County Commission - Regular Meeting

We should get some other things here. Me too.

No. She said there is one and she sent something, but I haven't looked at it.

And they moved it to the small. That's what it says, Small Arena Audio.

Yeah, I saw it come through, but I haven't opened it yet. So you can go...

I'm moved in. I cannot find anything. Yes, and then I forgot my... I was in Canada last week. I forgot my makeup up there. Life is easier without me.

And then you can download it from there.

So $6,000, $5,900.

It was beautiful. It was in Richmond and then interior.

$5,924. Yeah.

So it's under $6,000. I know. I figured it wasn't. She used to have a little bit of that. Probably need to identify where we're paying that from. Oh, okay. So Flagship is not here.

It's done, right?

Oh, they have it under Cindy's name to sell.

Okay. But I want to see what's wonderful.

Yeah, they held parking. And they changed the road and made them private. It looks like that commercial is a little larger, but maybe it's not. I don't...

They incorporated one. They did.

I'm pleased with where they went. I said I'm pleased with where they went. What?

Brett's brought it up a couple of times to Vaughn and I.

I think we've got to have more information from the reporter's office. We don't have clear information. It's not been surveyed. There's things that have to be done to know for sure whether that's County Road or not.

Well, yeah, I'm not sure that we want it, but we've been collecting funds on it. We have been collecting VNC funds on it.

Yeah, I do too.

No, it's ours. It's Corey's. He told us yesterday he bought it. Right after he came into office.

I mean, he can explain it then, right? He's an official. He can explain it. yeah he's down the hallway talking on the phone is julie miller his sister it's me So when I went to it, it put the picture, name, and signature. We need to type in and send it.

That's the work we've already done, right?

But it hasn't yet been completed.

They're waiting on us to... Should we need to get on it? Yeah, they look brand new. You've shrunk? I've got a change order for... Thank you. It is $6,000.

Oh, really?

Yeah.

I hope my nose doesn't, but they say it will.

Or someone else can do it. Nothing else grows. So does he need to sign it? I don't know. Cindy, have it sent to Matt.

So there's a change order on the audio project for the fairgrounds that needs to get signed ASAP.

So they'll send it to you. Oh, okay.

Pretty sure. Anyway, they need it signed so they can get it done before the rodeo. They'll send it to you through email.

you're still live did i answer your question by email sufficiently or do you have more questions on the defense attorney

So we have your contract defense attorney that you guys picked. Then we have the conflict when that guy is already, his law firm is conflicted and can't do that case. No. So you already approved that guy. That's Colton. Colton and the other guy are both conflicted on a case. So we need to put this other guy under contract literally for one case. That's why there's a third. But it's the same hourly rate as Colton. And it's an hourly rate. It's not the flat fee we do for the defense attorney.

Is the $250,500 insurance sufficient?

On...

their subcontract.

For a public defender, I think you're fine with that. For a public defender. What's that?

Yeah.

You're off mic.

The agreement. Well, I didn't open the session yet.

We're still live.

Oh, OK. So basically, what it is is it's this county manager, and we don't have a county manager. It's an administrative manager. That's all it is. The only change I saw in that.

Did you send me the word version of that thing you wrote for the fair?

I can't remember.

then we can just keep you send me the word version of the fair treasurer oh yeah you did their treasure uh well And actually, Janet and I were looking at the county's form of government, which you're considered an extended commission. And so there are a lot of sections in your code that are wrong. And so we are working on correcting that because it's still in the council form. So expect to see that in a code text amendment at some point. There's a lot in there that we need to change. I have a list.

130.1.

What was it, Lane?

30.1. I can't hear you. 130.1.

130.1, Janet, in the code.

It doesn't comply with state law.

OK, I'll let you do that while we get started.

OK, thank you.

OK, welcome to our Morgan County Commission meeting, September 1, 2026. Appreciate everyone being here. And those that are online, we appreciate you also attending. We're going to start our meeting this night by an invocation. Commissioner Blocker, and she'll lead us also in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Our Father in heaven, we're grateful to gather here tonight and discuss the needs and concerns of our community and the citizens in our community. We're grateful for this great place that we live and for all those that are willing and are able to be involved and help their neighbors and all those around. And we ask that we will have a productive meeting and listen to each other. And these things we ask in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

Thank you, Commissioner Blocker. Appreciate that. We were just discussing one consent agenda item that needed some changes. And so I think we could, unless there's anything else on there, we can go ahead and approve that with those changes. Mr. Chair, I move we approve the consent agenda items. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion's unanimous. Do we have any conflicts of interest this evening to declare? Okay, seeing none, we will go into our public comment session. Please state your name, address, where you live, and please try and limit your comments to three minutes. We do have one couple here tonight that are going to share that so there will be a six-minute period for them okay so any public comment good evening is that good enough good good evening commissioners my name is Brent Hunsiker I live at 745 Howard Scrabble Road

Come in here tonight, talk about the white gate at the end of Hard Scrabble Road. and the moving of that gate. That gate, well, and I want to be clear, I'm not disputing the county's right within legally established county road or right of way. What I'm asking is that before the gate is moved approximately 308 feet down Hardscrabble Road, the county clearly can establish what legal right it has to that additional 308 feet in exactly where the end of the county road is. This road has a long history, as you all know. The existing gate has been there as long as everybody can remember. The current general location for many years. This county has historically not maintained that portion of road that we know of. Also beyond that gate, meaning past the gate, they haven't historically maintained that. Yet now we're being asked to accept that the county can move that gate 308 feet down a road that hasn't been maintained. and establish a county line or the end of the county road there. My question is, what is establishing that line? Has there been any work done? And I asked before the commission votes on this, is that there are several basic questions that should have clear answers in the public record. What recorded deeds, dedication, easements, right-of-ways, plats, or other legal instruments established the county's interest in that road? the additional 308 feet. What survey or legal description establishes the proposed gate or the end of that county road? Who owns the underlying property where the new gate would be physically located? Has the county included the 308 feet past the gate in their class B roads as far as the B and C fundings? And if so, how much of that has been actually included and have been funded with no maintenance done? If the county considers this section part of the county road system, what maintenance has been done? And will the responsibility of the county be to update that maintenance and take care of the road from here on out to the gate? Most importantly, the underlying property of the proposed gate location is privately owned. I would like an explanation of the legal authority that allows the county to relocate or authorize a gate onto the property. I'm not asking the commission to resolve every historical disagreement involving Hartscrabble Road. I'm asking that you not decide the gate's location at this current time until we can get to the factual basis of the gate location and who owns the road. Moving the gate 308 feet may sound like a relatively small administrative action, but the implication is much larger. There's a lot of potential established new points property up there the responsibility and jurisdiction over the road the right-of-way ends affects private property interest raises questions regarding public access and maintenance responsibility and could have implications for how this road has been represented for the BNC funds those issues deserve to be resolved with deed surveys legal descriptions maintenance records and clear legal determination not assumptions We respectfully request that all documentation we have requested, both by email and here today, be provided to the public and fully reviewed before the commission takes any action on this vote. Thank you. Thank you.

good afternoon kent carter 810 hardscrabble road i'm here to talk about the hardscrabble gate myself so um i had some documents passed out to all you guys for your consideration to look at The first document I sent out is a road right away agreement. I'm gonna be as brief as I can, but this was a document that was created by Ron Lawson's office in 2014 for the Wilkinson Construction family because in their attempt to have my dad and myself and Cindy sign over a 60-foot unrestricted easement, which we didn't do, but The point of being is, this was a 2014 document. It was obviously not a county road then. The other two documents I presented to you was, the first one is just a plat, and every plat you look at right now shows the exact same thing. The county road, the existing or historical county road, ended somewhere right around the middle of Cindy and I's driveway. The other document is just a snapshot of the... Back in probably 2013-14, we started to... Katie wanted to build a house up there. My dad had an existing 90 acres up there, so we were trying to build a house on 90 acres. Well, she couldn't afford to buy the whole thing, so the county made us subdivide the... do a small family subdivision. Well, in that, obviously the county road didn't go all the way to the end of the property, so there wasn't enough frontage. So what they made us do was what you see on that document. The middle lot took all of the frontage and granted access to the other two lots. In doing so, the county made my dad dedicate a 26.6 foot road dedication area. So if you look at that and you look at all the other documents, the other documents it shows the county road goes up there to its width and at that point it narrows down to 26.6 feet. Now I'm not disputing that the county does or does not own that 26.6 feet to the end of the property. My point being is, is that really to the county's best interest to maintain a road that's 26 feet wide? By the time you get a road built in there, where the easement is, you may have a 15-foot road, maybe. My property goes right up to the edge of that easement. So if they're insistent on moving the gate to wherever the end of that property is, then I'm insistent on moving my fence to my property line. So we'll go up there and we'll narrow that road down to a 20, whatever it ends up being wide, and we'll put a gate up there. The packet that Mr. Heiner submitted is pretty vague. It's got a copy of my warranty deed and highlighted in there it says that my property line goes to the center of a county road, which it does. On the east end of my property, it goes right to the center of the old county road. It was told to me that the reason they put that in there is because we deeded that property back to the county. Well, we didn't. If you look at this, the only person that deeded property to the county was my dad, because he still owned that side of the road. So the other property, we didn't deed any property to the county. And based on the packet that Brent's put out there, he's showing a map up there, and he's showing a couple of red lines on there, and we're going to put the gate here. Well, whose property is that gate on? I mean, we need to do a lot more footwork to figure out what exactly we're going to do up there. If we're going to move the gate, then I think we need to make sure that we're on county property and we maintain, and if you want to maintain a 26-foot wide road that goes to nowhere, I really don't think that's in the best interest of the county to do that. So I would appreciate your consideration on these documents. The deed that they presented in the packet that says that my property line goes to the center of the county road was recorded in 2018. This road dedication didn't happen until the deed was recorded in 2011. This piece that my dad dedicated to the county and it wasn't done until 2016. So that deed that's in that packet of my deed has nothing to do with this road. So anyway, thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Thank you.

I just have a couple of things to add.

I'm Katie Hunzaker. I also live at 745. I just think that it's pertinent that the county take all of the survey work, even on the warranty deed, right? I mean, that road has been there and gated in private property for well over 70 years, right? So how do we know that that road is that's been moved around every so often is exactly where it lies, right? Why are we not surveying it to make sure over time that road hasn't moved this way or moved that way from the traffic going up? So I think that there needs to be an instrument of documentation on exactly where, I mean, right where they wanna put the gate, five land owners interject right there. who's telling, like what factual documentation do we have that that gate is not gonna sit on any other person's land, right? It's not as simple as just moving it up there. There needs to be some due diligence done factually, survey, right, legal descriptions and all that before that gate's moved. So I ask my family, we're not saying don't move the gate, we're saying let's be careful before we move it to a place that's on private property now, right? And if you rip it out, you got a whole slew of, you know, we're all fenced out now and there's cattle up there, like what happens then? You know, there's just, you pull the string and there's a lot of things to think about before you just simply push the gate forward, right? And thank you.

Thanks.

There's one minute left and 16 seconds. And then timing right now. Your slow walks. Take them.

I just want to make sure you're aware of what happened. I got a call from Brett Heiner. He asked me how I feel about the gate. And of course, I said, well, it's been there. It's actually been there since the 70s. Goldfleck put it in when they bought that property from Mortensen's. But I said, well, I like the gate. Obviously, that's why it's there. Part of it is on our property. And I just don't like the public driving up behind my house. I'm home alone a lot. And it's a safety thing for us and our livestock. He said that Dan Wilkinson had come to him and asked him to move the gate and that he will make a nice, beautiful cul-de-sac for their snowplows to turn around. And that's what has stemmed all of this. They usually tell me I don't need a microphone. I know, but they usually tell me I don't need one. Anyway, so I just want you to know that that's what has stemmed all of this. And I'm not calling anybody sitting up here unethical, but I'm really, really bothered that something like this has been presented to you guys with nobody coming and talking to us about it. All we heard from Brett, it was that he was going to talk to the planner. And the next thing I know, thank goodness for Jeff Matthews, that when he got the packet, he sent it to me. And otherwise, I wouldn't have even known this is happening. I wouldn't be standing here. None of us would. So I just think there's some ethics in there that if it's affecting us, Somebody probably should have come and talked to us first. And I want to thank Kay Becker and Corey and my kids. And I think Mike may have been at the fairgrounds, but we got a call saying that some goats and some peacocks needed to be saved up Porterville during the fire. And Kent and I were up on two bears with cattle. And so I called the kids. They went up there. Kent's brother Bob and Pam went up there. They gathered up a whole bunch of goats, Kate included. I hear my grandson telling a story about Kate running across the field with a peacock in her arms, and she's on it. So anyways, I just want to give them a bunch of credit for being good neighbors and letting us help be good neighbors. Thanks. The worst. I hate peacocks.

It was a peacock.

OK. Do we have any other public comment? OK. We will move on to our presentations. E1, Honorable Sean Rose.

Good evening, commissioners. All right. You get to hear from me once again. Tonight, I want to take just a few minutes to recognize something that I am incredibly proud of, the progress that we've made in the Morgan County Recorder's Office. When you look at where we started and then you look at where we are today, it is pretty incredible to see just how much has changed. I want to make one thing very clear, none of this happened because of one person. It happened because of an amazing staff who have been willing to think outside the box, learn new things, take on new challenges, and most importantly, never settle for simply doing something because that's the way we've always done it. Together, we've continued to ask, how can we do this better? How can we do this easier? How can we make these records more accessible? How can we be better? How can we better serve the people of Morgan County? And because of that mindset, we have accomplished a lot. We've created an in-house GIS specialist position. We've implemented new digital ownership maps. We've taken maps that were spread across different county departments and brought them together into one county-wide GIS map. We've added record of surveys and subdivision plats as PDFs directly to the GIS map, making these records much easier to find and access. We took something incredibly valuable, Morgan County's historic and ancient surveys, and began putting those records onto the GIS map as well. We created a research portal. We implemented the ability for surveyors to submit digital record surveys online. We have worked to improve the county's tax record system, and we've recently established the new Chapter 154 Surveying and Survey Monument Ordinance. giving the county a stronger framework for protecting survey monuments and maintaining the integrity of our land records. And honestly, I could stand up here all night listing the things this staff has accomplished, but what makes me most proud isn't just the technology, it isn't just the new maps, it isn't just the new system, it's what all of those things represent. These represent a county that is moving forward, They represent employees who care about doing their job well. And they represent a recorder's office that is constantly looking for ways to improve the service we provide to Morgan County. But there has been one item that has been on our list for quite some time. One that we have talked about, one that we have worked towards, and one for a long time we just wasn't quite within our reach. The Morgan County Surveyor. Earlier this year, we finally received approval to create an in-house county surveyor position. I cannot tell you how excited I was to see that happen. This isn't just another position, this is a position that is truly needed here in Morgan County. Having a county surveyor working directly for Morgan County gives us another tremendous resource when it comes to our land records, survey monuments, property boundaries, survey questions, county projects, and most importantly, protecting the integrity of Morgan County survey history for generations to come. And after everything this office has worked so hard to accomplish, tonight we get to check one more item off that list. I am very pleased and very proud to announce that Morgan County has successfully hired our county surveyor. So tonight I would like to introduce to you and to the public the new Morgan County Surveyor, Debron Anderson.

I think all that applause is for the recorder's office. I'm really excited to be a part of this, to be able to join that office and hopefully add to it in all the ways that they've already been successful. My name is Devron Anderson. I've been a surveyor for 18 years. I previously served as the Weber County surveyor in times past, but most recently I've been in the private sector. But I was itching to come back to the work that I love doing. I love doing county survey work. My heart's always been in the preservation of the survey monuments, which in turn leads to good boundaries and preservation of property rights for individual property rights. And that's where my heart lies. So I'm excited to be here. I'm excited to work with you on any of the projects that you have for me to do. And happy to be here. Happy to answer any questions you have now or later.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Thanks. We're excited to have you, and you look really young for 18 years' experience.

Oh, that's very kind of you. He is very young. I'm getting very, very old, I feel like. He's under 40.

I would like just to add real quick. I shared this with Sean the other day. Over the weekend, I had several residents let me know how appreciative they are of the recorder's office, just how people are treated when they walk in, just the friendly nature and just what Sean's done with the recorder's office. So I did share that with him, but I thought I'd share it with the rest of the commission. The people in Morgan are noticing. They're seeing what's happening, and they're very appreciative of what's going on there in the recorder's office. and how you treat our customers, so thank you for doing that.

Okay, apparently we have one more public comment. We'll go ahead and recognize them.

Hi, it's me, thank you. Sorry, I have my mini-me in tow and it slowed me down getting in the truck. I think I emailed you guys already last week, so this may be redundant for you, but I just wanted to read a thank you letter on behalf of the Farmers Market team that put it together at Kent Smith and just kind of tell you how that went. So on behalf of the Morgan Farmers Market, we wanted to sincerely thank you for allowing us to hold the August 8th market at Kent Smith Park. It was a wonderful kickoff to our market season, and we were thrilled with the results of the relocation. We achieved the goal of attracting visitors from outside the immediate area. We welcomed the people who stopped by on their way to Snow Basin, Park City, as well as travelers passing through from Wyoming. We also had a steady flow of local visitors from Morgan, City, Mountain Green, and just all the neighbors between. The park handled the visitation very well. The parking lot filled up mid-market for about an hour or so, but then the traffic remained really safe and orderly. Thanks, Corey, for letting us use that sign. That helped a ton. We had nobody park on the shoulder of the highway. We really appreciated the shade from the mature trees, and everybody was really complimentary of the park and the condition of it. So thanks to the grounds team for that as well. It was just really wonderful to see the pickleball and the tennis courts continuing alongside the market while the kids enjoyed the playground and the parents shopped. So it was a fantastic success and generated a lot of excitement and enthusiasm for our next markets ahead. And we did get our temporary use permit from the planning department, so we want to thank them for their really quick turnaround on that as well. So thanks again for letting us use the park. We appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay, Corey.

All right, there's been some discussion about the license plate reader that I have in the county. I just wanted to give you guys a quick update and presentation on it a little bit and the good that it's doing for us. So my camera is not a flock camera, it is a Motorola. I own all the data. So we'll start that off. The benefits to Morgan County are that it's an extra eye on the street rather than having more deputies. We have an extra eye. It doesn't take the place of a deputy, but it helps maintain and focus on... area especially our busier areas and I'll give you a little track down in the last I've had up here it's a big it's a big issue now but I've had it for three years and and I've actually ran LPRs for 20 years so they've been around for a long time and they are very useful I've caught a homicide suspect with this is out of Morgan the one we've have here I've caught a homicide suspect with it out of Vegas we've got a child rapist caught out of Oklahoma We've caught a kidnapper, we've got a couple suicidal subjects, and a couple runaway juveniles. And that was all with an LPR with direction of travel and where they was going. An LPR, it captures license plates and vehicle details. It records date, times, location of the vehicle sightings. It provides police officers real-time alerts, assists investigations through searchable vehicle data. What it does not do, it does not identify drivers or passengers, does not do facial recognition, it does not track individuals, does not store data indefinitely. It does not share data without my authorization or my chief's authorization. Why Morgan County needs an LPR? Well, we're a little, I'm not going to say we're but we're growing and we get more people coming in and out. It enhances the response to violent crimes and vehicle-related offenses, locates suspects, stolen vehicles, and missing persons, reduce intrusive stops via precise vehicle data, and improve investigative efficiency. The public concerns are valid, the privacy and civil liberties. and misuse and overreach concerns, data retention and storage, transparency and accountability. The privacy protections and local control. Morgan County, we control all the data. We have that. Retention periods are set locally at nine months. Strict access control, automatic deletion schedules, data sharing restricted. It's role-based access, permissions, automatic audit logs, strict usage prohibitations, encrypted and tamper-proof system, and CEGIS compliant with data handling and system security. The benefits to the community, safer roads and neighborhoods, faster case resolution, better protection for residents, reduced strain on law enforcement, increased efficiency for deputies. I have an open-door policy I've put on my I've put on my site and Morgan moms that if anybody has concerns or questions They can come into my office at any time and I'd be more than happy to talk to him I just asked for him to wait until after the fire was over But it's we're back to business. I want clear communication with the residents annual Commission review I've everything's published on our on our website and The community-focused messaging, this technology is designed to solve crimes, track vehicles involved in criminal activity, does not monitor ordinary citizens. And the conclusion, enhance public safety responsibility, protect privacy with strong safeguards, maintain full control, deploy ethically and transparently. And if you guys have any questions for me, I'd answer.

Can you just walk us through how it works? Like you said, you caught a homicide.

So I do not share any of my... any of my data with anybody, but nationwide, they can enter a plate from that state or that county or wherever. They can enter that plate into a hot list. And if it hits my LPR, it'll come back saying that their plate hit my LPR. And so then, so I had Oklahoma call me, I had Vegas call me. I don't want to go into too much detail of what they was doing, but yeah, I do not share any of my Any of my residents, if something happens somewhere else and they want to enter a plate into a hot list, it'll come back to us. I followed a runaway from here, and we entered that into a hot list, and I was tracking him all the way to Texas and then back. And that happened about a year ago.

So just to follow up with that, so basically what it does is your camera reader LPR reads a license plate, whosoever it might be, and it goes into a database automatically? Yes.

Or do you have to input it? No, it goes into a database automatically. It goes into the same system that my people run their plates on through UCGIS.

Okay. And so it's just everybody that comes by that particular location, wherever they are?

Yes. If it goes past it, it reads a plate. It's not always going to read the plate accurately, so you do have to manually look at it to see if it ran the right plate and see if it ran the right state.

So that's how you get registrations, whether or not they're correct and that kind of a thing too, right?

We don't put into the registrations. It's more for stolen vehicles, missing persons, or homicide suspects or kidnappers.

Then how do you know the difference? I mean, as a car?

Oh, yeah, I thought you meant expired registrations. Yeah, it runs the registration through the database. Okay, automatically. Automatically. Okay, all right.

So how does it not monitor ordinary citizens then?

Because it doesn't take any pictures of people, only license plates.

And there's only one camera in the county?

I have only one in the county. I think I'm about the only county in the state that only has one. So are you wanting more? No. I know this has kind of been a big issue and a big topic. Yeah.

I just wondered if you did.

Well, I'll use more, but no.

So for a county this size, you said we're one of the only ones that have one. For a county this size, what's the average of the cameras at the other county?

We're one of the smaller counties in the state.

think davis county is a little smaller than us but i think they have close to 30. so i guess only one of my commit i hate getting blindsided by our public i would have loved to have known about this from you rather than from somebody in our county saying why in the heck are we having these flock cameras you know surveilling us as private citizens so it would have been nice i know you're elected official and the yield yield account to the public in the end but it would be nice to know as a commission when we're doing things like that to be able to be able to explain it to people without having things come apart and yeah i probably had it should have better communication i didn't know it was going to blow up into a into something like this like i said i've been running for 20 years with weber county i ran one that was on my car

And we've never had any issues until all of a sudden this year.

I think part of the issue and the concern with the flock cameras is where the data is stored, correct?

Yes. So flock owns that data where I have Motorola and I own that data.

And where do we store that, Corey?

It goes right into the state database through us.

Well, I just want to say thanks for keeping our county safe and for looking out for our citizens. I know you have our best interests out there to keep us safe. So thank you. Yes.

One thing, and I spoke with Corey earlier just a little bit, and he kind of went into a little detail on how it worked. Because I was kind of the same thing. It's like, you know, he brought up the Ring doorbell cameras. You know, my wife's anti-Ring because it gets stored on a cloud and they own it and they can do it. But, you know, I've got security cameras at my house too, but I store that data myself. You know, and so just kind of the way it worked made me feel a little bit better. And, you know, you hear about different areas around the country where they're banning these fog cameras, and it sounds like they're banning the specific, that company's camera, not the technology, just because of, I think because that was my concern I shared with you is where's this data going, who has access to it, and how is it used, you know?

And I think that'll also be changed by the timeframe by how long they hold that data. Like, I think Utah, right now we're at a nine-month period, so we hold it for nine months and then get rid of it all. I mean, people want to talk about overreach of the government and things like that. If you have an iPhone, you're constantly tracked. If you have a ring camera, if you're worried about people taking a picture of you in public, which is not illegal, don't pass 7-Eleven, don't pass Ridley's, don't pass McDonald's. And every house has a ring doorbell camera. And that's another thing. We can catch some of our burglaries and suspects. A ring camera might get the side view of that vehicle. We can kind of look at it. We can't get a license plate. But if we can kind of get a time frame, I can go into my system and see if maybe that picture or that truck popped up or that vehicle popped up there. And with that, I get a license plate, and then we've got a viable suspect.

I just think we need to be cognizant of our privacy. I think it's a... It's a thing that we feel as citizens that we deserve our privacy and stuff. It's not that we're criminals or trying to get away with stuff, but I think there's way too much surveillance of what everybody's doing. And I appreciate you keeping it safe as well, but we need to protect our privacies as citizens too.

I agree.

I don't have anything else.

Thanks for the info. Thank you.

Okay, we are on one breath.

Hey, commission, I think it'd be easier for me to take the dozer and go up and fight a fire today. Anyway, you already heard about the gate. I was asked about this to check it out, and I take every call serious, and I do measure roads or look at situations. And we've physically measured a harsh gravel road. That's where we come up with it. going another 308 feet but the thing that was interesting is we went back on our BNC records and this is we have been collecting funds long before I got here to that extra 308 feet so as far as the state records go we have been collecting funds on this road and I know that wasn't mentioned today yet but that was the reason to meet with the attorney and the the advice we got from our county attorney was to take the gate out Because that's what the state statute says. And the attorney, Janet, can speak to that part if she would for us today. But that's the reason for it. The county, Kent is right. Kent Carter is right. The county doesn't have anything to really gain to move that. It's just I feel like if I get approached with a problem that should have been solved way before I came here. I've been here since 2018. It should have been solved long before that. When this road got dedicated over, Path Road got dedicated over to the county, then it should be a county road.

Why was this instigated? You said it's a problem. What's the problem?

I didn't say I had a problem. I just say I got a call on it to, to check it out and see why I was told that this was a County road years ago. And the County used to maintain it back where this 308 foot addition is. And then whenever gold flick put in this white gate, it was a private company that put it in and the residents, whether they wanted or not, it was put in years ago. I don't have a record of when exactly that was put in, but it does show that the, The county has that road half dedicated to the end of that, the measurement that I give you.

But I swore I heard you say it's a problem that should have been resolved before I came in.

This happened years before I came. Not really a problem, I guess, but this situation was created years before I came here. I didn't create it. I wasn't the one that put the gate in.

It's legally a problem if we're collecting funds from the state for it, and we're blocking it with a gate.

We don't maintain it.

We need to remove the gate and maintain the property.

So when I was looking at this, being somewhat familiar with the area, I mean, the gate's been there as long as I can remember. And so I actually went in and sat down with Sean yesterday for probably close to an hour. I think my biggest concern, I mean, if the gate's illegal, if the road's county road, I think we owe it to the residents of the county, the neighbors, that if we're going to set a gate somewhere, we better know where that gate goes. So just my thoughts is, and I've asked Sean if he'd stick around a little late, if he wants to stand up and speak to this. We've hired a surveyor. We've passed an ordinance for the preservation of our landmarks. And here we are. This is the perfect opportunity to be like, where are things really at? Where are these property lines? Where are the points? Because the last thing we want to do is go put a gate somewhere where it doesn't belong. And so that's where... That's kind of where I'm at. If the gate's going to come out, great, take the gate out. But if we've got to put it back in, we better know where it's got to go. And that's where, like I said, I don't know if Sean wants to speak to that or... I don't want to put words in your mouth. So that's just my concern. We've got where the gate is, where the proposed gates are going. Well, now those gates are on private property. That's not our problem. Our problem is not private property. And so if we're putting a gate in, which it's not even our gate, Gold Flak did it.

Yeah, so I'm not going to put a gate in above there. It says move the gate, but I am not going to put another gate in. I'm going to have zero cost in this. If it does happen, the county's not going to put any money into this gate.

We're pulling that gate out because right now it sounds like landowners are using it for cattle. We have – before we do something, we better know where things are. That's my opinion. I just – I'd like to see where the property lines are so that everything's on the up and up. I looked at three different maps, and every one of them shows three different things. And, I mean, this isn't you, Brett. This is just – I mean, I got onto the GIS when I looked at this one. I'm like, wait a minute. This is showing one thing. Sean pulled up one. It showed something else. I'm like, where's really the property line? And so I think it'd be good to – Where is that? What is it? And so that's kind of my two cents on it.

Yeah, let's have a survey. That'd be great to have that done.

Mike, I know you had... No, I agree as well. I was going to say the same thing. I think it needs to be surveyed. If there's one thing that Probably every survey I tell you is there's not a fence line in this county that's on a property line. And I would suspect that the roadways probably aren't either. So I think we need to identify that absolutely. And then the other comment, and Brett addressed this, was that it's not the county's responsibility to put a gate in, period. If there's a gate to be had, that's the private property.

If there's another gate that's going to be put in, it's going to be put in on private property. It's not going to cost the county a dime, so... That's all I have to say.

So I think you can remove the gate because we have that authority to remove the gate because it's on our property. And then I think you could do that now and survey later because we're not putting up another gate.

My only concern with removing it right now is, I mean, if we're going to do this, we've got property owners that have relied on that gate to hold animals. Let's work with the neighbors. Let's figure out where it goes. You know, I don't think you, I mean, we've been collecting BNC funds for how many years? Another couple of months or whatever it is.

What's the rush, right?

Yeah, I just, let's work with the neighbors. Let's find out where the property goes. If they want to put gates in, let's work with the neighbors. And let's put the gate. Show them this is the property lines. This is where it belongs. Work with the neighbors. And let's just do it right. Not rush. The last thing we need to do is go rip a gate out tomorrow morning and And somebody's cows are running down the road, and they're tromping through somebody's roses. And then we got even more neighbors mad. You bet.

Yeah, that'd be.

That's kind of my thought. Let's just work with it.

Yeah, I don't want to see it get just ripped out until we have a solution to the problem with the people that own the land there. Help me understand. I just want to understand how this started. That's what I'm trying to figure out.

There's two things that happened. I got a call from Dan Wilkinson's, from the Wilkinsons, to look into it, which I get calls on stuff. I got a call on a private road today. They claim it was a county road. It's a private road. So I get a lot of calls like that. Plus, I had parsons lined up to chip the road. So I give them measurements, and they've got a pretty good setup in their truck where they'll check my measurements on all the roads that we do, pave and chip. And they said, well, you know, your road goes a little beyond that gate. And I said, well, we're going to measure and find out. So we physically measured the roads. And that's where we come up to the 308 feet. So that's where it come up today. So there's two reasons.

OK. Thank you. Well, I guess we probably know somebody that could survey that. Yeah, you know a surveyor. I heard you know a surveyor.

Chair, can I ask a question?

Pardon? You bet. Sorry.

No, I totally agree. We need to work with the neighbors and have it surveyed. I'm just curious, Janet, what are the consequences for not taking the gate out?

So if we're going to collect Class B road funds, there's a regulation. It's not state law. Well, it's based under state code, but there's an administrative code rule, 926-3-7, and it requires the county to maintain funded roads for public travel and provide that a road portion from which the public is excluded by a permanent obstruction, such as a locked gate, is ineligible for Class B funding. And we've been collecting on that and I'm guessing we're going to continue because we need to if we own it, we need to maintain it if it's been dedicated to us unless we want to just vacate it.

So are we going to improve that one? Are you saying we would improve it? Improve it, yes. With asphalt and everything?

Well, I might chip it. I might clean it up. It's already got asphalt under it, so I don't know how that happened. It was long before I came here. It's got asphalt under it. There's asphalt under about to where that measures. So who did that or when, I don't know. They probably did, but there's asphalt under there now. I was just going to chip. If you go up there, we actually flushed it yesterday, put the top coat on. that chip job and I was just going to chip the entire road, you know, including that 308 feet just because that's what it measures and that's... What do you think we'd collect on a BNC fund on that much road? Oh, well, we get 9,000 a mile, so let's do the math. Well, it's 300 feet. It wouldn't be much, would it?

No. I'm just wondering if we didn't collect BNC funds on it. I just don't know.

I guess my question is, you know, we've got contradictions as far as, like, okay, so Kent and Cindy owned the middle of the road. Where is the middle of the road? So we have one piece that got dedicated in 2016, if I recall. And that's where I'm kind of saying, like, we need to know where it is. Like, what is it we have? But they do have frontage on that road, I guess. You know? And then you go up there and there's a hole in the middle of the road. There's a culvert going underneath. If we take that, now we've got to repair that culvert. I can see the bottom of the culvert when I went up there and looked at it. There's just a lot of questions I have as far as like, what do we own? What is it? And that's where, like I said, I went into Sean.

A survey would be great.

Yep, I agree. Let's figure out what we own so that we take care of what we have to.

OK, if you know what you need to have done, a survey.

Do we have to make action on it? We're going to task the recorder's office.

Yeah. I think the task would be to postpone this.

Yeah, I think that would be the correct motion.

And I don't know that we need to, well, I guess we could set a date certain, otherwise we can.

I don't think I need a date certain. I think we just need to get working on it. If I may, Chair. I had asked Commissioner Newton why the commission would not consider vacating the road. And if he could explain that on open mic, that would help.

And Katie mentioned this when she came up, but the portion of the road that has been dedicated was dedicated in order to provide enough frontage for that lot when they subdivided that lot off. So that's why we probably should not consider vacating it because then that lot would be non-conforming. But again, they're only required to, only could do their side of the road. So as Kent mentioned, half of the road may have been dedicated, the other half has not been dedicated. And where there has been a gate, there's plenty of roads in the county that are not vacated or that are not dedicated. I mean, the road in front of my house, I own to the middle of technically on paper, right? But because it's been an open public road for 100 years, I can't put a gate on it. I think this is a different scenario. I don't know that. I'm not an attorney, but it hasn't been open for public use. So I think it's a whole different scenario than that. But having it surveyed, understanding where it is, I think that's the first step to figure out how we resolve it long term.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. So can we make a motion?

I was just going to make a motion. Go for it. I move that we... I move that we postpone this agenda item F1 to a future date not determined yet. I'll second.

Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Fackrell and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. I need somebody to make a motion to pull this from the agenda. Number two. Thank you. Yes, F2. Thanks, Brett.

Mr. Chair, I move that we remove item F2 from the agenda. Second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Nickerson and a second by Commissioner Fackrell. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? OK. It's unanimous. Kate?

Hold on, I was not ready. OK. As the commission may be aware, but the public may not, Morgan County contracts with Wasatch Peaks Ranch Road and Fire District. It is their fire district. They have to pay for everything. But we contract with them for our firefighters fire and EMS to staff that location. Last year, we kicked that off in August. The contract is for three employees. We didn't get that fully ramped up, so there is a leftover essentially payroll balance that they had paid to us that we never utilized, so it would have rolled back into general fund. Per the agreement, they can come before the commission 90 days before the annual renewal, which they did, and request a modification of the subsidy. I met with them, Chief, Brad Wilkes and the county attorney, we requested that they not modify the subsidy. Being that I have a new fire chief, we are in the process of ramping up. And they agreed to not change the subsidy at this time. Being that we felt that this was a one-time issue of being understaffed while we were ramping up to be able to staff two stations And part of that agreement of not changing the subsidy was that they would like refunded the payroll Funds that rolled back in a general fund that were not expended and that amount is 109 469 69 But that way they'll keep paying us almost $37,000 a month.

Mr. Chair? Sounds reasonable.

Yes. I just want to ask a question. Okay, so with this, you're, I mean, I notice that we've only got like, we've only got six months into it. It was at the beginning.

Yeah, this is FY25.

So we don't know what's going to happen between now and the end of the year.

This is only 25 money.

What's that?

This is only FY25. Okay.

Oh, OK. So it's not going until the end of September or is? No.

They're not going to modify the subsidy. They're maintaining the subsidy for FY26. We are on point to not return a penny to them for FY26. This is only for FY25, that there is a shortfall. But they couldn't come to us for the agreement until 90 days before the contract renewal. And the contract was signed at the end of July.

Of last year.

Of last year. So they couldn't even come to us to request the shortfall that we didn't expend until that time.

So why are we on a different fiscal note with them or a different contract than what we are for them?

That's what we're trying to correct by modifying them, not requesting that they do not modify the subsidy, is to get it so where it doesn't affect me mid-budget. It's just how the contract was written. If you remember the back and forth, back and forth, back and forth of trying to get this agreement put into place, we started drafting it in October of 24, but it didn't get knocked out and signed until the end of July. So it was the intent at the time and just never corrected in the final documentation. It was the intent always to have this signed Q1 of FY25, but because we didn't sign it until the end of Q2, we just didn't update that language that said the subsidy will be renegotiated at the beginning of the year rather than at the one-year anniversary of the contract. Service agreement, sorry, is the correct term.

So then you're asking us to give back to them $109,000

Correct, that they paid into us, but we never spent out.

Because we were only in existence, because in there it talks about 2026.

Right, and yeah, we've, so now part of that agreement is also that we're supposed to have quarterly financial meetings with them. But that didn't happen until we had this conversation. So now we have that set up where we do give them monthly payroll, operating expense lines, et cetera. The commission, if you'll remember, did approve in the Q1 budget adjustments some of these monies that were paid in 25. They were the one-time monies, but we didn't actually get the full money spent until 26. So we had to account for that in here that, yeah, by 12-31-25, I didn't have it spent, but I have since rolled it into the 26 budget and spent it. But I can't say that for payroll. I can't go back in time and staff it. So that's what they're asking the refund on. in lieu of reducing the monthly subsidy.

They're funding the fall 2026.

Yeah, they already are. And they're not going to reduce the subsidy.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the refund of the subsidy paid by the Wasatch Peaks Road and Fire District of $109,469.69. It's paid for fiscal year 2025. I'll second it.

I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Blocker. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Aye. No, that was not an opposed. That was a aye. Motion's unanimous.

And we may want to consider for a commission for FY27's portfolios that we assign someone to this outside of myself to sit on this annual, because it's almost $800,000 agreement. So we should probably have one of you guys sitting on that portfolio. But again, we weren't even sure if it would float.

Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn as the County Commission and reconvene as the County Board of Equalization.

Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? OK. We're now Board of Equalization.

We have all of your certificates. You're all legal to be BOE hearing officers now.

I would like to complain about Cory being so tall, because that was above my head. Commissioners, these items are adjustments recommended by the assessor's office for your consideration as Board of Equalization. If the board approves these adjustments tonight, I will send decision letters to each applicant by email, notifying them of the board's decision. If an applicant disagrees with the board's decision, they will have the opportunity to appeal the decision to the state tax commission.

You're all so quiet. That never happens. They're waiting.

Okay, so these were all adjustments made by the assessor, correct?

Yes. Did she leave? Oh, she's right behind you. She ninja'd.

I talked with Janelle on this. And just so everybody, if you didn't, This is basically just adjustments that the assessor was able to do because of it going from either a primary to a secondary home or from a secondary back to a primary home. And these are the first round of our BOEs.

There are more. Yeah, I know.

No, I don't. I personally, if this is what they've come up with, I'm fine with them.

mr chair i move that we approve the recommendation by the county assessor and clerk for the boe cr26-03-boe approving the board of the approving these adjustments i'll second it

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

Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn as a county board of equalization and reconvene as a county commission.

Second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We are to our... Let's do one at 12. Let's do five, and then we'll take a five-minute break. Josh? Yep.

Okay. How are you? I'm doing well. Thank you. So what you can see here is we took the feedback from the last work session that we had, and we went back and remapped this. And you can see the biggest change that we did is the road alignments. We shifted those north. That alignment shift allowed us to consolidate the park area better and create a more uniform shape for that. This represents a 5.2 acre park area as it sits on this map. And then it also increased the size of the commercial space as well. That's now a 2.6 acre commercial space. We also went and revised some of the townhome layouts and the road layouts as well, and made all of the residential roads private. You can see the differing widths. The cross streets and the major thoroughfares are all still public. And then wherever we have houses served off of side streets, those go to a different private street section width. Just wanting to solicit feedback at this time and then join you in a couple weeks to see how we can move forward.

Chair, I'll make a comment. Okay. I just wanted to say I appreciate you took the comments we made in the work session and did everything that I can think of that we asked for, really, in terms of changes here with the roadways, the fields, the commercial area, expanding that a little bit. So thank you. Parking. Parking, yeah, additional parking for the fields.

Yeah, and there's some additional optimization that we can do on the parking as well. We haven't gone through the full engineering to analyze. what the usage counts would be on the park space and make sure that we have adequate parking but we did leave some room along the south frontage of the field to increase the parking as well and we expect that there will be some optimization of the site regarding that as we get further into engineering that's great

Yeah, I wish the public could see what you had before to what they have now. It's come a long way. This looks more of like a community. So you say 5.2 acre for park area. Is that the flat area of the park that will be used, or does that...

Yeah, that's the main park area. There's more open space that we're dedicating with the trail and the little pocket park down at the bottom and then common area around the townhomes as well. But the main park area, the usable area, is 5.2 acres. And some of that, there's more than 5.2 acres because of the parking. But we can tabulate all that and figure out the areas.

Okay.

It also still keeps intact our, it keeps the property dedication that we've always intended to work with the fire department on for their fire station and additional areas. So it's all the good things that we saw from the last plans with all the feedback that we've received from the commission. And surprisingly, it all worked out. So we love it when a plan comes together.

Thank you. I would say I appreciate the listening to the comments and going back to the drawing board and shifting your plans and trying to kind of create a place where people can spend time and, you know, have fun and kind of working with us on that. So I do appreciate that.

same the commission has been very generous with their time and feedback on this and it's uh it's been a long process but i think that has allowed us to do a lot of different renditions and come up with a lot of good questions and answer some of those along the way rather than just stumbling blindly into a plan so i appreciate i appreciate all the back and forth truly do thank you

Yeah, I think.

Anything else? No, I like the plan. I think we're ready to get the contract figured out. Move forward.

OK. It feels unanimous.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll move that we postpone the decision on item number five, the flagship homes development agreement, to our next meeting on the 15th. Second. Is that going to be enough time?

OK. By Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. Fackrell. Or Fackrell, I'm sorry. I'm used to the two N's there.

We're throwing a kink in there.

And that gives you time.

Yeah.

OK. OK. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Thanks, Cameron.

Thanks, Cameron. Appreciate you coming up. OK, we're going to take a five minute recess, and then we'll reconvene.

I was looking at you and it messed me up.

I didn't see, but it should...

I told him we needed it signed, so hopefully... Let me just click on it and see what it does.

Fully downloading for some reason. Hopefully Mac can click into it. It's not like fully loading for me.

Okay. Yeah, it's not. I don't know if it's just my email, but it's not loaded.

We'll check and see if we can get in, too. Thank you.

me too Okay. Oh, okay. Okay, so. Okay, hold on. Howdy, howdy, howdy, howdy. In the middle of that.

Kate, can we get some more kinds of goodies in here? Can we get some different kinds of goodies in here?

Like what?

Chocolate. Okay. Chocolate or nuts.

I had chocolate in there, and you guys were like, this is a bunch of junk food, and we need stuff that's healthier.

This is more junk than that.

I will totally get you some chocolate.

Chocolate or nuts. I can handle both of those.

I might. I don't know if I have some.

Okay, we're going to go ahead and reconvene. OK, before we get started on our public hearing items, we had a few residents come that I know AI is never wrong, Google's never wrong. But in this case, it's the first time it's been wrong. And they thought it was at 6 o'clock, the public comment. So I told them I would recognize them for three minutes to make public comments.

We just need your name and where you live.

My name's Casey Schaefer. I live right at the corner of Cottonwood and the old highway. And so I'm right across the street from Flagship on the development. And so there's just been some concerns about the dust lately. My family, my grandfather, My mom and dad has lived in this valley their whole life. And I've talked to my neighbors, and it just kind of seems that there's one thing, and that's the county doesn't care. And I didn't come here to try to stop any construction or anything. The county does need development to an extent, but I believe it needs to be in the right place also. And the right measures also need to be taken. I'm here basically because my neighbors, several of them, which are actually with me here today, have said the county doesn't care. And the one thing about it is the air quality from the dust is pretty bad. And I do care about their quality a lot. In fact, I'm an emissions specialist that works for the government. I'm method nine certified in opacity, being I can look at something, whether it's factory, dust, whatever, and give you a reading on what that is. There's some things that they do make machines that can do it, but they still go the old-fashioned way and use people. And there's laws against fugitive dust. And from what I've seen, it's not compliant, in compliance. The county, the state, the EPA have codes and ordinance in place. for fugitive dust for a reason. The dust is so bad some days, when we're sitting on our porch, I can't even see the telephone poles from across the street on the old highway. And that's 25 yards. Almost every night we sit out there and we'll try to eat dinner, relax, enjoy it. The moment the wind comes, we're inside. For 44 acres or whatever it is, I tried to kind of look it up and see. And I seen it was a little bit smaller than that on the screen today. But there's no wind barriers and one water truck just isn't cutting it. It's just not enough. I'm not sure if they submitted a fugitive dust plan to you guys. They're supposed to with their plan and I'm sure they do. And you know what? I walked over there, they're doing the best they can do with what they have. It's a lot of land that's been cut from cottonwood all the way to the grocery store. But who's monitoring? You know, is there nanometers in place for the wind? Normally on anything with that large of construction, they're supposed to have PM10 monitors. They also can put down chemicals on areas that they don't plan on working for two weeks. There are laws that I think, you know, like I said, I just came here to try to voice an opinion, maybe educate a little bit. Maybe you guys already do know. I go to meetings once a month at the DEQ and the DAQ. I also have meetings with the Region 8 EPA. All these are for air quality. That's what I do. I love it, but in this moment in time, it's affecting me right across the street from my house. And to where you can't see Wasatch Peaks across the street, it's bad. So there's things that I think we need to look into that Flagship or any of the other people can do to mitigate all these issues. But it'd be nice to kind of leave your windows open at night, let the breeze blow in. I know everybody up here does. And so it's kind of one of those things that I just want to voice an opinion. I don't think it's been brought up. I think everybody I've talked to in the area doesn't know that there is a law against PM10 and fugitive dust. It's kind of a weird sounding word anyway. But in all reality, we just need to do a little bit better and see if you guys can't help us out on that area over there. One other thing real quick. I don't want to take too much of your guys' time, but... We won't let you. Okay, thank you. But that intersection at Cottonwood, I've seen on the map that it actually is going to come out right in front of my house. Right now, it's really bad as it is. talking to the deputies. The people that speed down that road, just about two months ago, we stopped to talk to him, because we've called, and he wrote 13 tickets in one hour. 13. And so if you guys end up putting an intersection there, I don't know what the plan is, but I have a feeling that it's just not going to work and there's going to be problems. I already, just a pole in my house will back up traffic where Flagship is going to enter and it goes down past the Berks, which is right next to me. And so it's just kind of look into that, too, why you guys still have a chance to maybe change something and kind of avoid the county paying something that might not work. You know, whether you dead end Cottonwood Road and then do something or I don't know what's going to happen, but it's a dangerous spot. We hear horns honking all the time. And in the wintertime, Mount Green hasn't had a winter in five years. When we do, people are going to pull out of that development. And then someone's going to come up over that hill and not be able to stop. So kind of take a look at that if you guys can, please. Because I have a feeling it's going to be a problem in the future. And so I don't want to take any more of your time. Thanks for accepting me, Matt. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Appreciate your comments. I am going to push back on you just a hair. This is the first time I've heard of this. I'm assuming it's probably the first time the commission's heard of this. So to stand and say we don't care is really a stretch. We do care about our community. That's why we serve here. It's not for the money, I can tell you that. And so we're trying to do the best we can with what we have been given in the information. So if there's a community down there that thinks we don't care, they're welcome to call us and talk to us at any given time. Our phone numbers are posted. We'd love to hear from them.

But we do care. I just wanted to let you know we care. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Chair.

I'm going to have you, yeah.

So the county is working on its master transportation plan. And one of the hot spot areas we get to in our bid is exactly where you are. They've already done the traffic study. The traffic count is absolutely insane. So please grab my card. All of our cards are on that back desk. It's Kate Becker because our next step is going to be our public hearings on exactly how you guys want that traffic to flow in that area. And I can't do it without input of the people that live there. So thank you very much. You're welcome.

So thank you. Josh, since you're next on the list anyway, why don't you take a minute on the dust and things like that before we start on our public hearings?

JOSH STREETFELDT JR.: You bet. I've spoken to the developer. several times over the last year since they started doing the grading about having water trucks go out there and maintain the dust. I will continue to ask them to do that and have our engineer monitor it more closely. As far as the traffic on Cottonwood, when that development goes in, I would imagine, and I believe the county engineer will require traffic studies to see what needs to be done at that intersection as well. OK, you're up. I'm going to turn it over to Val.

Oh, OK. Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. Valerie Claussen with Planning Outpost. I'm bringing forward a text amendment for the Ag Protection Area. I'm your clicker, FYI. Thank you, perfect. The existing provisions were just incomplete, so what this text amendment did was provide the county, establish a clear process that's consistent with state code and contains those requirements to be into a protection area. This just lists the chapter provisions, pretty standard, purpose intent, talks about the establishment of the advisory board, the properties eligibility, qualifications, the who and how to file, the notification requirements, and then into the next page, how's the additional ones of of um addition removal and then the annexed land uh the planning commission heard this item at their meeting and they had recommended some changes because originally it was tied very tight to the green belt provisions and so that has since been cleaned up removed to not be as stringent so we have words like capable of in there um kate anything else those were the main provisions there were like two major

So, yeah, the original language was drafted in a way that if you weren't using it for production ag, like you had it in fallow, like it wouldn't qualify at the time of application. So we took that language out. The whole intent was if, I think the reason that was in there is my task to Val was if they qualify for Greenbelt, they should be able to qualify for Ag Protection. And they had a bunch of questions on contiguous property owners and doing one application. farmers are cheap and we don't want to have to pay for multiple applications for lands contiguous, which that was the whole point of allowing for one application for contiguous property. It doesn't mean that if like Carter's and Jeff were to have theirs in a contiguous, he can't pull his out later without everybody coming out. It just allows for one application fee. So we clarified that in the code. It is still a five acre minimum. We did. It's still a five acre minimum. Yep. Um, Yeah. So just for the public that don't maybe understand ag protection areas, as you may not be aware, you live in an agricultural county. That's 99.999% of why people move here is because it's beautiful. But what you're looking at is private property. And that private property is where people in that back row run their cattle. And that's why it's open space. It's not open space for the public. It's open space because they choose that way of life. And one of the first things I was tasked with when I came here is protecting that as county manager, as a task from county administrative manager, as a task from commission. The commission couldn't in good faith say we're an ag-friendly county. but not have ag-friendly county code. I think the fact that we are such an ag county, but we didn't have a complete ag protection area plan was a glaring issue. So ag protection, the best example I can give you guys is Heber City. If you've been to Heber City lately, It's awful. It used to be Park City versus Summit. Now it's Heber City versus Heber. That highway is going to cut through prime cattle grazing ground, dairy ground. If they had been in an ag protection area, it's almost as if they had set down a 560-acre building on top of a 560 acre parcel. So when UDOT comes to look for the path of least resistance to cut a road for the betterment of the community, you can't build a road through a building. But they look at our open space and say, well, that's the path of least resistance. So ag protection area is pretty much just that. It's as if you were building a structure on top of all that acreage so that when someone goes to cut erode or tries to do a right-of-way into a back-end development, they can't. There's a protection there that prevents that from happening. So that's why we are beefing this up to the full extent of our abilities. And thank you to Val for writing it.

Go ahead. Okay. A question I have is, okay, you are... proposing only a 20-year ag protection. That's state law.

State law.

State law?

It's not a 20-year. It's a review at 20 years. It's a review at 20 years.

Review at 20 years. So that means it can actually go 100 years or whatever. It could go, yeah. Or 200 or 300 or whatever. So that way Jeff Jones can make sure that it stays in there.

And his kids and his kids and his kids.

So anyway, also... When if they just did, I mean, let's just say, for instance, somebody wants to take it out of ag protection in 15 years, they cannot do it. Is that correct?

Yes, they can. They can take it out the day after they put it in.

So it doesn't restrict your use.

It does not restrict them from taking it out.

So it's right underneath Q, removal of the land from existing agricultural protection area. Any owner may petition to remove land by filing a written petition with the community development department. No filing fee shall be charged. So yeah, they can remove it whenever they'd like.

It doesn't restrict their use of the land after it's been approved? It doesn't restrict them on there's no public hearing to take it out. There's no petition to take it out. They just come in, fill the paperwork. I want to take out this three acres of this 200 acres. I have an ag protection to build a house for my kids. And they can take the three acres out and file their application for rezone.

And then at that point, they would pay the rollback taxes too?

If it changes use. This is not tied to Greenbelt. Greenbelt's its own thing. Because they could be, at the time of application, let's say they're cutting, it's a 40-acre plot. At the time of application and approval of the Ag Protection Area, they're cutting 40 acres of alfalfa. It's production ag. And... Six years in, they stopped cutting alfalfa because they can't get that much water that high up. So now they're running goats on it and peacocks.

Those are agriculture, by the way.

But they don't have enough AUMs to qualify. It can come out of Greenbelt, but that doesn't kick them out of Ag Protection because at the time of application, it was a qualifying property. So Greenbelt is its own total law.

So I have a big problem with item number C, the act protection area. And it says that the county commission will appoint no more than five members from the county's conservation board of supervisors. to serve as the agricultural protection area advisory board. I disagree with that one because I think you need to have more, somebody from, not more, but somebody from the outside also looking in and not just the conservation district or the conservation board. Those, because, I mean, not saying it's just the soil conservation district or the conservation district, it's not soil anymore, County's Conservation District Board is not always, I think we need to not combine all these groups. We need to have more representation from everybody. So that way it's not just one group here says this and that group is the one that works on the same thing in another area. I'm just saying maybe we need to have two separate things. And maybe part of it could be the Conservation Board.

Yeah, the Planning Commission is also, by statute, required to be eyes looking on this application as well.

They're supposed to be what?

The Planning Commission also is making recommendation. So you do have another set of eyes as well outside of the board. But what you're saying is for the conservation?

Because this is who will do the 20-year renewal.

Right.

So in theory... If you pass this today, we have no idea who's going to be on the, as is, if you pass it today, as is. You have no idea who's going to be on the Conservation District Board in 20 years for review. Right. And what you're saying is, or what I'm hearing you say, is you would prefer that it be its own separate board, like an Ag Protection Board?

That's correct.

Okay.

Because the Planning Commission is also in on the review, too. Your only snag is you have 45 days to do the application or it's approved automatically. So I can see the wisdom why most of them are from the conservation boards that are already existing and your planning commission is already existing.

Because of the turnaround?

So you already are going to need existing bodies. to be doing an application that has 45 days to be responded to. That's the only concern I have.

Yeah, I have a list of seven ag producers that are waiting for this to pass to do the application. So I would agree that would kind of hold up the application process.

In my opinion, I don't disagree about having more people involved, but every time we post for an open volunteer position, we get crickets usually. I mean, Planning Commission's a good example. We post those open things, and it takes months to get them filled sometimes. So I don't know that having yet another board of completely different people is the most efficient way to operate it.

Could, as a happy medium suggestion, not an attorney, don't play one on TV. What if we modified the language to say, or a future board to be appointed by resolution? And that way, if it leaves it open without us having to do a full code text amendment of, here's the board, here's who the representatives are, here's the terms, here's our list of duties, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

The only problem is if we pass this, And we have that in there. That is the law until we change it, right?

Well, that's what it would be is it would say appointment of board members. The county commission shall appoint no more than five members from the county conservation district board of supervisors to serve as the agriculture protection area advisory board. And we would just add no more than five members from the county conservation district board of supervisors or... other members of the community by resolution to serve as the Agriculture Protection Area Advisory Board.

Okay, that would be good. I mean, I'm out of a job next year. I might want to do it, and I might be able to volunteer that way.

That's what I wanted to follow up on. I was like, what exactly you were wanting of another set of eyes on it if you had the planning commission.

I want people that are, you know, I want people that might have a concern about ag protection. I'm very concerned about it. I want to keep it that way. as much as i can possibly do i've been working on that for six years almost six years now plus before that is trying to protect the agriculture industry because we need it i want to keep it no matter what happens plus the fact that i've got expertise in it also That, I mean, that's one expertise I could continue to help the county out. Not saying I'm going to be selected or anything. I may not be. But the thing is, is I would like to maybe help in that kind of an area since Jeff and I went to school together on that. And we graduated with the same degree. And there's things that I could do and continue to help. There's other people also that might have different perspectives, like the DEA or DAQ. I mean, those are eyes that are different. And maybe we just, I mean, planning commission may be totally something somebody does not want to do. But maybe this kind of a volunteer board might want to.

Yeah, the only thing is, again, it's more ad hoc. It's already baked into state law that you have 45 days, and it's an automatic approval, so there's actually already previous positions.

Right, so for temporary, you know, within that law, I like the way you said it, so that way we can have at least a chance or a potential of something later.

So the intent would be to change Charlie to appoint the board members, appointment of board members, period. The county commission shall appoint no more than five members at large and or from the county conservation district board of supervisor, dot, dot, dot, dot, dot.

That would be good.

Because regardless, you have to appoint them by resolution. That's right, you do.

OK. Yeah, I'm fine with that. Because there might also be somebody that might know the law also that wants to join in this group that might be an agriculturalist, might be a person. So anyway, that was my biggest thing.

Any others? OK.

I thought it was good. Great job.

Great aim?

No. Good job, though.

So, Mr. Chair? Yeah. I move that we go into public hearing.

Okay. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Fackrell, second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion's unanimous. Okay, we're now in public hearing. If you'd like to come forward and speak on this matter, you have three minutes. Please state your name and where you live.

My name's Jeff Jones, I ranch, live right up the road here. This is a very important topic, but I'm still not sure We have parcels all the way up and down the county, clear to Huntsville, clear into Wyoming. And the biggest nightmare is moving equipment. You can't afford to buy swather for every little parcel that you have. And I don't know how this can affect us on the highway, because I probably have as much trouble on the highway as anywhere else. I haven't seen anything. Maybe I just missed it.

So you're, are you talking about the, because you're slow.

Tractors.

And people like to tell you you're number one. Trailers full of cows. Yeah.

Yeah, dogs.

Miss Janet?

Can you repeat the question?

We just do one, right? So in Ag Protection, I think the question is, does that give them kind of like right to farm? Does it give them any access to open roadways for agricultural use within an agricultural protection area without getting flipped off?

I don't think so, because that would be UDOT.

I don't need access. I already have it. But I need protection from the guys that are really late for whatever fun they were going to. And they drive because I've been in three wrecks in a tractor just recently. But one of these days they're going to have the right attorney and I might be getting.

So your concern is like while you're in a spray boom. and you're headed down, if you get in an accident within an agricultural protection area, does this give you an additional layer of liability?

I'm going from one to another agricultural protection area.

Why don't you have just a million swathers?

Pardon me? Because you can't afford them.

I'll take them if you buy them.

So I guess if there's something. Oh, sorry. This is your time, not my time.

Sorry. I know it's not a back and forth. I was just trying to clarify.

Because I think it's important.

Hmm.

I live on I-66 right here. You know what the I is?

I-66. Yeah, the interstate 66.

And the next worst corner is where Casey lives.

Those are both of my areas for transportation master plan.

Anyway, I'm just trying to understand how far this ag protection is going to protect us.

This, on that specific thing, I don't think so. I think it protects you from imminent domain. Okay. And from, I mean, imminent domain. Maybe nuisance complaints. Nuisance complaints.

Nuisance, dust, smell.

We're going to wean calves in about a month.

I'm not helping.

No, I don't need help. But they're going to bell her for three days and make a lot of noise. And holy cow, do we get a lot of phone calls and a lot of. Being on Morgan moms. Really? Yeah, we're there regular. Regularly.

And the smell, too.

Well, Jeff, when I moved back up here, my wife asked if they were weaning calves across the street, and she goes, how long are they going to do that? I said, until they stop. I heard that.

She said, when do you stop?

Jeff, you need to get with Janet. Janet is the county deputy attorney, but she is a farmer's daughter from Montana and not the pretty part. and if she can find a way to protect it and it's ag she will find it she didn't just say you weren't pretty she's beautiful she's from the ugly part of montana i have spoken to a couple of people that farm in weaver county

They already have it. They say it's a good thing.

I'll say, because if there's something we can do that, I mean, you broke down in front of my house. It's like, no, come in here. Let's get you fixed, right? But it's like, you know.

But not everybody's as good as you.

Don't let the word get out. And most people will disagree with you. But I think it's a valid point. We've got a lot of equipment going up and down these roads on our farmers. And if this doesn't do it, if there's something that we can put in place, I think we should find it. And we should definitely get that on the books for our rag.

I'm like these guys. I wish you would look into it. Because when you've got white equipment and you're going down the road, you're trying not to hit mailboxes and everything. I bet you people don't know. The law says slow-moving vehicle, you must slow down to their speed before you pass them, and they don't even try in this county. Anyway, that's...

So what does I-66 stand for?

Huh? Interstate 66. They've been talking about this for more than 30 years. I'd like to see you get it done before they close the lid on me. So, anyway, thank you.

I would have liked to have heard that conversation. okay mr chair i move that we uh i guess i should ask if there's anyone else that wanted to come forward yes yes only on that yes so i i'm i don't want to cut you off but we're we've had We have to stay on subject. Yeah, this is public hearing for that item only. Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn the public hearing. Second. OK, I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Fackrell. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? OK, motion carries.

Mr. Chair?

Yes. OK. Some more questions on it. I noticed that in this, it always talks about the ag protection of only five acres. But if Jeff Jones has a parcel from this area and has another one up here, why should he have to be able to, you know, and it's only a smaller portion. Even in Greenbelt, if it's designated under the same names, and the same operation, they have that as total agriculture. So, but this is not, I mean, it's a protection zone. And I agree with everything Jeff said here. I mean, there are things that we are not protecting. the farmers the smell the dust from agriculture and the corn stalks that come out you know when they're putting the taking the corn off of the of the places to make silage there's so many things that I mean, we need agricultural protection, but I think we need to work on this code just a little bit more.

I don't think those kind of things could be added into this, can they?

There's some laws in the state of Utah for agriculture protections already but we need to make sure that we're following them and they're there for existing because Jeff and I have been farming since we were kids and there's others in here that have been doing that since they were kids I went away from it a little while he stayed in it But we there were protections for trailing cows and those trailing of cows as Development comes along they kind of wipe those out and there's also the protection of the farm Vehicles, and I think we need to somehow find those laws Find them and if we can put them into our AG protection and

So what I would recommend is if there's other protective laws outside the state code regarding this type of egg protection area, we can definitely look at that as far as a different ordinance, but I don't believe it should be seated within this one that's based on state law.

This is land use, and you're talking about roadways and other codes.

Which I have brought forward.

No disagreement that we should do something, but that...

But when you're talking about, and it talks about it in this new code, is that roadways do not make the difference between his area and my area. So he might be farming two or three items, two or three different areas, all within the state code. I mean, within this code. And that means the area on the roads are still part of that code.

And I would push back and argue that any farmer that isn't in a culture protection area should benefit from those other ordinances protecting for movement of farm equipment or animals or things like that. So I don't think those kind of things belong in this one.

And if I may. My other pushback is going to be what you're talking about is fence-in, fence-out. And this commission has never come to a quorum decision on fence-in, fence-out.

I know, and I'd like to.

And this is what I consider low-lying fruit. This is, to me, an easy yes.

Okay.

Fence-in, fence-out is going to be a knock-down, drag-out.

Let's do it.

But I'd rather...

I don't think...

I'd rather give him a swather and he not get the combine than he just have nothing. So fence in, fence out will not fall under this anyway. It will be its own code.

So I think we need to continue to work on protections for our ag. But I agree, I think there's no reason why we shouldn't pass this and we can always add two or our protections for our farmers. Any other questions?

I'm willing to flag anybody's vehicle any time. I've had a lot of experience.

Well, that sounds good to me.

OK. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve Ordinance CO26-12, A co-text amendment providing the framework for the creation, continuation, modification, and termination of agricultural protection areas. I second that. Hold it.

With the change.

Oh, with the changes.

Yeah, with the adjustments.

Interestee to, of adding at large. Okay.

I'm okay with that. And I'll second that.

Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Are there any opposed? Okay. It's unanimous. Chloe? Aye.

She's like, what?

Thank you.

Thanks for all your work on that, Val.

Who's next? Thank you, Val.

The Anderson Rezone is application number 26.014. The applicant owner is James Anderson. I apologize, I do not know if he's in the audience. I was not at the Planning Commission meeting. I was out of town. The project location is located around 2685 West Old Highway Road. The current zoning is a split zoned rural residential one acre and agriculture A20. The general plan designation is village low density residential which allows which would allow for half acre They're only going through a rezone They didn't have to do a future land use map amendment since the future land use map amendment matches the zone which they're going for if you could bring up the general plan now and One more. Yep, right there. The yellow is village low density residential. It includes not only this property, but a large number of properties adjacent to it and across the street a little to the south and east. That yellow in our general plan, village low density, is specific for half acre lots. Staff has reviewed this application, and we believe that it meets best planning practices based on surrounding land uses, the general plan, future land use map. And because of that, we are recommending approval on this one. If you have questions, I can answer them.

The only way they can get to it is by the old highway. So is this basically a flag lock?

If they decide to split it, which is not really a question for a rezone, then I would imagine their engineer would design it as a flag lock, but that's not really into the discussion.

Discussion items on it. My concern is this. It's 2.9 acres, which is plenty, but it already is RR1, and we have within our county, that's the reason it was zoned RR1, is so that way it would be at least one acre. So is this one where it's RR1 just that they do not have 200 feet of frontage, enough frontage to have two lots on it?

So when the last general plan was drafted, the drafters of that general plan envisioned this area to go half acre. The future land use map shows village low density, which is half acre in this area, and they are asking for a rezone which follows the general plan, which was adopted in 2010, and I believe updated in 2014. Whether they have the land to divide it now or not, That's not the application before you. The application before you is a rezone to R120, which follows the general plan.

Well, and it's not currently zoned. Well, a portion of it is. Most of it's zoned A20 currently. That's correct.

That's right.

Whereas most of the lots, the lot just to the north of it is already zoned R120.

That's correct.

And the lot to the south of it also, well, against the road is zoned R120 as well.

Yeah, and there's a small portion that somehow is zoned RR5.

Yeah, which is weird. You're saying in the green area there?

The green area is what's A20 currently.

Right, but where were you... Where are you saying it's A120? I mean R120?

Right, right north of it.

Between this piece and the church.

Yep, between that piece and the church.

And then on the south side as well. South side. And then across the street.

It's sandwiched between R120 and R5.

And there's even more down the street and across the street.

That's correct. Yep, that's correct.

But I think the big thing is it does comply with the future land use map. I mean, what this area asked for years ago. That's correct.

And remember, that was arbitrary.

What's that?

That's all arbitrary, too.

If that's what the people are asking for, I think that's the direction we take it. Now, if they wanted to amend the future land use map, I'd have a little bit more to say about it.

Yeah, a general plan is not arbitrary. I would push back. A general plan is not arbitrary. It is discretionary. depending on growth patterns and things like that. But it's absolutely not arbitrary. There's a lot of thought. There's a lot of study. There's a lot of things that go into drafting a general plan. Money. Yeah, things like that.

I'm just thrilled that it's not wanting to be townhomes.

Mr. Chair, I move that we... convene a public hearing. Thank you.

I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Now's the time for any public that would like to speak on this matter to come forward. Seeing none, I'll look for a motion. I'll move to adjourn the public hearing and reconvene the public meeting. Second. Commissioner Newton and the second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Any other questions?

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve ordinance CO26-18, a rezone of 2.9 acres at 2685 West Old Highway Road from RR1 and A20 to R1-20.

I'll second.

I have a motion by Commissioner Newton and a second by Commissioner Nickerson. All in favor? Aye. Are there any opposed? Okay. It's unanimous. Okay, who has this last one?

I'll turn the time over to Ray Nettleton. Okay, thanks Josh.

Hi, my name is Ray Nettleton. I'm representing a group of four landowners on this, the amendment number three proposal. Kate, are you able to go to that presentation?

Yes. Do you want to let them know that I put that paperwork on their desk?

Oh, yeah. That's part of that.

Do you know which? It was a separate file.

It wasn't in the packet, but I emailed it before the deadline on that Tuesday.

Or actually Monday night.

Which one?

Yeah, it's the Google Drive link.

Oh, I didn't even see that. Okay.

Okay, so I'm going to speak to this. You guys have seen me too many times. I've heard you're tired of me. Never too many, Ray. Oh, thank you. So this whole saga started in 2006 with the approval of the development agreement, the Cottonwoods Development Agreement. One of the problems is that developer never actually purchased almost half the property but he kind of encumbered the property with the development agreement. So he did phases, just call it one through five. And then in 2011, he stopped or decided not to exercise the option agreement. And there was a settlement agreement. And that settlement agreement basically says that the people that... He was supposed to purpose the property from the Wilkinson family. They generally wanted to be in the development agreement. But it was a split from him as the developer to them as the potential developers, I guess you'd say. So in 2023, the county commissioner allowed the improper removal of land in phase six that made the equestrian center impractical. So the development agreement said that Wilkinson shall install a equestrian center. It was actually an absolute requirement, and that land was removed. When they removed the land that made it impossible to fulfill that requirement, it kind of put us in a pickle. Between 2023 and 2025, the staff worked with the Wilkinson family. Oh, sorry. In 2023, the Wilkinson family requested removal of 189 acres, which is part of the Phase 9 property. They wanted to remove it from the development agreement. Basically, it put them in a position where they never sold the land, yet it was encumbered as perpetual open space. So I think everyone felt that that was unfair and you guys approved removal of that land. In 2023 to 2025, the staff worked with Wilkinson's and the Gailey's for a replacement land plan that would basically allow Morgan County Cottonwoods, which is the landowners to the east of the Cottonwoods, to swap land with the Wilkinson family. So in November 2025, the Planning Commission approved the DA Amendment Number 3, we presented which included 253 entitlements including townhomes i i think based on that uh you know that the wave of approval from the the planning commission in january sorry this isn't on on the slide but uh in january 2025 the commission allowed removal of that 189 acres so at that point in time the cottonwood development zone became kind of non-compliant because they didn't have the open space and they didn't have the acres that made up that zone. So in February 2026, you know, there was an online survey by the HOA. You know, basically we were up for vote in that meeting on the plan for 253 units. And, you know, they put out a survey. And, you know, I think there was a lot of things that were don't think it was intentional but incorrect with that super survey a lot of people got stirred up um and you know we've been trying to work with the master homeowners association and the you know county attorneys to uh to make things better um the county commission or county's attorneys actually in January said, hey, this is a really complicated agreement. You need to hire a special land use attorney, which we did. So from March to July, applicants, we hired a land use attorney. We met with the Master Homeowners Association several times, lots of phone calls. Our attorney consulted with their attorney, and we made... We went through several major redesigns and contractual rewrites to try and account for as many of their objections as we could. We did a major rewrite and a new concept plan where we removed the town homes, which was the biggest point of contention, and we redrew our subdivisions down to 240 entitlement and that still wasn't good enough and then finally we redo it and we're at 222 and that's what was proposed at the last you know that that revision has been in front of you guys for a couple months now, or at least last time in August. That concept plan has not changed since that time. So in August, Just last month, we had a meeting with Commissioners Blocker and Wilson and the Master Homeowners Association president and applicant to resolve final obstacles to support the 222 developed units. We took notes and we published what we thought was, you know, if we do these, I think there's like nine items, we would have full support of the commission and and the Master HOA. So if you could flip to your next, or the handout. So these are what I think this DA amendment number three accomplishes, kind of use it as a checklist if you would. So the DA zone is whole again at 1,035 acres, so we add back the 193 acres that were removed when the, we more than make up for what the Wilkinsons removed. And I'm gonna consider that a check. So this properly assigns the development rights and responsibilities to the actual land owners instead of someone who just optioned the land. The DA language is concise and enforceable. This is a really tough agreement. I think Janet would probably agree. It's like a divorce and a marriage with four different people and a prenuptial all kind of like boiled into one. But we spent a lot of time with it. So I know this is one of the comments from the Planning Commission was triggers for required amenity turnovers, and we made sure that that's in there. The DA zone is now compliant again for density. So our density is 0.51 dwelling units per acre. The overall average for the Cottonwoods is 0.83. So we're dragging that number down. And we're well, well below the 1,027 that's capable in that DA by the ordinance. So the replacement amenities after eliminating the Equestrian Center golf course are customary and commensurate with bonus density, and it remains at $877. So that is the same as the 2005 bonus densities. We just came up with it with different amenities. And the Master Homeowners Association did agree that the amenities that we offered are will do justify that 877. So from the 2005 plan, there's an additional one and a half acre park that in phase six that was never required. So that's new. The phase nine park, there was one required, but it went from one acre to one and a half acre. We had two new pickleball courts, which is available for everybody, one in each of those parks. That's new from the 2005 plan. There's a play structure in each one of those parks now. New shade structures in both of the parks. None of the parks of the previous 2005 plan had required shade structures as something we're offering. um i think the biggest one is is the uh we're added over three miles of uh trails open to all the residents of morgan county um it's double the trails that were on those parcels are phase six and nine um the trails these trails will be that run over the uh private agricultural open space will be deeded to the HOA. So that's very, that's kind of a newer, big concession, I think. So there's once, you know, at the appropriate time when those areas are recorded, we will deed that land and blame that it'll be happening until they're full 10 feet wide so they can improve those as needed if they want to. The developer will install them, but again, if the HOA wants to improve beyond that in the future, they can do that since it's theirs. One of the community members requested that we break up phase six. They just didn't want to see wall-to-wall-to-wall houses, so we actually put a gap in between there where with like 80, 90 feet. So it kind of breaks up the phases. So we incorporated that design element. So overall, we're at 63.7% open space with 276 acres either deeded to the HOA or deed restricted. Again, there's a repeat here, but... I'd like to think that we can demonstrate and check the box that we've collaborated with the Master HOA and their attorney, including their three must-haves, which were no townhomes. We eliminated that. We shall join the Master Homeowners Association and lots more. greater than 10,000 square feet, which was something that was in the proposal from last November. So we've been working a lot to improve this offering to appease as many people as possible. One of the big things I think we've accomplished is that this closes the redevelopment loophole with our exhibit G. So a lot of the residents were stirred up because they've had some of these open spaces taken from them in the past. And we told our attorneys, hey, we don't We don't want to be tempted to do this. We don't want to do it. Our intent is to perpetually preserve these open spaces, specifically these private agricultural open spaces. So it's a three-page document, an attachment, and I think hopefully the county attorney will agree that if that's signed, properly executed, when it records, there's no way that that land will ever be developed. The Master Homeowners Association asked for more teeth. They asked that they could be able to enforce that document. We said, sure. We have no intention of trying to develop that land. So we did that. And the last bullet here is this. None of what we're discussing infringes upon remaining owners in the DA zone. And I'll kind of get to that. So Kate, are you able to pull up the, and tell me if you guys know all this and I won't go over it, but whereas I thought I'd just go over some of the attributes. Can you blow up the upper right hand corner?

This one?

Yeah.

That's as far as it goes.

It doesn't come in very good, but...

Sorry.

It does on our individual... Your screen, do you can see it better? Yeah, I was able to zoom in pretty good.

Oh, you want the, not this one, but the one in the packet?

Or are they the same thing? It might be better resolution. It's the same. Page 223. Highlighted in our packets. There you go. There you go.

But it's highlighted. It is highlighted.

Lordy. Come on, tech.

Pretty colors.

Is that what you wanted, Ray?

Yeah. Okay. So I thought I'd start with phase six. I mean, this is a big area.

It seems like a lot of changes, but it's really not.

So on the far right here, I don't know how to do this with the pointer.

Oh, it's a touch screen.

What are you?

Oh, sorry. Again, phase six.

You might want to take the mic over with him.

Thanks, Corey.

We have a laser somewhere, don't we?

All right, try that. OK, so here's phase six. The Pliers property and the Max and the Daines family's properties consist of 104 lots, 114 acres. We've fully committed that there will be greater than 40% open space. To be clear, anything that says common open space, all this, all this, all this that will be deeded to the HOA at the time of of recordation the only there's a nine acre sliver here i know the pliers want to build one of their house on the edge here. And I think the family would, and they want to enjoy this as a private agricultural open space. And again, that's very heavily protected by that exhibit. Gee, no buildings fully enforceable in perpetuity. Again, this is the- Ray, just a question.

So in the number six DA, It says 94 dwelling units, and you have 104?

Where does it say that?

Number six, page seven in the DA.

So the lot allocations per the phases is off throughout the DA and the other documents. They're inconsistent. There's quite a few of those things where they don't match up.

That is so weird. I've never seen any addition that shows 94.

This is what's in the packet. It does say 94. Residential density. It says 94 dwelling units, revised phase for six property, and then... There's 93 for Phase 9, MT1. And 35. Do you know what page of the packet? Yeah. Page. Of the packet.

I don't know.

I'm not. You said page 7 of the DA? It's page 7 of the DA. Yeah.

So packet page 10, 23, and 55.

Of the actual DA. OK. Agreement.

Yeah, the ordinance and supplement have different numbers than the DA for the phased lot allocation.

I don't know where that came from. What's that?

That's the development agreement you had me put in the packet. This is the DA, yeah. This is the actual legal document.

So it's under number six, right?

Yeah. Yeah. 222.

Yeah, you're at 222, but your numbers are different from your map.

Is that H6? Is that the one you're talking about? Which one?

That was the one we changed it for.

There's quite a few of them between the ordinance and the DA that are way off or just minorly off.

Yeah, the 222, they should sum up. It should be 104 for phase 6. 31 for, I don't, this is not the right document.

Who wrote it?

Kyle did, our attorney. It must have been, it revises like four major revisions. I don't know how.

I like the revisions. I think they're great. I think I love how it's written here.

I don't know how we missed the count there.

I need you on mic.

This is not the original. This is the one that went back and forth between the MOA's attorney and his name's Kevin. That's Kyle, excuse me. That was the red line one.

I think what I did is I just.

Cameron Cutler is the MOA attorney.

All right. Regardless, this is the one I was sent to put in the packet.

So which is correct?

I don't have another one.

All of them, there's a lot of provisions within both the DA, the ordinance, and the concept plans and stuff that they don't jive. And so there's going to be some cleanup as far as the legal language in either the development agreement and the ordinance. that we're going to have to straighten out. So I think, I mean, if you guys want to make a decision tonight, it needs to be on the concept of what you want. And yeah, and make sure that all the documents line up.

Yeah, they're not lining up.

They're not.

Like your concept plan. It completely contradicts the amendment of the agricultural open space of phase six and nine in your DA. There is no agricultural open space in phase six and nine.

The playgrounds disappear from the DA. There is no playgrounds in here.

This is obviously the wrong document. I don't know. I must have uploaded. renamed the file wrong or something. I just scanned it, looked right.

These are the ones that we got directly from Kyle.

And then underneath joinder. These are the ones I got from. Oh, okay. Underneath your joinder and development agreement, there's nothing under section three where before it talked about the whole HOA, MOA, but there's no 3.1 to 3.5 at all. That's right on the screen.

I have no idea how this document got so corrupted. It's not what I intended to show you tonight.

Yeah, the native open space is different between.

So as the applicant, how would you like us to proceed? Because this is what's in the packet. The parts are different sizes.

I absolutely need to spend like 20 minutes sitting down to review what's in there. Because I scanned it. It looked right. I have no idea how it's so corrupt. Maybe that's just a corrupted file or something. I don't know what happened.

Chair, may we take a bathroom break?

Sure.

Do you think that's possible to do it in that time period?

If we took a quick break.

I don't know that it can get done in 20 minutes. There's a lot of discrepancies. It's between concept plan ordinance and the DA. And we're talking hundreds of pages.

OK. Maybe what we need to do, just a thought, we can have you guys tell us and explain it to us we're not going to prove it tonight because we don't have the final documents that's what i understand we've done in our past is we're not going to make the final documents until everything's correct or to pass it but at least that we can at least hear this and also hear what the public has to say um and that way we can end up having some kind of a idea a better idea because i'm actually liking it a little bit better minus those few things that raylene's found um but that's my thought and that's only two weeks and that way your attorney can get it all straight your da can your da can get straight and uh with all the legalese and we can actually look at it

with the corrected copy because right now we're not seeing a corrected copy and I'd like to see the corrected copy because I've got questions too okay could we try one thing just to make sure can you go over to that email and pull up that file I like agreement there's just a few changes yeah what was the date of it on it well 824 it says

You sent at 8.24, 10.11 p.m.

I just got the right date on it. Can you scroll? Let's look at that one.

I just opened it. I've got all your bookmarks. I think the easiest way, we just scroll to section three. Okay.

So, Ray, this is what we have is what the Cottonwoods MOA attorney redlined what they wanted. That's what we had in the packet.

Consistency here. It looks like the right one. Where's the blank bullets?

That's what I'm not understanding because I pulled them directly from your email.

There's three.

Right, that's why I'm like, I don't understand, because it's...

So, yeah, this is what I...

I don't have anything else to put in the packet.

So that's what's in the packet, and it's different than what I emailed you?

So I thought, Kate, that the ones that you put in the packet were the ones that Garrett had forwarded to you. That's the ones that we had initially. I've never been provided these updated ones.

So Kyle said to me in an email that he forwarded my email to Kate to you guys.

And that's what I forwarded on to Kate.