County Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we're going to go ahead and get started so we have plenty of time. If everyone would sign the sheet that is back on the table when you come in, that would be great as well. This is a work session on the Cottonwoods Development Agreement amendment. Just FYI for those who are here, we always appreciate and welcome the public. We've been in contact with the attorney of the MOA with our county and have had good correspondence there. Also, I know our commission has taken a lot of time and gone and met with individuals to try and understand know exactly the best route that we should go on this. So just FYI for everybody, this work session is between the parties involved and the county. So I know sometimes we have a desire to speak up from the audience and just shout something out. But we want to be able to get the most we can out of this session. and get the most done we can. So we're just going to turn the time over to Mr. Nettleton, correct? You're going to share with us?

Well, you can. You just have to send them in advance or email them to me. And it's up to the commission chair, since it wasn't in the packet, if it's allowed. And so what was in the packet is not what they want to present.

Oh, OK. Well, I think if we're going to have a work session, are we OK to?

Yeah. I believe the policies and procedures just say that anything they send should be included in the minutes, just for the record. OK.

So we'll go ahead and allow that, because we would like to see what you're proposing.

So is it OK where you hook up so you guys can see the maps? No, I have to do it from here. OK.

I sent a couple to the left.

I got three.

I mean, I can just start, but it'd be good to look at a map while we're doing it, since this is kind of so complicated. So again, my name's Heidi Nettleton. This is Ray. Thank you again for having us for our work session. We appreciate it.

We understand.

We found out yesterday that maybe the staff is going to do a postpone or another delay from the vote that we thought maybe we were having tonight, and we're we understand that we're not sure the feedback yet for the documents but we know they want it to be all buttoned up you know we understand this is a complicated issue it's not the only application that you guys have to look at so we would like to get on the next meeting for the next vote just because we'd like to get this resolved so in the meantime it's i just kind of want to what i want to do and we did send an executive summary over and this was prior to knowing i don't know if you guys received that kind of gave a little history what i'd like to do is just kind of go over everything where we're at now our revised proposal based on conversations we've had with the masters homeowners association and others and then

uh you know get your questions and concerns on that does that sound sure like a plan yep one of the things you're sending to me okay that's a question are you sending me that is that what was in on friday monday monday morning okay

oh the executive summary yeah so i'm just i just kind of wanted to go over that with slides so um so we're landowners representing um the cottonwoods phase six phase nine and land adjacent to the east of the cottonwoods um myself i represent morton county cottonwood llc um phase six is comprised of turkey flats llc and the wilkinsons um and then other sections of phase nine is represented by mountain green investments which is We are all present here today as well too. That was requested. So we're seeking an amendment to the Cottonwoods Development Agreement and the Cottonwoods PUD zone. So if there's a way to get the map up, that would be great. Okay, that'll be good. This one or the other map? The other map shows the areas.

Shows the phases.

Yeah. So which one do you... sorry this is why we like it in advance we apologize we thought we could the last work session meeting we just hooked up with our with our thing so I guess we thought that we could do that again okay well we'll just we'll just go by until hopefully it comes up If we could just plug into that, I don't know if that's possible or not. So our goals over 18 months of collaboration with the county and Mark Wilkinson family were to become the recognitions developed of our land, determine our combined densities for planning purposes, remove the equestrian center requirement, and make some minor adjustments to the development agreement, and then revise the Cottonwood boundary description by removing the Wilkinson family land and adding the MCC land. Okay, so just a little history, make sure. So there was a prior developer that proposed the development agreement and concept plans for the entire Cottonwood development area, comprising 1,036 acres. So this included the Cottonwood's PUD zone, ordinance and the development agreement the current da was signed by the prior developer who optioned but never purchased several of the land parcels including our land but the land remains in the cottonwood pud zone and is referenced in that da right So, in phase six parcel that contained the Equestrian Center site, that has since been plotted over with a separate development rendering the requirement for the Equestrian Center both impractical and obsolete. The Wilkinson Family Trust, um part of the phase nine wish to have their land removed from the cottonwoods da and the property of the east part of my family's land wanted to be added we were contemplated to be added but we were going to swap with them so 20 years have passed and the landowners are requesting minor changes so just the history about the petitions or the applications So January 8th of this year, the Planning Commission approved the applications of our proposal with a four to one vote. This included 253 dwelling units, including 25 town homes, options for a number of 8,000 square foot minimum lot sizes, removal of the equestrian center, removing the Wilkinson land and adding the MCC land, and adding some amenities of nearly double the trail footage, an additional park, and an additional two pickleball or racket courts january 20th um we had a scheduled commission vote but it was delayed at staff requests or requested us to decide we delayed it february 17th um the commission vote was delayed again and at this time the staff uh directed us to consult the specialized land use attorney we had been using her but a specialized land use attorney to assist with the final document because there's three documents that need to be filed, and they basically all need to say the same thing, right? Consult with our Cottonwood neighbors, the Master Homeowners Association, and then to re-separate the two applications at that time. so march 3rd the county commission you guys approved the wilkinson family land removal from the cottonwoods and so currently the zone the area is non-conforming for both area and density So our proposal, our revised proposal, this is after meeting several times with the HOA. So our current proposal is 240 dwelling units across phases six and adjusted phase nine, removal of the equestrian center requirement, added amenities including the additional 21,000 linear feet of trail including the capstone trail along the east boundary adding a tot park and pickleball racquet court in phase six adding a pickleball racquet court in adjusted phase nine and committing to the open space will be deed restricted and trail easements will be recorded closing any future development loopholes And we provided in the documents, we provided, I think, sample deed restrictions for this when we actually do apply. So the Cottonwoods PUD zone permits up to 1,027 units over 1,036 acres, or .99 units per acre. I'll expand on the density issue in just a little bit. But our proposal comes in at just .55 units per acre across phase six and adjusted nine. So this is well below the maximum stated in the ordinance. So we've eliminated townhomes, no townhomes. No, you'll be happy. No townhomes, and we maintain the 10,000 square foot lot sizes. So this is a result. I just have a couple. You can go to the next slide. This is just, you can go back up to that other one. So this is just a capstone drill just kind of showing you know the area there. So the master homeowners association had many concerns. We met with them. a couple times and have multiple conversations. One in person, we met at the school with the board, and then online with a smaller representative group. Their three main concerns were eliminate the town homes, maintain the 10,000 square foot lot sizes, and a requirement to join the HOA. They had a couple other concerns, but those were the three main ones. So as stated, we agreed to their first two demands, so no town homes, no 8,000 square foot lots, By eliminating the townhomes, the total proposed units dropped to 240. So the membership, the requirement for membership currently remains unsolved. Their existing declaration requires a 75% member vote to expand the declaration area, and the incumbent developer holds a five to one voting advantage on lots he controls. So joining on equitable terms will require some significant effort by them to rewrite stuff and bring us in. And we feel this is separate from the amendment we're seeking from the county and the county approval. We can expand on that later too. So before we take questions, I want to talk about some density concerns. So the Cottonwoods PUD zone, like I said, permits up to 1,027 units over the 1,036 acres. This is kind of a moving number. This 1,027 is a theoretical maximum. The density is based on, you have your base density and then there is a table in the overlay report that provides for adjustments to that density. If you give something like a grade amenity, you get a little bump, a percentage bump. Even by adding townhomes, you get a percentage bump. It's considered a good economic diversity in the overall plan. So there's a whole table that shows all that. yeah so our proposal comes in at 0.55 units per acre across phases six and nine like i said this is well below the maximum and then i want to talk about how the densities are not tied the densities in the concept plan are not tied to specific phases and then the phasing on the original conceptual plan is not accurate due to the previous developer perching some land parcels but not others. So let's go to the next slide and I can show. So if you look at phase, so I'm showing this is phase six, and I just used the GIS mapping tool on your, and I think our actual correct acreage is like 114 point something, so it's pretty accurate. so this is the area here i overlaid it on the concept the original concept plan and you can see that it actually encompasses some of seven so um you can't really say so really we're part of seven too so you you can't because of the parcels Because the original concept plan was one developer and different actual land parcels, they're not exactly accurate, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Even on the concept plan where the school and the church site are, they're incorrect. Shown here, they're like that and they actually don't exist like that in real life. and then just for reference back in October Meadow Park West was approved that was 7.29 acres with 29 units or 3.29 units per acre density the concept plan area shows maybe 10 to 12 lots in that area so at that same meeting up north in that same meeting three lots were approved where the equestrian center actually was on the concept line so um you know we think you know we heard the concerns from the moh we feel like we've we've come forward we've given up a couple things that we wanted um you know we've heard some of their their concerns and we understand them as far as cohesiveness you know we represent um one two three four of the owners that have the majority of the parcels that are the land that is left in the cottonwoods and we have joined together We did ask some of the other parties if they were interested in coming together with a comprehensive plan, and they didn't want to work with us. So you can only work with people that want to work with you, right? But we think our plan is great. We think our amenities can be justified, and we hope that you will approve the vote at the next meeting. So I guess you guys want to dig in with questions? I don't know if I'll be able to answer it, but Ray or the other members will too.

Heidi, thanks for meeting with us again. And thanks for meeting with the Cottonwoods MOA and working with them. If you were to say the number one want and concern from the members of the Cottonwood MOA, what would it be that they want from you? Depends on who you talk to.

You, I'm talking to you. No, no, I mean, it depends. I don't even think I could say that because there were some strong voices in there about no townhomes because it directly affected them.

Janet, can you get him a mic, please?

So like I said, I think that I Think that's a hard question to answer. I mean from one from Jennifer it's definitely joining the HOA because they want it to be a cohesive thing and we're not We're not opposed to that you know three of the four of us in the group were we're all in, we kind of have to convince the last party, but there's some significant issues with joining their, we got a copy of their declaration and the actual documents, and basically we want to be, we need them to give us some things, we need to have them provide us as the same rights as the original developer. so there's some rework rewording that their lawyer and they would have to work with and to get that document together we've kind of started a process and we you know debated whether to bring it tonight but we had a in our last meeting with them with their representatives we had a you know If you can, if you'll be in favor of our vote, we'll do this. And we've talked about reserving some land for an additional racquetball or pickleball court in addition to the one we're already promising that they would, the HOA would pay for to build.

Okay, so you're saying townhomes were a big concern? And you worked with them?

Yeah.

And then you just mentioned the lot size, 10,000 square feet.

The 10,000 square feet. And the only reason we wanted the 8,000 square feet, and we only wanted a certain percentage of, I think we had 25% of the lots, was one reason was the water, you know, just to landscape and have the option for, you know, different configurations. We weren't even sure how it would work. pan out but that was a that was a big thing we thought well that's not a hill to die on you know so we gave that up so you know I feel like what's the saying when you compromise both parties are unhappy you know we've tried to listen them and we we've gotten rid of a couple things that they really didn't want joining the MOH is just you know it's still sticky point right now

So yeah, so joining the MOA is something they really desire? Yes. And you're saying you're willing to do that? Mm-hmm.

OK. If I could direct you to the screen, this is section 13.1 from the declaration. This is recorded against the, it's weird, it's recorded against phase six and phase nine, even though they are not technically part of the development agreement. It's a wonderful document. It protects the original developer. We would be fine taking on the role of the original developer if we were given the same rights that he had. On one hand, they're asking us to join the master HOA, but 13.1 prohibits us from joining the HOA unless we get a 75% vote. So that's going to take time. They're going to have to rewrite the entire document. And it's outside of our control. It's outside of the county's control. There's no agreement, my understanding. Well, I mean, who's taking the vote?

Just you two?

No, it's all the members of the Cottonwoods plus the incumbent developer gets five votes for every undeveloped parcel that he still controls. So they have to pass that by 75% in order to even allow us to expand the master declaration area to include the new parcel. So they've got a lot of work to do before they can even ask us to join. And we're willing to. We've simply said we want the same rights as the original developer in respect to our own lands.

Okay, I've just seen some heads shaking back there. I don't know if somebody can talk.

Do you know anything about that, Garrett? So there's five points that I wanted to address just based on what was presented here. I think it's good that we get on the same page. You may disagree, and so maybe we can go back and forth on that. just I think the first thing that the Commission is interested in confirming is that as far as phase six and nine there's no other owners other than what you've identified yes so we've identified so there's two owners for each

So in the moment, and we have the parcel numbers listed with the owners, it's who has stated. So the Morgan County Cottonwood is my family coming in. Ted Taylor, phase nine, I'm calling it adjusted phase nine, just for clarity. And then phase six, which really I should call adjusted phase six, is two parties, Turkey Flats LLC, Eric and Peggy Pryor, and then Max and Sean.

Garrett, I have to kind of, add on to that there is technically a portion of phase nine we call it phase nine remaining it's the the parcel that mr hayward grant hayward that's why i'm calling it adjusted phase nine so we only represent those parcels because the phase is shifted right

so in the conceptual plan there's a parcel right there we do not own anybody who i'm representing does not own um and then of course phase eight uh we don't we don't know as well which is uh yeah so this this in blue here is what we're calling phase nine remaining

We've made allowances for six lots. He has rights.

We haven't made any allowances from what we're asking the 240.

Not in our 240, but over on above that.

When the Planning Commission said, we really want to know the end-all, be-all maximum density, we can't really tell you that. We only represent our parcels. So does that answer your question, Garrett?

well i think and i mean the commission can jump in as well but i think the question would be if this so this development agreement amendment impacts phases six and nine really what you're saying is it's only impacting the the owners of six and nine that you represent correct yes but it is night like it's almost

And so I think it's almost all but I guess the question would be to make sure is that that's being taken into account is that there's other there's another property owner that is not involved absolutely and we've tried to make we've made several tables to show kind of on the conceptual plan here's this here's this phase eight has this here's what they're saying they're doing now but ultimately

And that other owner is?

Phase 8? No, 9. No. Phase 9 is called Wasatch Industries. Rand Paylor?

I thought I'd clarify. The way that you represented the February 17th meeting is that it was continued to a date certain. It sounded like you're saying that the county continued it. I just want to clarify that the county reached out to you as the applicant. said in its current form will recommend denial.

Correct, yes.

And so the county did not continue that. You made a choice to continue that based upon our recommendation.

Yes, absolutely. I didn't know how to say that. That was our decision.

I think that's just good for the record to clarify that.

I'm not trying to say you made a decision.

Also, just to clarify that when we continued it to a date certain, what I indicated to you is that we'd need a working document within two weeks to have it move forward tonight with a recommendation, a positive recommendation, at least from legal. I just want to put on the record that we got those documents on May 11th. And so that's why there's still some review that legal is doing. I don't know where the commission's at, but I know that they've been asked to review quite a bit in the last little while as well. And then I think this goes back to the discussion that was just being had with the MOA itself is one of the maybe major amendments or what some would consider major is that at least under the current uh... amendment that your attorney has presented it is changing the shall join the MOA to the may join which has been some subject of discussion we understand from your perspective what you're just describing that it may be an uphill battle uh... but that Think what the Commission is voicing and I don't want to speak for Commissioner Walker and I'll send it back to her after this is that that seems to be One of the major sticking points with the MOA as they're reaching out to the commissioners and that just Putting out there that that is a big ass to go from the shell to the main Yeah, I agree with that.

I agree with everything. Okay, but I do agree with that. I'm just not sure I Guess what we're trying to say is I'm just not sure. It seems like that will take a while to get, I mean, just this has taken a long time, right? And we're trying to get over, you know, check mark time.

Well, if we amend the DA, then we'll change it from May to Shell. No, I got a problem.

Well, they're requesting that it goes from Shell to May. To May, thank you. But I think, at least from the county's perspective, it's... It can still be recorded. We can still require that the master declaration is recorded against the plat. And then the county's at least done what is within our power to say it shall be recorded. Now whether or not the MOA lets them in would be between

developer in the MOA but that that's a topic of discussion for the well I mean there was already a document produced with 500 signatures that I believe didn't express that they want you to join the MOA so I don't think you have a problem getting votes those were all residents of the Cottonwoods they wanted a lot of different things it'd be hard to I'm just saying they said they wanted you to join the MOA. So if people have to vote on it, I don't think it'll be a problem getting the 75%.

with the same rights as the original developer.

I mean, I think that's what, I think there's just a- Will you define that for me, with the same rights as the original developer? Does that mean density? Does that mean open space?

No, that means voting power, I think. The voting power, they had a lot of influence on the architectural review committee. They could choose their own members of that. what we're trying to question what we're trying to do homeowners association dues until the lot was sold to the final residents so if like if you built a spec house you and you finished it you've got a final occupancy permit you wouldn't have to pay HOA fees until that that uh that home went to a client they had a lot of it was a well-written document for their perspective so we just want i think a lot of those things make sense i don't know why you'd pay HOA fees if you had a Well, again, it was written in part of the agreement. And like I said, the voting power was a big deal.

So when you say, Heidi, that we're amenable to be in the HOA, you're talking about following all of the HOA right then. The open space would be turned over to the HOA. all the amenities would be turned over to the HOA to take care of and improve, correct?

As defined in the development agreement, yeah.

except for you've got that basque area that is private that you did not want to turn over any of that area, according to your agreement.

We're calling that agricultural open space, and the definition of agricultural open space is allowed to remain in private ownership. We will grant a trail easement. That will be, you know, a... a legal document granting the access to the trails and we will sign a deed restriction so we can't we could never build anything no barns no no fences nothing it'll be perfectly preserved but it'll remain that was also one of the concerns of the hoas i guess so why is that if if you're going to turn it over why is it such a big deal to maintain it privately i guess that's my question

The only reason I can see somebody wanting to maintain it privately is to do something with it in the future.

So, I'm sorry, your question is if we're going to turn it over?

Why do you want to maintain it privately if you're not ever going to do anything with it?

We lease it for sheep and the sheep would still be able to graze on that there. But like I said, it would be deed restricted. So even if it was sold, you couldn't develop on it. So that was also one of the HOA's concerns was kind of this loophole with some agricultural open space had been sold.

And then there was no trail easement on the land.

And people couldn't use it anymore.

It's like a conservation easement. Those are often private. And frankly, the HOA, they couldn't blaze their own trails through there. They have to stay on the trail system. And I think that's what everyone wants. We want to keep it wild. We want to keep it native. We want to graze the sheep on it. And we feel the best way to do that is protect it by our family that's owned it for 100 years.

So can it be a temporary easement that can be shut down when the sheep are on it?

I don't think so. I think what we talked about the meeting and that was kind of further out kind of thing we'd have to deal with. But I think we talked about, they would send out notices and say, Hey, during this time, the sheep are going to be here or something like that.

I think that's what we're discussing in the meeting.

Or just a notice, a notice would go out or something.

I love the sheep up there.

Yeah, they're pretty.

I lost my other question.

I don't know the rules of the work session, but The Cottonwoods MOA attorney is here and can comment on joining the MOA and what that looks like. But I don't know what the rules are.

So I think this is the applicant's time to have that discussion, but we will have the public comment after where there can be that opportunity. I know that there has been communications as well with the county attorney's office, and those have been forwarded to the commission.

Thanks. Do you have the public comment after the work session or during the actual meeting?

During the public meeting. Yeah. I've it came back to me so thinking about it so in in the agreement I read through it said that only those in phases six and nine would be able to use the amenities that seemed really odd to me and I'm assuming if you joined the MOA that would change

yes so the trails were going to be open to all cottonwoods residents um the specific parks like um would be just for the phase six phase six park would be for phase six phase nine would be for nine but but then um yeah i think when we joined the hoa would be for for for all

Okay. This is Eric Plyer.

Do you want to come up?

He's one of the, yeah, you can come up to the mic.

On the parks, and we're calling it a pickleball slash racquet court because we made a tennis court instead of a pickleball court. But where we've placed it as far as our conception of what we're going to do is actually just right off of Silverleaf, so the general public can access it walking on the sidewalks to there. It'd be at the front division, so everybody can access it without walking through the subdivision. That's what we're planning on. You can see it on the map there. Ray has it filled up. So silver leashes with a big black dot above. And so, as far as I'm concerned, we are putting that there so the general public, not the general public, but .

So a question for you along that line. You're only putting out one acre worth for this park, for pickleball courts and everything else. I noticed throughout the whole project, phase six and nine, there's not any parks. I mean, there's parks, but they're only one acre or less. Why? Can't you get more?

Well, I mean, I think it's consistent. You look at phase seven. I don't know how big their park is, but it's kind of right there along Silverleaf as well.

um bob or do you mind if uh bob the uh this common space i mean there you could call that a park that is when we say common space on the map that is something that will be needed to and it will have an improved trail i mean it's basically a park so there's there's literally like 35 acres of common space And all these areas here against the sidewalks, it's very much like phase three where you have a meandering sidewalk and all that space between the sidewalk and the road is park as well.

only problem i see with it with that is is i look at arlington park down there and that's less than an acre and we've got other parks around the area that you don't have parks up there i mean there's just not a lot i'm sorry really in that development there's not a lot of parks that are big enough to do anything on And I mean, you get two or three or four racquetball courts in there that takes up all of the space, especially if you put into there some parking. So it's gonna take up all that. And then you put in a restroom if you are gonna do that, those kinds of things. I think you need to have a little bit more space if you're gonna have a park. If you wanna have a good amenable park, I think would be a better idea for you to have a bigger park. And, I mean, it doesn't have to be as big as, well, even Kent Smith Park is not that big. And so, you know, I think that you need to have a little bit more than just, okay, the trail that goes meandering through there, and I'll get to the trail part here in a bit, but that one is, I mean, it just seems to me like if we give you this, we're not getting much in return. And I think that you need to be considerate of some of these park spaces so that way it's big enough that people, families from the area, you've got 100 homes, which is going to equal out to 600 possibly people, and they have one little acre to sit on. They can't even enjoy life other than this out, you know, on the outside portion of the property where they can maybe go and hike. Well, what if they don't? Maybe they just want to sit there and enjoy maybe their kids playing. And so I'm just, I think that you might want to consider giving a little bit more if we go and give you what you're asking for. Just as a thought.

Okay, yeah, I'll take that, that's fine. Yeah, I mean, like I said, it's really consistent with the development. You look at phase four, I can't, come off the top of my head if they even have a park you know arlington parks kind of supports a lot of the development up there and so we actually didn't have a park required for us to do and doing the pickleball slash tennis court we think is a good addition you know

I think there was a 10-acre equestrian center in that area. There is. So there was something that was a shall in that agreement. And you're asking for double density. So I think what Blaine's saying is you're asking for double density. You're not giving a whole lot.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on that. Because if you look at it, so four years ago, the commission unilaterally voted to take a property that was in Northside Creek that supported the equestrian center. And me being new, I didn't know I was a property owner, that I thought that just eliminated the equestrian center altogether. Because nine-tenths of the property is on Northside Creek. Northside Creek didn't have to give the Cottonwoods anything. Zero. And, I mean, I'd be for it if, you know, Northside Creek would be back half that property and we could do a big park right there. But when that happened, it essentially said, we don't want equestrians. There's equestrian center right down the road. And if you look at Northside Creek with the water ski community, Well, that couldn't exist if the equestrian center was placed where it was supposed to be. Because it's right on the end of the cul-de-sac there with the dam. The community really got nothing from Northside Creek when they made that amendment. They got zero. Trails were supposed to connect. They don't need to connect. And that's why, you know, when Lance Evans was the guy in charge of, what is it? Yeah, planner. I can show you the emails. He said, because this happens, you just need to do a set of manuals for the equestrian site. And the equestrian center was the lots and how the concept plan was laid out was to support the lots on six. They were able to have horses, livestock, all this on their property. So it doesn't make, in my mind, sense to do so. You're gonna get, say we go back to the original concept, you're gonna get big lots with big outbuildings, barn dominions, and all that, and horse trails. And the Equestrian Center was also a for-profit amenity. It's not like the community could just go and hang out and ride a horse. You had to pay for it, you know, just like they do at the Equestrian Center down the road. So, for me, Going forward with the plan with the 54 lots on my end and the 56 on the Wilkinsons, they're responsible as far as their size goes. You won't have outbuildings on them on my portion. And it would be more cohesive with the community. Otherwise, you'd send us back to the original Well, now you're going to have chickens, you're going to have bees, you're going to have horses, you're going to have all sorts of stuff on that property because it's allowed. And that's why we're doing the amendment.

And maybe something... You just described my house.

Oh, yeah, I think it's... But I don't know, talking to the MOA and the people in it, what they would go for. I mean, do they want horse trails that goes through our neighborhood and...

I think kind of what I'm getting is I think the equestrian center in my mind is kind of a dead issue, but it's not the fact that it's an equestrian center, but is there something, an amenity that the community would prefer because, no, there is no equestrian center going to happen. So what I look at is there's a shell there, but is there something that can be replaced by a larger park? That's kind of what I'm hearing.

Well, that's where I would say, why is the honest put on us to replace everything in Northside Creek? They just were able to do it.

And I can't speak for a commission four years ago. No, I know.

I'm sorry I can't.

But I'm just saying that the reason. I think a lot of things, there were a lot of mistakes. I think we've, I mean, I've learned a ton in a year and a half as far as how developers, developments go and phasing things and requires, you know.

I'll put something cool on it.

To answer your question, it's because you took subject to the development agreement. So that's why the onus is on you. Now, we understand that it may not be practical or even wanted now. That's why you're here.

I've got a letter from the owners of the Scotsman Center. Of course, they don't want that.

but i think i think what the commission is trying to communicate to you is that this is a development agreement amendment that can only be done by mutual agreement of the parties and if you can't convince them to mutually agree then well then you're stuck with what that girl's point you're then you're stuck with what you took subject to mr fackrell's point about giving more

So pickleball court slash tennis court slash park plus all the extra trails. So I see that as a big inclusion of what we're doing. We don't have to add all the extra trails.

Technically we don't have to do the part technically we don't have to do that But that's what we're offered and technically they can say no and so that's the feedback you're getting that I don't know if you're hearing I mean you're sorry they're saying no to the current and they're asking for you to come up with a better plan Because even under our development agreement code it says to get higher density You have to give more than you would to get it initially and so you're asking for a huge increase And some of the communication from the MOA attorney, for example, was that there has to be commensurate amenities, which I don't know that the county is looking for that necessarily because things change and developments change over time.

I mean, if you read the development.

Here, let me finish. I'm just saying at the end of the day, your fight is not with the current development agreement necessarily, it's with convincing a body of five that are elected, to get at least three of them to say, yeah, we like what you've presented. And what I'm getting is they're not sold yet. And so what is it that can be done to get to a yes?

Right. Well, and if you look in the DA, you go down, the shell can be a different type of business. It doesn't have to be. Equestrian Center, and I think that's what we're saying is like well I could do a Wellness Center You know I mean it just has my business But like I said in my eyes and help me with this I just bought the property and then they you know they just they just gave the property away where the amenity was supposed to be so I'm looking at it and that it was nine-tenths, was on Northside Creek. I feel I'm giving the one-tenth of the parks and the trails. Does that make sense? That's just my mindset. But there was only 54 lots allowed in that area.

There was only 54 lots. You're wanting to double that.

No, that's actually on both pieces. Yeah, go ahead.

Okay, so just a couple notes. currently in phase six what is required in the da is an equestrian center the area where the phase six shows isn't even the one isn't necessarily the land parcels shown in the conceptual plan so the area where the the equestrian center is shown and i don't know if ray if you could find that um

That's right here. This is the land that was... So that was...

So the boundary line adjustment of the cottonwoods has already changed. Whether that was legally changed or not, I don't know. But in reality, it has changed. It was removed. So on one hand, you're saying we're required to put this, but the land doesn't exist anymore. It's platted with another thing. But it's still... it's still required, so we're putting in a park, if this isn't basic, a park, and a pickleball court, and potentially another pickleball court if we can agree with the HOA, which would make it bigger. And then as far as the density issue, The conceptual plan, if you're starting from the premise that the conceptual plan is the beginning or the end all be all, I think that's where kind of the difference is. So right here, But right here, that whole area that's shown in phase seven is technically in phase six. So that's why in the very beginning when we started talking to the county staff about this, we said, hey, how do you want us to handle this? Because in my opinion, you have a developer that's come and master planned a community on land he does not own. Okay, that makes a really complicated situation. Now you have all these other owners on these land parcels. So I think it's fortunate that four of us have come together because otherwise you guys would be doing this every time somebody comes. but the overall density is, there's a couple, so the overall density in the ordinance, well, this is where I think that's another, it states 1.36 units per acre. That's actually incorrect. I think staff knows that. Somebody just flipped the numbers when they divided. So the theoretical overall density is 0.99, If you go by an email that Josh endorsed of 868 units, it's .84. If you go by the density in the actual document when you go on your website and look at the ordinance, it's .73. We are at .55. So we feel like we're not increasing the density at all. And so that's why I came, when we originally came, we said, you know, really, what's the best way to look at this? Because, like I said, you have, in October, you platted somebody, the previous developer came in and did a plat for Meadows East, and he platted 24 units over an area which is like 3.6 units per acre, which is far above the overall density. And it's in an area of the conceptual plan that only shows like 10 lots. So this is kind of the complicated issue, right? Is what's required of us? What's fair? We feel like we are presenting a plan that's really good for everybody. You know, we got a lot of pushback about the townhomes. We said, okay, they're out. We got pushback about the small lots. Okay, they're out. I guess when you were talking about the equestrian center and what replaces it, we feel like a park, the extra trails, and Pickleball Court, Racket Court does replace it because everybody can use it.

If I may, we have eight minutes. I was hoping to go over this table to maybe help at least try and justify the density that we've requested and in total.

So before you jump into that, you mentioned the density that's listed in the original agreement. The original agreement, it says approved development agreement, 760 dwelling units can be developed within the Cottonwoods PUD overlay district. 760 total?

Yes.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay. But you're asking for close to 1,000 by the time we're done with this? No. Or is it 800 and some odd?

Yeah, like 869 is where we end up with.

I guess what I'm getting at is why should it be more than 760 if that's what was agreed to in the beginning?

And this is the table, so that's the base density and then base density.

That's not what it says. It doesn't say the base density. It says that's the number that can be developed within the cosmos, period. It doesn't say base density and you can add. It says that's how many can be developed. Am I missing something?

There is a chart that allows if they add certain things on there that adds 10%. Okay, and that's what this chart is that you're talking about.

I got to 877. Mr. Newton, that's .73. The 760 you're talking about?

That's .73 units per acre. No, that's not.

It's 1,027 acres, roughly?

That's what you were saying in the beginning, was 1,027.

1,036. 1,036 acres divided by 760 is 1.3 and change. Yes. That number's right.

Okay, that's the, you want to do 760 units? It's units per acre, right?

That's, yes, units per acre. So either way you look at it. 1.63 dwelling units per acre, or 1.36 dwelling units per acre. That number's correct.

So we're below that considerably.

No, you're above that considerably. It's a numerator or denominator thing.

You've got to flip it.

Walk through this table and explain it to us. And let's see, because I think you're actually significantly higher in dwelling units per acre.

So this is straight from page 30 of the overlay report. The first three columns is how they got to the 877. And that 877 included both the golf course and the equestrian center. So let me try and explain how this works. So the ordinance says you can have up to 120% bonus density over the original zoning. So that original zoning is 467 entitlements plus the overlay. So under the old development agreement, the 2005 version, they awarded 10% for a 10% bonus for all the trails that were provided. So when we come over here and we're looking at phase nine and phase six, we're almost doubling the trail commitment in phase six and nine. So we moved the needle from 10% to 11% and got a couple more lots that way.

What type of trails were contemplated in the original agreement? Because most of the other phases have paved trails, correct?

Yeah, it was a mixture, yeah.

It was a mixture. Because my understanding is everything you proposed, although it's longer trails, they're dirt trails, correct? There's no improvements, really?

No, there's quite a bit of paved.

So you are suggesting some paved trails as well as part of this?

Well, they're including in that sidewalk. The sidewalks are considered their trails. Yeah, and I would consider those an amenity, an extra amenity. Yeah, they're not an amenity. Those actually have to happen.

Okay.

if you're only so so when you say you're increasing the amount of trails it is not increasing any trails because of those sidewalks if you include the sidewalks so now as defined and i'm looking at it from a trails person that you know you need to go it's sidewalks are not a trail they're a sidewalk so in the original development agreement we're following Okay, so if that is the case, then we need to talk to the attorneys and find out from the original development agreement or from the planning department, okay, what is considered a trail in this county? Because according to the state of Utah, the trails range depending on what kind of a trail you're having. They range from six feet for a dirt trail. That way two people can walk together. Some of the ones you were showing in the pictures, one person can walk.

Yeah, and that was a picture. That was only a photo. That will be bigger. It was hard to find it.

What I'm saying is they need to be six feet. And so if it's considered a trail, it's got to be six feet. And if it's going to be a paved trail, it needs to be bigger than six feet. That's according to the state of Utah.

So before, let's get back to your... Anyway. To your...

Yeah, so we'll keep going down here. The stuff in green is what changed, we think, for the better. Extra usable open space for public use, it was at a 10%. We're providing an additional park that was not shown before, so we raised that 10% to 11%. Improving open space with public amenities, those are free public amenities. We're providing two pickleball courts, so again, we went from a 10% to 11%. so here's where we go this is a deduct private recreational amenities for exclusive use that's back in the day they awarded three percent bonus density for both the golf course and the equestrian center so we we're going to take a subtraction of that because we're providing neither so we get zero uh zero bonus slots there and then mixture of housing types Four months ago we had townhomes, so we had an increase in the mixture of housing types. Now we're removing the townhomes, so we have a decrease in the housing types. So there's a deduct. So this all boils down to 877 as presented in 2005, and we're looking at 873. So we're actually reducing the total density in the cottonwoods. And if you look at this holistically, if phase nine or phase eight only does 30 lots, as my understanding they're proposing, we've included up to 55, this whole development should finish around 844. So it's less, and I have another table here.

I'm still confused as to how we get to 844 when it says 760 elsewhere.

So there were bonus density.

But it doesn't indicate that that, maybe it's just not in that part of it, but that part of the agreement does not indicate it's 760 plus bonus. This doesn't indicate that the baseline was 760. It indicates that the baseline was 467.

And maybe we can, if you want, we can have Deputy Janet Christopherson speak to that because I think she's poured over these agreements pretty extensively and her understanding and memory is that the bonus density was related to the golf course, not the equestrian center.

One last question. How many acres are in the pieces of the four owners that you're planning to bring in?

Ray, can you pull up that table? That's that simple table I made? 437...

And then how many units?

240. So I wanted to double check, Mr. Newton, the density. So that's what I'm saying. There's a mistake in the actual written ordinance in the first part. It says 760 units over 1,306. If you do units per acre, it's 760 divided by 1,036, which is 0.73 units. units per acre. Somebody flipped those numbers and did 1,036 divided by 760, which is the 1.36 units per acre. Really, it should say 1.36 acres per unit.

No, you're doing it incorrectly. You should take the number of acres divided by number of units to get number of units per acre.

And our acreage has dropped since we removed the locusts.

So if you did 1027 divided by 760, what's that?

Josh, do you want to come up? Because you know the mistake in there, right?

The dwelling units per acre versus acres per dwelling unit.

So if you think about the units that you're dividing, it's DU divided by AC, dwelling units by acres. Gotcha. So it is reversed in the ordinance.

So to give you an idea, so these are our parcels.

these are our parcels and we're at 434.39 acres that answers your question if uh we did the maximum theoretical density at 0.99 um if we would have 430 units if we do the 0.84 which is supported by the staff i believe we were 365 the ordinance without any bonus density, we'd be at 317. And then what we're asking for is the 240. And so we're at 0.55 units per acre.

Based on our offered amenities, which we frankly think are fantastic. Okay.

All right. I think at the end of the day, you haven't convinced us that your amenities are fantastic. No. Being blunt with you.

And are you taking density from other phases, unused density from other phases to use in?

I don't believe so.

The phases are all messed up, right? So, no.

Well, we need to be clear. Oh, well, the phases are messed up, so...

The Cottonwoods Development Agreement gave a total density for the entire project. It did not divide it out per area. The conceptual drawing is a nice picture for the Cottonwoods because it states in there that it's the plat that sets the density for that phase. So it's the plat that controls.

So now that those have changed, that's what would control it.

That's correct. When it was done, I think there was a geohazard or a geology study done. I'm not totally sure on that, but usually it's not a great study. It's not over-encompassing, so they overestimate the number of lots that can go in an area. But based on geology and based on amenities, infrastructure and everything, it'll reduce the number of lots that you can put in there. So you could approve the total number of dwelling units that they're asking for, but I guarantee they probably won't get that much just because of infrastructure, amenities, and everything else.

So a quick question. Since the Cottonwoods acreage has dropped 180-something acres, does that give us a new calculation of the total density allowed?

No, the way you'd want to calculate that is look at all the units that have been created in each of the finished phases, because that'll give you the remaining density that's allowed. And that total number is somewhere between 550 and 600, which would leave, if they provide the amenities and everything else that they're proposing, plus what you need them to provide for the amenities, it leaves them about 277, if you allow them to go to the 877 that was approved with the golf course.

gotcha that answer your questions yeah thanks i i attempted to do that just right here so on the on this table the the numbers in white are by the phases that are already completed and recorded or in the process of being reported the numbers in yellows are what we're proposing keep doing that uh yeah so phase eight we there's uh 55 units shown on the the concept drawing so we left that allowance in here in phase nine there's uh this is the 130 in phase nine we've requested and then we've left allowance for the those six lots that are in phase nine remaining and and we've taken the liberty of of providing access to of brandt so we're not shutting anyone out he's got access um so that that's 869 so you look at that 873 we've got four units of fluff And on top of that, if phase 8 only does 30, we're going to come in at 844. And what that does is we purposely kind of devalued, in our opinion, the amenities that we've offered, at least per the scale from 2005. We've devalued it to try and keep that number as low as possible so no one sneaks in after us or concurrently with us and does, I don't know, say some condominiums by the... by the roundabout or something like that. So we've intentionally reduced that to prevent this in the future. And if you adopt that 873 as the clear number in the ordinance, we can all kind of work together and limit the total development in the cottonwoods without infringing upon anyone's rights. We give them everything that they were due in 2005, and we still come under less than that 873. So this is something we discussed with the homeowners association. They liked that concept. I think they supported it, but we're intentionally trying to keep that just enough to squeeze in our 240 and then the cottonwood's done. I'm not aware of any land in the cottonwoods that can be developed. It's pretty much all done. There might be a couple little quarter acre parcels that were missed here and there, but we should be done.

miss blocker i just wanted to double check that when you you were asking when the land was removed and the densities need to be recalculated so everything we're stating is as we did the land swap and we you do approve us coming in does that make sense so we're back to the one 1036 yeah okay i i did want to ask so it's it it sounds like um you guys aren't happy with the amenities we're bringing in i wanted to kind of get

I know we're going to get recommended for continuance.

I want to get a little more feedback from that because we're adding things above what was required.

Okay, we'll take, I'll take three minutes of comments of what you guys, if anybody has, is exactly something what they want to share.

Well, I would like to just do it later during the time when we have that portion of the public meeting, unless you want me to do it now.

i think our attorney is going to to recommend a continuance on that portion i'll i'll tell you bigger parks more acres more more of the open space the the green the playing fields um not small pocket parks not top parks um bigger parks a lot more acreage instead of one okay are there any large playing field parks in the cottonwoods right now were there any required in the da right

I think it's about the definition. Every place that's listed as common space on our concept plan is a park. It's going to have a trail, and there'll be some improvements through there.

It sounds like you're looking for more almost a community park where there's a soccer field or something. Is that kind of what I'm hearing? Not quite that big, but...

I think something kind of to make up the difference for, and I'm going to say the equestrian center, you've lost this bigger amenity, and I think that's what the people are looking for.

The land was removed?

Yes.

Four acres of it, right? Is that what I heard?

So, but I think that is something that the people are wanting to see. The other thing I'll make a comment is, after driving up through the cottonwood, spending some time and learn a little bit more about it, is when you bring up common space, and I know there's a section, and forgive me for not remembering the exact name, But when people's driveways and front yards are considered open space or common space, that really concerns me. Like, how is my driveway? I'm not saying that you're saying that, but the common space term, how somebody's driveway has become common space.

I completely agree.

And so I think as we look at common space and we call them parks or whatever, I think that's a concern that I have is to define what is the common space. And I'm not trying to hold you guys saying that you did it or were going to. When I found that, I was like, how did that even happen? My front yard and driveway is now common space to a development.

The zero lot line? Is that what you're talking about? Correct. So it kind of feels like with this comment, it kind of feels like we're being held to two different standards over what was just previously approved six months ago, you know?

that's my that's just my thought concern so i can't think of any instance where we we don't have any situations like that our common space are very we don't have driveways through our common space i think they're talking about the zero lot line that was just

I'm not saying it is. I'm just saying that as I look through things, I drive through that council. I'm like, how did this happen right in the middle of the cottonwoods? How did that happen? You know, and I think we're just, I think everybody gets a little leery as changes come. It's like, okay, what are we missing? What are we not anticipating? And it's not you personally. It's just, I think everybody's a little gun shy. because we read these development agreements and it's like, what did we miss? What didn't we read? What little loophole is in there that we didn't see? I'm not trying to say to you or your ideas or thoughts. I think everybody's just a little gun shy. As we move forward with developments across the county, what are we missing? What are we not seeing? And I think we've got good people here that are reading them, trying to do the best we can, but I think everybody's just a little bit nervous.

Okay, I just want to kind of pull up the alternative, I guess, of, the alternative of not doing anything, I guess. We wouldn't pull our land in, I guess. Six and nine would remain as they are and come forward with plats just based on the existing development agreement would probably, you know, I'm just considering the alternative, I guess. And then I wanted to just go back to the HOA for a second. I mean, we have expressed desire or willingness to join, I guess I would say, but otherwise we will have an HOA, which seems like it should satisfy the county. Is that? Is that a correct statement?

Wouldn't satisfy me. I like the way Garrett stated that. I think we would be amenable to that. I think you said something like it would be a development agreement would be recorded, but there would still have to be an agreement for actually joining. I don't know how you stated that.

It just wouldn't be a change to that portion of the current development agreement, which requires the declaration to be recorded against every plat.

Okay, so that's my question.

We'll have to think about that with our attorney. Where I know we're running out of time, but... Yeah, last question.

Lane, I... My question is, and this is to you and to the rest of you, and maybe Janet, too. Why do they have to, since they're separate landowners, not part of the original landowners that are part of the Cottonwoods, Why does Phase 9 and Phase 6, or any of them on that side, since they are not owned by the original developer, why do they have to even be part of it?

Because they took subject to the rights and obligations of the development agreement. And which I may bring up, because I know earlier it says, well, when we were presenting it to staff, they were talking about this and that. Well, that was before we knew that they took subject to a settlement agreement that had been recorded, but the county was unaware of at the time. And so when they say they think the county may have changed position or whatever, we're changing our analysis based on the information that's presented. And when we get new data, we have to adjust to that data. And so someone... let's say for example that a development agreement was recorded against someone's land they were not a party to that development agreement and they did not take that land subject to any rights or obligations under the development agreement the county is going to look at that and give legal recommendations far differently than someone who in a settlement agreement took on the rights and obligations of that land because then they're no longer a bona fide purchaser for value or someone who didn't have any control. And then anyone who subsequently took, or purchase from those that had a settlement agreement are now also subject to the development agreement itself. Otherwise, they wouldn't have standing to be here requesting a development agreement if they didn't have any rights under the development agreement. And so the very fact that they're here is an indication that not only do they have the right to come and amend, but they're subject to the obligations as well.

That's what I need a clarification on.

Can I ask a quick question? I don't know why they wanted to. Change your position on that example?

Just thinking that, oh, these people who had their land subjected to a development agreement without their choice, or at least without records that the county has of an owner declaration, it changes the analysis of... the knowledge that they had with the land that they purchased.

Even though the DA wasn't recorded against the land of the county.

It was recorded against land.

Settlement agreement, excuse me.

Well, the settlement agreement was recorded in the county. The county was just not a party to that agreement. So we're not enforcing that agreement, but that's the basis that you even have standing in this situation.

Plus, we're in the Crockwood zone.

Under the ordinance.

Okay. Thank you, Nettleton's, for coming. Appreciate you coming in. Really do.

Thank you.

Okay, we're going to take a five-minute recess and be right back.

We did good.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we're gonna go ahead and get started since we're running behind.

Okay, welcome everyone. Appreciate you being here this evening. Grateful to those that are also online. Welcome. We're going to start by having Commissioner Newton give us an opening prayer and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Our Father in heaven, we're so grateful to gather here today And grateful for the community that we live in. And we're so thankful for the people who live here and their goodness. We ask thee to bless us as we discuss the needs of our community that we will have thy spirit to be with us. Please bless those members of our community who are in need. Help us to know how to help them and to be able to help them. We're thankful for the moisture that we received and ask thee to continue to bless us that we'll have moisture throughout the summer. And these things we pray for in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Amen.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Commissioner Newton. Appreciate that. Consent agenda items. Has everybody looked those over?

I'll move to approve the consent agenda items.

Can I just ask one question real quick, Mike? I've seen a few. When do we close on the rifle range?

When you guys pick submissions.

Do we have? We have a few. Okay. Let's have those picked by next meeting then. Thank you.

Okay.

You have six.

Yeah, let's get that . Okay.

All right, go ahead, Mike. Sorry, I move to approve the consent agenda items as listed.

I'll second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion is unanimous. Any declarations of conflict of interest? OK, seeing none, we'll turn to public comments. Anyone who'd like to make a public comment, please limit your comments to three minutes. State your name when you come up, and please speak into the mic.

What's wrong? Oh, and where they live.

And where you live, your address, name, address.

Some security number.

Just don't leave any children. OK, seeing none, we'll move to action. Oh, OK.

I apologize for that. I think that we were developing a consensus on who would speak on behalf of the Cottonwoods MOA. My name is Cameron Cutler. I'm an attorney. I'm a representative or the attorney for the MOA. So we've sat through and listened to the work session. Where are you from? Salt Lake City. so in regard to the proposals to amend the development agreement um the moa does appreciate i think that uh my letter and some of the things that we've shared have been considered by the commissioners we we greatly appreciate that in in response to the proposals on the agenda and what was mentioned in the work session i think there's a few key concerns that the moa BOARD HAS. ONE IS IN REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENTS TO JOIN THE MOA. I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS HAD IT WELL IN HAND. THAT IS A SHALL IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IT'S CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT. or phase as it's developed is subject to the master declaration or the CCNRs of the MOA. And then any open space or land within those phases is to be transferred to the MOA for its care. Now there was a question and a concern about the ability to add land under the master declaration, the CC&Rs. And the MOA would like to express and make it clear that it doesn't agree with the interpretations you heard from the landowner developers as far as how the master declaration works in adding land. That's done not by amendment and vote of 75% of the members of the community. under Section 13, that's done by the declarant, which in this case is either the landowner developers or the prior developer, but they have the unilateral discretion to add their property To the master declaration to the MOA even if that wasn't the case and we would agree wholeheartedly with the comments that receiving 75% of the vote of homeowners for adding additional development that complies with the development agreement or on any proposed alternatives takes into account the concerns of the MOA, it should be no problem to achieve that vote. Concerns were raised and the MOA does maintain a concern on density. I think it was well said that the way that the MOA sees that is it's essentially a request to double density and to effectively gather in and take any remaining density put it into phases six and nine without providing any commensurate benefit. So density concerns during the MOA are the main concerns that the MOA has. OK. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Any other public comment? OK. Seeing none. Oh.

My name's Kate Erickson. I've been a resident.

And I'm sorry.

You have a public hearing, right?

Yeah. Can I just, I found the applicant. I was trying to track them down. Based upon the work session, they would prefer to continue this to a date certain again so that attorneys planning can have a chance to review the application. have some discussions with the commissioners one-on-one to kind of negotiate it so it gets to a near final form before it comes back. And so they're asking to postpone their item to July 7th to a date certain. And anyone who would be speaking at that public hearing could speak it during the public comment instead, because they're postponing that item. Is that all right, Chair? Yeah. That's fine.

OK.

But so, Mr. Erickson, so this is the time for you to speak. You can speak. If you wanted to speak to that issue.

It's just not the public hearing speak, so. All right.

Whatever. Sorry. Apologize. I've been a resident from Morgan my whole life, except for my mission and college. I have been a real estate broker for close to 30 years. This is something I've handled day in and day out, and I appreciate all that you've done. I was the first home built in the Cottonwoods. I watched the development come about. I was here in meetings when they went over the DEA, the development agreement. So I have had some emotional context with that. We want to make this work with the proposal. We really, really do. We just want to be heard, and we really appreciate the willingness to listen and to understand. One of our biggest concerns is we keep on losing our open space. That's a big one. When they approved this, the goal was to have a native open space layout that was consistent with the neighborhood and the area. That was a big deal. And so as we as residents, as we bought in there, and we have this open land that keeps on getting changed and sold and adjusted and moved around, it hurts. We love it up there. It is my home. I've got five kids I've raised in that development. I love it. I love the trails. So the reason you're hearing so much from us now is it's hard to find out what's going on, right? An applicant comes in here, and we don't know they're here trying to change something in our neighborhood. We hear it a week or two before it happens. So part of the process is we just want to be heard, and we're worried about the open space. I understand all the ins and outs opinions. I'm friends with most of the applicants here. They're great. I've grown up with them. We're just saying that... The person who owns the open space controls its future. If we don't own the open space as a MOA, that property gets transferred to another person. And then when you guys all leave, that applicant comes back here and tries to develop that open space. So back in 2005, it was important that we as a MOA own that land so it didn't go through that process. Does that make sense? So it was really important to us. And so that's why when we say, I get it, the land wasn't purchased by the Wilkinsons. I totally understand that. But that land was native open space. What that means is that land is supposed to be given to the MOA the moment the plat is recorded. Right? That's in the development agreement. We're going to follow it. That hasn't been happened. And that land has been held by developers. And then over time, it slowly slips out of our grip as homeowners. So that is our concern, is we do want to make this work, and we understand the density. I understand there's some, they want to move from things, and I totally appreciate that. But if we don't control the open space, it's very difficult for us to keep that as open space over time, right? IN THAT APPLICATION, I READ IT. IT'S 50 PAGES IN 10 MINUTES, BUT THERE IS A POINT THEY DO WANT TO KEEP SOME OPEN SPACE IN THE NATIVE OPEN SPACE, BUT THEY WANT TO HOLD IT PRIVATELY. SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S A BIG ONE. THE CALCULATION FOR THE DENSITY, EVERYBODY WHO REACHES THAT HAS A DIFFERENT RESULT. LET'S JUST CAP IT. WHATEVER WE DECIDE ON THE DENSITY, LET'S JUST CAP THAT DENSITY AND GIVE IT TOWARD EACH DEVELOPMENT REQUIRED. AND IF THEY DON'T USE THE DENSITY, THEY LOSE IT. I think that's pretty simple. Can't we amend the DA to work with that? I love the idea about amenities. I appreciate them trying to make it work. But I just want to share my concern as being the first home in the Cottonwoods built, waiting for two or three years to develop. Now seeing all of our open space taken from us, it hurts. We spent a lot of money. We're talking lots in there still between a half acre lot in the college and still between 500 and 600,000. We're talking about developments that have a strong upward value in that development. And so I just want, we're trying our best. We don't want to kill a deal, but those are some high priorities that we want to be focused on. And I hope we can make it work. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thanks.

My name's Zach Burton. I live in the Cottonwoods as well. I'm from Huntsville, but relocated to Mountain Green. I want to just echo a couple things that Kay just mentioned as well. I I want to make sure that the Commission knows that we're all about them developing the land and But just what's interesting is even just hearing today a lot of the comments were well because the developer did this before because this happened before this was taken and and they use that as a as a basis and i understand that i'd probably be doing the same thing but i think what's been missed is the the homeowners and what what occurs there I will say this, just working, I'm not on the MOA board, but just working in a subcommittee, Blaine, you brought up a great thing about the trails and the land, et cetera. The previous developer, to kind of jump on their bandwagon, barely just as of Monday agreed to put the common space or the open space inside the MOA for the first time, and he's been just avoiding it forever and ever. Okay, so that's occurring. So to add on to one of Cade's concerns is the land that was taken out of the Wilkinson land. Great, you guys made that decision. The land being put in is still put in there, if you read their exhibit, as private land. And I know we'll echo the same fears that Cade just told you. But then we put the trails on them, and then they're on private land. And when the sheep are up there, they can't use them and they can. So it's not really common land. It's not something you can go use it. I don't want to get, I don't want to go up there and be attacked by a dog. They said it themselves. It's not land for that. Um, and I will correct one thing that you said, commissioner, it's not an acre park. It's a half acre park that's being proposed. There is no parking. There is no place to go. There is a pickleball court there. So I think, and I want to make sure and publicly say, I feel bad for the pliers. It wasn't you guys, but some of that 9 tenths of that land was used down in Northside Creek. He is correct. that that area provided no benefits to the community. That doesn't mean that that's how it should be going forward. The land should be given to the MOA, they should join the development, and we should work on the density. Last thing I'll say, in the proposal, and I don't have the exact numbers on my phone here, but you look at the total amount of homes, that's what I would go, Commissioner Newton, and see how many homes are in the cottonwoods right now, and how many are being proposed in two phases, two total phases, and do that as a percentage. That's the only thing I would look at when you're looking at density. Thanks.

Thank you. Wow, everybody's woke right up. Man.

Sorry. Mine will be short.

I'm just echoing Chad Crowther. I live up there in the Cottonwoods. I've been up there six or seven years. Like everybody else, I appreciate the development. It's hard to get up here and complain because it's such a beautiful community, and there's a lot of open space. We have parks up there. It's been really nice. I think the thing that's been hard for us is one, we're kind of in the dark when it comes to a lot of this stuff. We don't really know. As homeowners, what the developments are looking like, we hear little pieces. And the main thing I think a lot of us are concerned about is anything that will remove these developments out of the MOA. We pay for parks, we pay for sidewalks, everything that is used as a community, and I don't see why getting separate developments that will use those parks and sidewalks why they would get outside of that, you know, MOA. And just density stuff, we've talked about all that. And we're in desperate need up there of some parks, some fields, any type of amenity. I'm not asking for the developers to provide those, but just some land would be great that the MOA could use, you know, give our kids some places to play and things like that. So I just wanted to echo and What's my concern? We did, you know, we did a, we have 577 signatures sharing a similar view that I'm concerned about these, the density type stuff, the MOA, leaving the MOA. And so we're just hoping that you guys are listening and yeah, appreciate your time.

Thank you. And just FYI for everyone, you can get on our county website, sign up for automatic updates on things that are going on, what's on the agenda. Get on there, sign up so you're aware. Because that's all we can do is post our stuff like we're supposed to. It's hard to get the word out to everyone. So get on our website and sign up. OK, any other? OK, we're going to move on to action items then. Casey?

So the first... Casey, everyone's leaving.

They don't want to hear you.

That's all right. This is boring stuff anyway. So my first request was just to be able to complete this welcome package from our new payroll vendor. It includes authorization to pull from our bank. It includes tax documents for them to submit documents tax documents on our behalf. I just wanted to get approval from the commission to be able to complete this just so that we can have a smooth transition over. It does not include the service agreement, as that is still being worked on. But items two through, I think, six are just waiting on a signature. And I'd like to get approval to sign that and complete it.

Okay, I didn't see any problem. Anybody else have a problem? Okay, I'll look for a motion.

You're just wanting items two through six approved at this moment, is that?

For the, on that, the welcome pack, yeah, two through six. Because at number one, the service agreement is still being worked out. Oh, I thought number one was approved in consent. It was approved in consent. One was approved in consent. Two through six, I am wanting approval to complete.

And the note on this, I know that when I talked to Casey about it, I said, let's just err on the side of caution and get approval, kind of like how I do it for the opioid settlement, so I don't have to get a signature from the chair every single time something comes through, so he'll be able to finish the rest of the packet, but the chair will sign the service agreement.

Okay. I move we give Casey authorization to do the tax forms on behalf of the county.

Yeah, motion by Commissioner Blocker.

I'll second.

Who seconded it?

Go on.

Second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. OK.

okay and the second item we need specific verbiage to ensure that we can withdraw from the workers compensation program under the utah county indemnity pool so we'd submit this along with the commission meeting minutes that you made in action and approved it

So the last action was to go with the trust, but the language for leaving use of Sporkman's compensation is you actually have to have an action item specifically stating that you're withdrawing from the worker's compensation program. So this is just us crossing all our T's and dotting all our I's.

We didn't do it last year. I thought we did.

Well, we tried. They required that time.

They required that time. So now what we're doing is recording it basically six months late.

Yep.

We're not late. Well, it says January 1, 2026.

We're noticing them now, so that January 1, we're removed. Because we have to give them that six months.

2027. OK. So this here, yeah, it all says 2027. I mean 2026. And two places there. Right, it should say 2027.

All right. Good catch.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the letter to USIP regarding withdrawal from the workers' compensation program.

Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton, second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion's unanimous. Okay, we have Brett Hinener.

Thank you.

Hey, at least I spelled your first name first. Which is only one. Correct.

Yeah, I know.

Oh, did I say? Man, I've just. In my defense, if you had turned your documentation in before 4 p.m. on a Friday, Garrett, I would not be tired. Okay. Sorry. I closed the whole thing up. Doing great.

Before Brett jumps into this, I'll just, I think the commission's aware, but just for the benefit of the public, every year at the Morgan County Fair, we do an auction, a quilt auction. So quilts are donated by individuals, they're auctioned off, and then the proceeds of that go into a dedicated account The intent of that account has been to improve our exhibit building over the years. And the funds have been used for various things, like we got new display cabinets a couple of years ago, a few other things that have been done in that building. So there's approximately $44,000 in that account right now. In looking at the exhibit building, there's some repairs that need to be made to it. It needs some paint.

I've got an idea what that'll cost you on some doors.

I thought the winning bid was pretty great.

Yeah. So we talked about windows. And frankly, it would be a lot easier to tear out the existing windows, paint the building, and put the new ones in. Because we can spray it and do it very quickly and easily. While we do have eventual plans to replace that building, I don't foresee that happening in the next five to ten years, so I do think it's worth spending some money on replacing the windows in that building. All of them at this point are so cloudy and hazy you can't see through them. They're all pretty gross.

Point of clarification. I swore you just told me to see what it would take to make that a historic building, and now you're saying in the future we're going to replace it?

To make it a historic building?

Uh-huh.

I'll move on.

Okay.

Do you think I dream about historical preservation?

Negative. Green Bay Packers take up all my time.

It is an old building. I mean, maybe there's a possibility of doing something like that. But in the meantime, we need to preserve it for at least the next five to ten years, regardless of the building.

And I think we need to replace the air conditioners on top at the same time.

Yes, they're pretty.

There's three exterior doors. We'll have to trim those ourselves. If we replace the doors, we'll have to do that ourselves and then put new trim on them. And then, of course, the coolers, the paint, the cost of the paint. We're going to have to have a professional pressure washer, but I have a guy that does it on the side, and it'll be minimal. He can come in with high pressure and spray to get the paint off most of it. We have a pressure washer, but nothing like that. And the other thing is the paint. And then we'll have to rent a gray doll or something like that to go up and paint it to make it safe. So it all comes to an extra around $10,000 to do those extras I just talked about.

HVAC, three exterior doors. paint, trim, pressure wash. Did you say something about the small coolers?

Yeah, four small coolers on top. Only two of them work.

I might be able to get some donated paint.

We do need to have a... My guess on the paint, the paint would be about $1,500 to paint that. I just might be able to get some donated materials from Benjamin Marks.

So you're saying, so we got the little bit, it was just over 19.6, but you're asking for an additional 10-ish to do the other.

To go ahead and fix it up.

The paint, the swamp coolers.

And this is all doing it ourself except putting the windows in. I mean, we'll get ready for them. They'll put the windows in for us on that price.

So that was part of it, was installation of the windows? Installation, yes. They're hard to beat. I bought a lot of windows from them years ago.

Nobody can touch it.

So low bid plus $10,000.

yeah out of the quote fund less whatever approximately thirty thousand whatever the paint cost maybe we'll save a fifteen hundred there or so but i would recommend that you okay that for now until we get to the we'll put a lot of labor into it ourselves this is doing a lot about ourselves if we can get the right equipment there like that great all so we can hurry and get after you know yeah i think i think it's definitely it needs it needs a facelift for sure this would be a huge thing and

that funding is exactly what it was designed for. That's great. And having bought a lot of quilts from that over the years, I've bought probably 12 quilts over the years from the auction.

When your mother makes one, you have to buy it, don't you?

Yeah, I feel like I'm paying for a portion of this myself, and I think it's well worth the money.

Did you hear that, Laura? He bought them, not you.

Well, the farm buys them. Okay, I'll look for a motion then.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the low bid of $19,628.70 for new windows for the exhibit building. And in addition, we added approximately $10,000, all of which, all of the funding to come from the Quilt Fund to update and repaint and replace doors and windows and whatever else, HVAC on the building.

second okay i have a motion by commissioner newton and a second by commissioner factual all in favor all right any opposed it's unanimous can we get that done by fair next year can we get it done by fairs i'll work uh as much as we can thanks i'll work nights it'll work yeah Always pushing somebody else off, huh?

So, Commission, this is a final plot proposal for Wasatch Peaks Ranch, Plot 3A, First Amendment. It's for a request for final plot approval for 13 single-family lots. The County Commission approved the preliminary plot. on March 3rd of this year. The plot contains 25.90 acres with two parcels containing 1.723 acres. So if you have any particular questions, I'll be glad to try to address those at this time. The applicant is here with us as well. Staff recommends approval of this final plot for 13 single-family lots for Wasatch Peaks Ranch plot

3a first amendment i have a question here for you and then i can't quite see it on this map would you like a different map well i can look at it online um anyway lot Does that one, does the road go right to that, or does it not? You might be looking at the building envelope. The building envelope? So that's the building envelope? Yeah. OK, all right, then that's fine. And sorry, you don't have to come around. So these other lots down below this one development, have we already approved those? South of it? have we okay all right they're not part of it okay so they've been approved we don't have to worry about those okay and so the one that says lot it's not part of it so why would we have approved just one lot in there long before this and then these are coming out um if i remember correctly i mean it was

what, a year ago, year and a half ago, two years ago. So they can correct me if I'm wrong. But at the time, we wrote the staff report and we miscounted. I believe 26 lots, there were 27. So they removed one of the lots from that approval and they only brought forward the 26. They are now amending it to add that 27th back in.

Any other questions? Okay, Mr. Chair, I move we approve the Wasatch Peaks Ranch, Plat 3A, First Amendment Application 26.009. Second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Okay, motion carries.

Okay, can I have a motion to move to a date certain for... Mr.

Chair, I move that we...

July 7.

Postpone the item number 5, CO26-02, a request to approve an amendment to the Cottonwoods Development Agreement to the July 7 meeting. Second.

A motion by Commissioner Newton, second by Commissioner Fackrell. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? It's unanimous.

You seem happy today, Josh.

Drive home safe.

Jamie's by seven.

I am happy today because the deposition is over.

Yay. On item 124, a little back history. So I went out for RFP for a master transportation plan. It came back pretty much equal to the cost of what we were paying for the entire impact fee study and analysis, though the county has never had one. specifically a transportation master plan. Commission at the April 7th meeting gave me authority to negotiate with the lowest bidder. I got them down to the amount that was presented at the last meeting. Commissioner Fackrell did bring up at that May 5th meeting that there may be a potential for a grant application through Wasatch Front Regional Council. That grant, upon review, does not open until December and is not awarded, will not be awarded again until April of 2023. So in that, and trying to keep our plan with our impact fee analysis and impact fee study, I'm asking that we award the Transportation Master Plan. To recap, stacks of paper, stacks of paper, stacks of paper.

The total is $60,000.

Yeah, a little over.

And what were they reducing our cost on our other plan by?

So the original bid was, I got to do math. $90,000, wasn't it? Yeah, it was close to $90,000. And the new one is $60,350. And so they're going to do both.

I'm sorry, they were going to deduct this from the master plan cost, right? There was a deduction they were going to do.

I think it was $17,000.

Just trying to determine the additional funding we would need to make that. It's about 53,000, or no, 43,000.

Yes, however, we did anticipate that the total project was gonna be a lot more than we ended up awarding, so I do have it in the budget, except for, I think, about 17 or $18,000. But I haven't done a budget adjustment yet until we get it all finished.

Can I ask a question on it? So the impact fee, RFP, or whatever we called it, RFP, we never did do that, correct?

We are in the process of doing it right now.

So now they are taking and they're going to do this transportation plan.

They're doing the transportation portion of that RFP that you already awarded to LRB Finance. which they estimated was gonna be $17,000 of that to take our master transportation plan that does not exist and codify that into a capital plan and an impact fee. But we've never done a master transportation plan before, so they have no base document to go off of.

And so they will use the existing trails plan?

This is, that's part of what we've sent them in the RFQ is that transportation plan that UDOT did, even though the county, did the county technically adopt that? I don't remember. Yeah, we did. Was that in 24? No, it was presented before, but it was never adopted. I think I brought it forth for, no, that's, I'm thinking the Fairgrounds plan.

We did it beforehand because they did the whole, the study and everything back in 20, 22.

They did it in 22, but the last time I checked it, it had never been, fully codified by the county, but they do have that document.

We've never codified anything before. I'm well aware.

So they've been sent that document. They are also going to look at two or three key areas of traffic Friction mainly being Old Highway and Trappers and Morgan Valley Drive are the two that I selected for them to do a deep dive study on for a traffic plan. Since UDOT just did this one already and I wasn't gonna double do work and pay for it. So that's part of what knocked off a lot of that money.

So we already have the money then for this

We don't have all of it, but we have the bulk of it.

So we're asking for $60,000 more?

No, no. So we budgeted, I think, $120,000 for the whole process. The original award, I can't remember the amount off the top of my head to LRB, was like $70,000. So with them removing $17,000, adding on this $60,000, I'm still going to be short, but I'm going to be short less than $20,000.

And where will that come from?

That's already, it would come from general fund, but it is for impact fees. The auditors are here this week, not our CPA, but our actual auditors that do the final audit. And I'm waiting on a final opinion from them because if you can read the statute two different ways on if you can use impact fee report, impact fee funds to do that, but then another way it's written in section 17 implies that you can't. So I asked them today and they're gonna get back to me. So we could pull that from impact fees. Right now it is budgeted out of general fund.

Any other questions? We'll continue this.

I'm going to smack you. I'm never going to get this plan done.

OK, I'm looking for a motion then.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the RFP for the Transportation Master Plan. And with funding to be determined once we hear back from the auditor, which fund we can use it from.

Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson. I'll second the motion. Second by Commissioner Newton. All in favor? Aye. Are there any opposed? Okay.

Chair, can I get some answers on some quick things before you jump into commissioner comments? Sure. OK, one is the Summit County reached out, and they would like a stakeholders meeting with the county commissioners. They'd want to know if you have any days in June or July for a half day tour of the ranch between 8 and 1.30, either a Wednesday or Friday. June or August.

July would work better for me.

July.

Personally.

Okay, so can I send out like a doodle poll?

Yeah.

Okay, I'll just do that. Okay, and then get that sent out. Doodle poll. there was confusion on attorney of Janet Kristofferson as to the steps forward for the Kent Smith farmers market issue she's been getting several emails from Haley and she's just a little not wanting to move forward until she gets some proper direction

I think the question is, does the commission want her to adapt that fairground lease to something similar that can be done at Mountain Green? Are there any other considerations in there? Because I know that at least the fairgrounds aren't used open to the public the same way that the park is. And so it's not a one for one comparison either.

but do we want to allow commercial activity on our public parks i was really hoping i've talked to members of the community and how i mentioned the street fair before and people really like that idea i don't know if hayley looked into it or not but i where would that be like like not five thousand west the one that's uh next to golden west and golden west yeah We shut down that section of road because it has another entrance. I haven't talked to Golden West, but I know the manager there. I bet they'd be on board. Don't quote me on that. But there's parking at Lee's that would give Lee's some traffic. There are bathrooms there that would give Golden West some traffic. And you have this street fair right in the downtown area that people are going to be curious. And all those homes in Rome, they're going to walk down there and

Specific to the ask of the Scotsman Center, we still have the issue of the dates that they are wanting are the same dates that we have soccer.

Right, that's a big issue. There's not enough parking.

And I think more of a high-level policy question would be, do we want know public parks to be used for commercial activity i know that penny has had issues with people giving pickleball lessons and they just book out the pickleball courts and that's not the purpose we're subsidizing businesses that's my concern legally and as a resident Also, yeah, if someone's running a business, I guess that the businesses, they can benefit the community as well. It's just a matter of, is that the right place? Do we have the right infrastructure and parking for that at this point? when talking to Josh, because there was a temporary use permit that was issued and then revoked. When I was following up with him and I said, well, you always have to get the land owner's permission, right? And he said, yeah. I'm like, well, the land owner here is the commission. He's like, oh, okay, we missed that. So we have to have the land owner's permission before a temporary use permit can be issued. Do you want us to pursue that? Or are you saying this isn't the forum? It sounds like you're saying there's a better forum, but I think before Janet moves forward.

I'm saying it's not the forum because of lack of parking and safety and space when there's soccer games going on. I don't know how other counties do it. I know they do it because they have food trucks on their parks and things like that and car shows. Yeah. But Kent Smith is a frustrating park, and I don't think the expansion is going to happen because there's not enough space.

So I think Janet's ask is, one, does the commission want her to go down the line of adding county parks to the existing layout of how we rent out the fairgrounds, or not, because it's for commercial use? If it's, or if you want it to be separate, is it something like they would have to come forth with a conditional use permit or temporary use permit which would come before the commission for approval because it's your property?

It needs to be separate. It's not a fairground. Okay.

But to your point, I don't know that we want to have a lot of commercial stuff at our parks at this point. I love the idea of doing it on the road. Yeah, we just don't have the infrastructure there. And none of our parks are really well laid out for that. I mean, none of them have a ton of parking for something like that. You have so much use already by...

recreation yeah there's just you know i don't see that any of our uses need to trump anybody else's uses for our recreation or whatever other use now we got another another competing use we've already got people climbing over each other to use them for recreation well and frankly we have a facility to do that i mean we we do allow the fairgrounds to be rented for for that type of use

They want to do an event like that, do it there, right?

They want it in Mountain Green, though.

And I get that, but we don't own a property in Mountain Green that's suitable for that right now. And maybe in the future we will.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to think.

I mean, other than a road, maybe. Maybe a street fair, right? Yeah, and I think that's a good idea.

So in that, it sounds like you're leaning more towards the temporary use permit because there has been instances in the last year where the commission has approved a temporary use permit for its property, specifically the car show or what have you out at the airports. So do we want to continue with that where they can apply for a temporary use permit? It would come before the commission for approval for use of the property.

That would be my vote.

Yeah, I don't see any harm in that. OK. So I'll have her go in that direction. And then I think the rest of my items just are part of the closed session for land.

OK. Commissioner Blocker, do you have anything for us?

OK. first of all sorry about the loss of your father um yeah uh weaver human services they announced that um they were talking about morgan's seniors center and their exercise program but the free community shred event will be at the morgan senior center on June 24th. So they're trying to help fight fraud and identity theft by shredding sensitive documents. So that's open to anyone and everyone.

Oh, shredding.

Shredding. Sensitive documents.

Talked about exercise and then shredding. I was like, wow. Get shredded.

They have great shredding classes there. That's true. That's funny. OK. I met with Kelly from Horrocks Engineering. When they came in on the UDOT road there in Mountain Green, they tore up the trail there. So I walked the trail portions of it with him, and they're going to come in and clean up and fix sections that they missed, putting back in order.

Thank you for doing that. And let's see.

And then I've joined the McKady Hospital Community Relations Committee. And they're really interested into coming into Morgan County and expanding here different health facilities type thing. So watch for that. What else? Um.

Can you tell us what happened at the ground staking?

Oh, yeah, absolutely. So it was me, Lydia, and Sean, and Jeremy. And Jeremy says they want to pull back now and maybe only lease or rent. What are we using? I don't know which term. 2.5 acres, which would only give us one field and parking for 10 years. So we went and we looked at... are options of where to put a road to get to that parking. Between their building, the playground, and the tennis court, it's not wide enough. for two-lane road to even get to the parking and by the time we put in money putting in a parking lot and a field it just i don't think it's going to work it just doesn't make sense they're just afraid that they're going to need to expand really quick really fast and they might have to pull it from us So we're back to square one. That was a lot of time and energy.

Yeah.

But they were good to work with, too.

Anything else?

Did you want to talk about ?

You can or I can? No, you can.

Well.

Go ahead.

OK. Basically, Raylene and I attended a, it wasn't an official meeting. It was just a meeting. that was to do with childcare in our county where we are a desert for childcare in this county. And so there is a particular person that wanted to bring us a proposal which we're still waiting for, I don't know if she got it or not, to do with potentially where we could possibly put a location, not us, because government can't be involved in it according to the state laws as far as the grants go. So we recommended to her that we can help, we can help, but we cannot be a participant in it. And so what we need to do is we need to, I would like her to come and talk to us. We had a person from Weber State College that was there. Was it Weber State College? Yeah.

University.

University. University College. And I went there. Basically, they told us of different grants that we can potentially get to help them, which would be a benefit to being able to hire a director that they have to with these grants, and then The others could all be volunteers. And so anyway, they're coming up with a proposal that we'd like to see if we can assist in whatever way we can. So just so you're aware of that, and then maybe we might have something more on that.

So their ask of us was to maybe do a, if we could put out a survey on who is in need of childcare, like to see if we can see if there is an actual, like, I mean, I know they're saying there's an actual need, but we could have like a percentage. I don't know if the county can do that.

So the high school just opened a childcare center this year. I know they did some surveying of their own people, but I don't know if they did surveying beyond that, but it may be worth at least asking them what information they have. Yeah, they mentioned that.

They were going to look into that.

I do know that they did not fill up as quickly as they thought they were going to.

Oh, interesting.

Because originally it was supposed to just be for employees of the high school, and then they expanded it to employees of the three schools in morgan and then they expanded it to the all the school district and then they expanded it to the public as well so and they are different hours because they're school hours so yeah a little trickier which is a little and maybe that's why you know that they didn't get the i don't know i don't know I do know my wife and I owned a daycare for about six years in Cache Valley, so I'm pretty familiar with the laws and regulations there and what that deals with. But there's a lot that goes into it, and I don't know. It would be worth doing a survey though and finding out if, or seeing what the school district knows.

We were thinking even within that, if in the budgeting for this next year for the economic development, whether or not you could set aside enough to pay for the survey. to send it out and get people. I don't know if you can put that into your plan for next year.

I will say, if they're thinking that volunteers are going to run it, it will not work.

That's it. It could change. And they were even thinking about using interns from the college, from the university. And I mean, these are just all ideas. There was nothing concrete. And I think we told them to get ahold of the attorney also. Another item. And Kate. And so that could be coming up in the near future is all.

Here's my slight pushback.

Okay.

Because how I heard it in my head is we have someone that wants to open a private business because there is a community need, which means there is a demographic, but they want the county to pay for the survey to prove that there is a need with our economic development budget.

Well, that's where we need to talk.

They didn't ask that.

Yeah. we were just giving them suggestions and they could come to us and ask for assistance of what they propose. There's also some new laws that happened this year within childcare that if a business were to develop a facility or a portion of their business and open it to the public that they would get tax write-offs, tax credits and so forth. So that was another option that happened with the bill. So anyway, that's just a future item that potentially we might be hearing about.

That's just an incubator. Yeah.

Also, I was in on a tourism destination management meeting that, and this is something we need to be considering in the future very quickly. We have the Olympics coming in 2034. A major portion of it is in our county. The person in charge of us, basically, trying to work things out is Kelsey Berg. And I have her phone number here. Anyway, their biggest thing is they want to get youth involved quite a bit. They want to get the youth involved for the sports now and at the event so that way they can be at Elevate Utah. within, sorry, elevate our communities. And so, they're gonna want families to host families that can come for this. They need approximately 25 to 30,000 volunteers still needed between, and they will be asking for those in the years 2031 through 2032. And, So basically they're gonna be coming to us and I would like to invite her to come to us and give us their ideas of what they would like, the Olympic Committee. So that would be a future item for a future meeting. So I can send you the information to you, Kate. All right, the other item that happened within that is next year is the Salt Lake Temple open house for, I think it's a year long. No, six months open house. Since we are on the path that the Mormon pioneers and the other pioneers came through this area, they would like us to come up with ideas of what we can do to allow for visitors to come and visit our area. such as the trail itself and that's part of what the state parks is doing is they are trying to not reenact that they're trying to put in the trail itself for where the the pioneers went through and give a history so that's something we need to work on within the historical potentially the historical and the tourism departments, and try to coordinate activities of what we want to try to do. And that was a big, big push, and if we have the air, which we do have part of the area, up through Mormon Flats, and from Henniferup over to here, to East Canyon, down through the reservoir, and up through Mormon Flats and up over Big Mountain Pass. It was the last day of the trail. When they went up there, historical items is the Donna Reed party tried to go through an area and that's what put them behind for two weeks and put them behind and caused them to be delayed. Well, that's part of the reason. And the Mormon pioneers went up around where they had problems. So anyway, these are things that we need to be aware of, and if we have questions and we want to get anybody that is interested in going to the Temple Open House, they are getting group tickets, and you can start getting group tickets on September 1st of this year. So there will be a lot more coming about. The scenic byways, we have one of those scenic byways going through our area on Highway 65, and we need to do whatever we can to help them in rejuvenating that area. And that's about it right now.

Didn't the county vacate the trail? That's the one we vacated.

We vacated between Hennifer and his cash loop. And we vacated Trapper's Loop also, but that wasn't the one Pioneer Trail.

Okay.

Mike, why don't you go next since you've got to leave?

You know, I don't have anything that needs to come up before everybody. Okay.

Okay, just a few things. I did have residents from Deep Creek reach out as far as the road and all the debacle going on up there, the back and forth. The request was to sit down with the commission and the property rights ombudsman and just... Here it is. This is what it is. I thought that'd be, I felt as a commissioner that I'd be amenable to that, to sit down with a couple of their residents, the ombudsman and the commission, and maybe a work session or something like that. And I said, I'd bring that up here, people, if we were interested in that. I think it'd be good just, let's just get it figured out, what is it, so that everybody's on the same page. That would be I'm saying this is, and I think I forwarded the emails that I received, Garrett, to you about the pile of sticks and all that. They're the attorney for the ombudsman's office and her analogy, thank you, Kate. If not, I can forward that to you. I thought I did. Let me just make sure. It would have been a while ago. Yeah.

We should talk about. No, I don't think so.

Okay, I will forward those on to you. I just think they reached out and I thought it'd be good for us to just, and I remember we talked like we need to get this figured out.

So is it a different issue than the ombudsman has already sent a letter on saying they have no jurisdiction over? Because I would just, I don't want to spin our wheels when the ombudsman's already said I can't mediate this.

I think the one, according to this, sorry, I'm on a different email because this is different. It was, sorry, I'm going to have to get out of this email. I will find that. Yeah, forward it to me.

I'll forward it to you. Do you remember I forwarded you a prior determination that they don't have jurisdiction?

And this one was on whether it's the county road and what the county's rights and abilities are. Yeah. On the right of way. And I thought she said something in there that I'm more than happy to sit down and... Okay. So I'll forward what I have to you. Sounds good.

Okay. They didn't trust what she said?

They don't trust what anybody says. And then Conservation District, we had a meeting last week. We were granted another grant for next year for the, basically which will fund their portion of the Bag of Woad. chemical reimbursement and also to uh i think there was three thousand dollars that will be coming to help purchase equipment loaner equipment backpack sprayer things like that for residents to use to kind of help people incentivize them to take care of their weeds on their property that will be coming for next year's pot of money but right now the the weed uh chemical reimbursement They've upped the amount from $200 to $500 because I guess people haven't been using them. It is on the website. People can do, you can turn it in in person or email or you can do it digital. Kate's pulling up right there. It'll be under notices. And right at the very bottom, chemical reimbursement, downloadable or online form. So just to encourage people to use that. A grant that we get from the state, we want to show the state that we are using it, so they'll continue to award that grant to us and possibly even expand that into the future. We are, with the weed board, we are looking into cooperation with the railroad and that, spraying the weeds, trying to just kind of get a handle on things. You can see Dyer's Woad is kind of everywhere in the county now. It was kind of down in the canyon. Now it's popping up everywhere. Brett did tell me that the county has sprayed the county right-of-way twice now and will continue to monitor. They've been out with UDOT. UDOT has been using a weed eater, cutting down the dyers rather than spraying. But, again, those chemicals you can purchase and then get reimbursed up to $500. There's no acreage requirement or anything, but get what you think you need and you can get reimbursed. on those weeds. Can I ask you something on that?

Sure. Did we make an ordinance or something that we could go on to private property to get it accomplished?

No, we amended that. Amended it? And that took that out. Yeah.

So there is... Fine anybody on it or anything like that?

We can fine on that, but we don't, it doesn't give us the right to go on to private property and spray because of the liability. And the Fourth Amendment.

What's that? And the Fourth Amendment. Yeah. What's that?

And so, yes, that's the weed ordinance, which we are required by the state to have a weed board in that. And it's getting going. It's in its infancy. But we are trying to move forward and to grow the weed board itself.

So down there towards the canyon, We have a major infestation. Are we gonna do anything with the federal ground on that? Because we have federal ground going up.

It's going up. Unfortunately, we have no jurisdiction on federal ground.

We've already talked. Have we asked them what we can do? I just think it's a lost cause right now. But I hope we can work on it.

I get comments. I get text messages. People are like, what's the name of the flower down the canyon? It's so beautiful. Yeah. Noxious wheat. That's its name.

It is beautiful.

And then just a quick update on the fairgrounds. The LED screens are on the way and should be here about mid-June. Conduits are in. They'll be starting to pull wire and all the cabling for that. So it's, again, a little bit behind schedule, but moving on quickly. So by fair, we should have LEDs and a new sound system.

Good thing we had a nice winter.

Yeah, they got a lot done. And power is moving on very quickly over there. It's pretty exciting to see what they've done. One other thing, and that was the email that I had open, was I did get an email. The 910 Cattle Ranch, they sent it out yesterday, and I already had prior commitments meetings tomorrow. They do have a... The county council, Summit County Council has a work session tomorrow at 4.15. And you can look at the agenda. I can forward that. If anybody here is interested in going and attending, I cannot. I really wish I could, but it's kind of a late notice for me. So just to kind of see what they're proposing, what's going on. So I will forward that. Maybe I'll just forward it to the commission. You guys can decide what you'd like to do. That's all I have.

May I ask one more item, if I may? Sure.

I've been hearing rumblings that the Rome Project commercial development area down there, they are not pushing anything down there because they want to turn it into residential. And I don't know how many more years they have. So I've heard rumblings that that's what they're doing.

Do you want me to speak to that? okay so one that's not factual and two there's nothing that can move down there because we're holding their certificate of occupancy until they fix this side

all right well i'm i'm talking about the the buildings that they're going to put in they're supposed to be putting in buildings and stuff for commercial development in that area down by golden west and it's not being done it seems like they've got golden west and i don't have not heard of anything else talking about the vacant lot next to it i'm talking about the whole area that's supposed to be commercial that's supposed to be commercial it can expire and they can put then they can put housing but yeah

I think we can deal with that with them on the town center stuff that they're trying to get through with Gardner.

As soon as Raylene mentioned the medical, the doctors. I mean, what a perfect place right in there or in the town center. I mean, that's an excellent place for a little medical center or something like that.

I mean, tell me if I'm wrong, Mike, because I wasn't in on that, but what does that revert back to as far as zoning?

It doesn't really revert. It's just that, because it's part of the town center zoning, it doesn't revert, but the town center zoning allows them at a certain point to convert to. I'm sure I think it's 10 years. Yeah.

So we could potentially go with that on the other area, too?

Yeah. I mean, the truth is I would be shocked if they wouldn't want to put some commercial in there. That land value is far too high to just fill it with residential. They won't see those type of returns. That being said, it's going to take some time before commercial comes into those areas. And we know that. That's just going to happen.

We need another 5,000 housetops.

A lot of them will say that. They need more rooftops. PB3 didn't say that when they were in here talking to us. They were like, no, we want commercial area. That's going to be our commercial area. So anyway. OK. We'll just take a five minute breather and then we'll close session.

I have a recess in here.

Right now? Not yet.

That's so good. I didn't know she could cry. She's so light. She's going to tea late. It starts tomorrow. Last time. It's just more expensive. It's a new one.

Mr. Chair, I move that we move into closed session or strategy session to discuss pending and reasonable reasonably imminent litigation and to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property.

I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Faxon.