[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.