reszones until

[2:52:28] we have land use code update but more

[2:52:31] importantly a land use an updated land

[2:52:33] use map because I do think with an

[2:52:35] updated land use map where we're

[2:52:37] literally saying okay now we're cutting

[2:52:39] corners right because right now our map

[2:52:41] is this future land use map which is

[2:52:44] blobby because it was people coming to

[2:52:47] meetings and we were putting stickers on

[2:52:49] a map and going well this area in theory

[2:52:51] will be this and this area in theory

[2:52:53] will be that that is not a zoning map. I

[2:52:56] want to make that very clear. It is not.

[2:52:58] When we get to a zoning map stage, it

[2:53:01] will have 90 degree angles, right? And

[2:53:04] hopefully also within that we will be

[2:53:07] acknowledging

[2:53:08] the road systems and what it can bear. I

[2:53:12] agree. I mean, I I I won't say that. I

[2:53:14] don't know what you were po pointing

[2:53:15] out, but and maybe I missed it, Phil,

[2:53:17] but um I think this area is and and I'm

[2:53:22] actually more concerned about Stocks

[2:53:24] Drive and the acceleration and

[2:53:26] deceleration lane. We had a member of

[2:53:29] our community and her son killed there.

[2:53:32] The reality is we do not have the

[2:53:34] infrastructure at that intersection to

[2:53:36] bear the weight of this these types of

[2:53:39] upzones. And I think until we have that

[2:53:41] holistic view and that map in place and

[2:53:44] then the roads department starts going

[2:53:46] and UD do start and and I know we had

[2:53:48] that UD do meeting recently where that

[2:53:51] was kind of one of the main consensus that came out of that was like

[2:53:56] acceleration and deceleration lanes

[2:53:58] right that really helped like OSA that

[2:54:01] helps tremendously that is such stock

[2:54:04] drive coming out of there and I do it

[2:54:05] all the time because now I roll through

[2:54:07] Zimmerman because you know, it's it's a

[2:54:11] shortcut, right? And what um it was

[2:54:14] actually Russ Tangren recommended to me

[2:54:17] and I know I think we're we're looking

[2:54:18] at that there is that sit parcel or

[2:54:20] Trustlands parcel um near there that

[2:54:23] it's like could we get an artery coming

[2:54:25] off of Spanish valley onto 191 that

[2:54:29] you're not cutting through neighborhoods

[2:54:30] but we don't have it. So to keep

[2:54:32] upzoning that area I think is really

[2:54:36] scary. And then the last thing I want to

[2:54:38] state is one of the things that one of

[2:54:41] our planning commissioners always said

[2:54:42] is like personal property rights and

[2:54:45] it's and he's right but the reality is I

[2:54:49] moved into rural residential I don't

[2:54:51] know how many years ago 20 years ago

[2:54:53] because I wanted to live in rural

[2:54:54] residential. I lived up on Juniper on a

[2:54:58] 1acre parcel and then I moved on to

[2:55:00] Heather he heaven sorry Heather and on

[2:55:03] to easy street because I want to live in

[2:55:05] rural residential. I don't want to live

[2:55:07] in large lot and I don't want to live in

[2:55:09] small lot. If I wanted to live in those,

[2:55:12] I would move into town and that's not

[2:55:13] what I want to do. I want to have some

[2:55:15] pigs. I want to have some chickens. I

[2:55:17] want my rooster to crow and I don't want

[2:55:19] to have people complain about it. And so

[2:55:22] I think in the end it's like this it's kind of a the more that we reszone

[2:55:27] areas where people have moved because

[2:55:29] that's the feel that they want. It's just a like a I'm not going to use

[2:55:35] that terminology, but like screw you to

[2:55:38] your neighbors, right? And and I I will

[2:55:41] tell you I have some very active

[2:55:44] neighbors that are constantly watching

[2:55:46] planning and zoning because that's why

[2:55:48] they moved out there. So, I do just want

[2:55:49] you guys to think about that that it's

[2:55:52] not I'm not a nimi. It's not it's I want

[2:55:55] people to to have a place to live, but I

[2:55:59] also want to have some respect that

[2:56:01] people want to live in rural residential

[2:56:02] because they want that feel, right? Like

[2:56:06] I don't want people complaining about my

[2:56:07] hound dogs and my chickens because

[2:56:10] they're right backed up against me. Um,

[2:56:14] so I think until we h I think we should

[2:56:16] think really carefully about until we

[2:56:18] have the land use code update, until we

[2:56:21] actually have the land use map that we

[2:56:24] pull the reinss on these up zones and we

[2:56:26] keep doing it and I and it's it's a

[2:56:29] little scary to me.

[2:56:33] » I want to respond, Mike, and then I'll

[2:56:34] go to you

[2:56:37] clarify. I am not against the up zone.

[2:56:40] I'm against that. I think we have the

[2:56:42] cart in front of the horse here. I I I

[2:56:46] don't know how we get there, Andrew. And

[2:56:48] I I'm looking for you for that.

[2:56:50] >> And and this is this is clearly a

[2:56:52] legislative

[2:56:53] item, right? That it's not

[2:56:56] administrative or anything like that.

[2:56:58] So, you have your legislative powers to

[2:57:00] do what you would like,

[2:57:02] >> right?

[2:57:02] >> Um I agree that this area has seen an

[2:57:06] uptick in applications.

[2:57:08] Um, and I also agree that the existing

[2:57:12] transportation network in the area

[2:57:16] um should be revised and should be

[2:57:18] reviewed.

[2:57:20] Um, and I I think that that's probably a

[2:57:23] substyreional

[2:57:26] transportation study that should be

[2:57:28] conducted. Again,

[2:57:30] >> so

[2:57:30] >> you have legislative powers of whatever

[2:57:32] you want to do on a regional

[2:57:35] application. You can deny it, you can

[2:57:38] hold it, you can do whatever you like.

[2:57:41] I do though also uh agree that there

[2:57:44] needs to be some type of a regional

[2:57:46] transportation, not subregional

[2:57:48] transportation network study that area.

[2:57:51] >> So,

[2:57:54] do we not have impact fees that could

[2:57:57] pay for a study there? I mean, where do we pull this money from have to

[2:58:01] add another item to our budget that

[2:58:03] we're

[2:58:04] >> Yeah. So, impact fees can do

[2:58:06] transportation studies.

[2:58:07] >> And then would it not benefit this

[2:58:10] client to wait until we've had that

[2:58:13] study done to find out? Or the other

[2:58:16] thing that I might suggest is that they

[2:58:18] join the existing PUD, right? Or

[2:58:22] whatever the subdivision that's on

[2:58:23] Zimmerman Lane, the Blue Vista, and go

[2:58:25] through their homeowners association and

[2:58:28] become just enlarge what's existing

[2:58:30] there already if they want to go that

[2:58:32] route.

[2:58:32] >> Yeah. It's 100% your your call as to

[2:58:36] what you want to do.

[2:58:37] >> Okay. And I've got Commissioner

[2:58:40] McCandless. Um, please go ahead and then

[2:58:43] >> Thank you.

[2:58:46] >> So, I just want to note that, you know,

[2:58:48] they are asking for two lots per acre

[2:58:51] instead of one. And anything that's

[2:58:53] going to be rural residential in this

[2:58:55] county that's going to be oneacre lots

[2:58:56] is going to be ridiculously expensive.

[2:58:58] So, we're just keeping homes for

[2:59:00] millionaires out there in the valley in

[2:59:01] that real residential area. And so, I'm

[2:59:04] 100% for this proposal. I think that

[2:59:08] they are willing to take two of the

[2:59:10] acres to create their own road out there

[2:59:13] so that they, you know, we'll just have

[2:59:15] one access point in and out of Zimmerman

[2:59:18] or Stocks or however it ends up being.

[2:59:19] I'm not going to look at the site plan

[2:59:21] right now because that is irrelevant to

[2:59:23] the fact that this is going to be um

[2:59:25] that we're going to allow them to put

[2:59:27] eight eight homes in five acres and

[2:59:29] that's happening out that's already

[2:59:31] happened out there. That's what's

[2:59:32] happening in that PD that you uh already

[2:59:36] suggested. But I think that I agree that

[2:59:39] we need to have a transportation plan

[2:59:41] out there. But I also don't think that

[2:59:42] we just keep stopping people from being

[2:59:44] able to build the homes that they want.

[2:59:47] You know, and I and I live in town. I do

[2:59:50] not live out there, but I know in town

[2:59:52] we have people that continue to buy the

[2:59:54] homes in town and destroy the

[2:59:57] neighborhoods. We don't have kids riding

[2:59:58] bikes anymore. We don't have families in

[3:00:00] town because people have bought the

[3:00:02] homes in town and then spent hundreds of

[3:00:04] thousand dollars to reinvest in them and

[3:00:07] they only come to town a couple of

[3:00:10] months or weeks out of the year. Whereas

[3:00:12] if they had homes out in the valley that

[3:00:14] were, you know, one home on a half acre

[3:00:16] that they would buy those and that they

[3:00:18] would come out there and visit Moab on

[3:00:20] their, you know, free time and it would

[3:00:22] be a second home. And that's what it

[3:00:24] should be out there in the valley and in

[3:00:26] the homes in the neighborhoods in town.

[3:00:27] We need to have neighborhoods. So I am

[3:00:29] protecting the neighborhoods in town and

[3:00:30] I 100% for this um reszone ordinance

[3:00:34] resolution, whatever you want to call it

[3:00:36] there.

[3:00:37] >> And I don't have the vote. Uh, I thought

[3:00:40] I had it in my my documents. I was

[3:00:42] looking back. I don't have the vote of

[3:00:44] the planning commission, but it was

[3:00:45] either unanimous or one opposed.

[3:00:50] >> Quick followup and then I'll get to Mike

[3:00:52] and Trish. [clears throat]

[3:00:53] There's two questions.

[3:00:56] How much is this traffic study going to

[3:00:58] cost? I mean, when we're talking about

[3:01:00] we have impact fees that could be paying

[3:01:02] for it and when, right? Because if if

[3:01:07] these people win or lose the vote

[3:01:09] tonight, there's going to be somebody

[3:01:11] else come forward. And we can't keep

[3:01:13] putting this off when we know that, as

[3:01:16] Trish said, there were deaths out on 191

[3:01:18] at Stocks Drive. We've had near misses

[3:01:21] on Zimmerman. I I mean, I parked there

[3:01:23] in front of my son's house regularly.

[3:01:25] It's tough to get through there. Whether

[3:01:27] it's the neighbors cutting through as

[3:01:28] Trish does or just the neighbors trying

[3:01:31] to come and go to their own

[3:01:32] >> speed to their own homes in there. So,

[3:01:36] there's a huge issue of traffic in that

[3:01:39] area and and that's where I'm at on it.

[3:01:41] So, dollar-wise, I would like to know

[3:01:42] what that that amount

[3:01:44] >> I don't have the number off, but okay.

[3:01:45] >> It'sable.

[3:01:47] >> And I think Mike and then I believe it

[3:01:48] was Trish next or was I'm sorry, was no

[3:01:53] good.

[3:01:54] >> Okay.

[3:01:55] I don't disagree with the direction

[3:01:56] there. I'd really like that study done.

[3:01:59] But in the same uh token, I'd like to

[3:02:01] make the motion after reviewing the

[3:02:03] staff report, the applicant statement,

[3:02:05] public comments, the Spanish Valley

[3:02:07] future land use plan, and the rules in

[3:02:11] land use code section 9.2.5 2.5 and

[3:02:15] finding that the reszone from bro

[3:02:16] residential to large lot residential

[3:02:18] fits the general plan and future land

[3:02:21] use plan and meets the reasonzoning

[3:02:24] rules along with findings it fit number

[3:02:27] one fits the county general plan and

[3:02:29] Spanish valley future land use plan two

[3:02:32] supports orally efficient land use three

[3:02:35] fits nearby development including blue

[3:02:37] vista subdivision four can be served by

[3:02:41] enough public services. Five does not

[3:02:44] harm public health, safety, or welfare.

[3:02:49] >> Like to approve.

[3:02:50] >> Motion by Commissioner McCertie. Do we

[3:02:53] have a second?

[3:02:55] >> Second.

[3:02:56] by Commissioner McCandless.

[3:02:59] Further comment, Trish.

[3:03:03] >> I was going to make a mot so it's Thank

[3:03:05] you.

[3:03:08] » Minute to build that.

[3:03:10] >> All right. So motion by Commissioner

[3:03:12] McCertie, second by Commissioner

[3:03:13] McCandless. I'll call for a vote. Those

[3:03:15] in favor?

[3:03:17] >> I.

[3:03:18] >> And those opposed?

[3:03:22] The post the motion fails. Read four.

[3:03:25] The four against. Commissioner Hadine,

[3:03:27] Commissioner Hadler, Commissioner Mcan,

[3:03:29] and myself, Commissioner Winfield.

[3:03:32] >> I [clears throat] um think we've got to

[3:03:34] get serious about a traffic study.

[3:03:36] >> Yes.

[3:03:37] >> In that area. Yes.

[3:03:38] >> Agree bill. Absolutely.

[3:03:42] >> We can't do anything to

[3:03:45] >> a denial.

[3:03:46] >> Yes.

[3:03:47] >> Or three.

[3:03:49] >> Yes. All right. Moving on from

[3:03:56] that, we are up to a resolution

[3:03:58] establishing an audit coordination

[3:04:00] incentive program for component units of

[3:04:03] Grand County. This um admin

[3:04:08] Yes. Um,

[3:04:11] we have talked about this uh with the

[3:04:14] audit committee

[3:04:16] for the last year or so and if component

[3:04:19] units were to use the county's auditor.

[3:04:23] Um the talk was that we would look at

[3:04:26] contributing $2,500

[3:04:29] toward their audit as an incentive for

[3:04:31] them to get those in and get those done

[3:04:33] to where it would it would help the

[3:04:35] county's audit be done on time. So

[3:04:38] that's what this is. We had never

[3:04:40] formally addressed it. So that is that

[3:04:43] is this motion. I'm sorry.

[3:04:46] >> Commissioner man.

[3:04:48] >> Okay. Uh, so it's it's not in budget,

[3:04:52] but is this for next year?

[3:04:55] >> There was

[3:04:56] >> So would it be in next year's budget

[3:04:59] >> rather than this year's budget?

[3:05:01] >> There was approving it now.

[3:05:03] >> There was one component unit that did

[3:05:05] use the county's auditor this year, and

[3:05:08] that was EMS

[3:05:10] SSD. So, there [clears throat] would

[3:05:12] only be one $2,500

[3:05:15] uh payout if you all approved that for

[3:05:17] this year.

[3:05:19] >> True.

[3:05:20] >> They they were expecting

[3:05:21] >> They were the only Yeah, they were

[3:05:23] expecting it. They were the only one

[3:05:24] that um didn't already have contracts in

[3:05:27] place with somebody else.

[3:05:30] >> So, they they did um say they would like

[3:05:33] to use that incentive. We offered it. I

[3:05:36] think we voted on it at the commission.

[3:05:38] I don't know where we we're going to

[3:05:40] bring the money from.

[3:05:41] >> Yes, county attorney.

[3:05:43] >> We need to go back to item number nine.

[3:05:45] There needs to be findings to support a

[3:05:47] denial in the event that the applicant

[3:05:49] wants to challenge the denial of the

[3:05:52] subdivision on Baroque subdivision being

[3:05:55] denied.

[3:05:58] » You repeat what you said. I'm sorry.

[3:06:00] Second.

[3:06:01] >> So, we need to have findings for the

[3:06:03] denial. So the commission needs to go

[3:06:05] back and make finding specifically for

[3:06:07] the denial

[3:06:16] » in the minority. I can go right. There's

[3:06:19] no penny motion.

[3:06:20] >> Yeah. Thanks. I mean I think safety is

[3:06:23] absolutely one of them.

[3:06:25] >> How however the commission wants to do

[3:06:26] it. You can read the planning commission

[3:06:28] motion but you need to create findings.

[3:06:31] So after reviewing if you look at the

[3:06:34] >> I I see what you mean.

[3:06:35] >> So go go go down to the plan the there's

[3:06:37] not a planned motion or there's not a

[3:06:39] suggested motion in the document but if

[3:06:41] you go down to the planning commission

[3:06:42] after reviewing and it lists out

[3:06:44] criterias and then you need to make

[3:06:46] findings in the opposite of what it is.

[3:06:50] So if you look at

[3:06:52] >> true J is that what you're looking

[3:06:54] >> correct. So the opposite. Okay.

[3:06:57] >> Well, whatever, not necessarily the

[3:06:59] opposite. Whatever ones you think were

[3:07:01] the determining factors so that you guys

[3:07:03] can have a support basis for making

[3:07:06] >> I just wanted to catch it because

[3:07:07] otherwise if we don't we'll have to come

[3:07:08] back and do this again.

[3:07:09] >> Thank you. Appreciate that.

[3:07:13] » Um

[3:07:16] do you want one person to do that

[3:07:18] Stephen or

[3:07:19] >> Yeah. Um, I' I'd suggest whoever is in

[3:07:22] the uh in the controlling vote, perhaps

[3:07:24] you could say after reviewing the staff

[3:07:26] report, applicant statement, public

[3:07:27] comments, the Spanish Valley future land

[3:07:29] use map and the rules and land use code

[3:07:31] section 2.5 or sorry 9.2.5

[3:07:36] » um of the general plan and future land

[3:07:38] use. It does not meet uh the reasoning

[3:07:42] requirements and we find as follows. And

[3:07:44] then you could go up to that section A

[3:07:45] through K. Okay. Any of the options or

[3:07:47] flavors that you like and you make that

[3:07:49] finding that for example,

[3:07:51] hypothetically, it does not fit the area

[3:07:53] around it.

[3:07:54] >> Whatever the stance is.

[3:07:55] >> I'll I'll I'll take a shot at it. I'm

[3:07:57] going to it. Okay. That I say I parrot

[3:08:00] Stevens what he's just said and and the

[3:08:06] findings. I believe I we move to deny

[3:08:09] this reszone because it does not fit the

[3:08:12] area's character.

[3:08:15] It

[3:08:18] does not its density and intensity is

[3:08:21] not appropriate for the surrounding

[3:08:24] neighborhood and the surrounding

[3:08:27] infrastructure or the infrastructure

[3:08:29] that o overlays that and thus safety is

[3:08:32] an issue.

[3:08:35] And I do believe it's I'm going to say

[3:08:37] that it is spot zoning on three sides of

[3:08:40] that. It's rural residential. I'm pretty

[3:08:42] sure three sides of it. So I would state

[3:08:44] that it is spot zoning.

[3:08:48] >> And do you guys disagree? I can modify

[3:08:50] those.

[3:08:52] >> So where does safety fit in this county

[3:08:55] attorney? Because that's

[3:08:56] >> I kind of tried to say that on that

[3:08:57] infrastructure that it doesn't have the

[3:08:59] appropriate infrastructure and and

[3:09:02] however you want to do that bill. if you

[3:09:03] want to say that infrastructure does

[3:09:05] that provide for the

[3:09:08] safety and well-being whatsoever is that you're looking at.

[3:09:12] >> Um

[3:09:14] I just

[3:09:15] >> for the stats

[3:09:19] » I mean that's really the only argument

[3:09:21] that I have about that this entire

[3:09:24] process is the safety in that

[3:09:26] neighborhood.

[3:09:27] >> Sure. And and you could look at I mean

[3:09:29] you could add it into item D. Will will

[3:09:32] the will the community benefit? You can

[3:09:35] say no. I don't believe the community

[3:09:36] benefits. You know, an episode in this

[3:09:38] matter creates a safety risk. Um

[3:09:43] >> I

[3:09:44] put a bunch of them in there.

[3:09:46] >> Yeah. You know, is it a density and

[3:09:49] intensity if you're looking at that?

[3:09:51] >> I did.

[3:09:52] >> Yeah. I said the density intensity does

[3:09:54] not fit the neighborhood andor the

[3:09:56] infrastructure

[3:09:57] >> and the area around it. And then I mean

[3:09:59] J, but that's not as good of a fit. The

[3:10:02] other items that we've noted are

[3:10:03] probably better.

[3:10:05] >> B works for me as far as safety and the

[3:10:08] concerns with that road.

[3:10:12] >> Would the community benefit?

[3:10:14] >> Yeah. So we've listed m commissioner

[3:10:16] Deans listed multiple areas. Um, is that

[3:10:19] something that's palatable to the people

[3:10:21] that

[3:10:21] >> Yeah, I I agree.

[3:10:25] >> What What does that do for them being

[3:10:28] able to come back if there has been a

[3:10:30] road study done? I mean, I don't want to

[3:10:32] agree to all of these when I would have

[3:10:35] likely voted on this if we had followed

[3:10:38] up the Novak debacle with a traffic

[3:10:41] study or whatever you want to call the

[3:10:43] Novak. So the the current application

[3:10:44] before the commission now just has to

[3:10:46] have a basis a final determination by

[3:10:48] the county body once they have that um

[3:10:51] either they can try to go through an

[3:10:53] appeal and say that the county has

[3:10:54] exceeded its legislative authority in in

[3:10:57] considering the upzone or in the future

[3:11:00] if they come back with a new application

[3:11:02] that new application can be considered

[3:11:04] based on the relevant factors at the

[3:11:06] time. This gives them a conclusion, so

[3:11:09] to speak, without finding an approval or

[3:11:11] a denial. They're in limbo and they're

[3:11:12] entitled to a response.

[3:11:14] >> Sure. But we're not adding a undue

[3:11:16] burden for them coming back by putting

[3:11:18] all of those. Or are we?

[3:11:20] >> No. I mean, the body

[3:11:22] >> Yeah. They want to know why.

[3:11:24] >> Yeah.

[3:11:24] >> You want to know? So if there's

[3:11:25] something they could fix, they can fix.

[3:11:27] >> And the and the body has the ability to

[3:11:29] change its, you know, stance later on in

[3:11:31] time. But this this application this

[3:11:33] current application based on the facts

[3:11:35] you guys have considered are the

[3:11:37] following. And remember, you know, the

[3:11:39] commission in the future could could

[3:11:40] change its mind on this item. You guys

[3:11:42] should reconsider it based on factors.

[3:11:44] And your items A through K, all of those

[3:11:46] items, some of well, not all of them.

[3:11:48] They change over time. And so that's why

[3:11:50] they're findings. That's why you can

[3:11:51] point to some evidence. It's like, hey,

[3:11:53] you know, really, um, you know, will this benefit the community? And

[3:11:56] it's all as a balancing. That's what the commission body is doing whenever

[3:12:00] you guys are taking legislative actions.

[3:12:01] you're looking at is this a concern for

[3:12:03] safety or is it such a great need in in

[3:12:07] housing that we are going to uh say that overcomes

[3:12:11] a vote on these findings or

[3:12:12] >> correct that's the goal. So,

[3:12:14] Commissioner Hines laid out uh the

[3:12:15] findings. I would need

[3:12:18] >> made a second

[3:12:18] >> and and Commissioner Mcance's made a

[3:12:20] second. So, you'd restate that.

[3:12:22] >> So, let me state it again. And I'm I'm

[3:12:23] okay with using D and G. Will it benefit

[3:12:27] the community or will will there be

[3:12:30] community benefit? I would state that

[3:12:34] the infrastructure is such that this is

[3:12:36] actually would provide safety issues for

[3:12:38] the surrounding community. And G is the

[3:12:41] density and intensity correct? I would

[3:12:44] say no. That the bulk of this is

[3:12:46] surrounded by rural residential and the

[3:12:48] infrastructure is such that the it's not

[3:12:52] appropriate for the proposed density.

[3:12:55] >> Okay.

[3:12:56] >> And so all right then we just call for a

[3:12:59] vote on that.

[3:13:00] >> Then you need a second and you got a

[3:13:02] second.

[3:13:02] >> Oh, we did have a second.

[3:13:04] So based on those things, the

[3:13:06] commission, as we've stated before, has

[3:13:08] considered the staff report, applicant

[3:13:09] statement, public comments, Spanish

[3:13:11] valley future land use map or plan,

[3:13:13] rules in the land use code section

[3:13:14] 9.2.5,

[3:13:16] and finds that uh based on those

[3:13:18] criteria stated that the commission

[3:13:22] denies the reszone application.

[3:13:24] >> All right. So I'll call for a vote on

[3:13:26] that. Those in favor of Commissioner

[3:13:28] Hadin's motion, seconded by Commissioner

[3:13:31] Mcan. All in favor? Those

[3:13:36] opposed.

[3:13:39] All right. Motion passes with

[3:13:41] Commissioner McCandless, Commissioner

[3:13:42] Martinez, and Commissioner McCertie

[3:13:45] opposed to the motion.

[3:13:47] >> Thank you, Chair.

[3:13:48] >> Sorry to interrupt the discussion on

[3:13:49] item number 10.

[3:13:50] >> All right. So, we will go back to number

[3:13:52] 10.

[3:13:54] >> We're back at number 10,

[3:13:55] >> I think. So, yes. Can I

[3:13:58] >> Oh, you go ahead. Sorry. Basically, all

[3:14:00] this is doing is you're you're passing a

[3:14:03] resolution and the expenditure for this

[3:14:06] year would be $2,500. This will be

[3:14:09] something that you'll have to address

[3:14:11] for next year's budget going forward,

[3:14:14] but this is a one-time $2,500

[3:14:16] expenditure tonight.

[3:14:17] >> So, would we be taking out discretionary

[3:14:19] fund?

[3:14:21] >> That would be my recommendation. Yeah,

[3:14:23] let's just

[3:14:24] >> cuz that's not discussed doing that if

[3:14:27] we didn't have a better when we were in

[3:14:29] our last meeting.

[3:14:32] >> All right,

[3:14:32] >> go Mike.

[3:14:33] >> I move to approve the resolution

[3:14:35] establishing an audit coordination

[3:14:36] incentive program for the con component

[3:14:38] units of Grand County uh this year's

[3:14:41] fiscal impact $2,500 to discretionary

[3:14:44] fund.

[3:14:45] >> Motion by second that Mike.

[3:14:49] I like how you stated that

[3:14:50] >> motion by Commissioner McCertie,

[3:14:52] seconded by

[3:14:57] » me.

[3:14:57] >> Oh,

[3:15:00] by

[3:15:04] you put all the components in place

[3:15:05] because I was like, where's this money

[3:15:06] coming from? So,

[3:15:08] >> all right. All in favor?

[3:15:10] >> I

[3:15:12] >> passes unanimously.

[3:15:13] >> Thanks for you guys. Thank you guys for

[3:15:15] working on that.

[3:15:16] >> Yes. Thank you. All right. So then we

[3:15:18] are moving on to number 12.

[3:15:21] >> Correct. 11 is being postponed.

[3:15:23] >> Consideration for adoption of a

[3:15:25] resolution authorizing the issuance and

[3:15:28] sale of not more than

[3:15:30] 1 million aggregate principal amount of

[3:15:33] transportation sales tax revenue bonds

[3:15:38] 2026 and related matters. And we had Mr.

[3:15:42] Keller. Yep. He's still here.

[3:15:44] >> Amazing.

[3:15:47] Keller, we're trying to get one of

[3:15:48] Marcus' associates to join the meeting

[3:15:50] right now, but

[3:15:51] >> Okay.

[3:15:55] » Hi. Can you hear me? Okay.

[3:15:57] >> Yes.

[3:15:59] >> Excellent. Perfect. Um, and I apologize.

[3:16:02] I was just on the phone there really

[3:16:03] quick. Did we uh did we get to the uh

[3:16:05] the resolution for the the bonds?

[3:16:08] >> We did, sir.

[3:16:09] >> Excellent. Well, thank you guys or uh

[3:16:12] council for letting us present today. We

[3:16:14] uh we appreciate the opportunity to work

[3:16:16] with the county and we're uh we're happy

[3:16:18] to to kind of go over this information.

[3:16:21] Garrett may be joining as well here

[3:16:22] shortly. He's with the bond council

[3:16:25] that's helping on this transaction and

[3:16:28] uh we will uh start from there. Now, I'm

[3:16:30] not sure do you if Quinn or Mark need to

[3:16:34] introduce the project? Is there any

[3:16:36] questions on that before I get into the

[3:16:38] parameters for the financing?

[3:16:42] This is the

[3:16:44] Jackson Street

[3:16:46] Tra is what this is.

[3:16:49] >> Yes. For the

[3:16:50] >> I think we're all aware of that.

[3:16:51] >> And this bond is to cover the loan

[3:16:54] portion of the CIB loan. Correct. I just

[3:16:58] that's for

[3:16:59] >> correct.

[3:17:01] >> So, so to give you a little background

[3:17:02] on that. So, a couple years ago, I

[3:17:05] believe this was in Mark, you may

[3:17:08] remember, in 2022,

[3:17:10] CIB approved a $99,000

[3:17:14] uh loan at 1% for 30 years and $447,000

[3:17:19] of grant money for this upcoming

[3:17:22] project. So, you've got a grant and loan

[3:17:24] combination from the Community Impact

[3:17:27] Board for this upcoming project. Well, I

[3:17:29] guess it's been upcoming for a long

[3:17:31] time. we're we're finally here to to get

[3:17:34] it going. But uh so that was the

[3:17:36] financing terms from CIB. And so for

[3:17:38] today, the resolution before you today

[3:17:40] is a parameters resolution that goes

[3:17:43] through a a few different items. The

[3:17:46] main items I want to talk about today

[3:17:48] are the parameters that you would be

[3:17:51] setting to be able to access that

[3:17:52] $99,000

[3:17:54] of loan authorization from CIB. So in

[3:17:57] the parameters, you would be authorizing

[3:17:59] up to $1 million of transportation sales

[3:18:03] tax revenue bonds that could extend out

[3:18:05] to 33 years at up to a 2.5% interest

[3:18:09] rate and up to a 98% discount. Now

[3:18:13] again, those aren't matching exactly

[3:18:15] because we always give you a little

[3:18:17] flexibility with the parameters

[3:18:19] resolution, but they are all up to or

[3:18:21] not to exceed amounts. And this way if

[3:18:23] there's slight changes, we don't have to

[3:18:25] go back through the entire process again

[3:18:27] with public hearing and everything else

[3:18:29] that's associated with this uh

[3:18:31] resolution. But the public hearing it

[3:18:34] would also be called for as part of this

[3:18:36] motion which would be scheduled for

[3:18:38] August 18th at 6:00 pm at your regular

[3:18:42] county council meeting. Um maybe I'll

[3:18:45] pause there to see if there's any

[3:18:46] questions at this point for the

[3:18:48] parameters resolution.

[3:18:51] Commissioner Mccertie, I'd

[3:18:52] >> like to make the motion. I move to

[3:18:54] approve the resolution authorizing the

[3:18:55] issuance and sale of not more than $1

[3:18:58] million aggregate principal amount of

[3:19:00] transportation sales tax revenue bonds

[3:19:03] series 2026 and related matters and call

[3:19:07] for a public hearing at the August 18th,

[3:19:10] 2026 commission meeting 6 p.m.

[3:19:14] >> Motion by Commissioner McCertie, second

[3:19:16] by Commissioner Hadler. further

[3:19:19] discussion. It's probably gonna flood

[3:19:21] right now.

[3:19:22] >> Yep.

[3:19:24] >> I think it's appropriate to make some

[3:19:26] CIB comments when do you know?

[3:19:30] >> So, there has been some discussion come

[3:19:33] back from CIB because this bid came in

[3:19:36] lower than we previously had estimated.

[3:19:41] It's possible that the CIB loan is going

[3:19:43] to be reduced

[3:19:46] um and which would then the grant would

[3:19:49] also be reduced somewhat and that would

[3:19:52] increase the match that we are pulling

[3:19:55] out of the

[3:19:57] storm water mitigation fund. And so I've

[3:20:01] been tasked considering I'm sitting on a

[3:20:03] CIB board to see if that's actual or if

[3:20:06] there's anything we can work with it.

[3:20:07] But I want everybody to be aware that I

[3:20:10] think the increase to the storm water

[3:20:13] fund would be

[3:20:14] >> 152.

[3:20:16] Is it 152 or 110?

[3:20:18] >> Um I've got 152303.

[3:20:21] >> So possibly we're going to see this

[3:20:24] increase on the storm mitigation fund

[3:20:27] and our loan and our grant decrease if

[3:20:30] this is in fact correct. But I want to

[3:20:32] follow up with CIB before we,

[3:20:35] you know, panic or whatever we want to

[3:20:38] call it. So

[3:20:39] >> do some magic at CIB, Bill.

[3:20:41] >> Well, I don't know about magic.

[3:20:44] >> I will do my

[3:20:45] >> I would appreciate it.

[3:20:47] >> So if there's no further discussion, I

[3:20:49] just wanted everybody to understand that

[3:20:51] CIB might be decreasing this based off

[3:20:54] of the fact that we got a lower bid than

[3:20:56] what was originally estimated on this.

[3:20:59] And can I clarify though, Marcus, just

[3:21:00] so everybody's clear, but we can with

[3:21:02] within this parameters resolution, these

[3:21:04] numbers can change as long as we don't

[3:21:06] exceed

[3:21:08] what is in the parameters resolution.

[3:21:09] Correct.

[3:21:10] >> That's exactly right. Um Quinn, you

[3:21:12] you've hit the nail on the head and and before the motion, I did just want

[3:21:16] to introduce Garrett Gross with Gilmore

[3:21:18] and Bell's bond council. Garrett, was

[3:21:19] there anything else to add or addition

[3:21:21] to Quinn's question?

[3:21:22] >> Nope. I mean, that's it. that just

[3:21:24] essentially it's they're the upper

[3:21:26] limits and if that money is reduced I I

[3:21:29] think it's prudent and wise you know so

[3:21:31] you don't have to come back uh and

[3:21:35] reauthorize to to you know Marcus and I

[3:21:37] discussed this a little bit to keep that

[3:21:39] amount those parameters those upper

[3:21:41] limits kind of locked where they're at

[3:21:44] but uh yeah that's that's that's the

[3:21:47] intent so that if it is reduced we can

[3:21:49] always go lower but to to go higher we try to set it a little higher than what's expected just so we don't

[3:21:56] have to reauthorize.

[3:22:00] » Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. If there's

[3:22:02] no further discussion, I'll call for a

[3:22:04] vote. All in favor of the motion?

[3:22:07] >> I

[3:22:09] >> that passes unanimously.

[3:22:12] And with that, thank you gentlemen.

[3:22:14] Appreciate your participation.

[3:22:16] >> Absolutely. Thanks, commission. And uh

[3:22:18] we'll be in touch.

[3:22:20] >> Thank you.

[3:22:20] >> Have a great night. Byebye.

[3:22:21] >> Have a good evening.

[3:22:22] >> Yes. Thank you. Um, yes, Commissioner

[3:22:24] Mccertie.

[3:22:25] >> I'd like to make the motion uh to go

[3:22:27] into close session reasoned uh

[3:22:32] pending leg uh legal uh imminent legal

[3:22:36] litigation

[3:22:36] >> perhaps. Commission, is there anything

[3:22:38] else that you folks have on general reports because otherwise people

[3:22:42] think may want to wait.

[3:22:44] >> Right. So, we're going to skip over the

[3:22:46] general reports. I just there's a few

[3:22:48] more items there, Mike. Unless somebody

[3:22:49] there's a commission report somebody

[3:22:51] wants to stress, elected officials. Uh

[3:22:54] we really only have the county attorney,

[3:22:57] commission administrator.

[3:22:59] >> All right. So then we have a motion to

[3:23:02] go into close session by Commissioner

[3:23:04] Mccertie, seconded by Commissioner

[3:23:05] Adler. All in favor?

[3:23:09] >> I.

[3:23:10] >> Passes unanimously.

[3:23:12] And we have Mr. Gleon here to be in this

[3:23:16] close session with us.

Commission Meeting 21 JUL 2026

Transcript