[2:10] All right, I will open this commission
[2:12] meeting up August 4th, 2026 at 3:30
[2:17] Well, it will just blinked over to 4:00
[2:18] p.m. Those present are Commissioner
[2:21] Hadine, Commissioner Hadler,
[2:23] Commissioner Martinez,
[2:25] Commissioner McCurdy, myself
[2:27] Commissioner Winfield with Commissioner
[2:30] Candless online. We've also got our
[2:33] county attorney Stephen Stocks,
[2:35] administrator Mr. Tyner, and clerk
[2:37] auditor Gabe Wojcik.
[2:40] And with that,
[2:42] >> we start with the Pledge of Allegiance.
[2:45] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[2:48] United States of America, and to the
[2:50] republic for which it stands, one nation
[2:54] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[2:57] justice for all.
[3:02] » All right, thank you, and we will start
[3:06] off, although I don't see Mr. Kaufman
[3:09] here. I have him scheduled for a
[3:13] elected officials report.
[3:16] We know
[3:18] Do you know when he is showing up?
[3:23] Do we want to
[3:25] move past Uh Kaufman was going to give
[3:27] his schedule next for his report.
[3:30] >> Um
[3:34] I'll see him on the way home.
[3:35] >> Um we can come back to that if you like.
[3:38] Um Andrea, would you be fine with your
[3:40] presentation? All right, we will move
[3:42] Andrea's presentation from the Sand
[3:44] Flats director, Andrea Brand.
[3:50] » Can I share my screen?
[3:51] >> Hang on, let me make a speaker view
[3:53] here.
[3:53] >> And real quick if we could everybody
[3:55] please
[3:56] remember use your microphones keep them
[3:58] close so that those online can hear.
[4:02] >> There is a treasurer's report down
[4:06] in the reports and I wonder if that's
[4:09] you know what I'm saying.
[4:10] >> We have him scheduled at 4:00 so.
[4:21] » You want to stop the world?
[4:24] Yes, you are.
[4:28] » [laughter]
[4:28] >> I think I'm sharing it.
[4:32] No.
[4:37] » You should be good to share.
[4:43] » I'm sharing.
[4:48] Push your audio. Should I have that off?
[4:51] >> I would.
[4:52] >> Yes.
[4:54] Yeah, I don't know why it's not.
[5:01] » I'd
[5:03] like to also acknowledge we've got the
[5:05] mayor of Milan with us tonight. Thank
[5:06] you Joyce. Good to see you.
[5:12] Excuse me.
[5:17] What time?
[5:18] You're back.
[5:20] We're on computer technological.
[5:23] Issues.
[5:26] Should we just come on up while they're
[5:27] figuring it out?
[5:29] Show up.
[5:33] Yeah, I see him. I just don't want to
[5:36] interrupt these guys.
[5:52] » Okay, so then I can keep it up going.
[5:58] Okay.
[5:59] Sorry about that.
[6:04] Okay, thank you for the opportunity to
[6:05] come before you today with my annual
[6:07] report.
[6:09] So, Sand Flats made up of 9,000 acres
[6:13] of bold fins and domes of Navajo
[6:16] sandstone, petrified sand dunes, famous
[6:19] for the Slickrock bike trail,
[6:21] was the first was created 1969 was the
[6:24] first designated national recreation
[6:25] trail in Utah. We have both motorized
[6:28] and non-motorized recreationists, over
[6:30] 30 miles of 4x4 trails including Hell's
[6:32] Revenge and Fins and Things. Hell's
[6:34] Revenge was awarded national recreation
[6:36] trail status as well in 2024, so we have
[6:39] two trails with that status. We have our
[6:42] mountain bike trail Porcupine Rim and
[6:43] the new Raptor route.
[6:45] Eight campgrounds, we have about 250,000
[6:48] annual visitors including families and
[6:50] friends both young and old who enjoy
[6:52] recreating in Sand Flats.
[6:54] is unique in that it's
[6:55] managed in partnership between the
[6:56] county and the Bureau of Land Management
[6:58] since 1995.
[7:00] We
[7:00] completed our 27th year of
[7:02] self-sustained operation last year.
[7:05] Um we operate as an enterprise fund
[7:07] under the county, so our operating
[7:09] budget comes exclusively from the
[7:10] collected fees.
[7:12] Sand Flats mission is to ensure that the
[7:14] outstanding natural features of the area
[7:16] are protected from the adverse impacts
[7:17] of recreational use, provide sustainable
[7:20] public recreational opportunities
[7:22] consistent with the character of the
[7:24] area, provide for public safety,
[7:25] reduction of visitor conflicts, assure
[7:28] continuation of positive economic
[7:30] benefits to the county associated with
[7:32] public use of the area, and maintain
[7:34] reasonable access. Both the BLM and
[7:36] Grand County aspire to utilize their
[7:38] combined resources and authorities to
[7:40] cooperatively improve
[7:42] conditions within the area so as to
[7:44] better serve the public and establish a
[7:46] mechanism where users fund
[7:49] the management, protection, and service
[7:52] uh
[7:52] Grand County Sand Flats and the BLM
[7:54] partnership was chosen by the
[7:57] Executive Office of the President's
[7:59] Council on Environmental Quality as a
[8:01] premier example of local and federal
[8:03] governments working cooperatively to
[8:05] successfully resolve conservation
[8:07] issues.
[8:09] The impact on the local economy. The BLM
[8:12] reports that there are 99 permitted
[8:14] commercial tours and shuttle companies
[8:17] that operate at Sand Flats, and of these
[8:19] 75 are local. There are 13 annual BLM
[8:22] permitted events.
[8:25] Thousands of people, close to 50,000,
[8:27] come to participate in these events and
[8:30] special recreation permit commercial
[8:32] activities. There's also dozens of local
[8:34] bike and OHV rental companies that come
[8:37] up to Sand Flats, and the BLM estimates
[8:40] this is that this contributes over 20
[8:42] million to the local economy.
[8:45] So, overall, since 2019, despite the
[8:48] pandemic, uh we had an increase in
[8:50] revenue of 20%
[8:53] comparing this year with last year, our
[8:55] visitation through May is up 6% and our
[8:58] revenue is up 20%.
[9:02] As you recall, we did do the fee
[9:03] increase, which I'll talk about in a
[9:04] minute. We have our stewardship
[9:06] committee, which is an advisory body
[9:08] authorized by Grand County Commission to
[9:10] advise on matters pertaining to Sand
[9:12] Flats. Committee is made up collectively
[9:15] of non-motorized,
[9:18] uh uh recreational activity
[9:19] representatives, along with the BLM and
[9:21] the Grand County Commission liaison.
[9:23] So, day-to-day
[9:25] operations, we have our entrance
[9:27] station, which is staffed from February
[9:29] through November. We have nine
[9:30] trailheads, 60 mi of trails. We have
[9:33] eight fee campgrounds, 140 campsites,
[9:37] and six group sites.
[9:39] We do all this with our four full-time
[9:41] staff including myself, four to six
[9:43] seasonals, and one to two high school
[9:45] students in the spring. We staff the
[9:47] entrance station for fee collection,
[9:48] orientation, and safety. We maintain
[9:51] those nine trailheads. We have daily
[9:53] front country patrols to check
[9:54] compliance, provide security and
[9:56] information. We have regular back
[9:58] country patrols to promote compliance
[10:00] and for safety and assess our
[10:02] maintenance needs, which of course
[10:04] includes trail maintenance.
[10:05] We clean and pump 30 toilets and trash
[10:08] removal with the contractors. We have
[10:10] many educational kiosks and signs.
[10:13] So, updates.
[10:15] The fee change this year that you folks
[10:17] passed after it was approved a few years
[10:20] ago by the BL by by the BLM. The annual
[10:23] pass went from 25 to 35 and the
[10:25] campground went from 15 to 20 per night
[10:28] per vehicle.
[10:29] As I said, we have nearly 60,000
[10:31] vehicles on Hell's Revenge each year,
[10:33] 40,000 on Fins and Things. The Slickrock
[10:38] bike trail the last 9 months of last
[10:40] year had over 50,000 and this year
[10:43] through May, 21,600
[10:45] almost. And Falcon Flow had 20,000 last
[10:49] year in 9 months. And so, that is all
[10:51] rivaling Whole Enchilada at 25,000
[10:55] estimated users.
[10:57] The Sand Flats Road was chip sealed from
[10:59] the cemetery up to the end of the
[11:00] pavement last fall by the Grand County
[11:03] Road Department. And Sand Flats paid for
[11:05] a magnesium chloride treatment about
[11:07] 19,000 last year for that.
[11:10] We applied for planning and design grant
[11:13] which you folks wrote a letter of
[11:14] support for this spring. Unfortunately,
[11:17] the grant was not awarded.
[11:19] Falcon Climb was 2/3 built last year.
[11:23] It'll be completed this winter with GK
[11:25] and Sand Flats staff help.
[11:28] Motorized Trail Committee and Sand Flats
[11:30] staff, BLM, and volunteers were very
[11:32] busy this spring helping us get ready
[11:34] for the season. The motorized trail
[11:36] committee had brought some ideas of
[11:38] improvements to the BLM. They approved
[11:40] them, and we got to work on Fins N
[11:43] Things north and south, and then also on
[11:46] a ramp before the dinosaur tracks at
[11:48] Hell's Revenge. The dinosaur tracks, you
[11:52] might recall we worked with the BLM
[11:54] heavy equipment operator to move the
[11:56] boulders
[11:57] out from the rim to protect those tracks
[11:59] BLM paleontologist oversight as we were
[12:02] doing that, and Sandflat staff and
[12:04] volunteers, and we created a new road
[12:07] there.
[12:08] And then we had a contractor bring in
[12:11] boulders to um
[12:13] uh close off or not close close off from
[12:15] vehicles, but not from pedestrians the
[12:18] other part that was on SITLA property,
[12:19] and SITLA paid the contractor for that.
[12:22] Uh the Gastonia club, the local
[12:24] paleontology club was out there with the
[12:26] paleontologist from the BLM sweeping the
[12:29] tracks after this, and so we could do
[12:32] photogrammetry out there and record 3D
[12:35] images of these tracks. Jeep Safari,
[12:38] there was a work day out on
[12:41] Fins N Things north with Stellantis and
[12:43] Jeep, BLM, Red Rock 4-Wheelers,
[12:45] Sandflats
[12:47] putting in some fencing
[12:48] and blocking off illegal routes. We also
[12:51] there was also a media event with over
[12:53] 100 participants with Stellantis and
[12:55] Jeep in Fox Campground.
[12:58] And these are some of the vehicles that
[13:00] they brought to that media event. That
[13:02] was during Jeep Safari, and then also
[13:04] this spring we had the spring spruce up
[13:07] with Jeep Cat on Hawk's Glide. We also
[13:09] had a combined training with Jeep Cat
[13:11] Search and Rescue and the state trail
[13:13] crew on Fins N Things, and work was
[13:16] completed on the Porcupine 4x4 trail
[13:18] with contractor and Sandflat staff
[13:20] before the summer.
[13:22] Um each year we contribute 10 to 15,000
[13:25] to Search and Rescue, Never High school
[13:27] friendship program, and other things for
[13:29] the community as we have our volunteer
[13:31] days where folks can come up for 4 hours
[13:34] and earn an annual pass by helping us.
[13:36] We also have our educational outreach
[13:38] brochures, websites, Facebook, YouTube.
[13:41] Um
[13:42] we've
[13:43] done a lot with films over the years.
[13:46] Um
[13:47] one of the ones that has seen the most
[13:49] views has been our film that we created
[13:52] that the state of Utah uses in the OHV
[13:55] test that everyone has to take before
[13:57] they ride their um
[13:59] OHV on public lands, whether they're
[14:01] coming in from out of state, they're
[14:02] registering their vehicles in state, or
[14:05] they're renting. And over 400,000 people
[14:07] have viewed those today.
[14:09] Um there's also been other
[14:12] films that are on local channel 6, which
[14:14] are reaching 5,800 accommodations in
[14:16] Grand, San Juan, and Emery counties. We
[14:18] pay for that every year. We uh completed
[14:21] a dark sky parks film last year, and we
[14:24] completed our Moab's Old Growth Forest
[14:26] film this spring. These are available
[14:28] upon request at the Moab Information
[14:30] Center along with some others. I
[14:32] convinced CNH A to uh have those there
[14:35] for people to see for a further outreach
[14:37] on the big screen. We also have our
[14:39] Flora of the Greater Moab Landscape
[14:41] book, which is available with CNH A,
[14:43] Back of Beyond, and the state parks. And
[14:46] we continue to do our star parties and
[14:48] scorpion walks up at Sand Flats in
[14:50] partnership with Utah State Parks. We
[14:52] also partnered uh we're part of the Utah
[14:54] Office of Tourism's Always Adventure
[14:56] Safe Day with a booth this uh spring at
[14:59] the uh Slickrock bike trail. And um for
[15:02] summer fall projects, we'll continue
[15:04] with our maintenance in our campgrounds
[15:06] and trails. And we're improving our
[15:08] record keeping
[15:09] uh systems and our sign inventory system
[15:12] along the lines of what the road
[15:13] department has. Um we also completed
[15:16] another film in June about the creatures
[15:19] of the Moab sand dunes. CNH A partnered
[15:22] with us this year and paid for half of
[15:23] that. We worked with BLM biologist
[15:26] that's featured in the film. These are
[15:28] some of the critters that live in the
[15:30] sand dune environment. And then we did
[15:32] night filming with retired USGS
[15:34] scientist Tim Graham. And we staged a
[15:37] scorpion walk.
[15:38] And these are just some great images of
[15:42] scorpion catching some ant lions under
[15:43] the UV light that'll be in the film. We
[15:46] also just recently finished crack
[15:47] sealing, seal coating, and striping
[15:49] Hell's Revenge and Slickrock with our
[15:51] with a contractor
[15:53] in the last 2 weeks.
[15:54] And we're also working on
[15:56] historic site mitigation with the BLM.
[15:58] This is a sign they put together about
[16:01] the sheep herder heritage.
[16:03] And that will go up soon before the
[16:05] fall. So, Sand Flats continues with
[16:08] successful partnerships, self-sustaining
[16:11] operations. Visitation continues to
[16:13] increase and improvements are made with
[16:15] fee monies, grants, and through the BLM
[16:16] partnership. And these are just some
[16:18] resources linking to some of our films
[16:20] and
[16:21] other films.
[16:23] » Thank you, Andrea. That's great.
[16:26] Uh yes, Commissioner Hedin.
[16:28] >> Um that was excellent.
[16:30] Quick, too.
[16:35] Excellent.
[16:37] Um you you didn't get that grant. Did
[16:39] they provide you any feedback as to
[16:41] >> Not yet. Okay, we'll do a briefing in
[16:43] August as Jen Beth has requested.
[16:46] >> So, we'll put this one Thank you.
[16:50] >> And I didn't catch it, but you said your
[16:51] income was up and some of that's
[16:53] attributed to the raised prices, but is
[16:56] it also as you say here that the
[16:58] visitation is up as well?
[17:00] >> 20% through the fee.
[17:03] But 20% revenue because of you mostly
[17:05] that camping fee change from 15 to 20.
[17:09] Which puts us right in line with other
[17:11] fees, BLM charges.
[17:13] >> Commissioner Hadler.
[17:15] >> Yeah, we're
[17:16] in the the past couple years I think
[17:18] we've applied for a grant. We've
[17:19] discussed paving the Sand Flats Road
[17:21] further. I was wondering if that I know
[17:23] we didn't receive those grants, but is
[17:25] that still
[17:26] an option are you still looking into
[17:28] doing those or
[17:29] >> This time it was even expanded further.
[17:31] The planning and design grant we went
[17:33] from the cemetery from the intersection
[17:35] there Mill Creek and Sand Flats
[17:36] up to Porcupine stock tanks there.
[17:39] >> Yeah.
[17:39] >> So that whole section we were saying we
[17:41] wanted to look at that and do
[17:42] engineering and planning and
[17:44] but we unfortunately did not get it.
[17:46] >> Because we didn't get that grant. So and
[17:48] then was it were wasn't it brick grants
[17:50] that you talked about previously that
[17:51] would potentially uh
[17:52] >> The name this time it was a build and
[17:54] last time it was raise but it's the same
[17:57] name change and it's my understanding.
[18:00] >> So
[18:01] >> The same grant.
[18:03] >> Okay.
[18:05] Mr. McCartan.
[18:07] >> Like uh Tris said I I would like updates
[18:10] on that grant process when you get them
[18:13] also.
[18:14] >> Sure.
[18:14] >> I know we've been sitting here talking
[18:16] about it for years.
[18:18] Uh I'd like to see what we can do to
[18:19] help. So.
[18:20] >> Okay. Yeah, this time you know you folks
[18:22] wrote a letter support and this time you
[18:24] know with the planning and zoning office
[18:27] and myself and the road department we
[18:29] decided to just go for a you know like
[18:32] under $2 million grant for planning and
[18:34] design and engineering of that whole
[18:36] stretch and not a construction grant.
[18:39] But
[18:40] still didn't get it.
[18:41] >> Yeah. Just when you when you hear
[18:43] updates I'd love to hear them too.
[18:44] >> Okay. Sure. Sure.
[18:47] » Very good. Anybody else?
[18:50] >> All right. Thank you.
[18:51] >> Thank you Andrea. I'd also like to
[18:53] welcome Mary McGann to the commission
[18:55] meeting and then we will proceed with
[18:59] Mr. Kaufman if you would like to give us
[19:01] your light and report.
[19:07] » Thank you.
[19:09] Good afternoon. Chris Kaufman Grand
[19:10] County Treasurer. I'm here to give my
[19:12] annual report on property tax
[19:14] collections and investments for last
[19:17] year for 2025.
[19:19] I think most of you have heard at least
[19:21] a few of these reports from me, so I'll
[19:22] try to keep it pretty brief.
[19:24] Um starting off with property tax
[19:26] collections last year. Um
[19:28] last year continued to be a bit of a
[19:30] disappointment on property tax
[19:32] collections. Uh for the last 3 years
[19:35] ever since the commercial reassessment
[19:37] that happened, we've had several uh
[19:39] pretty large commercial parcels that
[19:41] have gone delinquent and have uh
[19:44] depressed our collection rate.
[19:46] Uh we did see a slight increase in the
[19:48] collection rate versus the prior year.
[19:50] Um and the good news is that even though
[19:52] these collection rates are a little bit
[19:54] lower than they have been, they're still
[19:56] historically pretty high.
[19:58] Um the 5-year average of the collection
[20:00] rate is what the tax commission uses
[20:02] when they calculate the property tax
[20:05] rates. And um it's an important
[20:07] statistic that they factor in. And the
[20:10] higher our collection rate, then the
[20:11] lower the tax rates have to be. And
[20:13] because our tax rates are our collection
[20:15] rates have been increasing over the last
[20:18] uh several years uh since 2014,
[20:22] we have saved taxpayers about 5.8
[20:25] million dollars in taxes that otherwise
[20:26] would have had to been charged uh
[20:28] because the collection rates have been
[20:29] going up. So that's still overall a good
[20:31] news story. And then the other silver
[20:34] lining is that we have seen some of
[20:36] those delinquent properties starting to
[20:38] catch up this year. So they will be able
[20:40] to focus on their current year taxes
[20:41] this year and
[20:43] uh that our rates will go up a little
[20:44] bit.
[20:46] That our rates have go up a little bit.
[20:49] Um
[20:50] Talking about back taxes, because the
[20:53] last 3 years have been a little bit
[20:54] lower on the collections, we did have an
[20:56] historically high amount of back taxes
[20:58] due at the beginning of this year
[21:00] [clears throat] at over 2 and 1/2
[21:01] million, uh much higher than we've
[21:03] actually ever seen in the past. Um
[21:05] but the good news there again is that
[21:07] we've seen some pretty strong
[21:08] collections this year and a lot of those
[21:10] folks are getting caught up. We're going
[21:12] to have a very high back tax collection
[21:15] amount in 2026. And again, hopefully
[21:18] that will contribute to better
[21:20] collection rates for this year.
[21:23] Um,
[21:24] in my office we continue to see a strong
[21:26] growth in
[21:27] electronic payments, not only in the
[21:29] total amount that we're bringing in that
[21:31] way, but also the number of individual
[21:33] payments.
[21:35] This is an important thing that I keep
[21:36] track of because it makes such a big
[21:38] difference to the workload in my office
[21:40] every time someone pays online. That's a payment that we don't have to manually
[21:44] process.
[21:45] And so that's really helping our office
[21:47] to keep the current staff level, but and
[21:50] keep up with
[21:51] an increasing workload.
[21:54] We've also had an increase in folks that
[21:55] are signing up for auto bill pay where
[21:57] they have their taxes automatically paid
[21:59] from their account on an annual or
[22:01] monthly basis. And we've also seen
[22:03] increases in those that are signing up
[22:05] for
[22:06] emailed or electronic tax notices. So
[22:09] all those are positive trends that I
[22:11] think are not only helpful for the
[22:13] county, but also helpful for those folks
[22:15] who find it more convenient to pay
[22:18] online and get their notices through
[22:20] email.
[22:21] Um, before I move on, any questions on
[22:23] collections, property tax stuff?
[22:27] Um, so I'll move on to the investments.
[22:29] Um, in your packet there's a graph of
[22:32] the interest rates through the public
[22:34] treasurers investment fund or the PTIF.
[22:37] Um, after COVID we saw the depression in
[22:40] the interest rates after COVID. We saw a
[22:43] steep uh rise in interest rates as the
[22:45] Federal Reserve tried to fight
[22:48] inflation.
[22:49] Over the last couple years they
[22:50] plateaued and has started to decrease.
[22:53] Uh,
[22:54] we have had historically a very large
[22:56] portion of our investments in the PTIF
[22:59] and that that great as those interest
[23:01] rates went up and as they stayed high
[23:03] because the PTIF tends to track the
[23:05] federal funds rates very closely. It's
[23:08] generally invested in pretty short
[23:10] maturities.
[23:11] As we enter into more of an uncertain
[23:13] interest rate environment, nobody really
[23:15] knows where the economy is going, nobody
[23:17] knows what the heck is going to be
[23:18] happening
[23:19] inflation.
[23:21] It It made sense to change our
[23:23] investment strategy. And so last year I
[23:25] moved a significant portion of our
[23:28] investments out of the PTIF and into a
[23:30] portfolio that's managed by our
[23:32] investment advisors with Raymond James.
[23:35] And these are investment advisors that
[23:37] I've been working with for past 10
[23:39] years. And they have the ability to give
[23:42] our portfolio more diversity in the
[23:44] maturities
[23:46] so that we can hedge against interest
[23:48] rates going down. And in general we
[23:51] should
[23:52] get a more steady rate of return on our
[23:54] investments that way
[23:56] because of when you up to you know if
[23:58] the interest rates suddenly started
[23:59] rising, which we hadn't done that, but I
[24:01] think the better strategy is to have
[24:05] more diversity so that we are prepared
[24:07] for any eventuality.
[24:09] In addition to the PTIF and our
[24:12] portfolio with Raymond James, we are
[24:14] also utilizing sweep accounts so that
[24:17] any money that we have in our checking
[24:18] accounts that
[24:20] are waiting to cover cash checks will be
[24:21] invested and earn interest. We also have
[24:24] another account that was opened last
[24:26] year that is giving us a guaranteed
[24:30] return higher than the PTIF so we keep
[24:32] money in there as well.
[24:33] The overall picture is that we was
[24:35] looking for every opportunity we can to
[24:37] keep our interest running stuff and find
[24:40] any any ways to eke out a little bit
[24:41] more from that.
[24:43] There are also a couple of graphs in
[24:45] your package showing the interest
[24:46] earnings from last year which were over
[24:49] 1 and 1/2 million, very strong for the
[24:51] last three years. Again, that's
[24:52] primarily due to the high interest rates
[24:54] that we've seen
[24:56] post COVID. And then also we have been
[24:58] able to maintain pretty high monthly
[25:00] average balances in the
[25:02] county's overall investment portfolio.
[25:08] We do expect to see, you know, lower
[25:10] interest earnings this year primarily
[25:12] because the rates are going down.
[25:14] Any questions on investments?
[25:17] >> Sure, sure. When you're when we're
[25:18] looking at these like the chart with the
[25:21] county interest earnings, this is across
[25:23] all accounts that the county has
[25:25] invested?
[25:26] All of our various
[25:28] quote savings accounts unquote, I guess.
[25:30] >> Yeah.
[25:31] I did limit this graph now to more
[25:34] the interest that's more attributable directly to the county. We
[25:38] do have some accounts that are money
[25:40] that we're holding for bonds and other
[25:42] things that that aren't the county's not
[25:44] going to get the interest on it those.
[25:46] But yeah, that is a combination of the
[25:47] P-TIF and the other investments.
[25:50] >> Good question.
[25:55] » Okay, I just have a couple other really
[25:56] quick updates. I'm really excited to
[25:58] announce that the county got enrolled in
[26:00] an important program that will protect
[26:02] our checking accounts from check fraud
[26:04] last year. It's called positive pay.
[26:06] It's a program where when we write a
[26:09] batch of checks, we also send to the
[26:11] bank a file with all the information
[26:13] about those checks. When a check is
[26:15] presented to the bank for cashing, they
[26:16] will they will compare that check to the
[26:19] information in the file. If there's any
[26:20] discrepancy, then the county gets a
[26:22] chance to review that and see if it's
[26:24] check fraud or just a mistake.
[26:27] It's a really great program and one that
[26:29] I'm very excited for us to have and I
[26:31] want to give
[26:33] kudos to the clerk auditor's office and
[26:35] personal services especially to accounts
[26:37] payable and to payroll for working with
[26:41] the fire office to get this implemented.
[26:43] It's been going really smoothly and
[26:44] those are the folks that are actually
[26:45] sending the files and making it happen.
[26:47] So,
[26:49] I also wanted to mention that this past
[26:52] June, the chief deputy treasurer
[26:54] retired, Mary Lou Lopez. She been in the
[26:57] office for almost 5 years. I wanted to
[26:59] give a shout out to her for the numerous
[27:01] contributions she made to the office and
[27:03] the years that she put in. She will be
[27:05] greatly missed.
[27:07] I did want to call out one of the one
[27:09] for achievements that she had most
[27:11] recently, which was she worked really
[27:13] closely with with the other offices in
[27:14] the county.
[27:16] That
[27:17] contributed to doing our bank
[27:18] reconciliations and she
[27:21] really made a lot of achievements in
[27:23] getting those done on a timely manner
[27:25] and making sure that everybody and all
[27:26] the different pieces were coming
[27:27] together and all those entries were
[27:29] being made into our system. And so
[27:32] it was a really a a big achievement for
[27:34] her, something she worked a lot on. And
[27:36] we'll miss her a lot. But I do also want
[27:38] to welcome the new chief deputy
[27:40] treasurer, Lorie Houten. She's already
[27:43] fully settled into the office and
[27:45] working on her own projects to make
[27:46] improvements. So, that's
[27:49] something that we're looking forward to.
[27:50] And then lastly, just a quick update on
[27:53] this past legislative session. Most of
[27:55] you already know about this, but again
[27:57] this year there were there was a bill
[27:59] introduced that would have greatly
[28:00] reduced and changed
[28:02] the
[28:03] payments and tax relief available to our
[28:05] low-income elderly and disabled folks.
[28:08] Fortunately, that bill did not pass
[28:10] again this session
[28:12] and I do want to thank not only the
[28:14] house members, but all of the county
[28:16] elected officials who helped to get the
[28:18] information out about how important these programs are to our
[28:21] constituents and the difference that
[28:23] they make in their lives. And uh
[28:26] we don't know what's going to happen
[28:27] with this next legislative session. Um
[28:30] some of the driving forces behind these
[28:32] bills may no longer be in place, but um
[28:35] we're certainly ready to spread that
[28:37] awareness again about the importance of
[28:38] these programs in case that's needed.
[28:42] Any questions?
[28:44] Yes. You've always kept me in the loop
[28:45] on the
[28:46] uh what's coming up during the
[28:48] legislative session. Please continue to
[28:50] do so. We'll be up again this year.
[28:51] Yeah. We love killing those bills that
[28:53] we We all hate.
[28:56] >> It It'll be interesting too to see,
[28:58] Chris, who, if anybody picks that back
[29:01] up, being as
[29:02] um
[29:03] McKay was not reelected, so it It's a
[29:06] possibility maybe we dodged it.
[29:08] We'll see.
[29:10] >> Nobody knows.
[29:12] Who was that else? Yeah. Thanks for your
[29:14] time and
[29:15] >> You do much work.
[29:20] » All right. With that, we will move on to
[29:23] our public hearings. I've got a
[29:26] public hearing to amend the ordinance
[29:28] 725 major utility overlay, Mr.
[29:32] Andrew Jackson to help us with that.
[29:35] Also want to know as Andrew reads
[29:37] through this that the body will consider
[29:40] suspending the rules and voting at this
[29:42] meeting.
[29:44] And if not,
[29:45] the hearing will remain open until 5:00
[29:48] p.m. on Wednesday, August 12th, and that
[29:50] item is number nine later in your agenda
[29:53] if you're watching the agenda.
[29:56] >> Andrew Jackson, American city planner.
[29:59] Um I just uh
[30:01] a note on this item. What it is isn't
[30:03] This is not a rezone. It changes no
[30:07] zoning, no overlay boundary, no way to
[30:09] use the plan designation.
[30:11] It's an ordinance amendment that
[30:13] corrects two conditions on an approval
[30:16] that we already granted in ordinance
[30:18] 725,
[30:20] which applied to the major utility
[30:22] overlay to the city's Moab uh
[30:25] to the city of Moab's water tank site.
[30:28] One condition set a completion date
[30:31] that's already passed. It was only like
[30:33] a month after the ordinance passed.
[30:36] Um
[30:37] the other describes the required
[30:39] development agreement. The language
[30:42] before it didn't match what was in the
[30:44] original mode. It's all
[30:47] this ordinance amends that
[30:50] we have to follow through section 9.2
[30:54] for the procedure for approval which
[30:58] went to the planning commission last
[31:00] night. It was a seven all vote in favor
[31:03] of these two amendments to ordinance
[31:06] 725. Again, it's not a repeal or
[31:09] replace, it's amendment to one of the
[31:13] requirements
[31:14] condition number three set the
[31:16] completion date as December 31st 2005.
[31:20] Obviously, that's passed and it was only
[31:22] again a month after the ordinance was
[31:26] adopted.
[31:28] I've got in the draft of a completion
[31:31] date of December 31st 2027 and I think
[31:35] in one of the reports I had Christmas
[31:38] day.
[31:39] I don't know that was just put it on my
[31:40] mind, but
[31:42] after discussions after planning
[31:44] commission last night with
[31:46] my wife city staff,
[31:48] I think it's not unreasonable.
[31:52] I think it'd be prudent
[31:53] >> [clears throat]
[31:54] >> to extend the completion date to
[31:55] December 31st of 2030. Um
[31:58] 2027's not out as far as it used to be
[32:02] and there's a lot of work that has to be
[32:04] done in getting everything drawn up and
[32:06] getting the funding for it etc.
[32:09] The reason why we have
[32:11] a date in there is we don't want to be
[32:12] like that
[32:14] um
[32:15] children's song about the bridge in
[32:17] Avignon that's in southern France that's
[32:19] only halfway built. It actually was
[32:22] built all the way
[32:23] thousand years ago, but it was struck
[32:25] down by flood years ago and now it's
[32:27] just half a bridge there. So, we're
[32:29] going to make sure that um
[32:31] it
[32:32] um we we trust that the city will
[32:34] complete it. We just want to make sure
[32:35] that that actually happens and then
[32:39] um um
[32:40] also when we get to it later on, I
[32:43] request that
[32:44] the uh
[32:45] commission
[32:47] uh
[32:48] approve commissioner
[32:50] uh Chair McAmis
[32:52] deal with signing signing the
[32:54] development agreement with Moab City.
[32:56] So, I'm happy to take any questions or
[32:58] hear any public comment.
[33:01] Questions? Anybody?
[33:06] Any public comment on this one?
[33:11] All right, it seems it looks like you're
[33:12] in the clear, Andrew.
[33:14] Thank you.
[33:15] Um I believe No, the next one isn't
[33:18] yours. It All right, that will remain
[33:20] open
[33:22] unless the vote is to suspend
[33:26] the rules and so we'll look at that
[33:28] again at on the number nine later. So,
[33:30] with that, I'll see you
[33:31] >> We'll do that down there.
[33:33] >> Uh we we do it on that action night.
[33:36] >> Yeah, on the action when it comes up to
[33:37] the
[33:38] >> [clears throat]
[33:38] >> Yeah.
[33:39] >> Thank you.
[33:41] So, we've got number two of public
[33:43] hearing to amend the 2026 budget and
[33:46] 2026 consolidated fee schedule. April
[33:49] Oil Tech Clerk Auditor.
[33:53] » Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[33:57] All right, so uh
[33:59] there have been a couple of little
[34:00] budget workshops by the commission that
[34:02] discussed this uh
[34:04] the proposed amendment in detail. I'll
[34:06] provide a quick recap and an update
[34:09] as of
[34:10] uh as of yesterday is when this document
[34:12] was prepared and is in the agenda packet
[34:15] of all those uh
[34:17] proposed amendments discussed. I'll try
[34:18] to do so briefly. Um
[34:20] hit on the high notes. Uh there were a
[34:22] number of revenue projections that are
[34:24] updated and and proposed to be amended
[34:26] in the budget based on year-to-date
[34:28] actuals and some adjustments in
[34:30] projection methodology.
[34:32] Uh there were some revenues that were
[34:37] adjusted based on um
[34:39] more information that we have regarding
[34:41] a variety of revenues, whether you know,
[34:43] based on what we budgeted for and what
[34:45] actually came in and what what can be
[34:47] reasonably projected through the end of
[34:48] the year based on what our year-to-date
[34:50] actuals are.
[34:51] So that you know, since we're doing an
[34:53] amendment, it makes sense to try to um
[34:56] you know, craft a budget that is as
[34:57] accurate as reasonably possible based on
[34:59] the information that we have available.
[35:02] Uh there was a an adjustment in salary and benefits
[35:07] based on actual and expected staffing
[35:09] levels. And I'm starting right now
[35:11] basically um focusing on the general
[35:13] fund cuz when really when we talk about
[35:15] the budget, we're focusing on the
[35:16] general fund, which is where we house a
[35:18] lot of the unrestricted funds um for the
[35:21] county and where all of our the you
[35:23] know, the great majority of the
[35:24] operations of the of the county are
[35:26] conducted budgetarily.
[35:28] So there were salary and benefits there
[35:30] was an increase in 269,000
[35:32] um in salary and benefits to be expected
[35:35] to be spent out uh by the end of 2026.
[35:38] Uh as well as a slight net increase in
[35:41] operational expenses. And again, that
[35:43] has to do with um just looking at
[35:45] actuals and seeing, okay, if we if we
[35:47] know we're already over budget on a
[35:48] given line, um you know, and we're doing
[35:50] an amendment, we're going to go ahead
[35:52] and amend that that line up so we can
[35:53] cover it.
[35:56] The uh
[35:56] it and then in a variety of other the
[35:59] other funds um mostly have to do with
[36:01] those salary and benefit updates um as
[36:04] well as the the funds that house
[36:07] um
[36:08] the budget for different restricted
[36:10] funds, which is why we kind of use
[36:12] governmental funds um outside of the
[36:13] general funds to sort of
[36:15] uh pass through specific revenues um
[36:19] that that um
[36:21] that are sourced towards specific types
[36:22] of activities.
[36:24] Uh and so as you can see, we There There
[36:28] are certain revenues associated with the
[36:30] roads department, with the restaurant
[36:31] tax and the TRT,
[36:33] and that we all that There There was
[36:36] discussion and agreement based on an
[36:38] updated projection methodology based on
[36:40] the information that we have today.
[36:44] The The large The really what triggered
[36:46] this amendment process was an allocation
[36:48] of $500,000 to be made towards the
[36:50] Arches shuttle pilot.
[36:52] Um and in order to do so, right now in
[36:55] Fund 47, there's an allocation of
[36:58] optional sales tax funds that are housed
[37:01] in the reserve balance of that fund, an
[37:03] allocation of $350,000
[37:05] as well as an a novel allocation of
[37:07] $150,000
[37:09] out of TRT mitigation to make up the
[37:11] entire $500,000,
[37:13] which is a new which was a new
[37:14] appropriation introduced into the 2026
[37:16] budget.
[37:19] Uh another highlight that came up at
[37:21] last Monday's meeting is that part of
[37:24] the
[37:25] part of an agreement with the Grand
[37:27] County EMS Special Service District was
[37:29] for them to
[37:31] uh give back the the allocation of PILT
[37:34] that they were allotted by this
[37:36] commission late last year in exchange
[37:38] for the increase in the tax rate that was implemented and so that excess
[37:44] amount of PILT uh
[37:47] which
[37:48] I can find where that is.
[37:54] Here it is. Uh 189,552.
[37:57] Um
[37:58] that amount that given back of PILT was
[38:01] used to fulfill 100% allocations made to
[38:04] the Solid Waste Special Service District
[38:06] and the Recreation Special Service
[38:08] District in their initial budget
[38:09] requests.
[38:10] Um there is some excess PILT that we'll
[38:12] have to track in that fund and hopefully
[38:15] we can at the end of the year amendment,
[38:16] we can find a way to utilize that
[38:18] 51,552,
[38:21] so we're not carrying that um that
[38:23] separate type of restricted fund um
[38:25] revenue in that fund, which would be my
[38:27] recommendation.
[38:30] And I think that that really sums up all
[38:32] I need to talk about. We you know, these
[38:34] items were discussed in detail at budget
[38:37] workshops in addition to the
[38:38] documentation I provided in the agenda
[38:40] summary or the agenda packets for those
[38:42] workshops. Uh and
[38:45] that's it. That's That's the sum up
[38:47] here.
[38:48] And this is a hearing um that the public
[38:50] will be able to speak on and and the
[38:52] potential
[38:54] approval of this proposed amendment
[38:55] would occur at the next commission
[38:56] meeting.
[38:58] >> And that public comment will remain open
[39:01] through Wednesday of next
[39:03] week, correct? 5:00 p.m.
[39:06] Okay. Any questions, Commissioners?
[39:10] Any public comment on this item?
[39:13] Yes, ma'am.
[39:24] » I'm Mary O'Brien with Castle Valley.
[39:28] As you vote on what proportion of the
[39:30] shuttle experiment will be funded by
[39:32] tourists via the transit room tax
[39:36] and what proportion will be paid by
[39:37] county residents as a sales tax on their
[39:40] purchases via fund 47,
[39:42] it's good to look back at the creation
[39:44] of fund 47.
[39:46] In 2015, the Grand County official voter
[39:49] information pamphlet about proposition
[39:52] one, the sales tax that became fund 747,
[39:57] said that the question was on the ballot
[39:59] was
[40:00] "Shall Grand County be authorized to
[40:02] impose a quarter of 1% sales and use tax
[40:06] for the specific purposes of
[40:08] transportation improvements such as
[40:11] roads, trails, sidewalks, maintenance,
[40:14] and traffic and pedestrian safety
[40:16] features?"
[40:18] The official voter pamphlet always
[40:20] publishes an argument for and against
[40:23] the proposition on the ballot to help
[40:25] voters to decide how they want to vote.
[40:28] In 2015, the Grand County Council wrote
[40:31] the argument for voting yes for the Fund
[40:34] 47 tax.
[40:35] The County Council told voters, quote,
[40:39] "Proposition 1 is dedicated exclusively
[40:42] to our local transportation needs and a
[40:45] vote for will provide an additional
[40:48] source of funding."
[40:50] I'm not claiming it is illegal to use
[40:53] Fund 47 funds for a shuttle van
[40:55] experiment into Arches,
[40:58] but I think the voters were led to
[40:59] believe that if they taxed themselves
[41:02] for Fund 47, it would be used for
[41:04] maintenance of their roads and active
[41:06] transportation trails and not for
[41:09] overturning Arches National Park
[41:12] decisions about transportation in that
[41:14] national park.
[41:16] In 2025, the Grand County Commission
[41:19] certainly didn't survey Grand County
[41:21] residents about the shuttle system, let
[41:24] alone whether they would like this tax
[41:26] on their purchases to be used to send
[41:29] vans into Arches National Park and
[41:31] whether they would like their county
[41:33] commissioners and staff time to be spent
[41:36] on managing transportation
[41:38] in a national park,
[41:40] including monthly meetings.
[41:44] Current for for their
[41:46] for this van experiment, the National
[41:48] Park Service is supposed to be
[41:49] committing 1.5 million. Currently,
[41:53] Arches National Park is short 9.4
[41:56] million for their maintenance and repair
[41:58] backlog for roads, water treatment, and
[42:01] septic systems.
[42:03] The National Park Service shed 24% of
[42:06] its permanent workforce since January 25
[42:10] and more will be cut in 27.
[42:13] Facility operations and maintenance is
[42:16] budgeted for a reduction of 39% in 2027
[42:20] from 2026.
[42:22] And meanwhile, 10 billion permanent
[42:24] funding is being budgeted for the
[42:27] National Park Service for the
[42:28] presidential capital stewardship
[42:30] program, that is beautification projects
[42:33] in DC.
[42:35] Since January 2025, the budget
[42:38] priorities from the Grand County
[42:40] Commission all the way to DC have been
[42:43] inexcusably short on asking for or
[42:47] paying attention
[42:49] to what their constituents want.
[42:51] Thank you.
[42:53] >> Thank you. Do we have anyone else to
[42:55] make comment?
[42:57] Yes, sir.
[43:00] » I have a comment. This is Tory Hill.
[43:03] >> Um Tory, let's wait. I've got one
[43:05] gentleman coming up to the microphone
[43:07] and microphone and I'll talk
[43:09] next.
[43:10] >> Thank you.
[43:12] >> My name is Keith Gross.
[43:16] When I know my good friend Lynch Jackson
[43:18] is here, when people across the
[43:20] political spectrum
[43:22] such as us
[43:23] um
[43:25] when people with backgrounds of business
[43:26] and finance, economics, public lands
[43:28] management, when the overwhelming
[43:30] sentiment and comments from your
[43:31] constituents all tell you that the
[43:34] artist shuttle plan is a misguided waste
[43:37] of our taxpayer money.
[43:39] Regardless of the shell game of how you
[43:40] plan to come up with the revenue.
[43:43] Um
[43:45] don't you think it's time to acknowledge
[43:46] the folly?
[43:47] And
[43:48] I haven't heard any discussion of the
[43:50] liability exposure that that leads us
[43:52] to.
[43:54] On a personal note, I have no problem
[43:56] with public transportation.
[43:58] In fact, I didn't even own a motor
[43:59] vehicle of any sort including a car
[44:01] until I was 35. I love alternate forms
[44:03] of transportation.
[44:05] I've carpooled, I've ridden municipal
[44:06] buses, I've ridden commuter trains, Bay
[44:09] Area Bay Area Rapid Transit known as
[44:11] BART, Amtrak, I've even hopped freights
[44:13] and I've hitchhiked.
[44:18] And speaking of hitchhiking,
[44:20] that might actually be a more effective
[44:22] way for people to get to Arches rather
[44:25] than a shuttle. It'd probably be more
[44:26] efficient. Anyways, that's sort of on a
[44:29] Hopefully you have my note. Okay, thank
[44:31] you for your time.
[44:33] >> Thank you.
[44:34] Are there any anyone else on this
[44:37] public comment regarding the budget? Um
[44:40] should Well, let's see. Actually, I'm
[44:41] going to go online to Tory Shushan
[44:44] trying to speak up earlier.
[44:48] » Oh, yes, thank you. My name is Tory
[44:50] Hill, and I'd like to speak once again
[44:52] on the shuttle and the $500,000 proposed
[44:55] expense for the county. You have already
[44:57] spent $60,000 for a study on the timed
[45:00] entry system that only validated what
[45:02] the majority of our citizens and
[45:04] business owners were saying all along.
[45:07] Visitation in Arches may have dropped by
[45:09] 14%,
[45:11] but overall spending in our county and
[45:12] visitation to other places in our county
[45:15] increased. The timed entry system was
[45:18] working. People liked it. Businesses did
[45:20] better. Easing some of the congestion in
[45:23] the park made it more enjoyable for
[45:25] everyone, the park service included.
[45:27] This kind of project and expense should
[45:30] not be brought before the commission
[45:32] mid-year with no public input. Was there
[45:35] a survey or an advertised public comment
[45:37] period on this that I missed? It seems
[45:40] to me you owe it to the citizens of
[45:42] Grand County to ask if we even want the
[45:45] shuttle system or the expense of it
[45:47] before implementing a pilot program.
[45:50] After we after all pay your salaries and
[45:53] some of us elected you.
[45:55] As a treasurer of Castle Valley who is
[45:57] always pinching every dime to save our
[45:59] taxpayers' money and to balance our
[46:02] budget. I cannot fathom how you can
[46:04] justify spending 500,000 on a shuttle
[46:07] pilot that will only serve a very few
[46:09] visitors. Castle Valley just spent
[46:11] 500,000 out of a million on a critical
[46:15] culvert project. We had to save for over
[46:17] 10 years to even have the money to do
[46:20] it, and now we can't pave our road. We
[46:23] are extremely grateful for the grants
[46:25] that paid for the other half of the
[46:26] culvert.
[46:27] I can see no benefit to this to our
[46:30] county. The citizens who pay taxes will
[46:32] not see any benefits from this, and the
[46:34] majority of tourists will not see any
[46:36] benefits. What about liability? If
[46:39] someone dies of heat exposure waiting
[46:41] for a shuttle after they have run out of
[46:43] water or or can find no shade, who is
[46:46] liable? From your cooperative agreement,
[46:49] it looks like Grand County is.
[46:51] You plan on funding this from fund 47,
[46:54] which is for county parks, trails, and
[46:56] recreation, not to fund national park
[46:59] projects. That should come out of
[47:01] federal funds. From what I understand,
[47:04] you plan on taking half of the reserves
[47:06] in fund 47 to finance this program. What
[47:10] happens when we have another need for
[47:12] those funds, and you have spent it here?
[47:14] Will you then pull it from our general
[47:16] funds? How will you fund this project in
[47:18] the future? More of our tax dollars?
[47:21] Which brings me to my final point today.
[47:24] By implementing this project, you are
[47:26] actually triple taxing Grand County
[47:28] citizens. This will be paid for by the
[47:31] county, the state, and the feds. We
[47:33] citizens of Grand County pay county
[47:35] taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes,
[47:39] which is in essence triple taxation. And
[47:42] you haven't even asked us if we want it.
[47:46] Before you finalize your vote on the
[47:48] shuttle and this expenditure, I would
[47:50] really like to hear from those of you
[47:52] who are pushing this through. Who do you
[47:54] think that this project will serve? You
[47:57] owe it to all of us to say so. And it is
[48:00] also your responsibility to find out if
[48:03] Grand County really wants this before
[48:06] spending some money.
[48:09] I hope this makes a difference. Thank
[48:11] you.
[48:12] >> Thank you, Tori. And then I have two
[48:14] arms up in the commission. I'm going to
[48:16] go with the lady first.
[48:29] » My name's Allison Matthews. I'm a
[48:30] resident of Moab. Like
[48:33] previous speakers, I'm going to talk
[48:34] about the use of Grand County tax
[48:37] dollars on the shuttle system.
[48:40] I think this
[48:42] what we saw in the what Gabe presented
[48:44] of moving the 350k
[48:46] from fund 47 to go towards the half a
[48:49] million dollars of Grand County part of
[48:52] the shuttle system means basically we
[48:54] can't afford it. At previous meetings,
[48:56] Mr. Martinez stated very clearly that he
[48:59] thought there was tons of money, I'm
[49:01] paraphrasing, plenty of money in the TRT
[49:04] mitigation fund and basically we could
[49:07] get something, again I'm kind of
[49:08] paraphrasing, for almost nothing.
[49:11] This movement of the money that's
[49:13] supposed to be for us shows that that's
[49:16] not the case. Additionally, I contend
[49:19] that uh Grand County residents are not
[49:22] going to be benefiting from the shuttle
[49:24] system. I doubt that people will be
[49:26] riding it and I will argue that the
[49:28] shuttle system will harm Grand County
[49:31] businesses. I believe that people who
[49:34] are riding the shuttle system will be
[49:36] parking downtown so they can catch the
[49:39] shuttle from town for up to 10 hours a
[49:41] day. If people are on the shuttle system
[49:44] for 10 hours a day, they are not going
[49:46] into local businesses for lunch, for
[49:48] dinner, for buying their t-shirts and
[49:51] whatever else, booking a tour, they are
[49:54] taking up limited parking, and we all
[49:56] know there's not enough parking downtown
[49:58] to go into arches where they're not
[49:59] spending a dime to benefit Grand County
[50:02] businesses while they are there.
[50:05] Um
[50:07] Uh next topic, uh the last speaker
[50:10] mentioned the uh liability. I'm going to
[50:13] read from I think it was attachment D,
[50:15] section G15 for sure, insurance. The
[50:19] first sentence reads, "The partner" and
[50:21] by the way, partner means Grand County
[50:24] uh must obtain and maintain during the
[50:27] term of this agreement at full cost and
[50:30] expense the types and amounts of
[50:32] insurance coverage necessary to fulfill the obligations of this
[50:36] agreement and as described herein. In
[50:39] other words, the cost of the insurance
[50:42] for this system, which has got to be
[50:44] significant, is in addition to the half
[50:47] a million dollars that we have to put
[50:49] forward. Where is that going to come
[50:51] from? Has that been accounted accounted
[50:53] for in our budget? I don't think so. And also, um
[50:58] the
[50:59] county
[51:01] manages the contract. The partner is
[51:03] responsible for a whole ton of things.
[51:05] If you go through the contract and you
[51:06] look at the attachments, then it's "The
[51:08] partner will do this. The partner will do that. The partner will
[51:12] do X Y Z blah blah blah." It's page
[51:14] after page after page. It is line after line of things that the
[51:20] county is responsible for doing. Yes,
[51:22] many of those things will be the
[51:24] responsibility of the contractor to do,
[51:26] but someone's got to make sure that they
[51:28] do it. You can't just say, "Oh,
[51:30] contractor, you're going to make sure
[51:31] all your employees are drug tested, your
[51:33] drivers?" No, you got to confirm that.
[51:35] You're going to make sure the county's
[51:37] got to make sure that that that all of
[51:39] them have their CDLs and everything
[51:41] else. It Grand Canyon National Park,
[51:44] which manages their shuttle system on a
[51:46] contractor, has a full-time employee
[51:48] with a job title transit system program
[51:51] manager. I somehow
[51:53] full-time employee, more complex system,
[51:55] but a full-time employee. I somehow highly suspect that uh Mr. Tyner or any other county
[52:03] resident has tons of free time to take
[52:05] on this level of additional
[52:07] responsibility. Thank you.
[52:09] >> Thank you.
[52:10] Yes, gentleman in the back.
[52:20] » Ron Jackson. Grand County resident. Um
[52:26] uh
[52:28] I think there may not be as much Well, let me speak
[52:33] just for myself.
[52:34] I'm not necessarily opposed to a shuttle
[52:36] system.
[52:39] But what I would have expected out of
[52:41] our county is a holistic shuttle system.
[52:44] Something that connects the south end of
[52:45] the valley to the north end of I-70,
[52:49] Dead Horse Point, Arches,
[52:51] uh downtown hotels, and the whole thing.
[52:54] I I think if there we had taken some
[52:56] time to actually do a study to build as
[53:01] I think Pete your friend says
[53:04] a good public transportation system you
[53:06] that would have had support.
[53:08] What you've done here though
[53:10] falls under the guise of poor fiscal
[53:13] management.
[53:14] Spring Hill.
[53:16] Um
[53:21] $500,000 taxpayer money in a county our
[53:24] size with what, a $20 million budget, is
[53:26] nothing to be sneezed at.
[53:29] Uh
[53:30] and it doesn't matter how you move the
[53:32] money around and what shell you put it
[53:34] under. It's coming out of our pockets.
[53:37] And I think there's a lot of people in
[53:38] Grand County that are fed up with their
[53:40] taxes going up. We pay more sales tax
[53:42] now. Thank you.
[53:44] We pay more property tax and I know
[53:46] that's not entirely your fault, but I
[53:48] don't mind when I'm $1,500 a year this
[53:50] year.
[53:51] People are done.
[53:53] And we're fed up with being taxed to
[53:54] death. If there's an extra $500,000
[53:58] laying around in our budget,
[54:00] I think most residents would like to see
[54:01] that
[54:02] put towards some kind of a tax reduction
[54:04] program, not creating
[54:07] these
[54:08] to subsidize a national park with the
[54:10] system that they previously analyzed and
[54:13] declined.
[54:15] That is what I don't understand.
[54:17] $500,000 could be used to pay all
[54:20] employee COLAs this year.
[54:23] $500,000 could be used to kick-start the
[54:25] Spanish Trail multi-purpose
[54:28] uh path,
[54:29] which has been discussed ever since I
[54:31] was back on the commission 12 years ago.
[54:34] Money has been set aside. That is a
[54:35] direct positive impact to the citizens
[54:39] of this valley,
[54:41] not to a bunch of tourists coming down
[54:42] to want to take a shuttle out to Arches
[54:44] National Park.
[54:45] Um
[54:46] to me it's a sub it's a sub it's uh the
[54:49] benefit is primarily for the uh the few
[54:52] out-of-town visitors.
[54:54] Maybe some of this spins off into more
[54:56] visitation and and increased business.
[54:58] We don't know, but I don't know how
[55:00] you'd ever tease that out.
[55:02] Uh uh so you know, I'll close up here.
[55:05] Um
[55:07] I expected more when I worked hard to
[55:10] support and help elect some of you
[55:13] folks. I expected from a conservative
[55:16] standpoint fiscal responsibility. And
[55:19] I'm here to tell you today,
[55:21] this isn't it. So, I'm a little bit
[55:23] disappointed, so
[55:24] thank you.
[55:26] >> Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
[55:29] Yes, please come forward.
[55:31] Do we have anybody else online?
[55:34] If will you remind them to raise their
[55:36] hand?
[55:37] do you know here?
[55:37] >> [clears throat]
[55:38] >> Yeah, if anybody else is online, please
[55:40] raise your hand so we're aware that you
[55:42] want to speak.
[55:43] Thank you. Go ahead, ma'am.
[55:44] >> Uh hi, my name is Samantha Derbyshire. I
[55:47] am the owner of Coyote Shuttle,
[55:49] I did not have time to prepare cuz I
[55:51] found out that about this at the last
[55:53] minute, but here I am. Um
[55:55] Fund 47 uh is what manages or takes care
[56:00] of our paved trails.
[56:01] Uh our paved trails are how my riders
[56:04] return to town at the end of their ride.
[56:06] They need safe ways to return to town
[56:08] after their bike ride. Many of them are
[56:10] tired from riding 20 to 30 miles and
[56:14] they need a safe return.
[56:17] Um Fund 47 also
[56:20] uh is where the salaries of Matt Ylagan
[56:24] and Evan Smiley, who run GCAT, come
[56:26] from. Uh those positions are crucial to
[56:29] the maintenance of keep and expansion of
[56:32] our trails in this town. Uh trails that
[56:35] my business relies on.
[56:38] Um Fund 47 could also help fund the
[56:41] Spanish Valley bike path, which seems to
[56:44] be very slow-moving and as a resident of
[56:47] a royal crossing, is very much needed.
[56:50] It is very unsafe to ride on Spanish
[56:52] Valley Drive in and out of town. I have
[56:55] a bike, I do it, and I am terrified.
[56:59] Um
[57:01] as we turn
[57:02] it feels like we're turning away from
[57:04] our trails and upkeep and expansion in
[57:07] many ways.
[57:09] Um and also a big push for motorized
[57:13] recreation over everything else.
[57:15] Um
[57:16] more places to bike, people are going to
[57:18] go elsewhere because we're just not we
[57:20] don't care about them anymore. And
[57:22] lastly, a 10-day
[57:25] uh RFP
[57:28] was a total disregard for the local
[57:30] businesses like mine who could have
[57:33] presented a bid
[57:35] for us to build our businesses, to
[57:37] expand, to bring in money to our
[57:39] businesses and have money stay local
[57:42] rather than going to outside sources.
[57:44] So, hopefully I got Thank you.
[57:47] >> Thank you.
[57:51] Anyone else?
[57:52] >> Yes.
[57:53] please.
[58:01] » My name is Amy Saad. I'm a Grapevine
[58:03] resident.
[58:05] Um I agree with everything everyone said
[58:07] today, so thank you. I know this brief.
[58:10] Um dear commissioners, I appreciate that
[58:13] you're excited about the Archer shuttle
[58:15] project.
[58:17] I imagine it might seem unappealing to
[58:19] pause this project since it's such a
[58:20] great green idea that will allow people
[58:23] to carpool, saving gas, reduction of
[58:25] pollution among other benefits.
[58:28] However, I kindly encourage you to
[58:30] change your course of action and rethink
[58:32] digging in your heels. Let's pursue the
[58:35] right time and process for such a huge
[58:37] commitment community investment.
[58:40] This This could include, say, running a
[58:42] feasibility study or putting out a
[58:44] public survey.
[58:46] Frustration with your approach appears
[58:48] to be a glaringly non-partisan issue,
[58:51] which is unusual for our community these
[58:53] days. And I am sure you have read and
[58:55] heard the outrage on both sides of the
[58:57] aisle. Please lay down your sword.
[58:59] Thank you.
[59:01] >> Thank you.
[59:03] Do we have anyone else? Yes, sir.
[59:09] » Thank you. I'm AJ Throckmorton. As
[59:12] always, thank you all for everything you
[59:13] do. Commissioners, not an easy job, so
[59:16] thank you.
[59:17] I got to say I agree with Mr. Jackson
[59:19] that a full valley multi-park shuttle
[59:20] system could definitely be an awesome.
[59:23] Given this is just a pilot as we're
[59:25] going to speak on here, we're going to
[59:26] have plenty of data to evaluate
[59:28] something like that.
[59:30] I would say that it's kind of wild times
[59:31] when it's the conservatives in the room
[59:32] who are touting public transit, so
[59:35] something to be said there.
[59:37] Uh one thing's for sure, this shuttle
[59:39] system is not a mechanism for telling
[59:41] people they can't visit their national
[59:42] parks or that they can only do so during
[59:44] certain times. It's going to replace
[59:46] individual vehicle trips with shared
[59:48] transportation. It's going to reduce
[59:50] pressure on roads and parking. It's
[59:52] going to give us actual ridership and
[59:53] cost data. It represents a new
[59:56] philosophy where we mitigate tourism and
[59:58] manage access intelligently rather than
[1:00:00] solely restricting it.
[1:00:02] When we look at the ACE plan overall,
[1:00:04] which is the larger picture this shuttle
[1:00:06] system fits into,
[1:00:07] is that it includes consideration of
[1:00:09] improved trails, both bicycle and
[1:00:11] pedestrian trails, modernized
[1:00:13] infrastructure, better distribution of
[1:00:14] visitors. The purpose isn't simply or
[1:00:17] only to bring more people here.
[1:00:19] It's to manage the people who are
[1:00:20] already coming in a way that reduces
[1:00:22] congestion in Moab and across Grand
[1:00:24] County.
[1:00:26] I read that uh or we're going to be
[1:00:28] using a combination of TRT mitigation
[1:00:30] and Fund 47 to help secure the 2.5
[1:00:32] million from the state and federal
[1:00:33] partners.
[1:00:35] Given that over the first 6 months of
[1:00:36] this calendar year, TRT revenue is
[1:00:39] reportedly up 35% based on projections,
[1:00:42] approximately 950,000 bucks.
[1:00:45] I think that additional revenue helps
[1:00:46] absorb this investment without requiring
[1:00:49] ordinary departments to shoulder those
[1:00:50] costs.
[1:00:53] Compared to previous Fund 47 uses and a
[1:00:55] couple of issues we've had with the
[1:00:57] state, I think this one makes complete
[1:00:59] sense.
[1:01:00] Now, given tourism remains the sole
[1:01:02] economic engine that we have, I think
[1:01:04] it's unwise to depend on it while also
[1:01:06] opposing practical investments that are
[1:01:09] going to make it function better for
[1:01:10] both visitors and residents alike.
[1:01:13] This current commission has taken
[1:01:15] criticism for changing direction for
[1:01:17] investing in access, betting that
[1:01:19] stronger management of our visitor
[1:01:21] economy will produce results.
[1:01:24] Revenue is now outperforming
[1:01:26] projections.
[1:01:27] Shuttle's moving into a real world pilot
[1:01:29] to continue that performance.
[1:01:31] Because of this commission's efforts and
[1:01:33] these results it's producing, definitely
[1:01:36] I'm fine to continue placing my faith in
[1:01:38] that direction.
[1:01:40] Thank you.
[1:01:41] >> Thank you.
[1:01:45] Anyone else?
[1:01:46] >> Yes, ma'am.
[1:01:47] >> [clears throat]
[1:01:53] » Got three of them on.
[1:01:55] >> I
[1:01:56] I'm here to oppose the proposed
[1:01:58] reallocation of our 27
[1:01:59] >> Slow down, please.
[1:02:00] >> Oh, I'm so sorry. I've been done
[1:02:02] forever.
[1:02:03] Uh, do I have to say I'm a resident
[1:02:04] here?
[1:02:05] I live in Maui. I've lived here for a
[1:02:07] long time.
[1:02:08] Um, I'm here to oppose the proposed
[1:02:10] reallocation of fund 47 resources to
[1:02:12] support the Archer shuttle at least
[1:02:14] until the public receives clear answers
[1:02:16] about the long-term consequences of that
[1:02:18] decision.
[1:02:19] As a member of the public, I still do
[1:02:21] not understand what we are giving up in
[1:02:22] order to fund this project. This
[1:02:24] proposal is not creating new money, it's
[1:02:27] reallocating existing.
[1:02:29] That means we're giving up something in
[1:02:30] order to fund something else. What
[1:02:32] concerns me is that the public still
[1:02:34] does not have a clear understanding of
[1:02:35] what those trade-offs are, what their
[1:02:37] consequences may be,
[1:02:39] or what this decision means for future
[1:02:40] investments. Fund 47 has helped create
[1:02:43] and maintain the pathway system that
[1:02:45] residents and visitors use every day.
[1:02:48] If resources are being redirected from
[1:02:49] that fund, how will those continue to be
[1:02:52] maintained? And what transportation
[1:02:54] priorities will receive fewer resources
[1:02:56] as a result?
[1:02:58] This concern extends beyond this year's
[1:03:00] budget.
[1:03:02] If fund 47 is being asked to support the
[1:03:04] shuttle this year, what is the funding
[1:03:06] plan for next year and the year after
[1:03:08] that?
[1:03:09] If the shuttle is successful and
[1:03:11] expected to continue, are we looking at
[1:03:13] a one-time reallocation or the beginning
[1:03:15] of an ongoing commitment. Public
[1:03:17] deserves to understand not only today's
[1:03:20] trade-offs, but tomorrow's as well.
[1:03:22] Just because fund 47 can be used for
[1:03:25] this purpose does not answer the more
[1:03:28] important question, should it be?
[1:03:31] Communities thrive when they maintain
[1:03:32] and strengthen what is already working.
[1:03:34] Before resources are redirected from
[1:03:36] infrastructure residents and visitors
[1:03:38] use every day, the public deserves a
[1:03:40] clear and specific explanation of what
[1:03:43] will no longer be funded, maintained, or
[1:03:45] completed as a result.
[1:03:47] Until those questions are answered, I
[1:03:48] urge you not to approve this proposal.
[1:03:52] Thank you.
[1:03:54] » Thank you. Do we have anyone else?
[1:04:03] » Where have you been?
[1:04:04] >> I have someone online.
[1:04:06] >> It's Tim Smith.
[1:04:07] >> I can tell. I got it. I got it. I got
[1:04:08] it.
[1:04:09] >> Introduce yourself and
[1:04:11] >> Hi, Aaron Weisenberg.
[1:04:13] Um I'd like to also address uh
[1:04:15] some of the issues with the
[1:04:18] uh the funding of the shuttle uh system
[1:04:21] in relationship to which piles of money
[1:04:24] it's coming from. Uh seems like to me
[1:04:27] I've talked to several of you on this
[1:04:29] and the story [clears throat] isn't
[1:04:31] straight about what the impact like what
[1:04:34] the actual discussion is like, "Oh, it's
[1:04:38] these trails or the bike path or this pile [clears throat] of money."
[1:04:42] I get you guys will disagree on this. I
[1:04:45] just want you guys when you deliberate
[1:04:47] to actually agree on what you're
[1:04:48] disagreeing on so I can kind of feel
[1:04:50] like that that to me is like a trusting
[1:04:52] government. Like, "Oh, hey, the story is
[1:04:55] right." Right? Like if they're they're
[1:04:57] talking about the same story on that.
[1:04:59] And you know, I worked for Trailmix
[1:05:01] >> [clears throat]
[1:05:02] >> or I didn't work for them. I volunteered
[1:05:03] a lot. So I'm on the board for a lot and
[1:05:06] I remember, you know, we were the
[1:05:08] mountain biking people and the horse
[1:05:11] people. And when we set up trail mix and
[1:05:13] turned it over to the county, it was
[1:05:14] Curtis who was like, "Wow, trail mix is
[1:05:17] the like a he's like a I remember he
[1:05:19] rolled his eyes and he was like, ah, the
[1:05:21] mountain bikers, I got to say they, you
[1:05:23] know, they're an economic driver
[1:05:25] for for Grant County." And um you know,
[1:05:28] that like
[1:05:29] I use
[1:05:31] I try to ride my bike three or four
[1:05:33] times a week. I'm using those systems.
[1:05:36] Um
[1:05:37] so uh
[1:05:39] I guess what I'm saying uh is that came
[1:05:41] and we I remember us handing it over the
[1:05:44] employees and all that to the county
[1:05:46] being like, "Hey, we're we built all
[1:05:48] this stuff. We're entrusting you to
[1:05:50] maintain them." And uh I guess I'd leave
[1:05:53] it at that. Thank you.
[1:05:55] >> Thank you. And Quinn, who do you want to
[1:05:57] call online first?
[1:05:58] >> Uh do Pam Hackley.
[1:06:00] >> Pam Hackley, um if you'd like to
[1:06:02] proceed, introduce yourself, please.
[1:06:06] >> Uh hello, can you hear me?
[1:06:08] >> Yes, we can.
[1:06:10] >> Thank you. Um my name is Pam Hackley. I
[1:06:12] live out in Castle Valley. Uh resident
[1:06:15] of Grant County. And I would like to
[1:06:17] speak to the artist shuttle.
[1:06:20] Um
[1:06:21] I didn't catch the name of the woman who
[1:06:25] uh made comments
[1:06:27] prior to the man that just stood up. I
[1:06:29] would echo everything that she said
[1:06:32] um regarding the proposed shuttle idea.
[1:06:36] Um I think the money we uh I'm concerned
[1:06:39] about the way it would drain the
[1:06:42] county's funds that have been set aside
[1:06:45] for other purposes.
[1:06:47] And as well, the the commission has
[1:06:49] discussed on many occasions about um
[1:06:54] giving a cola to uh county employees. I
[1:06:57] think that's a higher and better use
[1:06:59] for any extra money that we're going to
[1:07:01] spend that might be uh challenging the
[1:07:03] budget for the county.
[1:07:06] Thank you very much.
[1:07:07] >> Thank you. Um
[1:07:09] who next?
[1:07:10] >> Uh
[1:07:11] Antoinette Firestack.
[1:07:13] >> Antoinette, um please introduce yourself
[1:07:15] and go ahead.
[1:07:20] » Um she's still
[1:07:21] >> Um you're muted.
[1:07:25] Nope, can't hear you yet.
[1:07:27] >> Unmute. Okay.
[1:07:28] >> There you go.
[1:07:30] >> Good evening. My name is Antoinette
[1:07:32] Firestack. I live in Grand County. Uh I
[1:07:35] first wanted to say I appreciate
[1:07:36] everyone's hard work and time that you
[1:07:38] put into our community.
[1:07:40] Um secondly, I wanted to share my
[1:07:42] support for the Archers shuttle
[1:07:44] because I believe it will reduce parking
[1:07:46] congestion at the stops in the
[1:07:47] trailheads, which I I believe is the
[1:07:49] biggest um
[1:07:51] pro for for funding this.
[1:07:54] Also, it will reduce emissions from
[1:07:56] cars, which I can't imagine anybody
[1:07:58] would be against that as well.
[1:08:00] Um but biggest it will increase our
[1:08:01] visitors. I think they're um
[1:08:05] their experience will be more positive
[1:08:06] if they're not sitting in traffic and um
[1:08:08] they can be taken to the different sites
[1:08:10] and then thus it will increase tourist
[1:08:12] revenue from that regard. From what I'm
[1:08:15] hearing, it seems like the biggest
[1:08:16] concern seems to be the funding and um I
[1:08:19] think that just comes from
[1:08:21] misunderstanding or not having enough
[1:08:23] information, so I would just encourage
[1:08:25] that more information is shared just so
[1:08:26] people can understand what that what it would be what it kind of
[1:08:30] impact it would be to our community.
[1:08:32] Thank you.
[1:08:33] >> Thank you.
[1:08:35] >> Who else?
[1:08:35] Rory Paxman is the first.
[1:08:37] >> Okay, Mr. Paxman.
[1:08:40] >> Hello, commissioners. Um thank you for
[1:08:42] your service. Appreciate you guys. It's
[1:08:44] hard work.
[1:08:46] Um
[1:08:47] I am in agreement with a bunch of
[1:08:50] people. Can you hear me?
[1:08:51] >> Please introduce yourself, sir.
[1:08:53] >> It's Rory Paxman.
[1:08:55] >> Thank you.
[1:08:57] >> Local citizen.
[1:08:59] Um
[1:09:00] thank you guys for your hard work and
[1:09:01] service. I appreciate you guys.
[1:09:04] Um, I know how hard it is to be up there
[1:09:07] and dealing with this [clears throat]
[1:09:08] kind of stuff. My thing is is I really
[1:09:11] wish that you guys had been a little
[1:09:13] more transparent on where we were
[1:09:15] getting the money.
[1:09:17] Also, I would have really like to have
[1:09:20] seen you guys try a a shuttle program
[1:09:23] with another company in town to see if
[1:09:25] this was even going to work before we
[1:09:27] started throwing money at um
[1:09:29] this
[1:09:31] transportation thing that's going on. I
[1:09:33] don't understand how it could
[1:09:36] we could get to this point without
[1:09:38] having some studies or having some
[1:09:41] understanding of what's going to happen.
[1:09:44] It'd be really nice if the National
[1:09:46] Park, you would have worked with them
[1:09:48] and maybe got a pass-through lane so
[1:09:51] that us companies that run river
[1:09:53] businesses here in town that have big
[1:09:55] buses that we could shuttle people in
[1:09:57] there could uh get in there a little
[1:09:59] easier with our um CUAs. So,
[1:10:04] um I don't I like the program, but I'm against what how it's going through.
[1:10:13] » Thank you. And who's next?
[1:10:15] >> I think that's it.
[1:10:17] >> Okay. Do we have anyone else online
[1:10:19] that's trying to speak?
[1:10:21] >> They have They're all set.
[1:10:25] » All right. In the audience, yes, sir.
[1:10:38] » Hello, commissioners. My name is Neil
[1:10:39] Herbert. I live in Grant County.
[1:10:42] And I would also like to share some
[1:10:43] thoughts on this reallocation of funds
[1:10:45] to the Archway shuttle.
[1:10:48] Uh as you know, I'm working to sit in
[1:10:51] one of these chairs uh at some point
[1:10:53] next year.
[1:10:54] And as As of that effort, I've talked to
[1:10:56] hundreds of Grand County residents.
[1:10:59] And uh the vast majority of them oppose
[1:11:01] this project. I would say that the
[1:11:03] breakdown is not dissimilar from what
[1:11:04] you've heard tonight. Like 85% that I've
[1:11:07] talked to are are for it, the rest are
[1:11:10] pretty much against it. Um and I oppose
[1:11:13] it as well.
[1:11:14] Um I'm intrigued by the idea of an
[1:11:16] Arches shuttle. I think done right, it
[1:11:18] would open up amazing opportunities and
[1:11:21] experiences for Arches
[1:11:23] and reduce congestion and all the things
[1:11:24] we've heard about.
[1:11:26] But I think the manner in which this is
[1:11:27] being done,
[1:11:28] the way this effort is unfolding is
[1:11:31] uh is really concerning to me.
[1:11:33] Um I'm concerned that you're moving way
[1:11:35] too quickly, haphazardly, and ignoring a
[1:11:38] lot of expert advice.
[1:11:41] I'm concerned that you're taking money
[1:11:42] away from more important county
[1:11:44] projects.
[1:11:46] I'm concerned that locals are not going
[1:11:47] to get enough bang for their buck
[1:11:49] for the money that we're contributing.
[1:11:51] Uh
[1:11:52] I'm concerned that you're subsidizing
[1:11:53] the federal government.
[1:11:55] Um I've asked this before, isn't What
[1:11:57] other county spends this kind of money
[1:11:58] inside of a national park?
[1:12:00] And by that I mean moving people around
[1:12:02] inside the park, not just getting them
[1:12:03] to the door.
[1:12:05] Um but mostly, I'm concerned that you're
[1:12:07] ignoring the will of the voters.
[1:12:10] Um
[1:12:11] Earlier tonight,
[1:12:12] um
[1:12:14] Mayor Ryan read the content from that uh
[1:12:17] Proposition 1 from 2015 where Fund 47
[1:12:19] was born.
[1:12:21] Um and there's no mention national park
[1:12:23] shuttles in that language. And I don't
[1:12:26] think that's what voters had had had in
[1:12:27] mind when they passed it.
[1:12:29] Um
[1:12:31] I realize some of you have spent a great
[1:12:33] deal of time and effort on this project,
[1:12:35] and I applaud your dedication.
[1:12:39] I really hope that you are seeing
[1:12:41] something that I'm not seeing
[1:12:43] and that this somehow ends up being a
[1:12:45] benefit for our county.
[1:12:47] Thank you.
[1:12:48] >> Thank you.
[1:12:52] Anyone else?
[1:12:55] Mr. Stott, please come forward and
[1:12:57] introduce yourself.
[1:13:03] » Hi, my name is Dan Stott, Canyon
[1:13:05] resident. Been here for 34 years. Uh
[1:13:09] I've watched a lot of
[1:13:12] issues back and forth in this county and
[1:13:14] the city.
[1:13:16] Uh the shuttle program, I'll bring that
[1:13:18] up cuz that seems to be everybody's
[1:13:20] topic. Uh to [clears throat] be honest
[1:13:22] with you, I wasn't a fan of it to begin
[1:13:24] with.
[1:13:25] I wasn't a fan
[1:13:27] at all
[1:13:28] with the timed entry.
[1:13:30] And
[1:13:32] as the timed entry went, I programmed so
[1:13:35] it expired.
[1:13:37] And I was happy to see that happen.
[1:13:40] I did notice because I do a lot of
[1:13:42] hiking in the spring and late fall,
[1:13:44] winter and
[1:13:45] in Arches.
[1:13:47] There was a very large amount of people
[1:13:51] due to no snow, warmer weather in
[1:13:54] Arches.
[1:13:56] And just talking to them, they
[1:13:59] most of their comments of the people
[1:14:00] that I met there was
[1:14:02] timed entry. They wanted to get there be
[1:14:05] it before it happened.
[1:14:07] And of course, I informed them it was
[1:14:08] expiring.
[1:14:11] The shuttle program
[1:14:13] to me
[1:14:15] uh when I first thought about it or when
[1:14:18] I first started reading and studying
[1:14:20] I was like, "Okay, here we go. Another
[1:14:22] nonprofit."
[1:14:24] I have a thing about nonprofits. I ran a
[1:14:27] nonprofit. I've been involved in
[1:14:28] nonprofits.
[1:14:30] All the nonprofits that I see today are
[1:14:32] nonprofit for-profit businesses.
[1:14:37] If any one of those nonprofits own
[1:14:40] property,
[1:14:43] there's no property tax coming off that.
[1:14:45] Anyway,
[1:14:46] kind of getting off my subject of the
[1:14:48] shuttle and thinking, okay, here we go,
[1:14:51] another nonprofit.
[1:14:53] I found out it's a little different.
[1:14:56] This is a
[1:14:57] It's not called a pilot program, but
[1:14:59] it's a one-time deal.
[1:15:02] Got my fingers crossed though.
[1:15:04] The
[1:15:07] fund 27,
[1:15:10] I didn't look into it enough, but I do
[1:15:12] recall that we got in trouble using that
[1:15:14] money not too long ago.
[1:15:19] Uh
[1:15:19] if I'm correct, I think we ended up the
[1:15:23] state came down on us.
[1:15:26] Anyway, [clears throat] and I trust that
[1:15:28] our county attorney has advised you guys
[1:15:31] that we can't use these funds
[1:15:34] for the shuttle.
[1:15:36] Uh
[1:15:37] I
[1:15:39] thank you guys for all the work you've
[1:15:40] done, everything. I haven't done all my
[1:15:43] studies on this yet.
[1:15:45] But
[1:15:46] I'm seeing
[1:15:48] the possibility of this working.
[1:15:51] Hopefully the federal government,
[1:15:54] National Parks,
[1:15:56] will take it over and fund it
[1:15:58] themselves.
[1:16:00] If this is just a one-time deal,
[1:16:02] I'm in.
[1:16:03] That's what I think it is.
[1:16:05] Uh
[1:16:06] what's going to I'd like to thank you
[1:16:07] all for all your hard work, everything
[1:16:10] you've done.
[1:16:11] And
[1:16:13] thank you.
[1:16:14] >> Thank you, sir.
[1:16:18] Anyone else?
[1:16:22] Here, Dwight.
[1:16:24] Please introduce yourself.
[1:16:29] » Dwight Johnston.
[1:16:30] I'm born and raised in Moab. That my
[1:16:33] grandfathers settled Castle Valley here.
[1:16:36] Owned the what's the Castle Valley
[1:16:39] ranch now. It was my grandfather's,
[1:16:40] great grandfather's ranch.
[1:16:42] Him and his brother. So, I've been here
[1:16:43] forever. The
[1:16:45] talking to businesses,
[1:16:47] uh
[1:16:48] the timed entry was really
[1:16:50] [clears throat] hurting them.
[1:16:51] And it kind of And it really hurts the
[1:16:53] tourists. Getting, you know, be from
[1:16:55] Europe and come over here for a vacation
[1:16:56] and show up and find it find out you
[1:16:58] can't go in Arches.
[1:17:00] It's real It was real frustrating. So,
[1:17:02] I'm really happy we got rid of that and
[1:17:04] we're trying to come up with something
[1:17:06] to replace it. And I I think this is a
[1:17:09] good
[1:17:10] a a great thing to try. I think I think it'll work. I think it'll it'll
[1:17:14] help our businesses and I think it'll
[1:17:16] help the park. It'll help traffic
[1:17:18] congestion. I think there's a lot of
[1:17:19] pluses for giving this a try and you're
[1:17:21] not signing up for 10 years. It's a
[1:17:24] pilot program. Let's give it a try and
[1:17:26] see if it works. I think it will.
[1:17:28] And I'm kind of amazed at the people
[1:17:30] here uh
[1:17:32] complaining about the money that we're
[1:17:33] just so happy to spend all that money on trail
[1:17:38] ambassadors
[1:17:39] that that basically just
[1:17:42] told people where not to hike and handed
[1:17:43] out a little water. Uh so, this
[1:17:46] program's a great way to spend the
[1:17:47] money, I think. It's a pilot program and
[1:17:49] I appreciate all of you. I hope you pass
[1:17:51] it. So.
[1:17:56] » Thank you. And do we have anybody
[1:17:57] online? Um
[1:18:01] » Uh Kevin Flynt online, but I believe
[1:18:03] he's here for regular citizens to be
[1:18:04] heard, not a public hearing.
[1:18:05] >> Okay.
[1:18:07] All right, if there's no one else,
[1:18:11] we will move into our regular citizens
[1:18:13] to be heard,
[1:18:15] um which normally starts somewhere
[1:18:17] around 5:00. It's 5:15.
[1:18:20] Do we have anyone for regular citizens
[1:18:22] to be heard
[1:18:24] speaking on a different topic?
[1:18:27] Yes, please.
[1:18:32] » I'd like to speak.
[1:18:33] >> Any topic?
[1:18:34] >> Even even one that they have inquired
[1:18:36] previously.
[1:18:38] >> Um
[1:18:38] >> Mary O'Brien, [clears throat] Castle
[1:18:40] Valley.
[1:18:41] The majority of this commission prides
[1:18:44] itself on, quote, getting things done.
[1:18:47] It certainly has gotten things done in
[1:18:49] terms of inserting themselves into
[1:18:51] transportation management of a national
[1:18:54] park.
[1:18:55] In June 25, the majority committed
[1:18:58] 60,425
[1:19:00] dollars to the Kem C. Gardner Institute
[1:19:03] to study whether timed entry contributed
[1:19:06] to a downturn in the economics of the
[1:19:09] county.
[1:19:10] In July 2025, not waiting for an answer,
[1:19:14] the majority asked Department of
[1:19:15] Interior Secretary Bingham to scrap
[1:19:18] timed entry because it was contributing
[1:19:21] to downturn in county economy.
[1:19:24] In November 2025, Commissioner Martinez
[1:19:27] introduced the eighth plan for visitor
[1:19:30] transportation in Arches. The majority
[1:19:33] passed it.
[1:19:34] The next month, in December 2025, the
[1:19:37] eighth plan was presented to Arches in a
[1:19:39] closed-door meeting with the state and
[1:19:42] feds and county commissioners presenting
[1:19:45] their plans for managing transportation
[1:19:48] in national parks near them. In May
[1:19:51] 2026, the Gardner study was released
[1:19:54] showing that in fact timed entry had not
[1:19:57] resulted in an economic downturn in the
[1:20:01] county. In the same month, the majority
[1:20:04] voted to commit half a million dollars
[1:20:07] out of the budget to um fund contribute
[1:20:10] to a 3 million dollar one-year shuttle
[1:20:14] system experiment.
[1:20:16] Now, in August 2026, the commission may
[1:20:20] vote to switch the some of the
[1:20:24] 500,000 to fund 47 um with tax county residents um taxing
[1:20:32] on their purchases.
[1:20:34] At no time in this past year has there
[1:20:37] been any public survey
[1:20:39] about its support for timed entry,
[1:20:43] funding a study on timed entry, sending
[1:20:46] a transportation plan to Arches,
[1:20:49] or contributing a half million to a
[1:20:51] three million dollar one-year study,
[1:20:54] um, to, uh, send tourist vans into
[1:20:58] Arches National Park which did not want
[1:21:01] the park with the the shuttle system.
[1:21:04] This is how things get done by
[1:21:07] authoritarian governments all over the
[1:21:09] world.
[1:21:13] » Anyone else?
[1:21:16] Yes, please.
[1:21:26] » I'm still short.
[1:21:28] Alison Mathus, resident of Moab, and
[1:21:31] I've been in and out of Moab for
[1:21:33] two-thirds of my life. So, um, longer
[1:21:36] than a lot of the age of a lot of people
[1:21:38] in, uh, this room. Um, my comments are
[1:21:41] going to be based on facts. I've got
[1:21:43] opinions based on facts, um, but it's
[1:21:45] based on facts. I want to start by
[1:21:47] talking about the agreement for this
[1:21:49] timed entry, and,
[1:21:52] uh,
[1:21:53] again, I'm going to read directly from
[1:21:54] it. It says, "A partner enters this
[1:21:56] agreement pursuant pursuant to the
[1:21:59] following authorities authorities. Utah
[1:22:01] Code blah blah blah." I'm not going to
[1:22:03] read you the number. It says,
[1:22:05] "Authorizes GC to provide services,
[1:22:07] exercise powers, and perform function,
[1:22:10] uh, that are reasonably related to the
[1:22:13] safety, health, morals, and welfare of
[1:22:15] county inhabitants."
[1:22:17] I do not think that this commission has
[1:22:21] provided any actual evidence that this
[1:22:24] shuttle system will do anything related
[1:22:27] to the safety, health, morals, or
[1:22:29] welfare of county inhabitants. The
[1:22:32] evidence is not there. I've heard
[1:22:34] statements, but I've heard no evidence.
[1:22:36] I have heard no facts. And a lot of the
[1:22:39] arguments that have been made
[1:22:41] by people in this room this evening are
[1:22:43] like, "Oh, timed entry was harming
[1:22:45] businesses." Well, that's just
[1:22:47] anecdotes. Secondly, there is a Gartner
[1:22:50] study that said that wasn't the case.
[1:22:53] And for every anecdote that anyone says
[1:22:56] that
[1:22:57] a visitor told me they hated timed
[1:22:59] entry, they planned their trip around
[1:23:00] timed entry, I personally can find you
[1:23:03] an anecdote, including ones that I heard
[1:23:05] from park visitors myself, of exactly
[1:23:07] the opposite. Okay? So again, data and
[1:23:10] facts, not
[1:23:12] anecdotes and and opinions. So I have
[1:23:16] not seen any evidence that this shuttle
[1:23:18] system will benefit residents,
[1:23:20] particularly not to the tune of 50 bucks
[1:23:22] per resident, which is what half a
[1:23:24] million dollars approximately is. That
[1:23:27] is hugely, hugely expensive. What else
[1:23:30] does this county spend $50 per resident
[1:23:33] on?
[1:23:35] I don't know anybody who plans to ride
[1:23:37] the shuttle. Uh
[1:23:39] also, from what I've seen, the number of
[1:23:41] people, visitors mostly, if not
[1:23:43] exclusively, that are going to ride the
[1:23:45] shuttle are very expensive. So a per
[1:23:47] person basis of getting people into the
[1:23:50] park is highly expensive. It will likely
[1:23:53] cost businesses money because if they're
[1:23:55] parking on Main Street, they're taking
[1:23:57] up parking, and if people can't park,
[1:24:00] they're going to be, "I'm going to blow
[1:24:01] this popsicle stand and not going to
[1:24:03] spend my money in town."
[1:24:05] You know, if if they can't talk, someone
[1:24:07] mentioned people with the commercial use
[1:24:10] authorizations, the CUAs. This shuttle
[1:24:12] system is going to directly compete with
[1:24:15] businesses who can bring people into the
[1:24:17] park. How is that benefiting that
[1:24:20] language in this agreement?
[1:24:22] Um
[1:24:23] Also, one thing that's greatly bothered
[1:24:25] me about this commission is that it has
[1:24:27] seemed to put all of their eggs in one
[1:24:29] basket related to tourism, and that is
[1:24:31] tied to Arches National Park. Moab is
[1:24:33] taking the opportunity to look for other
[1:24:36] ways that we can increase tourism that
[1:24:38] will directly benefit businesses in ways
[1:24:40] that a visitor spending time in Arches
[1:24:43] will not um um do. Thank you.
[1:24:47] >> Thank you.
[1:24:49] Anyone else?
[1:24:54] All right, let's go online. I think
[1:24:56] we've got a couple there. We'll start
[1:24:58] with uh
[1:24:58] >> Hello. Hey, excuse me, online?
[1:25:03] >> Who is this?
[1:25:03] >> Rory again. Rory Paxman.
[1:25:06] >> Okay. Yep, thank you.
[1:25:09] >> Can I talk at the consent or for the
[1:25:12] uh citizens to be heard?
[1:25:14] >> Yes, sir.
[1:25:15] >> All right. Rory Paxman, uh Grand
[1:25:19] County resident. Um there's one thing
[1:25:21] that I want to discuss on the I think
[1:25:23] it's either on the consent agenda or the
[1:25:26] action items. I'm not sure which number
[1:25:28] it is, but it's on
[1:25:30] uh
[1:25:31] the FBO out at the airport for a 50-year
[1:25:35] um
[1:25:36] lease or a um contract with them.
[1:25:40] Um in the previous years, we've only
[1:25:42] done 30 years. Um I don't think any of
[1:25:45] you have spent a whole lot of time out
[1:25:48] there.
[1:25:49] Um but I think you need to spend more
[1:25:51] time before you decide what you're doing
[1:25:53] with that lease agreement with them.
[1:25:55] Um especially because it's going to be
[1:25:57] more of a
[1:26:00] um
[1:26:04] a monopoly out there if you
[1:26:06] don't be careful what what you're doing.
[1:26:09] Um I did not I've been to the all the
[1:26:11] airport boards. I have not seen the
[1:26:13] airport board to discuss this, but maybe
[1:26:15] I missed that. So, anyways, I just want
[1:26:18] to bring that to everybody's attention.
[1:26:21] Thank you.
[1:26:23] >> Thank you.
[1:26:24] All right, we are going to go to Ms.
[1:26:27] Campbell.
[1:26:28] >> Hello y'all. Um two two quick comments
[1:26:31] on two different agenda items. On agenda
[1:26:33] item, what is it? The Granicus for the
[1:26:36] um website update. I um just for
[1:26:39] context, I am a uh professional software
[1:26:41] and website designer. I lead a very very
[1:26:44] large team and large budget, so I can
[1:26:46] speak with some
[1:26:47] credentials to say $8,500 for a color
[1:26:50] and font change is crazy. And I don't
[1:26:53] say this as critique, I say this as
[1:26:55] guidance. I would highly highly
[1:26:57] recommend uh revisiting the details of
[1:27:00] the budget items there cuz they're just
[1:27:02] listening to this to you as one unit. Uh the way the technology
[1:27:06] has improved, the task that they are
[1:27:08] describing would take about 30 minutes
[1:27:11] and I would assign a junior designer at
[1:27:12] like an $80 per hour public rate. Um so,
[1:27:16] I just want to give you all a heads-up.
[1:27:17] It's probably worth um
[1:27:19] having someone just kind of look over
[1:27:22] the current rates that you're being
[1:27:23] charged and the nature of the tasks uh
[1:27:26] because this is a
[1:27:28] maybe part of a larger pro- project
[1:27:30] where they're just kind of shifting a
[1:27:31] cost center onto this work, but um
[1:27:33] they're massively overcharging you for
[1:27:36] what they're um going to be doing. So, I
[1:27:37] just wanted to give you a heads-up to to
[1:27:40] be looking into that. Um and also just a
[1:27:42] request, and again not trying to um
[1:27:45] sort of feed into what other people have
[1:27:46] been commenting on, but but genuinely
[1:27:47] would love some clarification. It's
[1:27:49] unclear from the packet and from the
[1:27:51] budget notes if the proposal is to pay
[1:27:55] for the um the shuttle entirely at a
[1:27:58] fund 47 or partially at a fund 26 and
[1:28:00] partially at a fund 47. And it's
[1:28:02] possible that that might be part of the
[1:28:03] cross talk today, but for those of us
[1:28:06] who would like to submit comments um
[1:28:08] into the record after this public
[1:28:10] meeting, it would be very helpful to
[1:28:11] have just some clarification about what
[1:28:13] is actually being being intended cuz
[1:28:15] there's, you know, obviously some
[1:28:17] different ramifications depending on how
[1:28:18] that's um dealt out. This process has
[1:28:21] just been really opaque um and I hope
[1:28:25] this is something that maybe those of
[1:28:27] you who are running again or for folks
[1:28:29] who are running or for people running in
[1:28:30] a couple of years, um the fact that this
[1:28:33] has brought people together from across
[1:28:34] many different spectrums in the
[1:28:35] community, not necessarily against the
[1:28:37] project but just trying to understand
[1:28:40] where is this speed coming from, where
[1:28:41] is the information coming from, what is
[1:28:43] truth any time, what's um ideas. It's been really really frustrating to
[1:28:48] follow and I hope that you guys can hear
[1:28:50] that not from a place of critique or
[1:28:52] ideology or whatever but just just hear
[1:28:55] it as public officials and public um
[1:28:57] representatives. So, thank you all so
[1:28:59] much.
[1:29:01] >> Thank you.
[1:29:03] Mr. Clyde, are you on for public
[1:29:05] comment?
[1:29:08] Uh you're still on mute, sir.
[1:29:16] » Just listening today.
[1:29:18] >> There we go. Now we can hear you. Please
[1:29:20] introduce yourself for the record.
[1:29:22] >> He said he's just listening.
[1:29:23] >> Oh, you're just [clears throat]
[1:29:24] listening?
[1:29:24] >> Yes, mhm.
[1:29:25] >> Okay, thank you. Do we have anyone else
[1:29:27] on there, Quinn?
[1:29:29] >> Um
[1:29:30] I don't think [clears throat] so.
[1:29:33] >> Okay, if there's anyone else online,
[1:29:35] please feel free to raise your hand.
[1:29:39] All right, as well go back to the
[1:29:41] audience here in the
[1:29:42] chambers. If there's anyone else that
[1:29:44] wants to come forward.
[1:29:47] >> All right.
[1:29:48] >> What's that?
[1:29:48] >> We will move on from citizens to be
[1:29:51] heard.
[1:29:59] Let's see, we will move into our general
[1:30:01] business action items and discussion and
[1:30:04] considerations for approval. We start
[1:30:07] with commission members disclosures and
[1:30:09] future considerations.
[1:30:13] Yes, Commissioner Martinez. Excuse me,
[1:30:15] Commissioner McCurdy.
[1:30:17] >> Disclosure and then
[1:30:19] future consideration. Disclosure that
[1:30:21] the uh
[1:30:23] My wife works for the Sheriff's
[1:30:24] Department and future consideration.
[1:30:27] Uh I'll have to get back to you in just
[1:30:29] 2 seconds. I wrote down some notes. Let
[1:30:31] me find them real quick on some tax.
[1:30:33] Uh it's part of my tax class that we
[1:30:35] want or that we did. Here we train the
[1:30:38] equalization or the equalization
[1:30:40] training.
[1:30:41] Uh
[1:30:42] we need to move forward with some of the
[1:30:43] facts that they brought. Uh they brought
[1:30:46] some
[1:30:48] Technically, it was pie charts and they
[1:30:50] brought some pie charts. They brought
[1:30:51] some uh property tax property tax
[1:30:55] estimated calculators
[1:30:57] that Washington County was using.
[1:31:00] I want to put it as a future
[1:31:01] consideration to reach out to Washington
[1:31:03] County.
[1:31:04] Uh see if we can get those and apply
[1:31:06] them our website. It was a property tax
[1:31:08] calculator and a percentage based on
[1:31:12] where your tax money goes in our county.
[1:31:14] It was a simple pie chart, but
[1:31:17] Yeah.
[1:31:18] >> Yeah, it's just a website on there I
[1:31:19] think it's on their auditor assessor's
[1:31:21] office that it just has a breakdown for where individual parcels of property
[1:31:26] it probably is something for the county
[1:31:28] admin office maybe to tackle and to see
[1:31:30] if we can communicate with the
[1:31:31] assessor's office, get that information
[1:31:33] and then talk to Matt or whoever's going
[1:31:35] to upload that on the website. I don't
[1:31:37] know if that's something that if
[1:31:39] permission from the assessor to put it
[1:31:40] on that portion of it, but I think
[1:31:42] that's maybe that's
[1:31:43] >> Even if it had to go to even if it has
[1:31:45] to go to the front page or to our face
[1:31:48] page on our website, I know many
[1:31:50] constituents that would love that uh the tax information on if they're
[1:31:55] looking at a new property etc. etc. the
[1:31:57] calculator they had and the a breakdown
[1:32:00] of the pie chart that had the
[1:32:01] percentages, and the breakdown of which
[1:32:04] taxing entity that you are an amount of
[1:32:07] taxes with that estimate.
[1:32:11] » Commissioner McGinn.
[1:32:13] >> And it I
[1:32:14] it's not on the agenda. I thought I had
[1:32:16] something, but it's not on this.
[1:32:18] I think something
[1:32:20] Okay.
[1:32:22] >> Anyone else?
[1:32:23] >> Are we on disclosures?
[1:32:24] >> What's that?
[1:32:25] >> Are we on disclosures?
[1:32:26] >> Um yes, we are.
[1:32:27] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:32:28] >> And future considerations.
[1:32:30] >> Thank you.
[1:32:31] >> Anyone else?
[1:32:33] All right. I've got a couple um
[1:32:36] future considerations I would like to
[1:32:38] bring on in that
[1:32:40] commission meeting that we give the road
[1:32:42] department directors some authority to
[1:32:44] start the process of making some trail
[1:32:47] repairs on the bypass
[1:32:49] from the riverwalk bridge to arches
[1:32:51] entrance. Um you know, I think several
[1:32:53] of us, including him, were out there.
[1:32:55] Well, I know we were and did a little
[1:32:57] bit of an assessment, and it seems like
[1:32:59] it would be a good time to
[1:33:01] move forward with some maintenance on
[1:33:03] that portion of the bypass and look at
[1:33:06] the money that's in fund 47 to fund
[1:33:09] that. So, if we could do that on the
[1:33:11] next commission meeting
[1:33:13] And then I also want to notice or notify
[1:33:16] that I intend to bring back the Burr
[1:33:18] Oaks application before the commission
[1:33:20] at the next commission meeting as well.
[1:33:23] >> Which application?
[1:33:24] >> The Burr Oaks.
[1:33:29] » Those were a couple that I had, and with
[1:33:31] that, we will move in to the approval of
[1:33:34] the consent agenda items.
[1:33:36] There are no minutes. They were not
[1:33:38] available, so we are removing that item
[1:33:41] A.
[1:33:42] B is ratification of payment of bills
[1:33:45] for total bills of $1,415,649.63.
[1:33:53] Total payroll
[1:33:55] >> $291,337.74
[1:34:00] total bills and payroll.
[1:34:02] $1,706,987.37
[1:34:09] We're going to remove item C. We did not
[1:34:12] qualify for that grant.
[1:34:15] And move on D, ratification of branding
[1:34:18] refresh for discovermoab.com.
[1:34:22] Ratification of solid waste SSD sublease
[1:34:26] permission letter.
[1:34:27] Ratification of local consent for
[1:34:30] temporary alcohol permit outer bike.
[1:34:33] D, ratification of TAP grant funding
[1:34:36] commitment letter
[1:34:38] for shoulder widening project from
[1:34:40] Resource Boulevard to Spanish Trail
[1:34:42] Road.
[1:34:44] H, hosted maintenance maintenance
[1:34:47] technician backfill request.
[1:34:50] And I, extension of airport lease
[1:34:52] agreements for Redtail Air.
[1:34:56] >> Air?
[1:34:57] >> Yes, ma'am.
[1:34:58] >> Possible I'd like to remove item I of
[1:35:01] the consent agenda to discuss
[1:35:03] separately.
[1:35:04] >> Okay, so we will look for motion for
[1:35:07] items through H and leave I. We will
[1:35:10] move it down to the end of our agenda.
[1:35:16] Okay, Commissioner McCurdy.
[1:35:17] >> So moved.
[1:35:19] >> Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second
[1:35:21] by Commissioner Martinez. All in favor?
[1:35:24] >> Aye.
[1:35:26] >> Passes unanimously with Commissioner
[1:35:29] McCann was waving online.
[1:35:32] We will move on to number five, Moab
[1:35:35] Office of Tourism brand launch events.
[1:35:38] One is a community open house at the MAC
[1:35:40] on September 8th.
[1:35:42] And two is Mud Springs ribbon cutting
[1:35:45] and National Interscholastic Cycling
[1:35:48] Association
[1:35:50] NICA race on September 11th.
[1:35:53] >> You bet. Where you been?
[1:35:56] >> Rabbit, I've been.
[1:35:59] Um thanks for having me.
[1:36:01] >> Yeah.
[1:36:01] >> Before I get started, I just wanted to
[1:36:02] say quickly our office has been
[1:36:04] nominated for tourism campaign of the
[1:36:06] year
[1:36:07] from the US Travel
[1:36:08] and uh So Awards.
[1:36:10] Um it's a the organization in our
[1:36:12] industry. It's their top award.
[1:36:16] Oh my
[1:36:18] I have a vendor.
[1:36:19] Only way
[1:36:20] >> You guys really think that?
[1:36:21] >> [laughter]
[1:36:21] >> Um it's their top award. We're up
[1:36:23] against two cities in New York and uh
[1:36:26] Denver, New York City, Austin are in the
[1:36:28] category of it's stunning the world of
[1:36:30] us. So
[1:36:31] Um
[1:36:32] that's uh recognition of our ad agency
[1:36:36] plus and you all were able to get us to
[1:36:38] do.
[1:36:39] So
[1:36:40] uh we feel like we already won.
[1:36:42] Um but to the agenda,
[1:36:45] I know.
[1:36:47] Um this item is for um two events.
[1:36:50] Um
[1:36:52] we
[1:36:53] uh have undergone a branding project for
[1:36:56] the better part of the year.
[1:36:58] And um
[1:37:01] through the project, uh we uncovered a
[1:37:02] statistic that is something we hear all
[1:37:05] the time.
[1:37:06] Um that more than 90% of visitors told
[1:37:09] us they were staying for more time in
[1:37:11] their visit or already planning to
[1:37:13] return.
[1:37:14] So that insight has become the
[1:37:15] foundation for our new campaign, which
[1:37:17] we'll be rolling out more fully um at
[1:37:19] this event. Um
[1:37:21] great.
[1:37:22] Day after Labor Day.
[1:37:23] Um and then as an advertising campaign up
[1:37:27] in the fall.
[1:37:28] Um
[1:37:29] so item the item text describes more
[1:37:32] about the event. Uh in the event
[1:37:34] Tuesday, September 8th, we held a
[1:37:36] community open house to kick off this
[1:37:38] project last fall. Jersey wants me to
[1:37:41] want to do another one um to invite um
[1:37:44] stakeholders, all of our agency partners
[1:37:47] out, and the communities, as we say,
[1:37:49] come talk to us about tourism. So, we
[1:37:51] will have
[1:37:53] our partners in town with a series of
[1:37:56] workshops throughout the uh beginning of
[1:37:58] the day. Um
[1:38:01] uh we'll have a presentation at the MTAB
[1:38:02] meeting that day on the 3rd, and then
[1:38:04] we'll walk over to the MAC and uh celebrate our brand launch.
[1:38:11] So, that's the first one.
[1:38:12] Um and the second is uh later that week
[1:38:15] on Friday, um
[1:38:18] there will be a biker race at the new
[1:38:19] bike springs um trail system.
[1:38:22] Um this event invites a large group of
[1:38:25] stakeholders to the grand opening of
[1:38:28] springs. The event is time to celebrate
[1:38:30] one of the trail system's main objective
[1:38:32] to attract biker races and the large
[1:38:34] economic impact that comes with it.
[1:38:37] The Mammoth Office of Tourism plans to
[1:38:38] publicize the event by inviting
[1:38:40] journalists, issuing press releases,
[1:38:41] hiring photography, and welcoming
[1:38:43] families to attract future events and
[1:38:45] connect the races, but also other
[1:38:47] organized cycling, adaptive
[1:38:51] aim to raise awareness of the trail
[1:38:52] system. Um we also aim to raise
[1:38:56] awareness of the trail system to attract
[1:38:58] visitation um to Mammoth Springs in
[1:39:00] general.
[1:39:01] Um
[1:39:03] happy to entertain any questions about
[1:39:04] that. Um this is
[1:39:06] um
[1:39:07] restricted TOT funds um
[1:39:10] set aside to establish and promote
[1:39:12] tourism always, so they
[1:39:14] can be used for tourism.
[1:39:16] Uh do you have any questions on that?
[1:39:18] And then there's the alternate
[1:39:19] Commissioner Commissioner Martinez and
[1:39:20] then Commissioner Girty.
[1:39:22] >> Yeah, I'll go ahead and start. Uh I move
[1:39:23] to approve costs associated with
[1:39:25] producing two branded events, not
[1:39:27] exceeding
[1:39:28] $15,260
[1:39:30] for a dedicated event planner and up to
[1:39:33] $18,960
[1:39:35] in event costs for community open house
[1:39:37] and a brand launch at the MAC, up to
[1:39:40] $20,700
[1:39:42] or $20,790
[1:39:44] for a grand opening ribbon cutting and
[1:39:46] NICA race event at the new Mud Springs
[1:39:48] trail system.
[1:39:51] » Motion by Commissioner Martinez, second
[1:39:53] by Commissioner Hadler. Do we have any
[1:39:55] comments?
[1:39:56] >> Just a quick comment. You know, I just
[1:39:57] want to
[1:39:58] recognize all the work that has gone
[1:40:00] into this grand launch and
[1:40:03] it's it's it's been a lot and I think
[1:40:05] it's something that that we're all going
[1:40:06] to be proud of and that we're going to
[1:40:07] be standing behind. So, thank you for
[1:40:09] the work that's gone into this project.
[1:40:12] >> Commissioner Hadler, can I make a
[1:40:13] comment on that?
[1:40:16] >> Sure, Mike.
[1:40:16] >> Yeah, and go ahead.
[1:40:17] >> All right. That NICA thanks you, so.
[1:40:19] >> Yeah, yeah. No, I'm I'm I'm super stoked
[1:40:21] about the ribbon cutting. I I I think
[1:40:23] both events are great. Um the ribbon
[1:40:25] cutting down at Mud Springs is awesome.
[1:40:26] It's been a long time coming.
[1:40:28] It's a massive community asset. It's a
[1:40:30] great collaboration with San Juan County
[1:40:32] and the state of Utah and especially
[1:40:34] NICA. Um you guys know I'm I'm involved
[1:40:37] in NICA as the local head coach and so
[1:40:39] I'm I'm proud that we will have a home
[1:40:42] venue this year. I also wanted to point
[1:40:44] out that the uh September 12th race is
[1:40:47] we our local team will not be racing at
[1:40:49] that race. That's a different region.
[1:40:50] Our home race will be on September 26th.
[1:40:54] So, come out and support NICA on that
[1:40:56] day and the ribbon cutting and come out
[1:40:57] on the 26th and support our team. So.
[1:41:01] >> Commissioner McGurdy.
[1:41:02] >> So, you don't miss that, come out and
[1:41:04] support uh our team.
[1:41:06] Uh those are local kids, guys. We we
[1:41:10] This is a great opportunity to show off
[1:41:12] our area uh to other teams coming in.
[1:41:15] Uh this is this is killer. It was like
[1:41:17] Josh said, great work between state,
[1:41:19] great work between Grand County, San
[1:41:21] Juan County, everyone. That trail system
[1:41:23] is going to be
[1:41:24] >> Yeah, I'm
[1:41:26] >> Thank you. Yes.
[1:41:27] >> Uh it is going to be awesome for our
[1:41:29] area and our literal kids uh to you guys
[1:41:33] that are taking part in these events out
[1:41:35] there. Uh we like to see that.
[1:41:40] » All right. Also, I'd give a real quick
[1:41:42] update. I know that um
[1:41:44] >> [clears throat]
[1:41:44] >> the contractor that UDot hired on the
[1:41:46] road is very, very close to finishing
[1:41:49] that road in there. Um
[1:41:51] Possibly they have. I missed partnership
[1:41:54] meeting today to to hear on that. And
[1:41:57] then
[1:41:58] once they're done, then that's going to
[1:42:00] open up the road to where our
[1:42:04] um highway director, Cody, in the back
[1:42:06] here will be able to start building both
[1:42:08] parking lots. There's two of them. One
[1:42:10] about a
[1:42:11] 10-acre and the other one about a 6-acre
[1:42:13] parking lot. So, that all these
[1:42:15] folks can camp in there. And those funds
[1:42:19] came from uh traveling outside of this
[1:42:22] community by commissioners and working
[1:42:24] on grants to be able to make that a
[1:42:26] reality out there. So, that is some of
[1:42:29] the trail work that we are doing for
[1:42:31] bikes in this community. And I think
[1:42:33] it's important that maybe some of the
[1:42:35] citizens realize that there's a lot of
[1:42:38] effort that goes into this and a lot of
[1:42:39] time and
[1:42:41] at least myself as a commissioner, I'm
[1:42:43] not
[1:42:44] singularly focused on motorized. I do a
[1:42:47] lot of work for the biking community.
[1:42:49] So,
[1:42:50] we're we're getting very close out
[1:42:52] there. And I think it's a
[1:42:54] big thing for our community. So, if
[1:42:56] there's no further comments, I'll call
[1:42:58] for a vote. All in favor?
[1:43:01] >> Aye.
[1:43:03] >> All right. That passes unanimously.
[1:43:04] Thank you, Matt. And then
[1:43:07] out of recognition recognition of our
[1:43:10] city folks here, I'm going to move item
[1:43:12] nine up to right now. Um I wish I'd have
[1:43:15] thought of it a little bit earlier and
[1:43:16] ahead of this one, but I apologize.
[1:43:18] We're going to do nine now, the
[1:43:20] ordinance amending
[1:43:21] ordinance 725.
[1:43:26] Utility utility overlay for City of Moab
[1:43:29] water tank and authorization to sign DA,
[1:43:32] Andrew Jackson.
[1:43:34] Green Penny Planner.
[1:43:36] Um again, this is a
[1:43:39] uh amendment of ordinance 725
[1:43:43] that was passed in um I believe it was
[1:43:45] October of 2025 that the
[1:43:49] um
[1:43:49] that the required development agreement
[1:43:51] as well as put a date
[1:43:53] of uh December 31st of 2025 for
[1:43:57] completion of the project. The
[1:44:01] um city has
[1:44:03] um
[1:44:04] has the current some funding and still
[1:44:07] uh pursuing other funding and there's a
[1:44:08] lot of work to do on that.
[1:44:10] Um and so, I would uh
[1:44:14] request that that they be extended to
[1:44:18] December 31st of 2030 with any um
[1:44:22] extension of time requested uh be done
[1:44:26] administratively by myself with written
[1:44:29] uh
[1:44:30] request of Moab City.
[1:44:33] The
[1:44:34] uh
[1:44:34] >> [clears throat]
[1:44:34] >> ordinance
[1:44:35] um does not
[1:44:38] change the zoning, doesn't put overlay
[1:44:40] on, doesn't do any of those things. It's
[1:44:43] all been sold previously. It's just um
[1:44:47] defining the development agreement
[1:44:50] specifically
[1:44:52] as what is in our language code as well
[1:44:55] as uh changing the the time uh the
[1:44:58] deadline for completion.
[1:45:02] >> All right, I've got Commissioner
[1:45:03] McNamara with her hands up first, so
[1:45:08] >> I was just going to make a motion to
[1:45:09] suspend the rules and adopt the
[1:45:11] ordinance amending conditions number one
[1:45:13] and number three of ordinance number
[1:45:15] 725, which applied the major utility
[1:45:18] overlay to a portion parcel number
[1:45:19] 02-0021
[1:45:22] -0113,
[1:45:24] the City of Moab water tank site. The
[1:45:26] ordinance statutory site citations
[1:45:29] including the section for effective date
[1:45:32] citation to Utah code 17-64-502
[1:45:36] have been verified against the recoded
[1:45:38] title 17 and authorize the chair to
[1:45:41] execute the required development agreement.
[1:45:45] >> And Melody, can you add that date that
[1:45:48] Andrew mentioned that we want to extend
[1:45:51] this out to December 31st, 2030?
[1:45:54] >> Sure, before we do that
[1:45:56] >> by rule technically we need first to
[1:45:57] vote on the
[1:45:59] to suspend the rules and get the
[1:46:00] two-thirds vote. Then we can make the
[1:46:02] subsequent motion motion to address it
[1:46:03] today.
[1:46:04] >> All right, Mel we're going to we're
[1:46:05] going to suspend take the vote on
[1:46:07] suspending the rules here. I've got a
[1:46:09] >> I'll second.
[1:46:10] >> Commissioner McGann.
[1:46:12] >> I will make a motion to suspend the
[1:46:14] rules for the
[1:46:15] public hearing to vote on the
[1:46:18] ordinance today.
[1:46:19] >> All right, motion by Commissioner McGann
[1:46:21] second by Commissioner McCurdy. Any
[1:46:23] discussion?
[1:46:25] Seeing none, all in favor?
[1:46:28] >> I.
[1:46:29] >> Passes unanimously. All right, back to
[1:46:32] your motion Melody.
[1:46:35] You did hear the date extension that
[1:46:37] Andrew discussed.
[1:46:40] >> Yeah, December 31st of 2030?
[1:46:43] >> Yes.
[1:46:43] And then I believe some he had some
[1:46:46] verbage about possible extensions if
[1:46:50] they were needed to go through his
[1:46:51] office. Is that correct, Andrew?
[1:46:53] >> Yeah, administratively.
[1:46:55] It's in the by ordinance.
[1:46:59] » I need to add that to my motion that we
[1:47:01] need to if we need to extend it it would
[1:47:02] go through the P&Z administrator.
[1:47:06] >> And with a December 31st, 2030 deadline
[1:47:09] currently.
[1:47:11] >> Yes, with the December 31st
[1:47:13] 2030 deadline is the change.
[1:47:16] >> motion by Commissioner McGann second by
[1:47:18] Commissioner Martinez.
[1:47:20] Any further discussion? So that's So
[1:47:23] adding the possibility for additional
[1:47:25] extensions to be authorized
[1:47:26] administratively. Is that Is that Okay.
[1:47:29] >> Yes, sir.
[1:47:31] >> All right. With that, I'll call for a
[1:47:33] vote. All in favor?
[1:47:35] Passes unanimously. Thank you.
[1:47:40] » Thanks for being here.
[1:47:41] >> [laughter]
[1:47:42] >> See you guys later.
[1:47:47] » All right. With that, we will move on to
[1:47:49] number six, selection of Utah
[1:47:51] Conservation Corps quote for brand
[1:47:54] funded project.
[1:47:56] Uh Matt, oh, how are you? Good. Come on.
[1:48:01] >> Hello.
[1:48:02] Um I'm Evan Smiley, operations
[1:48:03] coordinator for Grand County Active
[1:48:05] Transportation Trails, and Matt is out
[1:48:06] of town, so I'm filling in.
[1:48:08] Um the request is to approve the
[1:48:10] selection of the Utah Conservation Corps
[1:48:12] to assist with the non-technical trail
[1:48:13] building for Mud Springs phase one this
[1:48:15] fall, and to approve the contract for
[1:48:16] this work once we go through with that
[1:48:18] has gone through.
[1:48:19] Um really appreciate all the support so
[1:48:21] far. Sounds like everyone knows Mud
[1:48:22] Springs, so they're big proponents of
[1:48:24] it. Um we're excited to finish up phase
[1:48:26] one this fall.
[1:48:27] Um a little bit of background, 2024,
[1:48:29] Grand County was awarded the Utah
[1:48:31] Outdoor Rec Grants and the Recreational
[1:48:33] Trails Program grant funding match from
[1:48:35] the city from San Juan County or the
[1:48:37] BLM.
[1:48:38] Um we got a narrow build window from
[1:48:39] August 1st to November 15th due to
[1:48:41] numerous wildlife restrictions, so phase
[1:48:43] one needs to wrap up by November 15th
[1:48:45] this year.
[1:48:46] Um we currently have 6.1 miles of mostly
[1:48:49] machine-built trail on the ground that
[1:48:50] we built last year, and we got 3.7 miles
[1:48:53] to go, but it's all going to be
[1:48:54] hand-built, so it takes a long time.
[1:48:57] Um the trails are going to be
[1:48:58] intermediate and advanced in difficulty
[1:49:00] and still be the full 3-ft width
[1:49:02] required for adaptive equipment to pass.
[1:49:04] Um so we've got a very busy build season
[1:49:06] ahead and would love all the volunteer
[1:49:08] support that we can get as well.
[1:49:10] Um yeah. Last year, the contractors came
[1:49:12] in under budget and finished early.
[1:49:14] Crazy.
[1:49:16] So we have extra funds to hire a
[1:49:17] Conservation core team for 6 weeks to
[1:49:19] assist with the non-technical trail
[1:49:21] building while the G-CAT crew can focus
[1:49:23] on the more technical and skilled areas
[1:49:24] of the build.
[1:49:26] Um you've got conservation core to base
[1:49:28] locally and with the lowest bid by a
[1:49:29] large margin compared to other regional
[1:49:31] conservation cores. Um and of course
[1:49:33] conservation cores are known for being
[1:49:34] more affordable compared to private
[1:49:36] professional crews.
[1:49:38] Um these CC contracts are completed
[1:49:39] through the Utah State University and
[1:49:41] Grand County is currently awaiting their
[1:49:42] contract for legal review. The build
[1:49:44] window is rapidly approaching which is
[1:49:46] why we're bringing it
[1:49:47] into motion now.
[1:49:48] So yeah, in summary asking for the
[1:49:49] approval of the selection of ECC to
[1:49:51] assist with 6 weeks non-technical trail
[1:49:53] building at Mud Springs for $33,000 all
[1:49:56] of which is grant funded.
[1:49:58] >> Thank you, Commissioner McCurdy.
[1:50:00] I'd like to make a motion. I move to
[1:50:01] approve the selection of Utah
[1:50:02] Conservation Corps to assist with
[1:50:04] non-technical trail building for Mud
[1:50:06] Springs phase one and to approve the
[1:50:08] contract for the work pending legal
[1:50:10] review.
[1:50:12] Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second
[1:50:14] Commissioner Hadler.
[1:50:16] Any discussion?
[1:50:19] Yes, Commissioner Hadler.
[1:50:20] >> I literally can't wait to ride these
[1:50:22] trails.
[1:50:22] >> [laughter]
[1:50:23] >> They're going to be
[1:50:24] >> It's so good. Some advanced and
[1:50:26] intermediate trails out there.
[1:50:28] are amazing, but adding
[1:50:30] a little variety is going to be pretty
[1:50:31] great. Thanks, Chris.
[1:50:34] >> All right. Anything further?
[1:50:36] All right, seeing none I'll call for a
[1:50:38] vote. All in favor?
[1:50:42] Passes unanimously.
[1:50:44] >> Excellent. Excellent job.
[1:50:46] >> Thank you, sir.
[1:50:48] We will [clears throat] move on to
[1:50:49] number seven, approval of personnel
[1:50:51] service
[1:50:52] services fees for special service
[1:50:55] districts assessing their services.
[1:50:59] Says Tess Barder, but we're going to go
[1:51:01] with Chantal.
[1:51:02] >> It says it's on the it's online.
[1:51:03] >> Oh, is she? Okay. Thank you, Tess. Tess,
[1:51:06] we're all good.
[1:51:06] >> I'm sure.
[1:51:07] >> It is.
[1:51:15] » All right, great.
[1:51:16] >> So, good evening commission members,
[1:51:18] county staff, and citizens. My name is
[1:51:20] Shantal Lindsay, the Grand County
[1:51:21] Finance Director.
[1:51:23] Um I would like to thank the Personnel
[1:51:24] Services Department Director Tess
[1:51:26] Barter, Assistant Director Laura Allred,
[1:51:28] and Payroll Coordinator Angie Woodruff
[1:51:31] um for their hard work and collaboration
[1:51:33] throughout this process, as well as
[1:51:34] County Attorney Steven Stocks and his
[1:51:36] staff for taking on the task of
[1:51:38] preparing agreements for year 2027.
[1:51:41] Um this was a significant analysis. I
[1:51:43] conducted a comprehensive review of
[1:51:45] every task performed by the Personnel
[1:51:46] Services Department to better understand
[1:51:48] the department's workload,
[1:51:49] responsibilities, and staffing needs.
[1:51:52] As part of this review, I broke
[1:51:54] personnel tasks into three primary
[1:51:56] categories: payroll, insurance, and
[1:51:58] general human resources support.
[1:52:01] Can you just
[1:52:03] >> You can check.
[1:52:03] >> Yeah.
[1:52:13] >> There we go.
[1:52:15] Okay, so the numbers used in this
[1:52:16] analysis
[1:52:18] um represent the full 2027 cost of the
[1:52:20] Personnel Services staff. Um as you
[1:52:22] know, this year they have a reduced
[1:52:24] hours for their office, and in 2027
[1:52:26] we'll be going back to the full um
[1:52:29] full-time. Um
[1:52:31] to ensure that all staffing,
[1:52:32] operational, and administrative expenses
[1:52:34] are fully captured in the evaluation.
[1:52:37] Um the most interesting thing that we
[1:52:39] found was that um based on this
[1:52:41] analysis, 39.87%
[1:52:43] of the department's personnel capacity
[1:52:45] is dedicated to payroll administration
[1:52:47] and and benefits and insurance
[1:52:49] management, while the remaining 60.13%
[1:52:52] supports general human resources and
[1:52:54] administrative functions.
[1:52:56] This breakdown reflects the level of
[1:52:57] ongoing administrative demand required
[1:52:59] to support both county operations and
[1:53:01] affiliated service districts.
[1:53:04] Um during our review, we also identified
[1:53:06] that the Grand County Cemetery Special
[1:53:07] Service District, the Mosquito Abatement
[1:53:09] Special Service District, and Grand
[1:53:11] Water and Sewer are currently receiving
[1:53:13] personnel services from Grand County
[1:53:15] with county staff providing support to
[1:53:17] these districts as part of their overall
[1:53:19] workload without an interlocal agreement
[1:53:21] or other formal service agreement in
[1:53:23] place.
[1:53:25] To ensure proper cost allocation and
[1:53:27] transparency, we're proposing to begin
[1:53:29] charging these services to the
[1:53:30] respective districts in the year 2027.
[1:53:34] Um
[1:53:35] for the Cemetery Special Service
[1:53:36] District, we would charge um 1,099.57
[1:53:40] for their insurance management and
[1:53:42] 1,893.32
[1:53:44] overall for the payroll services. The
[1:53:46] Grand Water and Sewer District would be
[1:53:47] charged 2,199.14
[1:53:50] for insurance management and the
[1:53:51] Mosquito Abatement Special Service
[1:53:53] District would be charged 1,893.22
[1:53:56] yearly for payroll services.
[1:53:59] And so, if you look on these tabs, I
[1:54:01] broke it down. We went through every
[1:54:03] single function that the director,
[1:54:04] assistant director, and the payroll
[1:54:06] coordinator provides to county staff as
[1:54:09] well as outside entity staff, such as
[1:54:12] special service districts. Um and this
[1:54:16] was a great analysis. It would be nice
[1:54:18] to have one of these for every single
[1:54:20] department about um what every you know,
[1:54:23] all the different tasks that everybody's
[1:54:24] working so hard on. Um on the third tab
[1:54:28] here, you'll see um that some of the um
[1:54:32] special service districts are using both
[1:54:34] the payroll and insurance. Some are just
[1:54:36] using um insurance or payroll.
[1:54:39] Um so, if the total cost for the
[1:54:41] personnel services to Grand County in
[1:54:43] the year 2027 is going to be 381,880.
[1:54:48] [clears throat]
[1:54:48] Um which means that the general HR um
[1:54:52] for Grand County staff is using 229,643
[1:54:56] of that total allocation. Um
[1:54:59] and so,
[1:55:02] we um
[1:55:04] broke this down into each tab for each
[1:55:06] entity so that Steven Stocks office can
[1:55:08] prepare some type of a formal agreement
[1:55:11] in writing and we can also prepare each
[1:55:13] special service district in writing
[1:55:15] before the year 2027 so that they can
[1:55:17] appropriately budget for these costs as
[1:55:18] well. Um these costs are different than
[1:55:21] the administrative costs that we are
[1:55:23] charging um non-general fund departments
[1:55:26] for accessing general fund.
[1:55:29] And I'll bring forth those to review
[1:55:30] again in the fall after we have um 2027
[1:55:34] per close contracts for each department.
[1:55:37] Um and this is this analysis is strictly
[1:55:39] based upon what it cost the county um
[1:55:43] to um provide the HR department to
[1:55:46] staff.
[1:55:47] Um and I do have um commission
[1:55:50] administrative support on this as well
[1:55:52] as personal services support.
[1:55:56] » Yes, Commissioner McCartan.
[1:55:59] No, Commissioner
[1:56:00] >> Hadler.
[1:56:00] >> [laughter]
[1:56:01] >> Okay, I think we're all going in the
[1:56:02] same direction.
[1:56:03] >> You did a super thorough job. Thank you
[1:56:05] so much. It's so much easier to to look
[1:56:07] at this when when it's presented like
[1:56:09] you presented it. You've done the done
[1:56:10] the hard work. It it's
[1:56:12] Now it's great. It's much appreciated.
[1:56:13] And uh on that note, I will move to
[1:56:15] approve the personnel services fees for
[1:56:17] the special service districts accessing
[1:56:19] or accessing services as presented and
[1:56:22] direct staff to prepare agreements
[1:56:24] with the entities for 2027. Thanks.
[1:56:27] >> Motion by Commissioner Hadler, second
[1:56:29] Commissioner
[1:56:30] >> McCartan. Further discussion?
[1:56:32] Seeing none, I'll call for a vote. Those
[1:56:35] in favor?
[1:56:37] » I.
[1:56:38] >> Passes unanimously. Thank you.
[1:56:41] >> Thank you.
[1:56:41] >> A lot of work, good job.
[1:56:43] >> Thank you.
[1:56:44] >> All right, we will move on to number
[1:56:47] eight, the 2026 Mojave Inter Project
[1:56:50] annual statement of continued
[1:56:52] compliance, Commissioner McGinn.
[1:56:56] >> Uh thank you. Uh to begin with, I want
[1:56:58] to say that uh this is a good example of
[1:57:00] what great partners
[1:57:03] the
[1:57:04] Uinta Project has been for Grant County.
[1:57:07] This
[1:57:08] statement of compliance agreement that
[1:57:11] they have
[1:57:12] been involved with from the onset of
[1:57:14] this project is not something that they
[1:57:16] were required to do.
[1:57:19] Uh
[1:57:20] many
[1:57:21] uh
[1:57:21] entities federal entities would not have
[1:57:25] gone through the effort to work so
[1:57:26] closely with the county and the citizens
[1:57:28] and so
[1:57:30] I I'm very thankful that they have
[1:57:32] always been willing to do that.
[1:57:34] And it's this statement of compliance is
[1:57:38] from July 19th of last year 2025 to July
[1:57:42] 20th of this year. I'll just do a couple
[1:57:45] highlights.
[1:57:46] Uh
[1:57:48] there was 1,000,000 6
[1:57:51] to 2,884
[1:57:53] tons of millings and debris sub
[1:57:58] removed this year. Uh last year on
[1:58:01] September 29th they hit the 16,000,000
[1:58:04] ton
[1:58:05] goal which was
[1:58:06] a big
[1:58:08] goal that they'd been set from the
[1:58:10] onset.
[1:58:11] And now it's just the sub tailings that
[1:58:14] they're doing so that's exciting. Uh
[1:58:17] they uh
[1:58:20] the tailings placement at Crescent
[1:58:22] Junction is continuing and they are
[1:58:25] preparing to put the cover on sections
[1:58:29] of the sales some of the sales.
[1:58:32] They employ they have 139 employees.
[1:58:37] And that reflects the shipment of four
[1:58:41] train loads a week.
[1:58:45] And their work has continued all 12
[1:58:47] months.
[1:58:52] We have a new type of covering for the
[1:58:55] cell out at Crescent Junction and it
[1:58:59] could be really a much better one than
[1:59:01] what was proposed quite a few years ago.
[1:59:03] This has been in
[1:59:05] I think for about four years in in
[1:59:07] getting to completion and deciding what
[1:59:09] to what is going to happen. The air
[1:59:12] quality around the area has continued to
[1:59:14] stay way below what is considered
[1:59:16] dangerous, way way below. And monitoring
[1:59:19] will continue new
[1:59:21] air monitoring
[1:59:23] water has the ground water system has
[1:59:27] prevented
[1:59:29] much great deal of the ammonia and
[1:59:32] uranium from entering into our
[1:59:36] the Colorado River
[1:59:38] and fresh water system and the
[1:59:41] monitoring of ground water will continue
[1:59:44] once the
[1:59:48] project is taken from
[1:59:50] and turned over to legacy management
[1:59:54] which will be at the end and probably in
[1:59:57] 2029
[1:59:59] or earlier.
[2:00:00] And so is there any questions? Did you
[2:00:03] have you were there Bill? Do you have
[2:00:05] anything else you think we should add?
[2:00:07] >> Um no, I think you covered the new the
[2:00:09] new cover literally that they're talking
[2:00:11] about putting on there and it's my
[2:00:13] understanding after that meeting that
[2:00:15] the reasoning is that will allow water
[2:00:17] that normally would have been trapped
[2:00:19] under their old design
[2:00:21] to evaporate and come up into the
[2:00:24] atmosphere. So it's a it's a new thing
[2:00:26] that they've studied extensively and
[2:00:29] added to the site. So
[2:00:31] Yeah. Commissioner McCurdy.
[2:00:33] >> I'd like to make a motion. I move to
[2:00:35] approve the 2025 into 2026 Moad Contra
[2:00:38] project annual statement of continued
[2:00:40] compliance.
[2:00:42] >> Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second
[2:00:44] by Commissioner Martinez. Discussion?
[2:00:47] >> [snorts]
[2:00:48] >> Seeing none, I'll call for a vote. Those
[2:00:50] in favor?
[2:00:52] >> I.
[2:00:53] >> Passes unanimously and we move on to the
[2:00:57] next item.
[2:00:59] Let's see here.
[2:01:02] Skipping number nine, we already dealt
[2:01:04] with
[2:01:06] We'll go to number 10, which is a
[2:01:07] contract for a sub region traffic
[2:01:10] analysis in Spanish Valley.
[2:01:12] Approximately $20,000. Mr. Jackson.
[2:01:21] » Andrew Jackson, Grand County Planner.
[2:01:23] The city area is unincorporated Spanish
[2:01:26] Valley generally bounded by Easy Street,
[2:01:28] US 191, Sunny Dale Lane, and Rancho
[2:01:31] Verde Drive.
[2:01:33] Um, the map is included in your packet.
[2:01:37] It's been um
[2:01:39] There's been sustained rezone and
[2:01:41] subdivision activity [clears throat] in
[2:01:44] the area and request
[2:01:46] um
[2:01:47] in this specific [clears throat] area and
[2:01:50] instead of looking at just this straw
[2:01:53] that broke the camel's back, but we
[2:01:54] wanted to get a
[2:01:57] bigger picture of transportation area we
[2:02:00] have and on call um
[2:02:04] agreement with Horrocks Engineering for
[2:02:07] uh engineering [clears throat] services
[2:02:09] and um they have submitted a task order
[2:02:13] form not to exceed $20,000 for the
[2:02:16] study. Um they've included information
[2:02:18] on the proposal and [clears throat] I
[2:02:20] would ask that the County Commission
[2:02:24] direct
[2:02:26] Mr. McCandless
[2:02:28] to uh sign the task order.
[2:02:33] » All right, and because I'm the one that
[2:02:36] asked this to be put on, I'm going to
[2:02:37] make a few comments. This um came about
[2:02:40] after the Burrocks subdivision, which um
[2:02:42] there was
[2:02:44] multiple people that raised safety
[2:02:46] concerns out there and there were
[2:02:47] multiple people that were in support of
[2:02:50] it. So,
[2:02:51] this is an effort to because we've had
[2:02:54] multiple we had the Novak that came
[2:02:56] before us and so I think that it's time
[2:02:59] to do a traffic study out there and see
[2:03:01] what we can do to
[2:03:03] mitigate some of the problems. So, I I
[2:03:05] was the reason that this got put on
[2:03:07] there. I asked Mr. Jackson to do so. So,
[2:03:10] yes, Commissioner Addeen you have
[2:03:12] comment.
[2:03:13] >> questions for Andrew.
[2:03:15] Is this within your budget your current
[2:03:18] 2026 budget to that much money you do
[2:03:20] have that much money in your budget?
[2:03:21] >> Yeah, that was actually
[2:03:23] over age from
[2:03:25] I guess we have budgeted additional
[2:03:27] funding for the
[2:03:30] code update.
[2:03:31] >> Okay.
[2:03:31] >> I think we budgeted 85,000 65,000 has
[2:03:35] been on that. So, we're looking at this
[2:03:37] 20,000 coming out of that money was
[2:03:41] available.
[2:03:41] >> Okay, that makes me feel better because
[2:03:43] I really
[2:03:45] as you know I'm
[2:03:46] pretty opposed right now to
[2:03:47] >> Yeah, I was going to mention that
[2:03:50] >> Is there
[2:03:51] No, I appreciate that Andrew. And then
[2:03:53] is there any way to extend the scope
[2:03:57] like I could really see you know this is
[2:04:00] a fairly small area I agree this area
[2:04:02] has been under intense pressure. I don't
[2:04:05] really like to see my street on there
[2:04:07] but it is what it is. But what I that
[2:04:09] was a joke. Anyways, but I wonder if we
[2:04:12] could extend it like to me it really
[2:04:14] needs to be extended maybe to Rem
[2:04:16] Village and then down to the county
[2:04:18] line. That's just an and I don't know if you could ask Korocks if that would
[2:04:24] entail more money but I do think that
[2:04:26] would absorb
[2:04:28] like it kind of goes right to Beeman but
[2:04:30] I know one of the discussions earlier
[2:04:32] was is it feasible and maybe Cody can
[2:04:34] answer this.
[2:04:35] I know it was like Russ Tangren that
[2:04:37] brought this up to me a long time ago
[2:04:38] about putting an outlet on that, you
[2:04:41] know, on that similar parcel. Gary
[2:04:43] Wilson won't don't doesn't want to hear
[2:04:44] that, but but I I do think it would help
[2:04:47] if if we could extend those boundaries
[2:04:49] just a little bit just to make sure that
[2:04:51] we're doing it a little more
[2:04:54] holistically and and, you know, pushing
[2:04:57] all the traffic we can out in the
[2:04:59] appropriate areas cuz I agree. I think
[2:05:01] that Zimmerman's taking a huge huge
[2:05:04] amount of traffic right now, but is
[2:05:05] there other avenues to push people to
[2:05:07] 191? I don't know. I don't Do you have a
[2:05:09] comment on that, Cody?
[2:05:11] Is it okay if you come up? Is that okay,
[2:05:13] Andrew, if he comes up?
[2:05:14] >> I'll send Cody.
[2:05:16] >> Yeah, I mean, I just I just think if
[2:05:17] we're going to spend money um
[2:05:21] we just get
[2:05:21] >> Grand County Golden Bridge area.
[2:05:23] >> Thank you. Get the most bang for our
[2:05:25] buck out of this.
[2:05:26] Um Cody.
[2:05:27] >> I I mean, I would I would entertain the
[2:05:29] option to maybe break this scope out a
[2:05:32] little bit bigger.
[2:05:33] Um I know that I have been dealing with
[2:05:36] the Zimmerman in that area quite
[2:05:39] regularly trying to come up with some
[2:05:40] traffic.
[2:05:41] >> Right.
[2:05:42] >> Um
[2:05:43] more calming measures.
[2:05:45] >> [sighs]
[2:05:45] >> There there are some There's some
[2:05:46] proposed outlets that could potentially
[2:05:48] happen. I know the Beeman one is one
[2:05:49] that I'm working with transportation
[2:05:51] special services district on also trying
[2:05:53] to push that out through, so um
[2:05:56] I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to
[2:05:57] trying to make the scope a little bit
[2:05:59] bigger.
[2:06:00] >> Okay.
[2:06:00] >> I'm sure we could find some road
[2:06:01] department funding to cover that if
[2:06:03] there is additional
[2:06:04] >> That's to say I don't have any more
[2:06:05] money.
[2:06:06] >> Okay, yeah. That's right.
[2:06:07] >> So I think I I mean, I I think that
[2:06:09] doing a a bigger scope would definitely
[2:06:12] maybe benefit this whole
[2:06:14] growth in the south area.
[2:06:16] >> Okay.
[2:06:18] I think it would too.
[2:06:19] >> Like there's that will get
[2:06:21] off Spanish Valley Drive and out of the
[2:06:23] neighborhoods to the highway.
[2:06:24] >> Right.
[2:06:25] >> Okay, Commissioner Martinez. Quick
[2:06:27] question on the funding. Would it be
[2:06:28] possible actually to use impact fees for
[2:06:31] this right here and then and then have a
[2:06:34] repayment
[2:06:35] as subdivisions come back into those
[2:06:37] impact fees.
[2:06:38] >> Used to be good.
[2:06:40] >> [laughter]
[2:06:42] >> So, yeah, they they used to allow
[2:06:44] traffic studies to use impact fees, but
[2:06:47] now it's only
[2:06:49] a study on a specific intersection for
[2:06:51] design uh
[2:06:52] criteria for that intersection. Okay.
[2:06:55] You can use that specific for that, but
[2:06:56] general transportation studies that are
[2:06:59] no longer permitted.
[2:07:01] >> Okay. Thanks. Commissioner McCarty.
[2:07:03] >> Oh, and then I'll
[2:07:04] >> Go to her.
[2:07:05] >> Uh let's go with what he has to say and
[2:07:07] then I'll go back.
[2:07:07] >> And I don't know when we're doing the
[2:07:09] traffic study, normally we see these in
[2:07:10] the context of developers providing
[2:07:13] these studies to be able to see the
[2:07:15] level of use that they're going to have
[2:07:17] in these properties. Are we looking at
[2:07:20] the traffic study
[2:07:22] just to provide us the base amount of uh
[2:07:27] base amount of traffic that we have now
[2:07:29] or are we looking
[2:07:30] for expansion? Like what's what's the
[2:07:32] overall goal? Is it to evidence and
[2:07:34] support additional development in the
[2:07:36] area or is it to
[2:07:38] create different, you know, speed bumps
[2:07:40] or things to reduce the amount of speed?
[2:07:43] >> It's the prior one and I was the one
[2:07:45] that asked this be put on there because
[2:07:47] we are looking at up-zoning or whatever
[2:07:50] to get applications in that area and it
[2:07:52] is based off of traffic.
[2:07:54] >> Yeah, we've had a bunch of like
[2:07:55] piecemeal either just discussions with
[2:07:58] staff
[2:07:59] with uh potential applicants with staff
[2:08:02] or actually submittals that have just
[2:08:04] come in again piece by piece and we want
[2:08:06] to look at more than just that straw
[2:08:09] that breaks the camel's back. Um
[2:08:13] but
[2:08:15] I mean what we're looking at is
[2:08:17] what a 1/3 acre density over this entire
[2:08:22] area would require for transportation to
[2:08:26] see we've got a buffer we look
[2:08:28] [clears throat] at zone changes in the
[2:08:29] future.
[2:08:31] Not saying that we will,
[2:08:33] but
[2:08:34] if we do, at least we know what type of
[2:08:37] infrastructure will be needed at these
[2:08:38] different
[2:08:40] intersections as well as
[2:08:42] the possible right-of-way that's needed.
[2:08:46] » Commissioner McCurdy.
[2:08:48] >> I'd like to make a motion. I move to
[2:08:50] authorize the county administrator to
[2:08:52] execute a task order with Horrocks
[2:08:53] Engineering Incorporated under the
[2:08:55] county's existing on-call engineering
[2:08:57] services contract for the Spanish Fork
[2:08:59] Valley Drive Corridor Road network and
[2:09:02] traffic analysis study in the amount not
[2:09:05] to exceed $20,000 subject to approval
[2:09:09] as form as to form by the county
[2:09:12] attorney.
[2:09:13] >> If you want to increase that
[2:09:16] >> I'd like as a comment to make with that,
[2:09:20] ask for the moon. See if we can get a
[2:09:21] bigger area.
[2:09:22] >> I think you need to incorporate in your
[2:09:24] motion
[2:09:25] what Cody said that we might have to
[2:09:27] also include the road department to
[2:09:30] cover a larger study.
[2:09:31] >> If
[2:09:34] more funds are needed, I would like to
[2:09:36] draw back to the commission.
[2:09:37] >> Okay.
[2:09:38] >> It
[2:09:39] just a we'll redo the motion and put it
[2:09:41] through, but my motion is to not exceed
[2:09:43] $20,000 that you currently have.
[2:09:46] >> Okay.
[2:09:46] >> [clears throat]
[2:09:47] >> Okay, thank you. Do we have a second?
[2:09:49] Seconded by Commissioner
[2:09:52] Martinez. Comments? Further Commissioner
[2:09:55] >> I I think it's
[2:09:57] uh
[2:09:59] you know, I think it just behooves us
[2:10:00] beyond the prospect of growth out there,
[2:10:03] just you know, safety. And you know,
[2:10:05] Cody, it's just I mean, right now, you
[2:10:07] know, Stocks is extremely getting onto
[2:10:10] that highway, and I understand that's
[2:10:11] UDOT, but I think the more that we can
[2:10:13] be, and I know you are, working with
[2:10:14] UDOT as as far as acceleration lanes,
[2:10:17] etc. and so on. I think we have issues
[2:10:19] right now with safety, too. Just there's
[2:10:21] a lot of people moving through Salmon
[2:10:23] River. But I know that there's a lot of
[2:10:24] people moving through Beeman. I know
[2:10:26] that. And so, I kind of try to divide
[2:10:29] where I go.
[2:10:29] >> [laughter]
[2:10:32] » There's There's a lot of people moving
[2:10:33] out there. And so, I think a more
[2:10:35] holistic study just benefits us in the
[2:10:37] future, not just for development.
[2:10:39] >> Yeah. And it's like I'm going to also
[2:10:40] clarify that this is a traffic analysis
[2:10:43] study, but that one of the
[2:10:47] priorities that
[2:10:48] Mr. McKinnon mentioned, you can correct
[2:10:50] me if I'm wrong, but is
[2:10:53] update the transportation master plan
[2:10:56] for
[2:10:58] a larger our park rated Grand County
[2:11:01] area.
[2:11:03] But this is this is for our traffic
[2:11:05] analysis the zone study.
[2:11:09] >> Thank you. So, just just off that for
[2:11:11] the for the commissioners to understand,
[2:11:14] when this comes back, what what will the
[2:11:17] county do with this information?
[2:11:20] >> Yeah. And so, what we can do is we can
[2:11:22] take and look at the different densities
[2:11:25] and what
[2:11:26] developers come in and it can help to
[2:11:30] support impact fees,
[2:11:33] the use of impact fees on actual
[2:11:35] infrastructure that's not specific to
[2:11:37] just that one project. Obviously, you
[2:11:40] have to put in any of the roads that are
[2:11:42] required for that subdivision, but as
[2:11:44] there's larger areas
[2:11:46] that there may be a cumulative effect.
[2:11:49] Uh
[2:11:50] >> So, this is correct?
[2:11:51] >> So, this is normally something that
[2:11:52] developers would provide to the county
[2:11:54] to support
[2:11:56] their their level of density, right?
[2:11:58] It's not used as a mechanism Is it going
[2:12:01] to be used for as a mechanism to, let's
[2:12:03] say, change traffic plans?
[2:12:06] >> No.
[2:12:08] Um so, it's it's
[2:12:10] Uh
[2:12:10] so, traditionally we would ask for a
[2:12:12] traffic impact analysis at subdivision
[2:12:15] stage.
[2:12:16] Um
[2:12:17] but we do have a request for zone
[2:12:19] changes one there, but we would just
[2:12:20] want to make sure that we're looking at
[2:12:23] a larger area than just a couple acres
[2:12:25] at a time so that we can keep ahead of
[2:12:28] the game on that.
[2:12:29] >> So and then this one's for Cody. So this
[2:12:32] information that they received this with
[2:12:34] this change what signage, what
[2:12:36] recommendations you make for like safety
[2:12:38] or traffic issues?
[2:12:39] >> As I haven't read through this actual
[2:12:42] analysis that Andrew put together.
[2:12:44] As far as the
[2:12:46] information that this is going to create
[2:12:48] from the road department safety
[2:12:50] standards it's going to help us identify
[2:12:51] if, you know, what collector roads are
[2:12:54] going to be best to get this
[2:12:55] neighborhood onto Spanish Valley or
[2:12:59] whatever Cold Springs or whatever they
[2:13:00] are out to the minor collectors to get
[2:13:03] them to the major collector of Highway
[2:13:04] 191.
[2:13:05] >> So this will help inform the uh future
[2:13:07] developments out there.
[2:13:09] >> And collector roads, yes.
[2:13:12] >> I think
[2:13:13] >> And it's it's spelled out uh
[2:13:15] specifically in the information Friday
[2:13:18] or ox on exactly what we will get. Um
[2:13:23] » Do you have a time Andrew when you see
[2:13:25] this being able to start? I mean I would
[2:13:27] think we want to make sure that although
[2:13:29] I don't know how much tourism goes in
[2:13:31] and out of that road. I'm sure that
[2:13:33] there is some being as there's all the
[2:13:35] overnight rentals just down the road
[2:13:36] that we're not just doing this in the
[2:13:38] middle of December when there's hardly
[2:13:41] any traffic.
[2:13:41] >> Yeah, I think there's
[2:13:43] already those in it.
[2:13:45] Um
[2:13:47] You can get approval. [clears throat]
[2:13:48] >> Okay, Commissioner Moore.
[2:13:50] >> McGahey.
[2:13:51] >> I I just want some clarification. So
[2:13:55] and and maybe Steve can help me or
[2:13:57] somebody can help me, but
[2:13:58] so what we're approving tonight
[2:14:02] is is some money can come out of the
[2:14:06] uh planning and zoning department up to
[2:14:09] $20,000
[2:14:11] to
[2:14:12] do the study.
[2:14:14] But then, where I get confused or what
[2:14:16] I'm wondering if there should be
[2:14:19] is this going to be brought back
[2:14:22] to talk about
[2:14:23] if we're going to extend it all the way
[2:14:25] to Beeman, what's that political impact?
[2:14:28] Is it something that the road department
[2:14:29] has the money to do?
[2:14:31] Or
[2:14:33] you know, I I'm a little
[2:14:34] >> This is just an analysis of the entire
[2:14:37] area before we have any other
[2:14:39] applications come back in or even if
[2:14:42] they do come back in, so we can make
[2:14:44] decisions based off of the traffic in
[2:14:46] that area.
[2:14:47] >> And then
[2:14:48] >> And so now are we talking about going
[2:14:49] all the way to Beeman? Is that what
[2:14:51] we're talking about now?
[2:14:53] >> No, that would come back to us in a
[2:14:54] vote.
[2:14:55] >> Yeah, for scope change. If the funds
[2:14:58] would just come back based off of this
[2:14:59] scope and not to exceed budget. And to
[2:15:02] clarify in December of 2025, money was
[2:15:06] transferred out of the planning and
[2:15:08] zoning budget for land use code update
[2:15:12] to this capital facilities
[2:15:14] um budget.
[2:15:16] So, I think 85,000 came out of planning
[2:15:18] and zoning
[2:15:20] over to the capital facilities budget.
[2:15:22] That's what's funding the 65,000 and
[2:15:24] then
[2:15:25] the land use
[2:15:27] code update and then that leaves that
[2:15:29] remainder.
[2:15:31] >> So, what we're voting on tonight is just
[2:15:34] that smaller area.
[2:15:36] >> Yes, ma'am.
[2:15:37] >> And up to 20,000.
[2:15:38] >> Mr. Mayor, I have
[2:15:40] In in my thoughts with that, uh if we
[2:15:42] can get more within that 20,000,
[2:15:45] uh
[2:15:46] let's let's do it. But, if it exceeds
[2:15:48] and you are pulling funds from, that's
[2:15:50] what I would want to see happen.
[2:15:51] >> Yeah, and in my discussions with
[2:15:53] Horrocks,
[2:15:54] um they seem to feel like um
[2:15:57] they would be
[2:15:59] under the 20,000.
[2:16:01] >> Okay.
[2:16:01] >> Um
[2:16:02] and there's always the
[2:16:04] scope creep and other things that happen
[2:16:07] as I get into things and we want them to
[2:16:10] do more etc. And so we're going to be
[2:16:12] sure that we have we have this contract
[2:16:15] with them
[2:16:16] on our call basis, but in my discussions
[2:16:19] with Sinstadt, he felt like it could be
[2:16:21] done for um
[2:16:23] less than the 20,000. We're talking to
[2:16:25] Sinstadt.
[2:16:26] >> Up to 20k with me. Thanks.
[2:16:28] >> Thank you, Commissioner Haddeen, and
[2:16:29] then I'm going to call for a vote.
[2:16:32] >> Okay, even if we have more discussion?
[2:16:35] >> Mhm.
[2:16:36] >> I just said to Commissioner Haddeen,
[2:16:38] yes, if you have more discussion, and
[2:16:39] then I'm going to call for a vote.
[2:16:42] >> Okay, well, I I do think it's worth
[2:16:44] discussing. Um I a couple of things. So,
[2:16:47] we keep kind of talking in terms of
[2:16:49] development. If it was a major
[2:16:51] development, I'll use Novac, for
[2:16:52] example, but but I don't
[2:16:55] wouldn't wouldn't a developer usually
[2:16:57] pay for the traffic study on a major
[2:17:01] I don't know. If you could answer that
[2:17:03] question?
[2:17:04] >> Yeah, so not at a zone change level. The
[2:17:07] best of the best of the best of the
[2:17:08] division, but then what we have is you
[2:17:11] got
[2:17:12] one subdivision over here, four lots,
[2:17:15] but that subdivision over here, six
[2:17:17] lots, and then a subdivision over here
[2:17:19] of 10 lots.
[2:17:21] On their own, it's not a significant
[2:17:25] issue, but cumulatively in this entire
[2:17:28] area, it could be. And so that's why
[2:17:30] we're looking at a base density of a
[2:17:33] third acre
[2:17:35] and what
[2:17:36] I guess the traffic impacts would be if
[2:17:39] that area developed at third acre
[2:17:42] density.
[2:17:44] >> Is that what the future land use map
[2:17:46] stated, a base density of a third of an
[2:17:48] acre? Where is that coming from?
[2:17:50] >> Because we're looking at
[2:17:52] in some of the area, you could have
[2:17:54] quarter acre, some areas you could have
[2:17:56] half acres, etc. So we decided for study
[2:17:59] purposes, we would use a base density of
[2:18:02] a third of an acre so that it covers
[2:18:05] kind of our bases. Okay.
[2:18:07] >> And
[2:18:08] is is he is the as far as where the
[2:18:11] money is coming from, does that make
[2:18:13] sense?
[2:18:15] >> I guess my only comments on the matter
[2:18:17] is that if there is a possibility for
[2:18:19] the study for the entirety of the study
[2:18:21] to be funded out of fund 25 21 funds,
[2:18:23] which are restricted not general funds,
[2:18:26] um I would think that we would want to
[2:18:27] explore that possibility to the fullest.
[2:18:30] Um and you know, if there are if there
[2:18:32] are lines under spent in the general
[2:18:33] fund budget and we have the possibility
[2:18:35] of using different types of restricted
[2:18:36] funds and leaving lines under spent so
[2:18:38] that we're defraying costs to the
[2:18:40] general fund, we should explore that to
[2:18:41] the fullest.
[2:18:44] >> All right, I'm going to call for a vote
[2:18:45] on this one. Those in favor?
[2:18:52] Those opposed?
[2:18:53] >> Staff.
[2:18:53] >> All right, this passes with one opposed.
[2:18:55] Commissioner Adame opposed.
[2:18:57] Oh.
[2:18:58] >> I I just I I I
[2:19:00] >> Can Can I ask one question though?
[2:19:02] >> Oh, you're you are opposed, Commissioner
[2:19:04] Adame. Okay, that this passes with
[2:19:06] Commissioner Adame and Commissioner Gams
[2:19:09] opposed.
[2:19:10] >> Can I just ask a clarifying question for
[2:19:12] the study?
[2:19:13] What's What's going to be the Here
[2:19:15] Here's an interesting interesting
[2:19:17] question with this. Once we create the
[2:19:19] study and the study is approved,
[2:19:21] then we Is the goal to share the data
[2:19:25] with other developers? And if that's the
[2:19:27] case, you know, that's that's one thing.
[2:19:29] What makes this kind of a nuanced thing
[2:19:31] is normally we see them from developers
[2:19:33] and the reason why is whatever project
[2:19:35] they have,
[2:19:36] it might be different than what we want.
[2:19:38] So, if we want them to come out on the
[2:19:39] different collector roads, they have to
[2:19:41] shift it.
[2:19:42] Where it's going to be interesting is if
[2:19:44] we create the study and then want to
[2:19:45] share the information with the
[2:19:46] developers, we we definitely can. I just
[2:19:48] need to know if that's the goal for the
[2:19:49] commission to share the information so
[2:19:51] the developers can utilize that
[2:19:52] information and they may or may not have
[2:19:55] like competing studies on it. So, we can
[2:19:57] do the study, we can have it in the
[2:19:58] house, we can make the expenditure, but
[2:20:00] if the goal is to help kind of support
[2:20:02] the basis for the development, is it
[2:20:04] then the goal to release the results of
[2:20:06] the study? And maybe that could then
[2:20:08] comes at a later date, but it's
[2:20:09] something to kind of be thinking about
[2:20:11] when we do this traffic study and then
[2:20:12] we get the results of it.
[2:20:13] >> If it's not exactly for the benefit of
[2:20:15] the county, and then the other oddity is
[2:20:17] when you have the developers do the
[2:20:19] applications, if we didn't share this
[2:20:21] information with them ahead of time,
[2:20:22] it's going to be really hard to utilize
[2:20:24] this against like against their project
[2:20:26] and to kind of request that they do
[2:20:28] something different. So, I'm just
[2:20:29] putting that out there, food for
[2:20:30] thought. We're going to have it, it'll
[2:20:32] come back, and then
[2:20:33] consider it.
[2:20:35] And also notably, no other commissioner
[2:20:37] can leave the room, otherwise we lose
[2:20:38] quorum.
[2:20:41] » Just did this.
[2:20:43] Oh, no. All right, well, I think that passed. And then we're on to the
[2:20:47] next item.
[2:20:48] Thank you, both of you gentlemen.
[2:20:50] Appreciate your input and your time.
[2:20:53] We are on to the resolution adopting How
[2:20:57] do you pronounce that, sir?
[2:21:00] >> Uh Naval Ridge or the
[2:21:02] >> That's Yanez.
[2:21:03] >> Yanez?
[2:21:05] >> it's Yanez.
[2:21:06] >> Application number 2613.
[2:21:09] >> Yep. So, Robert and Margaret
[2:21:13] Yanez
[2:21:15] Living Trust owns uh lot 2A of the Naval
[2:21:18] Ridge lot 2A subdivision, a 6.85 acre
[2:21:22] lot in Spanish Valley Southeast of the
[2:21:25] uh lab that holds an existing house. The
[2:21:28] trust wants to split it into two, a 4.09
[2:21:32] acre lot that keeps the house, lot 2A,
[2:21:35] and a new vacant 2.76
[2:21:38] acre lot, lot 14A. Because lot 2A is
[2:21:42] within a recorded subdivision, this
[2:21:43] filing amends that recorded plat and
[2:21:46] creates a new buildable lot. Both lots
[2:21:49] are single family, are served off the
[2:21:51] existing Redrock Drive and Far Canyon
[2:21:53] Drive private easements through 40-ft
[2:21:56] private access track and the lots are
[2:22:00] larger than what's
[2:22:02] the minimum in that area by the zoning
[2:22:05] and recommend approval of the the
[2:22:09] standard conditions of the
[2:22:14] » All right.
[2:22:16] Commissioner Martinez.
[2:22:17] >> I would like to make a motion.
[2:22:19] >> Please.
[2:22:19] >> Having considered staff report, the
[2:22:21] proposed final plat, public comments,
[2:22:23] and the Utah Code 17-79-7-11,
[2:22:28] and the Grand County Land Use Code as
[2:22:29] amended by ordinance number 708,
[2:22:33] finding that the plat amendment has
[2:22:35] conditions
[2:22:36] one to the applicable objective
[2:22:38] standards of the Land Use Code, that
[2:22:41] each lot has frontage on the legal
[2:22:43] access to an existing street, I move to
[2:22:46] approve the Navajo Ridge Lot 2
[2:22:48] Subdivision amended as an administrative
[2:22:52] item and to adopt a resolution to be
[2:22:54] determined subject to the conditions of
[2:22:56] the resolution to authorize the chair to
[2:22:59] sign the plat once the final zoning
[2:23:02] director confirms the conditions have
[2:23:04] been
[2:23:05] >> Motion by Commissioner Martinez. And
[2:23:08] could you
[2:23:08] >> I second.
[2:23:10] >> Could you before the mo- the motion
[2:23:11] seconded, could you add pending legal
[2:23:13] review?
[2:23:15] >> Pending legal review.
[2:23:16] >> Thank you.
[2:23:17] Is that fine with the second, Melanie?
[2:23:20] >> Yes.
[2:23:20] >> Okay, motion by Commissioner Martin-
[2:23:23] Martinez, second by Commissioner
[2:23:24] McCandless. Discussion?
[2:23:28] All right, seeing none, I will call for
[2:23:30] a vote. Those in favor?
[2:23:33] » I.
[2:23:35] >> Those opposed?
[2:23:36] >> I'm opposed. Can I say why?
[2:23:38] >> Um can I finish this passes
[2:23:42] with what are there?
[2:23:44] One one opposed and two absent.
[2:23:48] Commissioner Hedden opposed and
[2:23:50] Commissioner McCarty and Commissioner
[2:23:52] McGinn
[2:23:54] absent. Yes, Commissioner Hedden.
[2:23:56] >> I I I'm not sure why things aren't
[2:23:58] making it to legal before they're
[2:24:00] getting on the agenda, but I really want
[2:24:02] to start making sure um that all items,
[2:24:07] contracts, land use code decisions,
[2:24:09] everything should be going to legal
[2:24:11] before they could get on the agenda.
[2:24:13] There There's no reason that they should
[2:24:15] be
[2:24:16] >> Well, it's it's very possible that it
[2:24:18] has been to legal and just hasn't been
[2:24:21] um had time to get through legal yet.
[2:24:23] >> So, why So, why not wait for it to get
[2:24:25] through legal before it goes on the
[2:24:26] agenda? I think it's really poor I think
[2:24:29] it's poor governance.
[2:24:30] >> Thank you.
[2:24:32] Commissioner McCarty.
[2:24:34] >> Uh sometimes uh things are sent to
[2:24:36] legal. I do know that and I understand
[2:24:38] that, but we we use any form to uh delay governance
[2:24:45] uh that we can and holding it up.
[2:24:47] >> Austin.
[2:24:49] >> Unfortunately
[2:24:51] I I I'm not trying to make more of like
[2:24:54] items 11 and 12 didn't get sent to
[2:24:56] legal.
[2:24:57] Um so, we're just asking that they get
[2:24:59] approved pending legal review. That's
[2:25:00] it. Um my office is happy to review
[2:25:02] them. We'll get them reviewed. We just
[2:25:04] ask for additional time to forward them
[2:25:05] to our
[2:25:06] >> We're I thought you said you were We're
[2:25:08] asking it was Commissioner Hedden. So,
[2:25:10] if you're asking, I think just make that
[2:25:12] point to us or is she your spokesperson?
[2:25:15] >> I noted in the motion that I requested
[2:25:17] pending legal review. That was probably
[2:25:19] the gentlest way I could raise the issue
[2:25:21] without attempting to make it an issue.
[2:25:23] But, that was that was my request. I
[2:25:25] already talked to to Mark McGinn about
[2:25:27] that request and was going to make it a
[2:25:28] slide if possible. So.
[2:25:30] >> Okay. Thank you. We will move on to
[2:25:32] number 12, resolution approving DT
[2:25:35] subdivision minor subdivision
[2:25:37] application 2612.
[2:25:40] Mr. Jackson.
[2:25:41] >> Lynchburg Capital Holding LLC Robert
[2:25:44] Lucero and
[2:25:45] >> member, owns a 3.22 acre parcel at 46
[2:25:50] Spanish Valley Drive in the rural
[2:25:51] residential one acre lot zone with a
[2:25:54] house and a detached garage on it. The
[2:25:58] company wants to split it into two lots,
[2:26:00] 2.5 2.15 acre lot that keeps the
[2:26:04] existing house and a one acre vacant lot
[2:26:09] fronting on Valley View Delful Drive.
[2:26:11] The plat also gives the county a strip
[2:26:14] of land along Spanish Valley Drive for
[2:26:17] road right-of-way.
[2:26:19] Both lots front a public street. They
[2:26:22] meet minimum lot size
[2:26:24] as noted on the the plan. Part of
[2:26:29] uh lot one
[2:26:30] is in the map FEMA floodway.
[2:26:34] Um
[2:26:35] so there's
[2:26:36] part of an existing building in there
[2:26:38] whether it can be any new buildings
[2:26:41] unless it's a
[2:26:42] uh
[2:26:43] flood study done in that area. I
[2:26:57] » That's all right.
[2:27:05] » All right, when somebody's ready, a
[2:27:06] motion. Commissioner McCurdy.
[2:27:10] » I'd like to make the motion having
[2:27:12] considered the staff report proposal
[2:27:13] final plat the FEMA flood mapping
[2:27:18] uh public comments and Utah code
[2:27:20] 17-79-701
[2:27:23] through 17-79-704
[2:27:26] and finding that the plat as conditioned
[2:27:29] conforms to the applicable objectives
[2:27:31] standards of the Grand County land use
[2:27:33] code and that each lot has frontage on a
[2:27:36] legal access to public street. I move to
[2:27:39] adopt resolution TBD
[2:27:42] approving the final plat of the DT
[2:27:45] subdivision
[2:27:46] and accepting the dedication of public
[2:27:49] right-of-way shown there
[2:27:51] thereon
[2:27:52] subject to the conditions in the
[2:27:54] resolution and to authorize the chair to
[2:27:58] sign the plat once the planning and
[2:28:00] zoning director confirms the conditions
[2:28:02] have been met.
[2:28:04] Pending legal Pending legal review. Yes.
[2:28:07] Thank you. Commissioner McCurdy made the
[2:28:10] motion. Do I have a second?
[2:28:14] I'll second.
[2:28:15] Seconded by Commissioner McCammon.
[2:28:17] Further discussion?
[2:28:18] Discussions?
[2:28:20] Seeing none, I'll call for a vote. Those
[2:28:22] in favor?
[2:28:23] Vote. Vote. Can I I have one question.
[2:28:25] I'm sorry.
[2:28:27] I I did Those in favor?
[2:28:30] Those opposed?
[2:28:33] Same reason. I'm saying I I have a
[2:28:36] question. Okay. Sorry, Mary. I mean,
[2:28:37] once I'm in the middle of calling for
[2:28:39] it, I don't mind if you
[2:28:40] question us
[2:28:42] It came came to me too late. I
[2:28:44] apologize. Well, you're welcome to ask
[2:28:46] it while we're here, so So so if
[2:28:49] there So during your legal review, if
[2:28:52] there's some issues, you will bring it
[2:28:54] back and we will reconsider. If there's
[2:28:56] any If there's any non de minimus kind
[2:28:58] of larger issues, I don't believe that
[2:29:00] there will be any, but if there are any,
[2:29:02] then we'll bring it bring it back to
[2:29:04] you.
[2:29:04] The approval by the county attorney
[2:29:06] Uh
[2:29:07] correct, this is a administrative
[2:29:10] decision, not a legislative decision.
[2:29:13] We'll address that in legal review.
[2:29:15] Perfect. Uh Staff to that.
[2:29:18] Anything that's non de minimus, please
[2:29:20] bring back to us.
[2:29:21] Yep. Happy to do so.
[2:29:23] Thank you.
[2:29:24] All right. We will Thank you, Mr.
[2:29:27] Jackson. You move on to number 13, Grand County
[2:29:31] and NPS cooperative management agreement
[2:29:34] for Moab to Arches shuttle, Mr.
[2:29:37] Martinez.
[2:29:39] >> This agreement sets the terms under
[2:29:41] which Grand County and the National Park
[2:29:42] Service will jointly manage the Moab to
[2:29:44] Arches shuttle service,
[2:29:46] covering each party's responsibilities,
[2:29:48] operating hours, routes, and how the
[2:29:51] county and NPS will work together in the
[2:29:53] coming year. Signing it puts the
[2:29:54] framework in place for pilot to launch
[2:29:57] this fall.
[2:29:58] Then I'll just go ahead and start off
[2:30:00] with the motion. I move to sign the Moab
[2:30:03] to Arches shuttle cooperative management
[2:30:04] agreement with the NPS.
[2:30:08] >> Motion by Commissioner Martinez, second
[2:30:11] by Commissioner McCurdy, discussion.
[2:30:14] Commissioner McCurdy.
[2:30:15] >> Do we have to put I move to
[2:30:17] authorize chair to sign, or is sign
[2:30:19] okay?
[2:30:21] >> Is the intent clear?
[2:30:22] >> Intent clear.
[2:30:24] >> Other than that?
[2:30:25] >> Commissioner Hadler.
[2:30:27] >> Um so I actually didn't have a chance to
[2:30:30] sit down with Stephen. I I read through
[2:30:31] his remarks. I was I was going to, and
[2:30:33] then I accidentally had to visit the
[2:30:35] dentist during the time that I was
[2:30:36] going to see him. But um I did notice that he the basically
[2:30:41] the CMA that went over to Stephen is the
[2:30:44] same CMA that we are going to be voting
[2:30:46] to approve on with Brian's motion here
[2:30:49] um with very little change. So uh
[2:30:53] I I would ask the attorney if
[2:30:55] um
[2:30:57] it it looked from the comments made on
[2:31:00] that CMA that went out to us
[2:31:01] commissioners
[2:31:03] that there was a considerable amount of
[2:31:06] um
[2:31:06] there there are a considerable number of
[2:31:08] things that that Stephen uh remarked on
[2:31:11] and didn't end up in this. Were If If it
[2:31:15] was your decision to
[2:31:17] enter into this contract, would would
[2:31:20] you feel comfort comfortable doing it as
[2:31:22] presented in this packet?
[2:31:24] >> So I I I I weigh in on the
[2:31:27] It's not my place. I'm not a policy
[2:31:28] maker. I'm not a uh I just highlight
[2:31:30] what it is. I I put comments on through
[2:31:32] the contract. The contract the contract
[2:31:35] you know represents the the goal is that
[2:31:38] there be a shuttle program. It be for
[2:31:40] the expenditure of money that we have
[2:31:41] identified. The terms are within the
[2:31:43] contract. The shuttle runs for roughly 6
[2:31:46] months, 9 hours every day for the select
[2:31:49] periods of time. I believe the goal is
[2:31:51] September through October and then
[2:31:53] reinitiates for 4 months next year. The
[2:31:56] county receives the benefit of obtaining
[2:31:57] data, information, and having a shuttle
[2:32:00] run with up to 12 shuttles
[2:32:04] with stops throughout the
[2:32:07] That's what the terms are in the
[2:32:08] contract. Kind of a broad summary of it.
[2:32:11] In any type of contract review, I'm
[2:32:13] going to note mark things that are good,
[2:32:15] bad, and indifferent.
[2:32:17] This is it's not my place to say whether
[2:32:19] one should enter into a contract,
[2:32:22] but I'm noting things. If there are
[2:32:23] specific questions, I can answer your
[2:32:25] specific questions.
[2:32:27] But overall, it does
[2:32:30] it is in fact a contract that will
[2:32:33] provide
[2:32:34] for the terms that we're listing in it.
[2:32:36] And so
[2:32:38] the sections that lay that out is going
[2:32:40] to be the obligations for the county,
[2:32:41] obligations for the NPS.
[2:32:43] There are some nuances to it. There are
[2:32:45] some complex relationships with it.
[2:32:48] So
[2:32:50] do I do I think that it's in a point
[2:32:52] where it could be that this
[2:32:55] contract could be approved? Yes. I I
[2:32:57] have provided all the commissioners a
[2:33:00] strong markup of the document. Provided
[2:33:02] as much information as I can things for
[2:33:04] the commissioners to consider.
[2:33:06] Those are the things that I put in the
[2:33:07] contracts when we're doing a review to
[2:33:08] say, "Hey, look and consider these
[2:33:10] options." Try to give you guys as much
[2:33:11] information. This is a unique contract.
[2:33:14] It's for
[2:33:15] 2.8 something million dollars. And so
[2:33:18] it's it's had a heavy review. And those
[2:33:20] are items that I've marked out are
[2:33:22] things that the
[2:33:23] county should consider when when looking
[2:33:25] at this application or this contract,
[2:33:27] sorry.
[2:33:28] >> Commissioner McCarty,
[2:33:30] question Steve again. Overall defensible
[2:33:31] contract?
[2:33:33] >> Yeah, I mean well
[2:33:35] you
[2:33:36] when you say the word defensible
[2:33:37] contract so is it defensible that we're
[2:33:39] in a contract with the NPS that they'll
[2:33:41] provide what they say that they're going
[2:33:43] to provide in the contract? Yeah, I
[2:33:44] think there's an obligation for them to
[2:33:46] provide the level of support and we're seeking funding based on that.
[2:33:51] Can the county require them to perform
[2:33:53] their portion of the contract? Yes.
[2:33:56] That's
[2:33:57] defensible
[2:33:59] is a different word in this context but
[2:34:01] yeah, sure defensible.
[2:34:03] >> If you mean is there a risk if they
[2:34:05] didn't fund it?
[2:34:06] >> If they didn't fund it Yeah, I think
[2:34:09] that there there'd be
[2:34:12] they're providing a portion of the
[2:34:13] funding up to a certain amount. They're
[2:34:15] limited or they're capped on that amount
[2:34:17] that they provide and that's in the
[2:34:18] first section of the contract and I'm
[2:34:21] trying to remember to use my microphone
[2:34:23] cuz Commissioner Candace is online.
[2:34:26] >> Commissioner McCandless
[2:34:29] >> Yes.
[2:34:31] >> I thought you had a question.
[2:34:33] >> Oh no, I'm sorry. I was saying I'm
[2:34:35] trying to remember to use a microphone
[2:34:37] cuz she's online.
[2:34:38] >> Okay, thank you.
[2:34:39] >> You're doing great.
[2:34:42] I have quite a few questions for Steven.
[2:34:44] please I was gone for a few
[2:34:46] minutes so if you already answered them
[2:34:47] please just say you already answered it.
[2:34:50] Um
[2:34:52] What is the level of risk that this
[2:34:56] agreement
[2:34:57] produces for the county? Do you have a
[2:35:00] an overview, a concern?
[2:35:03] >> So so this contract, remember it this isn't
[2:35:07] we're in a kind of a multi-stage for
[2:35:09] contracts. This contract is with the NPS
[2:35:11] that the county will provide a shuttle
[2:35:13] program and we're going to receive
[2:35:14] funding from the NPS. They're agreeing
[2:35:17] to assisting and helping us with certain
[2:35:19] elements of that contract and we're
[2:35:21] agreeing that we will provide and
[2:35:23] facilitate those shuttle elements. And
[2:35:27] so that's that's what this contract is
[2:35:30] about. This also puts obligations that
[2:35:32] we have to complete those things. So if
[2:35:34] we failed to do that the county is in an
[2:35:37] awkward situation where we would have to
[2:35:39] provide to them or provide notice to
[2:35:41] them that we are we are unable to
[2:35:43] provide these things. However, within
[2:35:45] the contract
[2:35:46] we have made sure that the county's
[2:35:48] position is protected by using
[2:35:50] aspirational language in some of the
[2:35:52] terms.
[2:35:53] So the language that we use in some
[2:35:56] places is not
[2:35:58] must or shall. It is employing best
[2:36:00] efforts to do the following and to
[2:36:02] provide those things.
[2:36:03] reduce the amount of risk
[2:36:05] to the county. So for example, the
[2:36:07] county isn't able to start until
[2:36:08] September 15th versus September 1st,
[2:36:11] there's not a penalty clause, there's
[2:36:12] not a damages clause that triggered
[2:36:14] because of that. So this contract,
[2:36:17] there is a level of risk and that risk
[2:36:19] is that the county doesn't complete its
[2:36:20] obligations in providing a shuttle
[2:36:22] program
[2:36:23] and that's our that's our risk. The next
[2:36:26] contracts that we have, those are higher
[2:36:28] levels of risk conversation because
[2:36:30] they're contracting for different
[2:36:31] things. But this is an exchange of
[2:36:32] money, county's going to be providing
[2:36:35] services. And so our risk is whether or
[2:36:37] not we can provide those services. But
[2:36:39] again the thing that helps us out is the
[2:36:41] language that we utilized in the
[2:36:42] contract to make sure that it's
[2:36:44] aspirational and the county employs best
[2:36:46] to get the things that that we need.
[2:36:49] That explains the question.
[2:36:55] » Commissioner McCready, did you have your
[2:36:56] hand up? Commissioner McGinn.
[2:37:00] >> Um
[2:37:02] reading through it, you know, and and and obligations and the things
[2:37:05] that we have to do for the shuttle, I
[2:37:07] have a lot of concerns that this is
[2:37:09] going to add added cost beyond the half
[2:37:12] a million dollars that we have already
[2:37:15] uh agreed to because uh seek out this is
[2:37:20] going to be to you know come to fruition
[2:37:23] without us uh
[2:37:26] you know using a great deal of staff
[2:37:29] time.
[2:37:30] So that's going to mean that either
[2:37:31] we're taking away
[2:37:34] you know we're having staff do added
[2:37:36] responsibilities
[2:37:38] to what out they are already doing.
[2:37:41] And if they are salaried people people
[2:37:44] that means they're going to be spending
[2:37:46] a lot of overtime which you know
[2:37:50] I sign checks at Solid Waste all the
[2:37:52] time. I see the cost of overtime and
[2:37:55] uh you know so if we're using the staff we have at the
[2:37:59] county right now and it's going to take
[2:38:01] staff to implement this. I don't I did
[2:38:04] it's going to
[2:38:06] you know going to have to unless one of
[2:38:08] the commissioners did it.
[2:38:10] You know without and you know it's going to be costly. It's going to
[2:38:14] take time and I'm concerned about that.
[2:38:17] I'm uh you know I was going and if it
[2:38:19] doesn't
[2:38:20] if there's not a staff member that can
[2:38:22] spend all that time making sure all
[2:38:25] those things come together then it's
[2:38:28] going to mean that we're going to have
[2:38:29] to hire someone.
[2:38:32] And we're on a hiring freeze and there's
[2:38:34] departments in this county that
[2:38:37] we're saying no to.
[2:38:40] And yet now we're bringing that was
[2:38:42] never talked about never considered never a future project
[2:38:48] that we may be needing in order to meet
[2:38:51] our obligations.
[2:38:53] Pay for another employee.
[2:38:55] So I have a lot of I have concerns for
[2:38:58] the cost. I also have concerns that this
[2:39:01] one raise either through our trust
[2:39:05] or somehow our insurance is going to to
[2:39:08] go up.
[2:39:10] I mean,
[2:39:11] if you know, whether it's through this
[2:39:13] contract or the following contract, I
[2:39:15] we're taking on a lot of liabilities
[2:39:19] to this. I know with the city, they have
[2:39:21] someone they don't have a person who
[2:39:23] have a shuttle.
[2:39:25] And they, you know,
[2:39:27] they're hired to do it. Decide to do it.
[2:39:29] That's part of the
[2:39:31] budgeting.
[2:39:32] You know, and then I'm I'm concerned
[2:39:34] about safety
[2:39:36] because of the haste.
[2:39:39] And anytime you do anything in haste,
[2:39:43] I know my husband was very very strict
[2:39:45] with his employees that you don't hurry.
[2:39:49] You get that you do you do you you spend
[2:39:51] your time wisely. You get your things
[2:39:53] done. But when people hurry, when you
[2:39:56] know, anybody hurries and there's haste,
[2:39:59] that's when mistakes are made.
[2:40:02] I mean, we've seen it. I mean, it's been
[2:40:03] in the news every day. What's happened
[2:40:05] with the haste of the completion,
[2:40:07] uh the reflection on for Washington.
[2:40:11] I mean, that was
[2:40:12] you know, people were trying to push to
[2:40:15] get it done in this timely fashion and this has been we have less than a
[2:40:19] month
[2:40:21] to, you know, December September 1st and
[2:40:24] then we only have just a little over a
[2:40:26] month to December 15th.
[2:40:29] It's uh I I I and I think anytime you
[2:40:32] push anything that is that hasty,
[2:40:35] it's adding risk and
[2:40:39] you know, the notes I read from Stephen
[2:40:41] and Satcher, you know, that that's some
[2:40:43] of the things that I were brought up.
[2:40:46] And
[2:40:49] I I've just um
[2:40:52] saddened that we are continuing to go
[2:40:54] down this road when
[2:40:57] often times when presented in making up
[2:41:00] a making a decision and then later being
[2:41:02] confronted with all the reasons why this
[2:41:05] decision you made was probably not your
[2:41:07] best decision.
[2:41:09] That it's always wise and the wise thing
[2:41:11] to do is to say
[2:41:13] I think maybe we need to step back and
[2:41:16] reconsider
[2:41:17] at least
[2:41:19] pushing it at this speed.
[2:41:21] >> I I want to remind the commissioners
[2:41:23] that we're not here to debate the
[2:41:25] shuttle again. We're here to vote on a
[2:41:28] cooperative management agreement and
[2:41:31] that to continually go down this road, I
[2:41:34] understand everybody has your concerns,
[2:41:36] but we are voting on an agreement here.
[2:41:39] We are not rediscussing whether or not
[2:41:41] there's going to be a shuttle.
[2:41:42] >> agreement about the shuttle.
[2:41:44] >> Exactly.
[2:41:45] >> So so we got we need to get
[2:41:47] >> my turn to speak. I allowed you to
[2:41:49] speak. Now I'm going to speak and then
[2:41:51] I'll go to Commissioner Hedden when I'm
[2:41:53] done. I'm reminding commissioners that
[2:41:55] we are not debating whether there's
[2:41:57] going to be a shuttle here. We're not
[2:41:59] going to reconsider that. We're
[2:42:01] considering this agreement and we've
[2:42:05] noted that it comes with some notes from
[2:42:07] our county attorney. Thank you. And
[2:42:10] we're going to move forward with a vote
[2:42:11] here after we hear from Commissioner
[2:42:13] Hedden.
[2:42:15] >> Yeah, I just have a question right now,
[2:42:17] but I would like to make comments later
[2:42:18] on after I get my question
[2:42:20] uh question answered if possible.
[2:42:22] >> Well, it's your turn to speak, so just
[2:42:24] combine the two of them.
[2:42:26] >> Okay.
[2:42:26] >> Thank you.
[2:42:26] >> So my my um
[2:42:29] my question is about the shuttle
[2:42:30] attendants. I realize that it's in the
[2:42:32] contract. So can we speak to that just a
[2:42:34] little bit? I understand it's going to
[2:42:36] be a separate RFP, but
[2:42:38] if anybody can kind of throw out there
[2:42:41] >> RFP because that just muddles this one
[2:42:43] even further.
[2:42:44] >> It is on this agreement, so I think it behooves us to to talk about it a
[2:42:48] little bit.
[2:42:49] >> Okay.
[2:42:49] >> And I I don't care who talks about it.
[2:42:52] >> Look at Dave. I think he's uh I'm
[2:42:53] holding that RFP right here.
[2:42:56] Brooke?
[2:42:57] >> Uh it's posted.
[2:42:58] >> Yep, RFP is out and it's posted. I don't
[2:42:59] know if there's any update on that. I
[2:43:01] mean, that's that's as much information
[2:43:03] as I have.
[2:43:07] » So, okay.
[2:43:08] Yeah. All right, that's all we got.
[2:43:10] Okay. Um, so I realize I agree with you,
[2:43:14] Bill. We are discussing just the
[2:43:16] agreement.
[2:43:18] Um,
[2:43:19] and I'll and I guess I'll throw out and
[2:43:21] these things came from me perusing the
[2:43:23] agreement. So, just just know that I'm
[2:43:26] just not off the cuff coming up with all
[2:43:28] my issues. I have the agreement right
[2:43:31] here. I read through it. I highlighted.
[2:43:33] I made all kinds of notes. And so, these
[2:43:34] are comments, you know, that
[2:43:36] came from my concerns after reading the
[2:43:39] agreement.
[2:43:41] So, I don't want to be shut down. I'm
[2:43:43] concerned with the length of
[2:43:44] >> Just just for a second, nobody's been
[2:43:46] shut down in this meeting whatsoever.
[2:43:49] >> Okay. No, I I agree. I agree. Not in
[2:43:51] this meeting. I agree.
[2:43:51] >> Thank you.
[2:43:52] >> Okay.
[2:43:53] So, I'm concerned with the length of the
[2:43:54] contract. I'm concerned with the cost of
[2:43:57] the contract. I'm concerned with the
[2:43:59] employee resources. Specifically, when I
[2:44:02] read through these things, it talks a
[2:44:03] lot about things like data collection.
[2:44:06] Um,
[2:44:07] and so I assume we're going to be
[2:44:09] absorbing not only we obviously have
[2:44:11] Melissa on track. She's she's I would
[2:44:13] assume doing a ton of work on this, but
[2:44:15] then you're also incorporating IT.
[2:44:18] Steven's office has been doing a ton of
[2:44:20] work. So, the reality is it's bleeding
[2:44:21] over into these other county
[2:44:24] departments. Um, I'm concerned when I
[2:44:27] read in here things like change orders.
[2:44:29] To me, change orders, I know a quite a
[2:44:31] bit about contracting. Um, change orders
[2:44:34] means money. And that's concerning to
[2:44:36] me. So, you know, especially when we are
[2:44:40] going beyond extending ourselves with
[2:44:42] just the original 500 grand, it concerns
[2:44:45] me to see things like that. I'm
[2:44:47] concerned with the liability um to the
[2:44:50] county.
[2:44:51] Inevitably, do we really know and I I
[2:44:53] know we're going to talk about Via here
[2:44:55] in a moment, but we do Do we really know
[2:44:57] the solvency of that shuttle company and
[2:44:59] the liability I would assume will be
[2:45:01] absorbed mostly from that contractor,
[2:45:04] but at a certain point when they go
[2:45:06] bankrupt, who are they coming after? I
[2:45:08] would assume it's the county.
[2:45:10] Um I'm concerned about logistics. You
[2:45:12] know, I understand we're just talking
[2:45:14] about the agreement here, but it it
[2:45:17] it's, you know, the things that come to
[2:45:18] mind are just the logistics. So,
[2:45:20] hopefully at some point we'll be
[2:45:21] apprised of that. I'm concerned within
[2:45:24] this contract we had no touch point at
[2:45:26] the county level who is in charge. Um
[2:45:30] I I assume maybe Mark and and chair the
[2:45:34] chair. Um
[2:45:37] That's concerning to me. I'm concerned
[2:45:40] with the safety of this system
[2:45:43] and and what will happen if we, you
[2:45:45] know, put
[2:45:47] tourists at risk.
[2:45:49] Um
[2:45:51] Yeah. So, I'll stick to that. I had some
[2:45:53] other things that were beyond the scope
[2:45:55] of this agreement, but this agreement
[2:45:59] I did a lot of I I I spent a lot of time
[2:46:03] reading through it and it brought up a
[2:46:05] lot a lot a lot of concerns for me. And
[2:46:09] I guess I'll just stick to that. I'm I'm
[2:46:12] Yeah. That's Yeah. Okay. I'll come back
[2:46:14] to it maybe when we talk fund 47.
[2:46:17] >> All right. Thank you. Um
[2:46:23] We have a motion by Commissioner
[2:46:24] Martinez, second by Commissioner
[2:46:26] McCurdy. Am I correct? All right. With
[2:46:29] that I will call for a vote.
[2:46:31] Those in favor?
[2:46:35] Those opposed?
[2:46:37] Passes with three opposed. Commissioner
[2:46:40] Hadean, Commissioner Hadler, and
[2:46:41] Commissioner McGann. We will move on to
[2:46:44] number 14.
[2:46:46] Grand County and VM Moab to Arches
[2:46:49] Shuttle Service Agreement. Mr. Martinez
[2:46:51] again.
[2:46:54] >> Mr. Cox, do you have something that
[2:46:55] you're talking
[2:46:56] >> I was just going to note
[2:46:57] So, I reviewed the document. I sent it
[2:46:59] to everybody. I think at like 3:30.
[2:47:02] It has my redlines on it. I don't know
[2:47:04] if the commission's inclined to take a a
[2:47:06] recess. We've been going at it for a
[2:47:07] second to read it cuz I have my notes on
[2:47:10] it.
[2:47:11] Do whatever you want. I can answer
[2:47:12] questions on the fly, but I'm just
[2:47:13] noting you guys have that in your inbox
[2:47:15] and that does have my markups and edits
[2:47:17] on it. So, I'm just noting that is
[2:47:19] something that I have in my head.
[2:47:21] >> Sure.
[2:47:21] >> Uh
[2:47:22] I I one of your ads in number seven
[2:47:25] ownership rights and product and data.
[2:47:27] >> Yep.
[2:47:28] >> Uh I wanted to tell you thank you for
[2:47:30] putting that in there. Uh last time some of our work product on
[2:47:36] with other companies wasn't our
[2:47:38] uh within our within Grand County's
[2:47:40] ownership and that [clears throat] is a
[2:47:42] that is a vital part to me that's this data is
[2:47:45] within Grand County's ownership. So,
[2:47:48] I want to tell you thank you for adding
[2:47:49] that.
[2:47:51] >> Has that actually been added or is that
[2:47:52] just a comment?
[2:47:53] >> That was a comment made on his.
[2:47:54] >> So, it hasn't actually been
[2:47:56] >> Are we
[2:47:56] >> I don't know.
[2:47:57] >> I'm I'm just asking are we are do we
[2:47:58] does folks need a recess?
[2:48:01] >> I haven't read it.
[2:48:01] >> I I I haven't read it. [laughter]
[2:48:03] >> I did. I was here at 2:30.
[2:48:04] >> At 3:30?
[2:48:06] >> I did.
[2:48:07] >> So, um can we do a 10-minute recess
[2:48:09] then? 6:45, come back at 6:55. That'll
[2:48:13] give you a time to peruse through that.
[2:48:16] >> I I
[2:48:17] >> All right. With that, I'll call for a
[2:48:18] recess. We'll reconvene at 6:55.
[2:48:36] » It's 10 minutes.
[2:48:38] >> Melody, I'm just going to mute us for
[2:48:39] the recess. Uh I'll leave the YouTube
[2:48:43] and video and do them on.
[2:48:45] >> Sounds good.
[2:52:34] » Mhm.
[2:56:56] » All right, Melody, we're back. Can you
[2:56:57] hear us?
[2:57:00] » Yes.
[2:57:03] >> Oh, we still have light.
[2:57:04] >> Okay.
[2:57:06] » We're good then. Once All right, with
[2:57:08] that, we will come back from recess to
[2:57:13] start back up on item number four.
[2:57:17] I'm having 14.
[2:57:19] >> Number 14.
[2:57:20] >> Thank you. Number 14, and having read
[2:57:22] through these, I wonder if we don't want
[2:57:25] to start some discussion here
[2:57:27] on the possibility of holding a special
[2:57:30] meeting because this is um
[2:57:34] I don't know.
[2:57:35] Um I'm open to thoughts from other
[2:57:37] commissioners if you think this is
[2:57:38] necessary. Chris, I see your hand, and
[2:57:40] I'll call on you when I'm ready for your
[2:57:42] comment. It's almost rude that you just
[2:57:44] interrupt people regularly.
[2:57:47] But I think we all as commissioners
[2:57:49] should discuss what we want to do here
[2:57:50] and see if there's a path forward
[2:57:52] tonight or if we want to call a special
[2:57:54] meeting because there's clearly time is
[2:57:57] of the essence on this, and so I think
[2:58:00] that it would be wise to hear some of
[2:58:02] this out.
[2:58:04] Commissioner Hedin.
[2:58:06] >> That's what I was going to do, Bill. I
[2:58:07] was going to make a motion to postpone
[2:58:09] this item, and if I understand you guys
[2:58:12] are under some
[2:58:13] timeline to get it done,
[2:58:16] I'd be more than willing to come to a
[2:58:18] special meeting.
[2:58:19] But I would recommend that we postpone
[2:58:20] this item. It's it's unacceptable to
[2:58:23] give us
[2:58:23] >> Is that a motion then?
[2:58:25] >> Yeah, that is a motion.
[2:58:25] >> I can motion. Thank you.
[2:58:28] And then do we have a second?
[2:58:29] >> Should we not vote on that part of it?
[2:58:31] >> Okay, vote on it.
[2:58:33] >> Not on this one. We're voting on the one
[2:58:35] guy
[2:58:36] >> Postpone.
[2:58:36] >> With Oh, we did the NPS now. Okay, okay.
[2:58:39] >> Now we're on to the
[2:58:43] Further thought, we've got a motion and
[2:58:45] a second, Commissioner Martinez.
[2:58:47] >> Well, at first I'd like to check with
[2:58:49] the Mr. Stocks right now and find out
[2:58:51] kind of like what his timeline looks
[2:58:52] like and what he thinks he's seeing
[2:58:54] where we're at with this. But I love to
[2:58:56] see the contract myself. It looks like
[2:58:58] it actually It looks like a lot inside
[2:59:00] there, but what it really comes down to
[2:59:02] is really just two items inside of this document right now. One
[2:59:06] is the
[2:59:08] identification
[2:59:10] that Commissioner Hedden had mentioned
[2:59:11] earlier.
[2:59:12] So she she like she was already apprised
[2:59:14] of that. And then second is the cost
[2:59:17] structure that's inside there. Those two
[2:59:19] those things like the two big major
[2:59:21] changes. Other than that, a lot of it
[2:59:23] was just kind of in sync.
[2:59:25] substitute
[2:59:27] a couple
[2:59:28] >> bit of information. So
[2:59:30] Commissioner McFarland, Ms. Jeffers and
[2:59:34] I talked up until about 3:30, 3:00. I
[2:59:37] didn't get to talk to any of any of you
[2:59:38] guys about any of this. I didn't send it
[2:59:40] out and email to anybody.
[2:59:43] Um before more of myself,
[2:59:46] Ms. Jeffers also discussed best path
[2:59:47] forward. We talked about three paths,
[2:59:50] three different options. Option one,
[2:59:52] review the whole thing in a meeting
[2:59:54] tonight, go through each item, kind of
[2:59:56] talk about them. These are my
[2:59:58] suggestions. We haven't gone through
[3:00:00] them in detail with VIA. We had a
[3:00:01] meeting with VIA yesterday. They got
[3:00:03] back to us with their copy. I think at
[3:00:05] 8:00 or 9:00 at night. I didn't get to
[3:00:07] review it until today after I got out of
[3:00:10] court. I had to cover for early morning
[3:00:12] 130. Uh so, option one is go through
[3:00:14] tonight, look at it, move it off. Option
[3:00:17] two,
[3:00:18] creating a subcommittee, moving
[3:00:20] commissioners to sit on it with myself,
[3:00:22] Jeffers, maybe Mark, go through these
[3:00:24] items,
[3:00:25] send it out, and have you guys approve
[3:00:27] it. Um
[3:00:29] we had language drafted for a potential
[3:00:32] motion
[3:00:33] for item number
[3:00:35] Um option number three, continue it, set
[3:00:37] it for a different meeting, uh and and
[3:00:40] go through it there. I I don't mind
[3:00:42] which option you guys go through, your
[3:00:44] path forward, your road map for this.
[3:00:46] I need input from you guys or from the
[3:00:48] commissioners to how you guys want to do
[3:00:49] that.
[3:00:50] Give me a stance on some of these items.
[3:00:52] I take those, we go to VIA, VIA confirms
[3:00:54] them, uh and then they come back and we
[3:00:57] have final terms. That could be done in
[3:00:59] a week. Some of the things that I've put
[3:01:02] in here that I really don't like, they
[3:01:03] have these weird terms like intent to
[3:01:06] proceed that they want 4 weeks ahead of
[3:01:08] time to tell us that we want to proceed.
[3:01:11] I mean, of course they should know that
[3:01:13] we would like to proceed. So, some of
[3:01:14] those things are kind of ticky-tacky. I
[3:01:15] don't think there's going to be
[3:01:16] objection on those items. Other items,
[3:01:18] again, like on the last contract, I know
[3:01:20] everything could have been different. Um
[3:01:23] and then some clarifying information.
[3:01:24] Some of the bigger things, if you go all
[3:01:27] the way down to the last
[3:01:30] page 23, one thing I don't and and this
[3:01:33] you'll want to pull this up if you have
[3:01:34] it.
[3:01:35] Item number 20 or page number 23, some
[3:01:38] of the things that give me the most
[3:01:39] heartburn is I cannot tell you guys what
[3:01:42] project management and other operations
[3:01:45] is by only looking at this document. And
[3:01:47] that's a $1.1 million expenditure.
[3:01:50] I need additional information to merge
[3:01:51] this document and this information with
[3:01:54] some of the things that they submitted
[3:01:55] in their RFP. As Jeffers indicates to me
[3:01:57] that there is additional information in
[3:01:58] the RFP. Normally, we don't like to have
[3:02:00] the contract merged with the original
[3:02:02] RFP documents because they might have
[3:02:04] additional terms in there that are
[3:02:05] combined in it that it kind of
[3:02:07] undermined this ICA. So, there are some
[3:02:10] things in here that are policy position
[3:02:12] standpoints. There's additional
[3:02:13] information. That's what I'm trying to
[3:02:15] provide to you guys as much information
[3:02:17] as possible. Now, Commissioners Martinez
[3:02:19] Winfield and McCandless, you guys all
[3:02:21] have more information because you guys
[3:02:22] have have talked about this process and
[3:02:24] have been more involved. Obviously,
[3:02:26] because you're the subcommittee that's
[3:02:27] on this. So, some of these things may be
[3:02:30] normal to you and you guys may know
[3:02:31] exactly what's going on. But, when we're
[3:02:33] looking at a contract, we're only
[3:02:34] restricted to the pages of the
[3:02:36] contracts. And so, that provides the
[3:02:38] other commissioners limited information.
[3:02:41] And so, that's what I'm trying to give
[3:02:42] you guys as much information as I can.
[3:02:44] Um so, those are your three pass
[3:02:45] forward, three different options.
[3:02:47] However you guys want to proceed, I'm
[3:02:48] happy to work through. Otherwise,
[3:02:49] special meeting, I'm gone Friday and
[3:02:52] Thursday afternoon on a on a camping
[3:02:54] trip. Apart from that, I get back on
[3:02:55] Sunday. I'm here all next week. So, I'm
[3:02:57] happy to whatever you guys have for your
[3:02:59] schedule, I'm happy to work through it.
[3:03:00] I put as much time as I could into this
[3:03:02] with uh Commissioner McCandless and Ms.
[3:03:05] Jeffers. It was just we we just have a
[3:03:07] lot of obligations.
[3:03:09] >> And And that satisfy Martinez?
[3:03:13] >> Um that really I mean I I mean I I
[3:03:14] understand that the pass forward, but
[3:03:16] really what I'm looking for is the uh
[3:03:19] the time that it would require for you
[3:03:20] to go back there you think that you're
[3:03:22] going to have to going back with me uh
[3:03:24] back and forth to come up with something
[3:03:25] that's through that's all the way
[3:03:27] through.
[3:03:28] >> If I'm them, I'm receiving a contract
[3:03:30] for $1.86 million dollars
[3:03:33] or sorry, $2.86 million dollars.
[3:03:35] There is no reason that they should not
[3:03:37] get done in a week. They They should be
[3:03:39] very incentivized to work with the
[3:03:42] county with the obligations that the
[3:03:43] county wants to impose to resolve this.
[3:03:45] Think you could do it in a week? Um I
[3:03:47] think you could do it in the last if I
[3:03:48] was if I wasn't out of town. But, if you
[3:03:51] set a special meeting, the thing I need
[3:03:52] is I need
[3:03:54] commissioners either in this context or
[3:03:57] on a one-on-one or on a subcommittee
[3:03:59] context to talk me through some of these
[3:04:01] items cuz you may say, and this is your
[3:04:03] guys' right, and I don't know if I
[3:04:04] always make this clear, you guys can
[3:04:06] disagree with me. I can say, "Hey, big
[3:04:07] concern on this item." You guys can say,
[3:04:09] "Thank you. We understand the concern.
[3:04:11] We're going to move forward anyways."
[3:04:12] So, I I just need for you guys to be
[3:04:14] informed about the decision on this
[3:04:16] item. That's what I'm looking for. I
[3:04:18] That's why I gave it to you guys with
[3:04:20] all my notes. So, I think you can do it
[3:04:22] in a week. You can do it shorter. Again,
[3:04:24] you could approve it tonight. Read
[3:04:26] through the edits. That's why I wanted
[3:04:27] you to take a moment to read through
[3:04:28] them.
[3:04:29] It can be done that quick. BIA should be
[3:04:31] incentivized to get this done
[3:04:34] quickly.
[3:04:34] >> Okay. Um I'm inclined to move through it
[3:04:37] tonight. I'll go to Commissioner Hedden,
[3:04:40] and then I know Commissioner McCandliss
[3:04:42] has her hand up.
[3:04:45] » I I I think we we can't lose sight that
[3:04:49] we are representatives of citizens of
[3:04:52] this community.
[3:04:54] And I think maybe we're losing sight of
[3:04:56] that. That's It's It's a huge concern of
[3:04:58] mine. So, that being said,
[3:05:01] I would ask that we postpone this.
[3:05:04] I'll be postponing it until next week if Steven's saying
[3:05:08] a week-ish, we should be done. And in
[3:05:10] that time, it will also give citizens
[3:05:13] time. Hopefully, we'll post the agenda
[3:05:15] and that item in a timely manner that
[3:05:18] citizens can go through it and also make
[3:05:20] comments to us. I mean, I know with
[3:05:22] myself, I've lately been spending about
[3:05:26] two or three hours a day talking to
[3:05:27] citizens.
[3:05:30] Literally.
[3:05:31] And that's my job. That's my job is to listen to people, to try to educate
[3:05:37] people, but also to to bring their
[3:05:39] concerns to this dias, as we call it.
[3:05:43] So, I would recommend I did not see
[3:05:45] this. I know nothing about this. I know
[3:05:47] it sounded like I knew something about
[3:05:48] the liability, but I didn't. I was just
[3:05:50] hypothesizing, like, what if? I knew
[3:05:53] nothing about this contract. This is the
[3:05:54] first time I opened it. It's what Oh, I
[3:05:57] was getting a cup of coffee and coming
[3:05:59] here at 3:30.
[3:06:00] And so, I just think good governance
[3:06:04] entails giving everybody on this
[3:06:06] commission time to go over this
[3:06:08] contract. It's a $2.6 million contract.
[3:06:11] This is a huge spend.
[3:06:13] Of again, it's an a commission and a a
[3:06:17] citizen pointed this out. When I look at
[3:06:19] my paystub,
[3:06:21] I've got local taxes,
[3:06:23] state taxes, and federal taxes. I'm
[3:06:25] paying for this on three levels and I
[3:06:26] would completely agree with that citizen
[3:06:28] comment. So, that being said because I I
[3:06:30] love how people go, "Oh, it's federal
[3:06:32] money. Doesn't matter." It's like, "No,
[3:06:33] I pay I pay a lot of federal taxes."
[3:06:36] I I just I think we need to return to
[3:06:39] good governance and processes where
[3:06:42] everybody has a chance to look over
[3:06:44] these things carefully. And I think if
[3:06:45] you get to that, you're going to have
[3:06:48] more support for your initiatives.
[3:06:52] And so, I would ask
[3:06:54] going to plead that this is postponed.
[3:06:56] Not only for ourselves, but for the
[3:06:59] people that we represent.
[3:07:02] >> Commissioner McCandless.
[3:07:05] » I just want to say because obviously, I do have the information because I've
[3:07:09] been on every single subcommittee
[3:07:10] meeting and I've been on all the
[3:07:11] meetings with Via and and Steven, but
[3:07:14] you know, they've been really great to
[3:07:15] work with. They I think they're they're
[3:07:17] easily of course
[3:07:19] easily willing to make the changes that
[3:07:21] we needed. We just ran out of time.
[3:07:23] You know, that's the bottom line of it.
[3:07:24] It's not like trying to do anything
[3:07:26] sneaky and if we need to do another
[3:07:27] meeting, I'm gone all next week and I
[3:07:29] won't be able to zoom in at all because
[3:07:32] I have work obligations next week. So, I
[3:07:35] not just like today I'm at
[3:07:37] a one the one summit in Cedar City. So,
[3:07:40] I don't have a lot of free time. I would
[3:07:41] rather get it done tonight, but I
[3:07:43] understand and I I understand what
[3:07:44] Trisha's saying
[3:07:46] as well. That's And and but they've been
[3:07:48] great to work with. A lot of the
[3:07:49] concerns, I mean, if you look at the way
[3:07:51] that our the Moab area transit is
[3:07:53] running, that this is the exact same
[3:07:55] company. So, the concerns that
[3:07:58] are have been raised, I I feel like
[3:08:00] those are alleviated when we went
[3:08:01] through the the proposals. You guys all
[3:08:04] had copies of the proposals, if you read
[3:08:05] them or not. Um so, you would have saw
[3:08:08] that Via was the the one that that made
[3:08:10] the most sense that because that they're
[3:08:12] capable to do all the things that you
[3:08:14] guys were concerned about in the CMA.
[3:08:17] I know you haven't read this one, you
[3:08:18] know, but this is their big company.
[3:08:20] They do this all across the nation. They
[3:08:23] do this for
[3:08:25] um other national parks. So, it's not
[3:08:27] like this is foreign to them. They know
[3:08:29] what they're doing. And it's it we're
[3:08:31] not just hiring some somebody that has
[3:08:34] no experience at all doing this.
[3:08:39] » Commissioner Martinez and then
[3:08:40] Commissioner Hadler.
[3:08:41] >> I'd like to go ahead and make a
[3:08:42] substitute
[3:08:44] I'd actually like to make a a substitute
[3:08:46] motion. Okay. I move to approve the Moab
[3:08:48] Arches Shuttle Service Agreement with
[3:08:50] Via. I move to appoint Commissioner
[3:08:52] McCandless to approve changes,
[3:08:54] modifications, and edits to the document
[3:08:57] that conform with the overall goal of
[3:08:59] establishing a a shuttle program not to
[3:09:01] exceed 2.86 million aligned with CMA and
[3:09:06] pending legal review.
[3:09:11] » Motion I'd like to second motion by
[3:09:13] Commissioner Martinez second by
[3:09:15] Commissioner McCourdy. Question.
[3:09:18] >> On the question.
[3:09:20] >> Is the pending legal review
[3:09:22] contingent upon Are you good with that
[3:09:25] side? Not to mention,
[3:09:26] is it contingent upon them signing it?
[3:09:28] Is their legal review also?
[3:09:31] >> Sure. I mean, yeah, we don't
[3:09:33] >> I just want to make sure.
[3:09:35] Um but no, yeah, definitely. So,
[3:09:37] what
[3:09:38] We had discussed this as a potential
[3:09:40] motion for the commission. I'm fine with
[3:09:42] this. Again, where I have to keep in my
[3:09:44] realm, I need a commissioner or somebody
[3:09:47] that's been approved by this body uh to
[3:09:49] help me communicate cuz there are policy
[3:09:51] decisions that I do not make. I just
[3:09:53] note them in the contract.
[3:09:55] So, is now Mel under this motion
[3:09:58] consider that person? That's what the
[3:10:00] information pertaining to that. Thank
[3:10:01] you.
[3:10:02] More work for you.
[3:10:04] Commissioner Hadler.
[3:10:06] I I'm super uncomfortable with that. And
[3:10:08] Melly's already said that she's she's so
[3:10:10] buried she couldn't meet next week
[3:10:12] anyway. But but regardless of that and I
[3:10:15] the first time I laid eyes on this is it
[3:10:17] is 20 minutes ago and I got 10 minutes
[3:10:19] to look at it. Um I don't think that's a
[3:10:22] great way to do business. It's not a
[3:10:23] great way to It's not a good look. Um
[3:10:26] I'd be much more in favor of doing a
[3:10:28] meeting at a future date. I'm happy to
[3:10:30] clear my calendar and do it as soon as
[3:10:31] possible. Um but it would be nice to to
[3:10:35] take a longer look at this and and and
[3:10:39] really contemplate it and um
[3:10:42] Also, uh electric shock get a poor get a
[3:10:45] poor people. So, I I wouldn't vote for
[3:10:48] Brian's motion. I think a special
[3:10:51] meeting would be
[3:10:53] more preferable for my standpoint. We'll
[3:10:55] vote.
[3:10:55] Would there be And again, commission can
[3:10:57] do whatever it wants. Would there be
[3:10:59] appetite with the understanding that um
[3:11:01] if you had commissioner maybe do a
[3:11:04] three-person subcommittee and then
[3:11:06] having that subcommittee have the
[3:11:08] ability to finalize it? You might three
[3:11:11] commissioners might have an easier
[3:11:12] schedule than seven commissioners. But
[3:11:14] if there's positive representation on
[3:11:16] that, I'm just trying to figure out how
[3:11:17] to get this resolved.
[3:11:19] Um if you guys are trying to get a
[3:11:21] result cuz the other thing that has to
[3:11:22] happen is not only do we have to
[3:11:24] finalize it with the county sportsman.
[3:11:26] We have to share that with BIA and then
[3:11:27] we have to execute the contract. And the
[3:11:29] proposed start date would be September
[3:11:31] 1st on the contract. So, if
[3:11:34] I'm just noting that
[3:11:36] for consideration. What what kind of um
[3:11:40] So, so
[3:11:42] if there's a three-person subcommittee,
[3:11:44] what are we what what kind of
[3:11:46] time period obligation we talking?
[3:11:48] >> That's that's a that's a you guys
[3:11:50] it's a commission decision, but what I'm perceiving is if Commissioner
[3:11:54] McCammon is not available, if you guys
[3:11:56] had a three-person commission that had
[3:11:57] the authorization to go through the
[3:11:59] contract with the attorney's office to
[3:12:01] review conditions and terms, perhaps you
[3:12:03] guys could could come to an agreement on
[3:12:05] a portion of that as opposed to trying
[3:12:07] to schedule a meeting next week. I'm
[3:12:09] providing it alternative alternative
[3:12:10] option. I don't care what the commission
[3:12:11] does. We can do it tonight, we can do it
[3:12:13] different night.
[3:12:14] But, I'm just trying to think out loud.
[3:12:19] » All right. Um with that, I would say
[3:12:22] that I think it would be fine to leave
[3:12:25] that up to Commissioner McCammon. I
[3:12:27] mean, she can pull in Commissioner
[3:12:29] Hadler and Commissioner Martinez or
[3:12:31] myself, whoever she likes to help move
[3:12:33] this forward.
[3:12:35] I'm going to call for a vote on the
[3:12:37] substitute motion by Commissioner
[3:12:40] Martinez. Um seconded by Commissioner
[3:12:43] McCurdy. Those in favor?
[3:12:47] Those opposed?
[3:12:49] The motion passes with Commissioner
[3:12:52] Hadine, Commissioner Hadler, and
[3:12:53] Commissioner McGann opposed.
[3:12:57] And we will move on to item number 15,
[3:13:00] consideration of 500k from
[3:13:03] [clears throat] the transit tax in fund
[3:13:05] 47
[3:13:07] reserves for the use on the Moab to
[3:13:10] Arches shuttle.
[3:13:12] And I'm the one that put this on here. I
[3:13:14] do believe that
[3:13:18] » Oh, oh, I just wanted to go back to the
[3:13:19] last last um item for a second if that's
[3:13:22] all right with you.
[3:13:22] >> Sure.
[3:13:23] >> I just wanted a little clarification on Brian's um
[3:13:27] motion and just let's So, next steps
[3:13:29] just so everybody knows cuz it was still
[3:13:31] a little bit unclear to me. What what
[3:13:33] are we looking at now?
[3:13:34] >> So, the the next steps would be um I've
[3:13:37] got the markups and the edits. Uh
[3:13:39] Commissioner McCandless would be the
[3:13:40] representative of the commission. She'd
[3:13:42] present the position of the client for
[3:13:44] me. We'd go through the edits and the
[3:13:46] markups
[3:13:47] and make
[3:13:49] any adjustments that are necessary on
[3:13:50] the contract using her input provided to
[3:13:53] me. And I I'd go through and make
[3:13:55] changes on the contract, communicate
[3:13:56] with VIA with Commissioner McCandless
[3:13:58] and I would assume with Jeffers and then
[3:14:00] they would finalize it and we would
[3:14:01] execute it and likely ratify it. Likely
[3:14:04] have the chair sign it, but it would
[3:14:06] likely be at a future consent agenda
[3:14:07] item after ratification.
[3:14:10] >> So it it it basically would come back to
[3:14:12] us.
[3:14:13] >> No.
[3:14:14] >> Okay, well it's not coming back to us.
[3:14:16] >> Commissioner McCandless, go ahead.
[3:14:21] » I was going to make a motion on this
[3:14:22] next one. Are we ready to go to that or
[3:14:24] do you want me to answer Jacques?
[3:14:26] >> Um
[3:14:27] >> No, I got I got I got clarity. That's
[3:14:28] all right, though.
[3:14:29] >> So it's not coming back.
[3:14:30] >> Okay.
[3:14:32] >> Yeah, I mean there's really only two
[3:14:33] things on that contract that just that
[3:14:34] Steven needs
[3:14:35] to make sure. But we need to send that
[3:14:37] contract back to VIA with the changes
[3:14:39] and then VIA sends it back to us and
[3:14:41] then we're we're good to go. And there's
[3:14:43] two items that he needs he just
[3:14:45] basically needs I don't think a a
[3:14:47] meeting to have all of us back together
[3:14:50] is necessary to to execute that agreement. But So I was
[3:14:55] going to make a motion
[3:14:57] on the
[3:14:59] uh transit tax fund of 47 to fund
[3:15:03] $350,000
[3:15:05] towards the
[3:15:06] budget, the current budget.
[3:15:10] >> I think that was noted in the clerk
[3:15:13] auditor's report earlier even though
[3:15:15] that that's already
[3:15:16] >> already that's already what he has in
[3:15:17] there, but I was just uh making that
[3:15:19] motion.
[3:15:20] >> So I've got a motion by Commissioner
[3:15:22] McCandless, second by Commissioner
[3:15:24] Martinez.
[3:15:25] Discussion?
[3:15:28] >> Two questions.
[3:15:28] >> Oh, Clerk Auditor, thank you.
[3:15:31] >> Yeah, I I want to clarify, especially
[3:15:32] for the chair, um
[3:15:34] because we had had a conversation about
[3:15:36] that amount being 300 and not 350. Um
[3:15:39] and I just wanted to point out or just
[3:15:40] make sure to clarify to just to make
[3:15:42] sure that we're all on the same page
[3:15:44] here. Um on the Monday workshop, there
[3:15:46] was a
[3:15:48] the the draw from the fund balance that
[3:15:49] was quoted at that time was 209,000, I
[3:15:52] believe. Um and there was an additional
[3:15:54] 35, there was there was a bolded note to
[3:15:56] that that I don't um that there was a an
[3:16:00] adjustment into insurance that we had to
[3:16:02] incorporate into the budget that added
[3:16:04] another 35,000
[3:16:06] um to salary and benefit expenses that I
[3:16:08] at that time I didn't have the GL codes
[3:16:10] to be able to put it in the budget
[3:16:12] somewhere. So, it was just included at
[3:16:13] that time as a note and I think that
[3:16:15] created a little bit of a
[3:16:16] misunderstanding about the amount that
[3:16:18] might have been it to be pulled um to
[3:16:21] cover and eliminate the draw from the
[3:16:23] fund balance. So, I just wanted to make
[3:16:25] that note just to make sure that we're
[3:16:26] all on the same page and that I didn't
[3:16:28] ignore you or that we're communicating
[3:16:29] well about it. Thank you.
[3:16:32] >> Thank you.
[3:16:35] » Um further comment, Commissioner Hedden.
[3:16:39] >> You can go ahead, Chuck.
[3:16:40] >> Um okay, thank you.
[3:16:42] Uh
[3:16:43] Okay, So, previously in our budget that we
[3:16:46] approved for 26
[3:16:49] last fall, we ended up with a
[3:16:54] uh a draw roughly $340,000 out of
[3:16:57] general funds in order to balance the
[3:16:58] budget.
[3:16:59] Right.
[3:17:00] Okay, so
[3:17:02] in this So, we're talking here about
[3:17:06] making a $350,000 draw out of fund 47 to
[3:17:10] balance our budget amendment. Um I just
[3:17:14] want to make it super clear that we're
[3:17:15] still take we're we're actually
[3:17:17] increasing our draw by $10,000 out of
[3:17:20] savings. It's just taking it out of a
[3:17:22] different savings account. So, what
[3:17:24] we're doing here, instead of taking
[3:17:26] $340,000, we've changed quite a few
[3:17:28] things. We paid a few more uh
[3:17:30] expenses that weren't budgeted last
[3:17:33] year, a few significant ones. Um and
[3:17:37] again, instead of taking the $340 out of
[3:17:39] the general fund, we're now taking
[3:17:40] $350,000
[3:17:43] out of a different savings account. A
[3:17:44] savings account that's that's
[3:17:45] considerably more restrictive, but it's
[3:17:47] a savings account nonetheless, and it's
[3:17:49] a savings account that if we draw it
[3:17:50] down, um it's a savings account that we
[3:17:53] can use in the future for for a number
[3:17:57] of projects, and we can get into that,
[3:17:59] I'm sure we will. Um but if if those
[3:18:03] [clears throat] funds were to be needed
[3:18:04] in the future, um
[3:18:06] with this fund drawn down, we would have
[3:18:09] to take those funds out of another
[3:18:11] place.
[3:18:12] Um I'm personally not
[3:18:15] and I said this at the budget workshop,
[3:18:16] too. I'm not very comfortable taking
[3:18:19] those funds out of fund 47. I I know we
[3:18:24] are going to have to take funds out of
[3:18:26] an account to balance these expenditures.
[3:18:30] I've been willing to take some of the
[3:18:32] funds out of fund 47, but I just want to
[3:18:34] make it clear what that's used for, and
[3:18:37] I assume that's why Cody's here, too. Um
[3:18:40] fund 47 is
[3:18:42] uh it generally funds GCAT. It has in
[3:18:45] the past funded a lot of the um
[3:18:49] maintenance on uh paved bike paths. I
[3:18:51] believe it's also gone to fund um
[3:18:54] salaries that oversee uh other aspects
[3:18:57] of GCAT, such as recreational trails. Um
[3:19:02] Most of my concern is a lot of the paved
[3:19:05] path. I can literally ride it four times
[3:19:07] a week. Uh I rode it this morning. Um
[3:19:10] I know some other commissioner went out
[3:19:12] and took a look at that with with Cody,
[3:19:14] and I think Shawn also.
[3:19:16] Um and I'm sure as Bill said in his
[3:19:20] future considerations, he'd like to he'd
[3:19:22] like to look at at funding some
[3:19:23] maintenance out of that fund for the
[3:19:24] bike path. I think that's great. It
[3:19:26] needs it.
[3:19:27] has needed it.
[3:19:30] There are, I think, approximately 11
[3:19:34] miles of bike path that we have now.
[3:19:36] Next year we're due to add another
[3:19:38] three. We're adding 5/8 of a mile on the
[3:19:40] gap currently. We're also going to be on
[3:19:43] the hook for maintaining another 2.3
[3:19:45] miles up to Utah Raptor State Park. So,
[3:19:49] that'll add a bit. Also, when we finally
[3:19:51] get started on the Spanish Valley
[3:19:52] multi-pathway, we're going to be on the
[3:19:54] hook for maintenance there. So, there's
[3:19:56] a lot of future maintenance we are going
[3:19:58] to be needing to use this fund for. This
[3:20:01] is also fun to be used as
[3:20:04] We all agree the Spanish Valley
[3:20:05] multi-pathway is long overdue and
[3:20:07] something that we all agree on is going
[3:20:09] to be a massive asset for residents of our county as well as
[3:20:13] visitors.
[3:20:14] Mostly residents, it's a transportation
[3:20:16] corridor. It lets all these people in
[3:20:17] those new neighborhoods south of town
[3:20:19] commute to Moab.
[3:20:21] We we can use these funds to fund that
[3:20:24] Spanish Valley Drive multi-use pathway
[3:20:27] right now. We can use them as match
[3:20:30] funds for grants in the future.
[3:20:33] It's so all all these funds are
[3:20:36] available for that.
[3:20:38] As Brian pointed out in the workshop,
[3:20:41] like why not use the most restrictive
[3:20:43] funds for for something that we can use them
[3:20:47] for, i.e. the shuttle.
[3:20:49] And again, I'm I'm less comfortable with
[3:20:51] that. I've I've been on the commission
[3:20:53] for almost 6 years now and I've seen
[3:20:56] there's always less of an appetite to
[3:20:58] dip into the general fund than there is
[3:21:00] to use these restricted funds. Let's think of a scenario. Two years
[3:21:04] ago,
[3:21:05] a pretty large section of the bike path
[3:21:06] got washed into the Bloody Mary Wash.
[3:21:08] Just
[3:21:09] crazy, but the whole pavement just
[3:21:11] washed into the wash. We finally got
[3:21:14] that fixed after 2 years just a month or
[3:21:16] two ago.
[3:21:18] It could have been way worse. I mean
[3:21:19] there's a few bridges on that path.
[3:21:20] There's also a lot of exposure on the
[3:21:22] path if you go up switchbacks.
[3:21:25] There are there's
[3:21:27] significant drainage issue potentials on
[3:21:31] there that could cause significantly
[3:21:33] more damage to that path. And if we have
[3:21:36] a fund readily available that we can
[3:21:37] pull
[3:21:39] I don't know, half a million bucks from
[3:21:40] them if we really need to, then then
[3:21:42] we're way more likely to do that than we
[3:21:44] are if we
[3:21:46] take it right out of the general fund,
[3:21:47] which would be an alternative.
[3:21:50] Um so it's this isn't free money. It's a savings account. It's a savings
[3:21:55] account we've worked hard to
[3:21:57] build up and it's a savings account that
[3:21:59] we will be tapping into in the future.
[3:22:02] And I'm not stoked about pulling
[3:22:04] $350,000 out of it.
[3:22:07] >> Commissioner McCandless and then I'm
[3:22:09] going to make a comment.
[3:22:11] >> Oh, I had my hand up, too. You said I
[3:22:13] was after Jock.
[3:22:15] >> Okay, Commissioner Ordin, Commissioner
[3:22:17] McCandless and then I will make a
[3:22:19] comment.
[3:22:20] >> Um Jock said much of what I was going to
[3:22:23] say. I do appreciate there was many many
[3:22:25] citizens that came to talk about the
[3:22:28] original the origin of this fund and and
[3:22:31] the fact that, you know, it really
[3:22:32] ensured or it was for the community for
[3:22:35] transport
[3:22:37] for transportation needs, roads, active
[3:22:39] transportation. I don't think anyone at
[3:22:42] that time foresaw that they were going
[3:22:44] to be paying for a shuttle for tourists
[3:22:46] into Arches National Park. Um I just
[3:22:49] want to point out that this is just one
[3:22:52] more spin in a pattern where we keep
[3:22:56] bypassing county needs,
[3:22:59] spending money outside of budget, and
[3:23:02] pulling from fund balances. And
[3:23:04] eventually, and it's not very far down
[3:23:07] the road, we're going to be in deep
[3:23:09] trouble.
[3:23:11] And and again I can't stress enough like
[3:23:15] our needs are endless.
[3:23:17] And we just bypass all those
[3:23:20] priorities. And we just keep putting in
[3:23:22] stuff in top of it and top of it on top
[3:23:25] of it.
[3:23:27] And I and I guess I just with the final
[3:23:29] statement I'm going to make and and then
[3:23:31] I'll just my frustration level is so high
[3:23:34] tonight. Um I want to remind this
[3:23:36] commission and and I asked it that you
[3:23:39] guys hopefully are listening.
[3:23:42] That our goals are to improve the
[3:23:44] quality of life for our citizens,
[3:23:47] to manage sustainable growth,
[3:23:50] and to protect our public resources.
[3:23:51] Those are our goals.
[3:23:54] And hopefully as elected, you're not
[3:23:56] losing sight of that. I know because
[3:24:00] I've [laughter] apprised as a lot of
[3:24:02] emails that
[3:24:04] this was an initiative that
[3:24:08] I don't think had a lot to do with our
[3:24:10] community.
[3:24:11] Um
[3:24:13] I've
[3:24:14] I'm reading the emails as we speak.
[3:24:17] And and I don't I don't want you guys to
[3:24:19] lose sight that you are representing
[3:24:20] this community. That we're trying to do
[3:24:22] things for this community in fund 47,
[3:24:26] we should hopefully be
[3:24:29] you know, using those reserves for
[3:24:33] bike paths, for road improvements, etc.
[3:24:36] and so
[3:24:37] I I just don't want you guys to lose
[3:24:39] sight of why we're here.
[3:24:41] And I think we are a little bit. And
[3:24:43] it's and that's what's bumming me out.
[3:24:47] » Commissioner McCandless.
[3:24:50] >> So I just want to state that spending
[3:24:52] money out of this account is not what's
[3:24:54] hindering the Spanish Valley multi-use
[3:24:56] path. We're ready to go on that. There's
[3:24:58] just certain things that we're taking
[3:24:59] care of before it gets going. It's not
[3:25:02] because we don't have the funding and this is not hitting into that
[3:25:05] funding that is for the Spanish Valley
[3:25:07] multi-use path. So, I just want to
[3:25:09] clarify that to all of our constituents
[3:25:11] and to everybody on the commission that
[3:25:13] this money is not going into that. The other thing
[3:25:17] that's really interesting is I was
[3:25:18] looking back at fund balances from 2021
[3:25:21] and there was $600,000 in the fund
[3:25:23] balance for this account and then there
[3:25:24] was like 1800 18 1.8 million dollars in
[3:25:28] that account. So, how it grew from
[3:25:30] $600,000 to $1.8 million dollars is
[3:25:33] super interesting and I've looked back
[3:25:34] because that optional sales tax of
[3:25:36] $345,000
[3:25:38] a year, it makes me wonder if there was
[3:25:40] a little bit of, you know, putting money
[3:25:42] from TR's TR TRCCA that maybe was in
[3:25:45] there. So, just just throwing that out
[3:25:48] there. I mean, this money's been sitting
[3:25:49] there. It's made to use. It's a lot more
[3:25:52] restricted just like Jacques said, just
[3:25:54] like we talked about the other day. It's
[3:25:55] a very restricted balance. It's made for
[3:25:58] this kind of stuff. This is what the
[3:25:59] optional sales tax is for.
[3:26:01] And that's why we're going to use it
[3:26:04] we're going to we're going to use it,
[3:26:05] but we're not depleting it.
[3:26:07] would be taking all of the
[3:26:09] money out of it. There's still going to
[3:26:10] be money in there for for maintenance.
[3:26:12] There's still going to be money in there
[3:26:13] for roads and it continues to grow
[3:26:15] because we can we have optional sales
[3:26:17] tax. The other thing I want to talk
[3:26:18] about in sales tax is that when we talk
[3:26:20] about sales tax, 70% of that comes from
[3:26:23] visitors. So, just like the TRT tax
[3:26:27] comes from visit the majority visitors,
[3:26:29] but all of us go out to eat and we pay
[3:26:30] that tax as well. It's just like the
[3:26:33] sales tax. Our visitors pay 70% of that
[3:26:35] tax. We pay 30% of that tax. So, yes,
[3:26:38] some of this money is going is from
[3:26:40] visitors and some of it's from locals,
[3:26:43] but not the majority. The majority is
[3:26:45] still coming from our visitors that come
[3:26:47] to our community. And we're still going
[3:26:48] to be supporting our visitors and our
[3:26:50] locals. And we talked about economic
[3:26:52] growth, you know, um I think one of the
[3:26:54] constituents that came and spoke today,
[3:26:56] she sent us a an email about economic
[3:26:58] growth a while ago and said that, you
[3:27:00] know, she wants diversification in our
[3:27:01] community. Well, that's what this is. A
[3:27:04] transportation system that's going to
[3:27:06] run, hopefully, from a new train or the
[3:27:09] airport or whatever. But, this is the
[3:27:10] pilot. This is the the piece that's
[3:27:12] going to make it so that we can go and
[3:27:14] we can have the information to do
[3:27:17] something all the way out into Spanish
[3:27:19] Valley and then all the way out into
[3:27:21] I-70. Without information, we can't do
[3:27:24] any of that. So, you know, I don't I
[3:27:26] still struggle with the roadblocks. I
[3:27:28] don't think that using $350,000 out of
[3:27:32] our fund 47 is deterring anything for
[3:27:35] our locals. And I know you guys are
[3:27:37] frustrated with some of the processes,
[3:27:39] but you know, I asked a couple
[3:27:41] commissioners to fill in for me and they
[3:27:42] refused to. So, if you don't want to get
[3:27:44] the information, then I don't know what
[3:27:46] to tell you
[3:27:47] about it, but that's
[3:27:50] I'm frustrated with the pushback that
[3:27:52] we're getting on this, but that's
[3:27:53] normal. I mean, we all get frustrated,
[3:27:55] so.
[3:27:58] » I know Commissioner Mark Tenas is
[3:28:01] wanting to speak up over there, but but
[3:28:03] I'm going to start. You know, I'm always amazed at the level of
[3:28:08] professionalism by other commissioners
[3:28:10] on this board and also by the hypocrisy
[3:28:14] that goes on in this room. And I just
[3:28:17] want to bring up that the river pathway,
[3:28:19] I worked on a $2.5 million grant to
[3:28:22] extend that and I worked with UDot that
[3:28:25] came up with $10 million. Now, did I do
[3:28:27] it alone? No. There was also staff
[3:28:29] involved with those. I then I've worked
[3:28:32] with UDot to get $500,000 worth of
[3:28:35] funding for the Mud Springs Road. I also
[3:28:38] was on phase one of Mud Springs and
[3:28:40] worked on the grant for phase one. I've
[3:28:43] also worked on the parking lots and the
[3:28:46] funding for those parking lots so that
[3:28:48] Cody has money rather than the county
[3:28:50] having to pay for it to build the
[3:28:52] parking lots out at Mayka. And so, we
[3:28:54] have citizens come in here that have
[3:28:56] been misinformed by commissioners
[3:29:00] about
[3:29:01] that this commission is turning away
[3:29:03] from bikes and going to motorized. And I
[3:29:06] just ask, is there another commissioner
[3:29:08] here that has brought any bike grant
[3:29:11] money to this county in the last three
[3:29:14] or four years? Anybody speak up. Because
[3:29:16] I'd love to hear about it. Jack, you are
[3:29:18] the bike master.
[3:29:20] Yes, I've worked on many grants and some
[3:29:24] of them the staff wrote them. I worked
[3:29:26] and sat on boards that approved them and
[3:29:28] I spoke for them favorably so that money
[3:29:30] came back here. And here we are looking
[3:29:33] at a shuttle
[3:29:34] and to say that we've turned away from
[3:29:38] bikes and gone motorized, it just amazes
[3:29:41] me and you guys could have never said
[3:29:42] that in the shuttle. You could support
[3:29:44] this shuttle. There's reasons to do so
[3:29:47] because then you would understand and
[3:29:49] you could be a part of it raising some
[3:29:51] of the money for the bike paths. But no,
[3:29:52] you're not. You sit back and you
[3:29:55] criticize and you criticize, but
[3:29:58] nobody's brought any money to bikes in
[3:30:00] this county recently. I I
[3:30:03] Oh, I mean, share it. Go ahead. Trish,
[3:30:05] you talk about poor governance. W- If we
[3:30:08] want to go back a few years, I wonder if
[3:30:10] the state auditor agrees that there's a
[3:30:12] pattern of misuse as you
[3:30:14] >> Point of order. Let's Let's Let's talk
[3:30:16] about tonight.
[3:30:17] >> I am.
[3:30:18] >> The items on this agenda tonight.
[3:30:20] >> You're airing grievances.
[3:30:21] pattern of misuse of funds in this
[3:30:23] county.
[3:30:24] >> Point of order.
[3:30:25] >> You're the You're the acting chair and
[3:30:28] you're just airing grievances. Various
[3:30:30] >> Point of order, Phil.
[3:30:33] >> You don't get to change this discussion,
[3:30:35] Trish. It isn't your right.
[3:30:37] >> Discussion all the time.
[3:30:37] >> If you can't chair it, then you
[3:30:39] shouldn't be chair.
[3:30:39] >> Point of order. This I'm I'm leaving.
[3:30:43] Yes, Commissioner Martinez, go ahead.
[3:30:45] >> So, you're going to You're going to let
[3:30:46] >> You guys You guys get it. You guys get
[3:30:48] it.
[3:30:48] You guys Thanks, though.
[3:30:50] You're doing
[3:30:51] Thanks for your service.
[3:30:53] >> Wait, holding on.
[3:30:54] >> I'll miss you next year.
[3:30:55] >> Mr. Martinez
[3:30:58] » Yes, I'll just call for a vote.
[3:30:59] >> All right.
[3:31:00] >> Call for a vote. Those in favor?
[3:31:02] >> I'm abstaining.
[3:31:07] » Those opposed?
[3:31:10] None stated. One abstention.
[3:31:14] The motion was made for 350.
[3:31:16] >> Correct.
[3:31:16] >> Yeah.
[3:31:17] >> A great night with the pie butter.
[3:31:21] » All right. The motion motion passes with
[3:31:24] four in favor, one abstention, and two
[3:31:27] walkouts.
[3:31:31] And we will move on to what we have left
[3:31:34] here.
[3:31:35] >> Number 16.
[3:31:37] county contributions to
[3:31:39] non-county entities and special
[3:31:41] districts.
[3:31:44] >> I got you.
[3:31:46] >> Commissioner Martin or McCandless. So,
[3:31:48] Commissioner
[3:31:50] >> Sorry.
[3:31:51] I move to direct staff to create
[3:31:53] policies and procedures for non-county
[3:31:55] entities and special districts to
[3:31:56] request donations or funding support
[3:31:59] from the county for future
[3:32:00] considerations by the commission.
[3:32:04] >> Motion by Commissioner McCarty.
[3:32:06] >> Second.
[3:32:06] by Commissioner Martinez.
[3:32:08] Discussion?
[3:32:10] >> Uh this was a long time coming. I know a
[3:32:12] lot of my special service districts are
[3:32:14] quite interested in this also. So.
[3:32:16] >> All right. Call for a vote. Those in
[3:32:18] favor?
[3:32:21] » I.
[3:32:22] >> Passes four with three commissioners
[3:32:25] missing. Commissioner
[3:32:27] Hadler, Commissioner Hedin, and
[3:32:29] Commissioner McGinn.
[3:32:32] And
[3:32:32] >> I ain't going to close this out of my
[3:32:35] >> Um we still have to vote on the
[3:32:38] item I, I think it was, from the
[3:32:42] airports. Um item
[3:32:45] I,
[3:32:46] extension of airport lease agreement.
[3:32:50] » And so, Mr.
[3:32:51] >> Wait, a hangar.
[3:32:54] » I just
[3:32:55] Please come out.
[3:32:56] >> Okay, just one comment real quickly.
[3:32:58] >> Thanks for the reminder, mouth.
[3:33:00] >> Um
[3:33:01] the airports leases, all of them right
[3:33:04] now, by our current minimum standards,
[3:33:06] state that they are 30 years with four
[3:33:09] five-year extensions at the end. So,
[3:33:11] they're all 50 years right now by
[3:33:14] pattern. I'm not sure why this one got
[3:33:16] signed outside of that, but we're
[3:33:19] basically just taking it from 2022 and
[3:33:22] making it the 50-year that everyone else
[3:33:24] on the airfield has gotten. And it's my
[3:33:26] opinion that um your FBO, actually being
[3:33:29] the only entity on the airport that you
[3:33:31] actually require to do certain things
[3:33:34] and to contribute and to invest in the
[3:33:35] airport, probably ought to get at least
[3:33:38] as good a lease as everybody else is
[3:33:40] getting. And I would even argue, and
[3:33:42] will in coming months, that you should
[3:33:44] make the standard lease term for all
[3:33:47] airport properties a lot less and keep
[3:33:51] the FBO lease at the same length.
[3:33:55] >> And since there I I think this item was
[3:33:58] originally brought up by Commissioner
[3:33:59] But to err out what So, why why would
[3:34:01] the county benefit from longer leases?
[3:34:03] Can you speak to that so that the
[3:34:05] public's informed about it?
[3:34:06] >> benefit, as I've said before, your
[3:34:08] airport is usually judged by your FBO.
[3:34:10] They don't know who the airport director
[3:34:12] is, most of the public doesn't.
[3:34:14] And uh but the everybody that flies in
[3:34:17] interacts with your FBO.
[3:34:18] We require them to do certain things. If
[3:34:21] you look at our minimum standards, we've
[3:34:22] got a long list of things that we make
[3:34:24] them do, all for the right to sell fuel.
[3:34:28] That's That's the benefit that they that
[3:34:30] they get. We only allow you to do that
[3:34:32] if you do this. How we benefit is our FBO being strengthened, or having a
[3:34:36] higher value, has a greater ability to
[3:34:39] borrow against that to say invest in
[3:34:42] more hangar locations so that they can
[3:34:45] um [clears throat] continue to
[3:34:47] do the things we require them to do.
[3:34:49] >> And and why are why are the leases at
[3:34:51] the airport longer or why does that
[3:34:53] benefit again trying I mean Mr. Stave
[3:34:56] for a bit that's why I'm trying to
[3:34:57] >> If you own if you own a hangar at the
[3:35:00] airport, you don't own the ground but
[3:35:01] it's still owned
[3:35:02] county maintains ownership of that
[3:35:04] ground. So if you have a hangar and you
[3:35:06] spend
[3:35:08] $400,000 building that
[3:35:11] and you have a 40-year lease. Well, if
[3:35:13] there's only 3 years left on that lease,
[3:35:14] what is
[3:35:16] you can't sell that for $400,000
[3:35:18] anymore. No matter what the value is,
[3:35:20] the as the lease goes, the building
[3:35:22] depreciates.
[3:35:23] Um which is why I think 40 is a good
[3:35:25] amount of time for a hangar because for
[3:35:26] tax purposes that depreciates out the
[3:35:28] entire value of the building. Um there
[3:35:30] are other things I'm going to propose
[3:35:32] that we don't need to get into them here
[3:35:33] where we can actually help people
[3:35:34] continue to invest in their hangars so
[3:35:36] that they move on. But the lease length
[3:35:39] gives value to
[3:35:42] the owned hangar.
[3:35:43] >> And then one last one final question. So
[3:35:45] once once the county has the lease uh or
[3:35:48] has hangars that are built out there,
[3:35:50] how does that benefit the county in in
[3:35:52] terms of the lease amounts and and the
[3:35:54] rental car rental amounts?
[3:35:55] >> For anybody or for FBOs in general?
[3:35:58] >> For the county for the county's benefit
[3:35:59] for for both.
[3:36:00] >> So one of the ways that we're going to
[3:36:02] benefit which is new is to charge that
[3:36:04] one-time linear foot fee that's going to
[3:36:06] help us pay for the taxways that we've
[3:36:07] got. The other way is we get a ground
[3:36:09] lease out of all of those so our our
[3:36:11] biggest revenue generator
[3:36:13] is leases.
[3:36:14] So as we lease the ground, we we get
[3:36:16] money from that. That also brings in
[3:36:17] people with aircraft
[3:36:19] uh who buy fuel
[3:36:21] get other services which we also get a
[3:36:24] piece of that. Um it also incentivizes
[3:36:26] people to build hangars out here that
[3:36:28] might want to fly in and stay at one of
[3:36:30] our places and and vacation. We have
[3:36:33] several hangar owners out there now that
[3:36:35] don't live in Moab. They they travel
[3:36:38] here, won't have a place to keep their
[3:36:39] hangar. Keep their
[3:36:41] >> All right, I sure don't. Those are all
[3:36:42] my questions. I just wanted to explore
[3:36:44] some of those items, too.
[3:36:46] >> Commissioner McCarty.
[3:36:46] >> Return to tax classes. Do we tax
[3:36:49] personal property? I know we do not tax
[3:36:52] hangar land.
[3:36:53] Do we tax personal property as in the
[3:36:56] hangar?
[3:36:57] >> Yes.
[3:36:58] And And it's not just that. And I
[3:37:00] haven't checked into it with this
[3:37:02] county, but we were talking about it a
[3:37:03] little bit. Um
[3:37:04] one of the things that happened in Utah
[3:37:06] County is they started assessing a
[3:37:07] privilege tax for even hangars. Even
[3:37:09] hangars that we owned.
[3:37:11] Uh right at this moment, I don't know if
[3:37:13] the county is assessing that or not. But
[3:37:16] uh the county certainly can by state
[3:37:18] rule because most counties do. It's
[3:37:20] called a privilege tax. It's basically
[3:37:22] just making somebody pay what they would
[3:37:24] have paid for the building even though
[3:37:26] they don't own the building.
[3:37:27] >> And the difference between that is
[3:37:29] commercial and private, correct?
[3:37:30] >> Correct. It It has to be for commercial.
[3:37:32] >> Yeah.
[3:37:32] >> Somebody who's just renting it for
[3:37:34] private use,
[3:37:35] somebody who's just rent for private
[3:37:37] use,
[3:37:38] no. You don't You can't get the
[3:37:40] privilege tax.
[3:37:43] » All right, do we need a motion for item
[3:37:46] I?
[3:37:47] >> You would need a motion to approve it.
[3:37:49] >> Yes, Commissioner.
[3:37:50] >> Motion to approve item I that was pulled
[3:37:52] from the consent agenda.
[3:37:54] >> Second.
[3:37:55] >> Seconded by Commissioner Martinez. Any
[3:37:57] further discussion?
[3:38:00] Being none, I'll call for a vote. Those
[3:38:02] in favor?
[3:38:05] » Sorry.
[3:38:07] » Yep, she got her hand up. Thank you,
[3:38:09] Miller.
[3:38:10] That passes with
[3:38:13] four. That passes four with three
[3:38:15] commissioners missing from the meeting,
[3:38:18] Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler,
[3:38:20] and Commissioner Van.
[3:38:22] And with that, we have no closed session
[3:38:25] or anything, correct?
[3:38:26] >> Couldn't get there if we wanted to.
[3:38:28] All
[3:38:30] right, with that, I adjourn this
[3:38:31] meeting. Thank you. 7:36 p.m. We're
[3:38:48] Hang on.