County Commission - Regular Meeting

Do I need this book or do I just page and then I mean I mine and I put the the tag that we had. I just took a copy of that and did that. And the mileage was for me it was 3.49.

Oh yeah. You pull it out or you just make a copy. They don't have it in the spring. They don't have that in the spring.

I thought they said they were having gifts. Oh, they had gifts from the ones that were the um from the vendors, but nobody won.

I didn't. They told me I hadn't won any, so I left. friends. Okay, we'll go ahead and get started here. Um, welcome everyone. Appreciate your attendance this evening. Um, grateful to have a little rain today. Take a good rainstorm every week if we can get it. Um, also, uh, appreciate those that are online. Um, Commissioner Blocker's online with us, so she can attend this evening and help us make these important decisions. Um, we're going to start off with an invocation by Commissioner Nickerson, and he'll lead us also in the pledge of allegiance.

Our father in heaven, we go for this day and go for the beautiful valley in which we live. We go for the opportunity we have to serve the residents of this beautiful county. and go for the moisture which we've received and pray we continue to receive the much needed moisture. We pray this time thy spirit will dwell with us this evening as we discuss discuss issues and needs of our community and pray that we can act accordingly and work together for the benefit of all. We are so grateful for those who are serving and protecting our nation and our first responders that are there to protect us in our communities. We're so grateful for all of our many blessings and for all we have and we ask these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

You please rise and follow 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. Thank you, commissioner. Appreciate that. So, everyone had a opportunity to go through the consent agenda items. Any questions? Okay.

Mike, did you have any questions on the uh consent agenda items? Mr. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the consent agenda. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I. Are there any opposed? Okay. Sorry. Are there any conflicts of interest tonight? Okay. Commissioner Blocker.

None. Okay, then we'll go to our um public comment session. This is a time for the public to share anything that any concerns they might have for our community. If you want to come forward, please state your name and address and and 3 minutes is the allowable time.

Tina Kelly, Mountain Green. Um Sean York could not be here tonight because he has a game with his boy, but he asked me to read this for the record and he says he's spoken to a couple of you. He says, "I'm giving you a a poke on behalf of Shawn York in reference to the baseball fields at the Bowerery. A meeting in regards to the potential opportunity to lease the Bowery baseball fields is happening tomorrow with the LDS church. Sean has updated commissioners Blocker and Nickerson and wanted to give you a reminder about discussing that opportunity if needed amongst the commission. Thank you. And then he sent pictures of the uniforms of the team that he's got in Mountain Green. And if any of you want to see those, I'll send them on to you. Thank you.

Okay,

Debbie Sessions Peterson. This is regarding agenda item number three. I'm here to defend the planning commission. They did not fail to make a timely recommendation as stated in your packet. It is insulting and disrespectful to them. There is no urgency to this application and is it has been ongoing for many years. As you know, postponing an application is common. Many applications have been addressed without the applicant or agent there. At the meeting, the applicant agreed to the planning commission's timeline. The applicant also stated that the planning office has had his application for a year. The planning commission is not causing the excessive delay. The staff report that the planning commission received is different from yours. It stated that the plat met code period, which is clearly which it clearly didn't. I'm not sure how it was missed. The planning commission felt that the best avenue would be to fix a code to allow a flag lot to come off the bulb of a culde-sac. The prohibitive language could be stricken entirely from the code or perhaps just tweaked a little to allow it and only under certain circum conditions. It stated in your packet that the property is non-conforming and as such can be approved if the approval would lessen the nonconformities. I am unable to find that language or concept in the code. It doesn't make sense to ignore the code to prove an application that is non-conforming because the code was ignored in the first place. I guess we're testing the theory that two wrongs make a right. As a side note, there's still errors on the plat, some significant that were identified but have not been corrected because the application was postponed. Thank you. Thank you for that. I appreciate that.

Might disappear. I don't know where. Okay. Seeing none. No others. I mean, not none, but others. Um, we will go to our action items. There's no presentations this evening. Um, F1 Haley Johnson.

Your mic's not on.

Thanks. Um it has been reviewed by legal. If you look at paragraph seven there there's been some discussion if you remember last year between the commission myself and Janet about not really liking a profit sharing because we're not sponsoring or partnering in the event itself. And so Janet came up with some options that would avoid the avoid the revenue sharing. It would just be a flat fee for the event or a fee per registered participant. So those are the suggestions. They're not the only ones that have to be used, but but we thought that that would make it easier for the commission to have a couple options.

This is I'm Joe Kohl's. I I'm actually a resident of uh Mountain Green Morgan County area. Um I put on races for a living. I uh put on marathons, triathlons. We do about 22 races across the Wasatch Front. We even going have one down in Southern California. Um as a local resident, I just thought, oh, this would be a lot of fun to be able to have a fair run. So I I thought, you know, I presented it to Haley. She she liked the idea because she's we we we both office in the Scotsman Center there and it was just uh just a fun idea. So I'd like to be able to see it have success with things. Last year you guys uh wanted to be able to have a a percentage of the race. Well, seeing that the race was it was the first year we we had so many things that uh there was I think a negative $950 profit-wise and so there wasn't a whole lot of profit sharing going on because there was no profit. Um this year being a second year we we anticipate to be able to to turn a thing. That's generally almost every one of my races. The first year you don't make any money because there's a lot of getting it off the ground and getting it started and things like that. Anyway, long story short, it's it's there to designed to be able to serve the community, possibly be able to make a little bit of revenue, but it's not something that we're we're looking at getting rich by any means by putting it on. We just think that we could be able to serve the community and anything you guys could do to ma make it as easy as possible for us to to be able to do it. Uh we want to be able to serve the community and provide an event for uh Morton County Fair, that's an addition. Most fairs that I I I go to and I I I see they have 5k 10k type races, things like that. This is a very small race and if it if it's something that you guys don't don't like or anything, that's fine. I've got plenty of other races and ones that actually make money. But um but we would love to be able to do stuff with you guys and be

able to just to serve the Morgan Morgan community. So that's I just wanted to clarify that when we tried this yes last year the 10% cut was just my idea from my private operating um I've since we discussed liability wise there was some concerns with doing a 10% profit share and so that's where these were suggested and I think these are great ideas. I don't know yet what Joe's preference is on these. So

yeah, we we any event that I do, uh the the biggest thing that when I whenever I do an event, it's about community impact, economic impact to the community. Um but you know, I I just want it to be kind of a fair thing. Either one of these will work for me as long as they're they're somewhat fair. If you throw out an astronomical number, obviously it's just going to be like, well, there comes a point where, you know, supply and demand comes in and somebody says, "Oh, I'm not going to register for that race because it's too expensive. And so we we we all have to justify our time. And so anything you guys could do to make this a win-win situation, that's what it's all about.

Do you have a suggestion what a win-win is?

Um it it it it's it's generally speaking when when most of my events that I do, I have a flat fee, so I know what to budget and what to expect on things. And so it's really up to you guys on on how you want to do it. I mean, obviously you don't fight with city hall, you know, and so you basically say whatever they want, but um generally speaking, there's a couple hundred dollars basically saying this is what we're going to charge for this. Uh it it does not impact the the the fair in a negative way. We start at 6:00 in the morning. Uh it's 510k. The entire thing is swept and done by about 8 o'clock. So we're charging about $35 per participant. includes a 4-in finisher medal, a nice uh you know, next level uh t-shirt that that that's included and you know, some nice awards and things like that. A lot of those are the the the upfront costs and things like that. But there there's also promotion and marketing that go involved with, you know, getting the word out and trying to to partner with the fair uh to be able to make it a success because, you know, a lot of times like we we do the Ogden Santa Run, if you're familiar with that, downtown Ogden, where they uh we we we started out with a small little race with 200 people and we partnered with the uh the parade in downtown Ogden. That race is over 1500 people now. It's obviously grown. Obviously, the, you know, this this little location here would not be I I I couldn't anticipate that ever growing to that that thing, but I just think it's a fun thing to be able to to benefit the community, you know, and I just want to have some, you know, a little bit of thing. So, anyway, uh whatever you feel is a fair uh fee on it, but I what what should I suggest um for a flat fee? Um would $500 be fair? I I'm just throwing out a number

better than the 300 we lost last year. No, I'm kidding. You you didn't lo you didn't lose any money and and we did pay all of our permit fees and all that stuff through the city. So, at least you justified the time and and we're fully insured and licensed and all that stuff. And so, I mean, this like I said, this is a very small event for what we're doing. I this is my full-time job is is is what I do for a living. All right. I think your fire chief has a comment. Okay,

just consideration on the flat fee a race and hit it right on the head. What they do is they keep growing. I would suggest something when we get a race, we probably be bringing in a at least an ambulance crew with, you know, for a couple hours. So the $500 would cover that from my perspective for a fee and that would you know make us I can get somebody unless there's other costs that the commission needs that would allow us to bring in an ambulance for a couple hours and honestly we usually see that was my question was going to be you know if we're closing down a road or needing police or ambulance that's

but that but anything that would require ambulance or police, that would be above and beyond. And and and we we do the East Canyon Marathon. Can you talk in the mic? I'm getting yelled at.

I apologize about that. We we we we do the East Canyon Marathon as well. We work work with the chief of the the the sheriff out here. And you know, he could tell you, you know, we we we we pay them. We contract with everybody. And generally speaking, uh, like for a five and 10k, I mean, we have, uh, I'm I'm first aid certified. We have a couple staff that's on there. We don't usually until the race starts getting quite large, over 500 people, do we do we say, "Here, we need to get an ambulance." We like to notify them and let them know, but generally speaking, um, I mean, I have an AED on my on my trailer. I mean, we we have a full thing, but like I said, generally you don't need an ambulance until you're, you know, a larger race or, you know, unless

Yeah. Or unless you go. Exactly. But th those cost to for an ambulance that would be above and beyond the flight. That would be above and beyond. Correct. Yeah. And including police support, anything like that. Any services that we we we contract that that's separate than what we would be paying you. I have a question. So, as far as the route goes, how is it going to impact the junior livestock show and sale on that morning? Okay. Say that again. Okay. All right. So, you've got that. Yeah.

And so, again, we we start at 6:00 in the morning. Um, what it is, if you you guys obviously you're from Morgan, so you know the KOMO loop. Basically, they they go uh against traffic when they're they're running it. And so that when you know they're just stay on that side of road and they just do that entire loop which is about a 5k and then they basically if they're doing the 10k they just do it twice and that and that's basically how it is. And uh we're we're out in the parking lot uh uh the east eastern most part of the parking lot. We didn't have any cars or anything that was even impacted at all. I mean, there was probably a thousand car spots ahead, you know, towards the fairground that we didn't even, you know, that were empty at that point in the morning. So, I'm

surprised you don't go up to Round Valley. Yeah. The re reason why we don't uh it's it's just it's a it's a nice little loop. And Round Valley is nice as well, uh we we could do an out and back if we were to do Round Valley. uh our East Canyon Marathon. We we start up at uh Big Mountain and then we come down and we finish at the fair grounds. But uh th this one right here is just a nice little loop and it it's a perfect little 5K. Some runners like the the not out and back. They like, you know, not not seeing the same thing twice. 500 sounds reasonable to me. Let's just move forward.

Rain, any thoughts? Okay, I'll look for a motion. Okay. Uh, Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the uh agreement for Oh, sorry. Let me recall the name of this. Hold on. Okay. Morgan County Fair Run. Um, with option A, the flat fee organizer shall pay the county a flat event fee of $500. A second. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I. Are there any opposed?

I was like, why is that coming from there? Oh, sorry. Okay. Thank you.

You're our Josh tonight, huh? Kent. Yes, I'll I'll do my best. I'm Kent with Josh's office of planning and development. So, you'll do great. Thank you. So, this next item is that's been recommended by the planning commission to the county commission for approval. It's just simply adjusting the common area to limited common area on this plat. Um, if you have any particular questions, I'd be glad to try to address those. Well, the applicant, Brian Nester, is here.

You don't have any? I don't have any. I didn't have any. Seems pretty cut and dry. There's no change in density or anything. Okay, Brian, you're getting off good. Railen, did you have anything? Do you look for motion then? No. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve WPR Mountain Villa Plat amendment number two as listed in the staff report. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner FRO. All in favor? I I I

Okay, you're F3, too. Or who who's F3? I wish you would make I wish you would make that comment to me that this is going to be easy. It's not

and uh I was I was kind of expecting that. Um but yes, my name is Chris Tma, Planning and Development. I'm here on behalf of Josh Cook. Um I did make the last presentation to uh planning commission but it was not in uh regards to this comment this or this um this amendment plat amendment. This was done prior to that presentation. Um but we are speaking about um a plat amendment for Silverstone subdivision phase 6 plat amendment. Um applicant is Jess Holio. Owner is Mike Babcock. project location uh two two lots um 57 excuse me two addresses 5776 and 5780 North Silverstone Circle with a smaller parcel located approximately um just north of the culde-sac bulb on North Silverstone Circle parcel numbers 5-3023 and 5-5416 and 5-2785 um I am going to be doing a little bit of reading, so I apologize for that, but I think it's best just to kind of get it out, get it on to to record and and make that uh specified. But the request is uh for approval of an amendment to the Silverstoneone subdivision number one amended PLA uh for the creation of a new lot. Um the planning commission heard this item in their April 9th meeting, April 9th, 2026 meeting. The planning commission effectively denied this application by directing staff to come back to a planning commission on um May 28th with a proposal to eliminate section 155.426. A flag pole or pan panhandle may not extend from a culde-sac. Um after the meeting, staff discussed

the project situation with both the county attorney's office and the county commissioner over planning the planning department. At those meetings, staff explained that while the current code does not allow for flag lots to extend off of the bulb of the culde-sac, the current property is already developed with a driveway off of the bulb. the property is nonconforming and as such can be approved if the approval would lessen the nonconformities. Um, in this case, a building was constructed on the property in 2003. The building was used as an office for a business. Over the following years, the planning commission and county council approved multiple subdivisions surrounding this parcel that allowed for its creation. It is still it is still in use of a residential home and the owner uses the driveway at the bulb of the culdesac to access the property. Of note in 18 2018 and 19 uh the property owner started converting the building into a dwelling unit without permits. At that time the building official I Dave Webster issued a stopwork order. The county did not follow up on this and the dwelling has been in use for about eight years. Approval of this plat amendment would address a couple of nonconformities and allow the property owner to correct the building permit deficiencies. First, while the owner continues to assess the property, access the property from the driveway of the lot to the south, approval of the subdivision would allow the property to obtain legal frontage on the street. Second, the property's buildings would be able to seek approval and the CFOs as the CFOs as the parcel while developed

and in use and currently in use would become a legal lot. Um Joshu Josh had spoke with Commissioner Newton and the county attorneys about the item being continued to the 28th of um of May, but um Mr. Babcock would not be able to attend the meeting in person. So, per Josh's discussion, um Mr. Babcock was provided two um two options. Number one, to be able to go forth to the county commission on May 5th with him being able to be present or um continue as uh with the planning commission to May 28th.

Oops. which he would not be able to attend um because he's going going to be gone long term um to Alaska. So that's kind of that's where we are. Staff is still recommending approval of the plat amendment. Um so I am going to attempt to answer your questions that are coming forth. I know I've spoken to a few of you about them. Um and I'll be able to pass anything off to to Josh as as necessary.

I spoke to Janet as well. Um so are you telling me there was never a CO or a final inspection on that home? That is correct. Uh excuse me. um on in on the building in 2003 it was but um when they did the remodel which the stop work order was issued um it is correct there was no f there was no final inspection or co for the dwelling what's the penalty of that

the well the penalty could be up to and including the demolition of a of a structure which I do not believe after communicating with the county attorney's office that we would be, you know, ready to do due to cost for for one, but but they would have to show that it was built according to IBC. So, so it's not a a pass that okay, since you violated our stop work order now, we're just going to make it right on the back end. They would have to show that it was built. And so if they have the engineered drawings, they have inspections that have been done, there has to be some inspection.

Um we don't want to jump to the most extreme form of abatement, but that doesn't mean that health, safety, welfare isn't the number one priority. Still, thank you for also the double permitting cost. Correct.

Yes. and and that's kind of, you know, providing an avenue uh to get the property um less non-conforming than what it was yesterday. Um there are a couple ways that we can approach it um through the building permit application, which would need to be submitted by the property owner um and the completion of plan review, completion of the building inspections. at that time. Um, we would also um be there would be a double fee permit um that would be charged at that time. So, whatever the valuation was proposed for the building is what the double fee would be would would constitute.

Chris, is it the same property owner? It is. It is the same property owner. So I think there's an issue still with the road where he's using a driveway of somebody else to get back to his property too. What happens with that? So um that would this is your time if you'd like to come up and speak Mr. Babcock. Uh this is the um this is the applicant uh and property owner Mike Babcock.

So I I'm going to clarify one thing that he said. The planning commission did not deny it. They continued it. And they continued it so that they could make an attempt to change the code so it allowed a uh driveway off of a culde-sac. That was the first issue I wanted to address. The second one was to answer your question about using somebody else's driveway. When I sold the property next door, uh, I retained just over 50 ft of frontage. So, both properties have legal frontage. I'm not using anyone else's driveway to access my property.

And just to clarify, the reason it came here as if it is a denial is because it's a constructive denial. And that was um part of Josh's decision due to Mr. Babcock's schedule to allow him a chance to be heard in person. And so so although it wasn't denied, it was continued. It's a constructive denial to get to this next step. So I just wanted to clarify that for you, but the reason Josh suggested it is because we understand you're leaving the state for a period of time and and have a right to come and speak to your application. So,

go ahead. So, I I met with Chris and and Josh earlier, kind of talked to him a little bit kind of what I was thinking, what I was seeing. So, this was it's been straight up illegal for eight years, right? It was no inspections, no permits. And

I kind of the way I kind of talked to Josh and and Chris and the others was, you know, if the the planning commission saying, "Hey, we're we're okay with this like a text amendment or a code change." I look at it as let's get our house in order and then help other people get their houses in order. And so to my mind and I and this is what I said to Chris early is if we fix our process and we get our code changed so that we get rid of all of the nonconformities then we can help others get rid of all their nonconformities because we see that there's an issue. And so we've had a a structure that's been illegal for eight years. If we do this tonight, it still has nonconformities, but if we do like the planning commission suggested, we postpone a little bit, we get our house in order, we fix our code, then it gets rid of all of his non-conformities. And so, I'm just looking at it going, you know, we've had eight years, the planning department's had it for six months to a year. What's another few months if it took three months, four months to get our house in order to help Mr. Balov get his stuff in order. I'm I I was kind of like, what is all of a sudden the big rush? It's been illegal for eight plus years. We've sat on for we've had it for six months. I don't want to say sit on, but we've had it for six months or maybe more. And now we're at this point. I don't see the real need to just rush into it. Let's get our code fixed if that's what we want to do. And then once we've got that in order, we move forward. That's that's kind of as I've read through it, I've had discussion with Chris and Josh and and they were they were really good. I I really appreciate we probably spent 45 minutes to an hour this afternoon kind of back and forth and and I was I don't think I've said anything I didn't say in that meeting. Um just to kind of put out there that that's kind of how my mind works is is the process. The process in my mind should be let's fix what we have

as as things come from the planning department that need to be adjusted and fixed and then we can help others fix all their non-conformities or issues. Um so we're not doing it a little bit here and a little bit there. Let's just get it all so that's a good streamlined done. That's that's kind of where I was coming from. That's that was kind of my thoughts as I read through and met with others. So that's Mike Yeah. Um, Mr. Babcock, is there is there a time frame here that you're concerned about trying to meet? Okay, then let's I mean, if there was something like I'm going to be gone for a year and a half, I'd be like, is there something

that was kind of my wondering is, is there a reason all of a sudden we're trying to push hard? And so, no, I just wanted to just want to get it right. Just want to get it right. And If the uh county council would like to learn a little bit more about how this happened, I'd be happy to share that with you. If you're not interested, I'm okay with that. I think Josh filled me in pretty good earlier, but if the others want to Chris filled me in, too.

And maybe just for the record, I can at least because I didn't have all the details, so I asked Josh to give a little background, too. And and I think from Josh's perspective too and and to give Debbie a code citation um section 155.365 is the one on non-conforming uses structures and lots and throughout it talks about you know these existing nonconformities. Um, I don't know if this is the exact section Josh was looking at, but section 8 talks about um, not enlarging the nonconformity and um, let's see. Yeah, basically it's kind of the concept of the entire section is saying any reduction of nonconformity is supported. As Commissioner Nickerson says, it doesn't eliminate all of the nonconformities with this application, and we could by doing a text amendment that that would eliminate all of them. Um, but but the background, Josh, in looking through what the county did thought that there was a mistake by the county because it allowed a remainder parcel, which is not allowed by state code. And so through whatever process the county did, it allowed a remainder parcel. Um and and so this is an effort to kind of uh rectify a situation that was potentially caused by the county in the past by not following the state code, allowing a remainder parcel that's just out there, not part of the this the subdivision as well. So once again, you know, it's it's not two negatives make a right. It's we have a lot of negatives and we're fixing all but one if we move forward tonight, but if we change the

code and update it and make it so that it's not against the code, then we eliminate all the negatives. So, I just thought I'd frame it that way because I I don't think it that that was pretty much the gist of our conversation, which as Josh, you know, he kind of brought up all those things and and you know, mine is just like, let's just let's just get it all done at once. It might take that was again, that's just my opinion. It's like, let's just fix it all at once. Let's take a little time. Let's make some adjustments and just do it all at once because just come to where I'm coming. So,

I'm okay with that. I just want to make sure that uh if there were some unanswered questions from the county council or the planning commission that I'd be given the opportunity to uh clarify uh some things about this property and how it ended up okay having a subdivision built all the way around it. No, I appreciate it. I I I'm in agreement with you. So that's that was my thoughts as well. The only question I have for you is on this other lot that's barely touching your lot. What's going to happen with that?

Not sure I understand your question. Can you pull up? This might help. Guess it's not just barely touching. It's the whole property. 5.3 acres, right? What page number is it?

Oh, you want me to switch to a page or you want me to pull up the parcel map? You go to like page 73, four or five, right? And there's all the maps. Sorry. And Mike, you might be able to help him make a little bit more sense and show what he's talking about on just don't touch the screen. Actually, the one I was questioning was on page 76. So basically lot 80 88 encompasses.

So your lot is 31 of 2.1 acres.

Chris, can you take them the This is the parcel lot. Okay, 50 ft of frontage. It's 2.10 acres. I'm just repeating until he gets the mic. The uh the lot eight comes around here back to here and it's uh 3.08 acres. Which lot were you asking a question about?

This one back here. Yeah. Uh, that's a piece of property that was added to lot 8. So, it's actually part of lot eight. So, it's not a a piece. Okay. All right. I'm fine. It just seemed to me like there was no access to it. So, I was just trying to figure out, okay, how is that an access? And then you got the other ones on the other other side. This uh does not have topographical lines, but the hill actually starts right here. And this is all pretty steep hillside. All right.

I only have one other question that would be for the attorney, I guess. Is there would there have been a way to um um handle this a little differently between planning and so the planning commission doesn't have grievances, you know, with how that's going on. I don't I don't know that.

Yeah. I mean, I I wasn't at that meeting and um I think it's sometimes it just comes down to a zoning administrator making a a decision on kicking this out to a time where the applicant can't be here to explain. So hopefully we're getting the best of both worlds here where we have the applicant here to explain but we also have a chance to send it back through the process. So is there a process that allows for the applicant to speak without coming to an action item

short of a work session? um they could speak at a like in a public just in the public comment period or I mean it I don't know that it wouldn't be an action item. Yeah, I don't know. Go ahead, Ken. Sorry.

Yeah, I think there could be some very good reasons to keep the prohibition of a flag lot off of culde-sac. So, you know, future of applications, we could use that as a a means to create a better subdivision. So, I I think it might be shortsighted to just to remove that prohibition and then not be able to use it for future subdivisions. Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, sometimes the unintended consequences of resolving something for one causes more nonconformity elsewhere. And yes, that could clear up this nonconformity, but you're right, it could could cause other issues.

So, what was it that um the planning commission task staff like there was a it's in the packet. Change the I'll change. It was to change the ordinance to allow flag. I remember it was like eliminate it completely or eliminate the line to direct staff to do a text amendment to allow for flag pole lots to extend off of a culde-sac. So then that in the future could create that situation.

I mean you hate to make a change to the entire code to resolve one issue and then turn up with now we're allowing it everywhere and maybe we don't want it everywhere. I mean, maybe this really should be the only case where we have this happening and I don't know the answer to that. Well, that's a concerning thing to me. I say because what what do we require for minimum frontage on the culdeac? Does it depend on this on the zone? Depend on the zone. Yeah. So, what is the zoning here? This this is our 120acre lots.

Yeah, these are halfacre lots. So I mean they they far exceed that in the in what's there. I guess what you're saying is they can't they wouldn't be able to because they wouldn't have enough frontage.

That's what my question is like it would allow it but I mean if you have a culde-sac that covers so Johnson's down in Milton I mean they they it's a giant culde-sac. So these small culde-sacs, they if you needed a 100 foot of frontage or 50 feet of frontage, that's really going to limit how many flag lots you could because you just won't have the frontage. That's one thing. But if you have like if you're an RR5 or R10 and your culde-sac is gigantic, well, you're going to have plenty of frontage. So you could come out, you know, you could go out behind. And

so our our current flag lot ordinance, as I recall, and Kent, maybe you would know this better. I don't know if you've had much experience with the flag lots yet, but as I recall, and we could look it up here, there's not a a specific frontage requirement. There is a a requirement for distance for a roadway for the flag for the pole, which I think is like 50 or 60 ft. It's not huge.

So, that could open it up. So it could potentially open up where you have a a you know a culdesac and now all of a sudden you're going to put with five homes now all of a sudden you could put five or six behind all those homes. I I do agree with that notion that I don't know that changing the code to allow it is the right solution here. Maybe allowing this nonconformity to be to continue as a nonconformity and get it cleared up is a better approach than changing the code completely. Yeah. because I feel like if we change the code, we're going to have to dial it in to try to make it specific to this. That seems stupid to me. Well, that's more that's like spot. Exactly. And we don't want to do that.

And I don't think I would rather think that that's kind of why Josh was moving it forward now is because if if we're not spot ordinancing for this specific or having unintended consequences of opening it up, it still reduces the nonconformity. And and that was the idea behind it is the county allowing a remainder parcel to be left was a mistake. It allowed for this situation to even exist because of that initial remainder parcel. Um we've already kind of gone through that um you know there there was some communication to stop work on it but once again now he's coming back in saying okay I'll pay the fee. I I I want to reduce the nonconformity. So,

I know that that was his thought process and in my conversations with him whether or not it's a good idea, but I know Ken just spoke to that a little bit with the flag lots could could open up other issues. Yeah. And to that point, I'd hate for staff to spend a lot of time drafting something to allow Flaglock off of culde-sacs and the planning commission to spend a lot of time going through it and then it to come here and we say we don't like that idea at all. Yeah. You know, let's get rid of it.

Because I had a conversation when I was talking to Josh and Chris. It was like, you know, through through discussion and the disagreements and conversation, hopefully you legislate better. You come up with ideas and so Okay, we have a motion.

So, I'll make a motion. Before I do, I just want to maybe make clear um that from my perspective, I appreciate all of the effort that the planning commission put into reviewing this. I don't um I hope they don't see that as we're just ignoring their directive to to make that change. I think more than anything my concern is that there could be unintended consequences trying to resolve this one issue that would open up issues elsewhere. I mean there's a reason that we haven't allowed um these types of lots to access culde-sac bulbs. Like that's that's part of the code on purpose. Um, I do think in the future we should maybe handle this a little bit differently in between planning commission and county commission so that there's not, you know, a feeling that the planning commission has been ignored because I don't think that's the case at all here.

Sure. Hang on, Mike. Debbie, did you want to come up? Like I said, there are some major errors on the plat that need to be fixed before you prove it. What are those errors, by the way? I mean, I'm just curious what are they? So that way when it comes back up because I think you when in in in when I in the meeting you had started talking about a few of them, but there was quite a few others, but because you decided to recommend a continuum, we didn't go you didn't go through all We didn't fix we didn't fix them and so and maybe that's something we do. Do we continue so that they can what are all these issues

and that I think is totally reasonable. Let's continue it till they fix the issues with the pot if there are some and then but but maybe the direction ultimately is we don't want so those things that you know of or do you I'm confused. I don't know why they didn't pick up on them, but they're some major ones. So, did you tell them about them? That's what those are. In our meeting, we started discussing. Yes.

Okay. There's an access easement. We don't have access easements in halfacre zone. And it's in favor of lot 8A. There's no 8A on the plat. 8 lot 8A of the first amendment is now 8B. We think 8A according to Jess Holio lot 31 he wanted to label 8A but the easement is the easement giving the necessary width of the flag pole going up or did it's just really confusing. You're missing some utility easements. That That's a minor one. But this easement access easement in the front is a little triangle and it seems to be included into the flag pole into Mike Babcock's lot, but it's just an easement it says. So, does he not own the at least the 26 ft necessary for the

flagpole? Those are the questions we had. And like I say, the labeling of the lots, it's really confusing. Well, I think those things need to be addressed before we So, I think as long as Mr. Babcock's not in any hurry, I think we ought to address those issues. And fair enough. And so, So, I guess if you can amend your motion.

Well, I haven't made a motion yet. So, so uh my motion would be uh to continue this item to our next regularly scheduled meeting um pending updates of the plot to address the planning commission concerns. Now, I guess the alternative to that would be we could send it back to the planning commission to address those concerns. I don't know if that needs to happen or not, but can those be discussed with them? So, I think it was continued to the May 28th meeting anyway. Is that correct? May 28th planning meeting. Planning Commission. I think that that's one day May 28th commission meeting.

So, can we just have a go back on that agenda and let them address those those items on the PL? That's what I would suggest because it's already been set to a date certain from that from that point. Um because I think that Mr. Babcock won't be here at that one or our next meeting anyway. And so then it allows them to fully address them and hopefully they'll reach out to planning before so that maybe he could fly back and bring some salmon and how um but maybe just to clarify.

Okay. Are you wanting staff to not bring forward a text amendment at this point or Yeah, I so I'll I'll restate my entire motion if that's okay. So, Mr. Chair, I move uh that we u send this particular item back to the planning commission for review on their uh May 28th meeting as was previously scheduled. um and with the direction that the commission is is not necessarily interested in adjusting the code to allow this but would rather deal with the issues on the plat map in a as a one-time scenario here and correcting what we need to to get this resolved.

Thank you. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Motion is unanimous. Kent, is this you that again or who? Okay, Chris, you got this one, too. Oh, they're they're technically mine. Um, so the we submitted for an RFQ. Our contract with Wasatch Civils one yesterday.

Yesterday. um and they are the only ones that submitted um for the RFQ at the same rate. So requesting to So now we need to go to contract. So how how long did we have it out there? I really would like to have a second bid. We h we posted it originally at the beginning of April. We did not get any submissions. We reopened it up for an additional nine days. was such civil submitted in the secondary nine days. Can we get more time?

We would need a contract extension period for because our contract with Wasach Civil expired yesterday. Um I guess my thing is to get this on last agenda, but we had no submissions. I would like to I would like to um see a more detailed submission. And if they're just resubmitting what they've already submitted, I did I not forward it to you? Oh, I didn't see it. Well, I didn't I don't put bids in the packet.

Um Okay. So, in Do you want me to pull it up? I mean, it's your only one. Well, I wouldn't bring it up just in case somebody if we decide to let somebody else do it. I Yeah. Rather not bring it up. Yeah. If we're reopening it, that's true. We should bring it up. Fine. Then that's why I don't put them in the packing period. So, good job, Kate. That's why I didn't see it. Yeah, because I thought I've sent it to you in a separate

separate. Well, I I would just like to whatever we have to do to to do it for temporary. I'd like to at least read through it and look through it and and and because I don't want to have some of the issues we've had in the past of of uh recently I shouldn't say in the past is it in the past recent that I would like to see if we could nail some things down to where it's a little more detailed. So,

so in that uh can you request that it be reopened until um the 28th of May for re-review on the June 2nd and give me authority to do a contract extension with them until what? The second probably the fourth. Uh I would say I would say maybe July one because whoever if there's other biders that come in we'll have to work out the contract and get it on. So at least the second meeting in

the request is to extend uh do a contract extension until 1 July or well or for July because it's 60 days. Their contract expired 54 of 26 just for cleanness. I would say extend it to whatever we maybe 65 days because then we can at least get through July 7th which is our meeting where we could have a contract reviewed.

Okay. But then I can reopen still still reopen through May 28th. Does anyone have any engineering firms you want mean specifically to reach out to? Okay. If you would just email me those, I will send it on because I mean, we literally pinged anyone and everyone that was in civic review. Really? Yeah. Wow. Okay.

So, um Okay. So that would be my request is um to to decline submitted RFQS and reopen until May 28th, but also to do a contract extension with Wasatch Civil until July 7th. The 65day or sorry July 9th day and then if we could see that and look at it. We can do that. Okay. or do I need a motion? Yeah, I think we better have the option.

So, you want my scribble about that was a lot. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chair, I move that we um postpone item number four to our July 9th, 2026 meeting. I think it's item number second, I think, isn't it? No, you're Gore. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Oh, to our June 2nd. You have July 9th, right? Okay. July 9th. July 9th is the contract extens. Sorry. Extend our contract with um the current engineering services till July 9th, 2026. Reopen the RFQ. Reopen the RFQ May 28th. And then review this on our June 6th meeting. June 2nd.

June second. I know that's a lot of dates. I will text it to Chloe. Okay. She's like, "Yes, please." And I'll second. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Okay. F5. So then, did you not get that mail either? Because we had two submissions. Um, Sunrise and somebody else. And we're asking to approve all of them just so we have multiple options. You didn't get that one either. Okay. Can I talk a little bit about this one? Okay. Just while you're going.

So, um, we received bids from Sunrise, BCS, and Safe Built. Okay. Um, those would all meet, um, the Utah code 15A-1-105 if we kept all of them on record. And then we just have them available just in case there comes a time that plan reviews are not getting done in an efficient manner, which they are right now. We are getting plan reviews out really quick, working great as a team. The inspections are going very well. Um um but it just it just allows it just allows that little bit of of cushion um just in case anything does go wrong are you know the complainant whoever it might be um would be able to have those companies to be able to go through. So, are we using the most competitive first?

Yes, we would. We would use the most competitive first. And the good thing about keeping um a few of them would be one of them might be better at planer review and cheaper at plan review and one of them might be cheaper at building inspections to be able to fit in that 4hour time gap on Fridays that we use them. Um, so there's there's different avenues for success in being able to keep all four of them or all three. Yeah. Don't you have to have three of them also? We do. We are required to have three. Okay. So, I'm I'm fine with this one. Okay. Yeah.

Can you list those three again? Sunrise BCS Bravo Charlie Sierra. Yep. Okay. And Safe Built. I did not get the Safe Built one. Can you forward that to me? Yes. Dustin. Dustin. Yes. Okay. And then I'll forward those on. So request to approve Sunrise BCS and Safe Built. I'll second it. I can't make a motion. I'm just a grunt. Mr. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the award of the RFP for building inspector and plans examiner services to three organizations, Sunrise, BCS, and Safe Build. Second. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor?

I I I. Any opposed? Motion's unanimous. Okay, now we're to F5. Oops. Six. Yep. Sitting up. Sit. Okay. Then next two are public hearings and it's 601. Woohoo. Okay. Kent, you have the floor.

So, this is another application that was brought before us um to amend our sideyard requirements. The planning commission heard this item on April 23rd, recommended approval. It's primarily to strike the requirement that the width the two required sideyards that the total width two sideyards be less than the height of the building. Josh explained to me that he's never interpreted or understand that this has been enforced by the county in the past. So, we don't see it as real need. There's other strikethroughs that the planning commission and staff have recommended. the the result of what the recommendation is is on page four for the proposed text and then further in the packet uh staff report shows the strikethroughs that are being proposed and the attorney for the applicant I believe is here present so she can answer any questions if we can address those I have a question go ahead Okay. Um, understanding this, you have the building height. Um, and I just need to get a little clearer picture of this. Okay, you've got a building here that might be is it at the top of the peak? Is it the top of the eaves? Where's the height coming in at?

We measure the height from the the average grade to the very top of the roof. Okay. And so now it's set up for one lot. No, it's set up for two lots. So if that's the case, what happens if the other house is a lot taller, but yet you're not supposed to go anything less than the height of the house yet in in what you're asking for, 10 feet, 8 feet, or whatever it might be. It just doesn't seem to me like that makes a lot of sense. We're proposing to strike the requirement that the set side setbacks be equal to the height of the building.

We are the thing is is you got one house here that's taller than the other house and so you've got a setback on one side but the other one's supposed to be the same as the height of the top. It's a really weird code. I I've never seen it. I mean everything's like you have a five and a 10 or a seven and a 12. It doesn't matter the height of the building. When I was reading this, I'm like, this is the one of the weirdest stories I've ever read. That's why I was like, just give them side yards and call today because we have a height restriction on our buildings anyways. Yeah. 35 ft. So I So the proposing to strike that that the side the sideyards be equal to the height of the building. You're welcome to come up, please.

Pillar for West. It's that the what how we interpret it is that the two sideyard setbacks have to cumulatively exceed the height of one the one building on that one lot. So it's not two lots, it's the two sideyard setbacks on that one lot. So you're saying you're saying this 10 ft or 24 feet or which one whichever one it is, you're saying it's each one of them have to have that much or just one.

How we read it was how it reads now. clean is that 24 cumulative 10 on each side that's the new proposed text that's what was enforced I believe and then there was an additional applicable section that said in addition to that the two side cumulatively could not exceed the height and the height can be 35 based off because in here it's saying that which never was enforced so that's why it's saying that it can be enforcement be no more or no less than the height. Yes. So

So that means they can have 35 ft if they wanted to. It had to exceed the height of the building more than so. So yes, you could exceed it. You had to have 35 ft with 10 minimum on each side. Either way, it wasn't enforced and so we need to change. So,

I'm just having a You got R120s or the R12? Both exactly the same. Why? That's why we're here. Well, and that's that's why they're here because it it makes no sense to have All right. I just I do have a separate question. Um I noticed we've crossed out other main buildings shall have a minimum sideyard. Are we are we suggesting that non-residential structures do not require a sideyard at all?

Because it was the same different buildings.

Okay. There was a slight change that's not really noticeable in the first line. It went from dwelling to building.

So that includes both commercial and residential then both commercial and residential. for these R1. They're all residential zones. Just in the zonings, residential zones. I think we have zero lot line in commercial potentially. You could build right up to the lot line. Zero in some commercial zones. Really? But that makes sense. So it it's building now, not just Yeah. Okay.

That makes that makes a lot of sense. Okay. So that includes a barn or whatever then. Mhm. Any any building any building any accessory building. So that means which I think makes it a lot more clear too because previously we had one code for houses and a different one for other buildings and a different one based on the height of the structure. So now we're down to just two lines. Well, really for strike and all the rest. I mean, really? Yeah. You're you're getting rid of basically everything that's

weird. Well, you do have the line for minimum sideyard and feet for private garage or accessory building shall be. So you still have several lines. So you have minimum side yard and feet for any dwelling total width of the two required sideyard shell and the minimum sideyard and feet for so depending on your zoning you could be up to six feet from property line to I'm on page 91 6 to 10 feet six to anywhere from 6 to 10 feet. So you could put your garage or barn if you had a barn in RM15 or RM7, you could be 6 feet off the property line or 10 ft off in R120 R12.

Of course, if you're in RM15 or 7, you're probably it's probably a shed, not much of a barn. It'll be pretty small. So you're basically saying that we're taking out the height requirement and just putting these numbers here. Correct. That's a whole lot better. Yeah. cleaner. Yeah. I've never built anything lower. They took into the height of the building near side yours. I can't figure out why. Worried about your structure falling over and hitting the neighbor's house. Half a piece. Are you ready for an ordinance or a motion?

I have a question before you do. So why on the differences between the minimum sideyard in item one or not item one but and it says the total width of the two required sideyards in feet shall be 24 ft. So that means combination of two would be 12 ft cumulative [ __ ] cumulative. So why the difference there versus 10 ft? So 10 is the minimum. So you could get as close as 10 ft on one side, but if you do that, you've got to have 14 on the other, 14 on the other. So in other words, it's not 10 feet, it's 24T. No. So what? No. Cumulative both sides together both side yards. 12 and 12.

You have to have 24 total, but one must be at least 10 ft. That top line right here. Yeah. So you'd have to have the 14 on the other side. Cumulatively. So in other words, it doesn't say that. Yes, it does. 24. 24 minus 10 is 14. This one it it's just telling you the minimum of one sideyard minimum is 10 feet. So you can go 10 ft and then 25 ft on the other. But the cumulative between the two must be at least 24 and one cannot be smaller. That means where we've got the Rome project down there that has 8 ft. But isn't that a isn't that a commercial?

Well, yeah, probably. You're probably talking the commercial portion, right? No, I'm talking about the the the no homes. They're 6 ft between them. Oh, well that it's still town center. It has nothing to do with these zonings. These are residential

Mr. Chair, I'll move that we approve ordinance number Oh, I'm sorry. It's a public hearing. I did the same thing. Mr. Chair, I move that we uh convene a public hearing for item number six. Second. Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay, we're now in public hearing. If anybody'd like to come forward, I appreciate that. I thought for sure you had something for us.

Okay, I'll look for another motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn the public hearing and reconvene the public meeting. Have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I I Any opposed? Okay. I move we approve ordinance number CO-26-06. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? I. Are there any opposed?

Okay. Motion is unanimous. Chair, I believe Chief Wilks is speaking to your next your WOOI. Okay, we are on F7. All right, then. So, am I supposed to read this in to you or just tell us? So, the request is to change the text amendment

so that we just adopt the most current uh codes as the state amends them instead of having to dance around every time they change it all the house bills again just to clean it up so that when they tell us what we're going to do we don't have to reconvene with everyone so that's the for that I think that makes it easy just just go with the state well exactly this is a continuation of my plan because that'll be the I mean we have to go by at least by the state minimum right we have we have were held by them. Correct. And then every time they come, like last legislation season, we had two house bills that reflected in the WOOI code.

So technically, we have to adopt each amendment every time. And this language will say we don't have to do that anymore. We're just going to automatically adopt any amendment that they bring forth from now on. It's super easier for me. No, I think it's easy for people. We just refer them to state code. That's that's what it is. is we're not we don't we don't have anything different. So Garrett, you all's good. All is well in Zion. Yeah. So Janet um also took the first stab at this and basically the same thing that we did with the international fire code a few years ago. We're doing here so that we don't have to keep coming back every three or four years whenever the state adopts the next version.

Okay. Motion to go on a public hearing. Mr. Chair, I move that we convene public hearing. Second. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson, second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. We're now in public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to come and share? Seeing none, I'll look for a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn the public meeting and reconvene as county commission. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Fackerel. All in favor? I.

Are there any opposed? Okay. Motion's unanimous. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the Let me see how I do this. The Is there an ordinance over? I should have scrolled down my There you go. 2607. Mr. I move that we approve ordinance number let's see co26-07. Second. Have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Ferrell. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion's unanimous.

Okay. Railene. Yes. I hope you can hear me better than I can hear you. We can we can hear you loud and clear.

So, I'm coming coming before the commission today um to request the following. Um along Old Highway Road, we currently have people and vehicles sharing the same space and this is the issue we're trying to solve. Um, so I'm requesting funding for an engineering estimate for a trail. This would be bike pedestrian trail along the north side of old highway starting at Traers where our property begins where the county line begins um compared to that with UD do um to the dirt spot. Um, now our our plans already call for better connectivity and safety, which is what is my main concern is safety. As we grow that area of the town center, especially where our flagship home is, we're going to have a lot more children walking to school, riding their bikes. Um, so we're trying to get we're trying to get ahead of this and we're also trying to um tap into state funds through Wasach fun front regional through um the trail network and there's also grants available through the railroad. Um, so if we can get an engineering estimate and have a plan in place, then we can apply for these grants. Um, so we're not approving construction. We're just talking about taking the first steps to compete for outside funding. Um, so that's the first one.

Let's go to that one first if we can. The second one, uh, Commissioner, let's discuss, hang on one second. I just want to discuss that one a little bit. Um item number A is why just an estimate? Why not? Because the whole problem that we've had is been not just the estimate we need. We actually need the engineering to be done for that trail. That's that is what it is. It's an engineering and then an the engineering estimate is engineers it and then gives us an estimate for if

I want to make sure we had the engineering done on it because that's what's held us up for the last 5 years. Well, I don't know that it would be the actual engineering. It's just the engineer looking at it saying this is what it would cost us to do it. But the biggest problem with any trails in in the county is that we don't own the land. So, in order to build a trail along these roads, we do. Yeah, I don't I don't think we do. I don't think that's correct. You would have to expand the roadway to make that. Hold on. Time out. Too many people talking at once. So,

I, as I said in the packet, we have not researched who owns the property because that's a lot of time that we have we don't have, right? And this is commissioner, this is not the trail that you and Brett and I mapped out. This is a completely different one that you brought up in in our yours and my one-on-one. I will tell you in the commission that in order to qualify for Utah Trail Network monies, it has to be a 12 foot wide paved trail.

Correct. So, I need 12 feet, which is also not something I have mapped out until I'm tasked to do that with my diminishing hours. Um, so yes, Brett is here, but Brett is here specifically because I when he saw this item, he wanted to talk to me about it. And I said the reason this item is on here is to show the commission that we have a lot of projects but very minimal money to get these projects done. and I as their county manager prioritization on what my time and hours and the very small amount of money that we have to do these things needs to be allocated because you had brought up and I understand that that's later on here when it got brought up well why did the Ken Smith park thing die it's like it once I'm told not to spend money I I I have 17 other projects going on so that's why I put this on the agenda. One, so you could ask for your funding. Yes, Brett is here, but Brett is here so that when you're we we get a task staff to do XYZ, he doesn't have to hear it thirdand from me and or use technology and get on YouTube. No offense, Brett.

Yeah. So, so we've never mapped that, Commissioner, as far as who owns the that 12 feet that we would need. We we've done that and there is an existing trail now that is six feet, right? And it's paved part way. Well, partway. Yes. And then it's been demolished with the Rollins project and the Rome project and all those others. And so I and I that's what I was talking to her in the hall about. And then we've got the one the bridge that's only six feet also, but it goes through that area. Yeah.

Okay. So, why don't we have Railene go through her I didn't I didn't understand I understand better now what Kate's saying. Why don't you go through all three of your asks Railene and then I guess we can So the next Commissioner is that repair of the sidewalk for the so that UD do will give us that ADA ramp is the next one. Can you hear me? Yep. Okay, I'll speak. Thank you. Yeah. Um, so this is where I need Brett to come up because Brett is saying and Kate, we've been going back and forth on this with you do that that is UD do own and that they have to do it. It's not on the county land.

That's right. Can you talk on that? So, uh, yeah, here I You just tell me which picture you want.

Yeah. So, let's start with that one right there. So, that's the county dot line and that's that's really the reason I'm here just to make sure. um that we're not to commit to anything that we're not supposed to. U you do can take care of yourself on these kind of rideways, which they will. I mean, they don't have a problem with that. And so they they've got a bigger rideway than we have. And this is this is a bigger road. This is this is State Route 167. It's not just a even even just a simple state road. And so what's going to happen here eventually is is you know you're going to have an exchange here that's going to really come in and and uh really modernize this whole thing. And that and that is going to happen sooner than it was going to happen. They are moving that up. If you haven't if you haven't heard that that's I'm sure it'll come in before the Olympics and we've even heard Kate that they've they're going to fund it within the next year or so.

Yeah. We're in phase one. Yeah. Funding. So that's that's a big sign that that's going to happen. And so we don't want to really get the cart before the horse, I would say, until some of this happens. Um, this is the north side. If you look at this picture right here, and that's what they're talking that that I'm talking about is where we would start. We wouldn't do anything until we come to this line right here that that you can see. But let me talk a little bit about the about the west side. That's UD do because I get asked about this a lot. I think I've even Do you want me to pull up the GPS map? Facel down there on that. And I don't have any pictures that I got it. Yeah,

that'd be great because I get asked about this drainage a lot on the west side of 167, SR 167, which is right there at the corner of Sinclair of the gas station. Sinclair gas station. Here's Travers Loop. Everything this side is UD do. That's all UD do. We have nothing to do with it. Can't touch the sidewalk. Can't deal with the drainage. And they are not. and have said repeatedly, "We're not going to address the drainage. We're not going to address the crumbling sidewalks until after we put in the interchange, fix the plumbing or fix the drainage, and then we will fix the sidewalk, cuz they're not going to put it in just to tear it out,

right?" And they and they don't have any trail going west of there either yet. And maybe they have ideas of that and and and I think we talked about that going down the canyon eventually, but they've got a $140 million project coming in on this exchange. Started out at 40, now it's 140. So, they're not going to waste money, right? And and like I say, get the cart before the horse, right? We're going to we're going to let you do their thing and get this and get this up to date and and bring in the exchange. And you can see right where it's going to come up and line up on trappers trapper loops. So, we've got everything. If if you can see the the different coloration of the pavement there on old highway. And we call this old highway whether it's the county side or we call it the state side. It's still called old highway. And that's the calls that I get all the time is okay, I need this problem fixed on old highway. I live in the county, but it's really 167. And 167 goes comes up old highway and turns and goes up. Trappers loop has three different names, right? So if you look at the coloration of the pavement, UD do paves to that to right to the county line. They've chipped and you can see our pavement is just a little different color because it's a little different age is the reason they they they've done that at a different time frame than we have. So kind of give you an idea where the where the property line is. So if you go along here, we do have a trail that's only six feet, right? So you go along kind of follow along if you could. K, that'd be great. You go over to 5,000 and then it turns into sidewalk right there. Turns into sidewalk. We do have ADA ramps and that is county. But then we just turned in sidewalk which is a 4ft sidewalk instead of a sixoot trail. So I think Railian, what you're what you're wanting is a trail inside the curb right inside the on the road itself. Is that correct?

Yeah, it can be inside. It could be on the side. Um, I can't see what you see, but um, wow. We just need a trail. Now, we all just got back from most of us from St. George, and you've seen their trail system is everywhere. We should be able to build something like that. Our residents want it. We should, we need to do our thing. We need to move forward and do something and not just keep sitting on our But frankly, we can't afford that. We can't afford to buy the property. We can't afford to put the trails in. in place so we can apply for these grants. The problem with the grants is they don't pay to maintain the trails. You can build trails all day long with grant money, but you can't get funding to to maintain them.

Okay. We need to set aside money to maintain it. I I think our residents would rather we have good roads than trails. I mean, we don't have enough to maintain our roads, let alone to maintain trails. That's that's why the trails in the county are in the state they're in. It's also a safety issue. There's going to be a lot more kids coming across there. Okay, let let's not turn it into that. Every time trails get turned into, it's a safety issue. I I'm sorry, but at a certain point, we got to make a decision. Okay, now I see kids in the road. They're on the road. Hang on one

because they don't have a place to go. Okay, another gap. You might have something else, but we've had plenty that are not in green already. One's enough,

we do have a 6 foot wide trail that is being kept up and is being maintained from Silverly or well till the Willow Creek and then from Willow Creek down to Sinclair. other than where the construction has gone through, we have one. The kids won't go on it. They'd rather be on the highway. That is a parent thing that we need to make sure parents understand and try to teach their kids that. But we do have a trail there. And I'm of the opinion that we need to just widen that trail. It'd be nice. And I'm not sure that a curb would be the ideal way to try to make that, but we do need I agree we need trails. We need a lot of trails in this county. It's something that we've been trying to do. The cost of building a trail is a half a million dollars a mile. Then to maintain it is depend on what we want to put into it. But that's just for a 10-ft wide paved trail. So we have to make sure that when we're going into this instead of I mean I've been working on for 5 years. Those five years you we keep wanting it people keep pushing back on it. So what we've got to do is we've got to come up with how are we going to implement the plan that we did four years ago. And that's what we need to work on. And UTN will help us once we get an engineering study done. Not study, but an engineering um estimate or whatever you want to call it. That is what we need more than anything at this point because we've already got the plan.

So just for clarification, so but UTN requires a 12T. Correct. So, we'd have to take So, these trails we have here, I mean, my my opinion is I mean, with the trails net, I think we need to get to where these developers are footing the bill to put them in. That's right. You know, you've got Rome here.

It's a big dirt field. They're going to sit on it until it can revert back to residential because I think that's in the development agreement. And then they're going to build a bunch of town homes in there because it's town center zoning. If we want that 12- foot trail, I think I mean, how do we how do we get that in there so that the residents, all the people that live here now aren't footing the bill? It's just like the fire station and the police, those fees, it needs to go into with these developments so that the trails are there. And then Brett and I spoke, I mean, with these trails, you go up to to Cameas and Oakley, they won't use the trail. That's right.

All the road bikers are out in the middle of the street there. There's a nice beautiful 12- foot trail right down past the fairgrounds up there in Oakley and they will not use that trail. This is a road bike. This where I belong. And I'm like, yep. And you get hit by the dump truck and you lose. And so how do we I think there's there's both sides. Yeah. I I got no problem with the trail, but I I think at half a million dollars a mile or whatever it is, how do we get that onto the developer? So that this is part of what if you want to build here, you get your densities, but this is what we require. I need a code text amendment to the landscape ordinance. Okay. And so, and I think this is,

you know, and I think that's fine and dandy, but to really have connectivity, you've got to go through areas that there's not any development happening. And I've talked to dozens of people who live on Old Highway Road and on Morgan Valley Drive and I've said, "What do you think about a trail here?" And they all go, "That sounds like a great idea. I'd love to not have the bikes on the road." And then I say, "We'd probably have to take 10 ft of your front yard." And every one of them says, "Oh, hell no. Yeah, I don't want to give up my property for this." We would we would end up fighting people the entire way to do this. So, I just want to be clear. I'm not in favor of taking people's property to build trails. I'm just not.

And I don't care if other counties have trails. Other counties also have very different funding sources. I mean, Washington County, Summit County, they have monumental amounts of TRT coming in. They're building all of that with tourist money. We don't have that coming into our county. So to say, well, let's just go spend a bunch of money on trails. Well, that sounds great. But the truth is, it costs a fortune to maintain these trails. Even if you get the trail paid for, you've still got to maintain it. And you got to fight all the residents to take their property so that you can put a trail through their front yard. People are not going to go for that.

Okay. I just I want to state for the record that you cannot imminent domain for recreational purposes. That is never Morgan moms the county's intent to imminent domain your property for a trail. That will not happen and it cannot legally happen. And that's why you won't have connection. That's not what we're saying. Well, and I think that's ultimately it won't happen unless people willingly hand their property over and that only happens through a development.

And I think and that's what I'm trying to say. So like Brett and I spoke earlier is like you have areas like this Rome area. You have them put in this trail and then we use part of the road like he Brett talked about a painted trail. So yeah, people are going to be on the road, but they do it downtown Salt Lake. I mean, no, I I not even consider But let's be clear, even if you do a painted trail, if you put a line on the road, so the county painted all the the roads, this has been 15 years ago, right? It cost a quarter of a million dollars to stripe all of our roads. And that striping lasted for two to three years. quarter a million dollars is is a third of our road fund for the entire year.

Do we really want to spend a quarter of a million dollars to stripe our roads every three years? I mean, we we got to think about that in some areas. I think that makes sense. There are some places where we should do that. Absolutely. And we have done that in some areas. I mean, you talk about in front of Lee's there, we're striping there now, right? And and we're going to have to keep that up. But if you want to do that throughout the county, you just have to understand there's a very steep cost associated with this. If that's what residents are willing to pay, great. But they will have to pay for it. It It's not.

And also for the record, because we get a lot of questions on this, why is old highway not striped? It is a non-conforming road. It is not wide enough by state statute to be a two-lane road. And therefore, I can't stripe something and decide where the middle is on something that's nonconforming. Yeah. And then another thing is is we can now according to one of the laws and I did not bring it with us quarter preservation can now be used for obtaining more area for trails. Okay, that was in this last legislature session. So

the biggest thing is it goes back to

it goes back to for trails and I agree we need to do this. The biggest thing is is we need to do an engineering estimate as to what it will cost after we find out whose properties they are, whether or not they're willing to do anything with it and allow that. I know there's a lot of people down there that would like that. We did finish out a 6 foot wide trail from Willow Creek down to Warner's place, I think it was. Um anyway, we we actually it was just a smaller area that we went and finished when I first came in and that was from Willow Creek so people could walk there instead of having to go out onto the road the kids going to school. So basically,

do we even know a cost estimate to to do that? I I I do not. And it's not just a cost estimate of that. It's a cost estimate of my time and who is going to hunt down these property owners and who is going to I'm talking about I don't know to build a trail to build just just for the cost estimate for the trail is that for the engineering for the engineer the engineer's estimate cost a mile for this three miles on uh item 8 alpha you're are going to be around 30 to $40,000 to have it engineered with an engineer's estimate. Okay.

So, just to be respectful of Commissioner Blocker's items and wanting her to be able to finish the ask 10 uh so 8B as we you saw in the pictures, the property line starts here. What we would have to do is we would have to uh repair and put in curb and gutter along this in order to get um and the the caveat to that is the ask was to UD do please ADA this and fix their trail here and make it ADA compliant so that we can have a crosswalk. They won't give us a crosswalk until we have ADA on each side. They won't do ADA on each side until we curb and gutter our approach. Okay, so that is 10 or action 8B's ask and why. And then C is everything with the Kentmith park.

Okay. And B, do you know the cost on that? That's essentially the same. We already got the cost on it, didn't we? on and I thought we I thought we even approved moving forward. Am I crazy? I don't have an estimate on that. But I thought we did. I don't Brett, but I can figure that out. What do you mean? It's the same like it's it's essentially if we do uh just 8B, which is do that curb and gutter. It's we're also that's the start of continuing your trail. That's correct. For your three miles. So it's okay. we need to do is that area in order to get the prop. Correct. So what I'm but what I'm saying is it's

it can be like separate completely. Correct. Correct. But what I'm saying is it's not a double cost is once we get that section fixed, it's not like you're going to have to go back through and pay additionally to do it again. So whatever we fix in B, we can take off the price tag of A. That's correct. Okay. And we have no idea what that would cost. No, I thought we had had an estimate. You guys tasked us to see what it would take to get that put in. It It's been a back and forth with UDOT for like what? Two almost two years for them to finally give us that answer. That's what I will put a crosswalk in with the ADA. Well, they made it sound like the ADA was us and now it's them.

But now they Okay, so why don't you put in the ADA? Well, because you need to fix your curb and gutter and sidewalk. Okay. Why didn't you say that two years ago? But I still question how quick they're going to do it because because the exchange coming in. Yeah. Yeah. So this could see they told me they put in a crosswalk. So I mean that area is so busy. Correct. I think Brett's concern because he's coming from UD do is yes they will. That does not mean FY26 FY27. It might be FY32. And it and it and a lot of it is on that west side. If you look over Sinclair, they've got some water problems to deal with before they do that any of that before they put an ADA ramp whether they build.

You might have to Railen, you might have to go share some attitude with them or something. Yeah, I don't think it would be clear till 32. They're they're pretty good to work with. At least they have been with me. Um, do you want me to go on to Yeah, because you've you've found out a lot about the the recreation fields. Yeah. Pull up that those.

So, I spoke with the chair, Bill Boots, um, about the survey and I let him know that, um, the county didn't really want to pay for a survey. Um and he said, you know, we don't need anything really big. Can you guys just come down and this is before he's gone to the board. So, um and put stakes in, you know, we can use our GIS mapping system, put the stakes in so we know exactly where you're planning on putting these fields and then, you know, draw up a plan so we know what you're doing. Um, so that's really all they're asking for. He says it doesn't need to be an official survey. Now, he he said he was going to go to the board and he's pretty sure that they would be on board with them. So, nothing's set in stone, but that's just a conversation I had with them. Um, they just want to see what we're doing and where we're doing it.

That seems totally reasonable to me. On the other hand, I would say they should put the stakes and tell us where they want us to go to, right? I mean, Yeah, I think they need to be out there with us. To me, they should just go out there and say this is where we we're willing to lease you to and everything else we're keeping. But maybe that's okay. So there's take it all the way back. Yeah. Here's where our So there's C1 if if they'll agree to that. I can follow up on this. I just needed to know this is what I bring with me from the county to put in these states. I think any one of us could go with you. I'd be happy to go with you.

I'm sure Lydia would as well. Okay. And then who would be Lydia want to draw up a little plan? Well, there's one on this. There's one in the packet. You mean for this? What do you mean a little plan? Like where's the fields going to go? There's And that's that is my struggle bus. I need to be there for maintenance, too. Yeah. So on the fields, so our intent of this whole project was to create additional parking and more open space fields. But now if I add a baseball field that

and we might want to hold off on that in case we get the other ones from the church. Okay. But that's what I'm saying is I I only have so many hours in the day and so does Lydia and so does the engineer that's helped me with this pro bono without filling the count

and I I'm struggling when here's our plan but every and I I forgot I think I had this conversation with you Brett my struggle is I take the time I map it out and then I get push back about trees or I map it out and I we think we have a plan and then we get push back because no well now we want a baseball diamond. Oh, and it has to have bleachers. And it's like I I can't keep redoing something when I don't even have a lease in place. So, you guys need to tell us what you want because every time I spend my time on it, I get a completely different plan. Just like when you and I were I forgot what we were talking about and you're like, "Oh, yeah, we Oh, COG. We were at COG." and they're like, "Yeah, they want a trailer over on the whole thing." I'm like, "That is completely news to me." And you're like, "I've been saying that for years." But again, like,

no, not on the least properties. Hey, I'm happy to I'm happy to help you with that, Railene, and and draw even draw some fields and parking and things like that. We got to talk about water. I have my crayons. Yeah. About water. Water to water. what we've got right now. We don't quite have enough to do what we're doing right now. I run short. So, I need another water. Well, system I need another water share. I need another well and another well. Yep. Awesome. You were saying something like they kind of ignored that years ago, but if we move forward, that could trigger the state. If we if we mess with that anymore, we're going to have to get a drill another well, another share of water. South.

Okay. I do run out of water in that park. That well does run dry. have a lot of water. We use it too much. So, okay. So, just on Ken Smith, just to recap, we need to stake the property with MGSD. They still are going to require a fence. So, there's the cost of fence. I still need some type of layout plan of that doesn't change for the use of the property so that they can clear us on the use of the property. before we can go to lease or the we don't have to put the fence in until the lease.

Is that correct? We're not putting the fence in until they agree to the parameters and the use. That makes sense to me. Yeah. Okay. Great. Because talking to like when we were talking about having to pay for the survey um and I had reached out to Mike on a different topic, he had stated if I have to spend x amount of dollars on a survey, I'd rather just just like you're saying, I'd rather just spend the money on the fence and say here's here's my survey because I'm building the fence on it. So yeah, if they just want stakes, but if they just want stakes, great. I mean, that's that ultimately I I understand their reasoning. They just want a boundary. They want to know where the boundary line is, which I think we all agree we do, too.

It's just do we want to spend a bunch of money for somebody to go out there and survey it or do they want to put a stake in the ground and say this is where it is? Because to me, they tell us where it is. Cool. Like that's where we put the fence and that's where it is. We're not going to argue over the cost of the lease or anything else based on whether the fence is 10 feet one way or the other. We're we're just we agreed it is what it is, right? So yeah, I'll follow up with them this week and see um what their board decided.

When you do that, can you clarify since their email specifically said survey and engineering plan? Can you see if they're also good on the quote unquote engineering plan being you and Matt and a pencil, a napkin and a trail? Oh yeah, because I have money for you and Matt and a pencil. I don't have Okay. No, you didn't ask how expensive I am. Um, your own salary. You're cheap compared to a lot of things.

Okay. Is there anything else you want to speak to, Commissioner, before we go back to what am I funding and what are my priorities? Oh, okay. I think the Mountain Green's priority number one, which I mean, they're all Mountain Green, though. I mean, the Mountain Green um recreational fields to me that would be number one, but right now, the only thing that I have that would be a physical cost for this year would be if we need to put up the fence this year and drill a second well and buy a water share. Okay. And if we need to put up a fence, I I wouldn't want to take it from that fund anyway. We would take it from a different No, you couldn't take it from that fund. What's that? I say you can't take it from that.

Exactly. Like I don't think that's I don't think we can take a water share from that fund either. No, you can't. Okay. It's transportation. It' have to be used on Yeah. It'd have to be I mean really it can only be used to be used on the trail unless you put in the Kent Smith trail. Well, if you did then Yes. that can well follow although $50,000 isn't going to build a trail. Yeah. Not in the and I'm I'm think I would think that us getting that area so UTO so we can put pressure on you dot for a crosswalk would be our our next thing. Rain speak up because you live down there. So, yes, absolutely. We need to get that done. Hoping you guys will.

I'm just saying prioritywise. Are you in agreements with the priorities that I've said so far? Okay. So, I'm sorry, but if you it's been broken up. So so the the priority for the 50,000 on a 194 340 which is the county mass transit tax monies your priority right now is to get what we need done to put pressure on UD do to finish the ADA and the crosswalk. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And then on the other as far as the water share, the fencing and the drilling the second well, where's that money coming from? capital improvements.

I don't have money left in capital improvements. Uh general fund, it would have to come from general fund balance. That's all it could be. There's nothing left in recreation. We've got we should have some additional monies from because we only allowed $200,000 to come from ramp tax. Correct. the the infrastructure can come from the rest of it. We do have which is only about 30 or $40,000. Yeah. So, do you want me to take that back to the ramp board, ramp advisory board and see? Because we can make that decision even though they're older. But it has to come from them.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't have to. It's just it doesn't look good to set up a board and three months later go around them. But I think it's good to include them. But I think that'd be I think if they're looking at what facilities we're doing with ramp tax, I think that's a perfect example. It is because we need I think going to ramp would be a great idea. Yeah. I think it'd be good for them to at least, you know, allow that and then bring it back to us to see where if we're going to do it or not. Yeah. I don't think we ought to have boards that we can just go around. I know, but I'm just telling you it can be done. So fence. So my recom you want me to present to ramp a request for fencing, water, and a secondary well to expand Ken Smith Park.

And we would need with the well additional like sprinklers and all that stuff to make sure we're watering. So do you have a a dollar amount ask? I don't think we have a clue what it's going to cost. Okay. And then I Okay. Yes, sir. Do we know like is there a requirement on the fence that they've said it has to be chain length? I'd imagine you'd want my guess. I don't I don't believe it's defined in the draft agreement. I don't remember seeing it in there, but I'm sure that would be our most reasonable way to go. And I I think that's we should propose that to them rather than vice versa to have them tell us. Yeah.

We're going to put in they want a standup concrete wall. It looks like we have really good sprinkler coverage based on this picture. We're barely watering it now, which is hot. Told that picture was taken in October and not probably August 15th. It probably is August. Yeah. We run the whale dry when we run the whale dry. How? So that means what kind of a well are we talking about? A surface well? What are we talking about? A the one that's in that right there is 100 120 ft. So it's a regular whale. Yeah, it's regular whale. And where's that one? So we know that's going to be 30 grand.

It's right there by that baseball diamond. The well's just behind that baseball diamond there in between that and the information. Janet said um in her discussions with their le with MGSID's legals, they did not specify a specific type of fencing. Tpost. It needs to kids and barb wire transition. Yeah, I know. Okay. All right. Okay. So, those are my marching orders. And then um on the Do you want me to see if I can get an estimate of an engineering estimate for your trail?

Yes, I do. Okay. I'll see and bring that back. I mean, knowing you don't have money for it this year, but at least get you a cost. Get a cost. Okay. So, uh, Commissioner Blocker,

can you hear me? Okay. I just want to review this to make sure I'm not missing anything. So, my my marching orders on a is to reach out and get a estimated cost of what the engineering and the engineering estimate would be for the three- mile trail. My action item on B is to essentially get it done, right? Or at least all that we can for the $50,000 that we have. Um and then C is you and Matt are going to stake the property and you're going to um try to make some type of plan for the use of the property with Lydia. And then I'm going to make a presentation to present at RAM uh ramp advisory board at our next COG meeting for the use of those funds for a fence um water and a secondary well.

That sounds great. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. appreciate you bringing those to our attention. F9. I know for a fact I emailed these ones to you. Yep. I did. You did? Okay. Where is that sarcasm?

No, I I got them. I don't know if these guys did, but I got them. It says Hback is I got the final one from the C CSA or whatever there. Who was that? No, it's called HVAC second bid is the Oh, I did not um subject. Yeah, it went to county commission. So, April 30th, 3:21 p.m.

I I need to preface this discussion with my my one-on-one that I have every Tuesday with Corey. Right now, Corey has the original whoever this was slated to start this because he has to move this. If we go with a different um or if the commission goes with a different vendor than whomever this original one was from, just be prepared that I have that we have to push everything back a week because we we'll have to schedule with them to move move the Hback. So then we can dig and then we can put on our cement. Either way, the the parking pole, the light pole in the center and the uh far end like over by the city are going to go dead as of Thursday morning. We're going to block off those spots for so that we can start construction on that front row. We'll be blocking the spots closest to the building from the um the ramp access. So, we'll still have all those to the to the right of the ramp, and we'll keep all of our um handy accessible spots, but the rest of them will be blocked off so that we don't have to worry about

hurting someone's car while in the middle of construction. Okay. So, this bid is the low bid. Which one? The one that we're looking The original one. The original one. The original one is the low bid. Yes. I didn't look it up because I figured you guys would tell me anyway. So, yeah, it was it is a little Okay. So, are we good to go with this one? And are you wanting to do the option? I guess you'll have to make that in the motion. Oh, sorry.

Okay. So, here was my only question on on on this. and and I had the the person that I reached out to, I had them bid um the way this is, there's I the only confusion I have, and maybe Corey can address this with me, too, and I should have just reached out to him today, but there's actually nine heads coming off those three. I don't know why only five were five, but the the cost of the heads are are minimal in comparison to the condenser. So, so would that make him not the low bidder though if you have nine heads instead of five?

But I I had the person that I reached out to bid five. Oh, okay. So then the I they bid nine originally and I said, "You need to bid the same." He said, "Well, all nine are going to have to be replaced." I said, "Well, we got to get a similar bid." So, so is that the nine line says or is it something else?

Line item number two, which is the option because I don't know how they're going to do it otherwise. They they take totally different refrigerants. I don't know if they can do it without it. I'd be great. I'd love to just use the same heads, but I don't know how they're going to do it. I don't think you can do it. You can't change refrigeration out outside and have it not changed on inside. So question is are you talking about the nine headers that are in the existing building? Correct. Okay.

So I mean it makes it easy that they were the lowest bid anyway. So it's just hard to swallow how expensive stuff is nowadays. I do think there's not a lot of point in moving the old units up. I mean, no, we might as well replace them. We c you can't they they do not make that refrigerant anymore. So, you can't move the condensers and I just don't know how they're using the same thing. Even if you could, you rolled up, you're going to move them back on, they're going to be broken. The new ones are some more.

So, I'll look for a motion to approve the lower lowest bid. Uh I'll move to approve the uh low bid for the relocation of the condenser units um and addition of an upgrade of condenser units and and with the head option. Yes, with the head option. I'll second. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Any opposed? I Okay, motion's unanimous.

Uh, okay. What was this one? Sorry. Um, I got them down to 60,000 for that transportation master plan. Um, I I but I mean that's 40,000 less. I really think we need it. At the end of the day, it's your money. Um

my question is did we by chance check in with regional council to see if they do some TLC funding for this? That was never mentioned to me and I don't know what that is. Well, we had that for different plans. Uh we had it for the Mountain Green Center. We had it for area in the county where they've helped us. They helped us with the trail uh trail uh plan. In fact, they all TLC transportation land land connection

land connections. And so this one here in particular will work with that program. Wait, I did mention it to I thought Mike was going through the regional council. to Andrew and he says, "Yes, just come and talk to us." So, we can talk to him. I know. I'm like, "Great. So, I got to table it again." Um, okay. I I think we need to talk to them. I hear you. I'm a huge fan of not paying out of pocket. It's just we're a month and a half. This is like the third time it's been tabled. Well, I don't know as as we can't um we can

approve it and and and then see if they get see what we can get. If we can get them to fund it, that'd be awesome. Uh the only the only issue we might have there though is that last time when we did the the other projects, they ran the RFP and approved the funding. So, if we do approve it, I think we're committing to that funding. And I don't know how WFRC would feel about not running the RFP themselves for just I would rather table it than pay out of pocket. Yeah. Portion of the cost. We didn't bring it up. You want me to call Andrew?

Sorry. I didn't even know what TL there was a TLC. So, Okay. Can I get a motion to table? Mr. Chair, I move that we table item F10 for the RFP for the transportation master plan. Do you have a time? No, just because available certain. Yeah. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson. I'll second it. Second by Commissioner Newton. All in favor? I I Any opposed?

Okay. So, my um Can you guys who whoever do you want these guys to do? I got Andrew. I got Andrew. I'll text him tonight. Otherwise, I'll do whatever his name is. Last first name. Wayne. If we can take some off your plate, Kate, we're happy to. Um I'll do it.

So, this was the one from the July 15th meeting. So that's why I specifically put on there it's illustration purposes only because I knew someone would be like, "Hey, this is missing things." Um, just like we've stated before, we h we have so many code text amendments and there's going to be even more that are triggered once the general plan is finished. Um, so I had reached out to Val, who is um with the the company that's doing our general plan, and I said, I have a $7,000 budget right now um under the county administrative manager for professional and technical. I know that's not going to get me too far on on this list if we go out for third party and just get an hourly rate for people to for a company to work on our code text amendments. I said if I were to get another $20,000 allocated to that line, she said, except for maybe the commercial design standards and exempting the there's another one on here

that I think it's the viewshed ordinance cuz she's like I don't even know what that is or if it's legal. um she thinks she could that amount of money 25,000 or whatever would get this list knocked out including the other ones that we have going on. But so so an additional 10

so an addition well the thing is whatever you so there's two asks can I go out for RFQ to get an hourly rate for and a third party to help get us caught up on code text amendments. Then I'll come back to you. You guys prioritize which ones you want to get done first and we'll knock them out that way based off how much I have in a budget. If at the end of the day we like what we're getting and we feel like we have a good hourly rate, please expect that I'm going to come back and ask for more money to finish out some more. But the number one ask is may I go out for RFQ with the budget that I have to get some of these code text amendments knocked out because we're just going to have double this amount once the general plan is finished. I would vote affirmative on that.

Okay. About you guys. So, one request I would have is some of these amendments have been requested by the planning commission and they may be wonderful, but I'd hate for us to spend time and energy if it's going to come here and we say, "Actually, we don't want that." So, I guess my only ask would be, well, it's your prioritization. Can we prioritize these and review these and just make sure we're thousand%. That's that's all I would say. Let's do that first because that's not for me to decide. And in fact, there may be some that we've directed that now we rethink when we go through like number eight is the state law now.

Okay. They just wanted me to know that as far as lift then number one that commercial design standards is probably going to cost more than the same amount as probably three of these lowlying fruit ones. Um, so just FYI, I don't want you guys to prioritize number one and then we get it and then you say think that everyone costs that to get done. So, so that's my ask. May I go out for RFQ for an hourly rate to get code text amendments? Obviously, we have plenty of time by the time we open it, get those bids in and then award it for you guys to go through the current list, which I will send out so you guys can prioritize which ones you want.

Okay. Okay. As part of that, can we ask for kind of a guideline of roughly the number of hours they think it will take for specific types of amendments? I I don't know why we couldn't ask. I mean, they may not know, but it just be nice to know roughly what it's going to cost for our prioritization, too. Like, this is a $10,000 item and this is a $300 item. Okay, let's hit the $300 items first and knock them off. They may have done several. So, yeah. I mean, maybe some of these are easy for them and some of them are more difficult. Yep.

Because I think she when she was looking at it just to give me an idea because I was like, I don't Will 7,000 knock out one? Will it knock out the whole list? Um, she said she's pretty confident on your uh food truck one. That that would be one of the easier ones on. Yeah. Um, she said sign code would take a lot, but number one time consuming would be commercial design standards. it just from her looking at this one document and not reading the meeting minutes or anything that triggered them being put on there in the in the first place. So,

okay. So, that's um I think short-term rentals has got to be a really Yeah. So, uh, do I need a motion to go out for RFQ or are we good with them just saying I can go out for RFQ?

Okay, awesome. Um, there were two other things I needed to ask. Um, I don't know if some of you saw these. Um, I'll pull them up on the screen. Duh. What am I doing? Technology is here for a reason, Katherine. Um, I've talked to our Was Edge Integrated about doing a sculpture like this. Um, only would be a bear that we could put at Tagerts. Um, to encourage people to throw away and recycle. That's awesome.

Um, and I guess there was a new

teacher a welding welding teacher. So, I need to get with them to see if we can partner with the school, but um Was Edge Integraded was supportive of paying for the materials to make it. Um and then I don't know if you can tell, but this has a center seam and they just pop it open and dump it into the the bigger bins when they come pick it up. So, it is intended to be emptied and refilled and emptied and refilled. The purpose is is two twofold. one to bring to people's notice how much trash and recycling comes off our river, especially when they float with their um cold snacks. And two, for our push towards recycling, which um Chris just let me know today, June 1, our tire program will start back up again, FYI. And we also talked with um them and Commissioner Newton about a what's it called? Tech e-waste. E tech waste.

Yeah. What's it called? Uh it's it's e-waste.

E-waste. So your your old tablets, your old iPod minis from the early 2000s, your power cords that don't work anymore, you're not technically supposed to throw those away. um it's considered e-waste and so we are working also on a future e-waste collection. Um so check your power cords. If they don't work, please don't throw them in the trash. Um we will have a collection event for that and your your 1996 iPad as well. So um that's what I have. Your old Teslas. No, cuz you can't recycle those batteries. Um, I think that was the only other thing.

Plus, they haven't been around that long. They're still in operation. I So, I was going through all my tech and I literally have my original iPod that's inscribed on the back like, "Merry Christmas, Catherine, from my parents 2003." Like, it still works. I was going through a uh a Beasty Boys phase, apparently. But yeah, so yeah, that's all I have um updates for that. We might also look at depending how well this project goes about doing an additional one maybe at Kent Smith or or something like that. But that's a good idea. So, how is that the recycling program?

How is the recycling program going, Mike? Um, it's good. Um, are you when you ask how's it going? Are you are you asking like what the diversion percentage is? Are you basically asking if people are using recycling or what? That's both of both questions.

Um I don't have the exact diversion percentage number. I will say um between so we recently had a meeting. We actually have a board meeting tomorrow night with Wasach Integrated. Um, between the recycling efforts, um, the green waste efforts that some cities are doing now and just what we're doing currently with hauling waste, most of the residential waste is being hauled to the the landfill south of Utah Lake. Um, we believe that the landfill life in Davis County has been extended from what we were calling 15 years a year ago to approximately 20 years right now. Um, so that's good news and we think we'll be able to extend it even a little bit beyond that. The intent is um and we're going to start discussing actually tomorrow night. This is on the agenda to start discussing u the construction of a eventual transfer station because need a larger transfer facility to start hauling more down south. um when this landfill reaches its its point where it's it's ready to be closed. Now, the intent is to not fully close that is to to keep a portion of it open as long as they possibly can to handle things like big storms and situations where there's a lot of selfhaul coming in, meaning residents bringing their own stuff in. Um so there will still be opportunity for that. So, all in all, recycling has gone pretty well. Um, there are still about four or five cities that are part of the district that have not rolled out a recycling plan. Um, they they aren't penalized for not doing that, but they're not incentivized either. We get a little incentive kickback on our our fee for doing the recycling. Um, so all in all, going pretty well. Recycling

revenues are just all over the place. Sometimes, you know, a ton of aluminum you can get $1,000 out of and then the next week it's down to $200. I mean, it's just it's really volatile. Um, but they're they're continuing to pull out all of the aluminum and cardboard and um

plastics and a lot of good stuff. So, um I'll mention a couple of services that you may or may not be aware of. One is the the household e-waste service. You can actually drop those those items off for free at the landfill in Davis County. You can also drop off household hazardous waste, which are things like batteries, um old paint cans, paint thinner, things like that. Um in addition to that, they do have a facility down there. If you have old paint that's still good, but you just don't know what to do with, you can take it down there and drop it off. And they have a a shed there that you can also go in and grab paint out of. So, if you're in need of paint for a project and you can go get it for free from there, um there's also a thrift store there. That thrift store um incredibly we're generating almost $10,000 a month in sales off of that thrift store and it's been increasing over time. So, that the cost or that that revenue offsets our our disposal costs. Obviously, we're generating about 120 $130,000 a year from that thrift store. And so if you have items that you want to donate, you can go drop them off at that thrift store as well. Um, and that's all of those services are before you get to the scales. So if you have things like that, in fact, I've got some cans of paint I pulled out the other day that I'm taking down there tomorrow to drop off. So anyway, those those are those services are free. Well, I should say free. They're part of your household use fee that you're paying already for your services. you think they'll keep the the green waste, recycling, all that going?

Yeah. So, green waste actually really exciting on that. Um the we've been told verbally that we've received a grant. Um it's about a $3.5 million grant to expand that that curbside um green waste facility. They have a composting facility and it's a it's an air injected. They're cement pads and they inject air so you don't have to turn the piles like you do at a lot of places, at least not as frequently. Um they inject air and water actually to make those decompose. But um that will expand that that federal grant will expand that pretty dramatically and allow them to to add three more large cities to the program. Um that has been we thought we were going to get the official letter on that by the end of April. It got delayed. There's been some with the federal funding stuff. There's been delays in in a lot of things, but um fingers crossed we'll get the award letter by the end of May and then they can start moving forward on um in addition to that um they did get some plans from the company called Amoresco who is taking or will be taking the landfill gases. They they put it through a process to clean I don't know how they clean it but they clean the gas and then they inject it into the natural gas pipeline. So your rotting garbage there's wells drilled down into that. They pull the gas out of those and then they can clean it and put it into the natural gas pipeline which also will create revenue for the district and create clean energy as well. So a lot of things happening there. So, are people using within recycling, are they getting it correct as far as putting it in the bins or is there a problem with putting wrong stuff in?

You know, the there's always a a little bit of that. Um the the material recovery facility, um the director who operates that, he's actually a Morgan County resident. Um he he says when in doubt, put it in there. they would rather pull it out than not. So, you know, with the exception of glass, you can put a lot of things in there. Things like cords and cables are not great because they they jam up the machines that are designed to sort them. But, there's a there's a whole crew of people who manually sort down there as well. So, what the machines don't grab, they're grabbing off the off the conveyor belt. It's it's pretty fascinating to watch. But, um, I've heard from a lot of residents in the county that have said, "Man, I I use my recycling bin more than my my other trash bin." Particularly those homes that have, you know, one or two residents tend to be that way. So,

with two recycling bins, which is which is great. Um, so anyway, yeah.

Um, one more thing, and I was going to make this part of my commissioner comments, but I'll just mention it now. I I sent you all a text about this, but Robinson Waste was acquired by Republic Services. Um Robinson Waste is our our trash hauling provider. Republic is a nationwide company, very very large company. They currently service um well, they were servicing about a third of the households that were under Wasatch Integrated. Now they're servicing more like 2/3. Um so that changes things quite a bit. I have no idea how that may affect us in the future. I mean, we still have contracted pricing in place. I don't think they intend to make that change over immediately, but at some point that may affect us. Um, the little guy was bought out by a big corporation, so just a different different scenario. No.

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Blocker. Do you have anything? No, I think I've already discussed everything. We did have a great conference with all of you, Miss Bon there. But yeah, thanks everyone.

Okay, thank you for taking your time out of your party and to be with us. Okay, Commission Commissioner Felro. Yeah, just a and I don't know if you're aware of the I mean you guys I know are aware because we we attended the meetings um but there is eligible grants for the outdoor mitigation grants um and other kinds of grants where mitigating the uh search and rescue. It is a federal grant. It's not a state grant. There's both, but it's mostly it's through uh the federal government. And I think you had the paper on that, didn't you, Matt? S R U T S A R S S A R E or S A SARSA.

SARSA.

Yeah. The sheriff is aware of it, so you can talk to the sheriff on it and he can tell you a lot more about it. has to do with law enforcement, solid waste disposal, road repair, emergency medical service, search and rescue, and uh any upgrades such as Tagards, Moss Creek. So, those will help. Um it was under HB456 if you want to look that up. Okay. Um and then the um in our meeting in the public lands basically they there's still a lot going on. We need the help from everybody that wants to help out in the public lands arena with the federal government. We need to the American Lands um Council would like us to reach out to our senators and talk to them about the federal lands coming to state control. So anyway, um that's it for now. Okay.

Oh, I got one more item. the and that's to do with the canab trip that I took uh for astro tourism and agurism and there was a lot of discussion in this event that had to do with agriurism those that want to do it and litigations and insuranceances and um anyway they're going to continue work on that but that's one of the areas that we need to work on is astrourism. I mean a agurism and working with different ranchers and farmers around that would like to have different kinds of projects that could be a benefit such as uh we also had a private person down there uh the Clark dairy farm. They were there and they were in discussions with a lot of people on how they can mitigate problems that might occur. uh from being in agurism. And um so we had some very big discussions in some of our meetings on this agurism because it seems like they're trying to push us out from doing anything like that because of litigations. And so they've got a they've got some regulation that came out this year that we now if you're going to have people in your in your farm that anyway I can get into greater detail on this. Um but there's some big signage that has to be put on your place that basically you're entering at your own risk. And so this is a area that uh I noticed one public member that was there also picked up the sign. So we may

see it in the county at a future date because it's that direction. Um so I'm sure you're going to see it around the tag area. Okay. Um so anyway, that one anyway it's a big big subject. So anyway, that was that was a very good conference. The astro tourism is something that will not cost the county anything. State parks are all in line with doing that. They want to do that. Uh we need some good storytellers though. And that is the biggest area that if you or the public knows of anybody that is a good storyteller that could talk to people and individuals about the stars, maybe the Indians, the Indians that were in this area, those kinds of things would be a very big big bringing of people into this area and letting them stay at the hotels, stay at the state parks because we do have the international dark skies at East Canyon. Um, and the reason why Lost Creek is not a international dark sky, even though it's dark, is because it's more in a valley instead of wide open. And that's the difference. Um, but there are groups, there are um, destination people that want to bring people into Morgan County just for that. They would be staying at our yurts, the cabins, the twin homes, the the cavern wagons or the hotel after the events after they do the astro tourism. And it's very very it's an interesting thing. And if you've never had the opportunity to go on one of those, I would recommend that you attend. And I've been talking to some people that would possibly bring him up here for that reason. And so that's the benefit for our county. That's it. Okay. Thank you.

Um, I would just share a couple of takeaways that I think that we need to be thinking about as a commission and hopefully I I'm going to ask Kate if we can put this on on one of our work sessions and that is um I really think we need to to um look at the way that we're developing our county. Um, they talked a lot about affordable housing, the the goods and bads of it because a lot of the affordable housing is not only um the high density stuff is bringing values down on our homes. It's also driving the price up of real estate if we if you grow it. How did they say it, Mike? At a at an unhealthy rate. So that that's something where we've had such a a push for high density housing we need to look at so we're not creating that type of situation where inflate we're driving up inflation in our county and making homes less affordable when we're trying to make homes more affordable.

Was there a specific speaker that you want me to bring in for that? Church was one that was talking about it. He talked about he says economic revel development pushes home prices up. Who was it? Lincoln shirts. Oh, Lincoln. Okay. Yeah, that was him saying, you know, there is a two-edged sword when we do economic development. We also drive up home values and home prices. So, it is kind of a

we want the economic development, but we got to be careful about how we do that. I one thing that I thought was interesting, I I spoke a little bit with the folks from Summit County, the commissioners there or council members there, um a couple from Washington County, and I asked them, you know, what are you doing about affordable housing? How are you how are you handling that? Nobody really had a a silver bullet to that. Um but, you know, they are using like deed restrictions in a couple of those areas. Um, in Park City in particular, they're actually doing um some housing. They're they're requiring that some developers do housing that is deed restricted that the value can only increase by 3% per year. So, if you buy it at, you know, $200,000 in 10 years, it can only go up 3% per year and you can't sell for any higher than that. Um, there's obviously pros and cons of that, right? as a as a investor, you may not love that if values sore elsewhere, but um it also allows you to get in at a at a lower rate. So anyway, there's a lot of items in the toolkit. Um one thing that the other counties had mentioned and I and I have to agree with them is, you know, it seems like high density housing is synonymous with with affordable, right? We think, well, we put more units on the same piece of ground and that becomes more affordable. But the truth is, we're not really seeing that. And they're not in other communities either. I mean, town homes are more are less affordable today than they ever been.

I think it's more profitable.

It's more profitable for the developers, but it's certainly not more affordable for residents. And so I as much as I I hate to say it, I think we need to seriously look at at reducing town homes or or removing them from some of our, you know, some of the multif family from some of our zones. At this point, I think we've we've added enough. We've added a lot. I would rather see single family patio homes than than shared wall town homes. Something that people can grow old in. we have a severe lack of of housing for our our aging population. They don't want a town home where you got to climb stairs. They may like the idea of not mowing lawns, but they don't want to climb stairs. Um and lately, every application, at least in in parts of this valley, have included nothing but town homes, it feels like. Um

anyway, I think it's something we ought to consider as part of our planning. these other counties as well. I mean, outside of incorporated places, you know, Summit County, I think their their acreage is five or maybe they said two two acre, I think, is the minimum. Um, Davis County is the same way. It's twoacre minimum outside of unincorporated. Washington County has a has a minimum as well. I don't think it's quite that um that high. I think it's lower. But regardless, um, you know, we're we're hitting a point where we're putting an awful lot of concentration in unincorporated Morgan County. And I think that's a going to be a real problem in the future if we don't get a handle on it, especially where we don't have good public water systems. They're all private. We don't have a lot of sewer availability in most of the county. We need to think about that. Now, the problem with doing that is that you could end up just raising property values even higher if you know they're larger lots. But,

well, I but but like I talked to Commissioner Gil, I can't pronounce his last name, but um you know, a lot of the the their patio home developments, they're selling in the five to 550 range. And that that is something that people it still seems like a lot to me, but it still is a stretch, but certainly better than $800,000. Well, you're talking 67800 for a town home. Yeah. You know,

so I I think you're I think you've you're hitting the nail on the head there. I think we need to to take a look at that and and maybe we can do that in that work session and look at how we're developing and and pull some stuff if we need to. So Janet said she's already written an amazing affordable housing ordinance. Wow. Said, "I would love to read that."

Yeah. I seriously concerned about that. I mean, rising property values to me are one of the the biggest problems that we're facing in this community to be honest because our young people can't afford to live here anymore. And that's a huge problem. And it's not just taxes, it's it's the value of property, you know, it's not just the young it's also going to kill agriculture. It absolutely will. It is right now and it will continue because nobody can afford to buy land and farm it and well they see the value and they're like why am I killing myself? Yeah. I mean hey yeah

because alalfa freshly cut smells amazing. It smells great. But honestly, it here in Morgan County, you're lucky if you can generate after your expenses and stuff, you're lucky if you generate $500 an acre on alalfa. That's right. That's plain and simple. Like you're lucky if you can do that. And and the states even I mean they they came and well at that agriculture meeting right with the with the um Farm Bureau. I mean, they're offering $450 a year if you give up per acre if you give up all your water for the year because that's what they figured the value of the of the alpha alpha would be.

So, I mean, being quite honest, even if you even if you could squeeze out $1,000 an acre per year, well, if acorage is $200,000 an acre here, you could never pay for that land and farm it.

And, you know, that's that's what we're up against. And and I don't want to I mean the solution is not to kill property values. We certainly don't want to do that. We want people to have good high property values because that's your biggest investment for most people in your lifetime is is the property you own, you know. But it's going to come to a point where our children won't be able to afford to live here and agriculture will go away because of that. So we got to think about how we deal with it and our water and water is a situation all in open cell. And I I don't believe

and people will say well agric if you get rid of agriculture you'll have water but I can guarantee that's not the case. I mean most of that agricultural water goes right back in the aquifer anyway. It it's the stuff that you're flushing down your toilet. It's the stuff that we're using, you know, in other places. So I don't even know which commissioner comment we're on. Sorry. We're off. We're actually done. Oh, we are I thought you did yours. You just skipped over me. Yeah. Really? I mean, oh, you gave an update on No, I I read your update on You can ignore me. It's fine. I just had a couple quick ones.

Health board. Um, measles are trending downward. Um, between Weber and Morgan, we had two confirmed cases. We are by far the anomaly in the state. So, whatever we're doing, good job. Um just a reminder to the public the general plan they've got the meeting Thursday to uh come and tomorrow. Oh sorry tomorrow Wednesday. Um why I had Thursday? I was hoping today was Wednesday. So thank you. It's tomorrow. No. Um I think it's updated the airport. The AWS system is up and running. They've got cameras installed. I think the pilots are happy and excited to use that equipment. So and the BM looks and the burn looks nice. Yeah. And it has water rocks around.

So, how many calls have we received saying, "Hey, the sperm looks awesome." Not me. That's fine by me. No calls is good. No calls are good. No calls are good. I would like some of the positive calls instead of the We don't get those. We don't like to know why we're putting comments. Whoever's listening, put that out on Morgan Moms. We'd love some positive comments on the things that are going on. No pine trees on that burm. That's the most water used. um usage of any kind of a tree as contours. That is not that's not what it is. We because we specifically put in there I can I can I I will send you exactly what kind of tree it is.

They have to be per our RFP. It has to be a drought resistant tree, brush, bush, and shrub. They better get taller otherwise they are not going to meet the to um if you have time yes I forgot to mention this um I sent I forward an email from the Northern Utah economic alliance so it's anou from Chris Royale it's on you all got into it's on agenda it has to be voted on so it's on agenda for consent agenda for next meeting Perfect. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay, let's do it. Let's adjourn. Thank you everyone. Yes.

Oh, don't forget fireworks at 8:30. Thank you.

We're talking 300.