[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.

08.04.2026 Commission Meeting

Transcript