County Commission - Regular Meeting

Recycle it. Hopefully. Yeah. You do what?

Yeah, you're session. Yes. I didn't know what to put. I don't think it's here. I think it's a person. I think it's pointing a person to

2012. Well, I have a three-year-old water.

You only have to ask once. I just want you to get credit for classes. You

come in for my Andy, we're going to be at the table or you're going to be at the table. The royal here. That was made by a three-year-old.

Last time I was in an event like this was in the Senate. US. How are you? Good. How are you? I'm in your seat, aren't

I? up here. Is that what you said?

Randy. Hey, how are you? Great to see you. So it's been a while. It took like two weeks pass this might

good my mother-in-law recipe that woman can cook they're like no skiing for you know three more weeks but did he You're live, kids. Who made the dinosaurs? They're cute. My grandkids. Oh, I was just grateful it was my children's uh kitty and not mine cuz there was more flour on the floor of the dog than there was

anymore. It's only good to see you, too. Is this an owl or a speaker? That's a speaker. I can take a picture with my phone and show you now. I have a stereo.

Well, I was going to say I hear you. I don't know why we don't have those. Then we don't have to talk right into authorize all this work. Really tight budget. Do you need a specific page, Randy? Do you want a specific page up? They've all had the that document.

I will talent. I'll probably just run through a few things and you just might have to chase me on. I shall. Okay. Okay, we're waiting on you. Okay, this is it. Our session.

All right. Well, it's pretty simple. So, this to me is um this to me is is just a single issue. It's not about ranges, future ranges. It's really not about the range, it's about the situation. So, um, quick recap. I've dealt with closing ranges before. My time with the police department assistant chief, I was assigned to try and close our range. That was 24 years ago. That range is still open. We go up there twice a year, fire a few rounds and leave. The reason is is because 24 years ago, our range is about um a fifth of the size of the Morgan County range was was several million dollars. There were figures put several million dollars to to remediate clean. This to me is this issue is about one thing and it's about not exposing the county to a potentially catastrophic financial situation in dealing with that land. And the and the reason is the reason that that I'm here and that this has come to this is uh because I have some experience with all kinds of ranges. um I've seen this issue before. And so I went out and I did some research initially just to try to explain, you know, a few meetings ago try to explain what my concerns were. And then when it came back up again, I went further out because I wanted uh to ensure that I was fairly current on what was happening. And so the concerns were and and I know each of you have this document um here, but this is this is a synopsis of the various sections of the EPA guidelines that impact or may impact Morgan County in terms of closing a range. It's all about hazardous waste. It's all about lead uh removal and land

remediation. Uh two pieces uh to that. And um someone told me you've you've seen this before over 10 12 14 16 years ago there was there was a similar discussion. So I will I will just go quickly. The first on the third page um okay uh under D facility closure abandonment or major range development abandonment is um and it's highlighted. There you go. Um, abandonment is non-use for 365 continuous days. That's when the EPA considers a range closed. Okay.

That's why you go fire a few rounds twice.

That's why we go up twice a year and fire a few rounds, right? Um, and so that's one item that might impact what what Morgan is is talking about. Um it's to go to F. I didn't highlight it but there is the the water issue and part of that is drainage. Uh what we had to do at our range even while we were still using it because they had come up and looked at issue of drainage. For some reason we ended up having to put a specialized um catch basin in the main route where the water was was coming down and entering the whatever they call it entering where water spreads out and goes down and gets into the creek and and the river. And so um if if they observe or see flows from a lead potential lead hazard site, then they come in, they test waters and and they don't just test the range, they don't test the immediate entry point. They test around various sites where water runs and they do that. So that's a piece. Um,

so cool. Just one more thing. Sure. Back on the abandonment. So if you abandon it or say we decide we wanted to sell it or get rid of it or whatever, would that abandonment have to sit there for a year before it be is before we can do anything?

There are some additional provisions that I'll go over here and then we'll then we can discuss it. So if you go ahead a few pages, it says um section five summary table table of major federal triggers. Trigger being when they believe a remediation, lead removal and remediation will have to occur. Okay, if you look there, I highlighted range closure or redevelopment. And that becomes comes into the question of what what is redevelopment? You go over one more page. Range closure or land redevelopment, right? Um, if you go to the next section, core federal legal definition of redevelopment, which is what I was researching as well, what constitutes redevelopment that might trigger the action. If you get down to legal significance, uh, this language establishes that redevelopment occurs when previously used land is expanded, redeveloped, or reused and environmental contamination is present or suspected. Now what that the specifics of what that might be I can't I don't know that would be the EPA but if you look at the next highlight here definition is intentionally broad and is the primary federal legal context in which redevelopment triggers environmental assessment and remediation obligations. Um, and if you go over to the next, it's talking about the EPA programmatic uh definition. It's the RCA corrective action cleanup. And that's the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which is also under the purview of the EPA. They're the ones who trigger it, order it, supervise, and have oversight over it. Right. Um, down two/3. Under RC development, redevelopment is typically interpreted as I just went to the last one. conversion from one functional use to another. And then as we uh continue down, let me go over another page.

So legal implications, redevelopment is treated as planned reuse or repurposing of property, particularly where contamination affects safe future use. One thing that's critical the first time I talked about it that you understand is that the county owns a cradle to gra and that's the term right in the EPA regulation cradle to gra it doesn't matter who you sell the land to doesn't matter if the developer offers right if there are and if they were willing they could do that but responsibility rests with the county for any future use of that land once it became arranged and once the maintain or future liability ility. You have it all, right? Safe development. 20 years from now, some child shows up with a lead issue, you own it.

Okay. So, the term is cradle to grave within the regulation. Even if it's even if it's completely cleaned up the site and everything, you still have you if let's say they missed a pocket, you still have it. And so there's no way we can even get out of that at all. You you're if you do a complete cleanup cradle to grave, right? But I'm just saying is there a way to get through the grave part? No. No. My understanding is no,

it would take some research by legal. So, what I have researched on on Cirus specifically, um Janet was looking at it as well and sent me a document that's approved by the EPA that I can forward to you as well. There are some exceptions, but the county doesn't fall in any of those because the exceptions would be that we were a bonafide purchaser for value after the fact and so we can limit some of that exposure. My understanding is the county's owned this for decades and decades. We're the initiator and so there is zero way that we fall in an exception to liability. That's my understanding too. But okay, because I'm just wondering, I'm just a normal guy.

If it's completely cleaned up, if it's completely cleaned up and certified by the EPA, then why would we have any kind of legal reasoning for that? The EPA will not certify the land is clean. What they'll do is they'll come in and retest and say that you are below hazardous levels, but they will not certify the land because then they would assume anyway. Yeah.

They willing and I'll explain how they test here in in just a minute. So, if you go to uh section 4A, change in functional land use redevelopment commonly means converting property to different use. EPA specifically recognizes redevelopment when land transitions such as and it's got a list of them. If you go over to the next page, the physical expansion redevelopment can also occur when existing developed land is and I just marked structurally modified but those are the the pieces. And as you continue down, um, D, construction or reconstruction activities intended for new occup occupancy. If it's intended for new occupancy, you fall under the EPA rules and regulations, right?

And that may very well be a trigger. So even under B, if we structurally modified the existing range, that would be I'll talk about that. Does that go the BM that we just I don't know what you're talking. Bring that one up in a minute. I'll explain that one. So preparing land for and then there's if you go or section five it's activities commonly considered redevelopment by EPA environmental courts. Okay kind of and if you go down the big one is under land use conversion activities reszoning to new use. So as soon as you reszone it that's that's my fear that's the trigger

right now then if you go down further and I think I've made my point if you go further and you can read what I've highlighted. No, I I read through that point. Yeah, I read that. So, another one with the reszone, obviously, I mean, I think that's what triggered your thoughts was when we were talking about reszoning the property, but what about annexation? Because I know that's for new use. So, if the city annexes offered as part of an annexation now, right now we're in the city's annexation plan. So, if next month they decide to annex that property into the city, that could also trigger it. Oh yeah.

So the city needs to be aware that if they all of a sudden decide, well, we're going to annex the rifle engine to the city, they could trigger this environment. But again, so this goes back to the concept of original use, original ownership, original use. Well, original is agriculture. It's the county's problem. It will be the county's problem in perpetuity. That's even with the city taking it over. If the city did. Well, if the city were to annex it and well, I guess take it over.

I mean, because we were we caused the county caused the issue and so when Randy brought up the whole if we request a reszone that can trigger the EPA to step in. So, that was my question is that the city's still the county. It's all our money. But what I'm saying though is that we don't want to trigger something that I think that's ready. So if the city comes in and also says we're going to annex that into the city, they could inadvertently trigger the EPA to step in. I think the city needs to be made aware of that. That if you annex this into the city, so you could possibly trigger this. Yeah. Causing who knows how many millions of We don't know.

We don't.

Correct. And the one thing I would avoid if possible is poking the bear. What do I mean? I mean asking the APA to come and look at it, do something, right? Because if they look at it and they go, "Look at that water run." I mean, they might feel duty bound to do to cause you to do something, right? as long as it's and again the range piece of this is really irrelevant to me. That's not what I'm here about. I like ranges. I like using that range. I use it a bit, but I use other ranges. Um, as and I'm not pitching for it to continue to be a range, but as long as it is a range that is in use, EPA leaves you alone. There's no trigger activated. It's when you try to change a lead piece of lead containment contaminated land that you trigger the requirements for a cleanup and land remediation. So that's a big deal. It's a big deal. So when they test, what they do is they come and they look at use and they do a survey of where lead might have gone, which is in some cases quite a ways up the door. You can have lead as long as you don't go past so many parts per million per whatever the measurement is, right? And it's not very high. It's not very high. So they go up and they they essentially and they there's the question of who pays for this because normally the entity that owns the land pays for the EPA to do the initial testing to tell you how right so they go up there and they do plots they they line it out they grid it and they do testing and they say okay

past here there doesn't seem to be any lead beyond the nor the norm above here there doesn't seem to be any so between left by top bottom here are the zones that have concentrations that are above the allowable legal limit for health regulation and safety. And these you must do. So the normal the normal thing to do is is to then scrape that land to 4 in deep. Scrape our land to 4 in deep. The issue, the the part of this is the dirt that you remove. If you you if it stays a range and they make you remediate, they make you deal with lead contamination, you can keep the dirt that's contaminated on the property you own. Just can't move it off. If you're cleaning up because of trigger like these, you want to you want to change the nature of the land. probably home after perpetuity too. We haul it.

So there there there is a go to that uh

there is a place in Grantsville but um lead above a certain level that dirt that's contaminated above that level has to be in sealed barrels and has to go to a hazmat suicide um storage facility somewhere in United States. Grantsville might be number five. Originally, you know, over the years as I've been watching this, there are four in the United States that accept that because they're stored forever. Grantsville apparently has one. I didn't know that. I was told that by someone, but again, you're looking at the same thing. You're looking at trans uh all the work has to be done by people in hazmat suits with certain grade filters, all the stuff that you that you want. So, um questions. So I do know so I've been speaking with Ogden Gun Club and you know they have their range cleaned every so many years and so they've actually given me some numbers. There's like this is something that you should get into a repetition to clean up all that surface lead. Um and so I've got those numbers and that and they there's one guy he'll come out and he'll actually do test holes and tell us kind of what we're looking at.

But they will come out and basically they they wind row the dirt between four and eight inches deep. Yes. And then they separate. They'll do either a wet or a dry wash and they separate the lead from the dirt and then basically they split the the lead with you. Like they'll scrap it all and you get 40% of the money or 30 or just depends on what they're doing. Um he says this is something they're still doing that. They're still doing it. He says because for a while you could people didn't violate anymore. It wasn't

Oh. He says they they did it last year u with this one this one company. He says one year they held the lead because it was only at 60 cents a pound. we wait till it's like 80 to get a little bit more of the cost. But these he gave me a couple numbers of a couple companies that they've used. Um one he says we haven't used yet. But he goes I'm I want to try them on our next cleanup. But he says depending on when your last cleanup and I'm like if we've ever had one and so they they will come out and actually look at it and and he says all that wedge shot and after the shotguns they basically put it in big window rows. They scrape it, put in windows, and they come through with the machine and he says the wet scrub is the best way to the wet wash is the best way to do it because it kind of cleans it all out. Did he say how much it cost?

It's they they take the lead. The they they make their money on the charge you anything. Take the lead. They take the lead. But you can depending on what it is, they'll do a 7030 or 6040 is typically what it is. A split or it's like it's like last year they did a 7030. So they got 30% of the money generated by the lead, but they don't actually Are they Are they certifying that it's below a certain part or they just cleaning up lead?

They're just cleaning up lead. But one of these guys, he will come and test and tell you what your parts per million is. His recommendation was like, have them come and clean your surface. You need to do it anyways. If you're going to keep shooting there, have it cleaned up and then have this other guy come in and they'll do your tests and set that in. And he said that's between typically 30 to $35 per test pit and they just go in there and dig it down and they'll send it to he goes you remember they send it to BYU and then they bring it back say here's what kind of give you a plan of what your range looks like and and whatnot. So how long does that usually take? I'm sorry. Did he give you a timeline of how long that takes

to clean it up? He usually takes about a week and go through he goes we shut down our range for a week. They come in there. Um like I said I he we've been playing phone tag over the last couple months. um he's out of the country and out of the state. He called me as I was walking in today. So, I've got these numbers. I spoke with Kate said I can make the calls or she wants to make the calls however we want to do it. But I think it's something to let's see what we've got. I mean, we want people to continue to enjoy the range, to continue to shoot. Um but let's before we put dirt over them. Yeah. Well, yeah. And nothing I don't think the actual range we just built those BMS because they were houses exposed and everything else. So, but I think the actual shooting surface shooting surface

I don't think we we've done much of anything just building those BMS bigger and taller to contain our our shooting. So, so they don't do the perms. They don't clean the He basically says the way they do it is they just basically go and clean up the flat surface. Um but again, we can talk to these two different companies and say what do you do? How do you do it? What's your recommendations? You know, kind of go from there. So, but at least that way we're, you know, if Well, you're being proactive.

We're being proactive, you know, because I think that's a concern is that the range has been there a long time and nothing's really been done other than one of the comments he made is, you know, you look at your use and it's like, no, people rent it and their families go use it, but it's not like we're having competitions and shooting massive competitions week after week after week. Um, he says they did one, he goes, you can go and and hand sample it if you want to. Here he goes. You can go up there and you dig an 8 by 8 by um 4 to 6 in deep hole and you wash that and scrub it and you take your lead. You'll sift the lead out. And he says they just did one and in that 8 by 8 by4 they have between three and four pounds of lead. That's scary. And so and that's because of how much they shoot.

My friend's boys almost died of blood. Boy poison. Yeah. It's a serious deal. And here's a figure for you. This is an outdoor race so it's not a concern but there was just a recent survey done um but by government oposes and they picked random indoor ranges around the country and 84% were above the sick lead amounts and then they tested the people there. In other words 84% of the employees who worked at these ranges these are commercial ranges were above the the range levels. Wow. So they have continued health issues. So they so EPA shut several of them down.

Could a resident trigger EPA? Like if they called with a complaint or something? Anybody can. Um there there are more there there are a few ways to get lead contamination, but if somebody has like friend's child has lead contamination, lead issues, then they start looking for sources. Where do you go? What do you do? If dad's an ammunition reloader,

good luck playing on anybody else but dad. You know, like if you're a reloader, because when I worked at a rifle range, he's like, "You guys all reload. You're all around lead." So if you And this is high-tech filtration, and it's amazing still the lead dust you find up on top of those. You've been inside them. Well, the range that we county range, two of their employees recently were way above and so they're instituting some new procedures. But again, that's very contained, right? This is land, but I wouldn't start blowing dust up there. That range from experience that range is way above safe levels, way above your range.

And that's I I'm not, you know, even from Nate, I don't know if you know Nate with he's the president guy, but he's one I was on the phone with. He says, "The amount of shooting you guys," he goes, "Even the years it's been in existence." He goes, "I can't imagine you having super high levels." He goes, "It's not like down here where they're competition shooting." He goes, "You're not going to," he's like, "You're not going to find three to four pounds in a 8 by8 little box." And so, uh, but he did he did recommend. He's like, "I would get on kind of a schedule." He goes they do it every four to six years depending on how things are going just to do that surface materials and that helps keep any leeching down into the dirt into the substrate and so

and back to the initial piece here is yes I think it'd be smart to look at a way to clean the range get some idea about how much that doesn't stop the triggering of an EPA inspection and potential order language but we shouldn't be pursuing things that will trigger that I'd be very careful yeah So, so on that um in your change of use, would you include like if we were to take the existing rifle range and make that an archery range and then build it somewhere else a rifle range? Would the fact that we took the rifle range and now made it predominantly for archery? Would that be considered a change of use? Cuz that's what was recommended at the last planning commission.

We have to go up there and shoot a few rounds. We we have we we'd have one bird and we'd have the sheriff's office go up there and shoot a couple times a year. This is our range. I don't know. But I I would say that that's going from a firearm ranger to an archery range is a significant event. That's what I would say. But I don't know that hill this I think I mean and one thing and I think for anybody that's listening you know online or whatever to this when we first talked about this back in what December November we didn't know

we had no idea. So now we've got some information and I think I mean my opinion is obviously with any sort of a reason anything that would trigger this I think we stop you know we push the pause button on that look at the remediation but we don't even know how bad it is. We don't even have a clue. Like maybe we clean it up and then we have some tests done and they're like oh you guys are so far below you don't have anything to worry about. Well, that opens up a whole another conversation, right? And and that's where I I appreciate Randy and you put a lot of work into this and I think we've all had phone calls about the rifle range and concerns and um I think the biggest thing is that we're not intending to close the rifle range. We want people to shoot. We want, you know, but we want it to be safe. You know, we've got the city has built homes on three sides of our rifle range. That's a concern. Um, and I think it's a legitimate concern just like with any lead that may be up there. I think as we move forward, I think number one is let's clean what we got and let's I I would say we do some testing and just see where where we're at. What do we need to be concerned? Do we need to I mean any one of us can go up there and say yes or no, but until you test it, you don't know. But would with testing would that if we had it tested, would that be a trigger?

I didn't see that in there. It depends on who does the testing. I think if it's an independent company that can do the testing for you, it go that way. I would just try to avoid popping up an EPA's radar right now. Sure. Until you have more information and better

a better hand handle on the situation. I will also say that I think as you move forward and you look at what's to come in the future, if there's another range to be done, we should talk about how to cause this not to happen at a future new range. And there are ways I've built worked on ranges around the country and it there are ways to do this that you would have an easy way to stay below that amount that's ready to clean up. That's all.

I think that's that's one great thing. I I was not at last week's planning commission meeting, but the one prior when this originally came up and you know for the residents, I thought it was really good. I mean, we didn't I had no idea we had the kind of knowledge that we have in this county when it comes to the ranges. um people that have worked on them, built them, decommissioned them. Um and so I I I appreciated all those comments because it's like, okay, those are those are people that we can lean on. So, hey, help us, you know, cuz I think when you look at Morgan County, I think we we love the outdoors, whether it's hiking, whether it's horse riding, just being a rancher, shooting, flying, whatever it is. And I think we want to continue to be that. And I I think I think there's a lot of people in this community that love the range. They love to shoot. they want to use it with their family and we want to continue that but let's do it the right way. Let's so I appreciate you know the people that did speak out kind of got our attention. Um again we do listen. Um I know a lot of people say that the commission doesn't listen to us but but we do hear you. Um but we want to make sure that we do it right. And so I think you know if if that's the direction we go with a new location, we certainly want to make sure we we don't want to just create another problem. Let's let's do it the right way. And on that

again the new facility current it's not us but 20 30 years down the road I guarantee you every range I've been involved with forever but Camp Williams listed in the army camp Williams in 1981 there was nothing else out there now we have homes completely built up again and we can't do certain I'm no longer in but the army can't do certain training anymore without specific permission and public notice. and so on and so forth after certain hours because of the encroachment and uh that's right

it's a fact of life it's not going to change. So you know we all work on we get a new range in in 20 30 years from now if you find flat land to put a range in flat land nearby to put homes on. Problem is that runs right through the river runs right along and that causes even more problems when you have to water. So

what were you going to say? Um and to that on the so since we were working on you know remediating it regardless um and clean up um it was nice sorry when in those planning commission meetings um the knowledge sharing especially to to remind us where the shooting footprint has been in the past because I know the current footprint is not where the footprint has been previously. So, when we want to make sure we get all of that um when we get it tested. So, okay. I I I don't have anything else. I appreciate all your work, Randy. That was wonderful. Thank you.

You have a wonderful That was very informative. Thank you. Thank you. See you later. How often does that happen? Yeah. What do we got? We can do Can't even do our commissioner comments. Actually, we could discuss some of those things. Yeah, we could discuss some of those bills

and the public can hear us here. Did you guys read through and this is off the subject of legislation, but on our employee handbook, did you guys read through every single bit of it? No. Too much. I was going to say it's a lot. Do you want me to bring Casey in on which one? Well, the employee handbook.

There's some things in I have questions on that were some of it was redundant. Some of it was mis spoke and then there were some other problems. Anyway, I got a whole list in my notes here and so I just wondered if we wanted to go through that now with Casey before it comes up as an action item. Yeah. have in case you can. Yep. I just And there he comes.

They have more um so our work session ended early. So while we have 25 minutes, um Commissioner Ferrell and some of the other commissioners have some notes on the employee handbook. Okay. Okay. Do you have a page? Yeah, go for it. And I'll pull up whatever page you need. Uh, did you bring Oh, you got your high tech. So, this you contracted this out, right? Uh, I had an attorney look it over. Yes. Did you like it? Um, yeah. I I had I Yeah. So,

wow. Way to go. Is that the first time you've ever done it? Um, from scratch kind of. Yeah. So, I've uh re redone other handbooks that I've had in the past, but this was the first time I I took one and made it just like completely overhauled it. So, I could do it there for you. Enjoy the process. Um, not really. At least he's almost

It was about 4 days of just staring and looking at stuff that was very bland. Even for me, it's just okay. I mean, these are just some things uh on page of the handbook. of the handbook

of the handbook. It would be page 10. That's where I started with some things. It says here in number one, two, three, third paragraph down the last sentence. Continued employment constitutes acknowledgement of the employees responsibility to stay informed about and comply with the most current version of this policy. Do you need about in there? Um because I tried taking it out a few times and I thought it doesn't sound quite right because it says responsibility to stay informed and comply.

Yes. Stay informed and comply with Yeah, I believe about is the correct way to put it in there. In our everyday language, you can just say be informed on um or oh I like I'm informed, but it's I believe it it is technically supposed to be you are informed about the handbook. So that mean you don't need about. So it I I it is you do you do need about your because that's that's grammatically the correct way to say it I believe

stay informed about the handbook and that's better that would be better just stay informed about but not not dramatically would not be informed about from my English experience. Mike's better at it than me. Garrett's the grammar Nazi. I don't think it's

Could you say informed regarding and comply with the most? I think maybe you're getting hung up like because there's the and in there, you read it. employees responsibility to stay informed about the most current version of this policy and responsibility to comply with the most current version of this policy. You're just adding the the conjunctive between the two things that you're responsible to do. So, I think it's fine the way it's written, but you could say stay informed regarding if you think that that's We're in a work session. Perfect. Okay. When we're on page 14, it talks about accommodations and it says create them. Okay. says when a reasonable accommodation is available and does not create an undue hardship for the county. Okay. Problem with that I see is that undue hardship for the county. It's in a couple of paragraphs there. Um who's to say that it's an undue hardship for the county?

A reasonable person. That's the correct way that they define it is any a reasonable person would say that it's an undue hardship. That's the language that is necessary for any accommodation language. It needs to say that it's an undue hardship. And when the courts look at it, they say an undue hardship is defined as any reasonable person would find this as an undue hardship. So they use it to define itself, which is silly, but that's the way that it's been described by the courts and in the court's opinion is an undue hardship for any reasonable person. Yeah. So that's that's that's what they they've said is that any reasonable person find it an undue hardship and that's how they as I'm here as a county for us.

So that's where that's my question. I don't know

like a similarly sometimes the courts will say um an individual in a similarly situated situation or like a comparable situation and so an undue hardship for Salt Lake County might not be the same for Morgan County but it's still a reasonable person standard which courts have kind of um joked about does a reasonable person exist right because everyone's a little bit different but the idea is a reasonable person is what a normal person a normal person would do in a similar situation. And so I I see no um there's no issue with this because it complies with the case law. I think what would happen though is if an issue came up, Casey would come talk to Janet or me and say, "Okay, how would the county defend this?" And so, so there would be some discussion with legal about

does this qualify? How is it going to affect us as a county? Yeah. And for the county, not for the employee because I understand their their rights. Yeah. So they're exercising their right, but it doesn't ours ours is a county and ours is a county body. What hardship is that going to do for us? Because I don't want something like that. And is it something where we have to build a whole new facility just to take care of that? That would arguably be undue.

I'm just saying in an extreme manner, but that's my question is so are we going to be held liable for something that is a hardship for the county? will be held liable either way, whether it's in our policy or not. But the policy just gives transparency to what the law currently is. Age 25. Okay. Regular full time. I thought we were not law or not. And that is where it says regular full time.

Sorry. I was here.

Um where it says that employees who are not in a temporary status and work a minimum of 30 hours can maintain employment status. Those employees are eligible for full-time benefits package terms, conditions, and limitations of age benefits program. We had a big discussion on that couple years ago, two or three years ago, three years ago where we said we did not want an employee who's considered fulltime and getting full-time benefits to be working only 32 hours a week on average. And so that was something I think discuss commission on changing lessons and legal.

So that's an employment classification. The Fair Labor Standards Act defines regular full-time employment as over 30 hours a week. If somebody's attendance and hours become in question, it's supervisor's responsibility to make sure that they're getting that full 40 hours. If they are not, then they can be terminated. the regular full-time status and classification as per the fair labor stand that this is what they find it as

give you your full hours. our our our question three years ago or four years ago, whatever it was, was the fact that we did not want to hire somebody that was going to be just working 32 hours a week and give them full-time benefits. And that is something I still adhere to. I mean, I think we need to adhere to and enforce that they've got to average 40 hours or close to it. 35 and 36, I think, is what we determined that three years ago was to go 36 hours above would be considered under that. So, we can't change the term, we can't change the classification, right?

We can't change the number of hours um the Affordable Care Act. Um they have to So, that's for the health insurance. They declare that 30 hours is considered full-time and for benefit purposes. We can't change that to 40 hours because it would violate the Affordable Care Act. So we use the language roughly for the draft in there to put in the classification. When we hire them, it's in their offer letter that they are expected to work 40 hours per week and their supervisor is expected to have them work those 40 hours. Does that make sense?

I think that's something you could deal with on a budget situation, too. If you had a supervisor who was consistently saying, "Well, I only want my employee to work 32 hours a week and they're getting full-time benefits, then I think it would be a decision by the commission to say, "Okay, well, we're going to pull back funding on this position and it's going to be a 29 hour position instead of So, there's ways to and I don't think that has to be done as part of the employment policies, right? I think that's something that we could address if it comes up. I don't know that it will. And and that then that's my my

hopefully it will sometime we should we should have our supervisors um we should expect our supervisors to hold their employees accountable which is not going to have exact language for every single specific um policy or every scenario that comes up. This is just a general guideline for employment here. And so we go a lot of this is um language that's necessary for the uh employment law and things like the affordable care act that I brought up that 30 hours from the care act.

All right. So, I had a question on page 27 talks about overtime for hours worked in excess of 40. Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't our public service sheriff's deputies work 48? 43. Is that what it is? It's more than 40. I know that's what it is. We don't pay overtime for that. So, do we need to adjust this to indicate or just add for public service employees? This is what it is. I get

Yeah. So, give me just a second. I believe I included a section on

if it's someplace else. Great. I just that was a question as I scrolled through. I will make sure it's included. 480 is the amount of PTO that they are able to discuss.

I'm okay. I'm sorry. I'm not following you. I think last week was on the comp time that it was way too much. And then we were saying comp time for law enforcement was um 48 and 24 for Okay. non hours. Do we need to put something in there indicating that they're not going to get paid over time in excess of 40 hours? I I can I can just something to indicates. Yep. Yeah, I can.

But those say sheriff's 43 hours for sheriffs. Put in that upper overtime.

On page 29, K8, second to last paragraph. It probably should either say should or may. All three of them. have two sh employees who meet job expectations receive a score should receive a score. Employees who exceed job expectations should receive a score. always

that is spelled out

page 29 second cost of living.

Last for all of them. I don't know that it says also worship. about three minutes. Page 33 under the nepotism section it says to avoid

shall restrict the hiring of relatives and current county employees thinking shall restrict within the same department not shall restrict completely that would be almost but the exceptions questions talk about like emergency situations and things like that. It's not and if you have a shall that's pretty that's mandatory. So you either need to change it to may or you need to change it to within the department. I would there anything in there about like it can't be immediate supervisor I remember reading

I mean that's the intention is that you don't have the same department supervisor. So we may go back3 country know the First one.

Okay. And then the next one is where you said country. Yes.

I don't Okay.

I see it. Thank you. Yeah. Page 39.

I have to have Okay. I heard exactly the same thing. What was the last one?

Blaine, what's that last one on page 31? What did you say on page 31? What did you say on page?

try and turn that on before I say that. Welcome everyone. We appreciate your attendance this evening. We want to welcome those who are online. Um, we just finished up our work session. Um, we had a discussion on the rifle range. If um, I think it was very beneficial and informative. So, if you want to go back and listen to that, you're welcome to do that. Um we're February 17th, 2026 and uh we're going to start by having a a uh opening prayer by Commissioner Nickerson and he'll also lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Our father in heaven, we are grateful for this day and for the opportunity we have to commission and we are grateful for all the many blessings which we enjoy within our community and grateful for this moisture which we've been receiving. Pray we'll continue to receive this moisture is much needed. We go for the opportunity we have to serve the people of Morgan and pray that we will be able to work together, be con constructive, and be able to discuss the issues that we have before us and be able to work together. We're so grateful for all we have here and we're grateful for our first responders and for our military and ask you to bless them that put their lives on the line for us for our protection. We are grateful for again for all we have. We say this in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. You'd rise and for me in the pledge of 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.

Sorry, I spelled your name wrong. Did you see that? My turn. Dixerson, I spelled your name wrong. Cindy, can you find? She went to the Ling Center. Thank you. Who is that? He's new. He's new.

Okay. Pray for pray for snow. That was a heck of a storm we just got. So maybe tomorrow we'll bring some a little more. Snowmobiling has has not been good to us this year. Okay. consent agenda items. Has everybody been able to take a look at those? And if so, any questions? If not, I'll look for a motion. I'll move to approve the consent agenda consent agenda items as listed. I'll second it. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor?

I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, since we have a uh conflict well. Oh, does anyone have any conflict of conflicts of interest this evening before we I just always I live in the cottonwoods so part of the cottonwoods that is definitely a conflict.

Okay. Um, in speaking to our attorney this this afternoon, um, the applicant on the note on E5 has asked that uh, that would be with withdrawn from our agenda. But because we previously had um set this for a continued item to a date certain, it had to be on our agenda as a public hearing. Um and we had to notice it. So rather than holding a public hearing on a potential development agreement amendment um that won't be voted on today, um we will have time for you to we're not going to have a a a public hearing. So if you would if you have something to share, please share it during our public comment time period. So

So you're not doing the item number. Correct. That's correct. So, with that said, um now is the time for public comments. If you have something that you would like to come forward and share with the commission at this time, please keep it to close to 3 minutes as you can and uh we'll go ahead and turn the time over the public now. Uh, my name is Kobe Kimble. Um, I'm a contractor. My dad built up here.

Will you pull up the mic just a hair?

Sorry, I lost my voice coaching basketball last night, too. Um anyway, I I uh I watch most of the the meetings. So you guys are like maybe all the TV stars. I'm not here, but I I do I do try to be informed not only as a citizen, but it does help me, you know, building houses, knowing the ordinances, knowing what is new. Um I I watched extensively when the fire ordinance uh was passed originally. I don't agree with the way it was done. Um, I'd like to thank Matt and former commissioner Jared. I thought at the time they did a good job of kind of kind of putting shooting holes in it, trying to really ask what was necessary for our private residences in Morgan. Um, I don't agree with the square footage um that was set in that ordinance. Um, it's kind of funny how you build houses. you can have a, you know, 5,000 foot house that has the same uh footprint as a 1,800 foot house. And so it's kind of Anyway, I just don't I don't agree with that. I think it needs to be changed. I don't know whether it needs to be changed, too. I agree with the state um state ordinance is 10,000 square feet in Morgan. We would be a little bit more strict. I understand our county is different. Every countyy's different, but I've seen this. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not building a house in the county. I live in the city. I have water to hook up, you know, have fire hydrant, but I I be build houses. I see that it costs 20 to $30,000 for these fire street systems. Um especially uh guys my age. I'm 40 years old. They're trying to build their permanent residence in the county. And that's a that's a pretty big expense for for our residents to add, you know, 20 to $30,000 to their bills. Um so I would strongly suggest uh making some sort of change. Like I said, I don't know the exact answer, but you know, I would I would defer to the state state state fire ordinance, which is 10,000 square

feet. So, thank you very much. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Heidi Nettleton. I represent the applicant for the DA amendment um that we're not going to have a public hearing on today. So, sorry, I'm just catching up. There was emails going back and forth, so we weren't sure we were ready for to present um some things to you today. Uh but it sounds like we won't be allowed to do that since we cancel public hearing. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay. Um so I would just just because um there's been a lot of misinformation and I know there's a petition going around. Um, I would like to see if we could um get on your next work session because there's just a lot of information that and you know it was a complex um amendment and it's been since what November when we had the work session when you saw it. So I just want to make sure that we clear out some things um and see if that's appropriate to get on the next work session. Thank you. Okay, seeing no other public comment, we will uh move on then. Kate.

Um, uh, this is a resolution of the commission to create a county rifle range advisory committee to recommend and advise on the future use, safety, and development of county shooting sports and their facilities in Morgan County. um specified in subsection two. The purpose being thereof to evaluate the current site for safety, noise, impact, and fire risk, develop a long-term plan for moing modern shooting sports and complexes, uh review and recommend updates to drain fees, um scheduling priorities and operational rules, and assist in the coordination um essentially of our our WOOI um fire uh requesting a a membership of five to seven members. So, we have an odd number. Um, and to include um a representative from the sheriff's office, representative from the fire department, a representative of from shooting our local shooting sports, and then the rest being um at large residents of Morgan County. Happy to answer any questions on my scrolls.

I love this. I I think it's long past due and and I think you it's going to be really we have a lot of people with a lot of amazing knowledge on this. It's going to help us as a share. Yes. I have a question on one of them. You got three um the items from the sheriff's department. One of them from the sheriff's department from the fire and then the shooting organization. I'm fine with that one. And I'm fine with one or the other cuz we need both of the other two. Law enforcement. Law enforcement and what? Well, I don't know. Fire. Fire. Fire I think ought to be there because

law enforcement uses it. And I'm just wondering is it what was the reasoning in the sheriff's department? Because they are our number one user. Okay. Whatever rules the committee recommends to us, we would follow anyway. So that's why I'm wondering is it should that just make it to where we have three at large residents of the county instead of three or are we looking at four? It'd be four if we choose seven. Uh, so the reason that I put county sheriff's officer, local law enforcement, is

they use the county range to qualify, which they're required to do. If whatever uh group goes away from the requirements or the base necessity of what the requirements would be to qualify, then we as the county will have be having to pay for them to qualify at a different range. Um not worried about that. I'm just wondering is is should they be on this advisory board? That is I don't see why you Okay, that's fine. If we have seven, I think it's great. If we have five, I can see. No, I I I think seven would be better to and I have a list of people that would love to be on there

that have already emailed me. I had question. Yes. Under local shooting sports organizations, you use the example of 4H shooting sports. Could that be a youth member that was in for program? Whoever the K commission chooses to put in for that spot. Yep. It's just we want at least one representative from a shooting sport organization. Whether that's a high school student, whether that's Nicole Reid from extension that um that create is creating that, that is completely up to the commission who you appoint to that seat. We just wanted them to have a representative. Okay. So, I would I would go with the seven, not the five.

I I agree. I did have one recommendation um from a resident. They said they they would like to see a member somebody that like from Browning. He says when they used to work for Browning says they would always, you know, here we have a a major manufacturer of firearms in our community. They have their own range, but they have the connections. they know the people to have them part of it. Um he says they have a lot of influence and poll and things like that and those connections and they just felt that it would be good to have something from to represent Browning on that and I I feel like the commission can

do that without locking up. No, I I just think as we look at these at large if there's somebody right that was something that and I thought that sound like a good idea like somebody that's tied into the business side of things that I thought that would be a there's somebody that works at Browning that wants to get on the on there. Just throwing that. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve CR26-13 establishing the Morgan County Rifle Range Advisory Committee. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I. Any opposed. Okay. Erica. Deputy Chief Erica.

Right. Now, um if you guys remember a couple months ago, we came to you for some money for a Culbert extension at the bottom of Port Scrapple. Yes.

On Kilurn's land. Um that work was just completed this past week. What we found when we were starting to complete that was the pipe that goes underneath the road from the end of Hearts Gravel to Neil's property is eroding um and is going to give way soon and needs to be replaced. Um if we don't replace that, it could wash out the road when it gives. Um so we're here tonight asking for $26,000 to complete that work. it would be completed in May or June um once the water levels they go down a little bit and that'll just hopefully prevent us from having to spend at least 200 grand if we if we don't take care of it.

Uh commission had asked me if there was uh funds to do so. Yes, there is funds in the flood budget if you want to.

How much is in the flood mitigation fund? uh this year 121237 um granted 84,000 of that is already designated to the project at hand which leaves 40. So question I have for it in that um over they want to put under there is 24 in um and it's going to be concrete. Yes. I'm just wondering it should it be metal? The reason I'm asking is because of the concrete with all that pressure coming across it all the time on that road. Is that going to cause a problem? You guys are in Brett Scott's hand, but not the chair. It's a concrete there. There's not enough covers. It does have to be. While you're up there, Brett, is this intended to be a change order from the with the existing awarded?

Yes. Okay. Thank you. What will that do to our cost if we're going from concrete to to steel that? I think that's what we find on the start. I just didn't inform America. I apologize. I'm I'm just looking at their bid and they got 24 in reinforced concrete. So you're looking at going down that was the original extension that's on the land. Oh, gotcha. Yeah. So that's the work that was just completed. That is okay. That cover's got a high pressure gas line underneath it.

So we have very little room to work with. And then the cover is not enough to put concrete back in that we got to go back to metal. So yeah, this one's been in since the 60s. 358. So, we don't have an actual bid. Just them saying we could we can do this for 26,000. Okay. I just was looking at that bid and was like, "Wait a minute. That's okay. I'm good." Otherwise, we could possibly put concrete just for the rules. So, um looking for uh commission's approval to do that change order out of fund 21.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the change order the amount of $26,000 out of fund 21 to replace the pipe, the corroded pipe. Motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? Any opposed? Thank you.

So, I'm sorry. Is So, it's done. Not the metal part, but the original work. Okay. I Or am I going to get a bill at some point? Okay. Casey, you're up. Any other comments or amendments past what you discussed in right before this meeting began? I Yeah, there's more, but I'm just wondering if we can postpone this and we can put into a work session and make sure that we got everything correct and accurate as to what we want because I know some of the commissioners were not able to go through it all the way.

Okay. Um you just letting you know your March 3rd work session is full. Um so it could be the Wednesday that would be the the soonest that could send them our email suggestions instead which is what we were supposed to do last time the final. We didn't have the final until now. Option B would be

I guess my I guess my thought is is is um if can we cuz some of it's just grammatical and I I don't think that's a big deal. The grammatical stuff we can fix that but if there's something significant can't we change that anyway? Uh you would have to bring it back.

Yeah. You don't have to change it by resolution. Um option. So you have essentially three options to vote on it as is tonight. Um to postpone it to a date certain which um if you want the a 4:00 work session and you're looking at March 18th or if you want to come in early and do a 3:00 or 3:30 work session on the March 3rd meeting if you're wanting another work session. And I have a a question. So I I read the whole thing. Um, are you wanting us to be the editor like to fix the grammatical errors? Were we just looking for the substance? Were we And good job writing your first handbook. That's so the my

any direction.

My goal for this was to to bring it to the commission because ultimately it is the handbook that you're passing and you're having for our employees. Um, I'm writing it and giving you a draft of it, but it is ultimately the commission approving it and it you have to be able to back it and and so if there's anything that you disagree with in there, I want I want to hear from you and I want to have a conversation about that. Um, if there's anything grammatical that is sticking out to you that you that makes you have a hard time approving it. I know I've had that where I'm like I there needs to be a comma right there. I cannot have it without a comma there. I' I've had that. Um, then that's fine. But, um, the my my plan for the handbook is every year to update it, make changes as new laws come out, as uh, situations occur. This is going to be a living document that comes before you all every year. So, this isn't an end- all beall document that is going to be ratified forever. It's going to come before you each year. So, does that help? Is that a non-answer?

Say yes to everything. I would still No, I I think it's fine to postpone it. I just don't know if we need a work session. If we all take the time to I think we just walk through and then email anything we see and then just and if we have anything serious or stuff we'll have a personal conversation with you on it. Awesome. Thank you. Okay. What date certain just next meeting that everybody good with that? Okay. So we need to postpone.

I need a motion. Yeah. Move that we postpone CR26-10 approving the Morton County employee handbook to date of March 3rd. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Ferrell and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. E4. Mr. Chair, I move that we mean uh support of equalization.

I'll second it. Okay. Have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I I there any opposed? Okay, we are now a BOE.

Good evening. We are I am here for um the Brooks Fernelius application. He was granted a late appeal by you by you on December 16th of 25. He has now applied for primary residential exemption. Um the reason you granted the primary or the uh late appeal was for a medical condition. So tonight, it's before you to decide if you are willing to give him primary residence for an un unforeseen circumstance for the tax year 2025. Correct. 2026, he's already primary. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Um Janelle is unable to attend tonight. She's ill, so I'm kind of covering for her. I'm not sure if Mr. Fernelius is he wasn't sure if he was going to be able to get away from work. Looks like he's not here. So that's your decision before you. Are you okay with granning primary residence? We already granted him the grand appeal first. He was trying to get his value down also and I think in our meeting we said so you can't discuss value

primary res. So I think that's why we gave you it to him. So So Mr. Chair, I would move that we grant the primary residential exemption on BOE um CR26-2507- BOE second. Should um I amend that just to state our reasoning for unseen circumstances. Well, the circumstances aren't why we're granting it. The the circumstances are why we allowed him to appeal to say that it actually was

restate it. Yeah. So, I don't think it needs to be it. It's just simply we're we're granting that he can have primary. Correct. So, what you'd be actioning is that um it's either approved, modified, or denied to give the primary exemption. um giving the assessor the authority to adjust the appealed parcel and um and then to allow obviously his um ability to appeal even this decision to the state if he disagrees with your vote. Okay, I'll second it.

Okay, who made the motion? Commissioner Newton, second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Chair, I move that we leave BOE. Second. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Backel to go out of board of equalization and convene as a commission. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Okay. Uh, chair, on on number E5, I know at the beginning, um, you made you let the public know there wouldn't be a public hearing on that issue. There has been a request by the applicant to continue it to a date certain. They're still working through some of that. So, I'm just asking that we postpone E5 till uh later in the meeting in the meeting because they're still determining whether to continue it to a date certain or renotice. There is a a a cost to renoticing. Okay. So, we're we're postponing it in the agenda until later in the agenda.

All right. Okay. Chief. Okay. E6. Chief Brad Wilks. I did um Chief Wil sent me a document today that I forwarded to you. I believe he has paper copies. Who does anybody need a paper copy? Okay. Do you want uh that document up or the packet document? The one you sent today or the one you sent last week? I mean, this kind of the one last week kind of overviewed where we kind of started. So, hey Chief, if you have a paper copy, I'll take one.

Wasn't sent out. No, he just sent it today. Um, so I know the conversation was about potentially modifying the existing ordinance. Um, that's why this is um scheduled for discussion and direction. So um this is being that Chief Wils has has recently taken this position. This was what he specs as if he were to write this ordinance today. This is what this is his recommendation.

So the preface is when we were here last time I walked in pretty new. I knew this was an issue. So we I spent a significant amount of time the last two weeks looking into what we're doing now, what the surrounding agencies are doing and what the codes requiring. Um, incidentally, Friday, uh, Kate and I met with state of Utah over House Bill 48. So, that's passed. That's taken away some of the latitude that we have to interpret code, and that's just the way it is. But having said that, right now, if you go through here, our code in Morgan County requires sprinklers over 3600 square feet. Okay? I I've met with the deputy state fire marshal today. I presented this to him. He said he agrees. Uh they would rather see lots of agencies a little more strict. However, we meet the intent of the code. We meet the intent of WOOI. We meet the intent of House Bill 48 with what I'm proposing. So going through just so anything from 3600 to 6,000 square feet. I'm proposing we are you have a two-hour fire separation wall over the 3600 feet. So any of you that are in building the best example is the townhouse project. So you got a forplex that's 8,000 square ft. We separate that into 2,000 square foot units with fire separation. That's why sprinklers are not required in multifamily. That should apply to residential in my view. So we can get away without the sprinklers. And then I put on their no sprinkler unless they're in the high hazard wooi. Um that's the new UW RAP maps through House Bill 48 that we are bound to follow. So that's just your high risk. So we ran our maps our 95th percentile. There's only 178 buildings in the entire county that are in the 95th percentile. So if

we drop it to the 90th, we were looking at 450. Hopefully that makes sense that you're in a high-risisk WOOI. We need to be a little more protected than down here in the valley. And for the public, WOOI is the wild wildland urban interface. That's a state code. It's a federal code the state of Utah has adopted. We've adopted the state code. Um I think it helps with the gentleman. I want to get it as standardized as we can to the state code to meet our requirements without overburdening people. But and and that's specific to how likely that parcel is to be in a wildfire, correct? And to include embers.

Yeah. So the ember showers and you can get on, we can forward you, if you want to look at the URAP map now. It's available for the public and they've got it right down to specific parcels what they expect an amber shower to be, which is how they rate fire ratings, wind, I mean there's a whole bunch of stuff. Um 13D sprinklers will be required if you're within that 90%. So if you're in that high-risk buoy, we're still going to require sprinkling to protect. And that's part of what House Bill 48's going to require us to follow. But if you're outside of the ember 90th percentile, which as I told you, that's we we my guess is in the 90th we're going to have less than 450 properties in that percentile and the rest are out. um full non-compliant exteriors per the WOI code in the 90th percentile. That means nothing that can combust. So no wood siding, no wood shingles, no wood trim. It's going to have to be hardy concrete a fire protected and the code outlines what's available. You don't see a whole lot of vinyl siding going on anymore anyway. So um and then full compliance with the standard set in the WOOI code. This is all again within the 90th percentile. If you're not in the percentile, then the fire rated separation jump down to the 6 to 10,000 square feet.

Can I hop in real quick? Yes. I also wanted to clarify to the commission um HB48 does allow. So if there was a parcel that we that we considered to be in the 90th percentile, there is an appeal process to get out of that percentile. So it's not set in stone. I'm trying to find HB48 and I keep finding. It's last year. If I may, I guess we can do that.

Yes. So, and and the other potential complication is House Bill 41 that's in session now is going to go amend 48 potentially in certain regards and it's primarily going to be the firewise about combustible trees next to houses. Park City's got representative to run it. It went through the committee today 17 to0 in favor of change. And so that will potentially alter the firewise, but if we write the code how I have it written, we're it's like everything else. We'll just follow the current guidelines. So if they amend the firewise in Utah, then we'll adjust as accordingly so we don't have to keep changing by resolution. Any questions so far?

I have a question. Okay. In our county, we are deficient with some areas of the county. I'm not saying all areas of the county are deficient on enough water to be able to handle fire. Most not. Oh, okay. So, if that's the case, why are we changing this to not be dependent on how much water is in that location?

So, this particular proposal is item number one. There's item number two and item number three on the next pages that are going to I want to talk about that tonight specific to the sprinklers which my understanding was the thrust of the first part. Correct. That's what this is. We have to deal with the water but we'll go get into that in a minute because I have that for you was that won't be a proposal. That's more to start talking points from my perspective with you and then we can move forward with that. That help commissioner. Yeah. So 6 to 10,000, you know.

Yeah. So 6 to 10,000 you'll see that there's not going to be a whole lot of changes other than we're going to we can require fire separation for every 3600 square ft. So we're going to compartmentalize that fire. It's just buying us time, which we have to have. That's the reason for sprinklers is to buy us time for my people's safety to check that fire. It's not going to put a fire out. Don't anybody kid yourself. It's to check the fire. Um, having been a builder longer than I've been a firefighter, compartmentalizing with fire separation works and it's a whole lot less money than throwing a sprinkling system in across the board.

I think that was one of the the biggest things I think as we all spoke to different residents is that again you you get all the sides of the story, right? you get their side their side and then the truth is somewhere in the middle right and it was for some reason some of these homes they weren't allowing the fire separation like no we don't recognize that or there was some conflict there where you know I appreciate this where it's like you don't need sprinklers unless you know that the 30th percentile or but recognizing that that separation because that's common throughout all of the industry is we compartmentalize that fire then we don't have to do these other things and that gives people plenty of time to get out and So putting that into our code and not just it's somewhere in the you know the IFC somewhere that puts it into our code. So I

right and that's my whole point my job and my goal here as long as I'm your chief be safe but to standardize standard policies equate to standard operations which equate to standard outcomes on our end. But as a builder what's better than to walk in and be handed a piece of paper. This is how it is. you know, up front what you're getting into, but I'm not going to go to across a street and have a change. I don't think that's right. So, again, on the 6 to 10,000 ft, um, we'll we'll just require that separation at every 3600 ft. Um but we again we're going to if we're deficient in the water when you're getting into the bigger ones because that's commercial firefighting then we potentially um will require the sprinkler if we don't have water. Um, more questions on that 6 to 10,000 square ft and above again 2hour separation compartmentalize it into 3600 because that is the basis of the international fire code IFC sprinkler system we're going to require 13D system if it's over 10,000 ft because you're basically that's a lodge or a hotel. So when you get a house over 10,000 square feet I mean hopefully that makes sense. we've got to put protection system in. And in a nutshell, that is my recommendation for the sprinkler code, specific to the sprinkler code for the Morgan County.

So, just a question on the 10,000 ft and above. So the IFC fire sprinkling system required and the two-hour fire suppression required for every 3600 feet the sprinkler everywhere. Sprinklers will Yeah. It'll have to be sprinklered per whatever the fire flow is,

but we still want that compartmentalized. And if they choose not to and can come in with it, that would be what I refer to as the exception that we can look at. So, if they want to come in and do a full-on sprinkling system and they have the water, maybe we can back off a little bit on the square footage on the fire separation, but there will be no exception for sprinklers over 10,000 because we really shouldn't be allowing exceptions. That's like a small hotel. Yeah, it is. And I get it. You know, you got some of these fourstory atrium rooms in there, but that's why it's so much more important for us to get the fire separation between those rooms.

Some of them, some of them would have a hard time separating 3600 ft.

And and that's where we would potentially allow the exception, which we would look at with building zoning and myself and make sure that we're consistent. But if they they have a reason and they're sprinkling it, then that would be something we would certainly look at given an exemption for. But again, the exemption, the exception, not the rule is what I don't want to be the games played. Well, we can get around it by and I think when you don't have a document like this, that's what you open us up for us. Well, he did, but I don't, so why do I, and why should I? And it just tightens it up for everybody. So I'm just so what is the twohour separation? So two-hour separation is fire separation wall. Typically it's two one inch or 3/4 inch fire rated rocks.

Half inch sheet rocks one hour burn rating. So I think like double half or one inch 58 is fire rated two 58 is the out two hours because I can't remember the ceilings are different than the walls but whatever it says you know we're not going to tell them. We'll just say meet it because when I used to frame fire separation wall was nail it up, fire tape it. Now they have channels with two foot continuous so you don't have the brakes and they slide it in. So like at the airport we have to on where a hanger is next to a hanger. We have to have two 5/8s on those sides that are next to each other. Not the back to the back.

Even though they're six feet away from each other or 10 feet away from each other. Yeah. So it's 5/8 two 5/8 and two Yeah. And the new the new fire code in residential and I it's basically inch thick 2 foot wide panels that are 12 ft and they have metal channels that block it in. So there's no nail and no tap and but that's res. It's equ 58 is the point. However they want to do it. If the building codes allows twoour rating that's what we allow them. We give them the latitude either to do the panels and locks or nail the 58 on.

So within this recommendation here, if you had a 4500 square foot home and you wanted to put an addition onto it of 1500, would that put it into the second category? Well, the additions really are you're talking this would be new construction. So if you have a 5,000 So it's only on because in our code I think we have it as if you put an addition onto it above the 3600 square ft that we currently have then we have to do sprinklers. That's what the current now right now. Right now we do. Yes. Correct. So I just want to know if that's

I don't know. Honestly, I haven't looked into the remodel, but I mean across the board, then you put the fire separation in and it has to be built in of some kind. It's a good question. He was asking Josh, if somebody has a 4,000 foot home and they do a 1500T addition, are they now required to sprinkle the entire home because they did the addition they're over the 3600 ft? And so, is it retroactive to existing structure? I don't have an answer for that right now. You're supposed to have all

I know. I usually do. Um I don't I'll have to talk to our building official and see how they've been interpreting that. But I mean I I would almost think that, you know, if you do if you do fire separation between the existing structure and the new structure, then you'd be under your square footage, then you should be fine in this

in this. So in in this Yes. And I don't know for sure and and we should have that discussion, but but I know that we do have a grandfathering portion of our code that talks about there's non-conforming uses that um we we don't enforced because they predated the code. And so I think any any expansion of that, you know, if you added the 1500 and you did the fire separation between the two, you're not enlarging the nonconformity and you're complying with the new terms. reading if if we can do some research we can give a definitive answer probably at the next meeting. Yeah, we can do that. Um with non-conforming there is you can enlarge or expand.

Yeah. Can

you cannot expand or enlarge the nonconformity. So if if the lot is non-conforming then you have to get the lot out of conformance before you can divide or anything related to the lot. If the building is non-conforming, then you're not expanding that building at all until you bring the the building into conformance. And a way a building could be non-conforming is setbacks, lock coverage, building height. So having said that, I would just say just make this particular ordinance code related to new construction only and then we deal with the non-conforming adding in another paragraph for another ordinance because I never even thought of that. It's going to have to be addressed.

Sure. But it sounds like how it's written now. you would have to become conforming. I know in commercial work if you do any alterations you have to bring it to the current code which is what makes it so expensive.

Any other questions for me on the Yeah. So all of the fire chiefs and fire departments in the county are involved with this.

Uh Chief Brendell, yes. He's been way aware and he's supportive of standardizing. The thing is they're a standalone agency as any agency. So Mountain Green Fire Protection District or anybody else within a county can adopt their own. They can strengthen if they want to make it stricter, they have that legal right to do it. I just want the standard set and then if they choose or anybody chooses to make it more strict in their own jurisdiction, they have the legal right to do that. Okay. The item number two. So, um did you send the South Davis? So this is an example from the South Davis Metro Fire Agency. So this is in regards to plan reviews. So at the current time, any plan review comes into Morgan County. It's gone through civic review and then sent over to the fire department. And in the past, apparently we've had some discrepancies and approvals and non-approvals. It's got the county in a little trouble. So my proposal here is we adopt something similar. and it's called a peer review and it would basically require anybody coming in that needs fire suppression systems to have a third party. They basically do all the review. That's what they do for a living and they provide us with a letter, simple letter that says this building, this home, this whatever remodel is compliant with current codes and your ordinance. So they would have Morgan County's any adopted ordinance along with IFC the WOOI code and they'll send us a letter that says basically it meets. So that makes them do all the in between with the developer or the contractor with one of the companies and

then they provide us the big thing there is um my fire marshall's got his hands full just doing enforcement and the inspections. Um we're not experts at plan review. I know how to do it. I'm okay at it, but I don't want to miss some little thing to have come back and have it haunt the county or me. The peerreview letter again, they pay all the costs. Then we get the letter that says it's okay and then we inspect it. And this is primarily the big one. And then the paper, we have exemptions. They have exemptions. So if mom and pop wants to do the example is we just did a coffee shop and they want to move less than 10 heads or small one we will do the plan review because that doesn't take but half hour

subdivision. Do you know what that cost is going to be to our to our citizens approximately?

I don't I mean it's dep it's all dependent on square foot and size but it's pretty common place in other agencies. That's the other big thing. We get a third party peer review, they mess it up, they come back to sue, it's off us. And I hate to be that way, but this world is, as you guys are aware, driven by liability. Everybody wants to get a buck. Um, I'd hate to miss something critical. I feel like we won't, but we have enough coming in this county development wise that we our hands are full with inspections just in enforcement. We have a really good relationship um myself especially with Chris Tmaine and everybody in planning and zoning. So, it's not uncommon for us the last two weeks we're out with inspections. They're with us. We're making sure we're all on the same paragraph, not just the same page. So, as you go down, we we give three these are the three primary protection engineers in the area, but we'll also accept one of their own. They just have to get it pre-authorized cuz I mean, the three that are listed there do 80% of the fire reviews in Northern Utah. So we we won't restrict them as long as they get it pre-approved if they have an engineer of their choosing that meets the criteria license that's laid out here. We're getting, you know, the third

party. We're getting a the occasional one. We got one last week from protect in California that's asked, does it have to be stamped in Utah? We don't address that in code. And we told them on the phone, yes, you do. And they didn't push back, but um I don't know if you got the highlighted one. That's something we probably will put in here. And primarily you're getting that on the big big stuff. Wasetch Peaks is the call, but you're going to see some other houses that are, you know, when you're moving into this second and third vacation home, which is unfortunately going to be in this county, you get a lot of architects from Montana and California in particular that design big mountain retreats. So, we want to restrict that to a Utah engineer. questions on that one?

Nope.

Okay. Item three, Commissioner Ferro. I think this is kind of getting This one obviously is going to be the most controversial for folks, but I've got to start somewhere. So, again, I'm spending a lot of time looking through the current um zoning. just depends on down there on the one 2.5 5 10 acre 20 acre uh especially looking at outside the area. That's an awful lot of houses to not have a water system in. Uh our office just received a preliminary request for a 14 lot subdivision off which is a prime example of my big concern. it it meets the current zoning that they can do 14 lots with no hydrants, no water protection, no tanks. And that's a humongous concern for me. The problem we get if we don't back that down is you're going to get a valley full of 14 lot and 12 lot and nine lot because the code allows it. Then I have an entire valley with no storage and no hydrants. And then at some point it's going to be forced back onto the county to put water system in. And that's going to be millions of dollars for the citizens. Developers, and I'm not hammering them, but when you develop, we need to have the infrastructure put in at that time, not come in later and try to put in hydrant systems. I mean, hopefully that makes some sense. And then we, you know, as you develop, especially these bigger ones, then we can develop buyback agreements. So if a developer comes in and puts a4 million dollar tank for his 20 or 10 lot subdivision and somebody taps into it, they pay a portion of that install cost and he starts to get his money back. But again, I don't want to see that saddled on taxpayers for the

county. So the zoning thing and this is the proposed amendment. Again, this is more for just discussion is Weber Fire District. I met with their fire marshal. So they have very similar issues in Huntsville. They require fire suppression system period over three lots. So if you do a four lot subdivision of any size, you're going to put in tank and hydrant system. and they're requiring 240,000galon tank at a minimum where IFC is indicating right now it's 150. The 24 which was going to be adopted in July kicked that up to 180. His verification um he went at 240,000 gallons. That's 2,000 gpm of fire flow for 2 hours which is the minimum required. a 2,000galon fire flow is for a 10,000 or bigger. So that's like worst case scenario. So again, um this is kind of back to the sprinklers. There's I don't want there to be a reliance on 13D systems in a 14 lot subdivision with a 5,000galon water tank. I can burn through that in 2 and 1/2 minutes on a fire. Um, obviously that's not enough time. We need the water and this is primarily for the future. So that's the reason I brought this one up for we need we need to discuss it. We need to come to some sort of resolution sooner than later. You know, I don't but again you guys see the applications for subdivisions. It's not letting up. So that is it for me tonight. I have a question. This

what when you guys go out to put out a fire, what what is your goal? What is the goal to because like this house fire we had, is the goal to protect people? is the goal to try and save the structure is the goal to cuz to me the structure is gone. You're exactly right. So the priorities is so we're trying exposures.

So the first exposure when you're acre lots um the ability to put the next house out has to be there. We still have to put the fire out. You're exactly right. The insurancees company's going to total it. But more importantly is when I roll up on that house fire and grandma walks out and says, "My husband's in the upstairs bedroom and my grandchild's in the basement. I don't have the water." My people are going to do what I know they're going to do and that's going to hurt or kill them because they don't have the water to go in. You know, our simple nozzles 200 gallons a minute, 150 gallons, 200 gallons a minute. can see now the 13D tanks. That's if we can access them. Are they full or are they not? Okay. In the winter time, I can't get to them. I guarantee you we can't get to them cuz they're typically in a yard. Are they half full? Are they a fourth full? Are they 3/4 full? I don't know. So, we can't depend on those. This is again the point of the fire. the fire on stage coach. Had that been in August, we might be burning half those houses down because of an exposure because it gets in the grass and starts running in the wind or the trees or whatever else. So, there's kind of a lot more to it that helped answer your question.

It did.

And again, we have we can buy all the water trucks we want, but I don't have the staff to run them. I just don't. and how we run. We're already in Morgan County behind the eightball when a structure fire comes in because a typical house fire, if you study NFPA, 12 to 15 people minimum to work on a house effectively. If we get four or six within the first 15 minutes, we're doing pretty well. Our help is so far out right now. And it's just that's what happens when the conditions in the county, you know, we're we're strengthening. We have a meeting next week about our automatic aid agreements, but South Summit or North Summit from Hannifer when they're staffed in July, Mountain Green, and our next closest engine is South Weieber. So, at best we can put six to nine people on it. So, the water supply is imperative that we have enough water to do our job. We We're not going to have enough people. I mean, the county can't afford to and our call volume doesn't dictate having 20 people at duty on day. I'd love it, but it's not going to happen. And I realize that. I'm just trying to equalize a playing field as well as we can to do our job. And again, that the water supply has to be addressed. The county is booming like no tomorrow. Those of you that lived here understand that completely. It's like everywhere. You know, I remember Ogden Valley 25 years ago, there were no subdivisions. there were no town houses and now you can't buy a lot there for under 500 grand.

So are are in this kind of a situation or are they suggesting or are you suggesting that um they punch a well, they put a a big tank underground and it's pressurized or what does that look like? I guess

exactly. You would meet water quality which is public works stuff in the state water quality but punch a well typically we like gravity fed but understanding that you know on the flat lands you're not going to get it but they have fire pumps but pump houses so you'll have a pressurized water system. So if you're in the flatlands, that's exactly what we would like is a tank. And typically those are above ground. If you ever drive out to Roy Midland Drive or anything, if you look off, you'll see they've got a couple of 2 million gallon tanks above ground. 150,000gallon tank isn't enormous. 200,000 gallon. There are seven of them in Wasach Peaks above ground. they do for the freezing.

So, it's a tank. It's it's mass and volume. You can insulate the walls, but typically a 150,000galon tank isn't going to freeze. The plumbing underground is protected by the earth. The pump house where they pump is all heated.

They've got them all along the east of Salt Lake County. You got those big tanks up on the hill. Well, where I came from Leighton, we have 11 or 14 above ground tanks. Ideally, the point is that probably that's a conversation that would have to be had as design criteria with zoning because I think you need to be aesthetically pleasing. Nobody wants a metal tank than like Kansas hanging there. But for us, if you have a tank, even if it's underground, and a pump system that'll pump adequate pressures and keep our volumes up, I mean, if I'm getting 1,000 gallons a minute out of a hydrant system with a pump, that's better than having no water. Yeah. And, you know, 2,000 gallons with gravity is way better, but realistic.

May I ask you a question? Um, you addressed zoning, rural, residential, and agricultural for the subdivision water supply. What would you suggest for a town center zoning with many town homes and businesses? Well, town centers, like if you're doing high density, that has to be you already have a water system in place. They're not going to be built with a with no water system there. Exactly. But I I will note that I mean, you have this for every three acres. Would it come down? That's what I'm getting at. It would be the same. This has just come right out of the zoning ordinance for this is

this is only for RRS, rural residential doesn't address anything else. That's why it's RR. That's our problem right now. Like the townhouse is around the corner that had a water system that has hydrants. So, we're cool with that. That's an perfect example. We have a hydrant supply. we have adequate water. There's fire separation in those things. From my standpoint, we're good. We're going to get more of those. But those, again, this is specific to rural residential. Has nothing to do with those. That's that's addressed in another area of the code. But great question.

Concern I have about subdivision water supply is that to my knowledge, there's only two places in the county that have tanks of that size. Well, three if you count WPR and that's in Mountain Green. There's two water companies that have tanks of that size in Morgan City. All the other water companies within the county are much smaller and much smaller tanks. Most of them are 75,000 50,000gallon tanks, maybe 100,000 gallon tanks. Um, and the concern will be, well, how do we deal with those situations? Yes, you have hydrants. Yes, there's water. Is there sufficient water? Well, probably not. It's better than nothing, right? because there at least there's a hydrant. But

I think that's going to be something we're going to have to deal with and figure out how do we how do we deal with that situation. I mean I

I happen to sit on the board of a water company in in Cuddon. We have a 75,000galon tank, right? We have hydrants, but 75,000 gallons is going to go fairly quickly. It's better than the 2,000 or 3,000 that you're bringing on the truck, right? But it's it's still not enough. And I think that's something that we're going to have to figure out is how do we deal with that? Because the last thing I want to do is is scale back the the sprinkler ordinance and then scale up something that's going to make it even harder for people to to build homes in other parts of the county because we're trying to make it easier to build bigger homes in the county, right? I don't think that makes a lot of sense. But um anyway, and and we can talk about that because we're not really at that point yet. But I'm just throwing that out there that I think that's something we're going to have to address is how do we deal with these smaller water systems that maybe don't have the flow that we need them to have and yet not get into a situation where I mean I I actually hate what Weber Fire District is doing and saying you have to build a water system if you're doing over three lots, right? If I wanted to build I have four kids. If I wanted four lots for each of my kids on the farm, that would be devastating to try to put a water system in for that. I mean, you could never cover the cost. And what you'll end up doing is pushing developments to become larger and larger because, hey, if I've got to develop a water system, well, now I want high density because I need to put in 200 lots to make it pensive, right? So, there's a trade-off there that we have to kind of walk that line and figure out how do we keep the safety in mind, but how do we also not create this need to build bigger and bigger subdivisions because we got to cover bigger and bigger water systems.

Can you come up to the mic? Sorry, I'm getting yelled at by it.

Heaven forbid I should have you get yelled at. So, uh, Mountain Green Water used to be a small water company, one of the four that I normally have to deal with. um they ran into that problem with a small tank and they addressed it by combining with the Highland Water Company and they dug an 8 inch mane and and now that has adequate water cuz I had been on them for a number of years where if we had a fire at 11:00 at night u on that street we couldn't use the fire hose cuz more than likely on a hot summer night you don't have any water left in your 20,000galon tank. which was not adequate. And that's 18 homes, but that's the way they did it. They combined with an adjacent company. I'm not saying everybody

that works great, but it's 10 miles from Cudden to the closest company that they could combine with. So, that's not going to work. Well, and it's 5 miles from Porterville to the closest, you know what I mean? So, there are areas where I agree with what you're saying and I think that's great where they can combine and make that happen. I think that's wonderful. But in other areas, we're going to have to figure out. And I think to be honest, there are some areas of the county that are more rural than others. And maybe that's where we have to kind of start thinking about, well, how does that work? I don't know.

Well, I know how it works. Uh when we ran that fire the other day in Stoddard, we had a tank, we ran out of water, so that's how it works. And that meant that we could not complete the firefighting. And so I don't want to be in that position if we can help. Um I certainly support what Chief Wils is talking about. Um if we want to build, we need to have water and and I don't know how we're going to get it, but you got to be able to put that fire out before it sets the WOOI on fire and we're in big jam. So thank you. I think um that's part of the conversation more of this is moving forward. We're not going backwards. We'll do our best. But that um that's why I put dash 3-5. I threw out a number. I'm certainly not um I'm a lot more concerned with stuffing 10 or 12 acre lot houses than I am stuffing 10 on 20 acre lots if that makes sense. I don't have the quite the threat of a fire spreading to somebody else where you know the more packed they are. So certainly open to discussions. The point is moving forward, we've got to put these systems in place some way. And how we do that will be what we decide to do as a community. I mean, that's what we're here for is to guide the future. I just want to make sure we're doing it responsibly. And I get I mean, I have kids, too, and trying to put them in houses is difficult. You know, when you're doing this is primarily for major subdivisions. You know, the infill lots from whoever farmer giving one to a kid will will deal with that individually with sprinklers or the again the

hardening. This this discussion is primarily our subdivisions because a a 41 lot subdivision in hidden huddle of water with 150,000 gallons of water was okay then. It's not now. I mean, our fires are just getting bigger. They're burning hotter. Houses. When I built my first house, I thought I had a luxury liner and it was 1,200 ft on each floor. And I thought I just moved into the biggest thing in my life. And now, nobody builds a 4,000t house on two floors. It's 6,000. It's 8,000. It's And especially up here, the cost of property. I mean, we're not we're just not a starter home area anymore. It's unfortunate, but that's the reality. So again, any questions? Again, this last part is three is to get a conversation going and we need to sit down sooner than later and start hammering out some sort of resolution is what I would certainly like to see.

So do you have a proposal for those that have one lot subdivisions? I haven't done a proposal for anything. I mean, I know, but I'm saying would you have because I mean, if somebody says, "Well, I'm I've got a one lot here and it's on two or three acres." Yeah. So, that doesn't follow. I know it doesn't follow this, but I'm wondering is there a recommendation? Well, if we just follow you just follow the current whatever our current ordinance is.

I mean, the state code provides for a one lot subdivision and law is defined in state code very specifically. It's not just a division. a a parcel, a meets and bounds description. It's a one lot subdivision, 50 ft of defensible space on each side. So, and and that's what we adopted into our ordinance was the state code when it first came down. And there there is exception for a one lot subdivision.

My curiosity is okay, there's a lot of places in Porterville uh that have two to 10 gallons per minute. their house is going to burn down if that happens. Uh some have a little bit more, but mostly it's two gallons per minute to seven maybe. Um so is there a recommendation for that for fire prevention or fire mitigation? No, I I can't go back. I can't go back.

I'm just saying for future homes that are built. Well, we have in the codes the WOOI and IFC has a specific gallon flow for a well for fire protection. It's built right in there. So now when you get a permit, you have to provide a well report that says it flows X and the code says it will have to flow X with the tank. Um I don't know that I have that here, but it's okay. It's okay. I just want to make sure there's some

but but a single lot one is really not what we're talking because they'll have to build if they're down along East Kenya Creek they're not in a high hazard thing so they don't have to follow the hardening and everything else it'll be just like we're doing now you know if it's over 3600 ft they're going to have to put fire separation in kind of simple so that that's what I was going to say is we look at that single lot we go back to number one okay and that's your 3600 and again these are his recommendations and my recommend my thoughts are this is where we start. We work with number one

and we can tweak and talk and discuss that. I'm looking forward to comments from residents. Um, I've had a lot of phone calls in the last couple weeks interested about this. Uh, and continue this conversation and let's focus on number one and then we can start the conversation on number three because that one's going to be pretty in-depth and that's going to be a huge expense for anybody that's going to start kind of like what Commissioner Newton was talking. I think we start with number one and not get too overloaded. um focus right there because I think that's the to me that's the where the whole purpose of this conversation started with the 3600 ft. Well, yes. Item one and two were the two that

Yeah. I mean that number two was the the plan review process. Yes. And that's exactly what was my hope tonight was at least put forward to you. We can't discuss three. That's going to take some weeks to do because we have to do it responsibly and make sure that we meet the intent of everybody. I certainly don't want to be anti-developer, but we can't be anti-fire suppression either. Got to find something that works. But one and two, I think are my proposals. Um,

Chief, I do have a question for you. So, I pulled up what I believe I found is the current Louie map and so unless somebody has it. I was through DWR, whoever it is. Okay. So, looking at at Morgan, I mean, this is kind of the ridges. There's not so highrisisk. The high risk is the risk. This is the 95th percentile. Okay. So, we're going to drop to the 90th, expand those areas just a little bit. So, my question, excuse me, would be, do they have a map that shows that 90? because that's that will be the next question from the residences.

Do they have a map that is the 90%? We called Tommy Thompson who's the he's the GIS and he said I I'll run a map but any percentile you want cuz I I think I mean if that's your proposal of 90 I would like to see that so we can show that to the residents that this is the proposal and just kind of see what that impact will be you know and I and I I I look commissioner um chair no sorry Wilson um I had to go your name is terrible. Um, see, I'm not the only one that loses my brain. Um, when you start talking, it all goes right.

Um, was, you know, what is the purpose of of the fire department? And that is to get people out. It's to say it's to save people and not necessarily the structure and to keep it from spreading. And so, you know, seeing what that 90th percentile would be and see that comparison between the 95 to the 90 and give that input because really we're here to serve our people. Correct.

The 95th is that red and you can see in the 95th percentile in the entire county was 178 dwellings that we're aware of. We're looking at a 3D mapping system now because I'll guarantee you with the way the world is, there's stuff outlining that we don't know about that are being lived in which is super important for us. Like trailers drive by the rivers by the river or or sheds up in the mountain with trailers back then and they're living in them. They finished them unbeknownst to any of us.

It happens like you know I spent half my life fighting fires out of state and I run into it all the time. I I I appreciate the work. I' I'd like I'd really like to see that 90 90 percentile just as I'll get that from him hopefully this week and we can forward it and uh get something the 90th percentile. So what I'm hearing is task to staff to look at modifying based off um chief's recommendations of number one and number two and get a 90th percentile heat map from the state. That's correct, sir. Any further questions? Thank you for your time.

No, thanks for all the time you spent on that. Appreciate it. Chair, can we go back to E5? Yes. So, um, and Josh is going to come up as well. we've we've both spoken to the applicant and and maybe Josh can give some of the history of combining the applications.

So, originally this was a single application uh submitted probably two years ago. It's been a long time and it was just Matt Wilkinson wanting to pull out the Wilkinson land. uh the Nettletons came forward wanting to start talking about adding in their land and they filled out an application at the time, but we combined the two because we thought the one for one swap be good. So, what we're hoping to do is split them back out, bring the Wilkinson portion forward earlier and then let the Nettleton portion come later after the development group is complete. Right. So, so with that there there were two applications and we think that it makes sense to split them at this point just because um each applicant is um well there's different timelines and and what we need and yeah exactly and so if we could do the initial application um that was filed by Matt Wilkinson if we could continue that to a date certain March March 3rd which is our next meeting and then the second application ation to May 19th. That will give us time to get um a development agreement amendment from their attorney and engage in some of those negotiations so that we can bring uh as close to final document to the commission to review. Um I we think that that will help um give clarity um for for the commission of what they're wanting and and then um there there's not a lot of negotiation that that has to occur at a moment. It'll be as close to final. So also the public's aware of of what would be going into a final agreement as well. So we think it helps all the parties. Um so those are the requests and then this way um nothing

would have to be renoticed because both have already been noticed um sufficiently and and had those public hearings. We'll just hold those hearings separately. So to recap um so the request is to take the merged application split it back out to its two original the Wilkinson one to be heard at next commission meeting which is March 3rd and the Nettleton DA to be heard on May 19th. That's correct. I I just have a maybe a quick question. You can tell me this isn't the right time, but it's not the right time.

Right time. So, when we discussed this a couple meetings ago, um when they delighted it the first time, so we were talking about the Wilkinson's property and the fact that it was never they've never sold it. So my question is, how are they part of a development agreement that their property was never purchased? How can it be encumbered in something that they were never I'm confused how that works? Like they they used somebody else's property in their development but never actually gained access to their property. Well, there had to have been an agreement. Well, there was a time that the option agreement

that was never there was an exercise, right? And and then and because that's where supposedly this golf course and equestrian center was going to be, correct? Possibly. The thing that we can't find that's a requirement for every application are the owner affidavit giving permission for them to act on their behalf for the the um zoning or land use. application. So, to be clear, they agreed to it at some point. It's not that they just reached out and said, "Oh, we're going to put this land in." The landowner did agree to it at some point. I I will push back. We don't know that for certain. They agree to the option contract, but not necessarily.

We don't have an affidavit. Yeah, we don't have an affidavit, which we should have had. Yeah. And so, either it was never done. So, we don't know for sure, but what we do know is that their land was encumbered. The option was never exercised. And so, based upon a statute of frauds argument that any dealing in land has to be in writing, we don't have a writing. And so, um, you know, I can't encumber Kate's property by recording a deed that conveys it to myself without her signature. And so we don't have the signature of the original owners or of the owners of those phases that were never purchased.

You know, it's like Wilkins are wanting to remove property that we have no proof was actually ever part of it. Yeah. And and that's where it's like just as I've thought about it over the last month since our first meeting about this, I'm like, how did that even happen? You know, and so like you said, I mean, you've only been here a couple years. I've been here a year, you know, but it's like whatever went up went on up there. I look at the Wilkinsons, I'm like, they're having to ask permission to remove property that there's no proof it was ever part of it. So that is kind of my confusion. So yeah, the whole thing's

it's really really confusing, but you look at it as um a resident of the Cottonwoods when you look at the advertisement of the entire development and you look at the DA and it lists all the property that was included in the whole development, that property was in it purchased and that goes back to in the end. So that goes back to normally people bought because of but not false. And I guess and that's and that's kind of my question is

if there's no proof that they were ever party to it, was it false advertisement? Were they sold something that really didn't exist or I mean and that's those are the questions that I've had is you know if there's an affidavit if they agreed with a handshake or something but property requires writing. Those are those were my questions is I mean as people in the cottonwoods I've spoken to many. Yeah. And I'm just like yeah it's like I went and ordered my truck and at the end of the day my truck showed up without leather seats without the moon roof and without these options but I still paid full price. Yeah.

So where does the liability land is my question as you know and and it's like where's the information? Where's the data? Where does it say that that property that you were showed when you purchased your lot that it truly was part of that development agreement? Where is that documentation? Why is their property encumbered with no compensation? That's that's where I'm struggling. And so I I feel for the people that caught going, wait a minute, I was sold this and now you're saying so it's like where's that documentation? Where's the liability land? There was one of them was a shell. That was the equestrian center. The equestrian center. The golf course maybe.

Right. And so again, to me the bigger problem is not which property to be honest. It's that all of the calculations for density and the number of units were calculated based on the total acreage. Whether that acorage included the Wilkinsons or somebody else's, it doesn't really matter in my opinion other than ultimately if if there's not enough acreage to to continue to continue then it needs to stop or or something. How did North Creek get pulled out? I wasn't hearing. I don't remember that. That could have been where the equestrian center I don't think it was. No, North Side Creek is it was separate. I thought stolen separate. And it's got its own development agreement

because the equestrian center was to the south of that. Right. That's correct. In phase six, but a portion of North Side Creek somehow encroaches into phase six. Good. A corner of it, I think. Yeah. So, I don't know. But as far as the agenda item for today and in the discussion is, you know, if we can get this to a date certain, then it allows it to move forward. It allows um that development agreement amendment to come. What was that? Trust bond to get us. At least it wasn't me this time.

Yeah. So, so that's the request and and I do know that there so Janet has done extensive research and um has prepared some some documentation so so I can share that with you as well. And there there are some limitations on what the county can do because we're not a party to all the agreements that have taken place and we're we're just processing applications as they come. So I'm sure I need a motion, right? Yes.

Okay, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'll move that we go with the recommendation of the planning department to split the two projects, the Wilkinson project to be heard on September 3rd. March. March. September. I don't know why I had September. March 33 March 3rd. I am. I'm trying to get through this year really fast apparently. And the Nettles uh project to be heard on May 19th. I'll second. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I. Are there any opposed?

Okay, motion carries. Thank you. We uh have a 4m minute break. Three three three minute break.

I don't think

Okay, we're going to go ahead and get started. We're on item number E7, Kate.

Okay. So, lots of RFPs. Um, the I put some in here for grant admin. Um, so as per our purchasing agreement, it needs to meet all the requirements of the RFP and be the lowest bid. The lowest bid for the grant admin was grant support at u meeting all the requirements and $40 average per hour where obviously the other ones um did not. So request to do you want me to do each of them individually or just all together and just run through them? I would run through them. Do we have to vote on them separately? That's up to you.

Okay. Um the airport beautifification BM. Um, this is the bid tab for that. Um, as you can see, we had the lowest one didn't meet the requirements because they reached out to them and they had calculated the bid at 1,600 square f feet instead of 16,000 square feet. Um, yeah. So, um the lowest bid on that that met all the requirements was a um on this those were budgeted. Um the animal control bid, I didn't do a bid on that. Um I'm sorry, a bid tabulation on that. I can give you the quick rundown. Um there were two that submitted. One being um River River Valley. Is that what it's called? River Valley. They were $4,500 a month plus uh with a 20 to 50% discount on services out of scope where Mountain Green Animal Hospital was $1,000 a month with a 10% discount on um services outside of scope making Green Animal Hospital the the lowest bid. Um there were two applicants for the impact fees plan analysis in the county fee assessment. Um one bid was $132,000. LRB was $74,000 for the same. So them being the lowest bid. We only had one bid on the county library for ceiling restoration. It was $24,18. They will have to replace all the sheetrock and paint. Um on the library gutter and downspout replacement, there was only one bidder. I'm requesting the commission um per the end of the RFP puts in there that the um whoever is awarded the bid, the county reserves the right to negotiate. Um we think we could do that project much differently than

how it um was bid specifically blowing out with a pressure washer the internal gutters and then um just fixing what needs to be fixed. So, request to negotiate that one instead of awarding um the total bid price. And then, uh we went I had Commissioner Nickerson and Commissioner uh Wilson go through the application or I'm sorry, the bids that were um submitted for the election security edition. Um and it sounds like the lowest bid that meets full qualifications is ACS. Any questions on those? Go ahead. I have a question on the village security edition. Is that what we had talked about before with building the extension out?

Correct. Okay. That's the full distance. Correct. Correct.

And only partial not being. So my request today is to award grant support, the grant administrator service contract that's already budgeted, air rate landscapes, burn beautifification that's already budgeted, mountain green animal hospital, the animal control that's already budgeted, lb finance, the impact fee um facilities planning analysis and county fee assessment that's already budgeted. Um, I need if we're going to approve the county foyer ceiling restoration, I need to know what account you guys want to pay for that out of requesting to negotiate um the library gutter and downspout replacement with ACS and designate funding for that and then to award the election security addition to ACS is my ask today. As far as ARAT,

as far as AR Okay. Are um as far as funding goes? Yes. Can that be come out of the airport? It is. Okay. That is that account. Okay. I just wanted to make sure because that I mean we're receiving a certain amount every year from the US Forest Service. That's that budget line item. We're trying to make them pay for trying to I appreciate that. And there's also a grant. So that um we're only paying $17,000 of that. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve. Can I just say are you are you doing anything on G or just the first four? I was going to do all of them. I just need

No, I was talking to my Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. The only the only thing I I want to to um there was a a completion completion date that needs to be changed. Okay. Well, here so okay and I'll show you guys what he is talking about. Let me pull up the RFP.

Um so when the RFP was published it was published with a completion date of June 23rd. Um, no later than security. Oh, I'm sorry. Project schedule project to be completed um no later than June 20, 2026. Um, the reason that can we break those two areas out so the area that has to be done for her can be done, but the back area not might not totally be done. though I think that would fall under negotiations. Our ability to negotiate the reason

we'd still have a contract come back on this is just aborting the RFP. Now they're going to have to send us the contract and we'll have to review and so with this being the date certain for the completion date. The reason that is is because um the clerk clerk's auditor's office has a an election on June 23rd. Um, so that was brought up by a lot of um because I obviously sent this out to all of our our local companies um and that was a concern as is the project schedule date. So good. All right. Go ahead, Mike.

Mr. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the awarding of the RFPs as recommended by the county manager, including authorization to negotiate on items E and F and the funding to come from FNG. FNG, excuse me, FNG and the funding to come for E and F from the capital improvement fund. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Fel. All in favor? I Any opposed? Passes.

Um, uh, we had me being the the community and economic opportunity board had 56 applications for the grants. Um, they the budget was for 75,000. um for this line item. However, there is an additional $50,000 budget for a second round. So, they are requesting to award $78,111. Um these specific amounts to these specific businesses and that additional $3,111 would come from the fall grant 50,000. Is there any way to special question of one of these recipients? Go for it.

I know they're getting or they would like to have enough for some equipment and to increase their menu, but is there any way that they would increase their hours of operation? Can't require that, but we can if we don't want to give it to them. I I I'm going to disagree that as a governing body of the county for all these years they have still been closing at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and and yet we continue Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Who are you talking about? D spicy guy. They don't close at 2. Since when? Did they open it till 4 or 5 now? What are you talking about? Sometimes they're the latest ones open.

They're open till they're like open till 9. Are you thinking the coffee shop? No, I'm talking dibs spicy pie. Yeah, I 100% on the one of the other dignitaries at 2:00 they were closed. They closed at 8:00. Yeah. Okay, that's good. Now, and you answered my question. Oh, okay. Okay. Because that was one of my requests a couple of years ago is that I asked them, "Okay, if we're going to give this to you, we want to make sure that you open it later." So, if they've changed that, that's great. Okay. What I think it's great is the number of applicants we had this year. Yes.

Because what was it last year? Like that qualified 29. We had 156 this year. So it's great words getting out. Businesses want to grow and get help. And it's a great team over there that's been working on this. So with that, I can make a motion. City. I move to approve the 2026 Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity pass through business growth grants.

I'll second the motion blocker and a second by Commissioner Newton. All in favor? I there any opposed? Okay.

Okay. Uh the last item is uh we received an email from Mountain Green Sewer Improvement District. They were wanting to meet tomorrow morning at 10:00 a.m. to oop sorry to finalize um some final details in the Kent Smith this is not the Kent Smith there we go the Kent Smith park rental. Um, I asked Jeremy Sorenson if that would include any type of negotiation because I would need to request from the commission um, negotiating um, authority. And so that's what I'ming for now is I would hopefully bring uh Janet Christopherson whose name I spelled wrong in this um in with me as she's done all that detail of the red line um at minimum have her on speaker and hopefully we can get that done and going and and bring to you on the March 3rd. So that's my request is um to my request is to be authorized to negotiate the final details of the Ken Smith Park rental as defined within the parameters of what the county attorney's office has has recommended in their previous notes on the subject.

I'll move that. I'll second the motion. Okay. Got a motion by Commissioner Fel and a second by Commissioner Newton. All in favor? I I posted. Yeah, let's get it done.

Okay. Um, as there is obviously lots going on in the county, you got the wonderful email about the damage that happened to the fairgrounds today. Um, just letting you know that we are in an application process for a grant to put in new bathrooms and a new uh exhibit building um at the fairgrounds. Um, however, we we will regardless be submitting an insurance claim on on the our current uh due to damage. Um, as you've seen, we have a an amazing and and highly intelligent uh fire chief. So, I'm very grateful to get that off my plate. And um I know we had a have a bunch going on with um the legislature which I'm sure a lot of you will speak to and are you going to speak to the weed abatement board in your

Okay. Um so I think those are my main updates from last meeting airport um airport are you speaking on that as well? Okay. So, uh, though we had our airport meeting, um, and we did order signage, um, to go out at the airport. Um, specifically, the issue is, um, whether I'm assuming they're local, but we have local and users of um of the airport that that don't understand that it's unsafe to allow your kids to ride their bicycles and little four-wheelers and everything else on an active taxi way. Um, and additionally, we do have some neighboring residents um that are walking their dogs on the taxi way. So, we um we will the signage is already ordered um to remind people that that is private property and not to do that on an active taxi way. Um as a pilot myself, um it's uh you can't stop when you were in the middle of landing. Um, and there was an incident a couple weeks back where there were little kids literally going across the taxi way as um

on the I'm sorry, on the runway. That's what I meant to say. While a plane is landing. Um, so keep your kids off

at some point. We will be we will be talking about um gates on that on the airport, but right now um I think some basic signage will we'll do that. As you as you know, you just awarded um the bid for the landscaping. That is um that'll go and block the airport's view and the um the ACU create an acoustic barrier between the airport and and the residents um across that road. Um and it is a three- tiered height. So, it should be this they're hoping to have it in and done March, April. Um there is 120 days listed in the RFP that um date certain that they need to have that completed by. And um the last thing was the last commission meeting um Commissioner Wilson you brought up about the extending the taxi way. So we did pull um Garrett and I did pull that um lease agreement with the phase B of forget the name now. I just want to say nine

timeline. Thank you. Line leases.

And it it does it doesn't specifically state that the county is responsible for it. It just says that the applicant is not, but it doesn't give a deadline. Um the county does not that li good gravy. The airport um does not have it in the budget this year to extend the taxi way. And because it's not in the language that we have to do it right now, um it is we'll just have to budget that for a different year. Um but we'll also be eligible for the grant that we're doing currently for the crack seal and for the slurry. Um right now we already have an open grant to get that done this year. So we won't be eligible to apply for that grant till next year. and then we can apply for that to help offset the cost of extending the taxi way. So any

we we pulled the minutes of the meeting and it talked about extending the taxi way and um Joe who was the airport manager at the time talked about there were grants for it and then there was a discussion that it may extend to this point or maybe we'd like to extend it further down and so my understanding in reviewing that meeting is we'll have to bring it back to determine how far you want to extend the taxi way. Um, other than that, I do need a close session on acquisition and disposition of real property. Okay. All right. We'll we'll change things up.

Awesome. Sounds good. Um, just want to give an update. We allocated funding to do some improvements at the Tagert River Access area. Um, public works has been busy working on that without snow to push. They've had a little more free time this winter, which has been great. So, um, they've moved a tremendous amount of material. If you go by there, the the road is significantly wider now, which will allow for much better traffic flow. Uh, won't be able to put pavement down until, you know, warms up quite a bit more. But, um, they've spent about $27,000 thus far just in materials and hauling rock and stuff. It looks really great. Cool. Um, I think that's it for now. We had another weed abatement board meeting. Um, we actually met with the Summit County we debatement supervisor and Davis County, um, who gave us a lot of good information as far as working with the railroad, uh, U DOT private land owners, basically the cost of using a helicopter to spray along the railroad and how we would just basically send the bill uh onto the railroad. And so the the one person that he uses um up in Summit County to spray along the railroad is very familiar with um with Rock with the railroad. So knows how that all works. And he he kind of figured it would take what an hour maybe an hour and a half to spray the entire length of our county with the railroad and with a cost of about $30 to $35 an acre to with the cost of comp. Um they also uh we discussed um kind of a loner program for people to use backpack sprayers and um what they do up in

Summit and how that's been really effective to help their residents to keep their weight weeds at bay. Um so we were looking into that. Um Joel uh who is our weed weed development supervisor um he was going to look into the cost of purchasing some sprayers, start out small and and kind of get a good weed um abatement program started. So, it was a real I thought it was a very good meeting, very productive um to basically came down to how can we expect people to take care of their property if we're not take care of what little county property there is, but also to help help them to be able to take care of it and and promote that. We do have there's a $10,000 grant through the conservation district where people can purchase um herbicide and then get reimbured up to $250 to help with that cost. So, uh, if we get some sprayers and with that, it should really help people to be able to take care of their property and and do that. Um, learned quite a bit about different weeds and there's bugs of that they can that they use to eat some of the weeds and you don't need to use chemicals and those kind of things. So, very very good meeting. So, more information to come is is that

they bring bugs in? Oh, yeah. They have certain bugs that will eat certain plants and whatever. And the guy was also they called goats. Well, they're not sheep. Um, he did talk about a little bit of the goat projects that they have and we talked about up above uh Reese's up on that real steep hill about you could put sheep and goats and that because it'd be really difficult to spray those kind of things, but you could use animals to get up into there and

uh they also wanted to remind us that it's just not about remediation. It's also about planting turning around and so okay we get rid of Dyer's road in this area is just going to keep coming back if we leave the area blank. So planting something some type of native someone take um there was one that was kind of interesting and I can't remember the name of it maybe K yellow star thistle she's got the good memory um it is located up in 910 cattle ranch and and it's been in Mountain Green

and oh you guys have it over there I'll keep it over Mount Green so don't but there's there's a one spot that I guess is in the the Morgan County piece of 910 that it's like let's get a let's get a hold of it because it if it spreads it gets pretty nasty. If your horse shoot it'll kill your horse. Yeah.

So question was there discussion about how to potentially stop the spread of dire road through the canyon even though that's not our property. It's Weber County and Davis County. So, one thing with the C, if you if you looked at the canyon, we actually that came up a couple meetings ago about how they've been spraying UD do and um Weber have been spraying quite heavily in the canyon this last year and there's there's a lot less than there was especially down there kind of at the mouth and working its way up. Um and they will sound like they were going to continue to work on that and try to hit it. So, um, we also did bring up if there are land owners that have areas of Dyer's road that are that are heavy that they're looking for areas that they can um try different things on and that the through the conservation district um that the state is wanting to kind of study their areas and try different sprays and and things that will work towards the the dire. So, if we have people that have a larger piece of ground, you know, it sound like it goes about, you know, 5 to 10 acres or more, that's pretty heavy. I could think of one over Mountain Green off the top of my head and I won't share whose name that is, but um that would that would be good to uh if people are looking for some help that they are looking for areas to do some studies and to to try different uh remediation tactics on on the dyer. That's Oh, I did talk to Carrie briefly um on legislation about the donations for the the meat um to the food pantries and he had we had both kind of all of a sudden it just popped my head and I texted Carrie and he was going to follow up on that to try to work that into some legislation this uh session to allow that to happen. I haven't heard I did I do want to say that I did uh remind him of that

blank uh first off I want to commend uh Mike Kate Garrett for their discussion and their in front of the legislative board the other day for House Bill 445. Uh it was fantastic the way you presented and each one of you and your different comments. I mean I loved it. Um there was no me need for me to speak. You guys did. So I didn't mine two weeks ago in front of the UAC and uh we've gotten a lot more support with it. The bill did pass out of uh out of the committee 7 to2 and um I think it's going forward. I don't know. Have you guys looked at the when it's on the agenda for the House bill? Anyway, um other than that, there was some there's a lot of bills going on out there and I think we've got most of them under control. Some some that was with um one one in particular with with the uh Senator McCay House or Senate Bill 97. and 78. 78 and 97. They're similar, but the 78 is on the property tax relief and the abatement program. And uh it's it's 97. We're not sure what is going to happen. It's did we approve? I think we opposed it. But anyway, so those are some of the things that were going on. um the vacating of roads was today with our public lands and other lands where House Bill 444. If the state comes in and says, this

might be for Brett, but if they come in and they say they are going to close a road of any sort, they have to come to the legisl they have to come to the legislative body of that area to be able to close it. So that could be detrimental for well, it' be for the state. for us it'd be great because that way they can't close the road. So anyway, that one's going into think sessions this week. Um there's of course a lot of water amendments by Casey Snyder 39 planning. Oh, water planning was okay. It was the other one 505. There's some questions on that, so look it up.

Can you say that number again? Yeah, HB505 was the water amendments. Okay, that was HB. HB. Okay.

The water planning has to do with the buoy system. So that was 439. Okay. And the trails Wasatch Brunt and of course Wasatch Brunt. I've had discussion there with uh some of the goals and plans of the active transportation for some trails down through the canyon and they says they've got that's going to be a good thing and other than that that's it. I'll just briefly touch on one of the Senate bills that Commissioner FAL discussed that was SB78 from Senator Dan McCabe. basically says he's had it with the counties and all subsidized state abatements are going away and now counties can have their local control. So if we want an abatement program, we're welcome to it. Um, Salt Lake County did ask that, and he was getting rid of the deferment program, too, that maybe he could add back in the deferment program and a state revolving loan of about $20 million to pay to the tax entities. And also in his bill, he it requires a lot more um um my mind is like what's the word?

It requires you to apply for it. No. Um, you have to list on the line item now how much each taxpayer is paying towards the abatement in your county. Transparency. There you go. There's the word. That's right. And then he said um in response to the request for the deferment program and a a revolving loan that he wants all 29 counties on board with signatures signed in blood. One thing about I've noticed about him is he he says whatever's on his mind

and he is the chair of the Utah State Tax Commission. So So if we want to support this or not, I'm sure it'll be brought forward. So with that, they were asking I think if we could Didn't they ask if we would draft a letter from our commission? I think UX said they would come up. Means we're going to need to sign it. They still like this. Yeah, they do.

There's only two counties that don't. Um, in reference to trails, uh, Lilia and I were able to meet with she she tracked down the guy from the railroad and since he's out of state, we had a Zoom meeting with Sean and Lily and I the other day. So, I went in and met with Sean and today and he has a a map to to try. But we're just trying trying to get some of those areas bridged, those gaps bridged, and so we can continue on, but it's a that's a slow process. I think uh all of you know that since it's kind of like the uh beautifification at the airport. That's I think that was the first day I was here.

I'm five years ago. Me, too. And so I I'm excited that that's going to get done and I I know that those people down there are going to appreciate it. It'll it'll be a cool thing. And then other than that, Weber or Weber human services meeting or you I don't know if you're attending that, but that got postponed till this week. So can't. Um so I'll just look for a motion to go into close session.

I did forget one thing. Sorry. Um we have met with a company called Near Map. Um they do the flyover imagery and they there's an opportunity for us to essentially glom on to um Davis and Weber County's flyover. Uh the last time we looked at flyover imagery for the assessor's office, we were looking at about $260,000. So I didn't even entertain it um because that's a lot. um they're thinking they could do it um if we signed on for this fly over in April. So, just a heads up, I'm I probably bring this on March 3rd. Um he we have a meeting tomorrow at 4, but he's thinking it would be somewhere between 25 and $50,000. What's the fly over for?

It's flyover imagery so that we capture like lost like properties that we don't have houses on and we have up-to-date imagery in the residential corridor instead of the assessor's office going out to every single parcel. They have a full layover GIS map of imagery. So, um I cannot tell you how super cheap that is. Um, so I'm warning you in advance. Um, probably come with an ask. So, sorry that was my last thing. I apologize. Mr. Chair, I move that we go into close session for the purpose of discussing the acquisition or disposition of real property.

Second. A motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I