County Commission - Regular Meeting

I can read a legend, but I... A lot.

No, you're good. It's 7,000. So the reason here is to get up to dividing by open space two and open space one. Is this a bridge line?

No, it is not. We are going away from the bridge lines. So here's the question.

so this is the line now this is the adjustment so did you guys hear me okay yes yeah that is the line awesome

The ridgeline would be this old one. The old one. So that would have been the historic, the little red one. You may have a great start and then you can ask your questions.

I'm Greg. Matt. Nice to meet you. Matt. Thank you.

Okay, thanks for having us. Appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this. Just so you guys know, if you're in a similar situation or in Summit County, the last professional land surveyor that we had in Summit County was Trump in 1920. Wow. So we've been with the house for his license last year. That's surprising. For a long time. Three years. It would be. They would contract with different surveyors when they needed things. But otherwise, there wasn't really a surveyor looking at subdivision plans when they came in. So when that happens, you don't have somebody checking out where is our county line compared to where they're proposing the subdivision. So we end up with Pine Meadow Ranch being mostly in Summit County, but also over in Oregon. And same thing in State of Georgia, State of Spidey, one that you guys approved. mostly in morton county but also went into something so the idea with this is to move um we want to move the line from the historic bridge location to the closest taxation parcel line so that's what i've done i've looked at all the different parcels when we first started this we were just looking at pine meadow ranch and then after a couple meetings we uh So this goes from the north end of Section 20, which is Piedmont Ranch north end, and it goes all the way to the preserve, which is the 19th Ranch. How many miles is that? It's in three sections. You know, I don't even know. I didn't add up the length of the line, but it's a few miles. Okay, so the historian. they showed on the preserve subdivision plant. So even they got it wrong when they showed it up there. And that plant, they also had, i have the plot here when you look at it but um they did their best at putting it in what they had i'm sure they just digitized off the usgs maps it's fairly close i've ever heard in a few places but all in all it's pretty close but because they did that and they didn't make i don't know why they didn't make the open space follow that line they chose to create new lines between the two open spaces open space two and open space one and that's where that magenta dark red line is which that actually follows the boundary of the line that separates those two parcels so that's where i would like to move it to so that we have a whole parcel in southern county and a whole parcel in morgan county which is what the state code says we can move the line to the nearest taxing I guess the part I didn't understand was all the pluses and negatives in your chart. Yeah, and that was just to show what's going on by changing this line. Some we lose, some we gain. How's that going to benefit each county? How it affects each county. So that's what that table was. So let's look at... this is stagecoach estates so if you look through these three lots right here are platy so platy was recorded in morgan county so the small hatched red line that goes up that road That was a historic line and actually surveyors from both counties went out in 2012 and surveyed this line and went to the LG's office and agreed that that was the ridge line. The small hatch, right? The small red hatch, yes. Right here, correct. Correct, yeah. So fortunately all the lots on either side, their area doesn't change. The taxation area doesn't change. We were taxing, both of us were taxing them at the platted areas. So Morgan County was taxing these three lots at what the platted areas say. That's what's shown here. So if you look at that table where I showed an area and the difference, these would show there was zero difference. I can't even see any area on those. But because of that, these people technically own in Summit County as well, which I think there's actually some buildings down in here. It's what brought this to our attention. There was a person at Pine Meadow Ranch, Pledge 39, wanted to pull a building permit. And our office, the building office, they looked at it and they pulled the GIS away. This is in both counties. We cannot issue a building permit where you want to put your house because technically that's Horton County. We can't do that. So he was stuck in limbo going, so you guys are taxing me on property and I can't build on it? And I'm like, yes, unfortunately. That's exactly what's been happening. And it wasn't just him. It continues on. Lots of different lots were affected and parcels. So if you look to the side of flat E, you can see the line continues on to this parcel that sits here. That is one of the areas where the parcel that sits here is labeled as one. That one actually gets bigger because he was being taxed to the county line, as shown on the GIS, and we are proposing to move it to the closest taxation line, which is the northerly boundary of Stagecoach subdivision. So that's why some of the parcels will gain some property and some will lose some property. Technically, they're not really gaining or losing unless we've had a survey. We really don't know how much they have. It's kind of our best guess in the recorder's office when we're drawing things. We use the best information we have, but if we don't have section corners tied down and we don't have actual surveyed information, we're just At least it's easier to calculate now on a computer. We used to do it by hand and have to use a planometer. So that was very inaccurate. So when people think I've lost property, well, Orton County is taxing this lot as it is recorded. Even though the lot goes over into Summit County, where Summit County is doing the exact same thing. So, in my meadow ranch, like Platt G, there's a whole bunch of them. The last page, you see here too, that Yes and no it was it wasn't surveyed so it was UGRC's best guess when they created the base maps for the GIS so no but it's what everybody's been using so If that makes sense. These all bleed over in the morning? They do, yes. Yeah. So here, just the opposite of Stagecoach, Estates Plat E, Pine Meadow Ranch Plat G, we're moving the line westerly to the boundary of the subdivision to clean up that two-count.

So one area is going this way and the other area is just going that way? Yes. Just cleaning it up?

Yes, yes.

You're using the taxation line versus the traditional? Exactly. Exactly, yes.

And aren't these people kind of upset that there are more tigers or something?

heard anybody's upset. I think people are upset because we're no longer giving building permits because it's not all in our county.

I think they just want to know where their land is.

Yeah.

It's not about who, what county they're in. It's more so them being able to do what they want and probably adjusting this line to determine where they're going to get it exactly.

Right. Yeah. And again, the state code says that we can move the line to the nearest taxation boundary line. So that would be the nearest line of a parcel. So there's a bunch of these where we're just cleaning things up. Again, the end of this one. So this, again, is the end of state. A parcel here. There's a parcel now shown in Summit County. We are taxing it in Summit County. I'm proposing that that entire parcel, because it's a parcel of the same owners, all gets put back together and is taxed by Morgan County. So that's a less out of Summit attitude. I was actually surprised at the numbers. I figured they were pretty good.

One thing with the assessments, too, though, is we're breaking out half an hour. And so this line here, there is no longer going to be the line.

Correct.

This is the line.

Correct. Once we get this all, if everybody agrees, and the LG's office is good with it, yes. That's the idea. And this line, this was, like I said, this was resurveyed in 2012, tied into this one that was surveyed. for a day all blurs together uh so that's why this matches perfectly because they that's that's where we determined it in 2012 and then the county's changed it or ugrc actually changed yes the road is in that general location so halfway into the road that is I would say some account know these are all private roads anyway, so they're taken care of by themselves. So same thing in Pine Meadow Ranch, all private roads. And again, this is the kind of thing that should never happen where the subdivision flag shows it right away being created in somebody's, not even on the property, you know, somebody else's property. So, and in this case, in somebody else's county.

So when you're talking here,

That one is a Morton County parcel, so that is increasing that amount. So yeah, that parcel got bigger by that amount. If it's in red, the negative, the parcel's getting smaller.

Is that the one where you took that entire chunk and just made sure it was added back to the same owner? That's probably the 28-acre piece that's moving.

It could be. There were chunks everywhere. I see. Yeah.

I noticed you had quite a few coming and going.

Yeah, yeah. It was a good exercise, actually.

two gis things and then tax maps and yeah so you actually are giving the morning that's the show sure i mean i don't know if we're giving anything it's just it's just that's fine you just have to include it in there it says 611 square miles So up in this area then? So these are the only three lots? And this one here too? Or was that a lot?

That's a parcel.

Yes.

The rest of those are parcels until we get into the preserve and then we have the two, we'll call them lots because they're created by subdivision. They're the open space parcels. They did three separate find local entity flats because I wanted to keep each flat on the same basis of airing as the original subdivision flats. It would make it easier if somebody were to go out to survey, they could find it. And also in case somebody didn't like something in one of the flats, one of the areas, we could move ahead with the other ones if there was an issue and not hold up the entire project. So that's why I did three separate flats.

So they would still use...

is there an old agreement between the two counties for like emergency services a bit like yes okay i assume that there was i just hadn't found anything now i have a question on another area of this same boundary Well, which part is over here? It's the area next to Morgan County, or part of Morgan County.

Why do you think the hill is? I think they used the ridge line as the basis back in the old days, so that means that might be something.

I don't want toll gate to go, so I'm initially going to come in for another area that's actually just a little over the hill. Right, so I've addressed And then some of the parcels into stagecoach. So the idea was to look at, to clean up the easy ones, I guess. And then if we want to move forward in the future to clean up some other things, if you believe that there's a problem somewhere And I've been working with them too. We've been marking that entire line. And once we get up into Deer Valley, we have houses that are divided. I mean literally through the house. It's crazy. So again, these are things that nobody really looked at. And they were amazing 200 years ago. It shocks me. 300 feet away. And if your deed goes to the center line of the river and the river shifts, you get more ground. Somebody else is losing and their deed goes to it as well.

So I just think we're going to see more and more of this as we start going through things with the precision that we have now.

And I think with the population too and the prices of real estate, you know, it didn't matter back when these were bull cabin lots. But now that they're worth millions of dollars people seem to care What also I confused you with

Pass up.

So when we were going through and we were looking at it, we noticed the fact that the house which is a cabin, but we were valuing that, that we would not, that we would not even build a small store, is when we decided that we were going to put a market on this building. So what are they appealing? They're appealing saying that they've been in some economy and they want some of the houses.

So that was where some of this confusion and frustration came because half of it

agreement that was made with the previous there's those that were like no we do not live in one we are so so that was so with this what happened was they were there was an agreement that half of the land would be valued in county and half of the land would be in summit county but then summit was also valuing improvement so in 24 it was almost like they were being

but it's because we were saying that the home was actually on board with the county and they needed to pay it in the county. So that's what happened. They didn't actually, the appeal, they did a county appeal for 24 and that wasn't taken care of until now they're going to provide the value and they're going to the state.

So they actually pay their taxes, but to some end. So they didn't pay taxes.

They didn't pay their taxes.

Which they have been, historically, in the landfill.

But the improvement they've been paying to some. Well, so to clarify that, you said that it was never in Wharton County. If you looked at the GIS, it was shown in Wharton County because the GIS line was not right. So this line that is shown on here was actually surveyed and they determined it was surveyed to find the actual ridge. We went out and looked at that. It's definitely behind the house. The house is east of it. So I took, Greg Ferrari was the surveyor that did that, and I took his survey that he had done and the boundary adjustment here for this one that was done in 2015 and merged those together. And the idea being the one in 2015 of this parcel here, that's already been formalized with the state. gaps in the line. I just wanted to do a legal description that you could follow all the way through from one end to the other. So that's what I've done. So this part actually is the ridge line. So this does follow the historic ridge. The problem was it was shown incorrectly, determined incorrectly, wherever you want to look at it on the GIS. And that's what we all look at, right? Everybody looks at the GIS. And so it was obvious on the GIS that the house was in Morton County.

unfortunately it wasn't but but until the you know and then comes the so our decisioning factor is for 24 and 25 what do we do with those taxes do we abate them do we write them all you know how do we deal with the flow basically charge them for taxes do we wipe all of it clean do they just pay for the land and we just get rid of the improvements so those are the decisions that I think if they've already been paying on the improvement, they shouldn't double tax on it.

If it's generally in Summit, except for that portion, They really didn't know for sure until they had a survey by Greg that's where the line was. And that was in 25. So to me, none of the stuff before that survey, it's like, I'm sorry.

And technically, this has already been, they didn't appeal to the state. So we can agree with this one and just take it forward. Or we can say we're going to take the improvement off of both of them, however we want to look at that. But I mean, what do you suggest? It's a vote.

It would be them paying on this one, they would pay the $672 is what they would pay.

But then we would be abating that amount. So $1,700 and then if we go through Because they're India, we can basically, I guess, mitigate that and say, we're going to take off that page.

But they did pay that $17,000 and that whatever. They did pay it to Summit.

If it's a given, then no. But we can pull Summit's tax. They don't want to.

Because I'm just looking historically. Historically, we got the land. Summit got the structure. If we... Finish that out to 25.

We're only actually valuing the half of the line.

Because we only took the part that was in our... That's what I'm saying. If we fall historical, and then now we can move the line, and we've gone straight, and then we just call it a day. I think that's what you're saying. It's like, let's just do what we historically did.

We're just basically pulling the improvement.

Right. Somebody needs to collect on that.

It needs to be paid. If they paid... Well, and Summit hasn't taken off their improvements.

So they would have already been collected at Summit. Should I double check? I can double check with Summit of what they paid for 24 and what they paid for 25.

That makes sense. Sounds good. As long as they got taxed and they paid up, I think we just historically, this is what we had done, and then we just, okay, we moved the boundary, we got it cleaned up, and then twice. It's gone.

Well, 26, we're basically going, for 26, we would have to do a VOD, just an assessor adjustment, because it's already in there.

So we would have to do an assessor adjustment and just basically approve that negative value. Call it on the phone.

So this is the plaque that they've drawn that was in the subdivision, stagecoach. And so these three parcels go all the way down to here now. They are already in the records as being down to here.

Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay.

So, and are there parcels up here too, or is it just this? the taxation was correct and both sides both counties

All three of these lots are subdivisioned and included on both sides up here. So the subdivision goes to this dash line right here. But the county line went in between.

And that was in the middle. But now we want both of them to be here.

But we want to move it to the subdivision line dividing.

What's that? I know. What is that? That is a right-of-way item. But who's planning that? That is on that particular lot, so it was planned as a lot.

So it is part of that lot?

Yes.

And so their lots now will go up to the Martin County lot? I'm just concerned from a landowner's standpoint, okay, if these lots are here and yet they're being serviced by Southern County. No, it's all private, correct? The roads are private. But the emergency services would be Southern County. I think these are all addresses

to go out and deliver it to them every single year?

No, I'm not even going to go see them.

I'm not even going to go see them.

How are they going to get their Oregon County taxes now? Same way they got them before. Same mailing address.

They've been paying. Yeah, they still have their parcel, and they still have, like, they're still going to get their disclosures. They'll still get their tax notes. They'll get their in-organs. And if not, then we'll just give the same things. Here you go. You can have them.

that was created just you know we all created it both counties just without knowing you know it's like really nobody to blame I blame the original surveyors that planted these subdivisions because they didn't follow the historic line and if you look at some of the subdivision plots they actually would show Morton County and Summit County on the on the So it was, you know, legislative body, it's like, well, that's what it says, so that's what it is. And it wasn't the case. But we can't fix it.

We'll give them a C+. Now we're just trying to figure it out.

They still passed because they did it, right?

They did the assignment. I have a question. Is the land transfer, like we talked back in February, now it's been a hot minute,

essentially apples to apples, acres to acres.

Greg?

Morgan County doesn't know where's the trail friends The rocks are getting smaller, so that's good.

He still throws big rocks, but I'm kind of weak and old, so I've got to throw little pebbles at him. I may get into his boot occasionally.

Thanks for working with us.

I'm glad it was you guys. I didn't have anything to do with it. That is the historic land.

My question is, too, though, is when it was going to be approved, like be adjusting all of those because then that would be I think it'd be a lot for your board so that's that's up to you guys yes

she's going to be learning all the great ones so i believe if you guys are good with this before then we can notice for a public hearing i think we're scheduled for july 7th we're seven yes you're seven but we're scheduled for the eighth and then from there once we get the agreements all taken care of and boundary changes that'll go to the lg's office and ugrc will review it the state surveyor will review it and then get back to us certificate to change the boundary and once we get those certificates in each county then we can record this in the county so that's about it. Easy peasy. Would you like to come here? If you want to come you're more than welcome to come. I mean they're good. Yeah, and again, did it really increase? No. No. Yeah. I will double check because I can't remember the agreement. There was some weird stuff.

26, 27, and 12.

Thank you.

Deny an appeal?

Thank you.

as soon as that clicks just watch right there

Thank you. Okay, we're going to go ahead and get started. We finished our work session a little early. Had a little break. Appreciate everyone being here, both online and here in person. We're going to start our meeting by having an invocation and Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Blocker.

Our dear Father in Heaven, we're grateful to gather here this afternoon and discuss issues of the county. And we're grateful for this beautiful country in which we live in and for the 250 years that we have experienced our freedom and sacrifice of so many great and honorable people. And we're grateful for those people today that sacrifice and serve. And we ask that we may be guided and listen to each other's concerns and solutions. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen.

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.

God bless America. stand beside her and guide her through the night with the lights from above from the mountains To the prairies, to the oceans, white with foam. God bless America, my home sweet home. God bless America, our home sweet home.

Gave me the chills.

I'll tell you, you got a wonderful voice, Kate. Makes you proud to be an American. Thank you very much. Okay, I know some of you have called me on some consent agenda items. Everybody, I'm assuming, has been able to go over them. Mike, are you on with us? Just wanted to make sure.

He is. I need to remove four and six. I am. Yeah.

Can you hear me OK? We can. OK. Removing four and six.

To the action item?

Yes, please. That's what I need.

OK. Any others?

Mr. Chair, I move that we remove items four and six from consent agenda and move them to the action items.

I'll second it.

Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? Aye. Are there any opposed? Okay, motion carries. Okay, we'll just start on declaration first, declaration of conflict of interest. Is there any tonight?

No.

Mike?

No, sir.

Did you approve the consent?

No.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the consent agenda items 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

I'll second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Blocker to approve the remaining consent agenda items. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Mike, did you hear me on the declarations of conflict of interest?

I did, I have none, thank you.

Okay, we'll call this E4BA.

We have public comment.

Oh, I'm sorry. Do we have anyone that would like to share any public comments? Okay, seeing none, we will go to four.

So, Sean?

Hang on.

I'm sorry, what?

Did you want to discuss four and six?

Yes, but we have presentations.

Okay. Sean?

Sean, the images you sent me earlier today, is that for your second presentation? Okay, thank you.

All right, good evening. So I just wanted to kind of, I won't take too much time on these, but I kind of just wanted to at least kind of show you what we've been up to the last few months. So in May, May 4th through the 8th, we were asked to present in Kanab for the UJIC conference. We were asked to present on how the county has gotten where they are today, how we have transformed where our maps were into what they are now. The lady in the middle of us, of me and Charles, Charles Phillips, our GIS specialist, she is with ProWest. She has been our backbone in this whole process, helping us with this whole mapping environment, helping us transition into the new path for the county. Let me go ahead and go to the next slide. So with them asking us to present here, we wanted to take this opportunity to really show them where we were and how we are or where we are today in the county. So we thought that it would be a good title to name it From Chaos to Confidence. I think that is a safe title to call it. because i think everybody is aware of where the county was when it comes to our mapping side of things so it was also including a bunch of information of morgan county And also, sitting down in front of a lot of people, we're standing in front of other counties, other counties who Morgan County has called and asked for help, called and asked, how are you doing what you're doing? How can Morgan County get where you're going? And now it was, Switched and Morton County are sitting in front of other counties and those counties were asking Morton County. How are you doing it? So I think that's a Huge step forward for the county And then it kind of goes into the beginning kind of telling them from start to finish how we got it started all the preparing the research, the convincing, the asking. If it wasn't for you commissioners, this would not have, we wouldn't be here where we are today. So a big thank you to you for trusting us and allowing us to move on with this project and get the county where it needs to be. A lot of you have seen this information already. We put this into a presentation to show the other counties and then everybody at Egypt. And then go to the next. And then showing them, so in the last slide it was the discrepancy points, showing them how many errors we found in Morton County when we went through this process. And then digitizing. and how do we fix the errors? If you go back and look through the left side, that's the old hand-drawn maps. That's what we used to do, hand-drawn. And as you can imagine, that probably creates a lot of errors. Nothing is, as you can see, it's not clean. But if you look closely, you'll see question marks. You'll sometimes see gap written out. They're on a lot of these hand-drawn maps. A question mark of what? There was no notes. There were nothing. So you're starting from scratch of why the question mark was put down, why there's a gap. If you really think about it, a gap really doesn't exist. There was, at some point, there was an owner, but you just have to find out who the last known owner was. But you will see that time and effort was not put into this, and so that's what we are continuing to do, is to fix these errors with the question marks and the gaps. and again this is how did it really happen this is us coming to you to the commissioners and asking for your help and for your trust and us to be able to get this done um we had to create a frame a project framework of start to finish and it was in um separate or it was a multiple different project completed one moved on to the next And it took about nine months from start to finish. And then they handed it over to us and we moved on from there. The bi-weekly meetings, we had meetings with Pro-West to discuss any issues, concerns that we had on both sides. And then we were able to answer any questions that Pro-West had and then also Pro-West was able to answer any questions that Morgan County had. But then also job transitions. It allowed me to kind of redo the reporter's office. As you all know, we created the GIS physician. This allowed our GIS specialist to take this over and have it in-house. We don't have to contract that out anymore. It's in-house. And so this has opened up job positions, but also to benefit the county. So we are still on the lookout for our old town site flats. We have found two, but we have not found any more. We're not gonna give up. We are still looking for them. They are, probably we'll never stop looking for them. They are what started this county, and whether we have to start piecing them together, we'll start doing that, but we won't stop looking for them. This also involves river descriptions. So as we were going through and reparsing the whole county, as you can imagine, a lot of the riverbed, the riverbed doesn't stay where it was originally at. So the descriptions move with the river. And so we had a lot of issues in that area trying to figure out where everything was. You go from Andron to Digital, things change. So there was a big... a lot of research going into along the riverbeds for this.

Go ahead and look at the next slide.

What's next? The county's growing, we have a lot of projects going on, and with this new software, the ProWest, and then we have finished installing the enterprise licensing, which involves more licenses in the county, so just not one user that can edit, we have multiple now, but also this opens up a lot more doors for the county. allowing us to move into these projects that we want to go into. It'll also help us identify any errors within the county, helping with the gaps, helping with the question marks. And then, so as we were going through and we were talking about all this to the counties that we were looking at, it was really cool, and I will continue to say this forever, It was really cool to be able to sit there in front of the other counties and tell them how we did this. I don't think anybody will understand unless you know kind of what we're talking about. We had nothing. We were going off of nothing, if you will. this in the last year and a half we have transformed the reporter's office the gis department into something huge something that the county has never been to and this is for the people giving the people back what they deserve being able to research online being able to get this on on our map being able to get pdfs online and being able to download download them right from their home And also, these are being, so currently we're updating every week, every Monday. We will transition to every day, and then we will eventually transition to every hour instantly. So that's something to look forward to, that it will be, anytime there's an update, it will be immediately updated. And that is it. Any questions?

No, thank you, though.

I'd just like to say is, I mean, I think in our work session, we saw what the GIS is capable of with our neighboring county. But as somebody that watched this kind of happen with my family's property and what a huge asset it is to help clarify those boundaries between neighbors, where it is, because they've been dealing with some kind of a mess down there. but versus the old hand-drawn maps to what this is, it really kind of legitimizes our tools are now more precise. So, I mean, just kind of watching what they've had to go through. It's been, the recorder's office has been a huge asset to that family to help them get things fixed up. So I do appreciate all your hard work on that one. And I'm sure that's just one of many that you'll be on. So thank you.

Sean, where do you look for the town site flats?

We have looked... Would like to say everywhere, but I know that that's not really it. We have contacted Washington to look in their archives. We've contacted an archive in Denver. There's a few other ones that are out of state that we've contacted, and they're currently doing research for us to try and find them. We've contacted other counties to see if they know of them or know of who we can contact. We've contacted a few surveyors that have worked in the county for quite a while. We get a lead, and then we get to that point, and then we come to a stop, and we find another one, and we kind of just keep going. I am hopeful, but it's a long process.

Tina might have them.

She's hiding them in her basement.

They're in somebody's closet somewhere. So what would those, I mean, just for my knowledge, what would that do for the county when you find those? You found two. As you start to find them, what does that do?

So they're the old town site flats. So you have, I don't have the list that you see. You have Crichton. You have Morgan City, which we have. You have Porterville. You have Peterson. And you have Stoddard, Milton, Enterprise. Those are their own towns a long time ago. And they're in lot and blocks. So we're missing a lot.

So it's the actual, the original drawn up version of those little areas. Okay.

Have we tried to contact some of the families that were here back then and see if they have any records of it?

No contact information. I mean, if we have anything, we have an email. I don't want to go out bugging the public, you know, trying to find these, but...

It might be worth throwing on our website, though, and asking. Somebody might have them thinking they just have a family heirloom.

Yeah. That is a very good... You can go to that.

It certainly wouldn't hurt, you know. So then I might have them as a placemat or something or a dinner table.

You never know. Or they might have them in their holy Bible or something. It could be a Bible that they have a record of it. I mean, I don't know if it's good enough to even look at maybe some of the, not just the original surveyors, but some of the surveyors would be one. Francis is the biggest one. You may want to look into that. We for sure will.

I mean, I can ask. Anything that will help, we're definitely willing to talk to whoever we need to talk to. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks.

Yep, you've got a presentation now.

You'll be hearing from me for a while. Okay, so as a lot of you know, we here in Morgan County, our recorder's office, we hosted the reporters summer conference in morton county um it was it was awesome it has never been hosted here in morton county before um it was we've got some pictures up here um the cake will kind of just go through is talking about it so it was the the 9th through the 12th tuesday through friday We had four different locations. So we started in the commission room in here and then we moved over to the fire station and we set it up in the bay, which we have a picture up here we can show you. Then we moved to East Canyon Lodge, which is up there now. And then on Friday, we moved over to the school district conference room. It was really cool. The whole point in having it here is to get everybody here to... be a part in Morton County and really see what Morton County is about. A lot of people thought that it, did not think that it was as big as it was, did not think that there was as much here in Morton County. So it was really cool to be able to have four different locations and to be able to take them and have them experience Morton County. With that, we had a lot of support. We had the Morgan School District give us a bus, and they took us. We did a tour up to the cement plant. They transported us up from here to the cement plant, which was really cool. And we had all but three counties here, and that was a huge turnout. That's a big deal. we had sos sponsor we had a lot of support from the community but we also involved the community we had used the restaurants here to cater have lunch, breakfast, just a list of people here in Morgan County. We had Larry's to go. We had the Milk Barn Creamery, Burt Boy's Barbecue, Bingham's Custom Meats, Morgan Perk, Debs, SOS, and the Morgan Grace Church. And every one of these either played a part in giving us lunch or giving us lunch. something from their business to give away in a drawing, giving them the support that they should get, but also showing all 29 counties what's here in Morgan County. And so with that, we had a lot of support. We had a lot of turnout. Not only did we have just the reporters come, we had their deputies come We also had UAC there. We had the representative here. A lot of people enjoyed Morgan County. So thank you for letting us host it here. It was great, and it was an opportunity. It was a great opportunity to have been here. So thank you.

That's awesome.

Thank you.

I still like calling it recorder camp. Recorder camp. Thanks, Sean.

All right, now we'll go to 4FA, we'll call it.

So there was a clarification made that the seat that Chance McMillan vacated is actually not commission back rolls.

We did update the website this morning.

So it is Commissioner Wilson's seat. So it does represent, oh, let me correct that. stoddard and milton uh so if there's anyone interested in applying for the vacated planning commission seat that is a current resident of stoddard or milton you can reach out to um well i really suck today okay jeremy heading your way to correct this um to commissioner wilson um to let him know that you're interested in being appointed to that seat So that was correction number one on that notice. If I can ask a favor, and that would be if you guys could please read the packet before the day of and let me know if I messed anything up, that would make me very, very happy. So that's correction number one is I will correct that posting on the website. and then number six the fun run when it was sent to me it was still showing in section six that the event fee it still was showing this in your packet the corrected wording six updated fund run will match the may 5th commission meeting minutes specifically that the organizer shall pay the county a flat event fee of high 500 within 14 days following the event so that was the correction to that from what was published in the packet okay do we need to approve those or not i need at least the agreement approved okay

I move that we approve the fund-run agreement between Morgan County and On Hill Events as just corrected.

Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Fackrell. All in favor? Aye. Are there any opposed? Okay, motion passes.

Brett? Brett with one T and not Heinen.

yep it only took me two and a half years hey i'm just here for the airport uh resurfacing of the runway just so you know we crack sealed it and got it ready this winter when we didn't have much snow put a lot of crack so on that i think i think four pallets so it took a few days to do that but anyway we got three beds back i think yes asphalt was the little bit of $91,000. We do have some in-kind that's going to come out of that from doing what I just talked about, some of our own work. And so that'll go towards taking off some of our amount. I think we'll end up paying about half of that.

that's great so about 45 000 of in-kind yeah i don't have an exact amount for you and then we budgeted up to 200 000 for this project it's already in the budget um and the atf grant or the udot atf grant um I, Wasatch Civil did 99.9% of the work, so I don't know what, and they've submitted all this to them, so I don't know yet how much they're going to contribute towards the 91025 at this point. I just know they are going to contribute.

Okay, so we don't know what the total amount from the grant?

I do not.

Okay, okay.

So in other words, we're gonna need to approve this at the 91,000. We don't have to, because I mean, that's max.

Is that correct? Correct. Correct.

It's going to be less than that, but I just don't have a map yet. As long as the contract reads what Garrett likes.

Yep, already done.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the, let's see, what is that? CR, nope, wrong one. We got the wrong line there. I move that we approve and award the airport overlay, asphalt overlay to Morgan Pavement for the maximum amount of $91,025.00.

Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Fackrell. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

Thanks, Brett.

Okay, thanks. Leslie?

Leslie, which one did you want to do first, ANC or the regular tax rate? First one up, it looks like, is the regular tax rate.

Good evening, Commissioners. I am here seeking approval of the 2026 property tax rates. Just a little overview of the process for tax rates is the county first adopts a budget, which we did last year. And then the Utah State Tax Commission calculates the certified tax rate by dividing the budgeted property tax revenue by the total taxable value of the property within the county. This calculation determines the tax rate for the upcoming year. So for 2026, our rate will be .001669. compared to 2025 rate, which was .001610. The rate has slightly increased. The change in the rate is a result of the state tax commission certified rate calculation is necessary to generate the same property tax revenue as authorized by our county budget. Just information for the taxpayers and also you, I will be sending out the disclosure notices. They should start hitting mailboxes about July 22nd, so watch for those. Do you have any questions for me? I just have one question. What's covered under the health tax? That's what we pay for our health department.

So you'll remember that that has doubled from FY25 to 26. Thanks.

And of course, I'd like to come up and talk to us about how it's all figured and why it's gone up.

So one thing that you probably need to remember is I do assessment, not taxes. So we have done some reconfiguration. Some of our, we are growing as a county. Just for, I guess, factual information is last year the assessment value that was taxable was almost $3.1 billion is what we came out last year for 2025. And this year, we're actually coming in more. It's actually $3.451 billion. So we have raised about $400 million in taxable value. But with the reconfiguration, we actually went through and refined a lot of the WPR. We have to remember that Wasatch Peaks Ranch value is now about one-third of our county. And so when we make adjustments or changes, things like that, there is gonna be some changes. So it ended up to be actually a negative reappraisal, about 44 million, and then we still have a new growth value of 403 million. So with that, with the numbers and the factual information that we get from that, we don't, as the assessor, I don't go through and say what we have is new growth, I don't know what's coming out. We try to assess and make sure that we're capturing everything that we can, and that's exactly what we do. So with that, when Leslie and I were trying to figure out numbers and And seeing where they all came out, it ends up to be so in 2025 when that big jump that we had between $300 and $700, if people will look at their tax notices for 25, there is about between a $300 and $700 value that you got discounted off of your taxes from the year previous. This year it kind of leveled itself out with market values are starting to kind of subside Kind of getting which I would call more of a healthy market three to six months that people are actually selling their homes instead of the Aggressive behavior that we've been having over the last five years and people were selling within one day So we are getting to be a healthier market which is more substantial to look at. And so we're seeing that we kind of, I guess, kind of evened ourself out that way. So it ends up to be about $40 more taxes that you would pay from 2025 value to 2026. So on average. So we just kind of did an average space of 9,000 parcels that we have, what that will be. Now, you have to remember that there is subsidizing as well because we have people on Greenbelt, and then we have other people that are on non-primary. So some of the non-primary pay more, and, you know, on Greenbelt, they'll pay a little less. So... that's just you know kindergarten math trying to make sure where we're at as a county so we are still growing as a county and we still have a larger tax base and as our large tax base that's growing in wpr is starting to become more established we will see that changes as that changes going forward so can you explain that a little bit to our constituents about wpr Which part do you want me to talk about?

Well, I'd like you to talk about all our constituents obviously say to us, hold it. Our taxes should be lower, right? We were promised.

That comment? OK, our taxes should be lower. They are starting to, if you start seeing the way that our growth is going. They are still being grown into. I actually went and talked to the school board last week as well. And a lot of these homes that are being built take, you know, three years to be built. They're not built in one year on an average home. So they are multi-million dollar homes that are being built, and they will eventually be in that tax rate. Last year was the first year that we actually put a lot of those at market value, or what we would call market value. as we place that we still realize that there is stuff that is in appeal they're going to the state so there's things that are in appeal we haven't basically established that tax base yet and so it's kind of in the toddler years of growing we just have to kind of give it a few years to develop itself now they are breaking out as well we have another break out for the recorders that they just broke out another part of their subdivisions. So there will be more lots, hopefully more selling, things like that. So it's basically just starting out as a tax base that we're going to be establishing. Now a lot of that property is still being developed. So when they're in the infrastructure stage, When their homes are only partially complete we can't capture that full value until it's to 100% Okay, can you also?

maybe address We were told you know a lot in the meetings that we had previous to WPR coming to Morgan that These would all all be almost all be second homes is that really the case I?

We are starting to see some of that movement. We have had a few of them, it actually, we've read and we've learned about their agreement, of what their agreement was. They said about 10% would be probably primary and I think we're on the trend to see that. So some of them will be primary and people will be able to look at their tax notices that there are a few that are starting to become primary residents and that is part of the tax system, right? We can only get the information that we have and they have the same as everyone as a taxpayer has the same rights and the same obligations that they have to fulfill those. So there is a few that we've already had that are primary, but as a whole, most of them are non-primary.

I did want to clarify something that you stated about last year, 2025 was the first year that we had them at market value. And that was because we can't put them at full market value until they get a certificate of occupancy. Correct. It's not because we were discounting them.

No. There is no discounts that are being applied. And the same thing with the lot values as well. We are placing them as what we have as the information that we have to place them as market.

Can you talk maybe a little bit about the BOE as far as, you know, if we have somebody, I know we've had this discussion, somebody has a taxed, their tax bill is X, and then they want to, they're going to challenge their assessed value. So we get the tax dollars, and if we spend those tax dollars and we find to be, I don't want to say negligent, but that we over-assessed, we have to pay that money back. And so as we're, I don't know if you want to talk about that, if you want me to continue. So the people understand, okay, yeah, we're receiving the tax dollars, but we need to be very careful with those tax dollars for the time being.

So in Utah, the due process is that we have the right to appeal. As the assessor, I place an assessment of market value, and then we have 45 days that the taxpayer can come back and they can correct any, you know, we have mistakes or we have... People will have appraisals, things like that, that they will come back at. Now, it is sometimes the assumption that the assessor is always wrong and maybe we're always going to go lower, right? But through the appeal process and the due process that we have, a lot of times we can also see that there are parcels that maybe are undervalued. So we can go up or down on the appeal process of what happens. And what they're just trying to place is what market value is. the assessor's job and the goal is to try and get as close to market as possible for every citizen that's in the county and so when we when we do that and we go through the appeal process there is a due process that is that is stated so we talk about going to the hearing officers and them having a little more expertise of things that maybe they could adjust to It's basically hearing the county side and then the appellant side. And if they want to go farther, maybe they didn't agree with what the hearing officer said, then they can go to the state, clear to the Supreme Court of Utah, if so choose. And sometimes those will take five years before we actually get an official valuation, I guess you would say. And so what Commissioner Nickerson is actually talking about as well is whatever the outcome of that is, is what has to happen for the county or the appellant. So whether I'm going to be paying more taxes when they get a final decision or the county would discount and give me back that money. Now, usually think about that. five years later, where is that money? That money has been spent. It's been used on all of our budgets. And so we have to recuperate. If we have to pay that money back, we have to basically adjust all of our budgets to pay that back. And so that is one thing that trying to establish this tax base for a large entity, I have given advice of just saying, We need to just be very cautious on, number one, our budgets, but making sure that we're using everything to the fullest extent. Not pushing all of our budgets to the very top and using them. By kind of putting away that, just to make sure that that tax base is, I guess, accredited. And that it's going to be something that will keep going forward so that it's an established space. And that's really what we're playing with right now with Wasatch Peaks because it's a large entity that we still, it's all this new money in so many ways and we need to be cautious on where that money is actually going and how I guess we are being, with the expertise that we have and how we're budgeting that and how we're using that money properly because we don't know what's going to happen with it yet.

Okay.

Is that helpful?

No, I think that's great for the people to understand. Like when they ask, where's that money? It's like, it's a fine line. I think, you know, if you think about what each of us pays in our property taxes every year, multiply that by five years. Now let's look at the value of those properties up on Wasatch Peaks, multiply that by five years. And if we find to be in the wrong a little bit, that could cost us millions that we have to pay back. not just $5,000, but it could be millions. And I just, I wanted people to hear that from the person that's in the trenches. I mean, the meetings that we've had and talked about, I mean, I'm glad I'm not in your shoes having to figure this spot out. And I think you've done a great job. I mean, you've reached across the state, across the country, trying to find like properties so that you can assess them. I think you've done a great job, but I think we do need to tread lightly so that Hopefully, if they do go all the way to the state and the Supreme Court, that they find that they were undercharged. I'd rather find that than we have to pay back a lot of money.

And I think another thing that needs to be discussed is we are trying to be as fair and equitable to everyone. And I think that's one thing I've heard a lot, especially, you know, in the school system and all that, like, get that WPR money. Well, the problem is, is we have to be fair with everyone. And they are just as the same as taxpayer as anyone else, so we shouldn't say that they should pay more taxes or less taxes. We need to find that fair market and that fair value of taxes that they need to pay. And that's really what we're trying to establish right now, is we're trying to say, what is fair for what you build? and where you are. That is our goal. Regardless of whether, you know, it's not about whether Janelle is right or wrong. That's not what it is. It's what is fair and what is expected for that kind of a property. So I hope that clarifies a little bit.

There's also another standpoint of what you do that I appreciate and everybody in the community needs to know this and that is the assessed the fair market value of your house or your property cannot be any more than 10% less than what really it might be out there. Correct. Especially because we're in a fourth-class county. If we were in a third-class county, it would be 5%. So it has to be within between 5% and 10% of actual market value. So if you're saying, well, you valued it too high, well, then go get an appraisal and then it should be within that 10%.

Yes, it should be close, and that's the whole point. People say that we're always supposed to be low, and that's actually not how the Utah code is actually placed out. Our goal is market value.

Right, and so that's what I want the people to understand.

So if we're close, then we're doing a good job.

Yes, if we are close, then that's a good job, and if we're way under, well, maybe you ought to come and say, hey, Janelle, I want my taxes raised. Good luck with that. Yeah, I know. They won't. They won't.

It is one of those where the whole thing is we just want to make sure that it's being fair to everyone. And if you're being overvalued, then that's what the BOE is for. Or if you're being undervalued, that's what the BOE is for. That's right.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Leslie?

Well, I'm not happy that the rates went up, but I can understand it, but we'll see what happens. And also another thing within this for the people in the public, this tax rate that we're setting is for next year, but we're collecting it for this year. The taxes that come in this year are the taxes for everything we've done this year, correct?

we're a year behind. What we're collecting this year goes to next year.

Right, that goes to next year, but what I'm saying is the money collected in November is for what we budgeted last year. For this year.

No.

No. Yeah. What we're collecting in November is for our budget this year.

That's what I said, for this year. That's what we're spending right now, yes.

It's for this year. We're spending and then we receive. Then we collect, yes. That's correct. So that way people don't think that's next year's.

That's why I start panicking when our revenues aren't where they should be and we're spending. So you've got two different resolution numbers. You've got CR 2623, which will be the Morgan County tax rates. And then you've got CR 2624, which is the assessing and collecting. So you've got two different motions, if you would use two separate motions.

Why do we have to have the two different ones?

Two different entities.

They go into the same budget, except for the multi-county. Now, if the multi-county goes to the state, the other one goes to the county.

Which is why there's two. It's two entities.

No, there's the county. The county assessing and collecting goes to the county. The multi-county assessing goes to the state.

Which has not been sent yet. The state does that. You don't get to approve that.

Well, we're approving it.

Not the multi-county, you're not. That hasn't even been figured yet. It literally says county. Okay.

Okay, so we do have two CR numbers.

Two separate motions or one motion with both?

Either way, just so you get both of them.

TODD BANDUCCI- Mr. Chair, I move that we approve CR26-23, adopting the 2026 Warren County Final Tax Rates and Budget, and CR26-24, adopting the assessing and collecting rate. CHRISTIE WOODARD- I'll second.

TODD BANDUCCI- I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? Aye. TODD BANDUCCI- Sorry, Mike. I didn't even ask if you had any questions on that. No, I would have jumped in. I'm good. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks.

OK. Back to Sean.

While he's coming up here, Leslie, you said July 22nd disclosure notices.

Thank you. All right. Hello again. OK. Before I go into this, I cannot explain why how this happened or how these things come out or what they did back then. But I can tell you how we can fix it and move on from it. So if you've had a chance to look at this, this is 1918, 18 years. from 2008 to current. The total of $323.90 is the total that these landowners have paid taxes on. When this land was sold in 2007, For some reason, this deed or this portion of the property, the description did not get included in with what is now the subdivision. If you look on the GIS map, it does not exist, which it really shouldn't exist, but for some reason it got left on the tax roll. So when these landowners sold this property, they left off. The highlighted area is where it is, very small area. Left it off, but it really is included in that subdivision, which is why it does not exist. So in 2008, so it got sold in 2007, then in 2008 is when the taxes started to be paid. they didn't i'm not going to go into detail of the family's history but for whatever reason they are now coming up and saying this should have been included when this property was sold and going back and us doing our research it isn't it should have been included in that so that's sold but it did not it was kept on a tax roll so i am asking for your approval for the total of 323.90 to be refunded due to this acreage and land it should have it's on counties well and it should have been taken off the tax loan included but it was not so to clarify it was double taxed correct thank you

Chair, I move that we request a refund in the amount of $323.90 of erroneously assessed tax on parcel number 74-6232. Second.

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

Is it OK if I pay that out of non-departmental services not otherwise classified? Because we don't have a tax payable account. OK. Thank you.

Thank you. OK. Motion passes. OK. Sean, F4. This is the last one, I promise.

Okay, so I am asking for approval for just a temporary increase to the credit card limit just for July. I have the budget for it. I'm not asking for a budget increase. I'm just asking for the credit card limit to be increased to send me, myself, and my GIS specialist to Esri for the conference in July to cover the expenses.

Where is the conference? And what do they do?

There is probably 30,000 plus people that attend this conference. It's for ESRI. It's a mapping conference. So when we went to Enterprise, ESRI is with Enterprise and ESRI. But there's Esri, and then there's Enterprise, and then also our GIS, and that's what we're using. And we just transitioned into Enterprise, and so we're going there to learn more about Enterprise and what it can do for the county. So even with all of our new mapping and everything, it's different, or what? It's... There's a lot... provides more, it gives us more, it allows us to do more for the county. Where the ESRI licensing, we are limited on what we could do. So when we transferred to the enterprise licensing, we have more doors that open and we can, we're allowed to, more editing, multiple editors at one time, but also we're able to build more in the mapping side of things, the GIS.

in 2024 commissioner newton who was chair at the time allowed me to use my travel and training budget to send charles to this conference um and so it's it's not a conference they've never been to before it's definitely something that he got infinite amount of information out of so i'm excited for them to both go this year it's just we only allow or the commission only allows so much um credit limit on the county card, and so essentially it'll be transferring my credit limit over to him for the month of July.

We do the same thing at the school district, limit people. I was just curious what it is and what you're gonna go learn. There's just more tools in the toolbox.

I'm sure he'll bring you back a presentation with pictures.

Another presentation.

Yeah.

Motion.

Okay, Chair. I move that we approve the request of the Morgan County Recorder for a temporary credit limit increase to $7,000 for the month of July for expenses related to attending the ESRI conference.

Second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Blocker and a second by Commissioner Fackrell. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Who's up? Kent or Josh? Okay.

So, Commission, good evening. This item of Silverstone subdivision plot amendment was brought to you on May 5th and the commission decided to not do a text amendment to not allow flag lots or to allow flag lots to extend off of a cul-de-sac and they directed this item be sent back to the planning commission to correct any errors or make any clarifications. So during the May 28th meeting, the planning commission did consider this item The errors or clarifications were made after working with the surveyor in the County Recorder's Office. This is just amended plat. The recommendation from the Planning Commission on the 28th was to recommend approval to allow the creation of a new lot and adjust the boundaries of an existing lot based on the findings and with the conditions listed in the staff report dated May 28th. And the motion carried three to one.

So this is exactly what we asked for that we are approving, correct?

Yes. We corrected some of the errors and the cross-access easement was a little bit confusing, so that was clarified. So the recommended motions, I'd just like to strike out that I had printed out, I move we recommend approval to the County Commission. Obviously, you are the County Commission, so if we could strike out that and say I move we approve the subdivision, or I move that we approve with conditions, or I move that we deny the subdivision. So if you have any particular questions, I'd be glad to try to address those at this time.

Yes, I have a question. Under the request, it says a request for approval of an amendment to lot 8A and so forth. And then it says, and an additional land for the creation of a new lot. So is that two lots or one lot?

Yeah, there was a little sliver of property down on what's now considered lot 31. And that was kind of a no man's land, so... This subdivision would incorporate that sliver of property into lot 31. Maybe we can load that up a little bit. It should be the last slide, but you can see it right there too. Probably on the last map, maybe you can see a little bit better. Go back to the aerial, yeah. Attachment B.

It's clear.

So there's three parcels. There's the main parcel that's gonna become lot 31. Lot eight, or on this lot 31, I mean lot 32. So lot 31, which was 8A, they're gonna cut it a little bit to create the flag portion of the lot. So that'll be attached to the parcel to the north. which will become lot 32. And then there's a slight sliver of property, it's a teeny parcel on the southwest side of the parcel that'll become lot 32 that's just, it's a remainder that'll be added into the lot.

Okay, so on this map in particular, the small area.

Are you talking about the triangle portion? No. We should still have 31? Yeah, that's the current driveway, but the current driveway is on lot 31 right now. Correct. Right, so by creating that flag lot, you're creating legal frontage for lot 32 a road you're getting rid of parcels that are not legal in size and you're removing non-conformities with setbacks access and frontage that's correct it's not the whole yellow area then where the star is on that one Well, that whole yellow area includes both.

Includes 31 and 32. That's correct. All right, thank you.

Okay, I'll look for a motion if there's no other questions.

I move to approve the, I guess I can get the purview. I move that we approve the

silverstone subdivision phase six plat amendment application 25.059 to allow for the creation of the two lots 32 and 31 to make it under conformity i'll second have a motion by commissioner fackrell and a second by commissioner blocker all in favor aye aye aye are there any opposed motion is unanimous Josh, is it you or Ken this time?

Okay.

So, Commissioner, this is a public hearing to consider a PC zoning code text amendment. We received an application to reduce the minimum acreage required for a PC zone in the single-family residential developments, to reduce it from 50 acres to 10 acres, and to reduce the potential reduction of those 50 acres from 15 acres to seven acres. The Planning Commission considered this item on May 28th in a public hearing, and staff made a recommendation that we actually maybe consider going even lower than the proposal from the applicant instead of going to 10 acres or seven acres just to make it a minimum lot size requirement of or acreage requirement of five acres so the planning commission made two recommendations to the county commission one to approve the text amendment and the second motion was to recommend to the county commission to consider the modification of the proposed text to reduce the acreage requirements clear down to five acres. And this has been notified as a public notice before a public hearing. So the recommendation motion from staff is to approve a lot size or acreage requirement for a PC zone code text amendment from 50 acres clear down to five acres. And just a reminder maybe for the public, the goal of this zoning district is to provide applicants an opportunity to create a tailor-made zoning district that will provide for better development than what would otherwise could be created or required by the county by using existing specific zoning districts. Essentially requires kind of a comprehensive master plan going in. that addresses open space, active and passive, yard requirements, fencing, architectural standards, landscaping requirements, lighting, height of structures, and signage. So Planning Commissioner recommends approval to this modification. And if you have any questions, I'd be glad to try to address those. And Josh is here to answer questions as well.

Yeah, I wasn't there for the discussion. Just curious. why they wanted to drop all the way to five acres instead of the 10?

Yeah, that's what I was gonna start talking about. So one of the first tasks I was given when I was hired was to create a PC plan community ordinance that allowed for clustering, preservation of open space. It took about a year and a half to draft it, go through all the work sessions with Planning Commission, County Commission, had quite a few work sessions. My original recommendation was five acre minimum for the residential. And the reason being is that it provides more flexibility to smaller lot owners who might not have the 50 acres. And further, if you look up in the tier system, the PC zoning district has two tiers. The tier one says 50 acres or less, and that allows people with less than 50 acres to submit for a PC zoning district rezone with less submittal requirements. If you have more than 50 acres, then the amount of submittal requirements drastically increases to where you're doing preliminary design, preliminary grading and drainage, preliminary geology, circulation plans there's substantially more for lots that for acreages that exceed 50 acres so this would provide for those single-family developments that people want to do to put them in the tier one as opposed to forcing them into a tier two which sounds to me like all that does is increase density No, because you're still required to provide the 20% open space for single-family development in the non-rural. Rural developments, and really this probably won't affect rural development.

Okay, so I guess I should say it increases more building. Because then you're opening it up to anybody that owns five acres can do a PC.

Not necessarily, because anybody can rezone their property right now. Anybody in the if it gets approved? Well, it's the same with this if it gets approved So everybody in the county right now has a god-given right to apply for a rezone sure and Whether it's approved or not is. It's your, yeah, that's your decision. PC zoning district is the same, except the PC zoning district requires the submittal of a concept plan up front, it requires landscaping, architectural design, traffic layout, required amenities, 50% of which of the required amenities have to be open to the public. So it really tries to get you the trails and the amenities, the open space that you've wanted. In fact, if I had it my way, every single rezone that came in should be a PC zoning district.

Why is that?

One, because you get to see up front what the developer's proposing. So they have to spend money up front to show you what they're proposing to do. They have to design it. They have to bring to you a narrative and a document that shows what they're gonna do, setbacks, building height, architectural standards, building materials, open space, amenities, trails. Those are all required, even if tier one.

So why don't we require that on everybody?

because we have other zoning districts and people can choose what they want to do. The problem with having the bar set so high for single family and setting it 50 acres with the possibility of reducing it down to 15 is you're really limiting it. In fact, we've had it adopted for over two years and we haven't had an applicant until recently. And the only way their application will work is if we're able to reduce it.

I'll say that application that we did get was if we approved this change.

That's correct, yeah. And they understood that.

Okay, I just find it... weird that somebody would make an application on something that we don't have. I thought that was kind of odd. I mean, that's just me thinking, like, I'm going to go apply for an L count that doesn't exist. I'm hoping that DNR is going to, you know, to me that just comes across as odd for me. I know that's not you people do odd things. Yeah. I'm kind of, as I saw this come forward, I started thinking about our, we're hopefully towards the end of our general plan update. We're kind of over halfway. And we're going to be making, I think, probably quite a few changes to our code due to this update and what the people in the county want. And so I'm like, why wouldn't we just wait until the general plan is finished and then start doing all of our code changes to reflect the new general plan? question I'm just is there a reason we would wait or we have to do an hour you would recommend it now versus that's general plan doesn't change your entitlements or zoning no but the general plan shows what the community wants as a whole and then when we see what the community wants as a whole I would think we would then go and start looking at our code are there changes to the code that needs to be made because of the updates the community has requested in their general plan that's Again, that's just the way my brain works. Kind of like, why would I apply for an L count that doesn't exist?

Just for clarification real quick. Is this someone applied for this code text?

Yeah, this wasn't.

Yeah, I was like, I don't think our department did this.

No, I know that Josh didn't do this. This wasn't him. This was coming from an individual. I'm just asking for his opinion. Like, okay, in my mind, I know it's hard because you didn't, this isn't your idea. You're just going off of an application that came in.

Think it's a good idea. Okay, but as far as waiting till after the general plan so that we can see what what changes do we need to make not just because So the general plan gives you a general idea of what what the community wants it gives you kind of a snapshot of the vision for the future and the future growth and that should occur in the county, not no growth. And so the PC zoning district really is meant to capture not just what people wanna do with their property now, but in the future as well. And if you, by reducing the acreage down to something that's attainable for property owners or developers, because it applies to everybody,

uh you're gonna start seeing better design projects going forward because you're gonna have to spend money up front in order to submit mr chair can i make a comment here absolutely so i i think we need to talk about the history of of this zoning and the PRUDs that we once had. So 15, 20 years ago, we had a PRUD ordinance, which allowed for planned residential development. That ordinance, now I wasn't on the commission or the council at the time, but a previous council removed that ordinance. And they did so because they felt like there were way too many very small subdivisions that were taking advantage of that. So they removed it completely. Recently, well, a year or so ago, we came back and said, you know, we see a need for this, but the intent of putting that 50-acre minimum is that we didn't want to see it abused in small situations like it was in the past. And so that's why the 50-acre minimum was implemented to begin with. Now, I'm not 100% privy to all of the issues that occurred in the past by this being used for very small projects. But I know that was the reason it was repealed in the first place. So before we go and change back to the exact reason that it was repealed by a previous council, I think we need to understand what the issues actually were. I mean, unfortunately, there's not a single individual in the planning department who was there at the time, and none of us were. Maybe Debbie would remember a little bit because she was on the planning commission at the time. But it was removed for a reason. So I have a hard time saying, well, let's go change it back and make it more available without understanding the reason for removing it in the first place. Okay.

If you have something to say.

I was just going to say, you mentioned you've met with the Planning Commission multiple times and discussed this.

When we were drafting the PC zoning district. Yep.

And so they.

Previously. Previously. Not for this application. For the 50 acre one.

Oh, for the 50 acre one.

Right. So when it was originally proposed, when I drafted it, I drafted it at five acres. And then through the work session discussions, It was bumped up to 50.

The Planning Commission changed it to 50.

The County Commission ultimately changed it, yeah.

Yeah, we made that choice for the reasons that I stated previously. That's why we changed it to 50.

And how many developments have we had with the 50 acres, do you know? Zero. Zero? Yeah. Was that the reason why?

A lot of times I think a lot of people don't have 50 acres.

Right.

And so that's one of the reasons. But if you did have 50 acres, it would be a, I think the PC zoning is good. But, and I, you know, because I wanted it to come back for that reason, all these things that we've been talking about is I wanted to see the PC zone. But I don't think we ought to reduce the acreage. And that's currently my opinion.

I love seeing the, like you said, Josh, it's planned out. It has restrictions. It has requirements. And they have to show you what they're doing. And you have the open space. And clustering isn't a bad thing. It saves in water. And these are single-family homes, correct?

That's correct, yeah.

So I personally like the idea. I think I'd go back to the 10, though, like you had originally written, instead of the 5. That seems a little bit low.

Well, the applicant is suggesting the 10, and with the option to reduce it to 7 with county commission approval.

So the planning commission went down. They're the ones that wanted 5.

No, that was my recommendation, because that was my original recommendation with the textbook. So you have two options. I mean, you have more than that. There's been two options presented to you. Got you.

OK. Mr. Chair, I move that we go into public hearing.

Second.

OK.

I have a motion to go into public hearing by Commissioner Fackernall, second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK. Please limit your comments to three minutes and state your name and address when you come forward, please.

Tina Kelly, Mount Green. I spoke during the Planning Commission public hearing, and it says in your packet that Ms. Kelly stated that she thought the current acreage could be reduced. I don't remember seeing that. I don't like a reduction at all. I did say that I thought 10 in 5 was too small, the next part of the statement. I was a member of the council that removed the PRUD ordinance. I did feel like there were too many small PRUD applications coming in, trying to take advantage of clustering, which was supposed to be beneficial, but the problem was for two or three homes, that clustering was not advantageous to the county. The original PRUD did have the things that I think Commissioner Blocker likes about this, that there were opportunities to get trails or things that the community amenities that the community wanted or needed and they had to take that out because it was considered a taking and i i do think that having the larger acreage makes a better tool a better planning tool i know that the planner will disagree with me on that I think the reason that you haven't had any applications so far is there haven't been a lot of large parcel property owners to come in and use this. It would cost money to do this. And obviously there's an advantage to doing a smaller application. application because the planning commission already saw an application for this ordinance that hasn't been passed or changed yet so um there is there is apparently a benefit because they've already looked at an application last week i thought that was odd too but i don't know that the planning staff could ignore an application that came forward they could say this hasn't passed yet and let's hold off but I'm still not sure why that was. But there must be a benefit to an applicant to have the smaller acreage. I just don't see the benefit to the county with the smaller acreage. How are you going to plan five acres to have an amenity, to have open space, but to also have single-family houses, which I'm told that's the reason why this is a good ordinance, because you get single-family dwellings instead of townhomes. Those are my concerns. Thank you for your time.

thanks cindy carter harts gravel i'm pretty sure i'm conferring with what bond said most of you are are concerned about i just want to know why the county zoning code is being changed or being asked to be changed before what we know our new general plan will recommend The county is spending more than $200,000 of taxpayers hard-earned money on a comprehensive review and update of the general plan. That process is underway right now and is expected to be completed next year. The purpose of a general plan is to guide future zoning decisions and growth policies. So why should we make a major zoning change today, reducing the minimum acreage before that work is complete? The obvious answer is that this change is being considered to benefit a developer. What happens if the consultants, planners, and public input process conclude that this change is not the best interest for us citizens at Morton County? Will we reverse course or will we simply say the project is grandfathered in? I also want to address this proposal puts the cart before the horse. I also want to address a broader concern many citizens have. In Mountain Green, the flagship development proposal was denied by the Planning Commission. The developer then appealed directly to the County Commission and the zone change was approved. Many residents accepted that outcome only after negotiations produced an agreement intended to address community concerns. Based on those assurances, a referendum effort was withdrawn. Today, residents have learned that agreement was never recorded and is not enforceable. Whether intentional or not, trust has been damaged. That brings me to Bonnie Brown, who has been greatly affected by this approval decision. Bonnie is over 80 years old. Her family has owned land in Mountain Green for more than a century. and she still operates a cattle ranch today. Regardless of anyone's position on development, no resident should have to fight to protect a lawful agriculture operation that has existed for generations. I've heard people criticize the good old boys of Morgan County. My definition is different. The good old boys are not people seeking favors from government. They are the neighbors who show up when someone needs help. They are the ranchers, farmers, business owners, and residents who are volunteering their time and resources to help Bonnie rebuild fencing after portions were removed by the developers. They span from Porterville to Mountain Green. They represent the values, the responsibility, the respect, and the community that have long defined Morgan. Whether someone's family arrived here 100 years ago or last year, they deserve a government that is transparent, consistent, and worthy of their trust. Tonight I ask you to slow down, complete the general process, listen to the public, respect the public, and make decisions that strengthen trust. Thank you.

Good evening, Jeff Matthews, Highway 66, Mr. Chair, members of the commission, county staff. It's kind of sounding a little bit like we are, for the most part, on the same page with this, but I wanted to speak my piece, so keep on topic. I made some notes here. I've also spoken with a large number of residents, so I think my thoughts with respect to this issue are on pretty solid ground. Now I understand the stated reasons, the rationale and the potential benefits of improving this kind of thing. It makes sense, however, I don't support it and my reasons are twofold. Number one, as Chair Wilson mentioned, I'm against loosening zone specs and requirements which would have a net result of creating the potential for more development, at least at this point in time. Also, as was stated here and as Mike Newton, Commissioner Newton stated as well, there was a reason the zone was initially set up to have a minimum of 50 acres and I think that should be respected and remain the same today. More importantly, however, we should not be granting either re-zones or changing existing zone requirements, especially minimum acreage, until the matter has further and more in-depth discussion. Part of this in-depth discussion will and should occur when the Commission considers the general plan later this year and in 2027, as Vice Chair Nickerson had mentioned. Changing a zone is very important with long-lasting and future implications, and we should be very careful before we let that genie out of the bottle. We should not change a zone on demand because a property owner has requested one now. If it had been our custom, well, if it has been our custom or practice to make zone changes ad hoc or on demand in the past, like this one, then we need to stop that practice and do it better. And as I stated before, wait until we've had time to discuss this later, until you've had a chance to review that general plan, see what the residents want, and then take it from there. That is the best way to approach this. Thank you for your time, appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to? Come forward. OK. Seeing none, I'll look for a motion.

Mr. Chair, I move that we move out of public hearing and back into our discussion.

Second.

We have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Fackrell. All in favor?

Aye.

Are there any opposed? Commissioner Newton, you've got the floor if you have anything more.

Again, we had this debate and this discussion over a year ago. We decided that we wanted this to be kept to larger developments. I think it's very difficult, and I think Tina put it well, it's very difficult to cluster and create open space and amenities on very small parcels. I don't think there's a benefit to the community in doing that. So for that reason, I'm not in favor of this change. I prefer to leave it as is with the 50 acres.

Since this was an application that was submitted by an individual, not the county bringing it forward, I would recommend that you allow the applicant to speak.

OK. Allowing.

I live at 4767 Lakeside Drive in Mount Green. Commissioner Newton we did a PRUD in the Cottonwoods and it's the most successful project in the state of Utah because it has 40% open space and it was clustered And everybody that I see says it's one of the greatest projects they've ever seen because it dealt with clustering, leaving the open space, and the views and the corridors that were there. We think it was a major mistake to repeal the PRUD. We think it was myopic. We think it was personal by the commissioners when they did that. So you ask the question, why did they repeal it? Because it was the only tool that left in the quiver that you could use, sorry, in the toolbox, or quiver if you're an arrow, and that you could use for planning. Okay, so PRUDs are good, and they're expensive. We spent thousands of dollars up front to show the county what a PRUD was gonna look like. Now, when it was repealed, Everybody said, well, we're getting rid of that. But you're going back to old style planning and just traditional lots. So we can bring this back with just your RR8 or your RR15 and you lose all the amenities. You lose everything. What you're trying to see here is lots with amenities, with open space. Isn't that what we all want? Isn't that what the county deserves? And so it's not a question of whether it's 50 acre feet, or excuse me, 50 acres, or whether it's 10 acres, or anything else. It's proper planning. Okay, again, number two, you said I don't want to see any townhomes. You said it, right, Commissioner Nickerson? No more townhomes. So this is single family, and this is the advantage of putting single family with open space, with trowels. with the amenities that come with that. And so as we show it up front, as Josh points out, it gives you an opportunity to see something before we'll just go back to the RR, just a traditional. And then you don't get anything, and you're not going to have a connector of a trail from point A to point B, or anything else. And I'm confused.

Rulon, let's be honest with each other, though. Developers don't do anything just for the county. I've never seen that.

I agree with you 100%, Matt.

I've never seen that. So there's obviously a method to your madness of why you want this. Because we try and do good planning, but it's not just that you want to give us amenities and open space.

No, we want to show you up front. That's all.

There's more to it than that. There's got to be. It's all about money. It's always about money.

There's no question you have to have a return. But this isn't as effective as putting in town homes. We can come back and put in town homes. We heard that's not what you wanted. You wanted single family. Is that correct?

That's correct.

That's right. Right. Absolutely. Single family, open space, and amenities.

So move on, if I may.

Go ahead.

I think a lot of this you've got to look at and we've had discussion. We've had it, Mike's had it with us. We've had many discussions on the PRUD. I like the PRUD. When you get up on the top of a mountain or up on the top higher end and you look down at the clustering that happens and then you've got all the open space around those communities. I mean a lot of them and all the trails and everything else that goes along with it. I liked the PRUD. I also like the PC zoning because it brings back some of that PRUD concepts. I do not like the RR1s. I don't like the RR5. I don't like any of that stuff. I'd rather have a PC zone. However, the size is in question. And I think that's where we're looking at, is we're looking at the size of these developments. And I mean, if you're looking at a development that's only 10 acres, that is not really showing us a lot that can be done because we looked at the Cottonwoods, which was what, 800 acres or 1,000 acres, somewhere in that range, and you did a beautiful project. It was a beautiful project, and I still think today it was a beautiful project. We brought in people into this county that cared about the community, and they have continued to care. but I think we have to look at the size. And the reason we put 50 as a minimum down to 10 based upon your land sizes. I think it was based upon seeing what a PRUD or a PC zoning where you have to come to us and approve something. So I think you have to look at it that way.

We'll just go back to the RR5s and RRAs.

But we may not approve an RR5 or an RR18 or an RR115. We may not approve it. If it's already approved, we can't do it. But why not do something more like you did with the Cottonwoods and try to make it into a community again, just like you've done. Instead of going and saying the one.

This represents Commissioner Farquhar?

Well, what I'm saying is, Instead of telling us you want to do an RR1 or an RR15 or an RR18 or 112, instead of doing that, come up to us and say, this is what I want to do. I want to do the PC zone. I have 40 acres here, or I have 10 acres. Come to us with that plan that you have, because you've got the vision. You've done it before. Let's continue to do that vision. And that way, you can then help to mold Morgan County. into a beautiful place and keep it beautiful. And if you can't do that, then yeah, you can go back to the old way and then at that point, we're gonna have to change the codes to where everything has to be a PC zone. I mean, there's a lot of things we can do and we might do, but I don't want to see us change this code that we've got right now that still allows you to have a PC zone down to 10 acres. So why do we need to change it at this point? Let's just look at potentially, you know, think outside the box and think of what you can do because you're smart enough to do that.

Okay, so in our toolbox, we are saying we heard singles, so now we're saying, okay, we'll have to just go back to the traditional subdivision. No. That's all we have. No, you don't.

That's all we have in the toolbox.

Because we don't meet the 50 acre minimum.

So what do you mean?

But you can go down to 10.

But how big of a piece of property?

We're down to seven, right?

You can go down to 15 according to the current code.

Yeah, so if you can go down to 15, OK. if we changed it to ten that's a minimum size but come to us with that vision it's just like we've been talking about down in the mountain green area let's come with the vision I don't know why. I guess everybody wants me to shut up.

So what's on the screen is their vision of this area, and it's just under 11 acres. Right. So we're talking five.

40 homes. One thing I'm looking at is like, so down in your project down there, the town center of Mountain Green, you've got three property owners trying to work this out.

Right.

what happens when you have 10 that all own seven acres or five acres that's going to become a disaster trying to get those people to work together so we opened up to that problem i i mean i don't this little idea here i think it looks nice right i think as we shrink it down i'm looking at the three owners down there you're one of them and it's taking you guys a year to even yeah you might try to get the same table you might want to see the new udoc plans we got eaten up

New plans. We haven't seen them yet. At least we haven't.

I guess they're meeting Friday.

You might want to see the new plans from Utah.

Are we getting a bigger freeway now?

They're coming into our world. So if I can say again, go ahead. I get accused of things I didn't do.

We made the 10 acres. Is that sufficient in anybody's mind? All I'm trying to do is keep, let's just make sure we review. Single family, open space, and amenities. That's all I'm trying to do.

Okay, let me go back if I may on that. Even if it's a 10-acre, you have the right to come to us with a PC zone for that amount.

Okay.

You have that right now. Not right now? Not right now.

It only goes down to two.

If it's 50, they can do it without our approval. If it goes to... If it goes down to, according to this, it says down to 15 acres. Okay, I'm off by five acres. Okay, down to 15 acres. Correct. Because like Mike says, how can you do it, or Vaughn, everybody, how can you do it within? I mean, I look at this 10 point whatever you've got here, 10.18 acres. You've got 41 homes in that area. a lot of homes, which is fine, but is it, what else is there that all of a sudden we're not gonna have or we do have? All I'm saying is come to us with that PC zone that we had as a vision for this county. Look at that vision and try to determine it. You're good enough at this, I know you're good enough at this. Let's see what we can do with it. If you've got a seven acre piece and you want to go clear down to seven, well, you know, that's below it. If it's a 15, come to us with that exact, with a PC zone project. Just try it.

Rulon, are your townhomes just to the left of this concept plan? How many acres do you have there full of townhomes?

We have, I believe it's around eight acres.

Have you thought of combining them?

No, because The town homes tie into the commercial, right next to the commercial, and they like to be able to go over and shop and do everything that they need to do. So we heard really clear, and so we changed. We thought this would be town homes. We changed. This is the product that you're gonna see on the other ground behind us, one that you're, excuse me, Commissioner Nickerson, that you're referring to. because this is single family, and we've been trying to promote it. We don't have any town homes on our 35 acres, but we do have single family, and we think that's important. We agree with that concept. So if we're 10 acres, can we go down to 10 acres? Is that too small? Mike, or excuse me, Commissioner Newton, is that in your mind?

Well, first off, I'm gonna say, I'm going to make this comment. I think the characterization that the county commission is against the PRUD or PC zoning is completely out of line given that this exact commission voted to bring it back less than a year ago. So I really don't like that characterization that we don't like that. We absolutely do. However, the intent was for this to be large-scale planned development, not small-scale planned development. And what you're asking for is fairly small. Could I be persuaded to say that maybe that minimum should be 10 acres rather than 15? Maybe. Maybe that makes sense in some cases. But I think to change from 50 down to five is not acceptable in my opinion. And five acres is really too small for a planned development. Frankly, 10 or 11 acres seems too small to me, but I do understand there may be some unique situations. I mean, that's why we put the 15 minimum in there is because we thought, well, It makes sense on larger scale, but maybe there are situations where small-scale development would make sense here, and that's why there's a minimum.

So, Commissioner Newton, I apologize if you were thinking that I was referring to this commission, because you didn't repeal it. It was repealed in previous commissions, and I understand that. And yet at the same time, I appreciate the PC zone. I didn't understand it until we started studying it and we can see the advantages of what it offers. All we were asking as a text amendment is could it fit in this application? And as a tenant.

So I thought this was T's town center zoning. Right here.

Not right here. PC. This is PC. I realize that.

This project right here, this whole area I thought was all town center. I apologize, no. What's it right now then?

Is it agriculture?

Yeah, it's split zone RR1 and 820.

You're right next to the TC zone. Yeah, you're correct.

So can we extend the TC zone out?

That way you can have this. Well, but then you get the issue with now you're back to the commercial part.

Oh, that's right. You don't want that. I'd rather have the PC zone.

The other problem with town center is that they only have to bring a concept plan that they don't totally have to follow because they haven't done any engineering. They haven't looked at it. whereas the PC zoning district requires them to go and do some engineering, do some actual design, and bring it back to you. And it's a legislative decision. Once you approve the town center with the conceptual drawing, the entitlements are done. and then you're working through the development agreement with them, which is administrative, which is ultimately you have to approve it, but there's some negotiation there that you have, which we've talked about in the past.

So it is possible we could change our, the code says 50 down to 15. So like Mike was saying, you could change that 15 to a 10.

You could leave it 50.

And then people would have to obviously apply.

Anything under 50, they have to come and show us your concepts.

Like I said, you have a lot of options.

But it also sounds like people want to wait until the general plan comes out to even make a decision.

I will comment. And I guess I will comment to that because that came up in the public hearing. Under our code, 155.022C, it talks about that any property owner may initiate an amendment. And so if they initiate the amendment, we just process that. We can't just say, oh, we're going to put that off if they want to move it at this point. That doesn't mean you have to approve it, but it's not meaning that... It's just coming forward, trying to rush it. There is an application, there's a fee that's paid, and planning has an obligation to process those applications as they come.

And in the end, it is developers that develop our county, and we guide that development, but the county's not out there building things.

There's also property owners that develop their property as well.

Right.

technically makes them a developer, but there's a lot of property owners I've seen come through here to divide their property and rezone, things like that. It's not just large lot developers.

Right, that is true.

Well, I would like to see us be able to have some, I don't think we need to be quick on decision, immediate, but I'd like to see us discuss this further.

And that's kind of my thinking with the general plan is like, you know, because I brought up numerous times, we need to look at our code. Are there things we want to change? And I don't think it should be a rushed decision. I mean, it's not personal. It's not that I'm saying I hate this person, so we've got to say no. It's like, is this really where we want to go? Is this what we want to do? And, you know, you get an application in and you process it. That's your job. That's what you're supposed to do. And I mean, I look at the Cottonwoods. I mean, my mom was just across the street, looks up on it. I mean, you know, you've got, it's a beautiful development and those people are, you know, we talk amenities, they're still waiting on amenities, you know, and that's a 20 plus year old development. And we've talked about that. How do we make sure those amenities, you know, as we move forward, the amenities get put down. And so I like amenities. I mean, Ruan, I think you, you, well, When we talk about the different phases and we talk I mean we brought up the Horse arena thing that was promised that isn't done again I'm not pointing that phase isn't even and I'm not pointing at you. We're talking about code in general and about development so As amenities are promised in development agreements and in developments, we've discussed about how do we make sure that these amenities that are promised come forward. And I think a lot of people in our community are frustrated in their developments. Just I'm not pointing at you in general, but just there's a lot that they're like, well, where's this and where's that? And when are we going to get this? And so as we talked about, you've listened. I will agree with that, that single family amenities, this concept. Myself personally, I would rather like, let's see, if we're going to start making big code changes, I really want to refer to our new general plan and see where that's guiding us so that we can make those decisions. I mean, I do. I will say this rule, and you listened, single family, open space. But to me, again, we're going from 50 acres, and we're dropping that thing drastically, and that's a little concerning to me. But I'd like to, myself personally, wait until we see this general plan. Where's the county wanting us to go? And if that general plan comes back and is showing these smaller things, then so be it. Let's move forward. Otherwise, let's see what it is, and let's work together. That's my opinion.

So I guess my question would be then, Josh, maybe you can address this. The way this is zoned right now, if they were to come forward with another proposal, what might that look like? Because I don't know.

They'd have to rezone it? They have 10.81 acres.

No, I'm talking about the way it's zoned right now. It would have to be rezoned to do anything?

Pretty much. Because it's R1, A20 right now, right? It's very little R1, and most of it is A20. Okay. So... Yeah, they could get maybe a couple lots out of the R01 portion.

So this is your portion, Rulon, and I'm talking to you in the audience, but you're more than welcome to come forward if you want. So this is your portion of what we've asked in this whole town center area.

So what's critical is to us, is a cohesive plan. We've built in phase five these similar units in the Cottonwoods. And they've actually been very, very good in sales because they're cheaper than what you see in a typical lot nowadays or a typical home. If you would have told me years ago when we submitted in in 2004 the plan for the Cottonwoods that we would see The kind of million-dollar homes, I wouldn't have thought that would have ever happened, but that's what you see in most of the phases now. So it's something that's affordable, and yet at the same time, it's scalable, meaning it's not the townhome. It has individual lots, and I think that's what people are looking for. And all we were trying to do in the PC zone is we have the creek behind us. I know it looks blue, but I can attest it's probably not gonna be blue much longer in this summer. And yet we have a trail that networks on the other side, and we have amenities and things. So in our minds, we actually were trying to think that this is something that's what the county, When we were meeting on the 35 and the 40 acres, we were thinking this would work. That's all. And we cut quite a bit out because of some of the way the configurations, and the one homeowner everybody thinks we own, the one homeowner that we bought it from, we don't. They still are there in their home and trailer, and they still exist, so. thanks for the question we we're open to discussion and and again it's it's what we've been hearing so we think we met up with this kind of a an application and Josh was good enough to bring it forward to both the Planning Commission and they're the ones that said hey maybe it ought to go lower we we didn't propose that interesting

I was surprised at that.

And it's pretty congruent looking at Flagship's development there. Because right across from that creek, they have their single families, right? Or is it their townhomes?

There's both. In our meetings this morning, I keep saying, got to have more open space. Got to have more.

Oh, I've been telling them. More open space.

We got to have more amenities. We got to have more connectivity and so forth. Anyway, you'll see it. It's coming forward. We have it. And you'll see that. But in our minds, this is just a connector that brings...

the community closer to the commercial center so how are they connecting to this across the great question commissioner um is it that stub out right there across by the creek

I always like when Kate sticks a microphone in front of me. So this is the road that comes across, feeds the townhomes here, feeds Mr. Johnson, comes across and feeds their second means of egress into their 40 acres. Their primary would be out towards Cottonwood, or excuse me, Old Highway. But then there's another connection on the other side of Lee's for our 35 acres. So there'd be this plus another connection over the creek.

So in a PC zone, do the properties have to connect?

Our code has interconnection requirements.

Is that what you're asking? Well, I'm just asking because he says he has 35 acres here and 40 acres here, and this one here is 10. So if he comes to it with a complete concept as to what he wants to do in it.

They already have their entitlements for those properties.

They're not going to want to reopen it up. Okay. Good enough. I just was thinking. That flagship connects the other part. So that's why I just thought it was all town center.

Yeah, so it's not town center, Commissioner Fackrell, it's separate. So we're trying to get that separate rezone while the PC zone, or excuse me, the town center zone comes forward.

Okay, speak directly into the microphone.

Okay, I'm gonna look for a motion unless somebody else has something.

Mr. Chair, I move that we deny CO 26-08 based on the discussion of the shrinking it so drastically and being able to work with multiple smaller landowners.

Second.

Okay. Josh, can you come up, please, on this motion? I just need to have clarification on denials.

If you deny it, they have to wait two years to bring back the same proposal. If they wanted to bring back something that's modified, they can do that.

Like if we went and changed the code. Six months from now, they could come back and...

If the county chooses to open it up and do their own text, because you direct staff, then that doesn't apply. They have to wait two years since they are...

If they want to initiate it.

For the exact same thing. Correct. Okay.

if they want to modify it a little bit they can bring back something different and it does say a substantial change of conditions since the earlier application that's how our code reads so that means on this 10.1 acres

or 81 acres, that one he cannot come back in and ask for.

It's not a specific piece of property he's asking for.

Anything different than what we have in our code.

Yeah, this text amendment is not for a specific piece of property. It would apply to everybody.

It doesn't affect the piece of property, just the text amendment.

There's just the benefit that there's another application that was filed jointly for the rezone.

But it wouldn't, yeah.

I just didn't want to... shoot ourselves in the foot so that we have our options.

You're welcome to continue it to not a date certain, and I would re-notice it to allow you to work session it if that's what you kind of talked about a little bit. There's that option. Or you can deny it, and then if the county wants to bring something back, we can bring it back.

I don't mind the idea of continuing it.

But it's only it's only two years if that applicant wants to bring it forward And so the denial is not like it's done and dead forever I'm more my reason for denying us because I would like the Commission I think we need to talk about our code and we need to see what we want to make changes to and I think And then parts that we don't and things like that, so I'm not saying that it's a dead issue I think we just

I think we need some time.

We need to look at it and see what we really want to do.

How long can you continue something for, Garrett? Indefinitely.

Well, it depends. Perfect attorney answer.

Indefinite.

Like a land use application, as soon as they put in writing that they want a decision, state code requires 45 days. Like that's the longest you can go. But for a legislative, I don't know that there's that same restriction. Not that I'm aware of.

No, the only other thing in our code is if there's no change on an application for six months, I can move to close it out. As inactive. As inactive, yeah.

so can we continue it until after the general plan is complete you'd have to make an amendment we could but we there's a motion and a second on the table i'm just asking oh no i'm just i mean we could i could drop the motion um when is the general plan going to be done the anticipated date is uh december end of december that's what we should be right around the six month mark

The reason I say is my concern is we're going to get flagship in here any time. And we've got to decide.

But they're a TC zone. They already have TC zone.

I realize that. We're trying to make that community a community.

Right.

And we're trying to decide what's the best use of that area to flow through to flagship.

That's my only concern. The only thing is we're not. And it's like Vaughn says, we are denying this particular code amendment. That's all it is. Not the piece of property. Not the piece of property. I would like us to still look at options for that piece of property.

Yeah, because we've asked them to do this.

Yeah. Is that what we're doing? We're just denying the text amendment? We're just denying a text amendment.

That's all we're doing. By denying the text amendment, it negates the rezone.

It negates the application for the rezone.

That's correct. The current application. Correct.

The one that just came in two weeks ago.

Yep.

Yeah. Because it would no longer be applicable. If it negates it, it's not a denial on that application of a rezone, so they can still come forward with a rezone application.

No, in this case, I probably would refund their money.

But no, what I'm saying is... Rezone.

Not the rezone, but the...

I guess what I'm saying is that if we deny the text amendment... they have an application that was applied for the rezone if we pass this.

That's correct.

If it negates that application, it's as if that application never existed.

That's true.

So it's not saying that they can't ask for a rezone for two more years because they kind of got the cart before the horse.

Well, not necessarily the cart before the horse. They filed concurrently. Okay.

But they asked for a rezone to a zone that didn't technically exist.

Happened in the past. It happens every other place.

No, I'm just trying to make sure that the applicant can still ask for a rezone and not have to wait for two years because we denied this tax amendment. No. Okay.

No, he can't? Or yes, he can? No, I would not consider that a denial. It just can't. Correct.

And that's what I was trying to get clarification. He's still free to ask for a code, or not a code, but a reason. It's not going to affect that piece of property.

Okay. All right. I'm okay with it then.

My motion remains.

Second remains. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner McRoy.

Can you restate your motion?

It was a denial.

What were your findings?

So my findings were being even tougher to work with multiple smaller landowners, like we're already dealing with multiple larger landowners trying to work together as they start to piece together, and just to wait until our general plan is done so we can have a good conversation about the code that we want to change and how we want to match our new general plan as it comes out.

It does not, I mean... doesn't make it to where he cannot do something still. He could still come to us and ask for some kind of a rezone if he wants, or even we could go back and we can change the PC zone if we wanted to, to 10 acres if we want. But the one he presented was to change the whole thing from a 10, I mean, from 50 to 10. Okay. I know I've seconded it. I'm going to rescind my second.

Your findings on smaller landowners, do we have evidence of that?

Well, we're watching three larger landowners can't get along. What happens when you have 10 five-acre landowners next to each other trying to work together?

Have we seen that?

We're watching it right now with three large landowners.

Large ones, but have we seen smaller ones?

No, because we don't allow it. And so my finding really is, okay, so my finding is I want to wait until the general plan is completed so that we can look at our code and what we need to change. That's my finding.

All right. I'll assume Mike because we want to make a new one. Okay.

I have a motion. I do not have a second, so I'll look for a new motion.

Okay. What about Mike? Is he wanting to do anything? Mike?

What did Mike say?

Did you say something, Mike?

Well, you had a second. I think you actually need to vote on that rather than saying, well, I rescind my second.

I think you still have to vote on that.

I can withdraw it.

He cannot withdraw, Garrett?

I don't know. Let me check the rules. This is fun. Parliamentary law allows me to go and withdraw.

I wish the high school club was here. For the sake of it, I will second it, though.

Mike seconded it.

Okay, I have a motion and a second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

NAY, I WANTED TO HEAR A DIFFERENT ONE. I WANTED MORE CLARIFICATION.

I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE CONDUCIVE TO EVERYBODY, AND THAT IS TO HAVE A CONTINUANCE UNTIL THE GENERALS. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

SO IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE SAME MOTION, TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH.

OTHER THAN A DENIAL, IT'S A CONTINUANCE TO ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING.

OKAY.

When we're done with the general plan?

I don't want it.

I personally, yeah, the motion carries. But here's the thing about it is I personally think that this is going to have to be dealt with before when Greystone, is that their name? No, it's Flagship. Flagship. When flagship comes, we're going to have to deal with this whole area. We've been asking them to deal with this whole area.

So that's why I'm saying that a PC zone, if they come with the right PC zone, he could probably have it.