County Commission - Regular Meeting

Everybody, we're just a few minutes late. Uh, welcome to our this today January 20th uh commission meeting work session. Um so we get started with that. We have uh flagship homes with is on the agenda if they want to come forward to is did we get Mike online? Yeah. Okay. Welcome. Welcome. Sorry I'm trying to swap screens. Good afternoon. Uh Jeremy, this screen swap is not working. Sorry. No, you're good. He's got the generic.

No, I'm mine. Did you want the map up first? Do you want your slide deck?

We could uh if you want to put the map up first, that would be great.

That's fine. Thanks for allowing us to come and meet with you today in your work meeting. Uh my name is Brandon Green, work with Flagship Homes and we just uh maybe give you a quick update uh on on the project where we're at. Um we've been working closely with Ruling Gardner and and Mr. Johnson on access and answering some of the questions that we had related to how we're going to access the development in and out. and things are going really well. We're also working with uh Rocky Mountain Power right now on a possible transmission line relocation. We have been meeting with property owners adjacent to our property and uh and things are progressing. I don't have anything to report that we have an agreement, but we're working towards an agreement with both parties. Um so potentially that transmission line could be relocated. Um there's a distribution line on our property that will also be relocated and moved out into the old highway um once we decide or once Rocky Mountain Power decides where the transmission lines will end up. Um, as we've listened to the commission and and taken our plan back and redrawn um I I um the zoning I want to the way the ordinance is currently written um requires 35% commercial space under the current zoning ordinance um which is uh ordinance 155266 and it just says mixeduse develop velments mixeduse developments shall have at least 35% develop development area designated for commercial use. As

we've gone through this process and and laid out our development and then looked at surrounding approved zoning, we would like to propose a consideration to the text um and 35% commercial. Um, right now there is about 85 to 90 acres of approved commercial or something similar to that. And adding another 15 to 16 acres gives us a little bit of concern because purpose for the the commercial is to make it viable and make it something that is beneficial. and we don't know how that commercial in our zoned uh town center zone is going to how it's going to work, especially with the amount of commercial that's in the area approved already. So, we'd like to be able to consider uh an amendment to the text and the code which would allow the commission to based on what we present or what a developer presents to make a decision um without being tied to a 35% designated commercial use. Now, I've been told that that's something that we requested. Um I don't I wasn't involved in this um when this ordinance was approved, but we um would like to we would like the commission to consider possibly amending that section of the code.

Okay. So, Brandon, real quick, just to clarify. Yeah. Um so, I'm the one that made that comment. Okay. Okay. Um because when uh the developers or the owners of this parcel, these parcels plural, came before the commission for um the uh land use designation. Mhm. They knew going in that it came with a 35% commercial is what I meant. Okay. is uh but okay not I know what you're talking about but I don't think it's clear that what you're asking is for a code text amendment to this code to allow the commission the flexibility to consider other options related to the mixeduse development.

So like to lower the percentage of commercial or to change that commercial or like take that commercial portion and 20% of park and open space and Okay. Yes, that's what you're saying. Sorry. That's okay. I just I know what you're saying, but I'm helping the rest of the world understand what you're saying. Do you want to restate that, Brandon, what she just said? In your words.

Yes. So what we're what we're seeking commission is a a text amendment that would allow the county commission under the mixeduse zone town center zone mixeduse development um to consider a reduction in the amount of commercial space required and um in lie of you know we would provide open space or we would provide amenities that would be beneficial to the community. um and help the surrounding commercial property be successful um through discussions and uh and meetings with the commission on what what that may be and I you know I don't I don't I don't know

do we need to change the text or can we just talk about that in development agreement you would have text change the text would have to be amended and there are several ways you can do that We've already been directed to bring that text amendment forward. Staff was directed to do that when the town center zoning took place, however long ago it took place. So, it's not something that they have to request. We've already been directed to do it. We've got a draft of something we're going to bring forward. We just haven't done that yet.

So, question for you before you run away. because they were already given the designation with the current way that it's worded. Would there have to be any other additional action to be taken to amend those that requested town center designation? No. So, the developers and the owners of those town center zones would benefit from any text amendment that benefits them going forward. If there was a text amendment that negatively affected them, then they would be held to whatever code was in place at the time they filed their application. That's good news.

So, are you saying going from 35% to 25% that that extra 10% would be open space and amenities? Yeah, we would we would right now our our development would um it's got open space, it's got amenities that's planned into it and yes, we would we would definitely add or put stuff into our development that would benefit the community as if that's open space is if that's you know whatever that whatever that needs to be you know and Brandon I got a call last night from Bonnie Brown.

Yes.

And she said that you guys have been so great to work with and super kind and caring to her and she really feels like you care about her needs and she wanted to express that openly. So, we appreciate that you being a good good neighbor to our community. Well, it's important to us that we that we try and be a good neighbor and and we try and listen to what the community wants and and I honestly feel that we've tried our best to listen not only the community but the the commission as well. So, thank you. So this map that you're showing us here, tell me what you're trying to tell me on the

So what because

this is what you've already this is what you've already approved in either a development agreement or current zoning as it stands within the mountain green area. So this this is commercial zoning. This is uh development agreement the the Johnson property. Um this is town center zoning. This is commercial property. So, what I'm saying is if you were to take all of that property and add it up, it's it's quite a bit of commercial property. Just to give you some context, and I think this has been said before, Station Park in Farmington is 21 acres of of of commercial. Um, on top of that, there's there's quite a few rooftops and housing and and you share some similarities. you share a freeway that runs past this. So, it's got great view from the freeway. Um, I think it can be very a very positive thing. My only concern is if we're going to add additional commercial, how successful is the commercial going to be? Because we don't want it to be a blight or we don't want it to be something that becomes a problem. We would rather see the commercial that's set up already be successful than trying to dilute it or add more commercial to what's already existing. And that's that's our concern. We could put commercial in there. We just don't feel like it's going to be very very beneficial to the community as a whole because it there's already a lot of commercial zoning that's occurred. And I think during our last work session when we discussed this when we tked staff to look at the code text amendment was because of you know station park and these different things and um you know as I look over and I don't know if you're the one that typed up the one that I'm reading here the

it is amendment um you know when I read the word shall that's a mandatory requirement should is permissive those because I I look at should it's like who who decides the should well we're only going to require 5%. Well, this one we're going to do 25 or um but I believe that when we t staff it was give us other op options other than commercial and residential whether it's parks and open space or gathering place whatever it may be but other options to where that 35% wouldn't just become residential right you know and I and I think and I know when Josh I'm glad he reminded us that they're working on that right

um but I when I read those mandatory and those permissive, you know, shells and mays. You know, as an electrician, when I'm reading through the electrical code, you shall, you may. I teach my students the same thing. Well, that's kind of you got to go talk to the inspector on that when it's may. Yeah. But when it shall, so when we look at that change of like you should have that 25, I'm I'm I'm very hesitant to go from what we are requiring as mandatory to that permissive like, but I'd like to see other oper options other than just the commercial, you know. Hey, if somebody wants to provide some park space and open space for people and their kids and that, I think that could be a great thing other than another store or or a a store that fails, right?

Let's have something that people can go and enjoy. Um, however that looks, that's why I'm I'm excited to see what Josh brings forward as far as that text amendment. And I I think as we work through that

and and and part of that open space, park space discussion is is ongoing with with Gardener Development and and Johnson's as we develop together. We've realized that there's some beneficial park space and open space that can be realized working together, creating that open space and creating a a corridor where, you know, people can walk and run and bike. Um albeit it may be a short corridor because we're talking about the properties that are currently being developed, but there's so much future potential in that if we establish it. Now, um the other part that I failed to mention is we are working with the fire department right now to also provide them some additional land for future fire station expansion. I just met with uh fire chief and uh Golden

Golden Barrett.

Barrett. Yeah. Um last week and went through, you know, what they're looking at and what their needs are. and we are absolutely uh wanting to to help them with what it is that they're needing. Um and we've been working with them on access into their fireplace and or fire station, not their fireplace, their fire station and uh and what that expansion looks like too. So again, another benefit to the community as they look to grow and and increase to help provide service to the community as well. Okay. So your property is away from that shown as what we have.

Yeah. You've been working with You said at the beginning, you've been working really rude on Gardner. Have you been working with the others to make sure that you guys have this vision that we have always been saying in our work sessions that we want to see happen in this area? I mean, are you working together to try to get this done? I would say yes, we are working together to try and get this done. Um, Don Dwayne Johnson and and Ruland Gardner and Flagship Homes have been very much in in discussions and working together. Go ahead, Ser. Yes, we're we're all working together.

Can you state your name for the record, please?

Hi, my name is Roland Gardner. I'm at I live in North Side Creek. Anyway, okay. So what Brandon's saying is this is very complex. Yep. Commissioner, you're correct. Because just as we start working together about how we get second means of egress, how we've got a creek we got to deal with, how we've got a freeway we got to deal with, and then how we have a transmission line right through the heart of us, as well as all of the other development issues that go into play, water, sewer, etc., etc. We've been working on that together with the Johnson's, with PB3, with all of the players there. But when it comes to the town center code that Brandon's proposing to modify, we're looking for some input. We can't finish our design because we're trying to figure out, okay, could we exchange this hard number for some open space or the parks or trails or whatever we can for the public good just commissioner what you're suggesting. So, if we could have that latitude, then we could imply we could put that into our design. We don't have that in our design today and we're trying to look at that because we see the hard and fast. We've met with Josh a couple of times and he's made some suggestions which are great suggestions on how we can look at this together. But we we wanted to make sure the purpose of today was to get any input that says as we start to complete our planning that yes, we can start to show some of these

in lie of that hard fast number. That's that's all we're saying. So Josh, is there a kind of a time frame on that that you've been working on that text amendment?

Um we have a draft Uh, we just need to fine-tune it and we can get it probably in February. I just think I mean if we're going to do it, let's do it once, you know, and and I know you've been spending time on working on it and it'd be good to see where that is, have some input so that again these guys can move forward, but like what are some options that we can go forward with and that so? Yep. Thanks for having us. No problem.

So, it's a question I have for whoever wants to answer it. So, within all of this, you guys have an idea and under the PC, isn't it PC zoning that we've got that we put together? Um, can't the three of you or the four of you or whoever it is come up with plan that you see for this center or for this area and bring it to us and we can say yay or nay even though the code may not say it yet but can you come with with that information to us so that we can say yes this is what we envisioned or no this is what you've got to change and then once that PC zoning comes about not TC but PC. Um, that development agreement in that whole area, can't it be modified to make it to work? I'm just, it's probably you, Josh.

Uh, PC zoning district would require a completely new reszone. Um, the town center reszone provided entitlements, which means that they need to finalize a development agreement with the commission and that's it. um PC zoning district would require them to go through the entire legislative process again, which given how the other legislative process went, I doubt they would want to do that, but it's up to them. So, it just looks to me like a lot of work we've got to do.

That would that would be love the PC zone. We think it has a lot of merits, but we're kind of tied to the town center zone and that's why we're trying to propose. But let's maybe back in the day it should have been PC but today we'd like to come forth with some designs suggesting what we're suggesting working together in a regional park connecting trails. All of those things government buildings few of those things we need to have. Pardon? I say we need some government buildings down that way too. Great idea. Great idea. We really do. Yeah.

Because Mountain Green's going to grow no matter what we want. is going to grow. We need to have some government I mean small amount of area for the government to be and uh I mean I can see an area here that could possibly work but we're not going to have county building. It's here. This is the county seat. He's very focused on the

So those are just my thoughts and you know I mean we have asked for that to to have this design or the vision of what we see. I'd like to see that design to whatever you guys can do and imagine and I agree you're tied to zoning or you're tied to certain kinds of aspects of this but why not come up with your visions bring it to us and see if it meets our vision if it doesn't meet our vision then we go back to you and say okay let's work on this area and even though it's not in the P in the TC zoning or any of those other zonings Maybe we can work on it together and try to make it to where it does work. That's that's basically

when you say I just want to make sure that I understand. Um are you are you asking us to provide some concept plans on what what just the flagship area will look like or the area the all of that area right there around Trappers Loop because yours goes up a little bit further. Ours goes um that's that little road there. Yeah. I mean I can show you. Yeah, we can we can show you

because I think you showed it to us one time and we were all pretty much in agreement with that but we have not made it to where we are we haven't seen any results yet from all that discussion we've had.

Um I agree Commissioner Ferrell. We can show you that we know what the commercial is because it's pretty set forth. It's pretty defined. What we're trying to do is now work on the area around that commercial. And yes, we we have back and forth. You know, we've talked about product type, architecture, talked about materials, we've talked about all of those things. We can bring that forth. We're just asking for some latitude rather than just keep harping on that 35%. And I can agree with that. I can agree. Okay. I can but I don't know whether it say

I have one question on the Yeah. On the map on the commercial business 7.58 acres. Is that where Kent Smith is? Is that I don't know who Kent Smith is. Ken Smith Park. The park. Yeah. Because there's sewer. Is that the park? Yes, it under the current zoning, it just shows a commercial. So, I I don't know. We just some of this information we pulled off of the zoning map and I've been told that it it's not all updated or accurate. So, if there's some errors on there, it's it's just because we we looked at what was currently zoned. So, that could be Kent Smith Park. Absolutely.

I think to clarify for everybody, we're not going to at Kent Smith Park. No, it's out there. But what we would like to do is create some trails and some walkability from Kent Smith Park up to and through our development. So yes, not saying that we're going to build the trail down to Kent Smith Park, but we will provide trails that lead that direction, but it's a possibility. So thank you. It's always a possibility

and I can understand. I mean with the with the desire with the code text amendment it's like why do we put so much effort and time into something where it's not even in your code you may not approve it. So if we can get that adjustment made in the code now we can move forward with some plans to say hey we'd like to provide these parks that in lie of commercial space or and and give you guys some more options and so that would be helpful right yeah so it sounds like I mean sounds like Josh is working on it we'll we'll see that coming forward shortly so and let me just say also the staff have been absolutely phenomenal to work with Kate Josh um the the planning office in there We have appreciated their help and their guidance. So Janet

and Janet Janet. Yes. Sorry, I looked right past you. I didn't mean to. But she's not very good people and we've appreciated their guidance and their help and uh and working with them. So thank you. Uh we look forward to hopefully coming to you here real soon with a a plan for the area as a whole that shows you what we are hoping to accomplish um in the TC zone with the consideration of some text amendments to the the ordinance. Thanks. I I do have a a quick bl with the power. Um I had heard this there was the meeting with Rocky Mountain, you guys, the land owners

and it to me from what the land owners were telling me is they were very much in favor of moving those poles and so I see Rocky Mountain is installing new poles kind of where the old ones are. Are we still hoping they are going to move them towards the freeway? So what they're doing right now is they're focusing on everything west of where we currently are because we don't have an agreement. So, they're going to do everything west and if we still haven't got an agreement here in the next couple of weeks, they're going to go into South Ogden, do some work in South Ogden with the hope that in the next few weeks, we will have an agreement uh to to to give to Rocky Mountain Power so those poles can be relocated

in Salt Lake. Brandon and I have been there and as of last Thursday, we are moving them moving ahead to go next to I 84 and we're just now dotting the eyes and crossing the tees with the land owners which is easements and other things and then we ran into culverts going under there and other things that we're still trying to deal with. So, we're very much uh the landowner's been very very good to work with. I just can't believe Bonnie left me out of how well we've been working with her.

Thank you, Brandon. Um, and commissioners, they will be I think they have a they're hoping the second work session in February moves and they'll take that spot, but right now they're temporary. They're slated for the first work session in March. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Appreciate your time. might have two feet of snow by then though, right? Okay. So, now let's see. Ron, looks like you're up for Cottonwood's landl swap discussion.

Thanks. Um we are very concerned uh about today's agenda and part of it is issues associated with the exchange of open space and the densities associated with that. We um have spent considerable time back in the day of putting together this PUD overlay ordinance. It took us several years to do that working with the council at the time and the commissioners. We're not opposed from necessarily what's being proposed as much as we are just trying to clarify everything. There's a lot to absorb in this proposal. So, I'm here today as gardener Cottonwood Creek. I just switched hats on you. um who is part of the the initial developer that entered into a development agreement with the county with the full understanding of the land owners. In fact, we have their signature that they knew exactly what we were doing and and that's witnessed by uh our agreements with them and the meetings that they did attend. Now, that all being said, that was many years ago. And can things change after that? The answer is yes, probably. I'm not trying to say that all that's hard and fast back in 2004 and 2005, but there are some clarifications that we'd like to make. And as we do that today, I think the the issues can get very very complex yet at the same time um Robert and Skyler have wanted to take on this discussion around densities. And

then we have representatives from the um community and and Jennifer's here to discuss some of the concerns that the community has regarding and that would be the homeowners that live at the Conwoods. So, Robert, uh, Robert McConnell. Um, so just I put together a letter and I think it articulates most of the concerns that we have from a federal perspective. Um there is an assignment of the rights and obligations of the development agreement. I've shared that with Garrett and Janet. Um and so the parties agreed to move forward under the terms and conditions of the development agreement. That doesn't prevent this party or these land owners from seeking amendments or changes or modifications to it. Um, we did want to make sure that in connection with uh the amendment that it was clearly stated that the obligations pertaining to these phases were undertaken by the applicable land owners and that gardener Cottonwood Creek was released with respect to any obligations. The first of those statements is actually in the the proposed form of development agreement. the latter isn't there, but I've spoken to Garrett and Janet and they don't believe there'll be an objection to adding that clarifying language with respect to that. Um, with respect to the the density, the development agreement provided for a total of 830 units that could have been grossed up in the event that we did um if the golf course was actually installed, there was additional available density associated with that.

The number that's being used in connection with this is 877. There was a density table and various. So there was a base zoning. There were three separate zones that were the base zones for this area. And as part of the PUD overlay zone ordinance and the application of that to this particular property, there was a density bonus table. And there were various things that were identified that set forth the available density bonuses if approved by the county in connection with various aspects of the development. And we went through that and and actually I think under the density table we could have gotten more than 8:30 but the the development agreement um states that it was a maximum of 830 unless the golf course was done. This proposal um removes the property that was best suited for the golf course. That's it was never a mandatory obligation. That's fine. Um, and it also takes out another uh amenity which was for phase six which was the equestrian center. I understand why that would probably not be needed or advisable any longer in Mountain Green. There's an equestrian center that's there already. And there may be alternative um amenities that they're proposing that in the county's discretion they deem acceptable replacements for that and and we can support that effort. The proposed land exchange is acre for acre. Um there's a drawing that kind of is just some ovals and you can look at that and say, "Oh, it looks like that there's more coming in as opposed to being taken out." But as I read the the application, it's an acre foracre proposal. One of the things that we did in connection with the original development agreement, there were various studies and and restraints analysis, constraint analysis that were done in connection with that. Um, we're

not seeing any of that with respect to the proposed property or even a slope analysis that's being traded. There was a concept of publicly available and usable open space that the property they're taking out if it was had been developed as a golf course would have satisfied that requirement. I'm not sure um that all of that what's being proposed in exchange meets that requirement. Um there's not information in the application to settle that. So if you remove those amenities and don't substitute them with something else that's acceptable, then there the same density qualification would be dropped. Um but again, that's within the county's discretion to look at the amenities being proposed and make a determination if there's a satisfactory trade-off with respect to them. And uh it's like again it's their property. They have the ability to make that. We simply under our development agreement and the assignment of that obligations under it we need to make sure that gardener cottonwood creek is released from those obligations. Um any questions with respect to that? Commissioners, thank you for this time, but we have to come and ask some questions. My name is Jennifer Lance. I'm a homeowner in the Cottonwoods and I'm representing the M's owners association. So, in the Cottonwoods, there are seven distinct HOAs at the time and we all meet together once a month to um manage determine how we can best maintain our community. So, as we've been reading through the development agreement of what might be changed, um we do have some questions on how that might impact the MOA in the future. Um I did send an email. I don't know if everyone was able to read it. I

just want to condense um kind of the the legal ease. Um it does um state that the MOA is responsible for maintaining the open space, the trails, the parkways. It also states the MOA shall own such native open space and shall be responsible for the maintenance thereof. So in that in that the MOA is the owner and the maintainer of the open space, we are concerned with what land is being taken and what is being given in its place. Some questions from the community include who would be responsible for ensuring the open space? Would that be the MOA? Who is responsible for the weed control? Right now, the MOA spends quite a bit for invasive species such as Dyer's W and thistle. Would that be required in this open space swap? Are there pest issues, vos, etc. that may require mitigation at the MOA expense? Are there natural hazards associated with the land being traded such as fire hazards, flood planes, mudslides, steep inclines that the MOA would be concerned of? Um, right now the open space that we have is known and we've assessed that and m and look forward to maintaining that if it does not swap. But the land that they're proposing, we haven't seen what that is. So, we just don't know how to maintain that. Um, additionally, we would like to seek clarification on just a a few broader issues. Is there an option under the existing development agreement for future phases to not be a part of the MOA? We did not see that in the development agreement as we were looking through it that right now we are bound to that land. Um, what specific land is proposed to be traded and how does it

compare to the open space we currently own? flat farmland versus hillside. Um, is the land being traded comparable in slope and that is unknown. Does the MOA bear responsibility for ensuring the future open space? A lot of people are concerned about that. If the future development phases do not contribute 40% open space as they currently do, will the density be limited? What types of trails are being planned and how will they connect to the existing trails promised in the Cottonwoods? Will open space boundaries be fenced? How will future phases connecting to the existing neighborhoods, streets, and open spaces be maintained? Um, what amenities will the future phases provide that the Cottonwoods are now losing? Um, um, Mr. McConnell just kind of alluded to that that the equestrian center is being taken away. The open space where the golf course was supposed to be is being taken away. So what will the residents gain in thatstead? What impacts are anticipated to the existing infrastructure including the neighborhood roads doing due to the construction process? That road is a school. So we just want to make sure that that is maintained properly that it doesn't impact the students. That is a pretty busy road already. What might it look like in the future? Um, just a few other questions that neighbors have been messaging. What would the development agreement look like um if it were to change? How would how would that look? What impact will it have on the homeowners? What exactly is being swapped? What is the wording before it is voted on? We

would like to know. what might be our impact and li liability in the future. Um I think the the thing that the homeowners are most concerned about is if this wording is changed in the document um how does that change the cottonwoods in the future? If the future developments are not part of the MOA, what does that look like? How do we maintain the cohesive unity of the community that we now have and how will that continue forward? Um, the development agreement is here to protect the people and the homeowners and we would just like to maintain that honor and integrity of what is now considered our land. Thank you. Commissioners, we're open to um questions at this time uh that we could answer for you. But I think in summary, there's just a lot to absorb as you can see and there's a lot of questions and maybe we need to um take our books and sit them out in front of you and go through them. Again, we're not in any way trying to say this is wrong and this is right. That's difficult. We're here to say, let's make sure that we all understand what's happening and what was hap happened in the past. Um, does it apply? Well, you you it's up to you. You can you can change that. We're just having the concerns between the homeowners and then the densities question and then the issues of making sure that this is all tied up into one document that can go into the future. Questions?

I do have one. So, sorry. Is it Jennifer? Thank Thank you for that. I wasn't able to open it. Would not open. So, thank you for doing that. Um, so Jennifer made the comment that, you know, the golf course, the equestrian centers are being taken away. But I want to make sure that I get this straight that 20 plus years ago when the agreement came to purchase the property, the development began, you had in there that a certain portion of it you didn't purchase at that time, which would be these lots that the Wilkinsons and these other families now, I guess they never lost ownership. You just never purchased them. So the those amenities aren't being taken away. you decided not to purchase the property and provide the amenity. Is that is that correct? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that just the way it came across to me was like it was being taken. It's like well I don't nowhere do I think was being taken. I just want a clarification. So with those amenities and I I think uh Jennifer kind of alluded to it that you guys look at that you own the property but yet you never purchased the property.

Well, that's not correct. I I I just want some clarification. Way of clarification. So So no, the the that property that's being discussed as part of this amendment is owned by others. Gardner Cottonwood Creek didn't purchase it. It is true that in the documents that as open space is set aside as part of the platting process then um much of it is deed to either the project owners association or the master's own owners association with the respect to the property that is being discussed as part of this change that's not currently owned by the MLA project and and I just

it's intended in the future if it becomes open space that it would be dedicated or owned by one of them. There's also the possibility of an agricultural that that was another possibility. Thank you.

And I believe that's something that can be addressed in the DA amendment because the original development agreement states that the MOA shall be recorded. However, if you look at the master the MOA declaration original itself is that can't affect private property unless they annex it in because it's specifically though that MOA declaration specifically detail what property it manages and it would have to be annexed in anyway. So,

so you're saying the MOA would not be held liable or responsible for any of this land swap unless it was annexed into the MOA. That's how I read the original declarations and then in within the amendment all they have to do is change the shall be recorded to a May and then they can negotiate whether or not that's something that's if the MOA wants them to join or not. So that's way around it.

So this is for Robert or Rula. Um this property that you're proposing for this land swap. Is it equal in for well let's just say it was for the golf course because you were planning on a golf course in this thing. Is it suitable to be able to you be used for either a park, golf course or whatever or any of the new um I mean because I mean the MOA had certain rights and certain obligations as far as open space goes and I'm all for open space. So this new area that you're planning on swapping, does that new area give the ability for the people if that's what they wanted to have within a development agreement or have part of your development agreement to be part of that open space or I mean because what I'm understanding is you're going to have to take that now you're going to have to go and put it into a new agreement which you're hoping to combine into the development agreement which then makes it into the them away. And I'm not I'm a little confused on it all because a few weeks ago uh the Wilkinsons came to us to have their portion. They wanted to do other things with it and I'm just I'm I'm a little bit confused things.

We're It's not Gardener, Cottonwood Creek or the existing MOA or projects that are proposing this change. This is a change brought forward by the the applicants which include um the Mark and Sheila Wilkinson Family Trust Raven and Heidi Nettleton Morgan County LLC. So they're the ones making the proposal for this exchange open space.

Okay. And so what we approved a few weeks ago or a month ago or whenever it was when you guys were here before or maybe we were just in discussion on it where um we basically you wanted to be able to put into your areas some um homes residential area and then you wanted to leave some of it in A20. And yet we're in this document you're saying that you want it to go back to the existing A20. So how is all that working out? Maybe I'm totally confused.

Well, and I'll let them address that probably instead of me with respect to suitability and they can speak to that as well because I like I said, I can't tell from the application. I I know there looks like there's along the hillside I see that they're proposing a trail through there. Um, and so I would assume that so there will be no golf course, correct? Correct. Commissioner Felro, can can Janet Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm okay. So, what the applicants are proposing is Matt Wilkinson does not want to be a part of this development.

All right. And we have some issues as far as enforcing that because well I think there probably was the original owners probably did sign an owner's affidavit agreeing to the development agreement

because that's what's required when a developer doesn't own it. It never got recorded against the property. So the development agreement I don't believe is an enforcable against the remaining property owners. Okay. and the overlay report is attached and incorporated into that development agreement. I don't think we can enforce it. So, I think the logical thing to do is let Matt pull his property out since we can't force it now as replacement, which they didn't have to do. the Nettletons and the new applicants are pulling in other property for a one-on-one exchange to bring in some other property so it meets the same amount of original development. Now, is it going to be exactly the same? No, because it's different property, but it was the overlay report that talks about the open space and and um describes the different various types of open space as well as the development agreement. That's all in the development agreement that I can't force on them. So, that's where we're at. Okay. So, maybe to clarify a little more. So Wilkinson's never did have a recorded agreement to be within the development.

Nothing that was recorded that said the development agreement. Now on the flip side, the ordinance that that is fully encumbras all the property because that was noticed up with the hearing and everything like that and we passed it. We don't need their permission to reszone. But I think ultimately when we're looking at this, it's like county back in 2006, you probably should have made sure that you had recorded that owner's affidavit. So you could have followed through with this all the way through. So So basically, the Wilkinson Family Trust doesn't even have to worry about it because they've already they're not part of it.

So the rest of the ground has no development agreement with it. Then therefore there's no entitlements. Is that what you're suggesting? Other way around. It would revert back to what it was before. A20. Matt's A20. Okay. Yep. But yeah, we of the ground would be A20. Everything that Matt is pulling out would be A20. Now with that, they have they're amending the ordinance in order to include that because everything has to parallel the development agreement and ordinance. And and I think Commissioner Ferrell is saying, okay, if this is flat ground and this is over 25% ground, you have to make that evaluation cuz that's really steep.

But they wouldn't have to even be bringing in the other property. I think we are stuck allowing Matt to take his property out and they wouldn't have to bring in other property. So I don't think beggars can be choosers if we want. Well, that's that's kind of why property. That's what I'm kind of asking is if they're already out, why do we have a land swap? Yeah, because they haven't been brought out. And this was the Nettletons, the applicants, you can ask them why why they wanted to bring land in. That's what they wanted to do. They didn't have to.

Okay. All right. Because I remember them telling us that that's they wanted to be part of that cottonwood group and they wanted to be able to provide that water for them and so forth. Can I speak to you? I'm I'm the representing the applicants and so we came about sure

well well since we started this Matt started this over a year ago but we came to the work session in I think it was before Thanksgiving so we're the applicants with Matt with the other owners of the remaining property in the cotton woods that is not that is owned by us not not gardener develop um so so to kind of clarify to make make Sure. We we've been working with the county and the attorneys for, you know, on and off for over a year. Sounds like we have a little bit more work to do that we just found out about today. So, we're going to ask for a continuence in the in the actual uh meeting, but um uh I just wanted to I just want to clarify that we were told that the the the PRUD zone um was our kind of binding document. So the development agreement not so much but the PR zone was and so that's why in the boundary of the cottonwoods is Matt's land that he wants to pull out. So we do need to do this amendment to pull Matt's land the Wilkinson land out. So during that discussion a year ago is when they talked about uh you know having some concerns with that. we as MCC is are the adjacent owners that are putting the one for one land in. So we we decided to work together with the other land owners to to do that because we had already gone before I think in223 and gotten uh about 23 pre-entitlements in the future lacking spend. So this kind of covers that for us. So, as far as the density issue, we went back and forth with the county over this several times to try and get a number nailed

down. And that's that's where we landed with with as far as the densities. So, uh I don't know if you have any other I hope that kind of explains Matt pulling his land out of the requirement to me. Um the land that's being pulled out, it's a little misleading. It's not flat land. It's not. So the the concept that you're trading this beautiful flat land for sloped land, it's the opposite. The land that's coming in is substantially less hilly than the land that's being taken out. Okay. So Matt, where is the land being taken out exactly? Is it not the the farm there or So that that's Ted Taylor's portion that flat. Teds is not being pulled out.

Yeah, it's on Do you remember those? I don't have all of the hills. Pull up Google. between time. I can also pull up the there's a map in the back. So phase 9 is split into two sections. Ted owns a part. The part that's being pulled out is all of the hilly stuff and not the flats. Oh, okay. Okay. So, while I pull this up, Janet, I have a question. So, they the other property owners as um gardeners did not um action their right to purchase. Um they could all pull out too if they wanted to. they would just lose the zone in time. Exactly. Okay. And they go back to A20 or whatever they were prior to the reszone.

And as far as the amenities are concerned, um I don't know losing they're not losing the golf course because that was requirement. Um as far as working with with with Janet, the requirements that needed to for was the western center and I think we already discussed where that was and how it appears at least from the mappings that we've seen that that was already plotted over. So here we go. Um so to answer Commissioner Blocker's question um feel weird calling you Matt but which which one is Matt's

nine. Careful. That is a touch screen. Yeah. Okay. The one that's outlined in red or the whole green. And that's not part of the farm, right?

That is part of Sorry, there were no trails. I I kind of want to remind there were no trails originally planned in this this area here. And if we went back and we have a table in our um addendum slides um in our presentation that shows like we we tallied up all the trails um and it I think the total in the original plan was like 10,000 something uh feet. We're adding another almost 14,000 by putting trails all through here and more in phase and I as well as an additional uh park in phase six to kind of replace that equestrian center that's being removed.

So you're also hoping to make that area you're hoping that it will be part of the MOA.

So that was that was a question that we thought was kind of later. We don't we can do our own we can do our own homeowners association and be completely separate. I would like if Jennifer you have a bunch of questions and I wouldn't mind getting a list of those. Could you email those to me? Okay. So, so uh definitely we're open to either being incorporated with the current uh uh HOA or do our own if it becomes too problematic and they don't want to um you know pay for insurance and and all that kind of stuff. Hello. Oh. Oh. Well, we we did back in TW we looked at an email last night. Um we did approach the HOA back in 2003, late 2003 to discuss and this is before we had kind of this plan, but we talked about our portion to come in and we went back and forth a little bit and ultimately they just ignored us. and even in the planning commission meeting he said he didn't want to have anything to do with this. So part of part of my thought process is um you know leadership changes a little bit with the HOA and we don't want to we don't want you know one person say no we want to work with you and then two years down the road when we actually do do some development because um phase nine parts of parts of phase six and probably um most of phase 9 is at least a year possibly two or three years for actual development. And so when we actually do the plats is when we do the geotech and um at least in my mind really working with them the homeowners association to say hey this is where the trail is going to be. Do you want uh you know benches here at these viewpoints? You know do you want to be a part of this? Do we want to do our own thing?

That kind of thing. So we we always thought that that was a little bit premature especially when we had originally reached out to them kind of got a little bit buffed but um so with the new leadership in the MOA um and I appreciate you wanting to meet with Jen. Yeah, is that something you'd be willing to do like be on their agenda and and answer some public comments? Yeah, sure. But it's hard to plan and really make plans if we don't know we can move forward with this. Right.

Right. And that's why we did the work session. We did get approval from um the planning commission two weeks ago and had fully hoped to, you know, get it passed tonight, but um understand from Josh and and Janet that there's a few um you know, revisions and minor tweaks that we need to make and we're going to have our lawyer um you know, we'll work through that and get a continuence to get on the I think it's two meetings for them just to give them all the time. Okay. Thank Can I ask a question? Not of you, but of you.

Okay. My question is is okay. If the homeowners association or the DA does not want to have that as part of the development agreement, then what happens with the open space that is now not in existence? or is there enough open space within your DA to where they can still complete that requirement of the DA?

So, so the existing phases have 40% open space. So, that that open space exists today. The the clarification should be as you come into phase 9, the previous commission back in 2006 or whenever it was 2005, they were nervous because phase 9 is what you look at as you come into the community. That is the hill that you see coming through the canyon. And they called that sensitive land. And we can go through that with you. That's just too much time tonight. And sensitive land meant that you can't see any homes. So there was no density in phase 9 because you could they did not want to see the homes on that sensitive land area. So phase 9's been presently farmed for many many years.

Phase 9. No. Yeah. Okay. there's they're farmed, but the land being contributed has never been farmed. Okay? And so there's there's a little bit of a difference in in that world, but that is a sensitive land that the previous commission and we can go through that with you and we can share that. We're not trying to say what you're what you're proposing is incorrect. We just want to say why is that so sensitive? because you could see it from the freeway and they were very concerned about seeing homes on the hill coming into the community. Maybe that's not a concern anymore. I don't know.

I have one question. Have you used bonus density based on the open space and amenities from phases six and nine? No. You haven't?

No. Never. No. They each phase has to stand alone and we haven't used any of that open space. And so they're right. they can they can do as Robert suggests and and we're not trying to get in the middle of that. All we're trying to say is let's just slow down and let's work together to make sure what's going to happen is going to be correct because we spent a lot of time on it. We think it's the best project in northern Utah and we think that it can be carried on. The question probably would be is why don't you just buy the rest of the ground?

Yeah, that is a good question. the council that we're the owners of the land and we're trying to make an agreement with you what's best for the the community and Gardner although originally was the developer did not purchase the remaining parcels he is not the right I understand that thank you everybody um we're running just a little bit behind um you guys need a break or you good to stand

we'll be saying the pledge of allegiance here in just a Um so welcome to our uh commission meeting. Um we're just after 5 o'clock. We'd like to welcome everybody here. Um everybody online. So we will proceed with um invocation by Commissioner Blocker and the pledge of allegiance. Our father in heaven, we're grateful to gather here tonight as a community and and to discuss important topics in our community that will help our community thrive and move forward. Help us to build each other up and not put each other down and and guide us in the words we say and in our ideas and in our decisions. And these things we ask in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Commissioner Blocker. Um I have had a request that so we do have a couple of of public hearings um this evening. So at 6 o'clock just because we have quite a few people to move that we'll do that at 6 so people don't have to hang around all night. So we'll move forward and then at 6 o'clock we'll jump into our our public hearings. That's okay. Um do so I guess we're supposed to recap the consent agenda.

Yes. Well I say now we have our consent agenda items. We go through that. Uh so the first item is the commission the draft commission meeting minutes from January 6, 2026. Um the next one is our annual renewal of our interlocal cooperation agreement with the county and the school district for the use of the fields and the gyms. Um the next is an RFP verbiage for the um us meeting the security requirements um as required by the state for elections. Number four is the agreement with HBME. We're already contracted under them. That's just the agreement defining the scope of work. Um we do still have an opening on our weed abatement board for a citizen whose primary um income comes from a or whether that's tillage or um ranching. Um the next is just a notice of a wildlife exhibit um and taxiderermy exhibit that we're going to be having at the historical society coming up. Um the next is we finally did uh get the agreed upon language with the county's predation management plan. Uh so agreement uh to do that the last or I'm sorry then the approval of the express recovery service. you approved that in on October 7th, but what they RFPd, what they submitted as a bid versus what their agreement said took uh took a lot of haggling to get them to actually commit to what they bid. So Garrett's got that in.

Well, no, I I think it was just working out the contract language more than anything. The bid matches and so nothing's changed there. it was just some of the provisions because there's um health information privacy and so that was the big thing is we just wanted to be compliant with the state requirements. And then the last is the publication of the 2026 elected officials conflicts of interest forms. Um that is required to annually be presented by the Morgan County Clerk Auditor. Um they have already been posted to the website in two places, the election page and uh the county notices page as of January 7th. Thank you, Kate. Any okay discussion?

I don't. I move that we approve the consent agenda items 1 through 10. I'll second it. I have a motion by Commissioner Ferrell and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I passes and this did we get mic on? No. Okay. I didn't want to sit here and wait for an I that 10 second delay. Perfect. Okay. Um, Commissioner Commissioner conflicts of interest. I would just say I live in the Cottonwoods. Have any comments? Okay.

Um, okay. So, we have a public comment um opportunity. So, we'll open this up to the public to take up to three minutes. Um, any comments you may have. Reminder that we do have two public hearings later in the meeting. So, if you're here for either of those, um, you can, you know, save your comments for that point. Um, and so if we have any public comment, the time is now yours. Please state your name and and where you have for the record. Seeing none, we will move on to our presentation. Um, I guess we have the new Morgan City Councilwoman, Moran Maguire. appreciate it. It's important.

Um, say just just introduce introduce yourself and tell us who you are and speak into the mic. Hello. It's number one. I've been told that, too. Speak into the mic. In the city council, we have buttons we get to push, too. So, I'm Laura Muire. I was Laura an M Laura Anne Turner previously, my maiden name. So, my family's been here for generations. I live on the island road in the city limits. So, the county is a lot bigger and vast than the city, but I'm happy to serve and looking forward to the term that I've committed to. So, looking forward to it. Do you guys have any questions for me? Who did you replace?

Eric Turner. Your brother. Yep. He's my brother. Oh, was it a contentious battle? It was very contentious in family parties, right? Yes. I always win. He knows. I'm the youngest, the prettiest, the smartest. How long is the city term? It's four years. Four years as well. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm looking forward to it. Yeah. Thanks for all you do in the county and for Morgan. And it's a great place to live. And I did give uh the councilwoman a copy of your um along with all the city council members your portfolio with your cell phone numbers. I do have that. Yep. And your assignments as well. Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. We will move into our action items. Nicole Reid.

Good evening. My name is Nicole Reid and I am with the Morgan County Extension Office and I am here to go over our 2026 cooperative agreement for Utah State University Extension Services with the county. So, do you have any questions for me? I just appreciate what you guys are doing. It's kind of fun to see how you guys are growing and and bringing the younger kids in and doing those kind of things and getting them excited about different projects and thank you for what you're doing. I appreciate that. Yes, you're doing a great job. Thank you. You know, I appreciate you. I do. Thank you. I don't have any questions on it. Yes. How's the um

I do. Sorry. Not related to the agreement. How is the shooting club coming? Um so, they haven't gotten started yet because of weather. They're going to be taking off. Uh well, maybe a little sooner than what they planned if weather stays mild like this. We hope it doesn't. Yeah. Um but they're getting everything in place. They're getting all their trainings done. Leaders are getting signed up and kids are getting signed up. So, in terms of that side of it, we're just about ready to go. Just waiting for weather so they can start practicing and get to competitions. Thanks for putting that together. Yeah.

Oh, that was exciting when you called and asked about using the rifle range and that. That's exciting to um you know, you always read on the news about um kids and firearms and that and I think if you you know, I'm a firm believer in good training solves a lot of problems, you know, and and so I appreciate you guys taking the time to teach our youth and and encourage the shooting sports and we're I think we're all big fans of the rifle range and and shooting and just outdoors. So, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. I will look for a motion if it's only the two. It's just the two of you. So, yeah. Split them down the middle. I move that we approve the Is it a resolution?

Yes. 2607. Approve CR26-07, the cooperative agreement for Utah State University Extension Services. I'll second it. Yeah. Have a motion by Commissioner Ferrron, a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I. I. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Nicole. Thank you,

Honorable Kimberly. believe it was in the packet the request for Mark Walker to receive the refund for his county fee. He had registered it and ended up selling it before his initial first registration would have been up. So he just wants the OTP refunded. the state did approve it and refund his state fee. So, is there a $50 handling fee for us to process the refund? So, I can let them know.

Well, my question on the whole thing is is okay, they got the the amount back from the state or at least a portion of it, but there was only two months left in the original. Oh my. Because the permit was I mean he filled it in October and yet the permit was going to be ending in October in December. It was ending in October. October 20 27. It would have ended on October of 25. He renewed it the beginning of October and then ended up selling it at the end of the month.

So it would not have been expired. unlike the rest of us that let it expire for a month or two and then go, "Oh, I need new tags." Sold it. If he hadn't have registered it, it wouldn't have been expired yet. So, usually that's the state stipulation is if it would not have been um expired, then that's when they grant a refund and that's been the county stipulation. But he had it the whole year, didn't he? But he's paying for the next year. He was renewing for the next year for 2025, not 2026. This says October of 26 is when it expired. Okay. All right. The new registration that he purchased that he paid for.

So it wouldn't his initial registration would have been October of 25. He renewed it on September 30th of 25 and then ended up selling it towards the end of I understand. So had he gone into November, would they have said no, you don't get your Okay. Yep. if he had not like one day into November past the expiration they would the state would not have granted it is that as long as it hadn't expired so if he would have waited and requested in November with them that's what he did

but if say he would have if it would have been November or October that it expired and he renewed it in November and then he sold it in November they would have said too bad so yes okay then they would not have granted it. The only way they do is if it would if prior registration would not be expired by the time the transaction. So, so the question the state only re uh refunded them $77 and yet we are giving him full amount. So that means none of our costs are Yeah, because his

So his fee was $8050 $80.50 50 from the state and they refunded him $77.50 which I think some of that's postal that they didn't refund that. So I can make a motion. I move that we approve the registration refund of $50 to Mark Walker.

I'm not ready. Well, I'm just Not sure I want to refund all 50, but that's okay. It's my reasoning for not. So, bills. So, what does it cost us to do it to do what? We're not paying postal fee, though. We have all Did you pay with a credit card? No. Good grieving. Second, state doesn't charge processing fees for using cards. And and that's what I'm asking is are did we eat right now? We're eating those. No, those might come. Yeah, the state system and the county system are different by taking.

So any processing fees, the state doesn't charge processing fees. I thought they did. The state does not charge processing fees for using cards. I always have. I have to pay three bucks every single time I use. If you renew it online, sometimes they charge you postage. Something different. Yes, totally different because I do have to pay it. Um, I'd like to amend that motion. Okay. I don't know if I'm going to second it. Haven't seconded yours. So, it could die as a lack of a second, too. So, which do we want? I mean, personally, I mean, so

we're talking we're talking a couple of dollars. I mean, it's not like we're rebing thousands or something. That's kind of my Yeah, I don't agree. I'm just giving my opinion, but it's that's fine. So, we have a motion in a second. So, I have a motion by Commissioner Blocker, a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Sorry, I forgot to ask that. Garrett hadn't looked at it. So, all right. Motion passes. Thank you, Kimberly. Okay, Red Hiner. Uh,

so if the commission will remember last year we passed a policy um at the end of the year that if you purchase something regardless if it is in the um if it's in their budget they that if it affects the county i.e. it goes on our insurance it has to come for commission before purchase. Um so this is not a budget adjustment. It is just a request to purchase out of um existing um budget. So did we already approve these? You haven't approved the purchase but it's already in his budget to purch they they come to us to approve it

because it hits our insurance.

Okay. And this is this is normal on Bosene funds. The way we bought trucks and the uh the people in charge before me uh did the same thing. You go you can go clear back to the Olympics when uh I got ready. They bought a couple of new plow trucks to get ready for Olympics and they were purchased about the same time in January because we get those funds and then I budget those in and road projects at the same time. So that's why we bring this. If you remember, hard to remember some of five years ago, same thing. So that is why we come in January for this purchase out of BNC funds.

And this is we have this already this same amount within the budget. Yeah, it's already in the budget. So the the tilt trailer is to haul which one? Remind me. Trackco the dozer. And give you a little history on that. Ours is wore out and bent and unsafe. It's been like that for a while. It's got worse where we decided to park it. And I have had a contractor move one time for us and then the state's been good to us to let us borrow theirs. But that can't go.

I think Brett and I had a good conversation this morning um about this and the the fact that we can't even move our own equipment is is kind of a major issue. And again, we we this is in the budget, but it's like we need to be able to move that dozer. We need to be able to move the the excavator, you know, um especially with all the work we're doing at the airport. Correct. You know, and Brett brought up a good point, you know, to have that dozer on a transport ready to go in case we need to cut a fire line, things like that. Um we need we can't be reliant on the state or contractors to come and and help us out. I mean, we do need to be somewhat self-sufficient. Um, and I think Britt you I don't know if you want to bring up the the BNC funds kind of how we discuss.

Yes, we are getting a little more BNC funds to help pay for this too. More than we thought Kate met about this. So I think it's about 110,000 from Kate. Yes, that's even additional. That's even a bigger bonus than we thought. So So it's looking pretty good that way on the budget. And then the the uh the transport, the one that we want, they're really close in price. They're within $200 of each other, but the one that we like the best, my guys like is the one from Reading Truck. So that was 57 365. Is that the VersaMax? That is the VersaMax. Yes. Okay. I say I I had a couple of questions because I'm very familiar with the VersaMax, but Sumo, whatever the other one was, they're both good trailers.

Yeah. I'm I'm just not It's kind of like when you look at a a CAD excavator or these off brandand it's like can you can you get service can you get parts that's another thing is is reading it used to be semi-ervice and that's where all our Mac trucks came from they've been really good to us about about service stuff so that that was the other reason my my road guy really likes working with them so I think that's we like to get the the dollar amounts really close so

I I just know like when we like when we do our budgeting or purchasing if it goes over if if we want to use the higher bid, we have to have a justification for it. And, you know, service, you know, be able to get parts and and whatnot. I mean, we're only talking a couple hundred. I mean, I'm Well, and this uh their bid included the document fee where the other one didn't. So, it's actually only like So, pretty minimal there. Yeah.

Right. And on the on the pickup trucks, uh I think we can vote them together if we can, but on the pickup truck, the uh the best price is the is the is the Dodge the Ram truck. I got both prices. Both of them on state contract. That's another thing we could just mention real quick. They're all on state contract. How that works is the state does that for, you know, for the and we can include counties and cities on that. And we do it on salt, other things that we buy, which is a great benefit to the county. was a pretty good price if you look at the price of this uh Dodge truck. So, compared to what you can buy one for the public, you know. Mhm.

So, the options and stuff are all these necessary for that truck to be able to If you look at the Dodge trailer, this is what they have in stock. This Oh, are you back on the trailer or you on the truck? No, I'm on the truck. You're on the truck. Okay. Yeah. This a tradesman's a basic truck. You can't get much more basic than a tradesman. Okay. I don't know.

That's just like what we have already. Same kind of trucks. We have cloth seats and plain kind of a plain Jane truck. It's not black, by the way. It's white. That's just a picture they sent me. All right. I move that we approve CR25. That was That's just the resol. I just need to approve the purchase. Oh, okay. So, that's last year's resolution.

Okay. And I move that we approve the purchase of both items, built trailer and the and the tilt trailer from Reading and the 26 Ram 2500 from Yellow Auto Group. I'll second it. A motion by Commissioner Fram, a second by Commissioner Bler. All in favor? I opposed. Okay. Motion passes. Thank you, Brett. Thanks, Brett. So, this is another item that was budgeted for last year. This is just the agreement for scope. Uh, this is Sean's. So, may I ask a question before we go to that?

So, this CR25-49, we approved it last year. That's the ordinance that says he has to since it's the first time you guys have used it. This is the first time someone has come forth and put something on our insurance. So, that's why I quoted it. Thank you. Appreciate that. Is this going to hit our insurance, Sean? All right. Good evening. Uh like K said, this is already budgeted for. Um I just need an approval signature to continue to get this process going and this process being our upgrade to enterprise.

GIS mapping software which we already approved last year in the budget. Correct. This is so this is the agreement for scope of work just kind of like HBME. Okay. I'll move that we approve the scope of work agreement with Pro West and Associates for implementation services for the transition to Enterprise GIS. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Felro. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. This one is not in the budget. Well, it kind of is.

Thanks, K. All right. Um, so the last few commission meetings I have brought this to your guys's attention. Um, tonight I am hoping and asking for approval for the new surveyor's position, in-house position. Last commission meeting you asked for more data numbers, uh, what it would look like, um, total cost for for the the new position. Um, I've kind of outlined what we're kind of looking like or looking at. Total would be about 224,000. onetime cost you're looking about 64,000 and then the recurring cost about 60,000. um for the expenditures that we so just in 25 we spent $125,000 just for survey work. It's contracting that's between review and subdivisions and then PLSS work. Um

so that's was civil and Telis. Intellis. Thank you.

Intellis is for the PLSS. SWAT SAS is with planning its own. Um, and then I a couple options. Now, I know 224,000 is a lot of money. Um, but would ask that have an open mind of what this could do for the county going forward. If this was approved, um, we could proceed with p purchasing uh, the additional equipment and the position one. for looking at it by time if it was approved by time we open the position, get it filled, get that new person in here, we would probably be looking towards the end of summer, maybe fall. So then, you know, we could look into just budgeting the equipment, the the extra cost for 27. So we would just do the position this year and then equipment next year. Couple options.

What do you recommend? I I would ask for it all. I do want to remind the commission that in your budget hearing for FY25, you increased the planning um I always call it planning community development budget um up to $110,000 for surveying services because they were averaging $9,000 a month. So you already increased that budget by over $60,000 for this year. Um and Josh is very excited for the opportunity to actually get those done timely and in house.

So So the budget then for that will that that we had planned for in the community development portion that will come over to the headquarters once it goes live. That would be the intent. But until then we still have need of right. Yeah. Contracted service. So, you have the 110 in Josh's budget or I'm sorry, community development budget and then you have the PL PLSS budget um which is 200 LSS have 70,000 but that's because we have we had back money. Okay. 13 uh 15,000. Okay. Okay.

So, there's 125. Okay. So, are you planning on starting at a range for salary or is this just the average salary that we think this was the average where I would like to to start? I would like to have it start at 100,000. You got to think the the amount of work that we're asking this new hire to take on a licensed certified surveyor. This is average. This is where I it it would where I would like it to be sort of at. But as all things HR, we do post it as a range. Okay, good. So that's what I was hoping for.

Yeah. Okay. So with the um the 125,000 that we spent last year, I'm assuming that's most that is that pass through like we're charging the 110 is the $9,000 a month is a pass through. That's a pass through. So that is neutral, revenue neutral or expense neutral, right? Because I would think if we're using our in-house, we're going to pass that cost on to the developer. The correct at the same rate to to help offset those costs. I mean, we want to make sure that we're whatever that fee is that it hasn't we don't change it like, oh, now it's in house. We don't have to charge that. Oh, no.

We make sure that we're going to gather that whatever that cost may be. Yeah. We and we have that detailed by I mean that's a different for if it's like a surveyor license or a surveyor trainee but yeah we'll have that that down. I actually handed Sean a stack of paper that big of here's all our invoices from Wasad Civil. If you want to figure out how much we're paying surveying versus everything else go for it. And he did. So I can agree because we have been spending a bunch not just last year but over the years

and a reminder uh because this guy got I think Matt asked me about it. Um we do have um our all of our surveyor agreements was civil and Telus are non-exclusive. So we would not be in violation of our existing agreements with Intellis or was civil by entering into this agreement or at going this route FYI. And so if we need extra help even after hiring the surveyor is that where we would go into would be was civil and um and is yeah the reporter uses was civil being I guess this new surveyor is going to be busy frequency.

Where are we going to put him? question. I offered my office and he said no. I worked here for said don't worry or Sean said don't worry about it. I remember him saying yeah we'll worry about it when we have a body. Well he's going to spend enough time in a truck that is his office. I you're not wrong. Um so with the vehicle do we have do we have something that this person go into or are we going to have to purchase a new vehicle just for that surveyor all the equipment part of the the outline? Yeah. Oh, no. I'm looking at that and that's why I'm like is that something that we like are we going to purchase another one or are we going to use we would have to purchase another one

cuz I I'm kind of looking at like with the survey equipment. I mean obviously we're going to need like I look at service bins lock up their tools. I mean Oh, I didn't even think about that. Yeah, those I mean I would say you're probably I'd probably add another $10,000 to bins and Well, KSL is exists. This is true marketplace. So um because I don't think a maverick is going to quite satisfy what he's needing. So lock up. Why? I'm sorry. Why wouldn't I'm just thinking the equipment that I see the survey is carrying physically? No, it's going to have to be locked up. It's going to have to be locked up. It's going to he's just going to take more space.

So you're saying that you're saying that the Maverick will not work. So we're going to have to go with a bigger vehicle. That's what I'm hearing. That That's what I'm thinking. If the If the vehicle that we have now that we just got could have a shell and it locked, it would work. It work just fine. It's perfect. It's big enough for it.

I just know the ones I chased down the lane across the street, they were figuring they were trying to steal property. They were in a bigger vehicle. I was just looking at all the equipment they had in their truck that it's seems fairly cumbersome. You know, there's a lot of bits and pieces. And I know I can fill an F-150 with electrical parts pretty fast, ladders and everything else. So

So I I know it's um we're kind of asking for something that's synonymous even though we're talking about the option. Hey, our fire truck in use. Um the opportunity to do it in two chunks. Um but we we do need kind of a response on are we okay to post this position? Um, and then if and when we post a position and hire someone, we're probably like I don't want it to be disingenuous that we're not going to come back and ask for money for equipment. If a vehicle is something we need to roll into the next FY, it's something we need to roll into the next FY.

I I appreciate all your work, Sean, getting all the numbers and the data. Um, I I think the county when I, you know, talking to Josh, talking to you, seeing the problems we're having with neighboring counties and surveyors and costs, I I think it's, like you said, I think we're going to get every dollar out of the surveyor if we go this route. So, I think we're kind of at that I think the county is kind of at that point to where, you know, if we're spend $125,000 and we're using them this much, spend a little bit more and use them 40 hours a week. Great. I think that's a good I think that's a good ROI on our money. I I believe so.

Move that we approve the full-time surveying physician for to be under the Morgan County Recorders Office for the year 2026 and beyond. In other words, we're going to hire one. Okay. Do you want me to wait on all the budget adjustments until we get that stuff back? Because they could come with their own equipment and we just pay a lease fee. That's right. Okay. Just wait. Probably just get But at least give us a green light to post it. This might be what it costs. Okay. Okay. I'll second that.

And it will come from whatever budget you tell us. Uh it'll probably come from our budget or uh our payroll adjustment line. Okay. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Fackerel and a mo motion by Commissioner Ferrell and a second by Commissioner Balker. All in favor? I I post. Thank you, Sean. FYI, Sean Jeremy is calling this your established time on the commission agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Sean. Erica,

so it's been a minute since we've uh had to add a a county bank card. Um, but now that I have an emergency management director that is also ACU that is also our ambulatory deputy chief and is acting interim fire chief for the next at least week or two. Um, Eric has been using my card because I never use it, but then when I like today when I needed it, I had to use Casey's card. So, um, per our policy, the commission has to one approve that, um, this person, just as their signature says in the packet, um, is approved to have a county card and set the limit for said card. Um, the reason that they have the card right now is mainly because when we transport, we have to pay that toll if um, and just for regular every other day things. So, um Erica has signed um the purchasing card policy. It is up to the commission of whether or not you want to authorize a county bank card to the county emergency management director because I will be coming back and asking for a second one for the fire chief. Um when I have a signed document that says they're going to be our fire chief and um to set that to this is the how much we have on average on cards, right? 2500. That's how much Boyds was. Yep. It's the 2500.

Great. Erica, I appreciate all the mini hats you're wearing. I think you're amazing. And I will uh move to accept the request for a county bank card with a limit of $2,500 for use by the emergency management as well as an interim fire department need such as ambulance tolls. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Faker. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks, Eric. Thanks, Eric. Now, Kate, may I ask you for it? Um, on this those ambulance tolls, have we by chance just gotten a a reduced? Well, we have four ambulance. Okay.

Uh, do you want to speak to that since you're the big boss, including the Bates Motel of? Yes. The one we won't use to transport, but it'll save a life. Yeah, there is no um discount basically when we go up to Oxford Regional Medical Center, the Adams Avenue tollbridge, and they charge us full uh the $2 every time we pass through. Even though you do not have the little sticker. We have the sticker and they're still charging the full amount because you got an extra tire, right?

Yep. Yep. So yeah, if we go through lights and sirens, they let us through, but then they charge us twice on the way back out. Just just turn the sirens back on coming the other way. There you go. See, just go both directions. That's in trouble for a lot of things. Okay. Just curious. That's a good question though. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Uh I need a motion to go into uh board of equalization. I move to go into board of Morton County Board of Equalization. Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Ferrell and a second by Commissioner Walker. All in favor? I.

I. We are now the Morgan County Board of Equalization. Um you will notice that there are things redacted um in this week's packet. It's because we had hackers um getting onto our packets and taking the appellants uh email addresses and then sending them an invoice with my signature block for $3,500. 4,800. I gave him a discount. It was it was fraud and we just had to say it's not Kate. Kate doesn't take any money. So that's why these will now be redacted going forward.

I appreciate that. Yeah. I tried to be helpful and created a checklist so that see what the requirements are to to approve a late appeal. So, I hope that was helpful for you. Um, you have the information in your packet and you just need to make a decision. I had some questions for you for Leslie or for the assessor. Either one. It's more Leslie at this point. Okay. Well, whoever it is that can answer the question.

This first one, MTG Capital LLC. What is their reason for? I mean, I could not quite understand. I can speak to that. So, they're asking for primary. Um the reason they are stating is because they they're saying that they qualify. So this is in Wasuch Peaks Ranch. Um they have a renter that has a lease agreement, but um they are also getting primary on their own property in Summit County, which is which is why we recommend denial. But um

you can only get primary on one residence. Yes. Correct. Plus this parcel wasn't built in its entirety. Yeah. Janelle, it was at only what 25% completion on one year.

So for 2025, Janelle Walker, Morgan County, um the house was at 25% complete for the year of 2025. So what they're asking for is for um it to be primary as a primary residence. And so what would they would basically for the 2025 year number one they haven't lived there for 183 consecutive days. And the renter uh we did find that they have a home that is in Summit County that they are getting primary for. Correct. But the question before the uh board of equalization is whether or not they qualify correct for a late appeal. and that's your decision.

And did they give any explanation as to why they would qualify for a late appeal other than submitting their lease dates?

Um my just my thought is number one I have written down here 183 days. They did not even be they weren't there for 183 days out of the year. And if that's one of the primary stipulations for them to be able to be in there uh to be recognized as primary, I don't think that qualifies. Now, as far as the late appeal, I didn't see anything that was relevant maybe to them even being in that situation.

I think you look at the county failed by its act. No, we didn't fail. County records the property contain a fact. now and medical emergency or death or I don't see that they I mean I I think that checklist right there is pretty we don't have to go hunt it's my opinion it's pretty cut and dried right there that they they don't like that's my opinion I agree so therefore I move that we deny CR26-2504-E TT Capital LLC

second I have a motion by Commissioner Ferrell and the second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Next off. Great.

Okay. Um same request for opening of a late appeal. um giving a medical emergency as a reason medical emergency did occur after uh the date of the due date of the late appeal. So my question on that one is is they had clear up until 9:16 or 9:15 to do it under regular statutes and yet they the emergency happened in 106. Then did they even live in the house? three days and then there was another part. It says since the rental has been vacant for a year did not understand you. That's in theirs their information to Leslie. So, I'm just curious, can somebody explain? There's not a problem with the mail. I mean, I want to give everybody a break if I can if it's their primary residence. This one here, I cannot.

So, they give several different reasons. One is they didn't get their mail forward. So, that that one doesn't matter. There's the medical emergency, which that could be the end of employment. And then the other one, but right after building the home. Do we know when they got occupancy? Yeah. When was the occupancy? Can we because that would determine whether they were there for 183 days. Well, again, I'm going to state that that's not the question on the table. Um, but you're welcome to answer it if it could go up for evaluation. As of January, I'll I'll just say this. As of January 1st of 2025, it was a new a new build and it was at 100% for January 1st of 2025. It was January 1. It was 100%.

Okay. When did they move into it? You don't know that they So January 1 of 25 they would have had a cop in a certificate of occupancy in order for it to be 100%. Oh, it was okay. Sorry. and they've lived in it the whole year. So, but that's not the question. The question today is yeah one of the checklist

I feel like they have extraordinary circumstances with the end of employment and search for new employment and then what happened to her mother suffering a stroke. Um to me that qualifies for and the circumstance the unanticipated circumstance they were completely unanticipated circumstances.

Is that a motion? I think Commissioner Fakro had, you know, I mean, they had up to a certain point to to file it and this this emergency happened after that. It didn't happen right before or during or it happened after it was already late. Do we know when when the loss of employment occurred? They did not state that in their application. It

just said right after building home. So, whatever that means. So they moved in when? Oh, we don't know. And I I'm I'm not seeing that loss of I where would you say loss of employment is because I have to put it in the resolution. Unanticipated circumstance. Another extraordinary year anticipated circ I mean I guess that could fall in there as loss of employment. Okay.

Some stress there. That's the only one that would that I think would qualify would be the the medical emergency or that unexpected loss of stress on that. The other two. So when they checked that box extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances in parentheses it says submit copies of documentation to verify that. Did they submit anything to verify? No. what what you have is what was submitted to the board of legalization clerk.

Okay. So, question for Lesie or Janelle. Um if they've lived in the house for that long time, they probably assumed like a lot of us that their home was their home and it was their primary home. Was there any kind of paperwork that was going back and forth to verify that they were permanent residents or not? Chanel question.

So January 1st of 2025, we look at all the homes that are 100%. We do as a courtesy, so you have to remember that it is by the taxpayers's responsibility to sign the primary residential exemption, but as a courtesy, we do try to send them out. Um so it would have started in you know February and we sent one in March, April, May and June and they never replied.

So six and so they actually signed they decided they signed the declaration. So we do have primary residential exemption um January 1st of 20 or December 1st of 2025. So just a couple months ago that they just signed it for it. So going forward in 26 they will be getting the primary residential exemption. That's why you get paid the big bucks. Yeah, our big bucks. I will look for a motion. Meet the criteria.

Pretty much what it comes down to. She says he lost his job right after they moved in, which would have been in January. And then in the fall is when her if they have paperwork from October February until September or June, I'm not seeing a I'm seeing a as much as I want to help them. Well, they and remember they can always appeal to the state. They can always go to the state. Our job is does it fit here? And if it doesn't, they can appeal to the state and hopefully hopefully the state appeal to the state even though we reject it. Absolutely correct. Yep.

Okay. I move that we deny CR26 20-2505-BOE. As much as I want it, I'll second it only because I don't see any documentation of the end of employment. If that were included and I had that documentation, then I would second your motion. Okay. So, I have a motion by Commissioner Fernand, a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I I Any opposed? I,

Commissioner Blocker. I I was just going to point out I think that's a great way to to help the public understand what's needed because we don't know when the unemployment happened and and one of the checklists is during the appeal period and so I think that that you're right on in making that finding. Uh chair, I did get a text from Commissioner Newton that he will not be able to attend this evening.

Okay. um you have already as you've done several of these. This is your first hearing. So this is one that you approved last commission meeting and this is him or the applicant coming before you as the board of equalization to hear the request. So now we're not worried about do they qualify for the late appeal. The late appeal has already been approved. This is you determining whether or not they will get primary. The applicant is here. Correct. Yes. Okay. I've only been communicating with him by email. Mr. Harper dece. Okay.

So, this is the one you were saying we're going to kind of work our way through because we haven't done it yet. Correct. Okay.

I So, let's just kind of go over how we do this. Okay. Um, but what what it would be was the appellant would have so much time to basically explain why their circumstance is what they are and why the assessed value was was wrong or whether they need that exemption. Um, and then it is my due process to be able to basically counteract that or say why the assessment was made and why things were the way that they were. So if he wasn't here or he was here. Okay. So he would have the right to be able to speak his space. So I can give you where mine is. Um and then you can basically because you are the board of equalization then you would make the judgment call on where you would like it to stand. And it can be either side or it can be in the middle. It can be wherever you want it to be.

Is this something we can postpone until he is here in person? I believe that when it's a hearing, it just follows through. And then whether you accept or deny it, um then they still have the right to go to the state if they would like to. They still have the due process of going to the state whether it's approved or denied. So do you want my side? Okay.

So with the Harper um let me just get my information really quick. So we do have um a deed that was put through 96 of 2024. Um it was in a new parcel. It also is changing to an new parcel as well uh for the year of 2025. And so we did send out disclosures. We have an email. Um, so they have a certificate of occupancy on my space too. It was 314 of 2025. So that would have been in March. Uh, we did send out the primary residential exemptions. We sent out uh 3 of 25, four of 25, five of 25, six of 25, and he returned um that they returned this statement for the primary. Um, it was at the end of June of 2025 that we got that. So that was June 23rd of 2025. So if you guys remember when I put in my uh tax role, that is in May of 20 May 22nd is when I sent in the tax ro. So the tax ro had already been in for a month. Um, so I have an email that I have um my deputy Holly Wild, she sent out stating that it would be for the 2026 year that our tax role was already or our assessed values were already placed in and our assessment was already to the clerk auditor. So at that time they still have the right to appeal um through the board of equalization and that would be also information that would be sent on their disclosure from the clerk auditor. So, we have um their home that we did make sure that it was at 100% for January 1st of 2025. And now

we had sent out a few of the primary residential exemptions. We did get them in June. Um but the change was for 2026 year. And so that's where the that's where the judgment is, I guess. Just making sure um Mr. or the appellent has not appeared. Harper. Yeah, since I ran the restroom. Mr. Harper. Okay. So, he did have he did have submit things too and I don't know if you were able to go over them.

Um I had to because they had that you had to redact certain things.

Yeah. You send them directly. Well, Leslie sends them directly to the commission, but the the evidence as far as like his voter ID and his tax of like his bill, um that stuff is redacted. Y So, as far as what I recall, he or they did not tell us when they had moved in.

Is that correct? Um, no. It's not stated um commissioner when they moved in. However, um their application for FY2 or for their 26 was turned in in June. So, we can assume that it was at least 5 months. Um do you know when they So, I submitted the CO um that's in there. Hold on. And it was in m March when the co so they met the 183.

So it was March that we started March 14th of 2025 is when we had the certificate for the COO and so we sent we sent out the first primary in in March. So they did take you know if you lived in your home in March you would have the 183 consecutive days. So what is your recommendation? Can you give that to They cannot give a They cannot give a recommendation. So they turned in their primary June 23rd, 2025, but that is for this year 2026. Yeah. Because they thought tax were already

they thought it was supposed to. So just sorry just to read just to read any regular person has from when they get their disclosures they have 45 days to make any changes that need to be made. So those are and we had they were actually out before the end of July this year. So they have until September 15th of every year to make those decisions or make those changes. So, and then this didn't come to our attention until I don't know what day, less, two, three weeks ago. A month ago, basically a month ago.

However, yes, the commission would approve the open this case. So, if you think about it, this is their September 15th. Yep. You've already decided that part. Now, you just need to decide whether or not they qualify for a primary exemption. Yep. Now, you're just weighing the evidence one way or the other. whether you approve their primary or deny their primary and then we proceed forward.

I think under the circumstances and we talked about it last week or last time is that they thought that they were even though they had that statement there that said it was going to be for 2026. They thought that it would be for 2025 also. I think they've met all the rules for 2025 even though they did not get it stated as that. Am I correct in that thinking? You might want to just take that mic with you and sit over. She She can't I know, but I'm just asking for verification. That's all I'm asking for. That's not mine to decide. That's yours to decide.

Right. But I'm asking they gave you the information on 623 correct or 622 and that information was is they fig they thought it was going to be for 2025. That is what they stated in their application for that's what they said were their assumption but I will stand next to on my space I will stand next to my deputy of her posting and saying that it would be for 2026. Yeah. And they did not read that part. Um, but the late appeal is already open, right? So, right now we're discussing that right now.

Right. So, right now you're we're ignoring the late appeal. This isn't late. This is now say, okay, were they permanent residents? Yes. Yes. And they provided documentation that qualified them. Reading the email, just so you know, this will grant you primary for the 2026 tax year. I'm I'm I don't know what they're thinking, but maybe they were thinking, okay, this grants us 2025 and 2026 is my was this the one where they were talking about she was they had a b she was pregnant, right? Is that this one? That was what they were using as the preclampsia and all that. And so was that this one? I don't think I can't

I'm trying I'm we we've talked to so many of them. I don't believe that's the one. I believe that this was they were saying it was a county mistake because they said that they received it, but when looking at the emails, it did say 2026 and they assume they were already under that in 2025. Not the same one. Okay. I'm just trying to It'd be nice if they were here to say this is was our reasoning and it's hard to remember. We've talked to too many. Can we postpone it till they come? I think well if we're in a hearing we don't it doesn't sound like we

we we don't allow that in regular board of equalization. If you fail to meet your designated time you don't get a second chance. Um I I'm a little the reason I'm confused is the question the board of equalization has to answer tonight is do they qualify for primary exemption in 25? my opinion, they qualify, but

and they submitted their documentation that made them qualify as of FY 26, which implies that they would qualify in 25. It's just they missed a deadline and you have already approved the late deadline waiver. So, is everything for a motion? I think if we approved the late deadline waiver, yeah, we're saying, okay, you you qualified for 2021.

Not necessarily. There may have been some like let let's say that someone had a medical emergency that they met the reason for the late appeal, but they only lived in the home for 10 days out of the year, then they still wouldn't need the primary residential. Right. Right. So, there are two separate

Yeah. They're two separate analyses to make, but if you recall back to when they were here or what you've read, um, under the statute, I've just been trying to find what it says, they have a burden of proof to show that they qualify, but it's a prepoundonderance of the evidence, which is more likely than not. So, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt clear and convincing evidence. It's just more likely than not. So some people will say 50.00 repeating 1% like it's yeah it's not as high a burden as you might hear on other things but it is their burden not the counties

to show by prepundonderance that it should be what they're requesting. I don't know if that helped or was more confusing, but but we we've we've approved the fact they applied late applied for it late. Does their documentation prove that they live there and they qualify for that exemption at this point? That's that's it. Was their application other than being late, was the application complete and does it justify primary exemption? That's the question for us now. Make sure it does.

Make a motion. I'm just trying to recording. I move that we approve CR26-2506 BOE because they've met all the requirements to become her primary residents in 2025.

I'll second it. I have a motion by Commissioner Ferrell and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? Motion passes. Need a motion to go out of? I move we go out of board of equalization. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Fel. All in favor? I I'm going to be Matt this time. All right, Jeremy. We need to take just a turn. Okay. I need to grab

Welcome back. Okay, so we will it's after 6 so we can move into our public hearings. Perfect timing. So Jeremy, I think it's yours.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and good evening to the county commission. Application number 25.046 046 is the Whisper Ridge at Stone Canyon Development Agreement, Third Amendment. The applicant is Bert Sheffer, who I don't believe is in the audience tonight, Mr. Chair. The owner uh for the application of of and and of the relevant property is the Whisper Ridge at Stone Canyon Association. And the request for tonight, Mr. vice chair is to amend the whisper ridge at Stone Canyon development agreement to remove the requirement for a professional property manager to maintain the common open space. So staff has having done a review uh the viewing departments being the planning development services department and the county attorney that the request is is simple and have the following findings as contained in your meeting packet tonight but I will read into the record Mr. Vice Chair. First that the proposal is not detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the public. two, that removing the professional management requirement allows the community to self-manage common areas while reserves are built and maintenance needs are addressed. Three, that the amendment uh maintains the intent of the development agreement and does not alter approved land use standards, required improvements, or overall development density. The planning commission heard this in their regularly scheduled meeting on January 8th, 6. There were a few comments during the public hearing portion of the meeting, Mr. Vice Chair, that referenced the unckempt neighbor nature of some of the common areas in the Whisper Ridge subdivisions. The applicant went into detail about how there have been several property management companies uh hired and let go throughout the years that uh for the purposes of the maintenance of the subdivisions of that area have not done

a good job in his own words. And so by this amendment, they would be able to take on the management of the property themselves uh until such a time as they're able to uh hire a more suitable management company for the for the needs of the the association. Mr. Vice Chair, discussion from the planning commission was after that presentation therefore minimal. The planning commission voted to recommend approval to this body with a vote of four to zero. Chair Maloney being absent along with member Watt absent from that meeting. Otherwise, Josh and I are happy to answer any questions you may have, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you.

So, are we're not we're just allowing them to do it on their own until they can come up with a new one. Is that correct? I suppose they could come back with an amendment in the future, but this amendment would allow them to do that. So, so it's not changing any of their development agreement. It's just asking for an amendment at this point until they get this until they find somebody that's willing to do it for and do a good job. More like the current language of the amendment constrains them from self management or hiring themselves, I suppose. So if they wanted to hire professional companies in the future.

And point of clarification, Commissioner, this will not revert back to the original language requiring professional property manager. This is this would be going forward they would be able to manage it themselves without a professional property manager.

So I guess I mean one question I have is that let's say 5 years down the road whenever they're doing the same thing these professionals are doing. Is there anything in there that allows the county to come and say, "No, you need to get this taken care of." Is there anything anything that would allow us to go back them saying, "You're not fulfilling your responsibilities." Um, so anything that they do that is contrary to the codes of the the county, we can enforce through our code enforcement policies. Um, but if it's just they're not maintaining the amenities and the open spaces, it's really something that the private property owners within that subdivision would have to address with their uh CCNRs and their HOA. We don't we don't get involved with the private property disputes between CCNRs, HOAs, and uh the property owners

because I I would just hate to remove something that even though it's not working, remove something on the hopes that they're going to, and I'm not saying they're not going to do a wonderful job taking care I mean, it's their property. I would hope that they would try to take good care of it, but then if they don't, then it's just we've created a big mess because we've removed that requirement because they can't find somebody. I mean, I guess that's just my my really only concern is um so the county hasn't enforced it anyway because we don't get involved

in the the day-to-day maintenance unless there are code violations, something health safety, there there are times where the county can step in. And so anyway, from from the county attorney office perspective, what Janet's looked at, she's read through those development agreements. Um my understanding is that this was just a way to allow them another option. It doesn't remove any CCNR or any obligations for the HOA to provide those services. And if private parties that are subject to that HOA or have an interest want to pursue some sort of enforcement, they can, but that's not the county's role because we haven't enforced it up to this point anyway. So, it doesn't change except giving them another avenue to pursue enforcement. And I was at the planning commission when this was heard. And um a lot of the the neighbors from this community, they were there and spoke in favor of this. And um it also helps with their budget as well. And the HOA president, if you remember, has come and presented to the county commission in the past talking about their financial situation, what they're hoping to do to crawl out because there was I mean, they were paying a ton of money and getting nothing for. And so I I like I said, I just, you know, when we have in that development agreement, again, we require this thing to be taken care of and this is you're going to take care of it yourself, but then now we've removed that requirement. I just want to make sure that they're again I I think that people want to take care of their properties and they want to have it and obviously they care. They wouldn't be here saying hey can we can we take care of this ourselves. So I was just wondering if there's anything that we need to again looking

years down the road is this something that could come back to owners and could have come back to be like well you removed it. I think it could get much worse. What's that? I don't think it could get much worse. They're technically compliant because they are paying someone to do the work. It's just not being done. So, they're technically compliant with the development agreement. So, I guess you could say that's why we haven't enforced it. They're paying for it. They just don't care. Yeah. So, but to your point, if it's taken out, then we wouldn't even have that ability to look and see if they are paying someone to do it. I don't know. Again, just something that came where we we required it however many years ago.

Now we're removing requirement and allow I mean I guess I mean I we're not moving the requirement. We're requiring them to take care of it themselves. We're just removing the requirement that they hire a professional to do it. I don't have any more questions. I just move that we go into public hearing. Thank you. I'll second it. Here we have a motion by Commissioner Backel and a second by Commissioner Walker. All in favor?

I. You're now in public hearing. If we have any of the public that wants to address this agenda item, please come forward and you have three minutes. State your name and where you live. I don't see any. See? Move that we go out of public hearing. I'll second it. Motion by commissioner effect. by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I I out of public hearing for a motion.

Okay. I move we approve an amendment to the Whisper Ridge and Stone Canyon development agreement to remove the requirement for professional property manager to maintain the common open space with the findings as listed in the staff report and based on the text listed in exhibit C dated January 20th, 2026. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I. I. Any oppos?

Motion passes. Okay, Josh, you're up. Um, item number 10 is application number 23.072. It's an amendment to the Cottonwoods development agreement and PUD ordinance. Um, we have met with the applicants multiple times. There was, uh, some discussion during a work session earlier today. Um, Jan and I have been going through the development agreement. There's some additional changes that need to be made. Um, and so we're requesting that this item be continued until February 17th. This will get the give the applicants uh, attorneys time to work with Janet um, and Garrett to get the development agreement language uh, in order. We have to have a public hearing first.

Well, I say so with that, we did have a request that we have a lot of word went out. A lot of people were coming to speak. So, we're going to open up to public comments. We can have those comments. Um was was kind of their request. And so, you're welcome to do that. Uh if you do, I would request that before you turn it over to a public hearing, you at least let the applicant speak a little bit to what the proposing.

I'm fine with that. Katie Middleton. Um I represent the the applicant and the owners. Um so like uh Josh said, we were prepared to to present this today. Um we've already presented to you in a work session earlier few months ago. Um we did get uh we did get it passed by the planning uh commission two weeks ago. um and heard from uh some of some of the community members um and then with the the work session too, but um today just you know ago talked to um Josh and Janet had a conversation with them and um sounds like there's some refinements that need to be make made to the DA. So we're going to let our attorney work work with them as well as us to get those refinements done and then and then come back. But totally understand with a short notice that uh it's totally appropriate to have a to have a hearing. So um just here to listen to the public um and um see if we can't incorporate um you know some of those things or see if they're already answered in in what we're we're presenting. Um I did wanted to just touch on uh some of the HOA concerns. Um, for those who weren't in the work session meeting, um, there was some concerns that we hadn't brought that to the HOA yet. We we did reach out to the HOA under a different leadership um, a couple years ago and a similar uh thing. It didn't include Matt's land there, but um, basically we're didn't didn't move forward with that. Um, but I have been in contact with uh Jennifer, send her an email and um there was a lot of questions about whether the H the current HOA would be required

to take over the maintenance and um all the insurance and all that kind of stuff with the trails that we're proposing to bring in um and the parks. And I guess we can work with them. It's it wouldn't be we'd come in and they would be obligated. it would be either they would vote us in or we would do our own. So, um that's something I feel like would be more appropriately taken to on each phase as the development is is brought to you know the plat phase and like I said I think before was phase some of phase six and a lot of phase 9 if not most of phase 9 is a couple years away um just because we have some infrastructure things that we need to do. So, um, anyway, I I'll, uh, look forward to hearing the public comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Move for a motion. Okay. I move we go into public hearing. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, we are now in public hearing. Um those in the public if you'd like to come to the podium state your name uh where you live and please keep your comments to three minutes so that we can uh kind of get through the people that are here. So don't rush at once. All right. Good. At least there's one. Good. And can you state your name?

My name is Michelle Stocking. I live in the Cottonwoods and represent a portion of the HOA that is the Cottonwood Meadows of the Cottonwoods development. Um I have a few concerns that I wanted to address um with this proposed change of land. Um several things here that I wanted to say. One, probably my biggest concern um that was stated is that in the development agreement, the change to the development agreement, the amendment, they're asking to change the wording from the DA should be amended to state that the MOA may and not shall be recorded against each phase. And as you heard um the applicant say, you know, um mention that they do not need to necessarily join our MOA. I think at least for me and for the people that have reached out to me today, my phone has kind of blown up with people today that are inside of my area that I oversee in the HOA um MOA um that we want the continuity that continues with um we want the continuity of our development and um I the wording changing from May to Shell maybe has some additional impact than just this one development. There's other areas of the cottonwoods that are still yet to be developed. And if we change the wording from May to shall or shall to May, does that mean that any future development does not have to continue with the continuity that is currently in place in the Cottonwoods development and that they may choose to create their own um HOA and not be a part of us? And also if that's the case they're what's the impact on our development in our community if they're using our roads, our amenities, our sidewalks, our lands and things like that that are our trails that are already a part of our MOA. Um if they're not going to be a part of us and another concern that I've I have and that I've also had addressed to me is

what are we getting in return? um if they're coming if they're exchanging this land and coming in and um being a part of our area, our community, our development. Um what is the benefit to the homeowners that are currently there? Um additional trails are great, but um I had several people say to me, "We don't want another top park. We have enough small parks in the Cottonwoods. There's it's not the amenities that people want." And I don't know that we're really asking the community what it is that they want. and um there's too much unknown about what is going to happen and um what the long-term effects are. Another point I want to make is if we are making these changes to de development agreements, what is the precedence we're setting within the county for future development agreements as well as for the future of the Cottonwoods development? And I think precedent is an important thing that we need to look at as well as community impact and community input. people purchase land and our homeowners within um the Cottonwoods with this development agreement in place and had and new and you know and when you purchase land you have you know you you have the opportunity to look and see what developments and things are in place, what the HOA minutes and rules and all those things are and um the any future development impacts current homeowners and their needs. So I guess my um just to find finish up my my comment is that I think that it is the commission's job to make decisions based on highest and best use of land and also to um to consider the needs of the community, the impact of the community and what the people want. And um I don't know that in doing in the way that this has happened that there's been enough time to consider community impact and community needs and wants. And so I'm not against

it necessarily, but I would like to see some more information given and some more community um outreach done to know what the community really wants as this development goes forward and how it's going to impact current land and owners and roads. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other comments or Oh, wait a minute. We might three minutes. We want to just um Can you state your name again?

Jennifer Lance, the current MOA president for the Cottonwoods community. I just want to reiterate that we are not opposed. We're not opposed to the development. We're not opposed to the people. We think they're great. What we are doing is just protecting the rights of the homeowners that currently live there that have signed into this agreement. And we're promised things that may not come to pass if if the language has changed. Um really the feedback I've received is that we have 20 years of homeowners who have bought in, paid dues, and were promised something as what their neighborhood might look like. If that is changed in the de development agreement or that is null or void because future um developments are shifting, how do we maintain the cohesive plan that was promised to these original residents? Um the biggest thing is that as phase six and nine may not be a part of the MOA, we have seven phases that are in the MOA, that are paying dues, that are maintaining the land, that are clearing the sidewalks, that are shoveling snow, and then we have two phases that are not. And how does that look in a development that is all called one unit? And that is the question of the MOA at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Once see no other comments motion to move that we go out as public hearing.

We're in public hearing. Oh, what? Go out. Go out. Didn't I say that? Missed the out word. I'm sorry. I heard it. I heard out. I I thought I heard out out of whatever we're in. Second. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Ferrell and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I I Okay, we're I'm sorry. Yeah. Out of public hearing and Joshua's requested that we postpone till February 18th. Is that 17? Or 17th?

Yeah, February 17th. That'll give them a month to u make the changes and to work with Janet Garrett. Okay. All right. I'll look for a motion. move that we postpone this item until February 17th, 2026 so they have enough time to get things together. Second. Okay. Have a motion by Commissioner Ferrell and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I I post motion passes. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Blocker. Okay. Okay. I wanted um to present the name of Jason Murray to um serve on the Morgan County Community and Economics Opportunity Board as a private sector representative. Um Jason has more than 20 years of experience working as an executive in acute and post-accute health care settings and is a licensed nursing home administrator. He's the chief executive officer and one of two founders of PAX Group Incorporated. Um he is a fellow of the American College of Healthcare Executives and holds a master's degree in healthcare administration. He was named 2023 Mountain West Entrepreneur of the Year by Ernest and Young and was a finalist in their national entrepreneur of the year competition that same year. I think he'll um be a great asset to the community and um be a great adviser as well to the board. Where does is he living in Mountain Green Conwoods?

In Mountain Green. Okay. Is I just saw the only address was Salt Lakewoods. So, does he happen to be here tonight? No. Okay. I thought if he was here, he could. So, let's see. I move no discussion on it. We didn't have any other applicants, did we? No. No. Okay. So, I move that we approve resolution CR26-08 nominating Jason Murray to the Morgan County Community and Economics Opportunity Board. Second.

Have a motion. Motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Faker. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion passes. It's that time of year again uh to bring forth Morgan County's nomination for National Day of the American Cowboy. Um as the commission might remember last year you nominated and was awarded um the nomination Jesse Franic. Um she was very very excited about that nomination. She wanted to ride her mule in the parade and was told no. But um

she's she's very humbled by that nomination and award. Um so this is your first reminder because we have a couple months but um first reminder to put forth names. I sent you an email of names that were submitted in previous years um but not uh selected by the commission. So just wanted to put this in the forefront. Fair is not that far away, right? So July 24th. Yep. So it this isn't an action item. It's just a Hey. Okay. So do you want our recommendations through an email to you or do you want us to just discuss it in another meeting?

Whatever you so choose. This is just they just sent me this email what like a a week ago when I forwarded it to you. Um and just wanted to get because in years past it's taken y'all a hot minute to narrow it down to who you wanted. So, I'm giving you as much lead time as possible, but and it's it's not a bad problem to have in Morgan County that we have a lot of being as rural as we are have a lot of people very deserving of this. So, I can't I can't under any idea imagine how hard it would be to narrow it down to one. So, thank you for giving us a lot of heads up. So, we

I will be nagging you. This will not be the only time and it's on the commission agenda. Okay. Uh the next one is um it's this is kind of a weird ask um as I I am not an attorney and I don't play one on TV, but um you awarded in last commission meeting the public defender contract um based off the RFQ of Colton McCay. There's still some tweaks that need to be made in this contract. So I'm asking for permission to negotiate those. um this is a draft at this time

and so and there has been some discussion just because he's taking over the calendar and so I did have a few suggestions based upon um the contract and so I don't know if we can go through those and approve those and and give power power to Kate to continue negotiating that. Um it it is kind of interesting because um I'm the prosecutor and I'm trying to negotiate a contract for your public defender and and so but in the past Jan always did it as well and and then I negotiated the interlocal with the Weber public defender group but hopefully the countyy's growing and learning and trying to avoid any optical issues as well. So, that that's where we're at. And if I can share my screen, here's some things that we've talked about. And if we can at least uh make an approval to to cover compensation for this month, even if the full contract isn't signed until next month, that'd be great. Just so Mr. McCay knows he's going to get paid and he'll continue to provide these services as we work out some of those um some of those last final details. So let me share and it's just going to show both screens because I cannot get mine out.

Well, hopefully it'll I can zoom in if needed to. So I I will say that um it said I says I'm casting But it's not. Yeah, I told you it's being here. Let me uh let me email you.

This see you exit out of the So is are we are you asking that we temporarily approve

for the next 30 days until the final language is brought before the commission? So then essentially we'd be approving 4,000 a month starting January 20 to 2026 to February 20 to 2026. So, I think let's look at it and see if it I I think part of it too is there was a a conversation about bringing on another attorney to act as conflict counsel on some of these cases when there's codefendants, but that public defender was not listed or or the the attorney was not listed in the response to the RS. Q. So, the selection committee hasn't looked at them to say say, "Do we want them being a public defender for one of our courts?" In speaking with Colton, Mr. McKay. He says it it would be anticipated that this other attorney, Benjamin Gabbert is his name, would do conflict counsel and work in the justice court specifically and be the public defender for the justice court where Colton himself would handle the district court and the juvenile court. So, so that's the idea behind it. But the selection committee reviewed, Colton reviewed his experience, reviewed his resume, his references, had that opportunity where um Benjamin Gabbert that that wasn't included and so we haven't had a chance to vet that or or make sure that we felt comfortable. So if we scroll down, let's see. The first change I think we made there

one to one it

um that wasn't in this one didn't go into the the packet the one that got in the packet. This was a great suggestion from Janet who you know did a lot of prosecuting up in Montana before coming down here. It's just talking about being compliant with the Indigent Defense Act. So being compliant with statutes, following the rules of professional conduct, um all attorneys providing services are licensed, which which should be anyway, but it's just in the contract now to say if you're trying to have someone who's um unlicensed or getting their license, there are ways that they can appear in justice court, even if they're subject or under supervision of someone else. We just want it to be with the attorneys that we feel comfortable with that will provide those services that have been vetted by the selection committee. So I think that one's pretty straightforward. If we go down again to the next red line. So, under compensation. In the past, as I've been doing some research and talking with some of my staff, going through documents I can find in our records, it appears that the county would always would basically have public defenders rotate conflict counsel. And so there were a couple that I don't know if there were even RFQS that went out for it or if it was just negotiated with the prosecutor, which I don't want to do anymore. I think that all of it needs to be negotiated with the county itself. Um, but the idea was, okay, we'll pay you X amount for every misdemeanor case that you take, or if you take a felony, then it's going to be more. And so it was a flat fee, and it would be

client by client. and then they'd rotate through a list of two or three public defenders. I think the the issue with that from what I could see is they were never vetted. It was just, hey, who's willing to do it? And so we rotated through. And sometimes a case will take you all the way to trial. Sometimes a case will be resolved at the next hearing. And sometimes it a lot depends on the facts, the evidence, and the defendant themselves. And so, um, this this is what was proposed and and Colton is in justice court tonight, so he can't be here to help negotiate the the contract because he's in court right now. But he said that based upon our number of conflict cases, which continues to go up every year, it just depends on how many codefendants there are, that it would bump it up $500 per month to include those conflict counsel services. So, they would provide that and he would prefer to do it from his firm. And I think from a county's perspective, it's less to manage going out for another RFQ and trying to find a conflict counsel and to retain a conflict counsel when they say, "And I lost X amount on this case. Hey, I made out good on these two, but this one went to trial." I think having it in one group as long as they can provide that adequate defense makes a lot of sense. Now, once again, these are conversations that we've had just so we made sure we had coverage for tonight's court and tomorrow's court when we go to district court. But that was that was his perspective is he'd be willing to add that in for that extra 500 a month to be spread out over the year because some months it may be high, some months it may be none. So, it just it just depends. question I have on

on that is when we were talking to them and and yes, we found out he's he and his dad basically it's McKay group. Okay. So if he has and we approved McKay group when we were discussing that we approved that K group um to do services for our county. So I don't know that we have to go and have another person at my that I don't sorry I got to get up here. Um I don't think we have to have another vetting of this Benjamin Gabbert because he's part of that group. Is that correct?

So my my response would be no because the RFQ that we put out said list any potential attorneys that will handle cases. give us their names, resume, references, and he didn't include anyone other than himself. And so from the response to the RFQ, it was anticipated from the county's perspective that he would be the only one handling these criminal cases. And and I will say, you know, I always have the county's best interest in heart at heart and I'm like I don't want to influence this negotiation completely, but when I heard the name, I looked him up. I reached out because I saw that he had worked at Weber County Attorney's Office and there were some just comments that I thought, well, hey, we ought to make sure and and look into this a little bit more, make sure it's a good fit. Um, not prosecution isn't for everyone. So, just because someone leaves Weber County doesn't mean they're they're not doing a good job or or whatever. But if there's comments of like, oh, maybe he's harder to work with, it it does drain the county resources when we have our prosecutor if they're getting tied up in justice court cases and they can't focus on the district court, which are the felonies, because it's hard to work with someone. You want to have a good working relationship with whoever it is to protect rights, um, but also not file frivolous motions and things of that nature. And there just wasn't any information that that I thought we had enough to go on.

So So you're saying also then that if they have conflict counsel, then that means we're paying $500 more, but yet I thought we always had conflict counsel. Well, we would have to pay we so the county will have to pay for con for indigent defense regardless of whether there's conflict counsel or not. But let's say that we have 10 defendants that are codefendants and we need conflict counsel for that. We would be paying someone else to handle all of those in a separate agreement. And so this is it's kind of the chance certainty. We don't know how many codefendants we'll have that need that conflict council. And so rather than so it benefits McKay because then they keep all of it under one roof so to speak. there's more income coming to them to handle it. I think it benefits the county because it's one less contract to manage and we're working with a group that that was approved by the selection committee.

So, we're basically paying an additional $500 a month every single month. Correct. But we're also not paying out of pocket for every time we have a codefendant, you know, a,000 or 1,500 to take it all the way through trial. That means we'd have to have a budget adjustment. So we we actually wouldn't

except for the the cost of Miss Stevens who hung over the year because there was so originally with the Weber Public Defender Group. I didn't know where they were going to come back with in the negotiation. And once again, I shouldn't have been negotiating that looking back. and I want to be off that budget going forward because I don't think it's appropriate for me to be over that budget, but there is $54,000 in that budget which would allow for 4500 a year without a budget adjustment. And so the only budget adjustment we'd have to make would be within its own budget moving some from appellet defense to cover Miss Steven's first week of the year covering our our calendars. Okay. So, does that make sense where it wouldn't require a big budget adjustment because it's already there and we just have that one hold over 2500 for to cover that?

I like what you're saying. Just curious in the in the past over a year span on average, how often has the county needed a codefendant?

I would say I would say we'd have probably one every other month or every third month. So, and some are resolved rather quickly. Some we've scheduled jury trials for and we've prepared for jury trial and all jurors and you know gone through that whole situation. So, I think that this amount is is very favorable to the county as well based on the amount of codefendants we receive. Okay.

Anything else to this red line?

So on paragraph six, this is where I was trying to put in something that allows the county to weigh in so that if so we don't get in a bad situation with someone we haven't vetted. So and it also allows uh the McKay Law Group to expand if they want to have other attorneys that aren't listed in the agreement. So, so basically it's just acknowledging that Colton is the one that was approved by the county to provide the indigent defense. He can do it in all of our courts. Now, McKay Law Group intends that Benjamin Gabbert provide services in the justice court and his conflict council. Benjamin Gabbert is provisionally appointed, meaning it can be rescended, right? So, so for the time being, let's see how it goes. Let's have a chance to call his references, um, you know, review his resume and so forth. So, so this would allow the county to to appoint him provisionally to be in the justice court and conflict council, but then we added that or I added the county may resend this provisional approval in writing delivered to McCay no later than, and I thought maybe 90 120 days. I don't know. what what you thought would be appropriate just to give us kind of a probationary period. Almost every well in in every merit county they have a probationary period before they're they're fully vested or hired on

just like me. Yeah, we did it 90 days with Kate. So, look how that went.

So, yeah. So, I I don't it's not saying that we won't approve him. It's just saying, "Hey, let's let's give some time to vet a little more thoroughly than we had." And and I did get um a resume and references. I was going through my email and it came Friday night and then it was Martin Luther King Jr. Day. So, we really So, I will forward that to everyone so that you can see the references. But, this would allow us to move forward with an agreement if you felt comfortable. If not, then turn it over to Kate to continue negotiating. And and then at the end, it does say, "If McKay intends to use other attorneys not outlined in response to the RFQ, each attorney shall submit to county resume and references. County shall approve any additional attorney through a similar process as outlined in this paragraph. Just that, you know, we'll we'll review it. Maybe they're provisionally appointed for 90 120 days, whatever that is. So

is there any that that's all the red line that I had? So in addition to the red lines, I just need permission to negotiate. And what will you be negotiating unless so? Well, the red line if they're okay with it, then you don't need to negotiate further. It's just a matter of let's do that of looking at, you know, making sure the provisional appointment is only thing we've got to put in there days. Yeah. So in section six meetings. Yeah. So I just left it as an underline. So what was that? I said I I think like a 90day kind of trial would be plenty of time to see who they are. I mean that's my opinion.

It still gives you plenty of time if it's not working and get somebody else in there and not be too far down the road. Okay. That's other than that. Um, just add 90. I move that we approve the public defender contract based upon the condition or the new adjustments to the contract that has been we haven't approved it before. So according to the new redlinined provisions of the contract with a 90-day approval right approval period

a motion by commissioner facel by commissioner blocker. All in favor? I opposed. Motion passes.

Sorry. Yes. off a little bit, but I would like to go into close session, but we got to get somebody here for that.

I'm fine with it. No, I need enough time. We have 45 minutes. I I talked to him before the meeting. Okay. So, we should be good to go. If you're if we're good to go, then I don't need to worry about Yeah. Okay. That's why I wanted to make sure that we have enough time. We won't need it then.

All right. So, I will have to shout out Janet because she's been really managing this whole back and forth with Mountain Green Super Improvement District. I love how she's outlining the changes and some of the issues and the responses that she added. And so my my recommendation and our recommendation from our office is that we need the changes that Janet has made or we need to rethink the purpose of the land because in some ways they gutted the protections of as far as if we're putting in this amount of money to improve the asset and they can take it away at any time. That's where Janet's saying, "No, we need at least 10 years, right?" And then we have a devaluation over time where let's say, you know, if you put in $400,000 and then next year they say, "Hey, we're using it now, you're not getting any use out of that out of those county funds." And so I tried to go through to say, you know, maybe some of these aren't game changers or yeah, we can give on on some, which Janet's already done in the county response. She's like, okay, I've limited I've narrowed the reimbursements, but today it's a discussion of is there anything that you disagree with what you've seen in in Janet's county responses that she's outlined? And if so, what are those? If not, then we can send back Janet's red line of their red line.

I thought she did a great job. She's very thorough. I love how she gives us the pros and cons and I just that makes it so much nicer. Yeah. The biggest thing is I saw in there there's basically a 25 year period, but we needed to have that other indemnification so that we could have it more than 10 years,

right? Well, the indemnification was a one-way indemnification, but that's just not allowed under the Utah Government Immunity Act. And so it has to be mutual, which is the same thing we did in the Predator Control, right? So, so we've added that language back in, but I I think you're talking about the the 10ear. Where's that one? It's the number five, the planned expansion where it goes on to the next page. Um, just one more down or slightly more down.

There we go. Onto the next page. It says, so she put back that structured framework requiring advanced notice, a 10-year blackout on discretionary reclamation. So they don't have discretion to reclaim within 10 years. So at least gives us 10 years to use that asset if we're investing significant county taxpayer dollars to improve that area. Where were you at? But we revisit it's 20-year contract. Yeah. 20-year contract,

right? She's just saying that the the 10-year blackout on discretionary reclamation. And so even if it is this amount, you can't um you can't terminate the contract discretionarily within the first 10 years.

Great. and and really just I mean a lot of it is focused on saying rather than having these general waiverss of everything. We're just limiting it to okay if you cause the damage then you're responsible not that you're responsible for any wear and tear and things that go the county is taking on some of that liability. So it's really not that we've struck down all their red lines. Janice just found a way to hopefully appease them. Appease their needs and and the worries that they had while also not giving away all of the protection that we need as a county.

I think she did a great job. Yeah. Um does she define give a definition for discretionary? I I don't know that it's defined in the agreement itself.

I don't remember it. Um, but it's just in paragraph 5 or no, paragraph 14B2 is where it it talks about that blackout period. Otherwise, the termination is on paragraph two where it says um 20 years commencing on terminating on unless sooner terminated is set forth and then it talks about um 12 months prior to expiration or no let's see is set forth. So where does it have the

this is their version? Are you wanting her version? No, I'm looking at her version. Okay. Oh, yeah. Sorry. I am looking. And that's why I put So, paragraph two. Okay. Up above. There you go. Talks about the term of 20 years unless terminated sooner is set forth herein. 14. Um, no. Under two. She just texted me that she did define emergency and discretionary. Okay. She probably texted me, too. Let me look. Thanks, Janet. Let's go a 14.

Yes, she did. She's letting me know. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, 14. So, two outlines the term. 14 outlines termination. All right. So it may be terminated by mutual agreement either party for material breach upon 60 days notice and opportunity to cure by the owner upon at least 12 months written notice for emergency reclamation which is defined below or by the owner for plan expansion. So emergency. Oh, it's just in section A there.

A. Yeah. So 14A she defines the emergency reclamation. 14B is the planned expansion which is discretionary and B2 is where she outlines that 10-year blackout period. copy than you because I don't see in the packet. It's Janet's notes and then the MGSD version and then Janet's version which is why I had to put a watermark on it. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. So if they would like to terminate and reclaim sooner, they can't do it within the first 10 years. And that's just to protect, right, the asset, you know, to to say we're not going to invest hundreds of thousands and not have the benefit for at least some period of time, right? Okay. Even for emergency. Well, for emergency it's different. Yeah.

But the way that she's defined emergency is limited as well. So it has to be something that start with the 15 years mean planned expansion commenced more than 15 years but not more than 20 years. So in other words we can't start anything at that point. No, this is just saying so if they have a planned expansion, they can't do anything in the first 10 years. But if they expand more than 10 years but not more than 15 years after the commencement date, then the reimbursement is 50% of the remaining book value of the improvements. And so it's basically saying there's going to be a depreciation of the asset over time. and the more use we have out of it, then the less that they would have to pay back for discretionary growth or a planned expansion. So, um, after 20 years, is there a clause in here, and I didn't see it, is there a clause in there that states that we can continue to use it for periods of time after that? So even I won't be alive.

Section two, which is the term, it says at least 12 months prior to expiration, which would be maybe January, February, sometime during 2046 or 45. So the year before it expires, the parties shall meet to review conditions and determine whether to renew or extend this agreement. So we're only guaranteed the 20 years, but then 12 months prior to expiration, we have to meet and discuss. Okay. renewal or extension. Okay.

So under um standard phase reimbursement non-revenue driven. So that is saying if they expand before the 10 years then they have to pay the county there book value. Which one are you on? Sorry. 14B3. Yes. B3. Let's say sorry 4 is having the auditorium 4.

Oh, okay. Yeah. So non-revenue driven. So it's just it's just saying here the primary purpose isn't to increase the system capacity. So it may be for other reasons but not revenue to to expand capacity of of the people they serve. Let me just see if Janet's saying anything that we're missing.

She says blackout is for discretionary expansion with reimbursement. Emergency is something like legislative no reimbursement. Like if the legislature changes something and they have to. That's I guess I'm confused about the reimbursement. So we're about if we get this park expansion, we're going to dump a lot of money into sprinklers, lights, infrastructure, moving the parking lot, adding better bathrooms, etc. And if in the blackout period, so we want at least 10 years of ROI on that investment. If in that blackout period they in discretionarily through the blackout because they can't do it during the blackout.

Yeah. After the blackout period if they discretionarily are like you know we've decided we won't expand our parking lot and they kick us out. They have to reimburse us for some of those% of the of what we invested during the 10 to 15 year 50% during the 15 to 20 25%. Is there anything in there? So like let's say 15 years down the road they want to take back a certain point and we've got these playground whatever not only do they have to pay us a certain percentage but we still maintain ownership of equipment light poles like the

I don't think that's I can't imagine that that would be factual if they were a fixed because if they're going to take back a portion and I would think the commission as you created a plan for how you're going to use this lease property, it would be with something that we wouldn't put. We're not going to build an amphitheater knowing they're going to tear it down in 20 years. Um, but if we've had to like So, part of it says like if you are going to expand your parking lot, it needs to have security cameras. Mhm. Well, if they take that part of the parking lot, those are still our security cameras. We keep them even if they Does that make sense? It does. I don't feel it's worded that way. Let's see. I'm not saying it can't be. I'm just saying I don't in my reading

is there anything in there that says that we still retain ownership of any of the boss text. She says we can remove them. What's that? We can remove the cameras. Take back. I mean so we we remove them. We they're not getting our equipment with their we're going to take this acre parking lot. You know if you had stayed for the meeting this text message thing um I I think that it's either in there or we can add it because it's kind of like the airport where they say, "Hey, you know,

if if you don't remove it and your lease is up, then basically you're abandoning it after a certain amount of time and then the county has to go and remove it or use it or whatever it may be." Um, we could look at it the same way. It's like, okay, they're taking that piece back. We're going to go get all of our stuff out and then, right? And I I think we're not assuming, oh, if we take this, we get their stuff, too. Well, and just the accountant and me, like there's some things that we can't take out like we have to consider a parking lot as an asset. I can't take out. Well, we're not picking up the asset.

Correct. But per our accountant and per uh accounting law, that is a depreciable asset. We have to schedule that. When we do 2-in overlay, that is a depreciable asset and we have to depreciate it. There are certain things in there that we're just not going to be able to physically tangibly move. Um, she's saying it is in there that we have a certain amount of time to recuperate our property. Can you tell me what section that's in? Janet. I assumed it was in there. She's pretty thorough.

Yes. But we can look at that before we send it over and just make sure it's something, you know, if you agree with the form of this with a request that we make sure we're we're covering everything that we can think of. So basically on this one, you're asking us to appro Is this a resolution? No, this is just to say, can we send this Janet's red line back to them because they sent a red line to us? Janet's reviewed it. Can we send it back to them to see if we're getting closer? I say we go ahead with it.

Okay. So, what she's saying is um in this section one under B14B1 um we'd have two years written notice and that was our essentially our two years to reclaim any portion of our property before they take possession. She says she's pretty sure she thought of everything. Overly thorough, quote unquote, which is true. So, um, improvements upon termination or expiration. That's paragraph 15.

It says right there we see we have up to 90 days after termination to remove non-permanent items unless otherwise agreed. Yeah. Okay. So, are you good with this moving forward? Okay. As fast as possible. Yes. Hey, before spring, we need a motion, right? No. No, we need a motion. I I would say I would just say have a motion that we can send over the Red Line in its current form. Okay. I move that we send over the Redline Kent Smith rental agreement in its current form with the amount green

with the attorney version, right? They've already submitted. So the MGS ID is what they sent to us and the attorney version is what we'd send back to them. Okay. So I just wanted to make sure we put the attorney version that we send back. Yes. Second. Okay. So I have a motion by Commissioner Blocker, a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I I opposed carries.

All right. The next thing was um we had postponed um the historical society bylaws again. Um we have a huge agenda and they are not ready um or were not ready before this one. We have a huge agenda next one. So they're asking that we postpone um the historical society bylaws to the March 3rd, 2026 meeting. We have met with Cindy and with um Cheryl Cheryl

and we're working through that and we just want to make sure that we're not using old forms and that that it makes sense with where we're headed. So, I know that we've already met once, Janet has a red line. We're going to meet with them again and we'll make sure it's hammered out really well before we come back. But just like the CEO appointment, like everything that's already pre-formed and we think's done, I have to go back and dig up the new uh state statute number. And so that's it takes a minute.

Um so yes, request to postpone to March 3, 2026. I move that we postpone if we have to have that request to postpone this item from the historical society for bylaws. I'll second till the March 3rd, sorry, March 3rd, 2026 meeting. Second that. Motion by Commissioner Fel and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Do you want my updates before or after? Commissioner Co. If you want, go for it. I wrote them down for once. Perfect.

Okay. Uh it was mentioned at the community and economic opportunity board um a suggestion to add an additional um seat on that board uh for a real estate representative. Um just think about that. Um the assessor and I are meeting with um oh good gravy. Um on House Bill 48, the fire lot assessment. Uh we're meeting with them. They showed us the map um last week uh when the fire warden was up and it's pretty diminous the parcels that are going to be assessed that. However, a bulk of it railene is in Mountain Green. So, um we will keep you up to date. Huh?

Is that WOIE or which one? The House Bill 48 lot assessments. One we discussed today. They're going to cap at I believe $100 on the assessment based off um the improvement value. But looking Did you guys look at the map today? No. Um and I can send that out to you. you just discussed today.

The bulk of it in Morgan County is is in Mountain Green. Um so we'll be discussing that um with the fire fire warden. Um question on prescriptive easements. Um we have a couple prescriptive easements in the county. Um two of them are are pretty big deals. Um, one being the the one we talked about with the 910 cattle ranch, the Oh my goodness, my brain has stopped. Double J Ranch. No, but the the the name of the road um Jeremy Ranch. Thank you. So, Jeremy Ranch Road and then you and I talked about was it Deep Creek? Deep Creek is also um a prescriptive ement.

A right ofway prescriptive easements. Different rightway is public. Okay. Like count public. At some point we might want to task staff to clean up if we can or at least get something in writing on those being that how highly used they are. Um the conservation district is going to hold um a meeting February 25th from 6:00 to 8 at the search and rescue building. um agenda is still tentative as they nail down speakers, but essentially it'll be to talk to all of our a production community on a protection area and how to sign up for that and the benefits and etc. So, if you're interested, Yeah. what date?

Uh February 25 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. And there is food. Were they going to discuss conservation easements as well? Yes. So, egg protection and conservation

egg protection, conservation easements, and I believe the third one, like I said, they're still um trying to um narrow down speakers was um oh, good brief estate planning um passed down trying to keep land in um in the family um through different means. Um, do we have an update on the generator plan for the library, fairgrounds, public works, or or do I need to circle back with J&J on that? I know we had discussed, Mike, I spoke with um Brett and with J&J about the fairgrounds that portable would not be really wouldn't accomplish what we

um but do I need to post for RFP for something different? I don't want I don't want the conversation to fizzle out. Right. Um try to remember where we were at on that. Okay. You want to just get with me? Yeah. Let me get on that.

We the commission representative and myself are meeting with Carlos Baseris, director of UD do on exit 92. Um talking to um our Val Potter. Um it doesn't it sounds like we have a miscommunication on what we're asking for and what they think we're asking for. So very much so looking forward to that conversation. Lydia I'm sorry.

Yeah. Um Lydia um is as as I said she was supposed to bring the the where our playground equipment's at. Um but she's thought it more impertinent to get with public works and get the little things that can get fixed fixed first um before she comes back. She said nothing is failing like nothing but there's obviously things slides that need to be tightened and and and stuff like that. So she is still going to give that presentation. I'm just explaining the delay. Um Commissioner Fackerel has asked for a review of our county boards. And so my question is what do you guys want to see in that? Just so what I'm thinking when I think county boards is here's the county board. Here's the resolution or ordinance that created it. Here's who sits on it. Here's their roles and responsibilities. And here's their funding if any is designated. Is there anything else outside of that? Because we have a lot that you want to know about your boards. Okay. No, it's just the ones we've talked about. The recreation board, the ATAP board, the few the few of those things, the TTAP board, that kind of stuff.

And then speaking of boards, um it did get up brought up at the planning commission meeting when we talked about the rifle range that they are very interested in the commission creating a rifle range board or committee just like airport board. Um so wouldn't that be better under a parks board? I I do not I don't know just I shoot things a lot more than I run. So because we did have one and last year we went and dissolved it because they weren't doing anything. Okay. I I think with the the feedback we got at that planning commission meeting even if it's a temporary committee. Yeah. I think I'm okay with it.

So I might draft like a temp committee while we're going through. Okay. Um and then just to give you an update on green belt last year. Um so the state statute changed. So May one the county was able to capture 100% of the green belt roll back. Last year um that from May 1 to year end netted um $330,53129 and then of course that's unudedited because we haven't gone through our audit yet. And currently year to date we've taken in an additional 143,83168. Um also this year WPR phase 6A I believe is coming out of green belt. So that'll be that additional and the 910 cattle ranch part of our agreement with them is that they will have to pay the green belt roll back. So that will be deposited into your green belt roll back account as well.

That is restricted funds. That is restricted funds. Correct. Um, speaking of rifle range, um, there you wanted to meet with Randy Watt and the commission. Um, how do you want me to schedule that? Because technically we postponed our, um, rifle range discussion to the first planning commission meeting in February, which is not too far away. I think we we're kind of wanting to do I think kind of a work session to find out. So, he's my tentative February 17 work session. Because I would say I think that's important to find out. Okay, where are we at? What are we What are we But was that your intent is you didn't want a separate work session. You just wanted something like a work session with the commission meet attached to a commission meeting.

Yes. Okay. So I will get with his schedule on that. And that is all I have. Commissioner Commission.

Okay. Just a couple bills to follow. Um in the policy state committee of community development HB68 is a housing amendment um go has created a new division of housing affordability. So it moves housing affordability is moving from the department of workforce services to go. Um we're monitoring that bill HB 184 by Ray Ward. Um we are opposed to this in its current form. It lets a property owner apply for preferred land and use regulations that override local zoning for residential areas like smaller lots, ADUs, reduce setbacks, or starter homes. And the county must respond to the request in 30 days. So, those are a couple just to be aware of. And yeah, that's all I have. doesn't say you don't want to go through any of those others.

Well, I'll let you comment. Yeah, we had a great discussion today. If it's my turn if you want me to do it. What was that? Do you want me to go ahead get after comments?

Yep. Um, basically there was a there's a Representative Thirsten is trying to repeal the restaurant tax completely and propose a overall sales tax, but yet he says it's not an increase. And the we had opposition to that because they wanted to take that sales tax that's generated by uh this new tax that he's proposing to encompass everything that is purchased. Any chance you have a bill number on that? The what? A bill.

I didn't write it. Okay. Sorry. Um the bill was SP 91 last year's, right? Yeah. So he's just trying to repeal it. He's trying to repeal that and put in a new one. Okay. And I don't know exactly what that is, but it's to he wants to make everybody pay for it. No matter where you're at, whatever kind of sales you do, it's a sales tax from everybody and not specifically for restaurants. But then he wants to turn all that money over to the TRT. Yeah. And that was the opposition. And I mean it was a long discussion on it.

Okay. Um so uh we oppose it as u we oppose that and uh we will be I will be having some discussions with him too on that. Um that was one and then another one was the property tax. Do you remember that was about SB97? The HB231 is the restaurant tax. HB what? 238. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Do you remember what the SB97 was on property tax rate? Yeah. To where it was that the one where you were going to 60%

amount of revenues that a taxing entity made 5% of the prior years of budgeting revenue.

That's right. And so they what they're wanting or what he was wanting um was to make this to where it allows the entities that are in the taxing entities to be able to go and raise it 5%. Right. And without having a truth in taxation and of course uh unless you had 100% over the growth anyway it was bad. It's right now it's not very much liked. So we just have to monitor those things and make sure that we will be having more discussion on it. So that one is best SB97.

And then the other one was SB 108 is online marketplace amendments and it is it's a confusing one. So it's a use tax. No, it's not necessarily use tax, was it? It was more of a this prohibits a municipality or county from regulating the operation of an online marketplace such as STRs. Okay. Way not to use tax. Okay. So, so it I mean there's a lot of discussion on it. We will keep you updated on that one. Thank you.

And then of course the HB48 was the WOOI and how we had I don't know if you were on that one. It was in the public lands. um in the natural resources basically they were saying well we've got a problem with the insurance companies not allowing us to even have insurance in certain areas and and that was a big discussion um and I mean I went and tried to get new insurance on my place here in town and they would not give it to us just because of the movie so that's an interesting facet of our wonderful legislative And then there was SB46, but I didn't write anything down with it. You

N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y. Okay, we'll get more on that next time. Okay. Okay. And that was I think it for me and then tomorrow is our meeting. Did you need a ride? No, I'm good. Thank you. Okay. I didn't have you were the one person that didn't when I gave you them gave the commissioners their extra business cards. They all like shoved them in their desk. You didn't. So I set out well I gave you multiple boxes. So I set out um business cards for you and Commissioner Blocker as a reminder to take them. Yeah. Good or something? Because

you need them. I mean, my first year I handed them out and now they know who I am. So, it helps. I went through one box, now I'm into my second and almost done with it. You can take more if you want. So, anyway, it's a good thing to take. So, you do have a ride? Yes. Okay. Did Janelle have a ride? Yeah, they're all doing their thing crowding in together because I've got I've got extra room I'm taking. And Carrie Gibson did check with me and yes, the legislator gifts are way under the $50 threshold. It is the Morgan County cup, the um it's the syrup,

sorry, flapjack. Flapjack drizzle, um a county explore Morgan Valley sticker, and then all of the elected official business cards. That's all. That's okay. Okay. So, we're giving those to uh they're behind. Commissioner Blocker is going to take them. So, we have our three congressmen or two reps. Oh, ours. And then, um the rep that is submitting legislation on our behalf. Okay. They don't have room numbers. Turns out you just got to go find them. Yeah. Chase them down. Chase them down. She knows them all. Not at all. Okay. All right. I go alone then tomorrow. Thanks.

So just to clarify, I drive my own car to the capital and back. I don't get reimbured for my mileage. That's right. Is it under 45 miles from your house? From your house. Yeah. That's why you got the fleet truck. What's that? We got the fleet truck. It's booked out for you guys for the entire legislative session. He has the keys for tomorrow. If you ever want it, just Well, me I'd be coming home. Well, you can. Yeah. Okay. Um the date change for the March 17th meeting.

Um Commissioner Blocker mentioned it would work better for her if we just moved one day to the Wednesday. Would that That what? What would that date be? The 18th. Is that what you were saying? Yeah. Either 16th or the 18th. Please don't. No. Monday. No Monday. Not that one.

Oh, not 18th works for me. It doesn't works for me right now. So when I draft it for February 3, will does that work for you notetaker for now? Granted, it'll be a We did hire someone. Well, we're not losing her, I hope. She just won't be the noteaker afterwards. Are you going to stay on? You going to stay on? Be the noteaker. Okay. So, I'll draft the resolution change uh for March 18th. Okay. Okay. going once. Trying to think what I had to say. I got wrapped up in a whole bunch of other things.

No, nothing. Nothing. Okay. Conservation districts moving forward. Airports plan. Are your your weed abatement board is finally met? Yes. Oh, that's what I was going to bring up. I'm glad you said weed abatement. So um we are working with so our weed supervisor who will be is Joel. So we're working with the weed abatement board reaching out. So you do DOT so as as we're getting into the spring um U DOT will not just drive up and down their right ofways and figure it out. But if we give them areas that we know are of concern, they're very quick. So if we say I know the dirt spot is going to be county property at some point. Yeah. Let's say the dirt spot is really weed,

which we are not paving. We're not paving the dirt spot organ not paving it. Um, let's say we we say the dirt spot is is covered in weeds and we we notice these areas. They will hit those pretty quick. They'll get on those, but they're not going to drive up and down all of their right away, the freeways, everything to to identify. If we identify it, they will they'll come up. So they'll take care of the dire w too. They'll anywhere where we identified noxious weeds. But we can't just say, "Well, from the mouth of the canyon to hener,

they they want, you know, the tag the taggers pull out or along this area, whatever." They they want specific areas. So as we're out and about, if there are concerns or areas that we need to notify you do about, then then we can Joel will um take that to them. The other one is working with the railroad. So, we are reaching out to find out basically the way it works. And I want us I want to get this kind of out there so we can start the conversation cuz we know that the railroad will not they're not going to do it. They will pay to have it done. They won't or they will. They will pay us. They will pay for it to be done, but we have to pay upfront and they will reimburse.

And so there is a cost to the county, but it's a temporary cost. Um, so we we I've asked the weed board to kind of okay find out um through I guess Weber dis or Weber County, sorry, I'm used to school districts, Weber County, they that's how they do it is they contract with somebody and then they send the bill to the railroad and then they get reimbursed. Um those people from those entities are we're actually inviting them to the next weedboard meeting so we can get how that works so that we're not reinventing the wheel. Who do we contact? How does it work? How do we who are some contractors that you're using? Um, so because the railroad is one of the biggest problems we have by spreading weeds and so if we can hit those with a drone because there's we have to schedule with them, they'll only allow us down the tracks at certain times. Um, but Weber County has been working with them for quite some time. They're going to come to the next weed board and kind of here's how you do it.

So as I get that information, I'll I'll bring it back. My question was weed abatement board. Sorry, we debate the board. Not the weed board. All the high school kids are gonna come over. I know. The question I have is Weber County is going to come and talk to us, but they're the worst offenders. Weber County. Weber counties on Well, and all I want to know is how do I work with you DOT and how do I work with the railroad? So, how do we get the contract or contractor and how do we invoice the railroad so we get paid back? That's that's that's my concerns

and my my question is also is is the time frame uh we need they need to increase that time frame to get those out. They it's best earlier but in to get what out to get Dyer's wood. Oh yes. Okay. Because in Morgan County we're a couple weeks behind Weber County and so um we need to be able to have them whoever we have. I mean, if we're paying people $15 or $10 or whatever, $5 a bag, they need to be able to have a little bit more time to do that instead of two weeks before the actual when they're

um they're not seeding at that point, but they're starting to. We need to be able to get it out at that point, no matter what. But some people can't even see them until that. No, I now I understand what you were talking about. Because I mean I've called up in the past and and says, "Okay, what do we do?" I mean, can we have any of the kids still go and do it? And they says, "No, it's all over. It's over." And the thing is is no, it's not over. No, our our growing season is delayed compared to And so, so we need to make sure that that's extended and make sure that we get it and we get enough people out there doing it this year or some other kind of volunteer effort. that there is also

that was me. I was about to say Robert McConnell said he used to do it with his with their word. Yeah. And I think there's a lot down in that area that I've noticed and I just hate to see it continue up even though I've got some right in front of my place. But keep it in Mountain Green. And the big question is is how do we we need to make sure if they're going to do it is there going to be any repercussions to land owners that will not take care of part of your weed or part of the weed weed abatement ordinance. Oh

yes. Yes. There is repercussions. Um and let's see one one thing with the um sorry got in the weed abatement. Um the conservation district is also looking for property owners that have a dyer's road problem where they will come in basically they want to use that area and test like as far as which chemicals are better and what don't work but do work. So, if there are areas that are prevalent, if those land owners will allow them to come do it, they will they'll take care of it. They want to section that area off or however they do it. Uh, but they're looking for people that are willing to let them come on there and and try and see what they can do. So, I think that was a big thing was the weeds.

Okay. So, weed abatements. Thank you. We abatement. Now, when I said weedboard, my son was like, "What? Mike, settle down." That's all I had. Um, did Mike or Matt put? No, they did not. And, um, somebody asked me on the break if anyone submitted because I did, um, text the group on the Cottonwoods um, that I said I would read into record if they sent an email. Did anyone send you an email and request that it be read into record? Okay, thank you. I should have asked earlier. Jennifer Lance went through and basically said everything in hers. Okay. Excellent.

I couldn't get hers to open, so I'm glad that she stood up there and did that. I was having extra time. All right. So, we need a motion to adjurnn. Close session. Nope, we don't need We need a close session. No, we do not. Then we're adjourned. Unless you know some of that. I I thought you said you needed one. Well, I just needed it for another object. Can you give us an update if we go into it? No. Well, because it doesn't meet the rules. Okay. Then I'm in I'm in a request we go into close session for potential litigation or eminent litigation. So, it's pending or reasonably. Okay. Then that's what it is

for that. We almost did it. It's only five. It's only going to be a minute. Couple minutes. Okay. We'll take a break and then we'll revisit. It won't be very Well, I've missed twothirds of the hockey game and it's not a good one. So, I'm happy to be here.