Bill Winfield, Chair: It is 3 p.m. on October 21st, 2025, and the commission is present with Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler, Commissioner McCurdy, Commissioner McGann, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner McCandless, and myself, Commissioner Winfield, with Administrator Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Tyner and Auditor Mr. Wojtek, with a presentation from Tess Barger and the HR Department.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And Tess, please take it away.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, excellent. Thank you all very much.
Tess Barger, HR: I’ll start, I’ll first start off with saying that Rick Stewart with GBS Benefits, our Benefits Administrator is here, as well as Derek Applegate, who’s with PEHP. During the last meeting, when this item was on the agenda, it was requested that we had a PHP representative here, and then we also have a representative from GBS Benefits to help fill in any gaps with any questions that come up that would fall within his realm.
Tess Barger, HR: So to start off, I’ll just let you know the layout that I have for today’s presentation. We’ll first start off with, I’ll provide a brief presentation of history related to our benefits, and then a brief overview of the CIGNA and PEHP options and what went into us coming up with those options.
Tess Barger, HR: And then we’ll pass it over to Derek Applegate. He’ll provide a brief vernal presentation on PEHP.
Tess Barger, HR: I then will have some questions that I’ll moderate with Derek. We had top questions that were asked by staff when we were polling them.
Tess Barger, HR: And so in order for you all to hear what those questions were, as well as the answers, we’ll go ahead and do that session. And then of course, any additional questions that haven’t been answered throughout the presentation, Q&A, et cetera, then we’ll make sure that we have time at the end for that as well.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, so first to start off, I think it’s prudent for us to explain what our obligation is as an employer with benefits. So we, based on the size of the employer we are, we are classified as a large employer.
Tess Barger, HR: So any employer over 50 employees is required to provide insurance benefits to employees. Those benefits are also based on the ACA standards, so Affordable Care Act standards.
Tess Barger, HR: They also have to have a certain threshold of value as well as affordability. So there are calculations that go into that.
Tess Barger, HR: But the kind of the long and the short is that the plans that we offer should cover at least 60% of expected benefit costs. And deductibles also have increases.
Tess Barger, HR: So for instance, for a high deductible plan moving into 2026, the maximum would be 8,500 for a single individual and then 17,000 for a family. The plans that we have provided have not hit that anywhere near that.
Tess Barger, HR: But again, that’s just the threshold from the ACA. So in addition to it being necessary, it’s also an incredible benefit for retention as well as recruitment, us having good benefit packages to offer, as well as the fact that we have up to date had an option that is free of cost entirely to employees.
Tess Barger, HR: High deductible plans both for single, two-party and family have no premium that’s passed off to FOI. The county covers the full cost of the premium and also provides an HSA contribution.
Tess Barger, HR: And that’s because traditional plans cost more. And so in order to kind of balance those out a little bit more, make them a bit more equitable to employees, we have that HSA contribution that is tied to the high deductible plan that traditional plan members don’t have.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, so some really brief terminology definitions. Cigna OAP, and these are going to be referred to.
Tess Barger, HR: So that’s why I thought it was important for us to just go ahead and cover them right at the beginning. Cigna OAP is Cigna Open Access Plus.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s currently the Cigna plan that the county is enrolled in and has been enrolled in. PEHP stands for Public Employees Health Program.
Tess Barger, HR: IHC stands for Intermountain Healthcare. So a group of medical centers within the Intermountain Healthcare conglomerate, if you will.
Tess Barger, HR: Benefits Administrator is a company that manages our employee benefits programs, including health insurance. So that is GPS Benefits.
Tess Barger, HR: And First Health Network is a rental network used by PEHP for out-of-state coverage, including the Colorado area. So to go into the bids that we received this year.
Tess Barger, HR: So we received bids from Cigna, EMI Health, PEHP, Regents, Aetna, Motive Health, Select Health, United Healthcare, and then University of Utah Health Plans. We went out to bid because we had not been out to bid for a number of years.
Tess Barger, HR: The primary reason for this was that we’ve been, and by we, I mean the staff have been happy with Cigna. They also gave us a 0% renewal rate for both 2020, or excuse me, 2024 and 2025, which is great.
Tess Barger, HR: And so we really didn’t have a need to go out to bid. That being said, because we wanted to see what our options were, both because it’s good for us to check in on what our options are every number of years, and also because of the continued identification of concerns related to the budget going into 2026, we thought it was prudent to go out to bid.
Tess Barger, HR: The reason that we’re here today is our recommendation is really to only be looking at two of the bids. One of those is from Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: So the initial renewal rate that they gave us was 15.9%. GBS Benefits has been excellent in helping us work with and negotiate with Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: When GBS facilitated that, Cigna came back with an 8.77% renewal rate. We said, unfortunately, that’s still not quite what we’re able to look at.
Tess Barger, HR: We are going to go ahead and proceed to go out to bid for the aforementioned reasons. And after all of the other bids were closed, GBS Benefits always takes it back to the current carrier and says, okay, this is what everybody else did.
Tess Barger, HR: What’s your best and final offer? At that point, Cigna gave us a renewal rate of 4.78%.
Tess Barger, HR: As we looked through all of the other dates that we received, the other plan that stuck out, both because of the comparable coverage, as well as the reduced renewal rate they gave us, was PEHP. They gave us two options.
Tess Barger, HR: We only are really looking or wanting to look at Quote 3. The reason for that is Quote 3 allows employees to opt into one of two different plans.
Tess Barger, HR: One is the PEHP Advantage plan, which gives them access to IHC care, so that Intermountain Healthcare Network in Utah. And then they have a Summit plan, which covers non-IHC care in Utah.
Tess Barger, HR: So that would be, for instance, the University of Utah health system is really what folks are typically accessing and thinking of. For both the Summit and the Advantage plans, the out-of-state coverage, so that Colorado-grade junction area coverage would be the same.
Tess Barger, HR: Do we have any questions so far?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Cigna and PEHP would be the same in the Grand Junction area. Is that the way I understood what you just said?
Tess Barger, HR: No, I apologize. So the two different PEHP plans that staff would have the option to choose, either the Advantage or the Summit, they have the exact same out-of-state coverage.
Tess Barger, HR: Great question. Thank you.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And so it’s not Advantage and Summit. It’s Advantage or Summit.
Tess Barger, HR: Correct. It’s Advantage or Summit.
Tess Barger, HR: Okay. That’s correct.
Tess Barger, HR: And I’ll go into a little bit more of the specifics, not a ton, because we do have a very well-versed PEHP representative here, but I’ll go ahead and touch on that briefly here in a moment. So there’s a lot of terminology and verbiage involved in insurance.
Tess Barger, HR: And so this was another item that I felt was important for us to break down really briefly. So there are different types of plans, but the two that we’ll talk about are level funded and fully insured.
Tess Barger, HR: So when you are in a level funded plan, what that means is that we are taking on some of the risk and the insurance carrier is taking on some of the risk in terms of our utilization. So the cost of the claims that our employees have over the course of the year.
Tess Barger, HR: Benefits of this are that there’s greater likelihood and possibility of refunds. So for instance, from 2023, we received a refund of $305,000.
Tess Barger, HR: And then for the 2024 year, we received a refund of $143,000 back from SITBAP. For 2025 up to date, our utilization is higher this year.
Tess Barger, HR: We’ve had to use our insurance more. We’ve had higher claims.
Tess Barger, HR: And so we’re not anticipating getting any type of refund check like that. We had really, really good years in 2023 and 2024, which is also likely why we got that 0% renewal rate from Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: Additionally, again, we have the fixed monthly cost with refunds after end of year reconciliation. So we won’t know exactly what our refund for 25 is until 26.
Tess Barger, HR: And then Cigna plan is level funded currently. For fully insured carrier takes on the greater risk of that claims, regardless of how much we’re using our insurance.
Tess Barger, HR: So we have those fixed premiums, smaller possibility of refunds, and then the refunds are smaller percentages typically. And then the PEHP plan that we’re looking at is that fully insured plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So this is a comparison of Cigna versus PEHP coverage in Utah specifically. So in Utah under our Cigna OAP plan, there’s coverage of 44 hospitals and medical centers.
Tess Barger, HR: For the PEHP Advantage plan, we have 38 hospitals and centers. And again, the Advantage plan is that IHC network.
Tess Barger, HR: And then for the PEHP Summit plan, or the non-IHC coverage, that covers both centers in Utah. So in terms of the number of facilities that are covered, it’s very comparable between Cigna and PEHP, and there’s a lot of overlap in what those facilities are.
Tess Barger, HR: And again, to reiterate, employees would have to choose either the Advantage or the Summit plan under PEHP.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So you have a lot of extra columns on there that to me are unnecessary when we’re just trying to compare the two plans and the Cigna. So could you share what the three columns are that we should be looking at?
Tess Barger, HR: Absolutely. So you’ll just be looking at the Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: And so that’s the second column, and then the PEHP column, which is the last column. And I apologize, this was taken out of the GBS guide that we were provided.
Tess Barger, HR: I didn’t create this chart, and so that’s why there are those extra columns.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, I see it now. Thank you.
Tess Barger, HR: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’re just looking at the blue and the gray.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, that’s correct. Yep, looking at the blue and the gray.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then Cigna, those are the three different plans that are available from Cigna. Is that correct?
Tess Barger, HR: Those are the three different plans that they have, and we’re on the OAP plan.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: On the OAP. And then the PEHP, we’re just doing the two middle ones.
Tess Barger, HR: Correct, Advantage and Summit. Got it.
Tess Barger, HR: And as you can see within the Advantage and Summit, there’s also quite a bit of overlap in between the hospitals and centers that they both cover as well.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: All right.
Tess Barger, HR: So next I’ll go over a brief history of our run with Cigna as an organization. So Greene County first switched to Cigna in 2015.
Tess Barger, HR: We moved over to Select Health only for the year 2016, and then moved back to Cigna in 2017. We’ve been with them since 2017.
Tess Barger, HR: The highest renewal rate that we received from Cigna was the first year, so that first year that we switched over to them. And then the lowest renewal rates we’ve received from them are the last two years with that 0% renewal rate.
Tess Barger, HR: So the average renewal rate we’ve had with Cigna from year to year is 8.77%, which is really great. This past year, what they were saying was industry standard was a 10% renewal rate.
Tess Barger, HR: So we’re under that industry standard, that industry average in terms of renewal rate with Cigna. All right.
Tess Barger, HR: And then I apologize that this chart, I wish I could pull it up bigger while also still having it in this PowerPoint, but I also did attach the GBS entire guide so that you were able to access the full original version of the documents and pull them up as much as you needed to. So there are several alternative options that we did look at in terms of our Cigna plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So our current Cigna plan structures are we have a traditional plan and a high deductible plan. For a traditional plan, our deductibles are $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for a family and network and 4,000 and 8,000 respectively for out-of-network and then our out-of-pocket maximums for traditional plans are $4,000 for an individual and $8,000 for a family and then our out-of-network are the $12,000 for an individual and $24,000 for a family.
Tess Barger, HR: And then for the high deductible plan, it’s 2,000 and 4,000 for in-network, 4,000 and 65, or excuse me, and then 4,000 and 8,000 for out-of-network and then for out-of-pocket maximums, $4,000 for a single person, $6,550 for a family, and then $8,000 and $13,100 for out-of-network. Some other important things that I’d like us to look at are prescriptions.
Tess Barger, HR: So oftentimes folks overlook the importance of a prescription drug plan, but ultimately a lot of those that are utilizing insurance are more often using their prescription plan than maybe their medical plan. You may have to fill your prescriptions every two weeks, but you only have to go to the doctor once every couple months, for instance, right?
Tess Barger, HR: So looking at our prescription plans is very important as well for staff. And then for the Cigna alternatives that they gave us, we asked them to look at what would it look like in terms of us trying to figure out this affordability question?
Tess Barger, HR: What would it look like if we increase some of these numbers, for instance, increasing our deductibles in our high deductible plans and increasing our out-of-pocket maximums just to see what it would do to use premium rates. If you increase deductibles and increase out-of-pocket maximums, it takes down premium rates and then it would bring down the cost that the county would be paying for our plan.
Tess Barger, HR: And as we were looking a lot more in depth in this, we did realize that the numbers that are provided in the alternative options were not updated when we got the 4.78% renewal rate. So we don’t have the exact numbers of what those alternative options would look like, but there would be a reduction in essentially the higher you go with the deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, the lower the premiums are.
Tess Barger, HR: And Rick, if you have anything else to add to that, I’d love to pass it over to you for a moment.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, you bet. I would just add that we think that in raising those deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums and those alternate options that it would save about two to 3% compared to the Cigna rates that you’re seeing on this page.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, great. Thank you, Rick.
Tess Barger, HR: Do we have any questions for Rick or myself on this?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So in raising deductibles, it would be putting the cost on the employee more than the cost for the county.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, great question.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So we’d save money, the county would save money.
Tess Barger, HR: And then if, say, an employee got hurt or had a medical situation come up, instead of hitting their deductible at, say, the $2,000 mark, they would have to pay up to $3,000 before their deductible kicked in. So we would be passing the cost off to the employee.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s correct. Can we return to, you mentioned the HSA, that we actually fund an HSA.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Okay, do you know how much we put in a certain amount every month?
Tess Barger, HR: Yep, we do. We do $100 for single and then $200 for two-party or family plans.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So $1,200 or $2,400. So basically those monies can be used for deductibles.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Is that correct? Am I incorrect about that?
Tess Barger, HR: Well, I think that, well, yes, they can cover any cost. That’s correct.
Tess Barger, HR: They could definitely, if they went in and had to pay for something, they can get reimbursed by the HSA. That’s 100% correct.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But that’s only on those high deductible plans, not on the regular.
Tess Barger, HR: Correct, the traditional plan, which we didn’t, we’re not, we didn’t touch the traditional plan in terms of looking at increasing deductibles or anything like that. The traditional, you can’t be on a traditional plan and have access to an HSA.
Tess Barger, HR: They can have an FSA, which is a totally different can of worms and we don’t provide any contributions. Great questions.
Tess Barger, HR: Thank you all. Okay.
Tess Barger, HR: And then moving over to the age. Um, so again, it breaks down what the advantage slash summit, which is the option that we would be looking at would be.
Tess Barger, HR: So it had that outline for both the traditional plan as well as the high deductible plan and columns one and two, columns three through five. Also look at what these alternative plans would be if we say decided to increase the deductible and or increase out-of-pocket maximums on the high deductible plan option.
Tess Barger, HR: Um, another big thing that I, that I think is important. Again, looking at those comparisons in between plans is the plans are.
Tess Barger, HR: Basically identical aside from prescriptions. So for PEHP under the traditional plan for prescriptions and insurances classified drug, different drugs in tiers.
Tess Barger, HR: So tiers one through three. So for tier one PEHP would be a $10 increase for tier two.
Tess Barger, HR: It would be a $5 increase. And for tier three, it would be a $15 increase.
Tess Barger, HR: And again, that’s under the traditional plan. Prescriptions for the high deductible plan tier one would be a $5 increase tier two.
Tess Barger, HR: Drugs would be a $10 decrease and tier three drugs would be a $5 decrease. But aside from that, the copays out after deductible percentages, you know, what cares covered, et cetera.
Tess Barger, HR: We have any questions on this? So after we came in and presented last time, there was a, which I very, very greatly appreciated.
Tess Barger, HR: There’s a strong motivation amongst the commission to get feedback from staff. We did this in two different ways.
Tess Barger, HR: We sent out an email to our entire staff directory. We also walked around and pulled staff.
Tess Barger, HR: The reason we did this is because there’s a certain selection bias that could happen. If you send out a survey where folks that have really strong opinions are going to be in that survey.
Tess Barger, HR: Whereas folks that maybe don’t have as much of an opinion one way or another are less likely to engage. And so by polling, we tried to get a better, a better kind of sample size of the staff.
Tess Barger, HR: So 20, when we walked around, we talked to 24 different staff. 12 said that they had concerns about being Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: Seven were neutral. So that’s 30% were neutral.
Tess Barger, HR: Four said that they had issues with Cigna. One was actually in favor of switching because they had a lot of issues getting, figuring out which providers they could see and unify Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: And then 11 identified that they regularly access Grand Junction Colorado Care. And then in terms of number of responses for that email survey that we sent out, 13 staff responded.
Tess Barger, HR: 11 reflected concerns with leaving PHP. And then we had seven staff indicate that they use Grand Junction Care regularly.
Tess Barger, HR: So in total about 50% of the staff on both sides said that they regularly access Junction Care.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: You said, and I think you did on the email or the online when you said there was 11 that were concerned about leaving PHP.
Tess Barger, HR: Oh, I’m sorry, sir. I greatly apologize.
Tess Barger, HR: There were 11 that had concerns with leaving Cigna. Thank you for the correction.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The same number were polled in both polls. You don’t have a number in your email response poll side there.
Tess Barger, HR: So there were, so 13, we sent out the email to everybody in the county directly. Okay.
Tess Barger, HR: Which is, you know, 100 plus staff. We have 145 staff currently on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Everybody was pulled in the email.
Tess Barger, HR: Exactly. Yep, exactly.
Tess Barger, HR: All of our full-time staff were pulled in the email and we have, we currently have 145 employees that are enrolled in our insurance, whether it’s traditional or high deductibles. So we’ve got about 25% of staff who are currently benefited with Cigna to respond, which is a pretty decent percent.
Tess Barger, HR: So again, you can kind of see that selection bias in terms of the number of those who were pulled when we walked around versus those who responded.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And there’s, there’s no question in here, but I’m curious about the number of people that services such as U of U and the stuff we’re losing by going to PE and be at the Huntsman and the, what is a Morningstar? That’s where our biggest loss is coming in on your chart is services at the U of U.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s the two columns there in the Morningstar column.
Tess Barger, HR: If, if someone were to go with the Advantage plan, then they, then that’s correct. But if they utilize, if they were to select the PEHP Summit option, which is a, which is a, totally a possibility for them, then MountainStar and University of Utah would be within that plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So essentially if staff, and if staff favor IHC or non-IHC, they’ll have to make that, that selection. Great question.
Tess Barger, HR: Hmm.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Okay. With Cigna, do they have to make that?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No.
Tess Barger, HR: With the OAP plan, they don’t have to choose Advantage versus Summit. They don’t have to choose between two different plans.
Tess Barger, HR: The OAP plan covers 44 different hospitals and centers with a mix between IHC and non-IHC. And then the PEHP plans cover 38 hospitals and 44 hospitals respectively.
Tess Barger, HR: So the number of centers that are covered, don’t change. Most centers exactly are covered, do change though.
Tess Barger, HR: And, and it’s, yeah, some, there’s, there’s certainly overlap, but there are also gaps as well, or differences, I should say, not gaps.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No, if it was straight overlap with two cheaper plans.
Tess Barger, HR: And that’s why it’s difficult, right? This is a very nuanced decision.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then the Grand, I mean, so Grand Junction, there’s no way to really compare. Like right now we can look at the hospitals that Utah is, is comparing, but, but as far as the PEHP network and it’s outside of Utah, there’s no way to compare.
Tess Barger, HR: There wasn’t a chart of a really nice, you know, visual aid chart available. I did provide a copy of the First Health Network directory of all cares or care providers in the Grand Junction area that are covered under PEHP.
Tess Barger, HR: And then with, with us having Derek Applegate here to, to provide some additional information, certainly ask him some of those questions as well. Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Under the options of the high deductible, are those currently available to all employees? If I look at the previous sheet, it looks like the majority of our staff choose the high deductible option.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct. Yes.
Tess Barger, HR: And I actually have those numbers. So currently we have 105 employees on our high deductible plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So over 70% of our staff are on high deductible.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Which ones of, say, these three options right here, would they be on? In the next year’s renewal, it looks like there’s three options for high deductible.
Tess Barger, HR: So, so we had our benefits administrator essentially structure if we were to increase the deductible and out-of-pocket maximum, what would those premiums look like? What the plan is that we’re currently on is the, for the high deductible is $2,000 deductible for a single and 4,000 for a family.
Tess Barger, HR: So that’s second column.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So that’s the second one.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct. That’s currently the structure of the high deductible plan that we have.
Tess Barger, HR: Okay. Perfect.
Tess Barger, HR: Thanks. Thank you.
Tess Barger, HR: And it’s a great plan. I will say it’s, it’s the best deductible that I’ve ever had at any employer.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I don’t know if it’s for you or the representative directly, but if I chose a different plan, if we went with PHP and chose a different plan, I said I want healthcare coverage from up north. Does that take away healthcare coverage from Colorado?
Tess Barger, HR: No, it does not.
Bill Winfield, Chair: No, they would just have to go with the summit plan to get the Utah coverage. That if you look in that call or summit plan coverage, if they want to university advantage plan is where you, but if they chose to go with the advantage plan, if it ended it with the advantage plan, life flight only goes there.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So if they, if they get life flight.
Tess Barger, HR: And it goes to Grand Junction, that would be covered. Emergency care is covered.
Tess Barger, HR: And that’s another great question that I know that Derek is going to be addressing as well.
Stephen Stocks: Okay. And just for some additional knowledge, they have done life flights.
Stephen Stocks: I know somebody that was like life-flown from Moab to Salt Lake.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Yeah, for sure.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yeah, but it’s a rarity.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Which one is?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I mean, a sheer number.
Tess Barger, HR: Well, it depends. Yeah, having worked in the emergency room at the hospital, it’s not as much of a rarity as you would think.
Tess Barger, HR: Certainly sometimes it is very often and a little bit more often that folks will be like flighted over to Grand Junction. But depending on how many beds they have available, depending on the specialty that’s needed, we very often transferred folks upstate as well.
Jenny Beth Jones: All right, excellent.
Tess Barger, HR: An additional item that I want to to iterate as well about if we were to increase, if we were to look at trying to offset the cost of staying with Cigna by increasing our deductibles and choosing one of those alternative high deductible plans, employees have the option of traditional or high deductible every single year. So if our high deductible plans are less appealing, if the out-of-pocket maximum and deductible really increases, there’s certainly a likelihood that some employees may opt for the traditional plan instead.
Tess Barger, HR: So we can’t really give a great estimate necessarily on what those cost savings would be. That would maybe influence a percentage of our high deductible plan members to switch over to traditional for 2026.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Can I ask a question back on to the surveys? So when you did the surveys, did you just ask, do you have concerns with leaving Cigna?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Or did you ask actually like questions? What are your concerns with?
Tess Barger, HR: So it started with asking feedback about any questions, concerns, et cetera, you have. And then for the employees that responded, I asked them the questions of what, what concerns would you have with leaving Cigna?
Tess Barger, HR: Have you experienced any issues with Cigna? And do you access Grand Junction, Colorado Care regularly?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: What were some of the bigger concerns?
Tess Barger, HR: Great question. That’s actually a perfect segue.
Tess Barger, HR: So there are these questions that I was planning on asking with, with Derek to be able to answer them. Certainly the level of in-network coverage at Grand Junction, how pre-existing conditions would be handled, what PHP’s coverage is out of other areas in the country.
Tess Barger, HR: For instance, those whose dependents are maybe in college out in the Midwest with their college student be able to find providers that would be covered by PHP, how they handle referrals, specialty providers, if more regional hospitals, Spanish Valley Clinic or a network. And then what about prescription drug coverage?
Tess Barger, HR: So those were the big ones that we got.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We sure do.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, so are there any more questions for me before we pass it over to Derek for comments?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Presentation just flows right into the next question.
Tess Barger, HR: There you go. All right, excellent.
Tess Barger, HR: Well, Derek, I think we’re ready to hand it over to you.
Derek Applegate, presenter: All right. Well, thank you, everyone.
Derek Applegate, presenter: I’ve been listening intently. So I hope I can answer more questions than what I cause.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But let me start by giving everyone kind of a brief overview of who PHP is. We were created in 1977 by the Utah State Legislature specifically for public employees and public employers.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We don’t venture out into the private sector. We are strictly mandated to just offer benefits for the public sector.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we actually enjoy that niche. We look at it as such as, you know, we know the public sector because we are the public sector.
Derek Applegate, presenter: That’s all we do. We have employers all over the state of Utah from cities, counties, special service districts, school districts.
Derek Applegate, presenter: In Grand County, we have six employers that utilize us. There’s also a good number of state employees who reside in Grand County.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we are familiar with the desire to have Grand Junction as part of our network. Now, being a Utah-based company, we primarily do most of our contracting with Utah-based providers and facilities.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But we have reached out to many in the Grand Junction area. We currently have contracted, I believe the number is 71 doctors in different fields that practice in Grand Junction.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We’re also contracted with the hospital, St. Mary’s Hospital there as well for our members.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we do have some there. How that compares to what they currently see, I don’t know because I’m not familiar with the network offered by Cigna.
Derek Applegate, presenter: To that extent. Test did a good job of discussing our network options that are available for employees.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We have our Advantage Network and our Summit Network that we offer. Any employee who signs up can do it.
Derek Applegate, presenter: The easy distinction between them, our Advantage Network is based off of Intermountain Healthcare facilities and providers. The Summit Network is primarily non-IHC, so University of Utah, Mountain Star, Common Spirit, Huntsman, for example.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Now the two networks themselves, off the Wasatch Front, the two networks themselves are pretty close to identical. There’s a few minor differences, maybe some docs that aren’t on both.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But for the most part, the two networks are identical. Where they differ is for anyone who would travel up to Utah County, Salt Lake County, Davis County, or Weber County.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Up in those four areas, that’s where it’s either or. You’re either looking at IHC facilities or non-IHC facilities, depending on which network was chosen.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But down services off the Wasatch Front, you’re not going to find much of a difference in the two networks. Plans, we tried to match as close as we could to what the grant employees are currently using.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Anytime you switch carriers, there are always going to be subtle differences between how the plans are administered. But the big keys being the deductibles, the coinsurance, things like that, we’re trying to match where we could.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Pharmacy benefits, we do have a little bit different pharmacy benefits. When there is a change in carrier, and I think Rick from GBS can probably attest to this, probably the biggest disruption that you find is going to be in the pharmacy benefits because every carrier does it a little differently.
Derek Applegate, presenter: One might have some drugs, whereas the other has the same drug family, but maybe a different brand that they carry things to that nature. So you’re always going to have some of that.
Derek Applegate, presenter: PHP has been managing our pharmacy benefits pretty aggressively for the past 15 years. We have a contract with Express Scripts, who is our pharmacy benefits manager.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But our contract is quite unique with Express Scripts in that it gives us a little more leeway into the management. We have our own formulary drug list.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We do our own pre-authorizations. Essentially, what we have Express Scripts for is we get their volume discount for their nationwide coverage and also their network of pharmacies nationwide also.
Derek Applegate, presenter: What the result has been over the past 15 years with our pharmacy contract, Express Scripts being, depending on different reports, either the second or third largest PBM in the country, their annual trend is usually around 10 to 12% as far as what their increase is each year. We’ve been able to manage that at 5%.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And what that means is it’s savings for the employers, for all those that participate in PHP. PHP was created, again, as a nonprofit government trust.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Any rates we provide for Grand County or anyone else, it’s basically, there’s absolutely no profit margin built in. It is specifically for expected claims for the year ahead and our operating costs.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And that’s it. Any increase we experience because of the positive claim experience that the group did, that’s more positive for the group than it is for PHP in that sense.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We take great pride in that. We’ve given back to our employers in the past 10 years over $100 million total.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So if Grand County were to join with PHP, they would be placed in what we call the local government’s risk pool. This is a risk pool that is made up of a little more than 300 public employers throughout the state.
Derek Applegate, presenter: They banded together as this self-funded pool. To the individual group, it feels fully insured because there’s no deposit required.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Day-to-day, it feels fully insured. But at the end of the day, it is considered a self-funded pool by all of those who participate.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Why I make that distinction is when that pool runs well, we give money back. And in the past 10 years, we’ve probably been given back the equivalent anywhere between 1% to 3% depending on how well they did.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Now, it’s not a given each and every year those refunds will be given. It just depends on how well the pool did.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Hopefully, we’re not leaking money and having too much of a run on claims. But we try to manage that so that everyone who participates in that pool experiences things when things go well.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Any other questions, Tess, that you’d like me to cover?
Tess Barger, HR: No, I don’t believe so. Thank you, Derek.
Tess Barger, HR: But I’d love to pass it over to the commissioners and make sure that we make good use of your time here.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Do we have the answers to these employee questions?
Tess Barger, HR: Yes, he did email them to me and I can email those over to you as soon as I finish.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I agree.
Tess Barger, HR: Yes, absolutely.
Bill Winfield, Chair: You did email them or you will? Will, I will.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I apologize. Because we are making a decision on this tonight.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Is that correct? Correct.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. And then talk about next year’s renewal rate.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ve got an email from an employee quoting 7%. I’m curious when you talk about giving 1% to 3% back, why wouldn’t that show up on the front end rather than the back end?
Derek Applegate, presenter: So that’s a good question. So with the proposal that we gave, when we start looking at your renewal for next year, we’ll be about six to seven months into the plan year.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We won’t have a full plan year to look at how Grand County was doing. So what our underwriters have done is they look at what our trend is for our book of business for the past year.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And that has been 7.2%. So what our renewal is for you, if you were to come to us, the renewal for 2027 would be 7.2%.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Now, as far as what that refund would be, assuming there is going to be a refund. So we let the entire plan year run out.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So over the next 12 months, we would look at how the pool did. And if there’s leftover money, more money than what we need to pay claims, we would then calculate it based off of every…
Derek Applegate, presenter: There are different factors for each group. It’s based off of the experience, how well you did within the pool, your longevity in the pool, member engagement, things like that.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And our actuaries would then determine how much goes to what group. So we wouldn’t even know.
Derek Applegate, presenter: The first step is we have to know if the pool ran well for the entire year. Once they know how much of excess reserve we have at the end of the year, then they have to calculate how much each group gets back.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we wouldn’t even know that until on this first year, until probably around July of 2027 for just this first year of 2026.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. And then I’ve got one other question if I’m not stepping on anybody else.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We mentioned, and I would imagine that the majority of our employees are on the lesser plan, the advantage rather than the summit. But at the beginning of this, we mentioned that basically the reduced costs that the county is seeing is because they’re being passed on to the employees with increased benefits, correct?
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’m wondering what that increase is that our employees are gonna see next year because unless I misunderstood you, that was a statement earlier.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, so in terms of the advantage plans, because we haven’t been with PEHP before, I can’t speak to whether the summit plan or the advantage plan will be more popular. That being said, for either the advantage or the summit plans, really what, I think just speaking to your question, it would more so be a discussion of the traditional versus the high deductible plans.
Tess Barger, HR: So currently we have more employees on our high deductible plan. And if we were to, and again, I’m not recommending that we change to one of the alternative options because I don’t want to pass more costs off to the employees, but it is, again, I wanted to make sure that we had those options available in case the commission of the decisions is motivated to stay with Cigna, but feels like there needs to be an offset to cost.
Tess Barger, HR: The way that that cost would be passed off to the employees is that on the high deductible plan, their deductibles would increase. So instead of I have to pay out of pocket until $2,000 and then my insurance starts kicking in and pays 50% of every appointment, it would be, I have to pay $3,000.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And that’s on the Cigna plan if we stay is what you’re saying. Am I understanding?
Tess Barger, HR: The plan structures would be the same, both for- Both of them. Exactly.
Tess Barger, HR: We have the same kind of alternative options for PEHP and Cigna.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Question. It ties along with some of the questions that I see here.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Also, if someone’s already getting care and it’s covered right now on Cigna’s plan, we don’t go with Cigna. What’s that care change look like?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Like, do they have to go find, I mean, for coverage, do they have to go find someone else?
Tess Barger, HR: It’s a great question. So it would depend.
Tess Barger, HR: It would depend on whether that provider is in network or not with PEHP. So if they’re in network, it’s as simple as they show, they provide their new insurance card and then things move forward exactly as they have been.
Tess Barger, HR: If it’s they’re working with a provider that isn’t covered by PEHP, then they would, and please feel free to step in and correct me if I’m wrong on this, Rick and Derek, but if it’s not in network, then they would either need to choose select a new provider that still provides that type of care or they would need to pay out of pocket out of those out of network costs.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I mean, day one on service.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I can interject it, a lot of it’s just going to be going to depend on the date of service.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So anything prior to January 1st, they just want to make sure that they would show their Cigna card ID number so that everything gets billed to Cigna. Beginning on January 1st, it would just all go to PEHP.
Derek Applegate, presenter: They would want to use their PEHP benefits at that. Okay.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Yep. So it just depends on the date of service.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Okay. Second question, if I’m not cutting anyone off.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: City Market take you guys? Because they don’t have Cigna right now.
Tess Barger, HR: Started taking Cigna actually.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: City Market did? Oh, big, big win.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I can get groceries and farm. Okay.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, please. And Derek, do you, can you speak to whether or not City Market is a network for pharmacy under PEHP?
Derek Applegate, presenter: Or are pharmacies in town? I mean, in general.
Derek Applegate, presenter: I can’t speak to it specifically right this minute, but if you want to give me a minute, I can look some things up here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I would say City Market markers both. I mean, we would know that they.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s also the hospital.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Right.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yeah. That is all the pharmacies.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No more. Yes.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I was just going to say if Derek could speak to some of these questions, really quick, because I know we’re approaching the deadline, but if he could just basically answer some of those briefly, that might help.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Absolutely. So the first bullet point there, as I mentioned before, we have 71 contracted providers in Grand Junction and the hospital that is there also.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We’re always, you know, open to adding more. It’s just dependent upon whether the doctors want to accept our fee schedule, our contract terms and so forth.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But if members have some they’d like us to reach out to, we can always reach out and see if they’re interested. But as of right now, there’s the 71 in the hospital.
Derek Applegate, presenter: As far as pre-existing health conditions go, with the passing of the Affordable Care Act back in 2009, pre-existing conditions are no more. No health plan can apply pre-existing conditions.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So none of our plans have that. PHPs coverage in other areas of the country.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we contract, and I apologize, they just changed their name. They just got purchased.
Derek Applegate, presenter: It was multi-plan. I just learned yesterday they got purchased by a new vendor and their name escapes me right now.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But… Clarative.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Clarative. Thank you, Rick.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Clarative. Just purchased multi-plan.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And they are a nationwide network that we lease. So members that have…
Derek Applegate, presenter: They have dependents living out of state and so forth. They could just access that through our website as far as the providers to use.
Derek Applegate, presenter: For hospital utilization, we just ask that you get pre-authorization with us and we can steer them in the right direction as to which hospital to go to. And it is important to note everybody on the plan due to the No Surprises Act through the federal government, every emergency room in the country is covered in network.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we… Last thing we want is somebody who needs emergency care to be looking to see what hospital they should go to.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Get to the nearest hospital. You’re covered in network.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Let’s see. How does PHP handle referred to as specialty?
Derek Applegate, presenter: Rheumatology and dermatology. We would handle that just like anything else.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Any of our other providers, as long as they’re using network providers, we would cover it as such. But we would just recommend you try to use our network providers.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Visiting specialty providers from Colorado to our local hospital. And I guess you’re talking about the Moab Hospital in Colorado.
Tess Barger, HR: Yes, that’s correct.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Is that what I’m…
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct, Eric.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Okay. So on that, the local hospital down there is covered.
Derek Applegate, presenter: As far as how the providers might be covered, that would be dependent on the providers themselves. If they’ve already contracted with us, they’d be in network.
Derek Applegate, presenter: If not, there’s a good chance they could be out of network. It just depends on each specific doc if they’ve contracted with us or not.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Moab Regional Hospital and Spanish Valley Clinic are both in network on both networks, the Advantage and the Summit. And then prescription coverage under PEHP.
Derek Applegate, presenter: This is, again, as I mentioned before, our pharmacy benefits managers express scripts. And we have the very unique contract with them.
Derek Applegate, presenter: This is going to be the biggest disruption as it always is when somebody’s moving, just because you have the drug A that covers something, drug B cover something, the same thing, but there’s a different contract with them. And that’s about the biggest disruption you’ll see is maybe one brand over another.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But you’ll see as far as what they cover, what they treat, things like that, you’re going to see are similar. It just may be a different type of a different drug name rather than type.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’ve got a couple questions. They’re actually for you, Tess.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: First off is what amount of workload do you think that’s on yourself?
Derek Applegate, presenter: I apologize. I didn’t hear that.
Tess Barger, HR: Oh, I’m sorry, Derek. He directed that question towards me.
Tess Barger, HR: So you’re okay. The workload in terms of if we switch over to PEHP.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct.
Tess Barger, HR: It will be very, very significant, both because we have to open enrollment. We’ll take a little bit more time making sure that we’re educating or just getting ready for open enrollment.
Tess Barger, HR: Once we open open enrollment, we’re going to have to be doing a lot of very expedited education of staff so that they’re able to make an informed decision on which plan they are going to select. And then on the back end of that, getting everything into our systems, both on the benefit side as well as the payroll side.
Tess Barger, HR: We will, it will be very, very, very strict.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Next is, so we talked a little bit about the refund right there. So that wouldn’t be calculated into basically the cost.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I know you said this year, we’re not receiving any type of.
Tess Barger, HR: We’re not anticipating it.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. In following years, there could be that refund that might bring those costs a little bit more in line.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Right, right.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, and we’re in the process of designing a more robust employee wellness program so that we have more of those preventive proactive support schools, education resources, et cetera, so that folks continue to engage in that preventive care and continue to stay healthy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: One last one. Are there any requirements that we follow any best practices and accept the lowest bid?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Or are we able to. Way, the benefit, I mean, what are what’s the statute or is there a statute around this?
Tess Barger, HR: There’s no statute. So all of the bids that we received are they fall within those ACA, those Affordable Care Act requirements.
Tess Barger, HR: And in terms of, you know, that standard, we don’t have the institutional knowledge to speak to that because we’ve been with CIGNA since 2017. And we don’t have anybody in the department that that was here when they made the switch to CIGNA and made those decisions to stay with CIGNA from year to year.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: OK. Yes, go ahead, Mike.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Subjective question. Seeing that we use this as part of our hiring practice.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Benefits, which is easier to hire with.
Tess Barger, HR: Well, I’ve never worked with PHP, so I can’t I can’t speak to that. But what I will say is maybe even more so than the coverage, the plan structure is ultimately what I think is a great recruitment tool.
Tess Barger, HR: And by plan structure, I mean the fact that we have a high deductible plan that employees don’t have to contribute any of the premium to where they get, you know, they get deposits in their HSA every single paid period. That I think is one of our strongest recruitment tools.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s a great question.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Quick last question. Will they be here for the.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Discussion and around the boat. Also, if there’s further questions that come up.
Tess Barger, HR: Eric and Rick, I’ll pass it over to you. Are you all able to stay on for a little bit longer with us?
Derek Applegate, presenter: Yes, I can stay on as well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I just see the potential for more questions, so. If nothing else, then I will call a brief recess and we will reconvene as close to 4 o’clock as we possibly can.
Speaker 37: Thank you. That’s all right.
Speaker 37: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: It is 2 and we will resume this commission meeting. On October 21st of 2025 at 4.02 PM with commissioners and Dean present.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Hadler absent, McCurdy present Commissioner McGann present Commissioner Martinez present Commissioner McCandless present and myself, Commissioner Winfield with County Attorney Stocks and. Administrator Tyner will stand for the pledge.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Alright, we will start off with our citizens to be heard. I’ve got folks both in the audience and online and start in the chambers here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Raise your hand and I will call you up one by one. And as you come up, please introduce yourself for the record so that the folks that are watching later or online are able to know who we’re talking about in.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Three minutes, and we try to give you a little bit of a warning so that you can get done and move on so that somebody else can speak. So I’m going to start right here on the right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There were a whole bunch of arms that came up at the same time. Yes, either one.
Bill Winfield, Chair: OK, Michael Wolfe.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): I live here in Moab. I’m here to comment about the Labyrinth Ribs Travel Plan thing that appeared on the agenda beginning of the week, but there was no information.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): And then today, because I’m a retired person, I can sit at home. All this stuff starts getting put on the agenda.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): So I would urge the commission to put any vote on this off till the next meeting because the public has not had an opportunity to comment on it. And supposedly, you guys want to be transparent and open about things, but this doesn’t look transparent.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): It looks like you’ve already got a plan on what you’re going to do. So one of the letters I saw was from the subcommittee on motorized trails writing a letter to the commission suggesting with their suggestions.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): Right. But the other and then all these maps.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): But I work with travel management. I work for BLM to undo what was thousands of hours were spent analyzing all these routes.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): All parties were invited. We looked at every damn route, cow trail, everything out there.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): We had resource people looking at all the different resources that could be impacted. And, you know, we came to some decisions.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): And so, you know, we have hundreds, thousands of miles of open trails from this area. There’s no shortage of trails.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): What pushed this management plan was there starting to be conflicts with users, people going down the river, down the Green River, like peace and quiet. You don’t need a road going out to every rim of the canyon.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): OHV and UTV users are notorious for not following rules. They don’t just putt putt down the road.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): They go scatter stuff all over. They’re noisy.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): They intrude on people who enjoy public land for the way it is. So if it was a compromise, public lands are for the public.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): That means there’s lots of user groups in the public. We’re not for one user group.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): You have to share. You’ve got to learn to share.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): And so, therefore, you know, we were going back and trying to undo this travel plan that already was litigated in court. The judge threw it out.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): You know, it was done so thoroughly. I spent weeks in the BLM office sitting there analyzing everything.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): It’s been so analyzed. Routes going to the same place.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): Oh, they go to the same place. We don’t need two of them.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): Let’s pick one. Oh, this is a cow trail.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): This is a seismic trail from 1980s. It doesn’t go anywhere.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): So the process was very long and exhaustive. And so for you to all of a sudden, you know, oh, we want to support rescinding all those decisions.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): It’s just, I don’t like it at all. And, you know, you have to recognize there’s more than just motor users.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): You know, there’s other people that enjoy the land. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But I will add, before we call anybody else up, that this has been mandated and the BLM is going back in and looking at this. The decisions we make are the decisions of the commission, of course, up here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But everybody’s voice can still be heard at the BLM. You’re welcome to chime in.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They have the option to still do that. Everybody should, from both sides of the aisle.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so next. Chris, please.
Chris Wilson: Good afternoon, everyone. Chris Wilson.
Chris Wilson: I’m the chair of the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board, but I’m here just on my own behalf. I’m speaking on behalf of the board today.
Chris Wilson: I’m here to speak about the revisions on your agenda of the bylaws for the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board. The proposed bylaws were first put up last Friday for review, and then they’ve been revised a couple of times since then, most recently about 3 p.m.
Chris Wilson: today. In short, the revisions basically take away the duties of the board to advise the county on ways to improve economic development in the county.
Chris Wilson: STAD has the board focused exclusively on grant management, on the state economic development grants. I think that amounts to a loss, a loss of the support of our diverse group of board members they can provide to the county to support economic development.
Chris Wilson: I’ve been in conversation with Commissioner McCandless, who’s put forward this revisions, and I want to say publicly, I greatly appreciate her willingness to dialogue on this and have some back and forth and make some revisions based on our conversations. And I would just still ask you all to take this agenda item and table it for now so that more time can be given to that process of review and so that we can take them before the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board to get their thoughts on these before you all as a commission make a final decision on what the bylaws should be.
Chris Wilson: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, sir, in the back.
George Schultz: Dear commissioners and stakeholders, I’m George Schultz, president of Red Rock Four Wheelers. Public lands hold promise and our freedoms.
George Schultz: Footloose requires multiple use and sustainable yield across recreation, ranching, minerals, wildlife, watershed and historic values. That balance keeps America strong and independent.
George Schultz: Here’s the lens. Today’s present, tomorrow’s past.
George Schultz: The routes we drive, the wells and windmills that we maintain and the events we host will be our heritage that our grandkids inherit. Closure erases these not only from the landscape, but from time in our own history.
George Schultz: Let’s zoom in on what’s before you tonight. Labyrinth Rims, we applaud your draft letter.
George Schultz: Using the Legacy Road and Trail Act, Explorer Act and Executive Order 14313, it pairs well with stewardship and economic growth. You documented the reality over 317 miles closed in 2023, nearly 1008.
George Schultz: 621 miles left, often lacking connectivity and 44% drop in our tax revenues for MoHV since 2023. We soon work reopening the targeted and limited routes and we ask the BLM, consistent with Executive Order 14314, to replace broad closures with targeted fixes and to keep this timely.
George Schultz: Follow Executive Order 14154, or excuse me, 54 yet and run an efficient schedule for reassessment. The Red Rock 4-Wheelers will also file our public comments of the BLM.
George Schultz: It aligns well with the county’s priorities and MTC map, including our Easter juice routes. Name the specifics of what you do in your draft.
George Schultz: Additionally, we recommend opening 3D Tushar, Lost World Terrace, 10-Mile Rim. These are established Red Rock 4-Wheelers EJS routes and SRP routes.
George Schultz: If any of these aren’t in the county or MTC list, we respectfully ask that you add them. The Motorized Recreation Initiative.
George Schultz: It’s on the agenda tonight. While we welcome the chamber’s business-aligned marketing, this effort needs and requires county leadership with the state of Utah Clubco at the table.
George Schultz: The Red Rock 4-Wheelers would also welcome a seat at the table and a county and state working group as a stakeholder participant for the future of building a solid foundation for motorized recreation and multiple use access in the county. A living example of what you already know.
George Schultz: Planned in 66, launched in 67 by the chamber. Free Flipma, Easter Jeep Safari is a living historical stewardship and socioeconomic engine.
George Schultz: It’s public lands management done right. We’re not radical, we’re responsible.
George Schultz: Beyond one event, these principles apply countywide. Let’s respect and actively assert RS-2477 rights.
George Schultz: And finally, access underpins safety and national security. From fire and search and rescue to infrastructure and our domestic resource supply.
George Schultz: Our grandparents did not foresee lithium and their parents didn’t foresee. Let’s not lock away what our grandchildren will need to secure our country’s future and their access.
George Schultz: Utilization is stewardship and it’s required under Flipma. A couple of asks we have real quick.
George Schultz: We want you to reaffirm multiple use to including motorized access in the county with respect to RS-2477, especially in the general. File the Lab with RIMS letter with those specificities.
George Schultz: In fact, launch a county-led motorized recreation initiative state and local agencies. Thank you.
Wes Usry: Thank you. Yes, please.
Charlene Bader: Hello, how are you guys doing?
Speaker 37: Yeah, very good.
Charlene Bader: Okay, I don’t have all the numbers that George has. My name is Charlene Bader and I live out on Piedmont Road.
Charlene Bader: But I do travel around the country and I just got back from a long trip, which is why you guys haven’t seen me in a couple of months. And the data that I’m bringing back is Moab is still not up to our off-road standards.
Charlene Bader: We’re still getting a lot of negative comments about how Moab is closed and not welcoming to the off-road community. You guys have some amazing opportunities tonight to show that in a different light, right?
Charlene Bader: So we have the support of the opening the BLM routes. We have the support of the UTP enthusiasts and we also have the support of those big large events that are on the list tonight.
Charlene Bader: And I really hope that each one of you takes that as a thought process because everybody has a political agenda here. And the political agenda is to increase Moab’s economy.
Charlene Bader: And if we have a negative group that is still sitting out there, how can we bring that group back in here and this is a great opportunity tonight to absolutely say off-roaders, we’re welcoming you, hikers, bikers, every single category. This BLM conversation is not just about off-road.
Charlene Bader: It’s about all the horse people, the hikers, the bikers, every single group that wants to access all of our public lands. So I appreciate you guys.
Charlene Bader: It’s great to see you all again. Thank you very much.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Yes, ma’am.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And just real quick before the next one takes her seat here, why the 24th is the end of the opportunity for your voice to be heard by the BLM. Go ahead.
Cora Philips: Hello, my name is Cora Phillips. I serve as the Executive Director for the Moab Chamber of Commerce.
Cora Philips: The Moab Chamber of Commerce is focused on three priorities, strengthening our local economy, supporting businesses through training and grants and creating pathways for businesses to give back to our community. One key segment we’ve identified is the off-road recreation.
Cora Philips: To better support this group, we’re working to implement best practices for marking and marketing OHV routes. Our goal is to improve the visitor experience so when people visit, they have a great time, learn along the way and are inspired to return.
Cora Philips: This project will roll out in phases. Phase one involves working closely with the side-by-side community to identify beginner, intermediate and expert routes on existing roads.
Cora Philips: Phase two will address any needed trailhead improvements. Through this project, visitors will be able to match their skill level to the right route to grow in the sport with each visit.
Cora Philips: We’re asking the county to support this project as we work to identify beginner, intermediate and advanced loops. With your partnership, we can make Moab more enjoyable and more welcoming for the off-road community while strengthening our economy.
Cora Philips: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Next, anybody?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Mary.
Mary O’Brien: Mary O’Brien of Castle Valley. Looking at your proposed letter, I would suggest that you drop paragraphs four and five because they apply equally to non-motorized use of the trails and have nothing to do with restoring motorized vehicles to the trails.
Mary O’Brien: In the sixth paragraph, I would suggest you drop the second sentence, which says that the 2023 re-analysis, which was the basis of extensive public comment and analysis, says it was, which was fueled by the political influence of expanding wilderness groups and marred by questionable practices and self-dealing. That’s simply not actually true.
Mary O’Brien: I would suggest you drop that. In the next paragraph, the seventh, you call, you say, critics of access have been quick to point out that hundreds of miles of routes are still open.
Mary O’Brien: They aren’t critics of access. They’re concerned with motorized redundant routes and small feeder routes and routes in particularly sensitive canyons.
Mary O’Brien: So calling them critics of access is again not factual. And in the last paragraph, these routes are not economically vital.
Mary O’Brien: That’s simply factually false. And finally, out of the experience of this being revealed, these wording being revealed to the public about the day before you’re voting, I would really suggest that the Grand County Commission establish a rule that if you’re going to post an agenda item, you post the background documents at least three days before the meeting, unless it was for logistical purposes impossible.
Mary O’Brien: This is happening again and again and again that the majority on this commission is trying to slide through unpopular, unfactual policies and letters with no time for the public to comment. And it’s appalling process.
Mary O’Brien: And finally, and I have sent you studies regarding the $10,000 you’re going to throw at rainmaker technology. You’re not going to get 20% increase in rain in percent.
Mary O’Brien: You’re not going to get 15%. You’re not going to get 5%.
Mary O’Brien: With the extensive controlled studies, it shows that you’re likely to get minuscule, if anything, if you have the correct type of storms. And on top of that, with the technology, you will never know whether you got anything for that 10,000.
Mary O’Brien: And they’re seeking 10,000 from Moab taxpayers as well, who also live in Grand County. That are going to bear $10,000 of tax payer money.
Mary O’Brien: I don’t know if any of you looked into the claims of rainmaker technology. He was throwing numbers around 15%, 5%, 10%, 20%.
Mary O’Brien: Did any of you look into the factual reality of that? And I have sent you data on that.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Next. In the back row.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And Pete, I’ll get you next.
Allison Mathis: My name’s Allison Mathis. I’m a homeowner here in Grand County.
Allison Mathis: And I also happen to own a Jeep. And even after the closures in 2023, there are more than enough roads.
Allison Mathis: I will never drive most of the roads. It has not decreased my access.
Allison Mathis: But what it has increased, the closures of these roads, is I can park and I can get away from the noise, particularly of the side-by-sides and the motorbikes, a little bit better than I could before. And so I support the closure.
Allison Mathis: Say, improve the protection of the land here. Probably also better for wildlife habitat and stuff like that.
Allison Mathis: And as I said, I own a Jeep. It hasn’t impaired my experience of public lands around Moab and in Grand County at all.
Allison Mathis: I also want to, as previous speakers mentioned, the lack of transparency. Although you guys, particularly the chair in particular, keeps talking about transparency.
Allison Mathis: You’re not putting the information out for the public to be able to be involved. And I think it is just wrong.
Allison Mathis: And I also want to echo that the 2023 plan was a long, thoughtful plan with a lot of public input and serious analysis. And the county and the current version of the administration federally wants to just undo it.
Allison Mathis: Regarding cloud seeding, instead of throwing money at things that are dubious at best, how about doing something logical and proven to work to conserve water, like sod removal incentives? I mean, common sense.
Allison Mathis: You can throw money away or you could do something common sense. I also want to talk about, and unless I missed it, there’s nothing in this agenda meeting that we are in the middle of a shutdown.
Allison Mathis: And there are federal employees here who are being hurt by this. There are all sorts of citizens who are not getting services that we need.
Allison Mathis: And to have nothing on the agenda about this massive shutdown with no end in sight because one political party refuses to even negotiate and one chamber’s not even in session, which is just so outlandish. People are being hurt.
Allison Mathis: People are losing their services that they need. And a large issue around this is healthcare premiums going way, way, way, way up.
Allison Mathis: And what are you going to do to help the residents of this county deal with these massive impacts to what their healthcare costs? Many people losing healthcare costs and our hospital also losing support as a result of that and experiencing financial hardship.
Allison Mathis: So the fact that there’s nothing that I know of on this agenda about the shutdown is kind of like ignoring the elephant in the living room. Thank you.
Speaker 37: Pete, you’re next.
Pete Gross: My name is Pete Gross. It’s always hard to follow some people like that.
Pete Gross: I wholeheartedly agree with what Allison Mathis and Mary O’Brien and Michael Wolf said. Absolutely, I cannot articulate it as well, but I do have some things to add.
Pete Gross: Regarding cloud seeding, it’s very simple. There’s a certain amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Pete Gross: It cycles through. The residence time for water vapor is about nine days.
Pete Gross: All the cloud seeding do, it’s a zero-sum game. If you don’t have the precipitation in one place or if you increase it in one place, you’re decreasing it from somewhere else.
Pete Gross: And besides all the facts that Mary pointed out, it’s just an absurd plan, let alone throwing money at it. Regarding the travel plan, Michael Wolf stated much more eloquently than I can.
Pete Gross: My former boss, a guy named Martin Litton, used to chastise his, Dave Brower, that the BLM plan already was a compromised plan. My boss would chastise Dave Brower saying, Dave, we compromised too much already.
Pete Gross: What are we going to compromise with next time? The thing we saved this time?
Pete Gross: Stick with the plan as done. You don’t need to change it.
Pete Gross: Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We want to go to somebody online.
Wes Usry: You can, Rich Klein.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ll go to the online and then we’ll get back to you. Rich, please.
Rich Klein: Yes. I want to say thank you for taking me.
Rich Klein: I’m Rich Klein, president of an event called Trail Hero here in Washington County, calling in support of George Schultz and the Red Rock Four-Wheelers, as well as Moab Chamber OHV Initiative. From our own dealings, both in Washington County and in Grand County, we’ve seen and dealt with people who are of special needs and veterans who utilize the therapeutic benefits of motorized access due to these events and these vehicles.
Rich Klein: And when you think about the idea that public lands are for the public, we actually completely agree. We agree that it’s for all of the public, including those with disabilities.
Rich Klein: And a lot of these motorized vehicles are these people’s legs. They can’t jump on a horse, ride a bike, go for a hike.
Rich Klein: They need motorized access to experience those therapeutic benefits that Moab is one of only few places to be able to offer. With that being said, off-roading or the land itself is not just to able-bodied people.
Rich Klein: We’ve worked specifically with Grand County in providing motorized access to people of special needs that had never, ever had the chance to experience what Moab had to offer as far as off-roading was concerned. They’d never gotten a chance to experience the arches or anything outside of the valley itself.
Rich Klein: And we felt like that was pretty sad. I’ve been attending Moab every year during EJS and other times of the year since 1998.
Rich Klein: And when you close lands down because of groups like SUA who initially want lands closed to all people, not just motorized access, but eventually it’ll be horse riders and bike riders and hikers as well. And they’ve actually come out publicly and said this only a short couple of years ago.
Rich Klein: When you do that and you start giving them inches, you eventually take or lose miles. And as someone from the other side of the state, we are in full support of all the off-road events and those that support motorized access to the outdoors, specifically to people with special needs and veterans.
Rich Klein: When you close down certain routes, that impacts people. They don’t get the same opportunities that able-bodied people do.
Rich Klein: And we appreciate your guys’ support and the continuation of that. So additionally, all these events give economic impact to the area, which is pretty vast.
Rich Klein: And when you start closing down routes, that gives people fewer reasons to attend events, fewer reasons to spend money in the area. And then of course, fewer experiences available as well.
Rich Klein: So I appreciate your guys’ time. Thanks for having me on and hope the best for you guys.
Rich Klein: And good luck to the Red Rock Four-Wheelers in favor of extending off-road use in Grand County. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. And Angela, are you on to speak at Citizens to be Heard?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Please.
Angie Book: I am. So hello, my name is Angie Book and I’m a Grand County employee and one of the county’s department heads.
Angie Book: I would like to speak tonight regarding the decision on changing the medical. As the commission decides this evening regarding the medical, I would like to ask that you take a deep consideration on how impactful this could be on an employee and their family.
Angie Book: I’m currently under medical care and receiving treatment that requires me to see doctors and specialists in Colorado. I’m currently in the middle of treatment and this will cause an immense amount of stress mentally and financially if my medical changes along with the need to find new doctors and educate these doctors on my treatment plan.
Angie Book: I also have a child with severe asthma and requires multiple inhalers. These medications are extremely expensive with Cigna.
Angie Book: With Cigna, these inhalers are manageable to attain. As a department head, I currently have two staff members that will need to look into other employment opportunities if the medical coverage is also to change.
Angie Book: One of the sought after benefits of being a Grand County employee is the benefits that are offered. New hires consider the county’s benefit package when receiving a job offer and it’s definitely a perk that counters some of the pay for some of the positions.
Angie Book: So I urge the commission to vote to stay with our current medical coverage Cigna tonight. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. And if there’s anybody else online and I will get to you when we, sir, in the front row there when we get down online.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Bob, please.
Bob O’Brien: Yeah, Bob O’Brien, Castle Valley. And I’m opposed to the letter on the agenda that recommends changes to the 2023 Labyrinth-Gemini Bridges Travel Plan.
Bob O’Brien: This plan was adopted in 2023 after several years of public process with input from a range of stakeholders and the Bureau of Land Management and of course, based on much research. So I think it’s had a great deal of public participation at that time.
Bob O’Brien: Now with little time for review or public input, it is proposed that the county will write a letter that would roll back the heart of the plan. A plan that allows several hundreds miles of travel for OHVs, but additionally offers enhanced protection for wildlife and cultural resources.
Bob O’Brien: This proposed letter encourages BLM to ignore its role in protecting wildlife on this land and the cultural and historic resources. I’m gonna urge each of the commissioners to vote no on sending this letter.
Bob O’Brien: Such a vote would reassure your constituents that our county commission believes in the protection of wildlife and cultural resources on our public land. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. I also got Jeff Swanson.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Jeff Swanson, would you like to speak?
Jeff Swanson: Yes, I would.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Please go ahead and introduce yourself and it’s all yours.
Jeff Swanson: My name is Jeff Swanson. I would like to share some experiences I’ve had in the past and the present and what might be the future as it comes to arches.
Jeff Swanson: My family and I come to Moab two to three times a year. Arches is almost always on our list of things to do.
Jeff Swanson: In the past, we would go to arches and my kids laugh about it now, but those signs on the side of the road that say an hour from this point, an hour and a half from this point, two hours from this point, we laugh now because we drive right by them. Once timed entry started, we could get in in a reasonable amount of time.
Jeff Swanson: We could find parking everywhere we wanted to go. We might have to wait a minute or two, but we could find parking, get in, hike in a nice, not very crowded atmosphere and see everything.
Jeff Swanson: Well, that all was really nice and we enjoyed it. Well, yesterday we came and because of the government shutdown, we didn’t have to show our timed entry permits, but also we had to circle the parking lots.
Jeff Swanson: We had to skip things we wanted to do because there was no parking. We had to wait in line in non-moving traffic because people would wait for someone to leave and you’d move up one car length and somebody else would be waiting for someone to leave.
Jeff Swanson: We’ve spent way more time in our car yesterday than we ever spent hiking to arches that we love to do. I really, really enjoy arches.
Jeff Swanson: My kids love arches. I think it’s something that everybody ought to have the chance to see and it’s not a big deal.
Jeff Swanson: I’ve never not been able to get a timed entry ticket. The day I wanted, the time I wanted takes a little tiny bit planning ahead, but yesterday was an eye opener.
Jeff Swanson: We couldn’t stop where we wanted to. Finally, on the way home around four in the afternoon, we found a parking spot at Park Avenue because nobody was coming in.
Jeff Swanson: So finally, the very first thing you get to in the park, we could find a parking spot for. And we finally got to do one thing without waiting and waiting and waiting all day.
Jeff Swanson: I think timed entry was a blessing for this town. It made it worth going to.
Jeff Swanson: It made it fun to come to. My kids used to complain, are we really going there again?
Jeff Swanson: Because we come all the time. Are we really going to wait and wait and sit in the car and try to find a parking spot?
Jeff Swanson: It’s tough and I understand, but from the outsider’s point of view, time entry makes arches a much better place. Thank you very much for allowing me to give you my input.
Jeff Swanson: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you.
George Schultz: Simone Griffin, I believe online.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Simone, are you online to speak at Citizens of the Earth? Anyone else online to speak at Citizens of the Earth?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. We will go with the gentleman in the front row.
John Kovash: I’m John Kovash, a 25 year resident. I also concur that this doesn’t seem very transparent to have a last minute hurried effort to redo the 2023 decision.
John Kovash: It seems highly skeptical that in a quick whirlwind of activity, you could do better on participation with the public and arriving at something that was acceptable to your constituents. So I also urge you not to make any kind of vote today because I heard about this draft letter, could not find it anywhere.
John Kovash: I have no, you know, so ultimately, I have no idea what I’m commenting on. But, you know, I would just like to address, you know, for years and years now, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and all its compatriot groups have had two major talking points.
John Kovash: One is my disabled grandma needs to be able to drive to absolutely any remote corner of the Outback, no matter where it is. You know, forget whether this land is sensitive and this land isn’t or whatever.
John Kovash: And I guarantee you that if somebody brings their disabled grandma to Moab, even if they’re here for two or three weeks, there are so many places they can already go with grandma that this is just a farcical point. I mean, it’s just a smokescreen.
John Kovash: The other is, oh, we bring so much money to town and you’re going to lose all the money that we bring. They, that doesn’t hold a candle to the money we lose from all the people that they drive away.
John Kovash: You know, and I think I’m pretty typical of every single person I know from out of state says, I don’t come here anymore because of the ATVs. And you’re, you know, nobody’s ever done a formal study on this, but I guarantee if they did, it would be shocking how many people we drive away by not taming the situation here.
John Kovash: And then just finally, I’d like to say, I’ve never been in Labyrinth Canyon, but I saw the, watched the videos that have been circulating recently and I was just blown away by what a special place this is. I mean, this close to Moab, a place that is still that pristine, still that unspoiled, it would just be the saddest thing there is to allow that to just become part of the motor den.
John Kovash: And so, you know, I mean, I beg you to not do anything, but if you do, please at least wait another week or two before you make any kind of votes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, sir. Anyone else?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, ma’am.
Sam Cunningham: My name is Sam Cunningham. I was a former county commissioner.
Sam Cunningham: I sit on as a co-chair of Grand Conservation District who not specifically speak about this, but I’m talking on general terms about agriculture in the south part of a beautiful valley that is not what it was. And I’m talking about how it could still remain somewhat that way.
Sam Cunningham: When we moved here in 1982, I know my co-workers, when I went to work said, my goodness, have you gone out there in poverty flats? Have you bought a house in poverty flats?
Sam Cunningham: And don’t you know, that’s all egg and it’s ranch and it’s farm and what are you doing out there? There are not very many houses.
Sam Cunningham: And I certainly understand why there aren’t very many houses at that time and why there are now. And who can say anything about that in Moab?
Sam Cunningham: Because we all love our place. We’d like to share it with other people.
Sam Cunningham: There’s nothing wrong with that. And at that time, there was one house to one acre, almost universally.
Sam Cunningham: And the people enjoyed a rural way of life. They came for a rural way of life.
Sam Cunningham: Well, we’ve passed that point. All I ask you is make appropriate sightings.
Sam Cunningham: I know you have several things either on this agenda or they’re going to be recused to another agenda, such as the water tank and other, there’s another land as well. And I understand that we have to make provisions for water.
Sam Cunningham: We have to make provisions for the people who want to move here. That’s certainly understandable.
Sam Cunningham: And I think everybody in town can agree with that. But I don’t think we can agree with what is appropriate and what is not.
Sam Cunningham: And if you put something inappropriate in a place that could be better used for something else, you’ve not only misused that property, but as you can see, there are a number of people that don’t feel that those sites are appropriate, despite the fact that you group may. And so I want to say that I know you have public meetings.
Sam Cunningham: I know that you have opportunities right now for the public to speak. And that’s an opportunity for the public again, to speak, to have a voice.
Sam Cunningham: But please, I ask you, it’s your job also to listen.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Yes, please, sir.
Dave Hellman: My name is Dave Hellman. I’m owner of Extreme 4×4 Tours, Moab Scenic Adventures at Moab.
Dave Hellman: I’m also the 4×4 rep for the Motorized Trails Community of Barrett County. I came here today, actually learned some stuff since I’ve been in here.
Dave Hellman: It’s pretty nice. But I came here today to talk about the BLM, the BLM letter and the trails and all that.
Dave Hellman: And I want to say that I’ve explored some of that area. I haven’t explored all of it.
Dave Hellman: I would really like to be able to take my kids someday to some of the overlooks that got closed. From what I understand, they’re not trying to reopen all the mileage that was closed, just certain specific ones that will help with shared access.
Dave Hellman: And I heard somebody saying about disabled old grandma. There’s a lot of young disabled military vets and a lot of other people that are in their 20s that are missing legs and missing arms.
Dave Hellman: And the way for them to get access back to the back lands by some kind of motorized mechanism, whether it’s bikes or four wheel drive, jeeps are required. But also, I’ve been on the river.
Dave Hellman: I’ve been up on the tops of the canyons and the people on canoes down in the rivers that they’re using that as an excuse. Unless you’re standing on the very edge of the canyon, looking down at them, they can’t see you.
Dave Hellman: If you’re back in a safe camping distance away, the people on the river will never see the people on top. The noise on top doesn’t carry down into the canyon like the noise in the canyon carries back up to the top.
Dave Hellman: I’ve been up at the top of Hell’s Revenge on a regular basis. You can hear everything in town.
Dave Hellman: You can be in town on midnight. If there’s side-by-sides coming off Hell’s Revenge, you cannot hear them.
Dave Hellman: So the noise thing there, I disagree with that. I think that certain things should be open.
Dave Hellman: I know that I believe they’re not opening to all of them. Some of them were old cow trails and old mining exclusion roads.
Dave Hellman: Yeah, keep those closed. But I think it’s fair that people say we want to share.
Dave Hellman: Well, let’s open up a few more that make sense to open up. And I know that there was a lot of study done.
Dave Hellman: Anyways, the other one, the commission with the UTV doing the signage and doing the hard medium, I think that’s a great program. I agree with that.
Dave Hellman: I think that should be a go-forward thing with it. And what I learned today was I didn’t realize the county was going to spend tax on having our skies sprayed with chemtrails.
Dave Hellman: And I have kids here. And since the government shut down, the sky has been clear and we’ve gotten rain.
Dave Hellman: And I think it’s an absolute waste of our local tax money to pay the government to poison us. That’s all I got to say.
Dave Hellman: Thank you, guys. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? And yes, please.
Wes Usry: Good afternoon, commissioners. I’m Wes Usry.
Wes Usry: I live on the south side of Moab. I am in absolute favor of keeping all of our trails open.
Wes Usry: A lot of us use these trails. I see this gentleman here wearing his mountain biking gear.
Wes Usry: He needs those trails. And I support you and being a coach for the team here.
Wes Usry: Thank you very much. The other thing is we got to keep a clear discussion path forward.
Wes Usry: And this means keeping the opinions of yourself until a decision is made, keep that off of public forums. Going back to opening up the BLM land, like Rich Klein stated, they’re asking for an inch.
Wes Usry: It’s going to turn into a mile. And not only I hear a lot of comments about wildlife and culture, we’re looking at keeping the current roads open.
Wes Usry: And not creating new roads. So those are already established roadways.
Wes Usry: And it has a lot bigger benefit for not only us as the typical day-to-day users, but also for our tourism industry and our people that hunt and fish. And, you know, we have a lot of discussions that are strictly just off-road highway use vehicles only.
Wes Usry: But we’re not taking into consideration the outdoors men as well. That’s all I got to say.
Wes Usry: Thank you for your time. Yeah, thank you.
George Schultz: We’ve got Simone Griffin back online.
Wes Usry: Okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Simone, are you online to speak at Citizens to be Heard?
Simone Griffin: Yes, I am. Thank you.
Simone Griffin: Sorry about that. My name is Simone Griffin.
Simone Griffin: I am the policy director for Blue Ribbon Coalition. And I want to, on behalf of our members, which we represent hundreds of thousands of members across all 50 states.
Simone Griffin: And if they have not visited Moab yet, it is a bucket list item for them. Our members, our supporters, they love Moab and they want to be able to recreate there.
Simone Griffin: And we want to add our support to what George Shultz has previously said in Red Rock Four-Wheelers and we strongly support the commission in voting to send this letter to the BLM. We highly recommend that the BLM does reopen these routes.
Simone Griffin: They provide various cultural and economic benefits. People have mentioned recreational value for some of the routes.
Simone Griffin: And routes that may not have recreational value for you may have some for others. And so we shouldn’t be putting ourselves and the BLM and our public land into a box.
Simone Griffin: We believe that these routes provide valuable recreation experience. And it’s time that the BLM is up to date with the Explore Act that mandates agencies such as the BLM to expand motorized recreation.
Simone Griffin: There’s also proposed legislation that is the Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act. And if passed, this plan would have to become in compliance with that legislation also.
Simone Griffin: So this is a good starting place to do that. And just current administrative goals and priorities.
Simone Griffin: It’s important they reopen these routes. Another thing to note is that the Endangered Species Act, the definition of takings, is being reconsidered.
Simone Griffin: And that’s also going to affect the environmental and wildlife and habitat aspect of this plan. That there’s not sufficient data.
Simone Griffin: That there’s real taking of these species on this land. And so these routes can and should be reopened.
Simone Griffin: We highly support and recommend the commission in sending this letter. And we are appreciative of this letter.
Simone Griffin: And want to work with the commission moving forward to see these routes reopened. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Anyone else online?
Bill Winfield, Chair: I think that’s it for online. Okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else in the chamber? Going once.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Going twice. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We will move on. Thank you, everybody.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Let’s see. We will move into our general business action items.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Starting with commission member disclosures. If anyone has any.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Mike. My wife works for the Sheriff’s Department.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. Anyone else have anything?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Mary.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: My son works for.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. Anybody?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Moving on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We will move on to the consent agenda items then. One starting off here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We have approval of the meeting minutes from October 7, 2025. Ratification of payment of bills.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Total bills $895,113.74. Total payroll $299,716.34.
Bill Winfield, Chair: With the total bills and payroll of $1,194,830.08. Ratification of emergency purchase of the county phone system.
Bill Winfield, Chair: D, indemnification release for the Alta ski lifts. E, approval of quote with APCO International for Intellicom dispatch software.
Bill Winfield, Chair: F, release of the one-year maintenance bond for the Arawara subdivision. Hope I’m not butchering that.
Bill Winfield, Chair: G, the Grand County Sheriff’s Office court security chief job description revision. H, ratification of grant application from the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I, 2026 county fire warden agreement. Yes.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I make a motion to approve the consent agenda items.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCandless. Seconded by Commissioner McCurdy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All in favor? Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Was that consent agenda? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. With all present.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so we will move on to item number four. Co-op office of tourism travel show attendance expense approval.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s Ali.
Angie Book: Hi.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Hartford to help us. Yes.
Ali Harford: So usually our travel show registration has been in our pre-authorized list. But these two are not.
Ali Harford: So we would like to go. The first one is ITB in Berlin.
Ali Harford: It’s in March. And it’s a travel show very similar to IPW where we with European travel agents and operators to talk about Moab.
Ali Harford: And then and we’ve gone to this one before. And we usually go with visit USA and the UOTs.
Ali Harford: And we work like through the UOTs German rep. And then the second one is new.
Ali Harford: It’s a recommendation from our PR agency to attend Trav Media’s international media marketplace. So we’re just very similarly to these other international travel shows where we’ll go and we’ll have appointments with media.
Ali Harford: In the past, journalists from like Travel and Leisure, Condé Nast Traveler, New York Times have gone. And we’d love to meet with them.
Ali Harford: PR is a lot about relationships. And so we hope that, you know, multiple stories would come out of the appointment that we have.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes. I move to approve the request for travel show expenses for the ITB and Trav Media IMM.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Handler. Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I apologize, Jacques. And seconded by Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All in favor? Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you very much, Holly. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And moving on, we will start off here with the 2026 Employee Health Insurance Selection test barter. And I do see that we’ve got our two folks, three still online there, Tess, if there’s anything we need from them.
Tess Barger, HR: So to start, to clarify some of the information provided in the presentation, the presentation was specifically geared to our medical insurance plan. The reason for that is because our dental and vision plans, we’ve received a zero percent renewal rate guaranteed for two years on both of those.
Tess Barger, HR: And that is through Cigna. So we didn’t recommend to make any changes to that.
Tess Barger, HR: We’ve generally received. So there’s no need for us to make that change.
Tess Barger, HR: Additionally, we have a number of voluntary and supplemental plans that we offer to staff. And so we’re also recommending that we keep all of those plans as is.
Tess Barger, HR: So again, really what we have been discussing this evening is specific to our medical insurance. I’m just getting logged back in.
Tess Barger, HR: And so for this discussion, what I wanted to ensure is that particularly while we do still have Derek Applegate with HP as well as Rick Stewart with GPS Benefits here, there are any questions that we were not able to address during the presentation. If we’re able to go ahead and ask those questions of them.
Tess Barger, HR: And then I have a few additional moderated questions I was going to ask Derek specifically. Are there any questions that we weren’t able to either answer or to fully fully?
Tess Barger, HR: Yes. Yes.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Well, just something that I was realizing since our last meeting on October 7th, as we were expecting that signal was going to increase by 8.77. And after these renegotiations and continued, it’s now an increase of 4.78%.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I really appreciate all the work that you’ve done. And I think that that’s a really good number to go in.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I would make a motion and then we can have a discussion. I’m going to make a motion that we renew with Cigna, which is our current insurance carrier rate of 4.78%, which would be an annual increase of $143,969.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that motion. Motion by Commissioner McCandless, second by Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I will open it up for discussions. We’ll start with Trish.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That would be great. I did a little bit of research today.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And the average renewal rate on the open market, which I understand this is not, is 18%. The average for employers is about 6%.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But right now, I read an article from September 25, US Health and World News states that going into 26, it’s going to be the highest rise in it for employers as far as health insurance premiums in 15 years, 9% average. So kind of reiterating that they’re well below that due to just pricing pressures, utilization rates, et cetera, and so on.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And the last thing I want to say is I think it’s imperative. And I heard from a couple of employees regarding this.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: The way to keep good employees is to offer competitive pay, to offer a nice place to work and to provide comprehensive benefits. And I have PHP through the school district.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I have issues with PHP. But I do, I put money away in an HSA that kind of compensates.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But I personally put that money away to compensate for those issues with PHP. I don’t want our employees to have to do that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I want them to know that they have solid insurance that covers themselves and their family. And so I am going to vote with you now.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m assuming that’s how you’re going to vote. Maybe not.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But you may have a chance to your own notion.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? Mary?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s the percentage that is going up is pretty good. And my experience, because I was under a different insurance company, and then it moved PHP.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I think when you move to any insurance company, not just PHP, but what ends up is they end up increasing their percentage until it finally is awash with what we started with. And Sigma has been working well for our employees.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And it’s a big deal to change an insurance company. I mean, if anybody’s changed, been in that situation, making sure you have the doctors and things change.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, all of a sudden, you can’t go to the orthopedic person you were going to. And it’s disruptive.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I would just slow the percentage. I would like to keep our employees not having to go through those hiccups that will undoubtedly happen if we switch insurance.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes, Commissioner Hadler. I’m one of those who has to provide their own insurance for my wife and my two kids.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And we shop in the open market every single year and switch frequently. And it’s a pain.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think both these plans are decent. And I very much applaud our HR department for all the work and energy that’s gone into really finding a good solution either way.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So thanks, Tess, for all your effort. But I think that this is one of the biggest reasons, one of the best reasons to come and work in Gray County and to retain employees and not having to change plans is a big bonus.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And thanks to everyone who’s made this work. Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Once again, just thank you, Tess, for going out and doing this work. You know, we asked to try to find ways to reduce the overhead of the county.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But you went out and looked at something that was, that could really reduce it. And, you know, coming in at 8% to start with, you know, and then going through this whole negotiation process and coming out at 4% I think like Commissioner McCandless had said, I think is a big deal.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I don’t know if that would happen had we not gone out and put this out for good. With that being said, we’re still looking at $250,000 in savings.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And when we look at that, I mean, I see these benefits and I see the changes. And the reason I had so many questions, right, is because, I mean, do these changes equal the people that we might have to lose, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The adjustments that we’re making in, that we’re talking about in the policy so that people can not have to work full time and still make these adjustments in these offices so that we can meet the revenues that are coming in right now. These are some of the tough choices that we’re being faced with as we’re coming in.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I think this is all, it gets back to, you know, previous years of talking down our economy. I think that if our economy was, you know, running strong and, you know, we had money coming in and we were on an increase, I think it wouldn’t be such a hard decision.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But with the way that our revenues have been looking and the current trends, I mean, this makes this a very difficult decision. As I’ve looked at the averages, they do look very similar right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And, you know, I’m still trying to look and find the main pain points right there or switch right now. I know that we’ve talked about, there’s a 7% increase with PHP in 2027, but that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t switch back again.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I understand that it’s hard. And I did have, yeah, you’re okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And that was why I asked that question. It was how difficult this is gonna be for your office, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But with that said, I mean, I do agree with both Commissioner Hadeen and Commissioner Hadler on the importance benefits for people at the county. Me myself, I mean, I just got health insurance two years ago, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Like I’ve lived without health insurance my whole life. You know what I mean?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I think that there’s a lot of people here in Grand County who are that same way, right? And so when we’re talking about this, we have to realize, I think, you know, the people that we’re representing, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s a lot of people that are out here paying property taxes, right? They don’t have health insurance themselves.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I just wanna kind of put a couple of those things out there. Thanks.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Thank you, Commissioner. I just wanna make sure that it would be my second turn.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I don’t want- Commissioner Hadeen, please go ahead. You guys are good.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m gonna push back a little bit on Brian. I agree.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think we’re deep into the budgeting process and we do need to be making cuts. But as of yet, it’s not really happening.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And we keep spending money in random ways. And we have one on the agenda tonight.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so I think we need to start prioritizing what is important. And to me, the employees are at the top of my list in taking care of our employees.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So if we need to start cutting travel budgets, if we need to start cutting random spins that we’re not sure where that money goes, that’s where we need to start hacking. So that it’s not- it wouldn’t take us that much to absorb this within our budget, this increase, by making some minor changes, which we’re still not doing.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, some departments have done a really good job. But I think we need to look at ourselves and see what we can do.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Yes, Commissioner.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’d just like to add that. I just heard that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So what you just mentioned right there, Commissioner, you would add up to $45,000. We’re talking about- I mean, I could go on.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I agree, but there are little things. Thank you.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s $45,000. This is $250,000.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was an example. Oh, thank you.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I just wanted to just point that out right there, that it is going to be difficult, and these are tough choices, no matter if it’s, you know, cut in travel budgets that are going out, trying to bring money back into this community, or that’s, you know, a cloud sync program that’s being funded by the state.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I will close up and then call for a vote. I too see a need to take care of our employees here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I know, Tess, you’ve done a lot of work on this, and I appreciate the workshop that we had here prior to the commission meeting, but I think that if we were to do this again, that we should probably hold some workshops for the employees to kind of get them to where they understood and where a lot of their questions were answered maybe in advance. I know that it answered a ton of my questions, and I think that if they had the chance to sit down and go over some of this, they might have seen where we’re at the end of the day.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I feel like we’re very close to apples to apples here, but I don’t think that they feel that way, and I’m going to support, you know, I agree with all the commissioners that want to support our staff here. I do as well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I don’t see any reason to bring up travel budgets, or we can talk about trying to increase the snow level here, all of these minuscule things. That’s not what we’re dealing with.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’re dealing with our employees, and the fact that they still feel more comfortable on Cigna right now, and I think that’s the way that I’m going to have to go. So I’m going to support that, but if we do look at this again next year, I think we’ve really got to engage them a lot more and show them exactly what we’re looking at.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I appreciate all your time and effort for everything we’ve done in here as well. I think Mark was pretty heavily involved in this as well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So thank you. And with that, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All in favor of Melodie’s motion to stay with Cigna? Those opposed?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Passes with one opposed, Commissioner Martinez. Moving on to item number six, the 2026 High Impact Special Events Ready for Review with Janabeth Jones.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And thanks to you guys staying online, even though we didn’t have any more questions. It’s at least at the top of it yet.
Pam Hackley: Yeah, I didn’t think you’d catch on that.
Jenny Beth Jones: My name is Janabeth Jones. I’m the Special Events Coordinator, and I’m just presenting.
Jenny Beth Jones: Looks like we have six events ready for approval in 2026. Starting out with Cruise Moab on April 13th through the 18th.
Jenny Beth Jones: It’s a 28-year recurring event for the four-wheel drive Toyota vehicles and enthusiasts. Mostly takes place at Osta.
Jenny Beth Jones: Next is the Red Rock Rally. Let me back up again.
Jenny Beth Jones: April 23rd through the 25th. Again, taking place at Osta.
Jenny Beth Jones: We have the CO2 UT Gravel Race. Taking place on April 25th.
Jenny Beth Jones: It is a recurring event of six years. It’s a cycling event that starts and ends in Fruta.
Jenny Beth Jones: And then moving on to May, we have the Trans Rockies Bike Fest. So this one, they are combining a couple of their events this time around, and it’s April 30th through May 4th.
Jenny Beth Jones: It’s a recurring event of 12 years. The C10 Red Rock Retreat, which was new to us last year.
Jenny Beth Jones: However, their entire event is a charity benefit for Search and Rescue. And it mostly takes place in the city, but they do do a cruise down the river road to Red Cliffs Lodge.
Jenny Beth Jones: And then the final one is not until September. It’s the 19th through the 21st.
Jenny Beth Jones: The Skinny Tire Fall Festival. This one’s a recurring event of 25 years.
Jenny Beth Jones: And that’s a three-day road cycling event. Pretty straightforward.
Jenny Beth Jones: Any questions?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thank you, Mr. McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’d like to make the motion. Motion that we approve the high-impact special events as presented.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy. Seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Discussion? Yes or no?
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I do just want to comment just because we had on our last high-impact meeting, we had the Red Rock Rally in here. And it is going to be during the car show.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I do have that concern. So I’m hoping that they’re listening somewhere and that we are going to make sure that to encourage their participants to not drag Maine with our old car show.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But they’re getting a two-for-one. You know, they get to come to Moab and go Red Rock Rallying, but they also get to be here during one of our most awesome events, which is the car show.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I would hate to have that. You know, next year, the day wouldn’t be open for that if that’s the case.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So anyways, I just want to put that out there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I didn’t catch you.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think Mike was first.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mike was first?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think so.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: You know, I’m going to like what Mel said, Commissioner McCandless said today, but I’m going to encourage the C10 Rock Retreat to cruise Maine. During their event also.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So because pretty awesome trucks out there. Commissioner Hadler and then Commissioner Heddy.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I want to state, I’m in favor of five of these events. I’m not in favor of the Red Rock Rally at that particular time.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: If they stayed to their June date, I would vote to approve. I think it’s a much more appropriate time for them to be in town.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think the, I love car show. I’m stoked about it every year.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s also one of the very noisiest events that we have. And any UT event, UTV event town is also going to be very noisy.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: When you pile those on top of each other for a weekend, I think it’s going to be, I think it’s going to put a burden on visitors and residents alike. So I, again, I would, I’m not going to vote for the motion as presented.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’m fairly certain it’ll pass anyway. So I’m not even going to bother to make a substitute motion to approve the other five.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I hope that Red Rock Rally can figure out a better date next time. I also want to say with these special events, it’s not a net.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s not always a net gain. I mean, there’s plenty of people who don’t come to town during, especially a motorized event.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Back when I was running the bike shop for years, people would specifically call and ask. And again, I very much support the Eastern Jeep Safari, but frequently my customers would call and ask when Jeep Safari was, because they didn’t want to come to Moab that week.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And a lot of times they just didn’t come to Moab because it didn’t work out. They, it conflicted.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And that is what it is. But if we, when we have these big cloud events that clash with other users, it’s not, you don’t, you don’t get, it’s not a net, you know, we don’t get 450 people from Red Rock Rally here without losing other people coming to town.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I just want to point that out. I’m done.
Speaker 37: Mary.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Oh, yes.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m going to agree with Jacques, and I want to make it very clear that every time the Red Rock Rally has come up for a vote, I have voted for it. But this time I’m not because of laying over the top of car show.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think it’s a really, I think it’s a bad move. Hopefully it’s not.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, hopefully if it occurs, we say, oh, there was no conflicts and it was fine. And they weren’t dragging Maine along with all the old cars.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But anyways, I guess we’ll just see if it does pass today. But I will not vote for it because of laying over the top of car show.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s simply the only reason.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Commissioner McGann. I share the concern of it being at the same weekend of car show, because, you know, it’s going to bring the car show weekend is extremely busy.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And restaurants become extremely busy, you know, hotel. Yeah, it’s it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I believe that if we add more people onto the already large number of people that are coming, what it’s going to do is sour the event for both events, because they’re going to be waiting for an hour to get into restaurants. They’re going to be, it’s going to just, you know, I remember one weekend years ago that before we started really looking at our events, we had two large events accidentally happen on the same weekend or without awareness.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And it was it was scary. I mean, I remember pedestrians coming close to being hit.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, you know, the problems in all parking lots, the city market to a walker drug to village market parking lots. I mean, there was just so many people that became a health safety hazard.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I support the Red Rock event. I, I would, you know, I just am really concerned about being on the same weekend as the car show.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I’m really sad that we have all these events here and two on my weekend without any in June or July that we go from May. And I understand it’s hot, but, you know, it’s I, you know, it’s not against.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: You know, the TV event. It’s just hard for us.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And it’s been an ongoing thing for I can’t remember how many years. So I just am uncomfortable putting another huge event on top.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Martuz.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Yeah. So.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Jackie brought up a good point, you know, about the, you know, the capacity of the town. I mean, I’ve noticed it, not with just motorized events, but with movies.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s a big movie that comes in town at our business. You know, people can’t find good deals.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I have 1000 rates go up and, you know, we’ll see less travel. And if you’re not actually involved with the movie shoot, you know, you’re missing out.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Right. So I think that that’s that’s something that happens all across the board, whether it’s, you know, motorized event and same thing with the half marathon.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, I mean, we take a hit on that, you know, because we can’t go up on the river because they close the river road down. And, you know, those are days that we’ve had to, we’ve had to take off on a river schedule.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I think a lot of businesses are used to kind of navigating this past over. But, you know, I do think that our town’s capacity where that I think that we can hold somewhere around people inside of this town is kind of where we’re at.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I’m not sure if these two events right here are going to cause us to to go over that capacity. When you’re including all the campgrounds and everything like that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But what it will do is it will put strains on local businesses that are used to running tours and all types of things out there on the back country. As far as the noise goes, you know, I think that, you know, acting all that noise into one, I don’t think it’s going to get loud.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It would have been it was just a car show. Right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, having having the, you know, the loud vehicles driving up and down Main Street and the OHVs driving down Main Street at the same time, I don’t think that’s going to make it any louder than it would. I think it’s just going to be putting it in at the same time.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then the safety factor, I think that’s the big reason that they moved it. Right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: They did have some, I mean, this is an event that we all support right here. They did have some EMS calls out on their on their previous time because it got hotter in that June period.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And June, like we talked about our last meeting, it can go it can go either which way with the weather. June can be marvelous or it can be, you know, it can be really hot.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I think that them moving back this year is great. Will it be available next year?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’m not sure how that calendar is going to go. But it’s something that I support.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, I’d like to make a couple of comments and maybe suggestion here that might help some of the other commissioners be more open to supporting what we’re doing here. And that is, I think there’s a lot of responsibility on Red Rock’s shoulders with this event.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ve already, we have a very comfortable event with the car show. And for the most part, I know that some people don’t enjoy the noise when they do get out on the streets.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But for the most part, the car show is run and it’s like clockwork. They do a very good job here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And introducing the Red Rock at the same time here is going to create an opportunity for them to succeed or fail at how we handle our local community here. And next year when they come back, if they have made a mess of this community, it’s going to be hard for them to get a permit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’d really like to see the support from the rest of the commissioners here in both of these events. And I know it’s going to be tricky and that there’s going to be a huge responsibility on their shoulders to make this go off.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I see you, Mary, when I finish, I’ll call on you. But I think there’s an opportunity here to try and let it happen this year because they don’t have another option.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We just can’t force them into the summertime when we have these health issues that we had last time. And so I really think that I think there’s room here for everybody to kind of come together on this and make a very clear message to Red Rock that you’ve got to work this out and you’ve got to understand that we have a large event that we don’t ever want to lose.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The car show, I mean, it’s pretty sacred here to me more so than the Jeep Safari is. And so I say, let’s look at this and see if we can come to agreement and support it and put a little responsibility on their shoulders.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’ll go with Mary, Mike and Trish. Did you have your hand up?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, my bad.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I just wanted to make it clear. It wasn’t a thought like in the red.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: You know, I thought I did an excellent job last year. I just, it’s, I’m concerned, not just the noises of my concern is that I’m afraid that next year there will be people that choose not to come to either one of the events.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Their experience in town will be diminished because of the size of the grounds. But I support both.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Thank you.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Mike, pardon the hands, we’re too in the bush. We can, we as businesses, half of us out here can plan ahead for a lot of these events to into next year’s schedule.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: That’s, pardon the hands, we’re too in the bush. Where the saying comes from, knowing how busy I’m going to be is just as good as hoping for twice as much.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And do we have a motion on the table?
Speaker 37: Yeah.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And a second. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Do we have any further discussion?
Pam Hackley: Wait a second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Sorry about that. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All those in favor of the high impact special events, those opposed? Passes with three opposed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler and Commissioner McGann. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We will move on to. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you again, Beth. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Kaufman, item number seven, consideration of denial of tax relief applications. 10-9-2025.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Good evening.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: Chris Kaufman, Grand Canyon Treasurer. And about the tax bills, we’ll hopefully be hitting mailboxes very soon.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: So I come to you at this time of year to get approval and denials on tax relief applications that we have received so far. The deadline for tax relief applications is officially September 1st.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: So we have received the vast majority of them. We do get a few stragglers in that we have some flexibility on approving the rest of the year.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: And I will bring those to you at the beginning of next year. We have received four applications this year that unfortunately were over the income limit.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: There is a state income limit, but then the county has its own limit, which is 120% of that limit per ordinance that was passed, I believe, in 2022. And all of these applications were over that county limit as well.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: These applications are protected documents. So they’re not in the public domain.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: But I did provide them to commissioners and they are numbered one through four if there are any questions or if we need to discuss any of them. The tax commission has recommended that the commission approve the denial of these applications as opposed to my office doing it on its own.
Speaker 37: So any questions about these?
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: Yes.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Oh, no questions. I was just gonna make a motion.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I move to approve the denial of tax relief applications numbered one through four for 2025 as presented.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that. Motion by Commissioner McCanva.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner Hedin. Further discussion?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: No, I just, sorry. I just wanna reiterate what Chris said that in 2022, we passed, you know, raising that threshold.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So hopefully to absorb more people under that umbrella. And so I think we’re trying really hard to do what we can do to give some tax relief.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Maybe we’ll have to raise it more.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor? Passes six with one absent, Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Moving on to number eight, consideration of the 2025 property tax abatements and cancellations through 10-9-2025. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Kaufman again. Thank you.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: So this is the good part, approving all of the applications that have been accepted and that meet the criteria to receive tax relief. Again, this is for veterans with a service-related disability, persons who are legally blind, and also low-income individuals who are also age 64 or over, a surviving spouse, disabled, or experiencing an extreme hardship.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: I’m also including on this some tax cancellations that we have had throughout the year. In your packet, there is a line-by-line explanation of each cancellation and how much they were for and the reason for each of those.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: I do want to note that in that list of cancellations, I am recommending that we cancel the taxes on a state-assessed parcel, which I believe is some old oil and gas equipment out in the desert somewhere that the tax commission has finally decided is no longer worth, or it has fallen below the exemption limit, so we don’t tax it anymore. And the reason we don’t take these kinds of things to tax sale is that if no one bids on it, then the county ends up owning it and then we would be responsible for going out and cleaning it up.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: And so the tax commission has recommended that we do not take it to tax sale and instead we cancel the taxes. So I just wanted to make a quick explanation on that one.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: I have listed the fiscal impact here. I do want to make a note on that, which is that that fiscal impact is spread across all of the taxing entities.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: School district would be the biggest one and that additionally, because it lowers the collection rate, the taxing entities actually are going to have a slightly higher tax rate. And so basically it doesn’t have an impact on the taxing entities.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: The impact is to other taxpayers who do end up paying a little bit more taxes to cover these abatements.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yes, Mike. I move to approve the 2025 property tax relief and cancellations through 10-9 of 2025 as presented.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second by Commissioner Hadler. Further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote both in favor of the motion. Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we will move on to number nine, award 2026 commercial property appraisal contract.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Debbie Swayze, Grand County Assessor. And I’m here to present the RFP for the 2026 commercial detailed review.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: We put it out a bit early this year, so we have a little bit more time to work on it. Unfortunately, we only had two people who bid on it.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: The Appraiser’s Inc., they’re out of Provo, Utah, bid 69,762. And BBG Real Estate Services, they’re actually out of Michigan or somewhere like that, but they do have people in Utah that do their appraisals for them.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And they came in at 165,430. We did publish it on the county website and the bonfire website.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And I would recommend that we go with the appraisers because the other people are 2.5% higher than what the appraisers came in at. That’s up to you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Melodie.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: When this came up, I was like, we already did this. So I went back and it was on the March 18th agenda and we had the 2025 commercial appraisal.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And at that point in time, there was another group, it was called the Cook Group, that was on there. And I think one of the things is we had to ask you to reach back out to them because we had some questions with what they were actually going to offer.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: They were a little bit more money than the appraiser group, but not like what you’re showing on…
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Yeah, I never got any response from them and they didn’t…
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Okay, they’ve never got a response. That’s why I was curious.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’m like, whatever happens with them. So I wish we could get some more appraisals out.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Do we have time to put it back out to them?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Well, the problem was last year because it was asked at the last minute to put an RFP out, it only gave them four months to get finished before the tax roll had to close. And so it was rushed.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So that’s why we do it is so that they can start hitting the ground in October, November. So this year it’ll just be November when they can get started.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin, you have your hand up?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: No, I was just scratching my head.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, so I looked at the two bids right there and can you tell me a little bit why there’s such a difference in the… I mean, I looked at the…
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Was it the BBG?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: BBG.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: BBG, and they broke down their cost based on each one of the properties and everything like that. Do you have any idea?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s no breakdown that I saw for the…
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: I believe the difference is just because the Appraiser’s have been doing it for so long and they’ve already got all of our data where BBG is going to have to come in new. And so they’re going to have to reinvent the wheel.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: They’ll have to measurements, everything. So it is a property.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And so we’re looking at a hundred… Is it about a $100,000 difference?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Is that correct? Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And so on that though, when they’re doing that reappraisal, they might come up and actually… I mean, I know like, let’s say an auditor or someone who’s been doing this for years as they go through and they just check the boxes, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: As opposed to somebody who’s coming in and has to redo the work, they might come up with some different conclusions while they’re out there.
Speaker 37: Is that correct?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Yes, that’s pretty good.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Thank you.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And I did have a contact with the BBG, one of the appraisers that’s here. He’s the previous Wasatch County Assessor and he did contact me about putting in for this, but he said there’s no way he could come in that way.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: There’s no way they’d be able to do that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So the quote that we’re giving is going to be historic. It’s going to be low for anybody.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s going to be hard for anybody to compete with that because as they come in, they’re going to have to go through and do this. Just one of the things that I heard, at least when I was out knocking doors, there were a lot of people that were upset with the appraisal process.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: They didn’t have faith in it. I’m wondering if maybe considering going with somebody who’s higher, because either we go for somebody higher this year or next year, it might take a fresh set of eyes on something like this to go ahead and give some fair appraisals out there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Hadler.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think that’s a valid point. I’m not sure that this is the year considering where we’re at financially, but this group has the obvious advantage of being familiar, like Brian said, maybe just being able to check the boxes.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And that’s why they do save so much money compared to anybody else. But maybe next year, if we get the RFPs out earlier or whatever, we might be able to attract some more palatable offers.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And we might be looking at spending a little bit more money, maybe not $100,000 more, but something more and maybe getting a little bit more for our money or at least just changing the paradigm a little bit.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And I had emailed Steven Vowles about putting this out there sooner and didn’t realize that he was gone. So that’s one reason.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yes, that’s something that we’re going to consider. I think that we shouldn’t be considering that in our budgeting processes to plan for an increase right here so that we can bring somebody new in in the following year and actually go ahead and start working.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, plan ahead for an expense like that.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes, just one more question. How much did we pay for their services last year, Debbie?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: It was around the same.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I guess I’ll weigh in just a little bit, Debbie. And I know that I’ve been involved for two and three quarters years.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ve been on the commission many times in there and there’s just a huge lack of support for that firm that we’re getting ready to vote on here because they seem to be the only option available. And I don’t think that it’s always that they do a bad job.
Bill Winfield, Chair: It’s that I don’t think that we’re equalizing across the county well enough. And we have these people that come in and we all know who they were.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s been many of them with neighbors with such disparity. And, you know, I’m not here to bad mouth the vendor, but we’ve had a huge amount of problems.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I think we had 69 this year, am I correct? Of people who filed because they disagreed with this service.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So it’s hard to vote in favor of him again, even though we’re talking double the money for the other one, it’s a real struggle. And I don’t know how to send that message to him that we would like a little better service and our clients who are the property owners in this county expect better.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Well, and I can tell you, Gordon and those guys this year, they did use a different model so that it was more equitable across the whole county. On the appeals, we didn’t make a lot of adjustments.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: The ones that we did mostly make adjustments to were the ones that were willing to provide information that we’d asked for previously. So when you go in and ask them for ADRs and occupancy and the expenses, and they don’t provide it, we don’t have anything to go off of.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So they go off the program that they have.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you feel like he did a better job this year of equalizing across the county.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We’ll find out.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, I mean, we’re the ones that suffer from his, what he does because we hear those people. I can’t tell you how many emails we’ve had in there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I don’t wanna be the sole bearer of disgruntled commissioner here, but there were enough people that we have to speak to it. We can’t not speak to it.
Stephen Stocks: So can I ask a couple of questions? So how many appeals, the public doesn’t know how many appeals you get in a given year.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So right now I’m at 188.
Stephen Stocks: Okay, and how many of those 188 return with a reduction?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I don’t have them.
Stephen Stocks: But it’s not, it’s probably less common. And that’s a process that they have.
Stephen Stocks: They have an ability to appeal that through you. And then they can go to the appraisal or the appraiser and have a full hearing.
Stephen Stocks: And if they’re unhappy with that, they can go to the state. And that’s going through that whole process.
Stephen Stocks: A lot of times doesn’t result necessarily in substantial changes in valuations. Okay.
Stephen Stocks: And I think that’s one thing that just from what I’ve been involved with Debbie on this. Sometimes I’ll go and I’ll sit with Debbie to have these hearings or help participate in these hearings.
Stephen Stocks: This is an uncomfortable part of the assessor’s job. It’s a comfortable part of the attorney’s job.
Stephen Stocks: We make people, by our job, If we do our job correctly, we hold people accountable to valuations. And so I invite commissioners.
Stephen Stocks: I know commissioner, I think commissioner Hedin, commissioner McGann, commissioner Winfield and commissioner McCandless all went to appeals this last year, right? And I think that’s great to see.
Stephen Stocks: And I just want to encourage you guys to go through that process to see it because it’s not, it’s really weird because you’ll get a lot of folks from the public that are concerned and frustrated and upset about that process. But when you see it done, I think they do it as professionally as they can.
Stephen Stocks: And there’s a lot of data that’s missing and a lot of information that we don’t have. And on the cases that we’ve had together, we’ve offered to the other attorney, show us the record, show us the documents.
Stephen Stocks: And a lot of times we don’t get a full disclosure that would show everything. So I just bring us all.
Stephen Stocks: And the other hard part is kind of giving education to the community about these things. So just noting that additional thought.
Stephen Stocks: Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I make a motion. I move to accept the bid from the appraisers Inc for $69,762.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m doing so because I’m being thrifty and I appreciate Debbie’s feedback that they’re doing a better job.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Hedin. Second, Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any further discussion? Yes, ma’am.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’ll just in the last year’s justification, it did say Grand County has received some complaints in the past regarding professional behavior, but Debbie has taken steps to coach them on desired practices and behavioral changes. So thank you if they got better this year.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: I didn’t put that in there, Stephen Vowles put that in there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But anyway, so it just continued on.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Can I ask a question? When you said that people came to the appeals and you raised your hands– I didn’t have anybody in the appeals issue.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I went to the business one, to commercial.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So one, that’s it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I went to.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, I think Commissioner McGann was a year prior.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: What do you mean?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Did you come into the BOE this year to listen to the appeals?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Maybe I’m confused, but I went to an appeal. That was last year, yeah.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I know I went to an appeal.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’m glad other commissioners get emails. I get stopped in the street.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: People more than not happy with previous work. I am very happy to hear that you–
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Okay, once again, I’d like to face that. I got nothing for you guys.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Not one.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Not what?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Not one email from you guys. Forwarding those emails of concern to me.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Not one.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I didn’t get emails. I get stopped in the street of concerns that my evaluations are quite high.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Yes, ma’am. So you would like us to.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Absolutely.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Okay, okay. I guess the past commission.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So we got all of the emails and all of the phone calls.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So when we get the commission thing, it doesn’t go.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: It doesn’t go to you?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: The assessor. Okay, that’s really, you know, that would be good.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Forward for you.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, the email chain, when it comes to the commission, all the commissioners get it. Calm admin team gets it.
Stephen Stocks: I get it. Our quick auditor gets it.
Stephen Stocks: That’s it.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But that on a session or assessor topics, it doesn’t go to the assessor too.
Stephen Stocks: No, the system shows that when people email the commission, the system doesn’t know how to flag that and to give it to the assessor. And same if there’s a complaint, like if there’s a complaint about the surveyor or anybody else, they don’t, if they’re not on that email list, it’s not going to populate and send it.
Stephen Stocks: So if you ever see something that you’re like, if you guys get an email and you see something about IT, take the two seconds forwarded or crossed. And if you have, you know, contacts with constituents, it’s always great for the other electeds to kind of get that feedback because.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Didn’t know.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, you guys are probably a lot more accessible and approached and you outnumber, you know, any of us single office, you know, electeds.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Oh, yes. And you’re hearing from us now.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, unfortunately not in the best setting, but we thought you were in the loop just the same.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I hope the message goes back to this firm too, that we’re just trying to raise the level of service.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: I got a meeting with you, Bill, in the attorney’s office about this, that I said, if you could get those to me. Again, I didn’t get them this year.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Any further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll call for a vote. Those in favor.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those against. Passes five with two against.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and Commissioner Winfield. Thank you, Debbie.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. We will move on to number 10, the ordinance to establish the separate office of the Grand County auditor and the Grand County clerk.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Worter.
Gabe Woytek: Thanks, Chair. And thank you to the commission for bringing this up for consideration so this conversation can happen.
Gabe Woytek: So I offered a sort of a pretty detailed proposal and presentation on this move. Not an insignificant move, obviously.
Gabe Woytek: So I wanted to make sure to present that in full with as much detail as possible and give you all the chance to offer feedback or concerns so I could be aware of the able to respond if needed. The general parameters and justification of my proposal remain unchanged from that presentation that I gave.
Gabe Woytek: I feel quite strongly about this being an excellent move for Grand County to make on behalf of the internal organization and the role that the clerk auditor plays inter-organizationally as well as in providing service, contributing to transparency to the public and all those things that we all strive for as public servants and public officials. Let’s see.
Gabe Woytek: I think that’s ultimately, you know, one way that I’m trying to describe this tension and this challenge that I am currently dealing with in my office. Maybe this will relate or maybe this, Commissioner McAnlis, this will resonate with you.
Gabe Woytek: A lot of times I feel like I’m running a restaurant and we’re serving Chinese food and Italian food out of the same shop and maybe some American on the side too and just keeping it all together and really being able to focus and specialize and make sure we’re serving stuff that tastes good. It’s just, I think that that’s a useful way of analogizing the situation and I think that there’s a real opportunity to do better with this type of action and that’s all I’ll say right now.
Gabe Woytek: I will say that I would request if approval be considered that it be done pending legal review. There wasn’t a chance for this ordinance to pass a legal review in time for this meeting but it does need to be approved and passed by the 1st of November.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Clerk Wojtek. I will just start with Commissioner Hedin.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, Jacques, go ahead then if she’s going to defer.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Thank you. Actually, I’ll just go ahead and make a motion then I’ll speak.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’ll move to approve the ordinance establishing separate offices of Grand County Auditor and Grand County Clerk made effective in January 2027 according to all applicable laws and statutes pending legal review.
Gabe Woytek: Is that 2027 Gabe or supposed to be 2026? Yeah, it would take effect and official separation will only take effect I mean, January 27 after the election.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that. Right, okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Hedler, second by Commissioner Hedin for discussion. Yeah, and I wanted to speak on that too.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, I’ve looked at this a lot and I’ve heard Gabe and I think at the end of the day it does just make sense. I mean, I think the duties of the Clerk and the Auditor, when I first got elected, I remember thinking that it was odd.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Some of the varied amount of stuff that the Clerk and the Auditor does doesn’t seem to have much in common with some of the other stuff. And I appreciate I’ve worked in restaurants plenty also Gabe’s analogy, but I also appreciate the work we’ve put into it to ensure that this wouldn’t increase our budget.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It doesn’t look like at all. And I think it would streamline each of those duties.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Obviously it might add complexity having one more elected official, but I think that is more than made up for by the simplification of each one of those officials kind of sticking to their narrower scope. And also, especially concerning the Auditor, I mean, we’ve spent a lot on the Auditors this year, a whole lot on especially internal Auditors and companies to double-check internal Auditors, we double-check external Auditors and having an Auditor that is just a dedicated Auditor in-house makes a lot of sense to me as well.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I’m supportive of this and I hope we can move forward.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin and then Commissioner McGann.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I did a little bit of research this morning as to other counties within the state of Utah that have separated clerk Auditors. And what I came up with was about 10 counties.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There was no rhyme or reason as to size. Daggett County has split and they have a population of 950.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And of course, Salt Lake County has a split and they have a population of 1.2 million. So I couldn’t find like, again, any consistency within the counties, the class of counties and why those would be split.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I would state that I also think, I think the amount of, and that being said to me, there’s no like comparison. We can’t really compare it because we also know that the amount of economic impact or just the economic driver, the amount of money that flows through this county is quite large.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So you can’t really compare our county to one of equal size. I think after looking at the documents and the breakdown, the fiscal impact is minimal at best, if anything.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Hopefully within a couple of years, we’re actually coming out in the black and maybe Gabe could speak to that a little bit more, the fiscal impacts. I think it makes sense to have two different departments where they’re solely responsible for those specific tasks.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think it makes them more efficient, more effective overall. And I think that’s what we’re seeking to do, especially when we’re talking about things like budget cuts, we’re talking about streamlining.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We want to make departments streamlined and more effective. And in the end, that’s what this would do.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Commissioner McCurdy. Oh, I’m sorry.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, Commissioner McGann and then Commissioner McCurdy, my bad, Mary.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Oh, it’s okay, it’s okay. It’s hard to keep track, especially after a moment.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Well, you know, 11 years ago when I became a commissioner, I always thought the clerk auditor was an odd combination because, you know, if you did a thin diagram, there wouldn’t be any section where they really overlapped. And usually when you have a combined, like, you know, a job description, there’s some overlap and it makes sense.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: With this, I never felt like it made sense. And then the other thing I’ve noticed is things have become a lot more complicated.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, our election system has really become more, you know, people are much more focused on it, much more aware, there are much more questions. And so the importance of making sure that everything is done pristinely and, you know, with transparency is incredibly important.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And also just tax law and things that are coming in and the way things move, it’s the auditor’s job is also, it’s complexity has changed a great deal. So this makes a lot of sense to me.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Plus from Gabe’s presentation last two weeks ago, there’s not going to be a fiscal impact. So without, you know, so if we’re going, you know, and an elected official, another elected official has come and, you know, presented this.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I respect that and I appreciate that. And that it is being done that we’re not like with OHL where we were the first, you know, it was virgin ground in a sense.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: This is being done in other counties successfully. So I would like to follow the lead of Doggett and Salt Lake and those two departments.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Make that department into two departments and make it more effective. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and then Commissioner Martinez. I mean, you spoke, sorry.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’d be far more behind this if I could see the fiscal impact not happening. We can run these numbers through a blue in the face, but creating another elected position at $108,500 a year.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But we’re going to fire, fire or let go of someone because there’s not enough bodies there in the proposed and pay another person another $108,000 to do half of a job.
Gabe Woytek: I don’t see where we’re going to cost savings on that.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Can you answer that?
Gabe Woytek: This is not about me wanting to do half a job or anyone. Let’s make that very clear.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCannon, are you still going live?
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I know my biggest concern about this and I appreciate all the work you’ve done, Gabe and then putting this out there. But to become an elected auditor in Grand County, you need to be a registered voter, be a resident of Grand County and then file.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, that’s your position to be an auditor. And I mean, Mary just talked about the complexity of being an auditor.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, Gabe speaks to the difficulty of being an auditor. It’s a big job.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I don’t think that opening up to another elected person in Grand County is our best decision. Right now we have openings in our planning and zoning and our building department and other areas that we can’t find qualified people to fill.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so finding someone qualified that wants to run for office really scares me. And there’s not any part of it that doesn’t scare me as far as having somebody that’s running our financials that’s an elected official that doesn’t have any training.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so Gabe’s been doing a good job and I know it’s challenging for him and I feel for him. But having that position in there with a financial director is helpful.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I think it’s easier to hire a financial director than it’s gonna be to find an elected official that is gonna be able to do that job. And that’s my biggest concern.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I’m sorry, Gabe, that I can’t.
Gabe Woytek: No, I think that that’s a really valid concern. And I think that, yeah, I’m not blaming you for that one.
Gabe Woytek: And I think if there was an articulated concern that I couldn’t necessarily respond to, that might be the one. Yeah, I’m sorry to call you ahead of time.
Gabe Woytek: It’s okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I’ll just really quick. You know, it was one year ago that we hired a financial director.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: To take over. So I mean, I think that having that position that the commission kind of awarded right there, that additional position, I thought it was kind of supposed to already take care of this problem that we have.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And so I still see this as the growing government, the way that we’re doing it. And I know that we’re taking one position and we’re moving it over here and we’re doing this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But I just wanna put out this case is what happens if a person runs and they win the popularity contest for the clerk auditor and they’re not qualified. We’re once again, then gonna have to hire another financial director.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And we’ve gone back to that space of doing nothing more than just growing government.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, commissioner. I’d like to weigh in and then I’ll go back around.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But, you know, Gabe, I know you put a lot of work into this and you and I have talked at different times over the year. And I’ve really pushed that I believe we need a financial CFO, whatever title we would have to call that individual under the administrator who can help with our budget issues and with our complexity of our finances that we have here at the county.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I know that this budget is now excess of 25 million, I think. And I really feel that we should have somebody that has their finger on that who’s going through as we’ve talked in our budget meetings, the copy machines that we have at the county.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We need to have somebody over our telephone system here or our Verizon system to where we get these all on a plan so that we’re all working. And I think that’s better suited in a financial position that the administrator has.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And, you know, I mean, we’ve tried to use Mr. Bowles in the past or I have and backed away from that a little bit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And now we’ve got the addition of CFO. And I just see that, again, I don’t think I need to go down the road that we’re growing government, but I’ve also from, I believe when I first became a commissioner, I’ve been supportive of further education to bring up the financial level, you know, skills for you in any way forward.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’m supportive of that in other departments as well, not just yours. I know that eventually we’re gonna see something for the judge so that she can be reimbursed through the county that we have those available to us.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I just think they’re a much cheaper option rather than trying to separate here and come up with another elected official. And we all know there are popularity contests and some days you wish you hadn’t won the popularity contest.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So yes, I’ll go back around. I know Mary is ready there, but go ahead.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We had a budget officer before and we never replaced the budget officer. We’ve said, yeah, that was kind of a replacement.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So it wasn’t like we added a new person. We never replaced the budget officer.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I agree with Melodie. I mean, it’s not just an auditor.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I’ve always, I don’t know if anybody was living here that one time they elected an attorney that didn’t know what she was doing. I mean, this was years ago.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, it can happen, you know? So I’m looking at the clerk, the auditor, the treasurer, the attorney, these are very skilled jobs.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I’ve always questioned, why are they elected? Why aren’t they part of the process that we go through vetting and resumes and such like that?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So changing this dynamic is not gonna change that. That is an issue in not just that department.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s an issue. I mean, we’re fortunate we have good.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We have a good attorney. We have a good treasurer right now.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: You know, we could, you know, you can have a poor reporter or poor. I mean, some of these offices, I wonder why they’re even elected, especially when they’re not doing any legislating, you know, but that, you know, so that’s beside the point.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So I agree with you, but I don’t think it has any bearing on this decision because it’s going to be there no matter what. And I just think it makes good sense and it’s going to improve our customer service and improve just making sure that things run smoother and the things are, you know, the dots are, lines are dotted and keys crossed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, seeing no further hands, I will call for a vote. Oh, I just had one thing.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes, we’ve had a situation where we had a CFO, CEO style admin office. And to be perfectly honest, it’s one of the worst situations that we’ve had in Grand County under my tenure.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I didn’t think that worked out very well. And I think that position under the auditor office is a better paradigm.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yes, Commissioner. Gabe, I wanted to say, I don’t think you do half a job.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I don’t want my thoughts or I don’t want to separate at that pay rate to create another job to do half the work that you achieve. You achieve an immense amount of work.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I agree with that. I just don’t want to look towards creating another position at 100 round numbers, 110K a year.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I look towards relieving the stress that you personally take on in that job setting. I know elections take a toll above auditing on the clerk side, but at 110K a year, it’s a steep price to pay.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: He did send out a document, I believe it was a couple of days ago. And so there wasn’t two positions at 110 again.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: 108,500, 108,500 on his document.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: It gets rid of the financial director though.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yeah.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So it gets rid of a position. But I’d rather have that higher position.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That personally, that’s how I feel. I’d rather have the higher position than create another elected official.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So just so we know, I think Kevin Walker did do the research on this and the only individual other than commissioners that has to be elected is the sheriff. So it is feasible that if we have these ideas, we can go down that path someday.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So it’s just, it’s an interesting, we didn’t go, he kind of did some initial research. So it’s an interesting thought.
Stephen Stocks: Not the attorney.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The attorney is not the attorney of the Utah constitution.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, sorry. I could be a little wrong on that a while ago that he did that research.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I look forward to a commissioner bringing forward ideas on how to remove some other electeds. But at this point, I will, I can say one more thing after the vote.
Gabe Woytek: So thanks, Mike, for saying that. I know you weren’t trying to take a dig.
Gabe Woytek: I know you all trust me not to take things personally. And quite frankly, I feel that it’s a great compliment that you all trust me to continue on and carrying this combined role.
Gabe Woytek: Because you know and trust that I’ll continue to try to improve it and do the best that I can with it. And I definitely 100% plan on running next year to maintain this role.
Gabe Woytek: And I think I have a great shot at winning that role because the people that I work with, the members of the public that need to work with me, know that I’ll treat them with respect. It’s because of that, not only because I’m popular.
Gabe Woytek: But thanks, y’all.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. With that, I will call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Hadler, seconded by Commissioner Hedin. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? The motion fails with four opposed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner McCandless, and myself, Commissioner Winfield. We move on to number 11.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Our citizens to be heard. Oh, you’re right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. I’m sorry, Sean.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ve got citizens to be heard. And so at that point, I will open this up to citizens to be heard.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those that haven’t spoken previously at the four o’clock, they’re welcome to come up, introduce yourselves if there’s anybody that wishes to. Yes, we’ve got one.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, we’ll start with Lynn. Do we have anybody online, Quinn?
Chris Wilson: I don’t know yet. Hang on, hang on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Lynn Jackson.
Lynn Jackson: I’m going to talk really fast because I want to address two things. Hang on, hang on.
Lynn Jackson: Oops. Oh, I’m getting free time?
Lynn Jackson: This is great. No, no.
Lynn Jackson: This goes back to my 32 years working for the BLM in this area. Number one, regarding your infrastructure overlay on that particular parcel.
Lynn Jackson: That is an RNPP, Recreation and Public Purposes parcel. It can’t be used for anything but public purpose.
Lynn Jackson: So I know a lot of people think, oh, that’s a great place for development. And if that’s proposed, the city will lose title to that property.
Lynn Jackson: It will revert back to the BLM. And I’ve dealt with that situation during my career.
Lynn Jackson: The second thing I want to talk about is the letter regarding the travel management plan. Well-written letter, supported 100%.
Lynn Jackson: I want to give just a little bit more perspective I was there as an associate manager at the BLM when we did the 2008 resource management plan and the travel management plan. We, at that time, had inventory in cooperation with Red Rock Four-Wheelers 6,000 miles of roads in the entire field area office, not just Lappert.
Lynn Jackson: So that’s all Grand County and about a quarter of northern San Juan County. At that time, we closed about 3,000 miles.
Lynn Jackson: Now, it may be 100 miles this way or the other. But we closed half the roads at that time.
Lynn Jackson: And in that process, what I want to, I’ve heard people say, well, Lappert, this latest round in 2023 didn’t go through public comment. And when we went through that initial travel plan in 2008, took about three years, started in 2005, there were at least a dozen public hearings and comment periods.
Lynn Jackson: We met in Salt Lake. We met in Moab.
Lynn Jackson: We met in Grand Junction. We were working with six other field offices in this side and this end of the state.
Lynn Jackson: They were all combined. There was massive public input went into that entire process.
Lynn Jackson: Just in Moab office alone, we received over 90,000 comments on that RNP and travel management plan. So if anybody’s going to get up here and say there was no public input into that, that would simply be untrue.
Lynn Jackson: So the 2023 thing kind of ended up being this combination, weird political mess that the Biden administration brought to the table to resolve a lawsuit that had been filed against all seven travel management plans. It was a political solution.
Lynn Jackson: It was wrong. And they had no right to shut down.
Lynn Jackson: BLM has no right to shut down RS-2477 roads. The ninth district court ruled last summer that those RS-2477 are a right the state and the county have.
Lynn Jackson: Now, there’s a process where BLM can shut down those roads, but you can’t do it administratively with the signature of a PIN. It has to go through a judicial process.
Lynn Jackson: So thank you very much for going after this. Let’s get those roads back opened like they should have been.
Lynn Jackson: Thank you. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Yes, please.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second row there. Third row.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thanks for having us, Commission. I’d like to speak on the Labyrinth Road.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Introduce the travel plan yourself real quick, please. Thomas Firestack, Grand County.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I would like to also encourage that we reopen these trails. Not having these trails open people in the midst of off-road and biking communities all here that the roads are getting shut down.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Moab’s shutting down. That’s really hurting our economy here in this town.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I would hope that we could continue to try and get these roads back open, allow all activities that used to be allowed, motorized, non-motorized. This is the American people’s land.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Let’s keep it open. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room that would like to come up?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody online that would like to speak at the six o’clock citizens to be heard? I see Pam.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Are you online to speak?
Pam Hackley: Yes, I am. Thank you.
Pam Hackley: Can you hear me?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, I can. Please introduce yourself and then it’s all yours.
Pam Hackley: Thank you. My name is Pam Hackley.
Pam Hackley: I live in Castle Valley, Grand County. I wanted to just comment on item 17.
Pam Hackley: I support the current Labyrinth Canyon travel plan. This was passed in 2023 after a long series of hearings.
Pam Hackley: A lot of input as has been noted. I think it was a good compromise.
Pam Hackley: This is an area, the Labyrinth Canyon area is a quiet flat float for people who like to canoe. We have taken our grandkids who are now in their early 20s on that numerous times since they were little kids.
Pam Hackley: This is a really special place and it’s great to have it quiet. The other item I wanted to comment on is item 16 about the county’s possible plans to spend $10,000 on cloud seeding.
Pam Hackley: From what I have read over the years about this, this cloud seeding is not effective. At best, you might get 10 to 20 percent results.
Pam Hackley: It’s very difficult to monitor whether it works or not. I think this is a waste of money for Grand County to spend on.
Pam Hackley: We have plenty of other projects that need this kind of money. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Do we have anybody else online?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. I will move back to the chambers.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, please.
Laurie McFarland: Laura. Good evening.
Laurie McFarland: I want to thank… Oh, I’m Laurie McFarland.
Laurie McFarland: I’m with High Point Hummer and ATB. But as an outfitter, we do not actually actively use the Labyrinth areas.
Laurie McFarland: When I was running for district for commission seat, I did get out and talk to a lot of people in the community. When I asked them what they cared about, they said what I care about is the fact that for 40 years, in April for Easter, we would go and recreate, have two, three days where we would be in this area.
Laurie McFarland: And then they went and closed it. Why are we closing this to locals?
Laurie McFarland: And like I said, I don’t personally have any commercial aspect of use. But the fact that there are people who adore that land, who use it and have used it for years and lost that ability, I feel like I have an obligation to speak up just a little bit and say that was something that they said was important to them.
Laurie McFarland: And I really want to thank the BLM and all of you for having a look at trying to find good solutions for the locals that are actually trying to recreate in those areas. And I just want to say thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to speak up at 6 p.m.?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Seeing none, we will move on to item number 11, the ordinance around the major utility overlay of parcel 02-0021-0113, City of Moab.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Yates.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I know we’ve got folks that are waiting out in the hall. And Cory over here on the side, if we need any help, Sean, I feel free to pull any of them up.
Sean Yates, Engineer: I’m Sean Yates, Grand County, Utah engineer. As well as in-room planning and zoning administrator.
Sean Yates, Engineer: The summary of this request is zone amendment to apply the major utility overlay to approximately three acres located at 2651 South Spanish Valley Drive, Moab, Utah. Parcel number 02-0021-0113.
Sean Yates, Engineer: Construction of a 2.5 billion gallon municipal water storage tank associated with facilities. The findings and conclusion are that the City of Moab planning and engineering staff appear to have done their due diligence in selecting the best location for the City of Moab of the water tank as indicated in the attached documents to the agenda.
Sean Yates, Engineer: As such, the proposed zone amendment is to apply the major utility overlay MU02 to approximately three acres located as stated before. If approved by the commission, the condition for a development agreement is required under the Grand County Land Use Code.
Sean Yates, Engineer: And since this project directly abuts to a residential zone, the county commission may under 4.10.3 increase the standards, including setbacks, buffers, height, scale and massing and landscaping.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Campos.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I would like to make a motion to approve the additional use of the ordinance, the major utility overlay of parcel 02-0021-0113. The proposed zone amendment is to approximately three acres located at 2651 South Spanish Valley Drive, Utah.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: For the construction of, well, I don’t know that I have to say that right now. We’re just putting in a major utility overlay.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And if approved, the condition for development agreement is required under the Grand County Land Use Code. The project directly abuts a residential zone.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: The county commission may under 4.10.3 increase standards, including setbacks, buffers, height, scale and massing, landscaping and fencing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second. Motion by Commissioner McCann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner Martinez. Do we have, yes, Commissioner?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, I just want to kind of give you some feedback on the planning commission. So when this was brought up at the planning commission, we did have seven people come to speak.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One just provided some informational. Robert Buckingham from the Cemetery District kind of went over that BLM patent.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We had four against and speaking to impacts such as feasibly the leak of the tank and the geology of that area, a pump that’s going to be turning on and off next to a neighborhood, lighting of that facility and the possible other uses for that land. And then there were two in favor, both from groundwater and sewer that spoke to the interconnect.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I just want to reiterate. I don’t know if you spoke about this, Sean, sorry, but that the planning commission sent forward an unfavorable recommendation.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Five in favor with one abstention. Jerry Klaes made that motion and that was seconded by Tony.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: The main reasons were that, you know, via our future land use plan and future land use map, that area is designated as a regional, a possible regional center. But part of that is parks and rec.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that’s actually what it was. When you look at the future land use map, it’s designated as a possible park and rec area.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There were other people that just spoke to the concerns about the, again, the geology and feasibly what could happen if there was any kind of leakage to that community that’s specifically downhill from them. And then lastly, that we’ve talked about, I’ll just keep beating this drum.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We do have this broken land use code and we really need to have that updated before we continue to do rezones and overlays and all of these things. We just need to eventually pull on the reins and stop for a while while we wait for that land use code update.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so I just wanted to give that information that came out of the Planning Commission because they are a recommending body. And I think it’s important.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It’s very, we have a very diverse Planning Commission and I really respect their opinion. It’s quite diverse.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so hopefully we listen to them.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner McCann.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I agree. And thanks, Tricia.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I did watch that meeting. And I think that the presentation that was brought to the Commission when this came before us was a lot more comprehensive than what came before the Planning Commission.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And had they saw that, had that been there, it might have been a different outcome. But we don’t know.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But we’re here to make these decisions now. And I appreciate all the people that have come and spoke.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We’ve had lots of community involvement, mostly of the people that are in that neighborhood. The people that have spoken in the neighborhood like the way that it is.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And it won’t change much when you put a water tower or a water tank in there that’s buried. It won’t change much.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And when we’re talking about this public works piece of land that was deeded to the city, it was for public works, which could be recreation. And if you go into our public works is what it was for.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But that’s actually expired. So they could do something different with it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But it’s staying, it’s with this water tank, it’s staying within that use of the land. The other piece of it is, you know, we just had fires in California that they went to go hook up to the water and there was no water came out for the fire trucks.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so it’s a safety issue. We want to make sure that we have water down the future.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: 10 years from now goes by and we have a catastrophic fire in the valley and or in town and we run out of water. I don’t want to be the one responsible to not have that water storage there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So that’s why I’m voting yes for it. I know that there’s concerted citizens, but my job is to vote for the entire constituents of Grand County, not just for the people that live right next to that piece of property.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Mike.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Anyone else? I think you’re it.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Most of everyone can’t say it’s been a dirt triangle for 40 years since I’ve been here. It’s gonna be a dirt triangle with a bump on it now, at least from the renderings and drawings from the city.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And it has a purpose. I see that as a net positive.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So that’s my vote. Anyone else?
Stephen Stocks: Yes, Commissioner Martinez. Mr.
Stephen Stocks: Stocks, would you like to go ahead? Sure.
Stephen Stocks: Just noting for the commission, and we might have to go back and make sure that the motion’s clean. So one of the things that when we have a vote for this type of issue, we need to have explicit findings and conclusions on the record by the basis.
Stephen Stocks: If you want to adopt those, I don’t know if I didn’t hear specifically, if you’re gonna just adopt the findings from the planner. And if that’s cleaned up, I think that’s sufficient.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then- The only thing that concerns me about that right now is we’re just approving a overlay. We’re not actually approving the ins and outs of a water tank.
Stephen Stocks: The recommendation from my office is if approved, the condition for the development agreement is required under Grand County Land Use Code. It lists the setbacks, but whether approved or denied, the County Commission must make explicit findings and conclusions on the record to provide for a reasonable basis for the decision.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Okay, I read all that.
Stephen Stocks: Right, but did you make, are you adopting the findings made by the planner? That’s the part I didn’t hear.
Stephen Stocks: And if you didn’t want to make all of the findings that he made in the document, major utility overlay SR under item C, 9.2.5 issues for considerations A through K, there are specific different factual findings or criteria that you could read through into the record as findings. Or you can just adopt- I will adopt those.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I will add that to my motion to adopt those findings that are in the major utility overlay.
Stephen Stocks: Okay, so you’re making a motion, a substitute motion. Will you restate the whole thing?
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I’ll restate the whole thing.
Speaker 37: Is she amending it?
Stephen Stocks: She can’t, it’s been made, there’s been a second on the motion and because it’s the second that’s been made, it’s now of motion before the body. So now it has to be a substitute motion.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Okay, so I make a motion to substitute motion to approve the major utility overlay parcel number 02-0021-0113, which is approximately three acres located at 2651 South Spanish Valley Drive. For construction of a 2.5, I’ll just add that in there, I guess, 2.5 million gallon municipal water storage tank and associated facilities.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: When approved, the conditions for development agreement is required under the Grand County Land Use Code. Since this project directly abuts a residential zone, the county commission may enter 4.10-3, increase standards including setbacks, buffers, height, scale, and massing, landscape and fencing and adopt the, sorry, issues for consideration in the document, major utility overlay, SRCC item C9.2.5 and adopt all of A through A.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that one. I make a motion to substitute motion by Commissioner McCanvas, seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Further discussion? Did that hit all the points?
Stephen Stocks: We just have to have a basis for it because of the type of motion it is, or because of the type of process it is.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, seeing no further discussion, I’ll call for a vote on the substitute motion. Oh, I’m sorry.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I thought Brian was going to speak before that, but I’ll, yeah, this has been a tough one for me. I think there’s, I think I’ve heard some very strong arguments on both sides and I’ve been out to the site many times.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, we all pass through there all the time and I’ve been out specifically to look at it and through eyes, they’re looking at it as a future site with a water tank and also a future site with maybe something else. And I guess at the end of the day, to me, it’s a matter of letting the, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I think it would be great if we could develop that whole corner in a fashion that would create like a node, like some of the future maps have called for, you know, a nice little business area or a community center or whatever. But I think at this point, I’m probably in favor of supporting it for a, for the water tank.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think it makes sense at this time and the money’s there, work’s been done.
Wes Usry: So it’s a very difficult decision, but I’m out. All right, anything further?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, I will call for a vote on the substitute motions by Commissioner McCandless, second by Commissioner Martinez. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? The substitute motion passes five with two opposed, Commissioner Hedin and Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And does that bury the original motion then? Correct.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we can move on, correct. City of Moab, thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Bye-bye. All right, number 12, Resolution Meador Drive Townhomes Final Plan.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Again, Mr. Yates, our County Engineer.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So this number 12 has been pulled from the agenda, but not on time. Next one here is 13.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So we’ve pulled number 12? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: My apology, I did not know that.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I didn’t either.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, so we will move on to number 13, our Resolution for the Grandview Business Park Subdivision Final Plan Approval. Again, Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yates.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I think that’s 12.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, there might be some confusion.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Online, number 13 is the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board Bylaws. Number 12 is the Grandview Business Park Subdivision Final Plan Approval.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I don’t know all the ones I have printed. I have one I printed at home and one that Dana just gave me.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’m looking at that. I just refreshed it, the one online.
Sean Yates, Engineer: I apologize for that. This has just occurred in the last couple of days, and I’ve been advised that that Bader Drive town home.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So then we are going to move on to number 12, which is the Resolution for the Grandview Business Park Subdivision Final Plan Approval. All right, Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yates, thank you. Sorry for the confusion there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But I got a lot of confusion.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So Mr. Tim Keogh requests Final Plan Approval for the Grandview Business Park Subdivision dividing up existing business park individual lots for transfer to his tenants.
Sean Yates, Engineer: The subdivision vacates existing parcel 02-0008-0048 and parcel 02-008-0008-00057. The Grand County Future Land Use Map designates this area for highway commercial supporting the current and future intended use.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So essentially what’s going on there is Mr. Keogh has buildings on his two parcels.
Sean Yates, Engineer: He’s leased them out to tenants, and the desire is to give them ownership of those properties, both real estate and his building, and to do so by creating a total of four lots. And just in the last few hours, as we’ve taken a closer look at the legal standpoint with our own effect, and we know there’s some length, we have no legal concern with the parcel that’s going to be evaded, verge, which is what Mr.
Sean Yates, Engineer: Keogh is proposing with the final plan. We’ve also found out that this is an administrative decision rather than a legislative one.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So under state law, if the applicant meets the ordinance’s requirements, it must be a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: As an administrative, we still need to vote on it, correct? Okay, so real quick, I would like to mention that Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Keogh and I, our previous business partners, I believe that partnership dissolved five years ago, might’ve been four and a half, but it’s quite a ways in the past. I just want that out there so that it’s clear that we are not business partners and I don’t have a conflict when we vote on this current place.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So then I will go to Mr. McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: As an administrative decision, does this check all boxes?
Stephen Stocks: So yeah, it’s got through legal review. There’s no, like Mr.
Stephen Stocks: Yates has indicated, there’s no legal concerns assuming that the parcels have been vacated and merged. It’s an administrative decision, which means there’s not as much flexibility that the commission has in other regards.
Stephen Stocks: That means that the application meets the ordinance requirements, it must be approved, and the board’s gone through and reviewed all of the different applicable codes, reviewed the Clubman process, the preliminary plat review, and he’s not found anything that would be an issue for approving this application.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. All right, Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I move to approve the Grandview Business Park final plan. I second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Martinez, second by Commissioner McCandless. Further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, and sorry for the long wait.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so now that I know my numbers aren’t the thing, we’ll go to the resolution amending the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board bylaws.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So over the past several years, this board has evolved through the merger of multiple boards and each with different origins, responsibilities, and expectations. That evolution has created a set of bylaws that being even well-intentioned has become difficult to interpret even for the board members themselves, including what it means to advise on how the board interfaces with Planning and Zoning Commission and where its authority begins and ends.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so this resolution just returns the board to its clear statutory purposes defined under state law for the County Economic Opportunity Boards to assist the county in applying for the rural county grants and the rural opportunity grant. They recommend projects and help meet reporting requirements.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: These bylaws follow the standard template recommended by the county attorney and the EOAB remains fully empowered to edit these bylaws and shape how it fulfills its role within the statutory responsibilities. Basically taking it back to bare bones and we can move from there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We have something we have to accomplish and that’s just what I’m trying to do. This change shouldn’t come as a surprise because over the past year there’s been many discussions about aligning the board’s work with its core mission and this resolution is a formal step in that long conversation.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So with a clear mandate from the state statute bylaws, the EOAB can positively impact Grand County’s economy. And I want to acknowledge and thank all of the members for the deep engagement and commitment to this process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I hope that this gives them a clearer focus and we can continue to focus on that $200,000 to $800,000 worth of money that comes into our economy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner McGann.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: These bylaws are a really big change from what was done before and I’m not opposed or in favor of the changes but I do think to, we need to honor our voluntary boards and from the information I’ve gotten from members, they would really like to talk and discuss this. So I want to make a motion to postpone this number 13, the resolution to amending the economic opportunity advisory board bylaws until the advisory board has had an opportunity to discuss it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m going to second that if I may.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McGann. To postpone.
Bill Winfield, Chair: To postpone, second by Commissioner Hedin.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: To postpone until the advisory board has had a meeting. So I’m not sure where that will be.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So I don’t know if it’s for the next meeting or the following meeting. We have a meeting next Wednesday.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Okay, so perfect for the next meeting.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Especially, I think, Mr. Wilson, you said that they weren’t updated until like three today and the packet is second?
Chris Wilson: Final update, final revision.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So yeah, to me, I want to go back to, we heard this quite a bit in the initial citizens. We’ve heard that, you know, the objective, it should be the objective that we are transparent.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so to have updated an updated agenda item that’s literally updated an hour before the meeting is not transparent. It doesn’t, you know, at least give them 24 hours.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I understand it takes a while to get information into the packet. I totally understand.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’ve been there myself. But I think we should give our general citizenry just the grace to at least have 24 hours to peruse an item.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And in this case, they had an hour. I will state that I have had board members from this board reach out to me.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Quite upset about this change. And that’s concerning to me.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m not sure why we would want to rattle cages when we have an amazing board. Everything I’ve heard, I’ll state that I think I went to one of these board meetings a bajillion years ago and I have not watched the meetings.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I don’t have the dedication that you do, Mel, can’t do it. But I’ve heard that it’s a really engaged, amazing board and an advisory board.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I think when we have those members of our community, like I think so highly of our planning commission, that are willing to give their time and energy to a board, why would we want to rattle their cage? So I would like at least the board to have the ability to go through the bylaws again.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think that that’s a fair, very fair thing to ask, that it goes back to them, let them go through it and then move forward with it. Because I think it’s a.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, I think it’s dismissive if you don’t.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, so I’d just like to point out that the reason that they were updated is because Commissioner McCanvas was working with Chris on making amendments and honoring his request. So I think that there has been some communication going both ways.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Also, and I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that resolutions to our board are ways that we communicate how that works, how the work is, it should be done, right? So by setting those bylaws right there, I think that Commissioner McCanvas is letting the board know that this is what the commission would like to have them work on and setting those standards up for them right there by resolution.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure that that’s what we’re doing.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And what my understanding is, is she’s providing clear direction to that board on the ways that she would like to see that board work I’m sorry, the way that this commission body, this body right here, would like to see that board operate.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hadler and then Commissioner McGann.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, I also think it’s appropriate to postpone them in the final bylaws got into the agenda three or two was reached out to you by a few members of the board who were upset about it and feels like it’s unnecessarily limiting. We can use resolutions to give direction.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: We can also just give direction. It’s not difficult.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Also, I mean, this board is made up of a variety of talented individuals that really I think I haven’t seen anything other than goodwill at the effort of promoting economic development and expansion in Grand County. Honestly, this feels a little bit like a kick in the teeth to people who are volunteering their time and energies and talents to something.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And we’re just making them basically a board to oversee one specific grant. That’s fine and all.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: But I mean, what’s the big hurry? Why can’t we wait another couple of weeks and work on a little bit and get a little bit more consensus and work with people who have given us a lot of their free time and advice.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Commissioner McGann. She’s already spoke.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Can I speak first? Oh, certainly.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I didn’t realize. No, that’s OK.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I just I haven’t spoke. So the reason why is I’ve given direction multiple times throughout the year and it’s not listened to.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And if it’s just coming from me, then it’s not really direction, right? It needs to come from the commission.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so that’s why we’re bringing that forward to the commission. And so it can come not just from me as one commissioner, but from the board, from the whole commission.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’m continuing to if I take this back to them, I mean, I don’t see that it will be any different. When it comes back to us, they have a hard time figuring out what they want to do.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s part of it. They spend a lot of time talking about the direction that they want to go.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And the challenge that I have is that we have the rural communities grant and the rural opportunities grant. And we have no clear direction for that grant.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That board has been in existence since 2020. And like I said, it’s been different origins, different responsibilities.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But when I came onto that board this year, there was really no clear path. If Melissa wasn’t there, if he wasn’t there, if I wasn’t there, then the next year’s economic advisory board would not be able to continue to get these grants out.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: There’s not a clear process. There hasn’t been a clear process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s what I’ve asked is for us to focus on that clear process, which is what their statutory job is to do. And once we finish that and it’s duplicatable and we continue on this process in the future, then I’m absolutely open to expanding those bylaws.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But at the moment, we have right now, and I don’t know that a lot of people know this, but we’ve been trying to work with our RCOG, which is community, and the contract went extended over our other ones. Now our county doesn’t get to apply for the RCOG grant for this year, so we just lost out on $600,000 potentially because things weren’t done correctly in the past.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s something that I want to stop and be able to go forward to be able to recoup all that money from the state that they’re offering our county. And it’s in it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So there is an issue and that’s what I’m trying to do is fix that issue.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and Mary, I’ll get back to you after we’ve gone around. Commissioner McCurdy?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I could only see a benefit following within state statute. I understand that our EOAB, board has right now has is looking at planning commissions are eliminating conflicts, zoning regulations, county general plan language.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I’d like them to follow state statute and be very focused on that grant approval or grant process. I don’t see why arguing for state statute or expanding state statute would be a problem, just narrowing their goals.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Then I’ll go to Commissioner McGann.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Chris did say he talked to Melodie and he even complimented her and said she was easy to work with. But he also stated that he felt like it should be brought back to the board.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I just think it’s I just think it’s the right thing to do to respect and show respect to our boards. I mean, sometimes you can disagree with them.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We might be bringing back the very same thing. And in the bylaws right now, we even are addressing what’s in state code.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s just like the travel council. It’s larger than what’s the scope of the state.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s just larger. But it is addressing what they’re supposed to in state code, Michael.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s just that they have more opportunities.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Addressing state code, but we already missed out 600K.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But I think we need to take I mean, I don’t it’s not timely. There’s nothing that is timely about this.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And so I think waiting two weeks to give people who have dedicated their time the opportunity to talk and express what they want or their concerns. And then they’re going to probably feel better about it, too.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I just don’t see it as being a big deal to wait two weeks to give the transparency to the public by having it in the packet more than an hour before.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And to give the… Just to clarify there, it was on Friday and the whole gist of it was on Friday.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: The changes that got made today were because Chris asked me to change them. And instead of just walking you guys through it all, saying, OK, now go to line.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Now go to line. I just had them change so they were in there so that everybody could see.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Now we can walk through it. It was just a simple adding those adjustments in there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I don’t want to hear again that only an hour before because I did have them in there on Friday. And I didn’t know.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So anyway, I just I think it wouldn’t hurt.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s not like it’s not going to hurt anything to wait two weeks to let the board know what’s going on, why it’s going on, and let them at least have some input.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Martinez, can I call for a vote? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. We’ll call for a vote on the motion by Commissioner McGann, seconded by Commissioner Hedin to postpone.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor? Till next meeting.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? Motion passes with two opposed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and Commissioner Winkler. That item will be postponed until the next meeting.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we move on to item number 15. Resolution amending the bylaws of the Thompson Springs Special Service District, Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any input that’s necessary for me, if you’re sure. Yeah, no, no problem, Bill.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So there’s this, the TSSD is needed to update their bylaws for some time. And these bylaws reflect some of the challenges that the Thompson SSD has had in the past with various things, ethics, failure, difficulty in recruiting members.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It also comes into compliance with some current state statute regarding SSDs. I believe our county attorney, I’ve looked over them, and I think they’re well stated.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I believe Steven’s also had a chance to look at them. One change I mentioned in those is the current liaison, as we all know, we voted for Bill to be the liaison.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So hopefully we can get that changed. So Steven, would we have to put that in the motion to approve that we’d, there’s just one spot in there that it says that I’m the fifth county member.
Stephen Stocks: Oh, it’s in, they list the names of the members in the bylaws. It actually is.
Stephen Stocks: I saw that in there. Yeah, that’s, it is.
Stephen Stocks: I can probably maybe. It’s in, I think it’s in.
Stephen Stocks: It is in the bylaws.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, it’s just gonna be weird because it should we just take out the names then, like put that in the motion to.
Stephen Stocks: Yes, I’d recommend removing that entire box because otherwise you will literally create an obligation to redo, which isn’t bad, but to redo the bylaws, you’re gonna have to do it again every time. So measure changes or somebody, you know, that makes sense.
Stephen Stocks: So I think just approving it with the necessary change to remove that box in any references to it, like the colon prior.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Now I can’t find it. So anyway, I think that there’s got, there’s been a lot of input on this.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think, you know, the board’s looked over a number of times our attorneys looked over it. And I think, I think these are all good changes, except for the part that we just mentioned.
Stephen Stocks: So Stephen, did you see which article that is? Yeah, so it’s TSSD bylaws 2025, page one of 18.
Stephen Stocks: It is the box under some, or section three. All right, hold on.
Stephen Stocks: That’s the third, third document attached.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: SSD bylaws 2025. Oh, sorry, 2025.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah. Okay.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And you said this article under article three. Oh, yeah, okay.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So just delete section three. Just the box.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Or just the box. Okay.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I would move to approve the updated TSSD bylaws as written with the exception of the box, which details the board positions, term ending times, and people holding those positions. And that is under section three.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second. Motion by Commissioner Hadler, second by Commissioner Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the motion? I’ll make that motion.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Passes. Good job.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Six with one absent, Commissioner McCandless absent. And so I believe the next one is Commissioner McCandless’ item number 15.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Want to skip over?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Do you want me to?
Bill Winfield, Chair: We can skip over to the cloud seeding one.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So we’re going to do the Chamber of Commerce after the cloud seeding?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think she’s right there. I can hear her voice.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Oh, wait.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: You’re the ball thrower.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Maybe not. Sorry, guys.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Oh, she’s stuck around. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So we are up to the resolution of the Moab Chamber OHP Initiative, Commissioner McCandless. Thought I could be faster.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: There’s too many people in the hallway. All right.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So that’s where I’m going to. I just want to bring forward this Chamber OHP.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We heard from Cora earlier. She was talking about how the Chamber has specific things that they’re working on.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And this is an initiative to identify, sign and market beginner, intermediate and advanced OHP routes in Grant County. It’s a marketing plan.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I think the biggest ask from us is one to support it, which I think is super important to let the OHP community know that Grant County supports them. And then also the piece of the ask that does have a fiscal impact is if we get the OHP grant, our OHP coordinator, that’s paid for, but they’re asking for a total up to 20 to 40 hours of work from our OHP coordinator that’s been paid for by that grant.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So the grant, the cost to Grant County would be $459. And that would be for benefits if he was able to, if he used all those 40 hours and mostly he’d be used for mapping, but some other, you know, I don’t really know what they do, to be honest with you, but just to be helping, helping them with mapping and some other information, some GIS stuff.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so combined, that would be a maximum amount of $1,501. We might want to add that in the motion that it wouldn’t exceed that.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But like I said, most of it exceed, it’s on the fiscal impact on the front page. And I did just add that like barely.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I’ll take that. But it’s on the main page in the agenda summary.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I had, I have reached out to the state and this does fit within that grant. And so if you have any questions, I can answer some more questions.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: It’s really just, they will go to the BLM. If this is the phase one, they’ll just start looking at it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: They’re going to bring in the groups, Red Rock Four-Wheeler. I’m going to attend those meetings on behalf of the, with the chamber.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I think some other of the OHV community will be on that committee for the chamber to help recommend to the BLM to go to the BLM to find out what they can do. And I think it’s valuable.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I know just up in Duchesne, all of their trails are marked, super easy to see and go. I know that high people that are hardcore OHV users don’t need trails, but people like me, I appreciate them.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Even growing up in this community, I still want to be able to go out and make sure that I don’t get lost, even though I’ve been on a hundred times. So I think that does, that’s a lot of value and to keep our visitors safe.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Hedin.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I make a motion.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I move to approve the resolution to support the Moab OHV initiative to identify sign market beginner, intermediate, advanced OHV routes in Grand County, Utah and to provide county staff assistance to check GIS data on proposed routes for the volunteer Moab chamber of commerce OHV advisory committee. Not to exceed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Oh, not to exceed our financial commitment, $1,501.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Hedin. Is that a second, Mike?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Question. You guys do a second and then I’ll go questions.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner McGann and we will start off with Mr. McCurdy and then go to Commissioner Hedin.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I know we spoke earlier. I just want to make sure that the public knows also this is in conjunction with the county also has a designation of using our OHV coordinator.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thank you for the business name. In with trails maintenance, etc.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: from within tying within a state group with Commissioner Martinez and our other board. I just want to make sure that that it’s with not an against or it’s in conjunction with it’s not against in any way or taking hours away from that process also.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: It was a question to you.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I think that they’re parallel paths. We have one that’s going to market and sign and help us signage, which is a process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then we have the other piece of our coordinator that is going to possibly work with the trails and the state crew. And so one is to create more trails and to do heavy maintenance on it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That’s what you guys are going to work on. But what the chamber’s initiative in is marketing signage.
Bill Winfield, Chair: OK, and also signage.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, just we had multiple people that came to speak in support of this, including the OHV community. And so I want to support that as far as businesses.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think it’s a great idea, too. I’m not, but I’m a biker hiker and it’s the same.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It’s like you go places with map systems, Bar M, for example. And it’s just great, right?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It just allows people that little bit of knowledge, a little bit of information, like you said, keep them out of. I like it.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hadler and then was it McGann or Martinez?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I didn’t need. I didn’t raise my hand.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I just seconded it.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, I think it’s I think it’s a good idea, too. Honestly, I’m surprised that we don’t already have trails rated and signage.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, they make. Make mountain biking around here way easier.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Skiing ski resorts have had, you know, green, blue and green, blue, black trails where forever as a beginner skier, you end up on a black run. You know, you’re in trouble.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Same situation exists for you TV users. I mean, yeah, you’ve all seen situations where people get in over their heads.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s nice that that clearly marked. I think it also actually works pretty well, like Melodie was saying, with some of the other initiatives.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I think, Melodie, I think you misspoke. You said we’re going to be creating new trails with that, but we are going to be well maintaining existing trails and that and that goes along with it, too.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So maybe creating we create new biking trails so we could create a lab. That’s not what I was told.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I was told the improving and maintaining subject of this.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, but yeah, it’s a good idea. I think it’ll be beneficial to all of us, really.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: They always speak community. So I have a couple of concerns with this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So first off, my original concern was the grant. I brought that up when we were talking to the motorized trail community.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Commissioner McCandless went and she contacted the state and found out that it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any conflicts with that with that grant right there. So, you know, that’s great to see that right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But a couple of other things is I’d like to just point out that this was proposed to Emory County under public land solutions right here, and they denied this. And this was at the same time that the San Rafael Swell management plan, travel management plan was going on.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I’m not exactly sure why they denied this if it was, you know, such a popular type of idea. The other thing is that I’d like to bring up is the OHVR grant, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: One of the things of the OHVR grant is that money can be given basically to a governmental agency or to an OHV user group, right? And I’d just like to make sure that, and I know we’re talking about phase one, which is just identifying these routes, but on phase two, phase three, I’d really like to follow the money on this, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And make sure that the money is going to be ending up going and landing with the sponsor of this, which is the Red Rock Four Wheelers. And this money is not ending up at Public Land Solutions, because if that’s the case, there’s definitely going to be a clear conflict of interest in this whole process right here.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The other thing that I’d like to bring up as well is the fact that these grants are very competitive, right? So whatever grant that we’re putting together, we’re putting forth as a board, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I think that at least I’m realizing right now that these grants are competitive. There’s a lot of great projects.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And the total cost of this grant is $300,000. Now, you know, is that going to deter from any other grants that we’re looking for at the same time?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Possibly, right? But what it also might do is there might be another project that comes up in the near future.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And we look at that project and we go back to the board and go, hey, great. Can we go ahead and apply for this grant?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: They’re going to go, yeah, well, we just gave you $300,000, right? I mean, I think there’s what, 1.7 million in the OHBR fund right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So this is a good portion of that with 29 counties buying for that money right there. And then the third thing that was just brought up right here is one of the things that I would think that would be necessary to create a loop right there would be connector trails.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I think that that’s one thing that’s off the table for the chamber. And I think it’s going to be off the table for SUWA right now and the other people that have had some backdoor conversations on this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it’s going to be hard to make a great trail without adding in a couple of connect. And I almost think this might be a better place to be hosted at the county, but either which way, that’s something that we can discuss in the future.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: If right now we’re kind of just going out and identifying these routes. But for future, when we talk about this a little bit later, these are some of the considerations that I’d like to be, that I’d like to have addressed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Commissioner Hedin. Just a couple of questions for you.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so you mentioned, I guess I’m just a little confused. I’m not following all the pieces here.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So when you talked about the OHVR, you were saying that phase two, phase three would go to Red Rock Four Wheelers.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The 300,000 in phase two, I think, right? Phase one, this is just my understanding.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Phase one is not funded, right? You can’t get a grant if you don’t have an application basically filled out.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So phase one is getting that project idea together.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Right, OK. And then so why did you bring up Public Land Solutions?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Are they, why is that?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Because this exact, this exact, this exact initiative right here was brought to Emery County in 2021, right? From Public Land Solutions.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, you can look it up.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: You don’t know why Emery County turned it down?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I don’t. I actually, I contacted Jim Jennings to find out, but it was prior to this time.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I just, I just wanted to figure out why, you know, I mean, because I presented to the travel council board and to their commission. And I just wanted to figure out why they turned it down.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: He wasn’t able to answer me in such a short time.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m quoting you, but I thought you said that there would be a conflict of interest and I, if public land solutions was involved.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Why is that?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Well, I would see a problem with the head of the chamber, right? Who also, who also pulls money from an organization to be running something and then being pulling money back inside.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I guess, you know, the only statement I’ll make, since we don’t know why Emery County didn’t move in that direction. I, I, I, I don’t want to make implications against Public Land Solutions.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s all I’m saying. Okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Okay. Okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Okay. I appreciate that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I stated for the record, I stated that the money does need to go to the OHVR group and it cannot be going to public land solutions. Got it.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yes. Perfect.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: My other question that I have even further with that, right, which is going to be hard is going to be that Red Rock Four-Wheelers is for profit, right? And I’m not sure if these OHVR grants can go to a for-profit business.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So the sponsor itself might, might not even be, but I still think, like I said, we can discuss that later. And I do think that it’s a valuable, and I think that it’s a great initiative, but I’m just, I see some problems with the grant as a whole, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But the, the initial phase that we’re at right now, I, I completely support it. Okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Good.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. I’m going to let Melodie speak, but I want to go and just make a quick point here is that I know we get a little bit out of Robert’s Rules here when we have this debate back and forth between two commissioners.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I don’t really see it as an issue, as long as we all understand that it might happen in the future somewhere else, and it shouldn’t be pointed out as a negative because it has been in the past. So Melodie, I will let you go on and speak to some of Brian’s concerns, please.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I just wanted to state that this, we’re just in phase one. So we’re not worrying that there’s not a grant and they haven’t necessarily stated that that’s the particular grant they’re going to go after.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: They just said that they’re going to be doing some grant writing. So they haven’t specified that it would be the OHV grant that is competitive with some of the other things that we have going on in our county.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And at that point in time, that was us as a support letter and we can decide if that’s what we want to do. And the money would go to the, actually to the BLM.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I clarified that too. So if the chamber writes a letter on behalf of this project and the BLM’s happy with it, then the money would be, the grant would go on behalf of BLM and the BLM would purchase the stuff.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So it’s not, wouldn’t go to anybody else. We’re not worried about it going to any entities.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: If it was going to BLM, they would pay for the stuff, get it up and probably with help, with help of some of our other groups. But that’s to clarify that.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s down the road. So we’re not doing any grants or anything right now.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that letter of support would come to us. And at that point in time, we could decide if we have other things that are competing.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. I will call for a vote on the motion by Commissioner Hedin, second by Commissioner McGann for the OHV initiative.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All those in favor? Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we move on to the cloud seeding contributions. And this is Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So let’s see here. At the last commission meeting, we brought in Rainmaker to give us a presentation.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was the second time that I heard it. They also gave that presentation to Grand Water and Sewer.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Grand Water and Sewer is in favor of this right here. Just a little bit of background.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Utah has been cloud seeding since the early 1950s to help augment the state’s water supply. The Cloud Seeding Act of 1973 gave authority to the Utah Division of Water Resources to oversee state cloud seeding projects.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The Utah legislature continues to support operational cloud seeding activities and pushes for innovation in the field. The state of Utah has provided $350,000 for funding of Rainmaker drone teams this winter with a $50,000 match for the La Sal and Abajo Mountains.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Grand County is looking to partner with San Juan County, the City of Moab, Grand Water and Sewer Conservancy to meet that match.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I have a question. Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Are you thinking that, is this ask, Brian, just to kind of say, OK, we’re going to maybe earmark it and I would assume discretionary is where we’re going to take that money out of for 26 out of the discretionary fund?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’m not sure yet. It’s going to be for 2026.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s what I said, the 2026 discretionary. And are we just earmarking it for now?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct. So, yeah, it’s not due in time.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: OK. And so the grant hasn’t necessarily been written because you were saying it’s a match, I would assume on a grant.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The grant has been written as the cloud seeding is going to take place and we are coming up with the $50,000 in the meantime.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So in the grant wasn’t in the packet. The grant wasn’t in the packet.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I have all these.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I don’t have the grant.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So who are the partners? San Juan County.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Grand Water and Sewer. City of Moab.
Speaker 37: Correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: What about San Juan, Spanish Valley Special Service District?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I think that would be coming from San Juan. OK, right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Because I mean, I guess. Commissioner Maughan is going out and asking the folks in San Juan County.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So she’s trying to she’s trying to come up with funds from San Juan County. Right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Right. And then we were coming up with funds.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so are all the splits, are all the splits equal? How are you distributing those splits?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Our split is for $10,000. We’re not worried about how the other people come up with their split.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So OK, so now can I make a statement? So where I where I’m struggling, I’m struggling on twofold.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One, we don’t really know the science of cloud seeding. We have, you know, it’s variable.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I did a fair amount of research today and everything I read was kind of like. Work sometimes.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that’s fine. You know, I mean, that is science.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. So that’s fine.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: My rub is we’re not water service providers, right? We don’t make money off of water.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Grand Water and sewer does. San Juan, City of Moab does.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so does San Juan’s Spanish Valley Special Service District. So to me, what I would like to see is those three entities, and I’m not saying maybe equal, they would have to kind of do their own, you know, dairy rigging.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They take the brunt of the grant match because they’re going to then turn around and sell that water. We’re not.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I think we, you know, step forward as saying we support it. Maybe I’m more apt to say like five grand and even San Juan five grand.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Like we support these water service providers selling the possible water that could come out of this. That’s the way I see it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I’m just kind of throwing that out.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and then Commissioner McCandless.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’ll make the motion. I move to allocate $10,000 from the 2026 budget to apply toward the required match for cloud-seeded Sal and Abajo mountains this winter.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’ll second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second by Commissioner McCandless for discussion. Oh, yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: County Attorney.
Stephen Stocks: I’m just, however we want to do this, I was just going to ask a question again, whether it’s easier to just put this as a line item in the budget because there’s no contract here. There’s no document here or because otherwise it’s just this floating approval in this meeting from these minutes that we have to give to the budget.
Stephen Stocks: Like, are we guys want to do it? Are we going to approve it?
Stephen Stocks: That’s fine. It just, that’s what Quinn and I were discussing.
Stephen Stocks: It kind of seems more akin to being put into the budget because we’re not assigning it to a particular unless it’s saying that we’re going to take those funds and utilize it specifically for Rainmaker. But there’s nothing in the motion that says that we’re going to give it to Rainmaker.
Stephen Stocks: It says that we’re going to do it for a match. So I’m just pointing that out there.
Stephen Stocks: I was just going to ask you his preference, but I don’t have a dog on the fight on where it goes. I’m just trying to make it make sense.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I guess that’s why I said within our discretionary budget, because I do think we earmarked a few things. I know that timed entries was earmarked that we don’t just earmark that, right?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then that way we know where those monies, cause we did elevate that budget quite a bit. And so to me, it’s great to have those kind of line items within that.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I believe that there will be some documentation from the state that this grant match will go to the state. It is not going to go to Rainmaker to my knowledge.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Now we would have to, but that’s the weird float.
Stephen Stocks: That’s the weird floating thing that normally we have. We have expenditure tied to whoever.
Stephen Stocks: If it’s best to put it in the budget, we could do a lineup for the budget. Obviously, if it passes on a vote, we could allocate to a line item in the budget.
Stephen Stocks: I’m just trying to make sure whenever we have a document, we can have that tracking for ComAdmin. They go, perfect, we’ve got a document.
Stephen Stocks: The next step here is, I don’t know. And that’s where then the commission is going to have to either remind Mark on which company and how we want it to go.
Stephen Stocks: And so I’m just noting that it might be easier to just put it in the budget. That’s however you want to work it out.
Stephen Stocks: I’m just noting that this is a thread that now Mark’s going to have to keep track of to make sure it gets to where we want to get to. And you probably are going to have to, it’s going to come back to you guys if it’s going to be a contract with the state of Utah to be a match part of a grant.
Stephen Stocks: You guys are going to see that grant again. We’d want to make sure it gets put on the preauthorized expenditure list.
Stephen Stocks: So we’re here to facilitate whatever it is you guys want to do. I’m just trying to help make sure that’s the next step.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll stop talking.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Commissioner McGann. That makes more sense.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Well, we’re still going to vote for the allocation. We are going to have to come up with the documentation and find out where Gabe wants to put it in the budget.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Commissioner McCurdy. It’s my time too.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Unless it’s someone else’s time.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Commissioner Hadler, please. It’s going to send me down a rabbit hole.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It was interesting. Just, you know, what is this thing?
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And there are hours of looking stuff up online. I’m not convinced it works.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think it’s like murky at best. It’s kind of 50-50.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It might work. It might not.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I don’t think we’re gonna get 20% out of it. I don’t think we’re gonna get 5% out of it.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: But maybe we will. I think under the circumstances of our financial situation right now, that spending $10,000 on this is unwise.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And kind of grasping at straws. that we don’t need to grasp at.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I’m not, I don’t support it.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin. And then Commissioner McCurdy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’m time too. I’m coming back for it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think I’m time too.
Bill Winfield, Chair: You’re time too first.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Okay, so I am not gonna vote for it. However, I would, and I’m just throwing this out.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: If it came back with the actual grant, we have an understanding of the breakdown. We actually, we have a firm understanding of where this is going.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I don’t think we have any of that. To me, this is very, we have a PowerPoint from the company.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then two, again, I’d reiterate that I think it’s important for the county to show support. But we’re not selling water.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think those water service providers should be bearing the bulk of this. And then we say, yeah, we’re here.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We support you. We’ll give you five grand.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: San Juan County gives you five grand and we’re in. And we’re in for a little bit, but I’m not gonna support it at this amount.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And without any grant, without any knowledge as to who, what the split is, we got nothing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, Commissioner McCurdy. And then Commissioner McCandless.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: How do we float 100 grand for housing? Oh, we can float 10 grand on the budget for, I mean, last year we floated 100 grand for housing.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We put it in the budget.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Can we just not do the same with 10?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We could earmark that in the discretionary.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Gabe, do you want to weigh in, I apologize.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, sorry, Gabe.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I skipped you. It’s all you.
Gabe Woytek: I’m ready whenever. Yeah, please do.
Gabe Woytek: Let’s move to you and then down the line. All I had to say, like the motion as it reads is kind of just as what is being suggested.
Gabe Woytek: And it would still require sort of a follow-up approval for the contract and a purchase, whether it’s on the preauthorized list or if it’s just part of the contract that gets approved. And so it’s pretty clear to me.
Gabe Woytek: I can manage it as it is as far as, and we can sort of certainly follow up on what line it would end up on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Commissioner McCandless. And then Commissioner Martinez.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I just want to comment on, again, we’re not in the water selling business, but we are in the wanting water for our community and to keep our mountain wet so we don’t have forest fires. I know, and I agree.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I read a lot of that stuff on the cloud seeding and it’s really intriguing. And I mean, there is proof that some water, actually, there’s no way to really know, but if it works, great.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That’s what we know. We know what we don’t know.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I mean, they’ve been going since 1973. They do have a lot of data and it takes, it’s going to take a lot more time than the two weeks that I’ve had to go through and actually pile through that and understand how effective this is going to be.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And not only just how effective this is going to be, but how effective it’s going to be in our mountains, right, which is something that we don’t know, right? I mean, it’s going to be different.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We’ve tried it in the past. You know, we tried to use the ground method in the past up in the La Sal Mountains and it wasn’t successful.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Oh, Tara’s singing to me.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: What’s that? Oh, the ground.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, the ground. Yeah, yeah, gotcha, yeah, yeah.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it was the same silver iodide that they shot up and they found that there wasn’t enough uplift to actually get the iodide up into the clouds. And so, you know, I mean, this is checking out.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, I think the fact that the state’s putting in $350,000 on this, I mean, it’s well worth going out there and seeing, right, is this something that’s viable, especially for a little desert community that’s constantly concerned about water. I think that it’s a wise spend just, I mean, just for the research alone that it’s worth.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any further discussion? I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner McCurdy, seconded by Commissioner McCandless. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? You want to bring that in the motion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, I’ll send that in the motion. Opposed Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler and Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we will move on to the letter to the BLM regarding Labyrinth Rim and Gemini Bridges reassessment. And I believe this is you, Commissioner Martinez.
Speaker 37: Yeah, give me one second here. Background.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So this letter right here is in response to the Bureau of Land Management officials releasing the motorized vehicle route designations with the Labyrinth Gemini Bridges travel management area. In particular, the BLM is reassessing whether certain routes currently designated as closed or limited to off-highway vehicles should be re-designated as open to OHV use.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The process has and will be informed by agency, cooperators and the public, including public comment period that ends October 24th, 2025. The comment period was about a month.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So it was the standard comment period on something like this. In the Labyrinth Gemini Bridges travel management plan completed in 2023, the BLM designated about 700 miles of routes as open to off-highway vehicle travel.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The BLM also designated about 100 miles of routes as available for limited OHV use and about 300 miles of routes closed to OHVs. The interactive map is available online if people want to comment on their own.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I highly suggest that they do that. And yeah, I think it’s, I think this is, I’ll just go ahead and speak for just a minute, but I do like the fact of the process that has happened.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: As I followed this, you know, this travel management all the way from 2008, I’ve noticed that it’s been a net-sum game, right? Is everyone’s concerned like, oh, I got 20% of this or I got 40% of this or I got 60% of this and everyone’s kind of using these numbers and they’re pushing it around.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I really appreciate the fact that this is a route-specific, right, because there are some routes in here that are, I mean, the Tubes and Dead Cow, for instance, I mean, I take that as the equivalent of the whole enchilada, right? I mean, it is that great of a ride.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: People will travel all around the world to come see that. You know, the historical significance of Hey Joe is, I mean, it’s for the locals more than for anybody else.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, the fact that we can get inside of these things and all the comments that I heard, you know, tonight and that I’ve read, you know, there’s a lot of talk of the negatives of this as we’re going against this plan. I don’t think it’s going against the previous plan.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s concessions that are made inside of this letter right here, just in itself, right? I mean, if we look at it from 2008 and it’s hard to kind of get the numbers of, and Trish, I do appreciate you helping me out with my letter and going through there, but it is hard to find that 2,000 miles because as Lynn actually brought up, right, they didn’t go ahead and survey and monitor that area specifically.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So they had to go ahead and pull and take and say, this is part of this management plan and this is part of this travel management area. So the 2,000 is pretty rough when you kind of look at it, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But either which way you look at it, we went from having 2,000 miles of trails to 1,000 miles of trails. And I think that that was a pretty big compromise right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it’s hard when we look at these maps and we talk about, you know, like the areas, right? Because you have roads and then you have trails.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: When you have trails, the trails, they go all over the roads, right? Because they’re going after the most unique terrain, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s all kinds of different ways. They’re going out to these special overlooks, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s just the certain flow of how things were built out there. And when we look at the Legacy and Road Act, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It says that we need to have an adequate system of roads and trails, right? So that we need to have an adequate system of both of them.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And right now, I just don’t know if there’s really an adequate system of roads and trails out there. I mean, I’ve been biking out in that area for a long time and I can cover the majority of that in a couple of days on those 600 miles on a bike.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Sure.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hadler.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: First off, the Legacy Roads and Trails Act just pertains to the Forest Service, not the BLM, so it doesn’t apply here. So it doesn’t apply here.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: 630 miles is still, it’s 630 miles. And that’s way more than there is biking trails.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, you can ride it in a few days or whatever. I mean, I’ve ridden every mountain bike trail in this area probably 20 times, you know?
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I still love it. It’s awesome.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: But a couple of other things. I mean, I think the, I’ve heard tonight, a lot of people say that there’s this narrative that Moab is closed to UTVs.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And that narrative was propagated by the motorized crew. That was a BLM, or BLM, that was a Blue Ribbon Coalition fundraising point.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, on their website, if you went to that, you would have thought that Moab was closed from all the negative comment there that I think was directly propagated by them so that they could raise money. I think that hurt the perception of Moab way more than anything else.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: As far as the routes go, I’ve heard about Easter Jeep safari routes. And I think those are cool.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: A lot of those are great. I’ve driven many of them myself.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: We still have 91% of the Easter Jeep safari routes available to us. Only 19.4 miles out of 978 miles of Easter Jeep safari routes were closed.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Contrary to the assertions in the letter, the BLM actually supports its decisions with verifiable information. Just a small example of that is that BLM has determined that use in Ten Mile Canyon is having ongoing adverse impacts to riparian and cultural resources.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think that’s very fair. And I think that previous to the closure, they weren’t able to mitigate those at all.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I am fairly convinced that they wouldn’t be able to in the future. All of the closures that BLM talked about in their decision are well justified by science and research.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And just because you don’t like it, Brian, doesn’t mean you get to assert that it’s not true. That’s just not right.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I’m actually okay with reopening quite a few of the routes. I really am.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: There’s a few that I think are particularly impactful and impactful on the environment and other user groups. To me, and I know these are probably the most contentious ones, but to me, the kind of the most impactful and important routes are Ten Mile, which the BLM actually didn’t even include in their assessment.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: They didn’t put that in there. You added that.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And the Motorized Trail Committee added part of that. I think that’s an extremely sensitive canyon.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: There’s lots of other places to ride. And I realize that a lot of these places are cherished to people.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And it does hurt. I’ve had cherished places where I’ve enjoyed riding mountain bikes closed.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I totally understand. But I think that sometimes it’s necessary.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I also think along with Ten Mile, the Hey Joe section, I think the section along Bowknot Bend, that I don’t think that should be a motorized route. I mean, I’ve done, I’m not really a river runner.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’m not a good boatman like you are and other people are. But I love that section of river because I can take my family.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I took my kids on it when they were like two and five because there’s no, it’s not dangerous. There’s no rapids.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s easy. You can do it in a canoe.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: You can cruise along. And it absolutely impacts you when you get to that area, when you’ve been out in the wilderness for two days and you get to that area and all of a sudden there’s UTVs rolling around on that road.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And it’s not, I don’t think it’s a massive ask to close a small piece of road in that area to keep that canyon closed to folks who come for that aspect of recreation. I mean, there’s not many beautiful rivers like that that someone like me can run that doesn’t have a road along it in the whole Western U.S.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: There’s very, very few. People can access it by boat.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: You can hike in. You can do those kinds of things.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s not inaccessible. So I mean, those are two of the big ones for me.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I don’t dirt bike, but I have a ton of friends in town who dirt bike and they’ve said what you’ve said. They said Dead Cow and the Tubes are a cherished motorcycle route.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I think that there are ways, I think Cliff mentioned in his letter that there are ways to reroute part of that away from the river so that we can still have that. And I’d endorse that if we could do that.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I understand the recreational value of that route for people. So I think that could potentially be an option.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And there’s user conflict with motorized. I’ve said this before.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: When I’m out riding my bike and someone blows past me on a UTV with their headphones on or music blaring and dust flying, it’s not a conflict for them. They don’t notice.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s a conflict for me when I get run off the road or when you’re on the river and you’re experiencing solitude and wilderness and all of a sudden five UTVs roll past you. It’s a conflict.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: The definition of conflict isn’t just two guys going face-to-face and jawing. And it’s a conflict for wildlife, riparian areas that are super sensitive in those areas.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I don’t support the letter. I think it goes way too far.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think there are absolutely concessions that can be made. And I think that a number of the routes are justifiable in reopening.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I don’t have a problem with that. I mean, if we sat down and looked at it route by route and maybe had some give and take, but that’s probably not gonna happen.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So yeah, for now that’s… This is an initiative under this administration.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: This letter is gonna pass. BLM is gonna open a bunch of routes.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And then in five years, we’re gonna be looking at the same thing again, unfortunately. So it is what it is.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’m Commissioner Hedin, and then I’m going to weigh in.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then I’ll… I asked Quinn to…
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Can you project that map that I sent? If you don’t mind, share that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And what this is is simply a map from pre when we had the closures in 23. And what there was actually Jacques’ wife did the GIS work on it and just put a buffer on the road.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So a half mile buffer. And so then that way you just get a visual if it does come up, if it doesn’t, life goes on.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But we just have a visual of that area and the amount of roads in that area. So that we have an understanding when we say there’s not enough roads.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Hopefully this gives you a visual as to the amount of roads. And I’m sure everybody has an understanding of the…
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So again, that half mile buffer is in red. And then once you go farther out, you can see the areas that I think it’s a mile and then three miles.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And it’s really interesting to look at Grand County in totality because you get into green and I think the green was three miles. I can’t see the key, but is it say three miles, Quinn?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: The green, yeah, over three miles. Really the only area in the entire county that has that is some areas in the bookclips.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So, which is kind of intriguing just to look at maps like that. I find them quite intriguing.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But I think we all know that the bulk of these roads came from mining exploration, cattle to get water or cattlemen to get water to their cattle. And now we’ve moved into a rec economy.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that being said, we need to think about parsing out those user groups, right? So I’m not anti OHV.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I love to hear that all the time. It’s not that, it’s just we as a commission have to think about our rec economy holistically.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And we look at things like Betrayal to Tomorrow. It said the bulk of our visitors come to hike, right?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They come to bird watch. They come to do all these other things.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so when we look at that rec economy, I think we need to think about, okay, how do we try to, which is very difficult, satisfy all of those users. And there is conflict.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’ve heard again and again, we don’t have user conflict. There’s literally, I tried to like do a quick Google search on how many research papers are out there on user conflict.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And it’s like, I can’t even, it’s endless. And when we have entire departments, USU has an entire rec resource management department.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m within, you know, the umbrella of that larger college of natural resources. And we have an entire department that just deals with rec resource management.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so these managers are, you know, saddled with trying to say, how do I provide solitude for some? And motorized travel for others.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And it’s difficult, right? And that’s where I think we need to be thinking more about compromise.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’ll state, you know, and I actually said this to Brian when we were out with Kendall looking at the Dolores triangle. I think it was one of you said, what’s your rub?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And for me, it’s wildlife, right? That’s my rub.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I’m gonna just kind of give you a few quick statistics. So in 1960, in the state of Utah, there were remnant amounts of bighorns, desert bighorn.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s all they say there. I can’t find a number.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They say remnants, right? So they existed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We know they existed because they’re all over Patrick lift panels, but they barely existed. And so now we have about 2,800 desert bighorns.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: When you look at desert bighorns and their range and the management plan, it’s all along those river corridors, right? That is where they exist a lot.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so it’s just imperative. I just, I really quickly, the rattlesnake herd, there’s 138 La Sal potash, 134 Lockhart 55.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So approximately 325 sheep kind of in that area. There is, again, a lot of studies.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I actually just had a week within my class. I teach a class human dimensions and wildlife management on just transportation systems and their effects on wildlife, all transportation systems.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And this is what they do. It fragments habitat.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It destroys habitat in some case, soil compaction, erosion. It’s an invasive species.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It erodes water quality. It’s stress these animals to where they’re not foraging enough, where they’re not mating effectively.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And in the end, then it displaces animals. So in the end, you know, these animals, when you look at a map like this, they need areas of refuge.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And when you look at a map like this, there’s just not a lot. I actually was just hunting down on Elk Ridge.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And, you know, it was funny because every hunter I talked to was like, where are the elk? Where are the elk?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Where are the elk? Two, a couple of things.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One, it was hot. And two, there was full moon.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So those animals just feed at night when it’s full moon. But it’s like when there’s that many people and there was a ton of people ripping around, trucks, UTVs, you name it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They just dive into those canyons. They go down in Dark Canyon.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And they’re not going to stand up on top and know that some, you know, they hear that thing coming. It’s like somebody’s going to shoot at me out of this thing.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so it affects wildlife. And so for me, it’s a wildlife deal.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I, you know, I appreciate how much, how in-depth you went on the different trails. And I support, you know, again, if Jacques supports, oh, we could reopen this and this.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One thing I did say, Brian, I think there’s a couple of things in this letter. They’re just unnecessary jabs.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And to be honest, and this is me just being a professor here for a second. I don’t think they’re really representative of a legislative body making a comment to a land management agency.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There’s no need for them, to be honest. And I did point those out to you, whether you want to make any changes or not.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I just said, I don’t think that they’re necessary. I do appreciate, one, you giving me that letter and allowing me to make comments.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then also giving me feedback on where the numbers come from. And I appreciate all that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But I think, you know, to say things like this demonstrates responsible management, particularly when compared to 2020, 2023, which was fueled by political influence of expanding wilderness groups and marked by questionable practices and self-dealing. That’s just not needed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s just not needed. We’re trying to make a recommendation to a land management agency.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We don’t need to be throwing out our our political jabs. I just I don’t I don’t think it’s appropriate.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But that’s just me. So I won’t be voting for this either.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But again, I felt like it was imperative that I made it known as to why.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, so I’m going to weigh in on a few items and then I know Mary McGann and then Mike McCurdy and then Brian Martinez. We get a chance here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I want to just go off a few points. The previous commission went too far in expecting the BLM to close down our S-2447 roads.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you could even say that when they made statements, they were actually considering breaking the law because they were trying to take away the right that the Grand County owns to those roads and the state of Utah. So we were giving up access to our S-2447 roads that we didn’t have the authority to do as a commission.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I just got multiple points I want to go through on. And this letter doesn’t undo what the BLM put in place.
Bill Winfield, Chair: This is just a comment to the BLM. This is our comment to the BLM as a cooperating agency.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Now, the previous commission, they sent their letter in and I’m sure that there were commissioners of voter against it. I probably did.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you’re free to vote against this one as well. I disagree with the remarks that we shouldn’t be putting some of those things in there because they were in the previous letter and they’re referenced.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so, you know, I want to go to the fact that I really have a new appreciation for the BLM, the people at the BLM and the Moab office, because working the Deer Creek Fire as I did and then working with them out on Mud Springs, I know that they’re going to take our comments. They’re going to take all the comments of everybody in this community, even out of this community, and they’re going to weigh them all in and they’re going to make some decisions.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so I have a new respect for them. And I think that they’ll do a good job when all of this comes out.
Bill Winfield, Chair: This letter is just giving a statement to them. This isn’t telling them that this is the way it’s going to be.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’re still going to have to wait and see what they come up with. Over a few other things, you mentioned bike trails.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’d really like to know how many miles of bike trails Grand County has. That’s an interesting thought as to how many miles there are.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So we could have a little bit of a comparison here. And then I want to discuss the wildlife just a little bit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: When I was a kid, it was stated that there were 15 elk left on the La Sal Mountain Range. You weren’t allowed to hunt elk.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They were trying to bring them back. And so from 1962 until this time right now, we see elk overrunning the LaSals to the point that they put out special hunts on them.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And all during the time when there’s OHV traffic and there is increased traffic by recreation, there’s increased traffic by ranchers, there’s increased pressure from fires because of poor fire management. We can look at wildlife and see that when they have the right circumstances, they proliferate quite well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we talk about the sheep and I like the sheep. I see them everywhere.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I go around quite a bit. And lots of times I see the most of them right out here on the highway as I’m going past arches.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you go up the hill to where the train cut is there. They’re always along the highway.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They are walking on the path where the train track is there. It’s astounding to me that we constantly use them as an excuse to try and block people out of something.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I might be aging myself just a little bit, but I was hauling ore out of Hay Joe Canyon and Mineral Bottom riding in a dump truck with my dad and with another friend, probably before you were born, Jacques. So a little four or five mile, I was eight years old and I’m 67.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I don’t know where we are. You might have been born, but I’m saying there’s a little section going into Hay Joe Canyon of approximately five miles that I would like to have access for the rest of my life to motorized.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So it’s understandable the canyon from Green River all the way down. I don’t know how many miles are there to the confluence, 50, 60 miles of river.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we want to share five miles of it. I think that’s not a big request.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I think that it should be considered. I just don’t think that there isn’t room here to share a little bit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s room for the wildlife. We’ve done a good job on the La Sals with the elk.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ve done a good job all over with the bighorn. There’s plenty of room for compromise in this letter.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And again, it’s going to fall on the shoulders of some people at the BLM that are going to have to make this decision. And I just two years ago, I wouldn’t have been as confident as I am now.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I feel like those people do a good job. They work hard.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They get attacked by the left. They get attacked by the right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They’re never not doing enough. They get sued by everybody.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And to be honest with you, I wouldn’t want a job at the BLM for a lot more money. So I just think that sometimes we blow things a little bit out of proportion.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We need to learn to work together a little bit more, collaborate on these things. And I understand your points, Jacques.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I wouldn’t want the dust when I’m on a bicycle either. But I know a lot of bike trails that you don’t have that problem on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I’m trying to find you the number of trails in Grand County, too. I’m going to go to Mary and then I think it was Mike and then Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So thank you.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I’m going to make mine very short because I think we know how people are going to vote. I don’t mind opening some of the trails.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I don’t mind that at all. I think some of you could be.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But I think this letter goes way too far. So I think the one that concerns me the most is the University of New Mexico and the University of Utah State.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Universities, both separate, totally different people studied Ten Mile Canyon. And they both came up with the same conclusion that motorized vehicles can cause irreparable damage and problems in an area where there is that’s not one of the only riparian areas.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s a very, you know, it’s very, it needs it’s very sacred. So I, you know, I, you know, I’ve got my papers open.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I, you know, I’m not I have no opposition to some of them being open. But I do.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I do think this is just when I read something in the newspaper and, you know, and then all of a sudden in the middle of this explanation, you know, where facts are being given, somebody throws out a philosophy or a political point of view. It, it tends to make me question everything else, because then I see the point of view that they’re coming from rather than seeing it, that this is this, this and this and this and this.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And so, you know, I feel the hyperbole you put in there, for instance, critics or the one that Trish wrote. And there was another one that I didn’t mark it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But I think that takes away from the power of your letter. I think your letter would be more powerful because a lot of people read with discernment like that because they’re even teaching it in school to to read.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So, you know, what’s being presented as fact, but yet on many levels is somebody’s opinion. It’s an editorial.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s not factual. So I think that I think it weakens the letter to put in all of that.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I think it goes way too far. And so because of that, I won’t be voting for it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But there’s I’m not against a lot of the things you say in there. But I do think if you took that hyperbole out, it would strengthen your view.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Mr. McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thank you, Commissioner Martinez, for asking me to fill in for your motorized trail committee. I have traveled some of the area prior to closures.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I mean, have it after closures. I was pretty neutral on the on the subject.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: A lot of my constituents haven’t been so neutral to me meeting in the streets over the years on this subject. But we a lot of these trails and roads predate.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Well, all of us easily, even though some of you are old. But let’s that’s why we’re pushing touchy subjects.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But OK, the easier would be to open reading, open existing trails. We’re not looking to even the motorized community committee isn’t looking to add trails.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: They’re looking for trail access to existing roads and trails. They’re not looking out.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: They’re looking to make a bunch of new ones. So I mean, it was pretty eye opening going to their meeting and attending.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But that’s why this letter has my my backings, because it’s existing routes not going out there making new ones. And they’re existing for, I mean, tens of years, 50s of years.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: These these trails were like like Trish stated, cattle trails and roads. I mean, mining roads.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: They weren’t. It worked for motorized recreation originally, but they’ve been roads that long back in the cattle and mining times within our area.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So reopening existing trails in my eyes is nothing but a good thing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Sorry, so I am absolutely in favor of opening these roads. I grew up here and the majority of the people that I grew up with are just super disappointed when these were closed.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Lots of my friends that come to Moab. We’re very disappointed.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: A lot of them don’t come here anymore. You know, we have other areas like Duchesne, Salina, Richfield opening up opening up trails and creating new trails.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, we just want to open up the ones that we used to have. And I do agree with Bill and I have faith that the BLM is going to look at it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And if there is real reasons for them to keep those roads closed, that they will do it. So I don’t.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: This is a suggestion. I want 10 mile back open.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’m not going to lie. It’s where my family went to Easter every single year of my life.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But you know, and it’s super neat. And if they decide not to reopen it, then I’m going to respect that.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But am I going to ask? Absolutely.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Because I would love for it to be open. I would love to go there all the time.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Hardly even go out that area anymore because all the roads I used to go to are closed. And so I understand the sheep and the animals and all of it, all of your concerns.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But I know that the people that I grew up with in this community, this is what they want. And I know there’s a lot of people that don’t.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We’ve heard both sides. So we’re here.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Like I said, we’ve got the same as the water tank. We’ve got people that don’t like it and people that do like it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: People that, you know, are going to benefit from it and others that don’t. And I’m sorry that people dust you out on your bike.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I always try when I run around on my OHV to slow down. Sometimes they pass me.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I have to pass them again.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I’m just going to I’m just going to kind of refute a couple of things that we’re saying right here. So first off, it’s, you know, Jacques said this is a political football and I don’t think so, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, there is compromise, even in this right here. I have them put up the map right here of the routes that we’re asking.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We’re not asking for the 300 miles back, right? We’re not asking for the 100,000 miles that was taken back in 2008.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That would be a political football. If we wanted to go and say, we want everything open that’s ever been closed.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That would be a political football. We’re asking for the routes to be opened back up again, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s where we’re at. And, you know, this conflict, this user conflict going both ways that you don’t, there’s no user conflict when you get dusted out, Jacques.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I disagree because you went and told the BLM that they weren’t going far enough to close down the trails. So yeah, there is a user conflict.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You told them to go ahead and close our trails down, right? I think of that as harm done towards me and users that like those areas.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then second off, kind of going back to a couple of the routes, 10 Mile Canyon, the 2008 decision was decided that they could manage the impacts, right? Without closing trails, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’d like to see them go out and go ahead and make that decision again. Go out and do the research and find out if the impacts can be mitigated because it’s a cherished spot.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, it’s the spot that I took my kids to learn how to dirt bike and ride in the sand. It doesn’t sound like something, you know, something to somebody else, but anybody who’s learned how to ride in the sand, you know that you have spent a whole lot of blood, sweat and tears that day because it’s terrible.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, you’re sliding all around. You’re just moving all over the place.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then once you get it, you’re like, this is the greatest thing in the whole world. I’m having so much fun out there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And when we go riding on the trail and we get back to that spot and they see that sign that says that it’s closed down, it’s hard because they’re like, well, why, why is this closed down? And I explained to them that, you know, we have to go around that this was the decision that was made.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But I would like to see that open. And I’m only one generation in this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, there are people who’ve been visiting this for three, four generations out there in these same places. And they have traditions that are being broken because of these closures.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I’d like to have that re-evaluated. And that’s kind of where we’re at.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Talking about Hey Joe, right? I mean, two words, the Dingle Act, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Part of the Dingle Act said that if we’re going to designate this as a scenic river right there, right? That we were going to still allow the roads to still be there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, we just spoke with John Curtis who was involved in that. That was part of the negotiations that happened.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And the second that that negotiation happened, right? We went right after those roads.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it is a beautiful spot. I love that section of river.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I just had a trip get pulled off of there and the people had a fantastic time. And I ran trips there, you know, for 20 years and it’s a great spot.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’m talking a little bit about the wildlife. You know, the last biologist that I spoke to from the BLM said that right now we’re seeing an increase in lambing, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And that’s happening at a time where we’re seeing an increase in use. So I do think that there’s probably some time for a little bit more research to be done out there before we’re going to go ahead and close down trails based on just the sheep.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And you know what? I’m so happy that Bill brought that up.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We have the BLM to go ahead and make those decisions. We’re not making those decisions.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We’re just asking for them to go ahead and reanalyze those spots. And then, you know, finally, I’d like to just ask you guys a question.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Were you guys involved with Nina Colbert in the BLM Labyrinth Rims discussions prior to this? In 2023.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: In 2023, did you have discussions with her? Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So was that when she was the deputy director? Or was that when she was the head of the Wilderness Society?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Oh, was that when she was the lawyer that she was pushing? No, she worked for the BLM.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Oh, OK. She worked for the BLM.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah. So it wasn’t when she was the lawyer.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: My understanding is, yeah, she was just below.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, but it wasn’t when she was the, it wasn’t when she was the lawyer working on the SUWA versus the Department of the Interior.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: No, I didn’t. I wouldn’t have even known that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I wouldn’t have even known that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: What I know is, when we were speaking to her, she worked for the BLM. OK, perfect.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Because that’s what we were talking about when we’re talking about the, yeah, what was the statement that was brought up? I have to go back and go look at it.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Here how I brought that up. It was the self-dealings, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s what we were, that’s what I was mentioning when I was talking about that. And that’s also the legal basis.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And one of the legal basis is of why they’re going ahead and re-analyzing this.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy, I’m trying to, do we have a motion?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We do not.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I move to approve the letter of the Bureau of Land Management regarding Labyrinth Rims-Gemini Bridge’s travel management area.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy. I’ll second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner McCandless. Further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: 150 miles, Bill. Thank you.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, I can do that a couple times in a month.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, it’s still good. Y’all can see 175.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Seeing no further discussion, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the letter? Those opposed?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion passes with Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler, and Commissioner McGann opposed. Good luck, Bill.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Moving on. We are up to a discussion item.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Is that right? Yes, discussion item.
Bill Winfield, Chair: It’s a creation of a county policy regarding the process of applying administrative fees to county departments. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I’ll go ahead and start off. So at the last NTAB board, we went through the budget.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: One of their duties is, one of the special duties actually that was by the state, they’re required to approve the budget and also provide a recommendation to the spots right here of the standard TRT and NRCCA. The week previous, we held a budget workshop prior so that we could go through and let everybody have their chance to make any kind of tweaks or comments that they have.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then the day that we were going to approve the budget, there was a request from the clerk auditor’s office to add $250,000 in admin fees. And that was given to the, she’s an assistant director right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I never saw that. The board had never seen that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was just go ahead and try to figure out the budget with an additional $250,000. Now I’m not exactly sure if that’s all of the details right there, but it was definitely something that was difficult to deal with at that board meeting.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It came from the clerk auditor. And so what we’re discussing is, is there a policy to put administration fees into on to departments?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I know. Yeah, I don’t know.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It’s interesting. I know I’ll kind of bring up my other job at a school district level.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We definitely, any exterior money we bring in they take a cut. And the bummer is they take a pretty big cut.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They take like 18% of all my grants, which is hefty, right? It’s hefty.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, it’s, yeah. So I guess I don’t know what the county policy is.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So it’s an interesting topic.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Well, I would think that maybe we need to hear from the clerk auditor. Yeah, and then possibly come up with a policy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll be able to share what I came up with.
Gabe Woytek: There wasn’t a boost at a late time. We have something in place that I haven’t ever really been been able to figure out.
Gabe Woytek: Allergy that was used to derive, but I know for a fact that it’s been at least seven years since it’s been updated and costs of things certainly have gone up, you know, not to, you know, perhaps that’s the degree to which the sort of the, the relative increase that was, you know, that was offered or proposed. I want to stress that it was a proposal.
Gabe Woytek: The office of tourism budget still has to go before advisory board, still has to go before the commission, perhaps be discussed more. So certainly I was, it certainly is a starting point, but I was able to get some feedback from another county auditor one in particular that I’ve gotten to know at UF conferences and I know to be highly respected in our fields.
Gabe Woytek: And she, she, as Chantelle and I were working through different approaches to how to figure out and what we’re talking about for anyone kind of like having a hard time sort of catching up. It’s just all the overhead that is provided to departments that aren’t funded by the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: And there’s quite a long list of things that are offered to the departments in particular. It would include sand flats, the MOAB office of tourism, the roads department.
Gabe Woytek: Those are the kind of the top examples. I believe the library, maybe not the library, nevermind.
Gabe Woytek: Trails was the fourth one. There are four.
Gabe Woytek: So anyway, I have been always nervous about that or not having the appropriate amount of justification and backup to in terms of how we assess it. And I wanted a solid approach to get into this budget and everything’s happening really fast.
Gabe Woytek: And so what Allison McCoy from Tooele County offered is what she does in her county, which is assess 10%, which is the federal indirect cost overhead rate on all expenditures that don’t include things like capital projects and grants. And so as far as having something that’s clear, measurable, like transparent in how it’s applied and something that can be very easily updated from year to year, I thought it was a viable solution.
Gabe Woytek: And the 250 was represented, the cap that is established that also is used in that county. That’s what was proposed.
Gabe Woytek: And it’s a lot.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’d like to go to the county attorney and then I’ll take comments around the room.
Stephen Stocks: And just giving context to what we’ve seen historically from USU, when we had those discussions, I think Commissioner Hadler was involved in that. I can’t remember if Commissioner Wentfield was.
Stephen Stocks: When we talked with them originally, when we were giving the funding to USU to fund the position for Tom Peters, I think it is in that role now. No, that’s not right.
Stephen Stocks: No, no, it’s Thompson. They took a percentage and a chunk out of it.
Stephen Stocks: And I can’t remember what the percentage for USU was, but it was kind of a shock factor for, I think for all of us when we sat and talked about it because we thought that we were funding the full position and then they informed us. And I think there was between seven and nine percent.
Stephen Stocks: It might even have been emails around that. Yeah, yeah, I remember that, but I can’t remember.
Stephen Stocks: This is something that is, it is seen, it is, you know, we experienced it. And so if we do have that policy, I think it’d be a good practice to that whenever we issue grants to other entities, they’ve tried to do this with us in the past.
Stephen Stocks: We had people who received the grants that wanted to have money set aside for taxes or things like that. So whatever policy, I’d encourage the commission to consider the percentage point and then also make the policy clear so that it’s not attempted to be utilized against the county when we’re giving out grants and then turn around and say, hey, we want to use X amount of percentage for an administrative fee.
Stephen Stocks: So that’s, again, don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m just pointing out options on best practice.
Bill Winfield, Chair: OK, I believe Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner McCurdy, Commissioner McGann.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I just had that quick question. Yeah, that’s exactly it’s indirect that the school district takes out of my department.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I want and what’s interesting is we get a chart every year with every year with all the counties, and it actually varies per county. So I don’t know if it was something that was negotiated internally.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Does that make sense? But that rate is different for every county, and I’m not exactly sure why.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So maybe it’s just a matter of, I don’t know if we do a little bit of research and find out what a good indirect cost rate is, because it is great when you are grant writing. Also, like we actually get these documents that as soon as we put in numbers, it’s actually calculating the indirect cost rate.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They’re just skimming it right off the top. So, yeah, I think if we can do a little bit of research and come up with a number that’s palatable.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yes, Commissioner McCurdy. If I would have known that Utah State was taking seven to nine percent, et cetera, I would have changed my vote and I wouldn’t have gave them that money.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And Dave, there’s plenty of good going on up there.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, and they had a conversation. It was a surprising thing, but we all discussed that last time.
Stephen Stocks: But I do think it makes sense when you’re trying to fund this that the idea is that you’re receiving an additional benefit from the county that you normally wouldn’t have on a standalone entity. So like the roads department, they get benefits from the county that aren’t being funded exactly.
Stephen Stocks: So, for example, roads department gets a lot of funding in. We pay for the salaries, but then we have an entire HR department that helps facilitate this system.
Stephen Stocks: And so that’s what the conversation is about. One other way to look at this, and this is and the auditor, correct me, but the understanding of their ability is that you can utilize this mechanism to charge that fee to take and maybe remove any restrictions on those funds.
Stephen Stocks: Like, for example, if you’re using it to facilitate making expenditures for what would have been would be a promotional salary. I don’t know if there’s an ability to do that when you’re looking at the promotable salary and taking a percentage of it and charging that back to the county for that salary.
Stephen Stocks: And then using those TRT funds, I don’t know, in that voice sense.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, I mean, we’ve all like for years and years, we’ve spent TRT promotion on administrative service, not to the scale that had been proposed by.
Stephen Stocks: So I recognize that.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, but you know, Seth came and looked at our books and that was there was no problem with that.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, and that’s not a weird practice, but it allows you to free up some of those funds that come in, be it through the roads department to help offset the costs that the county is incurring, facilitating and supporting that department. It also offsets general fund expenditures.
Stephen Stocks: So it’s not a negative thing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Couple of things. I mean, you mentioned the federal.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I mean, is there a state statute we can follow or look into? And then the third thing is I just did look that up and the USU took 9% of our money on that project.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I think it’s worth coming up with something so that we’re all on the same page. It’s not a surprise and that it can be used as it should be.
Gabe Woytek: And I want to be very clear, like Chantel can attest to this because we spent a few weeks off sort of bouncing this idea around and trying to develop what might be more in-depth methodologies that would be harder to replicate from year to year. But like I was very clear with Chantel every step of the way, I reminded her multiple times that this is not a scheme to create more money.
Gabe Woytek: That’s not what this is about. This is about accurate accounting and this is just about accurate defensible accounting.
Gabe Woytek: Has nothing to do with trying to up that budget number.
Stephen Stocks: So I just want to make that clear. That’s where I’m coming from.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Go ahead, Stephen.
Stephen Stocks: Sorry, just teasing off that point. Yeah, any of these expenditures when we do, it’s like when we do any of these like these studies or any of the expenditures that the county is paying and billing and charging, it has to be defensible.
Stephen Stocks: So, and that’s why tying it to another standard.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So, I mean, I just have a couple of questions. So I’ve been with Bill and Trish on the Budget Advisory Board and we have not seen this come up in the Budget Advisory Board, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Not to our knowledge. And so to see this and maybe in previous years it came up, but not since I’ve been a commissioner and not since I’ve been at the Budget Advisory Board has this come up.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I also have not seen this applied to any other department.
Gabe Woytek: So if you weren’t looking, I’m sorry.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that’s what I’m saying. Like, I’m not, that’s what I’m saying.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Like, I probably don’t, you’re asking the wrong person. My memory is like a sip.
Gabe Woytek: Did 10% of the roads budget get pulled out of this? And develop the methodology.
Gabe Woytek: And so clearly with the response to this, I thought it would be wise to hold off on applying the same assessment to the appropriate departments. Cause clearly this needs more discussion.
Gabe Woytek: I agree.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Just on the process. I mean, would the process have been to put this into someone’s budget?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, I’m just, and I’m asking all the commissioners, is it best to have the clerk auditor to put this into someone’s budget, right? And have them find out about it?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Or would the process have been proper to come to this, to come to the commission and have this discussion prior to that? So it still is my understanding that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There’s, I mean. Are you scolding me?
Gabe Woytek: We gotta be in here scolding me? Like, come on, man.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There’s no reason that, I mean, here’s the thing. We’re having the discussion right now.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And let’s come up with the process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And hopefully we can get the process done by the end of the year and move forward.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I didn’t, yeah.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Did you say there’s already something, Gabe, it seemed like you had mentioned that there was already, is there already something that we can base that off of? As we go forward with this.
Gabe Woytek: So this was shared with commission administration the day before. I knew MTAB was presenting their item.
Gabe Woytek: Commission administration had every opportunity to share it with the board and the commission. I recognized it was last minute.
Gabe Woytek: But don’t act like I didn’t create, like offer any backup or just like, this is ridiculous. I’m not gonna take that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I will just say it’s a common practice. I actually just looked up, you’ll really hate these numbers.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: University of Utah within their research grants, they take 51% of grants that come in and Utah State, they take 21%. So it’s like, oh my gosh.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So that’s a glut. There’s kind of, I’m trying to like lighten the mood a little bit.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: When I started my program, it was so lean. It was super lean.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And Margaret Hoffman was the superintendent. And she wouldn’t take indirect costs from my program because it’s like, you need him.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: You need him to survive. And then the latest, the new interim, and then I brought that up and he goes, well, she wasn’t doing it right.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m taking your, you know, so he won’t give at all. Cause I’m always like, dude, you’re taking too much of my money.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And he was like, tough. Cause it does cost a lot to provide that over.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was very difficult at that meeting because they only have that once a month meeting. And so, and it went from $20,000 to 250.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Let’s just come up with a number.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then it goes across all the parts. And I think it’d be all departments.
Stephen Stocks: And that’s what it’ll have to, it’ll have to, you can’t, you can’t utilize a different person. Absolutely.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: It sounded like there was a maximum. It’s not like he was saying there was a maximum.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Cause 10% of TRT is 10% of the MLT budget is much more than two. It’s much more.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So he actually, he was saying that there was a maximum. So I think that, that needs to be.
Stephen Stocks: I think, I think I’m more than happy to facilitate a conversation with the, with the clerk and we can sit down and we’ll work with ComEd and myself and we will put it together. And emulate a policy.
Stephen Stocks: Tag with everybody. And I think that’ll work good.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, the last thing I’ll state, and I don’t really need to state this, but I think we, we need to, we all need to do this. This is, I am not scolding anybody.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m saying it to myself also. We need to respect one, our staff always, but we are all electeds.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Gabe is also an elected and we need to treat all, you know, we need to treat each other with respect. You know, we’re, we’re way more effective and efficient when we do that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So, and I think tonight we’ve had a really nice meeting.
Speaker 37: Thanks.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m not, I don’t want to go home and drink, you know, a gallon of vodka. Oh, please.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, you know, so.
Stephen Stocks: And y’all made. I can’t, I could.
Stephen Stocks: But you’re going to find one. No, no, I just, we don’t.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We weren’t like, quick note on the one box. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Reports can. Oh, okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. So we do have general commission reports and elected official reports.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And then those are all contained tonight. They’re all contained within the documents that have been loaded within the agenda items.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. Just real quick.
Stephen Stocks: So for commissioners, for the benefit at the beginning of the year, Commissioner Hadler, commissioner Winfield and I were assigned on a committee to clean up the rules. We’ve had a couple of conversations about that tonight.
Stephen Stocks: I am not here to say anything about anything, but I do think it’d be really good if both the commissioners and I get our calendars together to kind of address some of those things. I think they, they keep coming up.
Stephen Stocks: I know the state statute for OPMA has a really low threshold. It doesn’t require documents.
Stephen Stocks: The reason why is the commission changes documents during the meeting last minute. It’s not great.
Stephen Stocks: If the commission really wants to see a hard deadline, that’s something that we can get to Comm-Admin and we can facilitate and put it in that packet. But it’d be really awesome if we could have something from that subcommittee before the end of the year.
Stephen Stocks: So I’m saying it aloud so that everyone can keep all three of us accountable on this because I think we can make some changes on that front. I think that’ll really alleviate some of the issues.
Stephen Stocks: And so, and I’ve been busy and I know the commissioners have been busy, but I do think that that’s one that can really have some good impacts. So I just want to note that one on everybody’s mind.
Stephen Stocks: So that was the only thing in the reports. I don’t know if you have other items in the reports.
Stephen Stocks: That’s all I’ve got. Yes, Mike.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’ve been looking for a place to add a future consideration. I would like to add a future consideration.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Going into budget season, I would like to know the feasibility. I see a necessity for OWLS.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Our OWLS, not just OWLS, but our YouTube recording device. Our video recording device.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: It’s called an OWL. It’s called an OWL at every SSD meeting, at every board meeting.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I want to know what it would take financially to do so. For about $800 a piece, $1,200 a piece.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Okay, then logistically, what are the requirements needed? Because I know we have at least one that travels.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Because I keep getting asked.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Future consideration sounds great. Great, great.
Bill Winfield, Chair: 8.06, and I haven’t joined this meeting.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I do have one other one. I do want to bring it back just to everybody’s concerns.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I’ve been going to NACO quite a bit and following them. And there is a bill right now called the Small County Built Parity Act.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I would like to bring that up for a future consideration. That’s all.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: If you guys want to look into it or if you have any questions, just email me. But I think it’s something- Could you email us?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, they’re working to increase our bill payment.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s definitely worth it.
Bill Winfield, Chair: That’s basically- Well, you don’t get to leave before- All right, with that, I will adjourn the meeting at 8.06. Thank you, everybody.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Hanging in there. Larry, thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Larry.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Tyner and Auditor Mr. Wojtek, with a presentation from Tess Barger and the HR Department.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And Tess, please take it away.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, excellent. Thank you all very much.
Tess Barger, HR: I’ll start, I’ll first start off with saying that Rick Stewart with GBS Benefits, our Benefits Administrator is here, as well as Derek Applegate, who’s with PEHP. During the last meeting, when this item was on the agenda, it was requested that we had a PHP representative here, and then we also have a representative from GBS Benefits to help fill in any gaps with any questions that come up that would fall within his realm.
Tess Barger, HR: So to start off, I’ll just let you know the layout that I have for today’s presentation. We’ll first start off with, I’ll provide a brief presentation of history related to our benefits, and then a brief overview of the CIGNA and PEHP options and what went into us coming up with those options.
Tess Barger, HR: And then we’ll pass it over to Derek Applegate. He’ll provide a brief vernal presentation on PEHP.
Tess Barger, HR: I then will have some questions that I’ll moderate with Derek. We had top questions that were asked by staff when we were polling them.
Tess Barger, HR: And so in order for you all to hear what those questions were, as well as the answers, we’ll go ahead and do that session. And then of course, any additional questions that haven’t been answered throughout the presentation, Q&A, et cetera, then we’ll make sure that we have time at the end for that as well.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, so first to start off, I think it’s prudent for us to explain what our obligation is as an employer with benefits. So we, based on the size of the employer we are, we are classified as a large employer.
Tess Barger, HR: So any employer over 50 employees is required to provide insurance benefits to employees. Those benefits are also based on the ACA standards, so Affordable Care Act standards.
Tess Barger, HR: They also have to have a certain threshold of value as well as affordability. So there are calculations that go into that.
Tess Barger, HR: But the kind of the long and the short is that the plans that we offer should cover at least 60% of expected benefit costs. And deductibles also have increases.
Tess Barger, HR: So for instance, for a high deductible plan moving into 2026, the maximum would be 8,500 for a single individual and then 17,000 for a family. The plans that we have provided have not hit that anywhere near that.
Tess Barger, HR: But again, that’s just the threshold from the ACA. So in addition to it being necessary, it’s also an incredible benefit for retention as well as recruitment, us having good benefit packages to offer, as well as the fact that we have up to date had an option that is free of cost entirely to employees.
Tess Barger, HR: High deductible plans both for single, two-party and family have no premium that’s passed off to FOI. The county covers the full cost of the premium and also provides an HSA contribution.
Tess Barger, HR: And that’s because traditional plans cost more. And so in order to kind of balance those out a little bit more, make them a bit more equitable to employees, we have that HSA contribution that is tied to the high deductible plan that traditional plan members don’t have.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, so some really brief terminology definitions. Cigna OAP, and these are going to be referred to.
Tess Barger, HR: So that’s why I thought it was important for us to just go ahead and cover them right at the beginning. Cigna OAP is Cigna Open Access Plus.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s currently the Cigna plan that the county is enrolled in and has been enrolled in. PEHP stands for Public Employees Health Program.
Tess Barger, HR: IHC stands for Intermountain Healthcare. So a group of medical centers within the Intermountain Healthcare conglomerate, if you will.
Tess Barger, HR: Benefits Administrator is a company that manages our employee benefits programs, including health insurance. So that is GPS Benefits.
Tess Barger, HR: And First Health Network is a rental network used by PEHP for out-of-state coverage, including the Colorado area. So to go into the bids that we received this year.
Tess Barger, HR: So we received bids from Cigna, EMI Health, PEHP, Regents, Aetna, Motive Health, Select Health, United Healthcare, and then University of Utah Health Plans. We went out to bid because we had not been out to bid for a number of years.
Tess Barger, HR: The primary reason for this was that we’ve been, and by we, I mean the staff have been happy with Cigna. They also gave us a 0% renewal rate for both 2020, or excuse me, 2024 and 2025, which is great.
Tess Barger, HR: And so we really didn’t have a need to go out to bid. That being said, because we wanted to see what our options were, both because it’s good for us to check in on what our options are every number of years, and also because of the continued identification of concerns related to the budget going into 2026, we thought it was prudent to go out to bid.
Tess Barger, HR: The reason that we’re here today is our recommendation is really to only be looking at two of the bids. One of those is from Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: So the initial renewal rate that they gave us was 15.9%. GBS Benefits has been excellent in helping us work with and negotiate with Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: When GBS facilitated that, Cigna came back with an 8.77% renewal rate. We said, unfortunately, that’s still not quite what we’re able to look at.
Tess Barger, HR: We are going to go ahead and proceed to go out to bid for the aforementioned reasons. And after all of the other bids were closed, GBS Benefits always takes it back to the current carrier and says, okay, this is what everybody else did.
Tess Barger, HR: What’s your best and final offer? At that point, Cigna gave us a renewal rate of 4.78%.
Tess Barger, HR: As we looked through all of the other dates that we received, the other plan that stuck out, both because of the comparable coverage, as well as the reduced renewal rate they gave us, was PEHP. They gave us two options.
Tess Barger, HR: We only are really looking or wanting to look at Quote 3. The reason for that is Quote 3 allows employees to opt into one of two different plans.
Tess Barger, HR: One is the PEHP Advantage plan, which gives them access to IHC care, so that Intermountain Healthcare Network in Utah. And then they have a Summit plan, which covers non-IHC care in Utah.
Tess Barger, HR: So that would be, for instance, the University of Utah health system is really what folks are typically accessing and thinking of. For both the Summit and the Advantage plans, the out-of-state coverage, so that Colorado-grade junction area coverage would be the same.
Tess Barger, HR: Do we have any questions so far?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Cigna and PEHP would be the same in the Grand Junction area. Is that the way I understood what you just said?
Tess Barger, HR: No, I apologize. So the two different PEHP plans that staff would have the option to choose, either the Advantage or the Summit, they have the exact same out-of-state coverage.
Tess Barger, HR: Great question. Thank you.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And so it’s not Advantage and Summit. It’s Advantage or Summit.
Tess Barger, HR: Correct. It’s Advantage or Summit.
Tess Barger, HR: Okay. That’s correct.
Tess Barger, HR: And I’ll go into a little bit more of the specifics, not a ton, because we do have a very well-versed PEHP representative here, but I’ll go ahead and touch on that briefly here in a moment. So there’s a lot of terminology and verbiage involved in insurance.
Tess Barger, HR: And so this was another item that I felt was important for us to break down really briefly. So there are different types of plans, but the two that we’ll talk about are level funded and fully insured.
Tess Barger, HR: So when you are in a level funded plan, what that means is that we are taking on some of the risk and the insurance carrier is taking on some of the risk in terms of our utilization. So the cost of the claims that our employees have over the course of the year.
Tess Barger, HR: Benefits of this are that there’s greater likelihood and possibility of refunds. So for instance, from 2023, we received a refund of $305,000.
Tess Barger, HR: And then for the 2024 year, we received a refund of $143,000 back from SITBAP. For 2025 up to date, our utilization is higher this year.
Tess Barger, HR: We’ve had to use our insurance more. We’ve had higher claims.
Tess Barger, HR: And so we’re not anticipating getting any type of refund check like that. We had really, really good years in 2023 and 2024, which is also likely why we got that 0% renewal rate from Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: Additionally, again, we have the fixed monthly cost with refunds after end of year reconciliation. So we won’t know exactly what our refund for 25 is until 26.
Tess Barger, HR: And then Cigna plan is level funded currently. For fully insured carrier takes on the greater risk of that claims, regardless of how much we’re using our insurance.
Tess Barger, HR: So we have those fixed premiums, smaller possibility of refunds, and then the refunds are smaller percentages typically. And then the PEHP plan that we’re looking at is that fully insured plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So this is a comparison of Cigna versus PEHP coverage in Utah specifically. So in Utah under our Cigna OAP plan, there’s coverage of 44 hospitals and medical centers.
Tess Barger, HR: For the PEHP Advantage plan, we have 38 hospitals and centers. And again, the Advantage plan is that IHC network.
Tess Barger, HR: And then for the PEHP Summit plan, or the non-IHC coverage, that covers both centers in Utah. So in terms of the number of facilities that are covered, it’s very comparable between Cigna and PEHP, and there’s a lot of overlap in what those facilities are.
Tess Barger, HR: And again, to reiterate, employees would have to choose either the Advantage or the Summit plan under PEHP.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So you have a lot of extra columns on there that to me are unnecessary when we’re just trying to compare the two plans and the Cigna. So could you share what the three columns are that we should be looking at?
Tess Barger, HR: Absolutely. So you’ll just be looking at the Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: And so that’s the second column, and then the PEHP column, which is the last column. And I apologize, this was taken out of the GBS guide that we were provided.
Tess Barger, HR: I didn’t create this chart, and so that’s why there are those extra columns.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, I see it now. Thank you.
Tess Barger, HR: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’re just looking at the blue and the gray.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, that’s correct. Yep, looking at the blue and the gray.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then Cigna, those are the three different plans that are available from Cigna. Is that correct?
Tess Barger, HR: Those are the three different plans that they have, and we’re on the OAP plan.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: On the OAP. And then the PEHP, we’re just doing the two middle ones.
Tess Barger, HR: Correct, Advantage and Summit. Got it.
Tess Barger, HR: And as you can see within the Advantage and Summit, there’s also quite a bit of overlap in between the hospitals and centers that they both cover as well.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: All right.
Tess Barger, HR: So next I’ll go over a brief history of our run with Cigna as an organization. So Greene County first switched to Cigna in 2015.
Tess Barger, HR: We moved over to Select Health only for the year 2016, and then moved back to Cigna in 2017. We’ve been with them since 2017.
Tess Barger, HR: The highest renewal rate that we received from Cigna was the first year, so that first year that we switched over to them. And then the lowest renewal rates we’ve received from them are the last two years with that 0% renewal rate.
Tess Barger, HR: So the average renewal rate we’ve had with Cigna from year to year is 8.77%, which is really great. This past year, what they were saying was industry standard was a 10% renewal rate.
Tess Barger, HR: So we’re under that industry standard, that industry average in terms of renewal rate with Cigna. All right.
Tess Barger, HR: And then I apologize that this chart, I wish I could pull it up bigger while also still having it in this PowerPoint, but I also did attach the GBS entire guide so that you were able to access the full original version of the documents and pull them up as much as you needed to. So there are several alternative options that we did look at in terms of our Cigna plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So our current Cigna plan structures are we have a traditional plan and a high deductible plan. For a traditional plan, our deductibles are $1,000 for a single person and $2,000 for a family and network and 4,000 and 8,000 respectively for out-of-network and then our out-of-pocket maximums for traditional plans are $4,000 for an individual and $8,000 for a family and then our out-of-network are the $12,000 for an individual and $24,000 for a family.
Tess Barger, HR: And then for the high deductible plan, it’s 2,000 and 4,000 for in-network, 4,000 and 65, or excuse me, and then 4,000 and 8,000 for out-of-network and then for out-of-pocket maximums, $4,000 for a single person, $6,550 for a family, and then $8,000 and $13,100 for out-of-network. Some other important things that I’d like us to look at are prescriptions.
Tess Barger, HR: So oftentimes folks overlook the importance of a prescription drug plan, but ultimately a lot of those that are utilizing insurance are more often using their prescription plan than maybe their medical plan. You may have to fill your prescriptions every two weeks, but you only have to go to the doctor once every couple months, for instance, right?
Tess Barger, HR: So looking at our prescription plans is very important as well for staff. And then for the Cigna alternatives that they gave us, we asked them to look at what would it look like in terms of us trying to figure out this affordability question?
Tess Barger, HR: What would it look like if we increase some of these numbers, for instance, increasing our deductibles in our high deductible plans and increasing our out-of-pocket maximums just to see what it would do to use premium rates. If you increase deductibles and increase out-of-pocket maximums, it takes down premium rates and then it would bring down the cost that the county would be paying for our plan.
Tess Barger, HR: And as we were looking a lot more in depth in this, we did realize that the numbers that are provided in the alternative options were not updated when we got the 4.78% renewal rate. So we don’t have the exact numbers of what those alternative options would look like, but there would be a reduction in essentially the higher you go with the deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, the lower the premiums are.
Tess Barger, HR: And Rick, if you have anything else to add to that, I’d love to pass it over to you for a moment.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, you bet. I would just add that we think that in raising those deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums and those alternate options that it would save about two to 3% compared to the Cigna rates that you’re seeing on this page.
Tess Barger, HR: All right, great. Thank you, Rick.
Tess Barger, HR: Do we have any questions for Rick or myself on this?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So in raising deductibles, it would be putting the cost on the employee more than the cost for the county.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, great question.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So we’d save money, the county would save money.
Tess Barger, HR: And then if, say, an employee got hurt or had a medical situation come up, instead of hitting their deductible at, say, the $2,000 mark, they would have to pay up to $3,000 before their deductible kicked in. So we would be passing the cost off to the employee.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s correct. Can we return to, you mentioned the HSA, that we actually fund an HSA.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Okay, do you know how much we put in a certain amount every month?
Tess Barger, HR: Yep, we do. We do $100 for single and then $200 for two-party or family plans.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So $1,200 or $2,400. So basically those monies can be used for deductibles.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Is that correct? Am I incorrect about that?
Tess Barger, HR: Well, I think that, well, yes, they can cover any cost. That’s correct.
Tess Barger, HR: They could definitely, if they went in and had to pay for something, they can get reimbursed by the HSA. That’s 100% correct.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But that’s only on those high deductible plans, not on the regular.
Tess Barger, HR: Correct, the traditional plan, which we didn’t, we’re not, we didn’t touch the traditional plan in terms of looking at increasing deductibles or anything like that. The traditional, you can’t be on a traditional plan and have access to an HSA.
Tess Barger, HR: They can have an FSA, which is a totally different can of worms and we don’t provide any contributions. Great questions.
Tess Barger, HR: Thank you all. Okay.
Tess Barger, HR: And then moving over to the age. Um, so again, it breaks down what the advantage slash summit, which is the option that we would be looking at would be.
Tess Barger, HR: So it had that outline for both the traditional plan as well as the high deductible plan and columns one and two, columns three through five. Also look at what these alternative plans would be if we say decided to increase the deductible and or increase out-of-pocket maximums on the high deductible plan option.
Tess Barger, HR: Um, another big thing that I, that I think is important. Again, looking at those comparisons in between plans is the plans are.
Tess Barger, HR: Basically identical aside from prescriptions. So for PEHP under the traditional plan for prescriptions and insurances classified drug, different drugs in tiers.
Tess Barger, HR: So tiers one through three. So for tier one PEHP would be a $10 increase for tier two.
Tess Barger, HR: It would be a $5 increase. And for tier three, it would be a $15 increase.
Tess Barger, HR: And again, that’s under the traditional plan. Prescriptions for the high deductible plan tier one would be a $5 increase tier two.
Tess Barger, HR: Drugs would be a $10 decrease and tier three drugs would be a $5 decrease. But aside from that, the copays out after deductible percentages, you know, what cares covered, et cetera.
Tess Barger, HR: We have any questions on this? So after we came in and presented last time, there was a, which I very, very greatly appreciated.
Tess Barger, HR: There’s a strong motivation amongst the commission to get feedback from staff. We did this in two different ways.
Tess Barger, HR: We sent out an email to our entire staff directory. We also walked around and pulled staff.
Tess Barger, HR: The reason we did this is because there’s a certain selection bias that could happen. If you send out a survey where folks that have really strong opinions are going to be in that survey.
Tess Barger, HR: Whereas folks that maybe don’t have as much of an opinion one way or another are less likely to engage. And so by polling, we tried to get a better, a better kind of sample size of the staff.
Tess Barger, HR: So 20, when we walked around, we talked to 24 different staff. 12 said that they had concerns about being Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: Seven were neutral. So that’s 30% were neutral.
Tess Barger, HR: Four said that they had issues with Cigna. One was actually in favor of switching because they had a lot of issues getting, figuring out which providers they could see and unify Cigna.
Tess Barger, HR: And then 11 identified that they regularly access Grand Junction Colorado Care. And then in terms of number of responses for that email survey that we sent out, 13 staff responded.
Tess Barger, HR: 11 reflected concerns with leaving PHP. And then we had seven staff indicate that they use Grand Junction Care regularly.
Tess Barger, HR: So in total about 50% of the staff on both sides said that they regularly access Junction Care.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: You said, and I think you did on the email or the online when you said there was 11 that were concerned about leaving PHP.
Tess Barger, HR: Oh, I’m sorry, sir. I greatly apologize.
Tess Barger, HR: There were 11 that had concerns with leaving Cigna. Thank you for the correction.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The same number were polled in both polls. You don’t have a number in your email response poll side there.
Tess Barger, HR: So there were, so 13, we sent out the email to everybody in the county directly. Okay.
Tess Barger, HR: Which is, you know, 100 plus staff. We have 145 staff currently on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Everybody was pulled in the email.
Tess Barger, HR: Exactly. Yep, exactly.
Tess Barger, HR: All of our full-time staff were pulled in the email and we have, we currently have 145 employees that are enrolled in our insurance, whether it’s traditional or high deductibles. So we’ve got about 25% of staff who are currently benefited with Cigna to respond, which is a pretty decent percent.
Tess Barger, HR: So again, you can kind of see that selection bias in terms of the number of those who were pulled when we walked around versus those who responded.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And there’s, there’s no question in here, but I’m curious about the number of people that services such as U of U and the stuff we’re losing by going to PE and be at the Huntsman and the, what is a Morningstar? That’s where our biggest loss is coming in on your chart is services at the U of U.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s the two columns there in the Morningstar column.
Tess Barger, HR: If, if someone were to go with the Advantage plan, then they, then that’s correct. But if they utilize, if they were to select the PEHP Summit option, which is a, which is a, totally a possibility for them, then MountainStar and University of Utah would be within that plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So essentially if staff, and if staff favor IHC or non-IHC, they’ll have to make that, that selection. Great question.
Tess Barger, HR: Hmm.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Okay. With Cigna, do they have to make that?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No.
Tess Barger, HR: With the OAP plan, they don’t have to choose Advantage versus Summit. They don’t have to choose between two different plans.
Tess Barger, HR: The OAP plan covers 44 different hospitals and centers with a mix between IHC and non-IHC. And then the PEHP plans cover 38 hospitals and 44 hospitals respectively.
Tess Barger, HR: So the number of centers that are covered, don’t change. Most centers exactly are covered, do change though.
Tess Barger, HR: And, and it’s, yeah, some, there’s, there’s certainly overlap, but there are also gaps as well, or differences, I should say, not gaps.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No, if it was straight overlap with two cheaper plans.
Tess Barger, HR: And that’s why it’s difficult, right? This is a very nuanced decision.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then the Grand, I mean, so Grand Junction, there’s no way to really compare. Like right now we can look at the hospitals that Utah is, is comparing, but, but as far as the PEHP network and it’s outside of Utah, there’s no way to compare.
Tess Barger, HR: There wasn’t a chart of a really nice, you know, visual aid chart available. I did provide a copy of the First Health Network directory of all cares or care providers in the Grand Junction area that are covered under PEHP.
Tess Barger, HR: And then with, with us having Derek Applegate here to, to provide some additional information, certainly ask him some of those questions as well. Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Under the options of the high deductible, are those currently available to all employees? If I look at the previous sheet, it looks like the majority of our staff choose the high deductible option.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct. Yes.
Tess Barger, HR: And I actually have those numbers. So currently we have 105 employees on our high deductible plan.
Tess Barger, HR: So over 70% of our staff are on high deductible.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Which ones of, say, these three options right here, would they be on? In the next year’s renewal, it looks like there’s three options for high deductible.
Tess Barger, HR: So, so we had our benefits administrator essentially structure if we were to increase the deductible and out-of-pocket maximum, what would those premiums look like? What the plan is that we’re currently on is the, for the high deductible is $2,000 deductible for a single and 4,000 for a family.
Tess Barger, HR: So that’s second column.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So that’s the second one.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct. That’s currently the structure of the high deductible plan that we have.
Tess Barger, HR: Okay. Perfect.
Tess Barger, HR: Thanks. Thank you.
Tess Barger, HR: And it’s a great plan. I will say it’s, it’s the best deductible that I’ve ever had at any employer.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I don’t know if it’s for you or the representative directly, but if I chose a different plan, if we went with PHP and chose a different plan, I said I want healthcare coverage from up north. Does that take away healthcare coverage from Colorado?
Tess Barger, HR: No, it does not.
Bill Winfield, Chair: No, they would just have to go with the summit plan to get the Utah coverage. That if you look in that call or summit plan coverage, if they want to university advantage plan is where you, but if they chose to go with the advantage plan, if it ended it with the advantage plan, life flight only goes there.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So if they, if they get life flight.
Tess Barger, HR: And it goes to Grand Junction, that would be covered. Emergency care is covered.
Tess Barger, HR: And that’s another great question that I know that Derek is going to be addressing as well.
Stephen Stocks: Okay. And just for some additional knowledge, they have done life flights.
Stephen Stocks: I know somebody that was like life-flown from Moab to Salt Lake.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Yeah, for sure.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yeah, but it’s a rarity.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Which one is?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I mean, a sheer number.
Tess Barger, HR: Well, it depends. Yeah, having worked in the emergency room at the hospital, it’s not as much of a rarity as you would think.
Tess Barger, HR: Certainly sometimes it is very often and a little bit more often that folks will be like flighted over to Grand Junction. But depending on how many beds they have available, depending on the specialty that’s needed, we very often transferred folks upstate as well.
Jenny Beth Jones: All right, excellent.
Tess Barger, HR: An additional item that I want to to iterate as well about if we were to increase, if we were to look at trying to offset the cost of staying with Cigna by increasing our deductibles and choosing one of those alternative high deductible plans, employees have the option of traditional or high deductible every single year. So if our high deductible plans are less appealing, if the out-of-pocket maximum and deductible really increases, there’s certainly a likelihood that some employees may opt for the traditional plan instead.
Tess Barger, HR: So we can’t really give a great estimate necessarily on what those cost savings would be. That would maybe influence a percentage of our high deductible plan members to switch over to traditional for 2026.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Can I ask a question back on to the surveys? So when you did the surveys, did you just ask, do you have concerns with leaving Cigna?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Or did you ask actually like questions? What are your concerns with?
Tess Barger, HR: So it started with asking feedback about any questions, concerns, et cetera, you have. And then for the employees that responded, I asked them the questions of what, what concerns would you have with leaving Cigna?
Tess Barger, HR: Have you experienced any issues with Cigna? And do you access Grand Junction, Colorado Care regularly?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: What were some of the bigger concerns?
Tess Barger, HR: Great question. That’s actually a perfect segue.
Tess Barger, HR: So there are these questions that I was planning on asking with, with Derek to be able to answer them. Certainly the level of in-network coverage at Grand Junction, how pre-existing conditions would be handled, what PHP’s coverage is out of other areas in the country.
Tess Barger, HR: For instance, those whose dependents are maybe in college out in the Midwest with their college student be able to find providers that would be covered by PHP, how they handle referrals, specialty providers, if more regional hospitals, Spanish Valley Clinic or a network. And then what about prescription drug coverage?
Tess Barger, HR: So those were the big ones that we got.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We sure do.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, so are there any more questions for me before we pass it over to Derek for comments?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Presentation just flows right into the next question.
Tess Barger, HR: There you go. All right, excellent.
Tess Barger, HR: Well, Derek, I think we’re ready to hand it over to you.
Derek Applegate, presenter: All right. Well, thank you, everyone.
Derek Applegate, presenter: I’ve been listening intently. So I hope I can answer more questions than what I cause.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But let me start by giving everyone kind of a brief overview of who PHP is. We were created in 1977 by the Utah State Legislature specifically for public employees and public employers.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We don’t venture out into the private sector. We are strictly mandated to just offer benefits for the public sector.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we actually enjoy that niche. We look at it as such as, you know, we know the public sector because we are the public sector.
Derek Applegate, presenter: That’s all we do. We have employers all over the state of Utah from cities, counties, special service districts, school districts.
Derek Applegate, presenter: In Grand County, we have six employers that utilize us. There’s also a good number of state employees who reside in Grand County.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we are familiar with the desire to have Grand Junction as part of our network. Now, being a Utah-based company, we primarily do most of our contracting with Utah-based providers and facilities.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But we have reached out to many in the Grand Junction area. We currently have contracted, I believe the number is 71 doctors in different fields that practice in Grand Junction.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We’re also contracted with the hospital, St. Mary’s Hospital there as well for our members.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we do have some there. How that compares to what they currently see, I don’t know because I’m not familiar with the network offered by Cigna.
Derek Applegate, presenter: To that extent. Test did a good job of discussing our network options that are available for employees.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We have our Advantage Network and our Summit Network that we offer. Any employee who signs up can do it.
Derek Applegate, presenter: The easy distinction between them, our Advantage Network is based off of Intermountain Healthcare facilities and providers. The Summit Network is primarily non-IHC, so University of Utah, Mountain Star, Common Spirit, Huntsman, for example.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Now the two networks themselves, off the Wasatch Front, the two networks themselves are pretty close to identical. There’s a few minor differences, maybe some docs that aren’t on both.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But for the most part, the two networks are identical. Where they differ is for anyone who would travel up to Utah County, Salt Lake County, Davis County, or Weber County.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Up in those four areas, that’s where it’s either or. You’re either looking at IHC facilities or non-IHC facilities, depending on which network was chosen.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But down services off the Wasatch Front, you’re not going to find much of a difference in the two networks. Plans, we tried to match as close as we could to what the grant employees are currently using.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Anytime you switch carriers, there are always going to be subtle differences between how the plans are administered. But the big keys being the deductibles, the coinsurance, things like that, we’re trying to match where we could.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Pharmacy benefits, we do have a little bit different pharmacy benefits. When there is a change in carrier, and I think Rick from GBS can probably attest to this, probably the biggest disruption that you find is going to be in the pharmacy benefits because every carrier does it a little differently.
Derek Applegate, presenter: One might have some drugs, whereas the other has the same drug family, but maybe a different brand that they carry things to that nature. So you’re always going to have some of that.
Derek Applegate, presenter: PHP has been managing our pharmacy benefits pretty aggressively for the past 15 years. We have a contract with Express Scripts, who is our pharmacy benefits manager.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But our contract is quite unique with Express Scripts in that it gives us a little more leeway into the management. We have our own formulary drug list.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We do our own pre-authorizations. Essentially, what we have Express Scripts for is we get their volume discount for their nationwide coverage and also their network of pharmacies nationwide also.
Derek Applegate, presenter: What the result has been over the past 15 years with our pharmacy contract, Express Scripts being, depending on different reports, either the second or third largest PBM in the country, their annual trend is usually around 10 to 12% as far as what their increase is each year. We’ve been able to manage that at 5%.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And what that means is it’s savings for the employers, for all those that participate in PHP. PHP was created, again, as a nonprofit government trust.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Any rates we provide for Grand County or anyone else, it’s basically, there’s absolutely no profit margin built in. It is specifically for expected claims for the year ahead and our operating costs.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And that’s it. Any increase we experience because of the positive claim experience that the group did, that’s more positive for the group than it is for PHP in that sense.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We take great pride in that. We’ve given back to our employers in the past 10 years over $100 million total.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So if Grand County were to join with PHP, they would be placed in what we call the local government’s risk pool. This is a risk pool that is made up of a little more than 300 public employers throughout the state.
Derek Applegate, presenter: They banded together as this self-funded pool. To the individual group, it feels fully insured because there’s no deposit required.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Day-to-day, it feels fully insured. But at the end of the day, it is considered a self-funded pool by all of those who participate.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Why I make that distinction is when that pool runs well, we give money back. And in the past 10 years, we’ve probably been given back the equivalent anywhere between 1% to 3% depending on how well they did.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Now, it’s not a given each and every year those refunds will be given. It just depends on how well the pool did.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Hopefully, we’re not leaking money and having too much of a run on claims. But we try to manage that so that everyone who participates in that pool experiences things when things go well.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Any other questions, Tess, that you’d like me to cover?
Tess Barger, HR: No, I don’t believe so. Thank you, Derek.
Tess Barger, HR: But I’d love to pass it over to the commissioners and make sure that we make good use of your time here.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Do we have the answers to these employee questions?
Tess Barger, HR: Yes, he did email them to me and I can email those over to you as soon as I finish.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I agree.
Tess Barger, HR: Yes, absolutely.
Bill Winfield, Chair: You did email them or you will? Will, I will.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I apologize. Because we are making a decision on this tonight.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Is that correct? Correct.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. And then talk about next year’s renewal rate.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ve got an email from an employee quoting 7%. I’m curious when you talk about giving 1% to 3% back, why wouldn’t that show up on the front end rather than the back end?
Derek Applegate, presenter: So that’s a good question. So with the proposal that we gave, when we start looking at your renewal for next year, we’ll be about six to seven months into the plan year.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We won’t have a full plan year to look at how Grand County was doing. So what our underwriters have done is they look at what our trend is for our book of business for the past year.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And that has been 7.2%. So what our renewal is for you, if you were to come to us, the renewal for 2027 would be 7.2%.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Now, as far as what that refund would be, assuming there is going to be a refund. So we let the entire plan year run out.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So over the next 12 months, we would look at how the pool did. And if there’s leftover money, more money than what we need to pay claims, we would then calculate it based off of every…
Derek Applegate, presenter: There are different factors for each group. It’s based off of the experience, how well you did within the pool, your longevity in the pool, member engagement, things like that.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And our actuaries would then determine how much goes to what group. So we wouldn’t even know.
Derek Applegate, presenter: The first step is we have to know if the pool ran well for the entire year. Once they know how much of excess reserve we have at the end of the year, then they have to calculate how much each group gets back.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we wouldn’t even know that until on this first year, until probably around July of 2027 for just this first year of 2026.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. And then I’ve got one other question if I’m not stepping on anybody else.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We mentioned, and I would imagine that the majority of our employees are on the lesser plan, the advantage rather than the summit. But at the beginning of this, we mentioned that basically the reduced costs that the county is seeing is because they’re being passed on to the employees with increased benefits, correct?
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’m wondering what that increase is that our employees are gonna see next year because unless I misunderstood you, that was a statement earlier.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, so in terms of the advantage plans, because we haven’t been with PEHP before, I can’t speak to whether the summit plan or the advantage plan will be more popular. That being said, for either the advantage or the summit plans, really what, I think just speaking to your question, it would more so be a discussion of the traditional versus the high deductible plans.
Tess Barger, HR: So currently we have more employees on our high deductible plan. And if we were to, and again, I’m not recommending that we change to one of the alternative options because I don’t want to pass more costs off to the employees, but it is, again, I wanted to make sure that we had those options available in case the commission of the decisions is motivated to stay with Cigna, but feels like there needs to be an offset to cost.
Tess Barger, HR: The way that that cost would be passed off to the employees is that on the high deductible plan, their deductibles would increase. So instead of I have to pay out of pocket until $2,000 and then my insurance starts kicking in and pays 50% of every appointment, it would be, I have to pay $3,000.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And that’s on the Cigna plan if we stay is what you’re saying. Am I understanding?
Tess Barger, HR: The plan structures would be the same, both for- Both of them. Exactly.
Tess Barger, HR: We have the same kind of alternative options for PEHP and Cigna.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Question. It ties along with some of the questions that I see here.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Also, if someone’s already getting care and it’s covered right now on Cigna’s plan, we don’t go with Cigna. What’s that care change look like?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Like, do they have to go find, I mean, for coverage, do they have to go find someone else?
Tess Barger, HR: It’s a great question. So it would depend.
Tess Barger, HR: It would depend on whether that provider is in network or not with PEHP. So if they’re in network, it’s as simple as they show, they provide their new insurance card and then things move forward exactly as they have been.
Tess Barger, HR: If it’s they’re working with a provider that isn’t covered by PEHP, then they would, and please feel free to step in and correct me if I’m wrong on this, Rick and Derek, but if it’s not in network, then they would either need to choose select a new provider that still provides that type of care or they would need to pay out of pocket out of those out of network costs.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I mean, day one on service.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If I can interject it, a lot of it’s just going to be going to depend on the date of service.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So anything prior to January 1st, they just want to make sure that they would show their Cigna card ID number so that everything gets billed to Cigna. Beginning on January 1st, it would just all go to PEHP.
Derek Applegate, presenter: They would want to use their PEHP benefits at that. Okay.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Yep. So it just depends on the date of service.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Okay. Second question, if I’m not cutting anyone off.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: City Market take you guys? Because they don’t have Cigna right now.
Tess Barger, HR: Started taking Cigna actually.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: City Market did? Oh, big, big win.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I can get groceries and farm. Okay.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, please. And Derek, do you, can you speak to whether or not City Market is a network for pharmacy under PEHP?
Derek Applegate, presenter: Or are pharmacies in town? I mean, in general.
Derek Applegate, presenter: I can’t speak to it specifically right this minute, but if you want to give me a minute, I can look some things up here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I would say City Market markers both. I mean, we would know that they.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s also the hospital.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Right.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yeah. That is all the pharmacies.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No more. Yes.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I was just going to say if Derek could speak to some of these questions, really quick, because I know we’re approaching the deadline, but if he could just basically answer some of those briefly, that might help.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Absolutely. So the first bullet point there, as I mentioned before, we have 71 contracted providers in Grand Junction and the hospital that is there also.
Derek Applegate, presenter: We’re always, you know, open to adding more. It’s just dependent upon whether the doctors want to accept our fee schedule, our contract terms and so forth.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But if members have some they’d like us to reach out to, we can always reach out and see if they’re interested. But as of right now, there’s the 71 in the hospital.
Derek Applegate, presenter: As far as pre-existing health conditions go, with the passing of the Affordable Care Act back in 2009, pre-existing conditions are no more. No health plan can apply pre-existing conditions.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So none of our plans have that. PHPs coverage in other areas of the country.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we contract, and I apologize, they just changed their name. They just got purchased.
Derek Applegate, presenter: It was multi-plan. I just learned yesterday they got purchased by a new vendor and their name escapes me right now.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But… Clarative.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Clarative. Thank you, Rick.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Clarative. Just purchased multi-plan.
Derek Applegate, presenter: And they are a nationwide network that we lease. So members that have…
Derek Applegate, presenter: They have dependents living out of state and so forth. They could just access that through our website as far as the providers to use.
Derek Applegate, presenter: For hospital utilization, we just ask that you get pre-authorization with us and we can steer them in the right direction as to which hospital to go to. And it is important to note everybody on the plan due to the No Surprises Act through the federal government, every emergency room in the country is covered in network.
Derek Applegate, presenter: So we… Last thing we want is somebody who needs emergency care to be looking to see what hospital they should go to.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Get to the nearest hospital. You’re covered in network.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Let’s see. How does PHP handle referred to as specialty?
Derek Applegate, presenter: Rheumatology and dermatology. We would handle that just like anything else.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Any of our other providers, as long as they’re using network providers, we would cover it as such. But we would just recommend you try to use our network providers.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Visiting specialty providers from Colorado to our local hospital. And I guess you’re talking about the Moab Hospital in Colorado.
Tess Barger, HR: Yes, that’s correct.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Is that what I’m…
Tess Barger, HR: That’s correct, Eric.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Okay. So on that, the local hospital down there is covered.
Derek Applegate, presenter: As far as how the providers might be covered, that would be dependent on the providers themselves. If they’ve already contracted with us, they’d be in network.
Derek Applegate, presenter: If not, there’s a good chance they could be out of network. It just depends on each specific doc if they’ve contracted with us or not.
Derek Applegate, presenter: Moab Regional Hospital and Spanish Valley Clinic are both in network on both networks, the Advantage and the Summit. And then prescription coverage under PEHP.
Derek Applegate, presenter: This is, again, as I mentioned before, our pharmacy benefits managers express scripts. And we have the very unique contract with them.
Derek Applegate, presenter: This is going to be the biggest disruption as it always is when somebody’s moving, just because you have the drug A that covers something, drug B cover something, the same thing, but there’s a different contract with them. And that’s about the biggest disruption you’ll see is maybe one brand over another.
Derek Applegate, presenter: But you’ll see as far as what they cover, what they treat, things like that, you’re going to see are similar. It just may be a different type of a different drug name rather than type.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’ve got a couple questions. They’re actually for you, Tess.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: First off is what amount of workload do you think that’s on yourself?
Derek Applegate, presenter: I apologize. I didn’t hear that.
Tess Barger, HR: Oh, I’m sorry, Derek. He directed that question towards me.
Tess Barger, HR: So you’re okay. The workload in terms of if we switch over to PEHP.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct.
Tess Barger, HR: It will be very, very significant, both because we have to open enrollment. We’ll take a little bit more time making sure that we’re educating or just getting ready for open enrollment.
Tess Barger, HR: Once we open open enrollment, we’re going to have to be doing a lot of very expedited education of staff so that they’re able to make an informed decision on which plan they are going to select. And then on the back end of that, getting everything into our systems, both on the benefit side as well as the payroll side.
Tess Barger, HR: We will, it will be very, very, very strict.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Next is, so we talked a little bit about the refund right there. So that wouldn’t be calculated into basically the cost.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I know you said this year, we’re not receiving any type of.
Tess Barger, HR: We’re not anticipating it.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That doesn’t mean it’s not going to happen. In following years, there could be that refund that might bring those costs a little bit more in line.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Right, right.
Tess Barger, HR: Yeah, and we’re in the process of designing a more robust employee wellness program so that we have more of those preventive proactive support schools, education resources, et cetera, so that folks continue to engage in that preventive care and continue to stay healthy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: One last one. Are there any requirements that we follow any best practices and accept the lowest bid?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Or are we able to. Way, the benefit, I mean, what are what’s the statute or is there a statute around this?
Tess Barger, HR: There’s no statute. So all of the bids that we received are they fall within those ACA, those Affordable Care Act requirements.
Tess Barger, HR: And in terms of, you know, that standard, we don’t have the institutional knowledge to speak to that because we’ve been with CIGNA since 2017. And we don’t have anybody in the department that that was here when they made the switch to CIGNA and made those decisions to stay with CIGNA from year to year.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: OK. Yes, go ahead, Mike.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Subjective question. Seeing that we use this as part of our hiring practice.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Benefits, which is easier to hire with.
Tess Barger, HR: Well, I’ve never worked with PHP, so I can’t I can’t speak to that. But what I will say is maybe even more so than the coverage, the plan structure is ultimately what I think is a great recruitment tool.
Tess Barger, HR: And by plan structure, I mean the fact that we have a high deductible plan that employees don’t have to contribute any of the premium to where they get, you know, they get deposits in their HSA every single paid period. That I think is one of our strongest recruitment tools.
Tess Barger, HR: That’s a great question.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Quick last question. Will they be here for the.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Discussion and around the boat. Also, if there’s further questions that come up.
Tess Barger, HR: Eric and Rick, I’ll pass it over to you. Are you all able to stay on for a little bit longer with us?
Derek Applegate, presenter: Yes, I can stay on as well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I just see the potential for more questions, so. If nothing else, then I will call a brief recess and we will reconvene as close to 4 o’clock as we possibly can.
Speaker 37: Thank you. That’s all right.
Speaker 37: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: It is 2 and we will resume this commission meeting. On October 21st of 2025 at 4.02 PM with commissioners and Dean present.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Hadler absent, McCurdy present Commissioner McGann present Commissioner Martinez present Commissioner McCandless present and myself, Commissioner Winfield with County Attorney Stocks and. Administrator Tyner will stand for the pledge.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Alright, we will start off with our citizens to be heard. I’ve got folks both in the audience and online and start in the chambers here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Raise your hand and I will call you up one by one. And as you come up, please introduce yourself for the record so that the folks that are watching later or online are able to know who we’re talking about in.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Three minutes, and we try to give you a little bit of a warning so that you can get done and move on so that somebody else can speak. So I’m going to start right here on the right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There were a whole bunch of arms that came up at the same time. Yes, either one.
Bill Winfield, Chair: OK, Michael Wolfe.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): I live here in Moab. I’m here to comment about the Labyrinth Ribs Travel Plan thing that appeared on the agenda beginning of the week, but there was no information.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): And then today, because I’m a retired person, I can sit at home. All this stuff starts getting put on the agenda.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): So I would urge the commission to put any vote on this off till the next meeting because the public has not had an opportunity to comment on it. And supposedly, you guys want to be transparent and open about things, but this doesn’t look transparent.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): It looks like you’ve already got a plan on what you’re going to do. So one of the letters I saw was from the subcommittee on motorized trails writing a letter to the commission suggesting with their suggestions.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): Right. But the other and then all these maps.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): But I work with travel management. I work for BLM to undo what was thousands of hours were spent analyzing all these routes.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): All parties were invited. We looked at every damn route, cow trail, everything out there.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): We had resource people looking at all the different resources that could be impacted. And, you know, we came to some decisions.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): And so, you know, we have hundreds, thousands of miles of open trails from this area. There’s no shortage of trails.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): What pushed this management plan was there starting to be conflicts with users, people going down the river, down the Green River, like peace and quiet. You don’t need a road going out to every rim of the canyon.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): OHV and UTV users are notorious for not following rules. They don’t just putt putt down the road.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): They go scatter stuff all over. They’re noisy.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): They intrude on people who enjoy public land for the way it is. So if it was a compromise, public lands are for the public.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): That means there’s lots of user groups in the public. We’re not for one user group.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): You have to share. You’ve got to learn to share.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): And so, therefore, you know, we were going back and trying to undo this travel plan that already was litigated in court. The judge threw it out.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): You know, it was done so thoroughly. I spent weeks in the BLM office sitting there analyzing everything.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): It’s been so analyzed. Routes going to the same place.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): Oh, they go to the same place. We don’t need two of them.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): Let’s pick one. Oh, this is a cow trail.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): This is a seismic trail from 1980s. It doesn’t go anywhere.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): So the process was very long and exhaustive. And so for you to all of a sudden, you know, oh, we want to support rescinding all those decisions.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): It’s just, I don’t like it at all. And, you know, you have to recognize there’s more than just motor users.
Public Comment (Michael Wolfe): You know, there’s other people that enjoy the land. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But I will add, before we call anybody else up, that this has been mandated and the BLM is going back in and looking at this. The decisions we make are the decisions of the commission, of course, up here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But everybody’s voice can still be heard at the BLM. You’re welcome to chime in.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They have the option to still do that. Everybody should, from both sides of the aisle.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so next. Chris, please.
Chris Wilson: Good afternoon, everyone. Chris Wilson.
Chris Wilson: I’m the chair of the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board, but I’m here just on my own behalf. I’m speaking on behalf of the board today.
Chris Wilson: I’m here to speak about the revisions on your agenda of the bylaws for the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board. The proposed bylaws were first put up last Friday for review, and then they’ve been revised a couple of times since then, most recently about 3 p.m.
Chris Wilson: today. In short, the revisions basically take away the duties of the board to advise the county on ways to improve economic development in the county.
Chris Wilson: STAD has the board focused exclusively on grant management, on the state economic development grants. I think that amounts to a loss, a loss of the support of our diverse group of board members they can provide to the county to support economic development.
Chris Wilson: I’ve been in conversation with Commissioner McCandless, who’s put forward this revisions, and I want to say publicly, I greatly appreciate her willingness to dialogue on this and have some back and forth and make some revisions based on our conversations. And I would just still ask you all to take this agenda item and table it for now so that more time can be given to that process of review and so that we can take them before the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board to get their thoughts on these before you all as a commission make a final decision on what the bylaws should be.
Chris Wilson: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, sir, in the back.
George Schultz: Dear commissioners and stakeholders, I’m George Schultz, president of Red Rock Four Wheelers. Public lands hold promise and our freedoms.
George Schultz: Footloose requires multiple use and sustainable yield across recreation, ranching, minerals, wildlife, watershed and historic values. That balance keeps America strong and independent.
George Schultz: Here’s the lens. Today’s present, tomorrow’s past.
George Schultz: The routes we drive, the wells and windmills that we maintain and the events we host will be our heritage that our grandkids inherit. Closure erases these not only from the landscape, but from time in our own history.
George Schultz: Let’s zoom in on what’s before you tonight. Labyrinth Rims, we applaud your draft letter.
George Schultz: Using the Legacy Road and Trail Act, Explorer Act and Executive Order 14313, it pairs well with stewardship and economic growth. You documented the reality over 317 miles closed in 2023, nearly 1008.
George Schultz: 621 miles left, often lacking connectivity and 44% drop in our tax revenues for MoHV since 2023. We soon work reopening the targeted and limited routes and we ask the BLM, consistent with Executive Order 14314, to replace broad closures with targeted fixes and to keep this timely.
George Schultz: Follow Executive Order 14154, or excuse me, 54 yet and run an efficient schedule for reassessment. The Red Rock 4-Wheelers will also file our public comments of the BLM.
George Schultz: It aligns well with the county’s priorities and MTC map, including our Easter juice routes. Name the specifics of what you do in your draft.
George Schultz: Additionally, we recommend opening 3D Tushar, Lost World Terrace, 10-Mile Rim. These are established Red Rock 4-Wheelers EJS routes and SRP routes.
George Schultz: If any of these aren’t in the county or MTC list, we respectfully ask that you add them. The Motorized Recreation Initiative.
George Schultz: It’s on the agenda tonight. While we welcome the chamber’s business-aligned marketing, this effort needs and requires county leadership with the state of Utah Clubco at the table.
George Schultz: The Red Rock 4-Wheelers would also welcome a seat at the table and a county and state working group as a stakeholder participant for the future of building a solid foundation for motorized recreation and multiple use access in the county. A living example of what you already know.
George Schultz: Planned in 66, launched in 67 by the chamber. Free Flipma, Easter Jeep Safari is a living historical stewardship and socioeconomic engine.
George Schultz: It’s public lands management done right. We’re not radical, we’re responsible.
George Schultz: Beyond one event, these principles apply countywide. Let’s respect and actively assert RS-2477 rights.
George Schultz: And finally, access underpins safety and national security. From fire and search and rescue to infrastructure and our domestic resource supply.
George Schultz: Our grandparents did not foresee lithium and their parents didn’t foresee. Let’s not lock away what our grandchildren will need to secure our country’s future and their access.
George Schultz: Utilization is stewardship and it’s required under Flipma. A couple of asks we have real quick.
George Schultz: We want you to reaffirm multiple use to including motorized access in the county with respect to RS-2477, especially in the general. File the Lab with RIMS letter with those specificities.
George Schultz: In fact, launch a county-led motorized recreation initiative state and local agencies. Thank you.
Wes Usry: Thank you. Yes, please.
Charlene Bader: Hello, how are you guys doing?
Speaker 37: Yeah, very good.
Charlene Bader: Okay, I don’t have all the numbers that George has. My name is Charlene Bader and I live out on Piedmont Road.
Charlene Bader: But I do travel around the country and I just got back from a long trip, which is why you guys haven’t seen me in a couple of months. And the data that I’m bringing back is Moab is still not up to our off-road standards.
Charlene Bader: We’re still getting a lot of negative comments about how Moab is closed and not welcoming to the off-road community. You guys have some amazing opportunities tonight to show that in a different light, right?
Charlene Bader: So we have the support of the opening the BLM routes. We have the support of the UTP enthusiasts and we also have the support of those big large events that are on the list tonight.
Charlene Bader: And I really hope that each one of you takes that as a thought process because everybody has a political agenda here. And the political agenda is to increase Moab’s economy.
Charlene Bader: And if we have a negative group that is still sitting out there, how can we bring that group back in here and this is a great opportunity tonight to absolutely say off-roaders, we’re welcoming you, hikers, bikers, every single category. This BLM conversation is not just about off-road.
Charlene Bader: It’s about all the horse people, the hikers, the bikers, every single group that wants to access all of our public lands. So I appreciate you guys.
Charlene Bader: It’s great to see you all again. Thank you very much.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Yes, ma’am.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And just real quick before the next one takes her seat here, why the 24th is the end of the opportunity for your voice to be heard by the BLM. Go ahead.
Cora Philips: Hello, my name is Cora Phillips. I serve as the Executive Director for the Moab Chamber of Commerce.
Cora Philips: The Moab Chamber of Commerce is focused on three priorities, strengthening our local economy, supporting businesses through training and grants and creating pathways for businesses to give back to our community. One key segment we’ve identified is the off-road recreation.
Cora Philips: To better support this group, we’re working to implement best practices for marking and marketing OHV routes. Our goal is to improve the visitor experience so when people visit, they have a great time, learn along the way and are inspired to return.
Cora Philips: This project will roll out in phases. Phase one involves working closely with the side-by-side community to identify beginner, intermediate and expert routes on existing roads.
Cora Philips: Phase two will address any needed trailhead improvements. Through this project, visitors will be able to match their skill level to the right route to grow in the sport with each visit.
Cora Philips: We’re asking the county to support this project as we work to identify beginner, intermediate and advanced loops. With your partnership, we can make Moab more enjoyable and more welcoming for the off-road community while strengthening our economy.
Cora Philips: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Next, anybody?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Mary.
Mary O’Brien: Mary O’Brien of Castle Valley. Looking at your proposed letter, I would suggest that you drop paragraphs four and five because they apply equally to non-motorized use of the trails and have nothing to do with restoring motorized vehicles to the trails.
Mary O’Brien: In the sixth paragraph, I would suggest you drop the second sentence, which says that the 2023 re-analysis, which was the basis of extensive public comment and analysis, says it was, which was fueled by the political influence of expanding wilderness groups and marred by questionable practices and self-dealing. That’s simply not actually true.
Mary O’Brien: I would suggest you drop that. In the next paragraph, the seventh, you call, you say, critics of access have been quick to point out that hundreds of miles of routes are still open.
Mary O’Brien: They aren’t critics of access. They’re concerned with motorized redundant routes and small feeder routes and routes in particularly sensitive canyons.
Mary O’Brien: So calling them critics of access is again not factual. And in the last paragraph, these routes are not economically vital.
Mary O’Brien: That’s simply factually false. And finally, out of the experience of this being revealed, these wording being revealed to the public about the day before you’re voting, I would really suggest that the Grand County Commission establish a rule that if you’re going to post an agenda item, you post the background documents at least three days before the meeting, unless it was for logistical purposes impossible.
Mary O’Brien: This is happening again and again and again that the majority on this commission is trying to slide through unpopular, unfactual policies and letters with no time for the public to comment. And it’s appalling process.
Mary O’Brien: And finally, and I have sent you studies regarding the $10,000 you’re going to throw at rainmaker technology. You’re not going to get 20% increase in rain in percent.
Mary O’Brien: You’re not going to get 15%. You’re not going to get 5%.
Mary O’Brien: With the extensive controlled studies, it shows that you’re likely to get minuscule, if anything, if you have the correct type of storms. And on top of that, with the technology, you will never know whether you got anything for that 10,000.
Mary O’Brien: And they’re seeking 10,000 from Moab taxpayers as well, who also live in Grand County. That are going to bear $10,000 of tax payer money.
Mary O’Brien: I don’t know if any of you looked into the claims of rainmaker technology. He was throwing numbers around 15%, 5%, 10%, 20%.
Mary O’Brien: Did any of you look into the factual reality of that? And I have sent you data on that.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Next. In the back row.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And Pete, I’ll get you next.
Allison Mathis: My name’s Allison Mathis. I’m a homeowner here in Grand County.
Allison Mathis: And I also happen to own a Jeep. And even after the closures in 2023, there are more than enough roads.
Allison Mathis: I will never drive most of the roads. It has not decreased my access.
Allison Mathis: But what it has increased, the closures of these roads, is I can park and I can get away from the noise, particularly of the side-by-sides and the motorbikes, a little bit better than I could before. And so I support the closure.
Allison Mathis: Say, improve the protection of the land here. Probably also better for wildlife habitat and stuff like that.
Allison Mathis: And as I said, I own a Jeep. It hasn’t impaired my experience of public lands around Moab and in Grand County at all.
Allison Mathis: I also want to, as previous speakers mentioned, the lack of transparency. Although you guys, particularly the chair in particular, keeps talking about transparency.
Allison Mathis: You’re not putting the information out for the public to be able to be involved. And I think it is just wrong.
Allison Mathis: And I also want to echo that the 2023 plan was a long, thoughtful plan with a lot of public input and serious analysis. And the county and the current version of the administration federally wants to just undo it.
Allison Mathis: Regarding cloud seeding, instead of throwing money at things that are dubious at best, how about doing something logical and proven to work to conserve water, like sod removal incentives? I mean, common sense.
Allison Mathis: You can throw money away or you could do something common sense. I also want to talk about, and unless I missed it, there’s nothing in this agenda meeting that we are in the middle of a shutdown.
Allison Mathis: And there are federal employees here who are being hurt by this. There are all sorts of citizens who are not getting services that we need.
Allison Mathis: And to have nothing on the agenda about this massive shutdown with no end in sight because one political party refuses to even negotiate and one chamber’s not even in session, which is just so outlandish. People are being hurt.
Allison Mathis: People are losing their services that they need. And a large issue around this is healthcare premiums going way, way, way, way up.
Allison Mathis: And what are you going to do to help the residents of this county deal with these massive impacts to what their healthcare costs? Many people losing healthcare costs and our hospital also losing support as a result of that and experiencing financial hardship.
Allison Mathis: So the fact that there’s nothing that I know of on this agenda about the shutdown is kind of like ignoring the elephant in the living room. Thank you.
Speaker 37: Pete, you’re next.
Pete Gross: My name is Pete Gross. It’s always hard to follow some people like that.
Pete Gross: I wholeheartedly agree with what Allison Mathis and Mary O’Brien and Michael Wolf said. Absolutely, I cannot articulate it as well, but I do have some things to add.
Pete Gross: Regarding cloud seeding, it’s very simple. There’s a certain amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Pete Gross: It cycles through. The residence time for water vapor is about nine days.
Pete Gross: All the cloud seeding do, it’s a zero-sum game. If you don’t have the precipitation in one place or if you increase it in one place, you’re decreasing it from somewhere else.
Pete Gross: And besides all the facts that Mary pointed out, it’s just an absurd plan, let alone throwing money at it. Regarding the travel plan, Michael Wolf stated much more eloquently than I can.
Pete Gross: My former boss, a guy named Martin Litton, used to chastise his, Dave Brower, that the BLM plan already was a compromised plan. My boss would chastise Dave Brower saying, Dave, we compromised too much already.
Pete Gross: What are we going to compromise with next time? The thing we saved this time?
Pete Gross: Stick with the plan as done. You don’t need to change it.
Pete Gross: Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We want to go to somebody online.
Wes Usry: You can, Rich Klein.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ll go to the online and then we’ll get back to you. Rich, please.
Rich Klein: Yes. I want to say thank you for taking me.
Rich Klein: I’m Rich Klein, president of an event called Trail Hero here in Washington County, calling in support of George Schultz and the Red Rock Four-Wheelers, as well as Moab Chamber OHV Initiative. From our own dealings, both in Washington County and in Grand County, we’ve seen and dealt with people who are of special needs and veterans who utilize the therapeutic benefits of motorized access due to these events and these vehicles.
Rich Klein: And when you think about the idea that public lands are for the public, we actually completely agree. We agree that it’s for all of the public, including those with disabilities.
Rich Klein: And a lot of these motorized vehicles are these people’s legs. They can’t jump on a horse, ride a bike, go for a hike.
Rich Klein: They need motorized access to experience those therapeutic benefits that Moab is one of only few places to be able to offer. With that being said, off-roading or the land itself is not just to able-bodied people.
Rich Klein: We’ve worked specifically with Grand County in providing motorized access to people of special needs that had never, ever had the chance to experience what Moab had to offer as far as off-roading was concerned. They’d never gotten a chance to experience the arches or anything outside of the valley itself.
Rich Klein: And we felt like that was pretty sad. I’ve been attending Moab every year during EJS and other times of the year since 1998.
Rich Klein: And when you close lands down because of groups like SUA who initially want lands closed to all people, not just motorized access, but eventually it’ll be horse riders and bike riders and hikers as well. And they’ve actually come out publicly and said this only a short couple of years ago.
Rich Klein: When you do that and you start giving them inches, you eventually take or lose miles. And as someone from the other side of the state, we are in full support of all the off-road events and those that support motorized access to the outdoors, specifically to people with special needs and veterans.
Rich Klein: When you close down certain routes, that impacts people. They don’t get the same opportunities that able-bodied people do.
Rich Klein: And we appreciate your guys’ support and the continuation of that. So additionally, all these events give economic impact to the area, which is pretty vast.
Rich Klein: And when you start closing down routes, that gives people fewer reasons to attend events, fewer reasons to spend money in the area. And then of course, fewer experiences available as well.
Rich Klein: So I appreciate your guys’ time. Thanks for having me on and hope the best for you guys.
Rich Klein: And good luck to the Red Rock Four-Wheelers in favor of extending off-road use in Grand County. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. And Angela, are you on to speak at Citizens to be Heard?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Please.
Angie Book: I am. So hello, my name is Angie Book and I’m a Grand County employee and one of the county’s department heads.
Angie Book: I would like to speak tonight regarding the decision on changing the medical. As the commission decides this evening regarding the medical, I would like to ask that you take a deep consideration on how impactful this could be on an employee and their family.
Angie Book: I’m currently under medical care and receiving treatment that requires me to see doctors and specialists in Colorado. I’m currently in the middle of treatment and this will cause an immense amount of stress mentally and financially if my medical changes along with the need to find new doctors and educate these doctors on my treatment plan.
Angie Book: I also have a child with severe asthma and requires multiple inhalers. These medications are extremely expensive with Cigna.
Angie Book: With Cigna, these inhalers are manageable to attain. As a department head, I currently have two staff members that will need to look into other employment opportunities if the medical coverage is also to change.
Angie Book: One of the sought after benefits of being a Grand County employee is the benefits that are offered. New hires consider the county’s benefit package when receiving a job offer and it’s definitely a perk that counters some of the pay for some of the positions.
Angie Book: So I urge the commission to vote to stay with our current medical coverage Cigna tonight. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. And if there’s anybody else online and I will get to you when we, sir, in the front row there when we get down online.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Bob, please.
Bob O’Brien: Yeah, Bob O’Brien, Castle Valley. And I’m opposed to the letter on the agenda that recommends changes to the 2023 Labyrinth-Gemini Bridges Travel Plan.
Bob O’Brien: This plan was adopted in 2023 after several years of public process with input from a range of stakeholders and the Bureau of Land Management and of course, based on much research. So I think it’s had a great deal of public participation at that time.
Bob O’Brien: Now with little time for review or public input, it is proposed that the county will write a letter that would roll back the heart of the plan. A plan that allows several hundreds miles of travel for OHVs, but additionally offers enhanced protection for wildlife and cultural resources.
Bob O’Brien: This proposed letter encourages BLM to ignore its role in protecting wildlife on this land and the cultural and historic resources. I’m gonna urge each of the commissioners to vote no on sending this letter.
Bob O’Brien: Such a vote would reassure your constituents that our county commission believes in the protection of wildlife and cultural resources on our public land. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. I also got Jeff Swanson.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Jeff Swanson, would you like to speak?
Jeff Swanson: Yes, I would.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Please go ahead and introduce yourself and it’s all yours.
Jeff Swanson: My name is Jeff Swanson. I would like to share some experiences I’ve had in the past and the present and what might be the future as it comes to arches.
Jeff Swanson: My family and I come to Moab two to three times a year. Arches is almost always on our list of things to do.
Jeff Swanson: In the past, we would go to arches and my kids laugh about it now, but those signs on the side of the road that say an hour from this point, an hour and a half from this point, two hours from this point, we laugh now because we drive right by them. Once timed entry started, we could get in in a reasonable amount of time.
Jeff Swanson: We could find parking everywhere we wanted to go. We might have to wait a minute or two, but we could find parking, get in, hike in a nice, not very crowded atmosphere and see everything.
Jeff Swanson: Well, that all was really nice and we enjoyed it. Well, yesterday we came and because of the government shutdown, we didn’t have to show our timed entry permits, but also we had to circle the parking lots.
Jeff Swanson: We had to skip things we wanted to do because there was no parking. We had to wait in line in non-moving traffic because people would wait for someone to leave and you’d move up one car length and somebody else would be waiting for someone to leave.
Jeff Swanson: We’ve spent way more time in our car yesterday than we ever spent hiking to arches that we love to do. I really, really enjoy arches.
Jeff Swanson: My kids love arches. I think it’s something that everybody ought to have the chance to see and it’s not a big deal.
Jeff Swanson: I’ve never not been able to get a timed entry ticket. The day I wanted, the time I wanted takes a little tiny bit planning ahead, but yesterday was an eye opener.
Jeff Swanson: We couldn’t stop where we wanted to. Finally, on the way home around four in the afternoon, we found a parking spot at Park Avenue because nobody was coming in.
Jeff Swanson: So finally, the very first thing you get to in the park, we could find a parking spot for. And we finally got to do one thing without waiting and waiting and waiting all day.
Jeff Swanson: I think timed entry was a blessing for this town. It made it worth going to.
Jeff Swanson: It made it fun to come to. My kids used to complain, are we really going there again?
Jeff Swanson: Because we come all the time. Are we really going to wait and wait and sit in the car and try to find a parking spot?
Jeff Swanson: It’s tough and I understand, but from the outsider’s point of view, time entry makes arches a much better place. Thank you very much for allowing me to give you my input.
Jeff Swanson: Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you.
George Schultz: Simone Griffin, I believe online.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Simone, are you online to speak at Citizens of the Earth? Anyone else online to speak at Citizens of the Earth?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. We will go with the gentleman in the front row.
John Kovash: I’m John Kovash, a 25 year resident. I also concur that this doesn’t seem very transparent to have a last minute hurried effort to redo the 2023 decision.
John Kovash: It seems highly skeptical that in a quick whirlwind of activity, you could do better on participation with the public and arriving at something that was acceptable to your constituents. So I also urge you not to make any kind of vote today because I heard about this draft letter, could not find it anywhere.
John Kovash: I have no, you know, so ultimately, I have no idea what I’m commenting on. But, you know, I would just like to address, you know, for years and years now, the Blue Ribbon Coalition and all its compatriot groups have had two major talking points.
John Kovash: One is my disabled grandma needs to be able to drive to absolutely any remote corner of the Outback, no matter where it is. You know, forget whether this land is sensitive and this land isn’t or whatever.
John Kovash: And I guarantee you that if somebody brings their disabled grandma to Moab, even if they’re here for two or three weeks, there are so many places they can already go with grandma that this is just a farcical point. I mean, it’s just a smokescreen.
John Kovash: The other is, oh, we bring so much money to town and you’re going to lose all the money that we bring. They, that doesn’t hold a candle to the money we lose from all the people that they drive away.
John Kovash: You know, and I think I’m pretty typical of every single person I know from out of state says, I don’t come here anymore because of the ATVs. And you’re, you know, nobody’s ever done a formal study on this, but I guarantee if they did, it would be shocking how many people we drive away by not taming the situation here.
John Kovash: And then just finally, I’d like to say, I’ve never been in Labyrinth Canyon, but I saw the, watched the videos that have been circulating recently and I was just blown away by what a special place this is. I mean, this close to Moab, a place that is still that pristine, still that unspoiled, it would just be the saddest thing there is to allow that to just become part of the motor den.
John Kovash: And so, you know, I mean, I beg you to not do anything, but if you do, please at least wait another week or two before you make any kind of votes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, sir. Anyone else?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, ma’am.
Sam Cunningham: My name is Sam Cunningham. I was a former county commissioner.
Sam Cunningham: I sit on as a co-chair of Grand Conservation District who not specifically speak about this, but I’m talking on general terms about agriculture in the south part of a beautiful valley that is not what it was. And I’m talking about how it could still remain somewhat that way.
Sam Cunningham: When we moved here in 1982, I know my co-workers, when I went to work said, my goodness, have you gone out there in poverty flats? Have you bought a house in poverty flats?
Sam Cunningham: And don’t you know, that’s all egg and it’s ranch and it’s farm and what are you doing out there? There are not very many houses.
Sam Cunningham: And I certainly understand why there aren’t very many houses at that time and why there are now. And who can say anything about that in Moab?
Sam Cunningham: Because we all love our place. We’d like to share it with other people.
Sam Cunningham: There’s nothing wrong with that. And at that time, there was one house to one acre, almost universally.
Sam Cunningham: And the people enjoyed a rural way of life. They came for a rural way of life.
Sam Cunningham: Well, we’ve passed that point. All I ask you is make appropriate sightings.
Sam Cunningham: I know you have several things either on this agenda or they’re going to be recused to another agenda, such as the water tank and other, there’s another land as well. And I understand that we have to make provisions for water.
Sam Cunningham: We have to make provisions for the people who want to move here. That’s certainly understandable.
Sam Cunningham: And I think everybody in town can agree with that. But I don’t think we can agree with what is appropriate and what is not.
Sam Cunningham: And if you put something inappropriate in a place that could be better used for something else, you’ve not only misused that property, but as you can see, there are a number of people that don’t feel that those sites are appropriate, despite the fact that you group may. And so I want to say that I know you have public meetings.
Sam Cunningham: I know that you have opportunities right now for the public to speak. And that’s an opportunity for the public again, to speak, to have a voice.
Sam Cunningham: But please, I ask you, it’s your job also to listen.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Yes, please, sir.
Dave Hellman: My name is Dave Hellman. I’m owner of Extreme 4×4 Tours, Moab Scenic Adventures at Moab.
Dave Hellman: I’m also the 4×4 rep for the Motorized Trails Community of Barrett County. I came here today, actually learned some stuff since I’ve been in here.
Dave Hellman: It’s pretty nice. But I came here today to talk about the BLM, the BLM letter and the trails and all that.
Dave Hellman: And I want to say that I’ve explored some of that area. I haven’t explored all of it.
Dave Hellman: I would really like to be able to take my kids someday to some of the overlooks that got closed. From what I understand, they’re not trying to reopen all the mileage that was closed, just certain specific ones that will help with shared access.
Dave Hellman: And I heard somebody saying about disabled old grandma. There’s a lot of young disabled military vets and a lot of other people that are in their 20s that are missing legs and missing arms.
Dave Hellman: And the way for them to get access back to the back lands by some kind of motorized mechanism, whether it’s bikes or four wheel drive, jeeps are required. But also, I’ve been on the river.
Dave Hellman: I’ve been up on the tops of the canyons and the people on canoes down in the rivers that they’re using that as an excuse. Unless you’re standing on the very edge of the canyon, looking down at them, they can’t see you.
Dave Hellman: If you’re back in a safe camping distance away, the people on the river will never see the people on top. The noise on top doesn’t carry down into the canyon like the noise in the canyon carries back up to the top.
Dave Hellman: I’ve been up at the top of Hell’s Revenge on a regular basis. You can hear everything in town.
Dave Hellman: You can be in town on midnight. If there’s side-by-sides coming off Hell’s Revenge, you cannot hear them.
Dave Hellman: So the noise thing there, I disagree with that. I think that certain things should be open.
Dave Hellman: I know that I believe they’re not opening to all of them. Some of them were old cow trails and old mining exclusion roads.
Dave Hellman: Yeah, keep those closed. But I think it’s fair that people say we want to share.
Dave Hellman: Well, let’s open up a few more that make sense to open up. And I know that there was a lot of study done.
Dave Hellman: Anyways, the other one, the commission with the UTV doing the signage and doing the hard medium, I think that’s a great program. I agree with that.
Dave Hellman: I think that should be a go-forward thing with it. And what I learned today was I didn’t realize the county was going to spend tax on having our skies sprayed with chemtrails.
Dave Hellman: And I have kids here. And since the government shut down, the sky has been clear and we’ve gotten rain.
Dave Hellman: And I think it’s an absolute waste of our local tax money to pay the government to poison us. That’s all I got to say.
Dave Hellman: Thank you, guys. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? And yes, please.
Wes Usry: Good afternoon, commissioners. I’m Wes Usry.
Wes Usry: I live on the south side of Moab. I am in absolute favor of keeping all of our trails open.
Wes Usry: A lot of us use these trails. I see this gentleman here wearing his mountain biking gear.
Wes Usry: He needs those trails. And I support you and being a coach for the team here.
Wes Usry: Thank you very much. The other thing is we got to keep a clear discussion path forward.
Wes Usry: And this means keeping the opinions of yourself until a decision is made, keep that off of public forums. Going back to opening up the BLM land, like Rich Klein stated, they’re asking for an inch.
Wes Usry: It’s going to turn into a mile. And not only I hear a lot of comments about wildlife and culture, we’re looking at keeping the current roads open.
Wes Usry: And not creating new roads. So those are already established roadways.
Wes Usry: And it has a lot bigger benefit for not only us as the typical day-to-day users, but also for our tourism industry and our people that hunt and fish. And, you know, we have a lot of discussions that are strictly just off-road highway use vehicles only.
Wes Usry: But we’re not taking into consideration the outdoors men as well. That’s all I got to say.
Wes Usry: Thank you for your time. Yeah, thank you.
George Schultz: We’ve got Simone Griffin back online.
Wes Usry: Okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Simone, are you online to speak at Citizens to be Heard?
Simone Griffin: Yes, I am. Thank you.
Simone Griffin: Sorry about that. My name is Simone Griffin.
Simone Griffin: I am the policy director for Blue Ribbon Coalition. And I want to, on behalf of our members, which we represent hundreds of thousands of members across all 50 states.
Simone Griffin: And if they have not visited Moab yet, it is a bucket list item for them. Our members, our supporters, they love Moab and they want to be able to recreate there.
Simone Griffin: And we want to add our support to what George Shultz has previously said in Red Rock Four-Wheelers and we strongly support the commission in voting to send this letter to the BLM. We highly recommend that the BLM does reopen these routes.
Simone Griffin: They provide various cultural and economic benefits. People have mentioned recreational value for some of the routes.
Simone Griffin: And routes that may not have recreational value for you may have some for others. And so we shouldn’t be putting ourselves and the BLM and our public land into a box.
Simone Griffin: We believe that these routes provide valuable recreation experience. And it’s time that the BLM is up to date with the Explore Act that mandates agencies such as the BLM to expand motorized recreation.
Simone Griffin: There’s also proposed legislation that is the Outdoor Americans with Disabilities Act. And if passed, this plan would have to become in compliance with that legislation also.
Simone Griffin: So this is a good starting place to do that. And just current administrative goals and priorities.
Simone Griffin: It’s important they reopen these routes. Another thing to note is that the Endangered Species Act, the definition of takings, is being reconsidered.
Simone Griffin: And that’s also going to affect the environmental and wildlife and habitat aspect of this plan. That there’s not sufficient data.
Simone Griffin: That there’s real taking of these species on this land. And so these routes can and should be reopened.
Simone Griffin: We highly support and recommend the commission in sending this letter. And we are appreciative of this letter.
Simone Griffin: And want to work with the commission moving forward to see these routes reopened. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Anyone else online?
Bill Winfield, Chair: I think that’s it for online. Okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else in the chamber? Going once.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Going twice. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We will move on. Thank you, everybody.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Let’s see. We will move into our general business action items.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Starting with commission member disclosures. If anyone has any.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Mike. My wife works for the Sheriff’s Department.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. Anyone else have anything?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Mary.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: My son works for.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. Anybody?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Moving on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We will move on to the consent agenda items then. One starting off here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We have approval of the meeting minutes from October 7, 2025. Ratification of payment of bills.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Total bills $895,113.74. Total payroll $299,716.34.
Bill Winfield, Chair: With the total bills and payroll of $1,194,830.08. Ratification of emergency purchase of the county phone system.
Bill Winfield, Chair: D, indemnification release for the Alta ski lifts. E, approval of quote with APCO International for Intellicom dispatch software.
Bill Winfield, Chair: F, release of the one-year maintenance bond for the Arawara subdivision. Hope I’m not butchering that.
Bill Winfield, Chair: G, the Grand County Sheriff’s Office court security chief job description revision. H, ratification of grant application from the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I, 2026 county fire warden agreement. Yes.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I make a motion to approve the consent agenda items.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCandless. Seconded by Commissioner McCurdy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All in favor? Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Was that consent agenda? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. With all present.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so we will move on to item number four. Co-op office of tourism travel show attendance expense approval.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s Ali.
Angie Book: Hi.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Hartford to help us. Yes.
Ali Harford: So usually our travel show registration has been in our pre-authorized list. But these two are not.
Ali Harford: So we would like to go. The first one is ITB in Berlin.
Ali Harford: It’s in March. And it’s a travel show very similar to IPW where we with European travel agents and operators to talk about Moab.
Ali Harford: And then and we’ve gone to this one before. And we usually go with visit USA and the UOTs.
Ali Harford: And we work like through the UOTs German rep. And then the second one is new.
Ali Harford: It’s a recommendation from our PR agency to attend Trav Media’s international media marketplace. So we’re just very similarly to these other international travel shows where we’ll go and we’ll have appointments with media.
Ali Harford: In the past, journalists from like Travel and Leisure, Condé Nast Traveler, New York Times have gone. And we’d love to meet with them.
Ali Harford: PR is a lot about relationships. And so we hope that, you know, multiple stories would come out of the appointment that we have.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes. I move to approve the request for travel show expenses for the ITB and Trav Media IMM.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Handler. Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I apologize, Jacques. And seconded by Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All in favor? Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you very much, Holly. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And moving on, we will start off here with the 2026 Employee Health Insurance Selection test barter. And I do see that we’ve got our two folks, three still online there, Tess, if there’s anything we need from them.
Tess Barger, HR: So to start, to clarify some of the information provided in the presentation, the presentation was specifically geared to our medical insurance plan. The reason for that is because our dental and vision plans, we’ve received a zero percent renewal rate guaranteed for two years on both of those.
Tess Barger, HR: And that is through Cigna. So we didn’t recommend to make any changes to that.
Tess Barger, HR: We’ve generally received. So there’s no need for us to make that change.
Tess Barger, HR: Additionally, we have a number of voluntary and supplemental plans that we offer to staff. And so we’re also recommending that we keep all of those plans as is.
Tess Barger, HR: So again, really what we have been discussing this evening is specific to our medical insurance. I’m just getting logged back in.
Tess Barger, HR: And so for this discussion, what I wanted to ensure is that particularly while we do still have Derek Applegate with HP as well as Rick Stewart with GPS Benefits here, there are any questions that we were not able to address during the presentation. If we’re able to go ahead and ask those questions of them.
Tess Barger, HR: And then I have a few additional moderated questions I was going to ask Derek specifically. Are there any questions that we weren’t able to either answer or to fully fully?
Tess Barger, HR: Yes. Yes.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Well, just something that I was realizing since our last meeting on October 7th, as we were expecting that signal was going to increase by 8.77. And after these renegotiations and continued, it’s now an increase of 4.78%.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I really appreciate all the work that you’ve done. And I think that that’s a really good number to go in.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I would make a motion and then we can have a discussion. I’m going to make a motion that we renew with Cigna, which is our current insurance carrier rate of 4.78%, which would be an annual increase of $143,969.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that motion. Motion by Commissioner McCandless, second by Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I will open it up for discussions. We’ll start with Trish.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That would be great. I did a little bit of research today.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And the average renewal rate on the open market, which I understand this is not, is 18%. The average for employers is about 6%.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But right now, I read an article from September 25, US Health and World News states that going into 26, it’s going to be the highest rise in it for employers as far as health insurance premiums in 15 years, 9% average. So kind of reiterating that they’re well below that due to just pricing pressures, utilization rates, et cetera, and so on.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And the last thing I want to say is I think it’s imperative. And I heard from a couple of employees regarding this.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: The way to keep good employees is to offer competitive pay, to offer a nice place to work and to provide comprehensive benefits. And I have PHP through the school district.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I have issues with PHP. But I do, I put money away in an HSA that kind of compensates.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But I personally put that money away to compensate for those issues with PHP. I don’t want our employees to have to do that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I want them to know that they have solid insurance that covers themselves and their family. And so I am going to vote with you now.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m assuming that’s how you’re going to vote. Maybe not.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But you may have a chance to your own notion.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? Mary?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s the percentage that is going up is pretty good. And my experience, because I was under a different insurance company, and then it moved PHP.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I think when you move to any insurance company, not just PHP, but what ends up is they end up increasing their percentage until it finally is awash with what we started with. And Sigma has been working well for our employees.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And it’s a big deal to change an insurance company. I mean, if anybody’s changed, been in that situation, making sure you have the doctors and things change.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, all of a sudden, you can’t go to the orthopedic person you were going to. And it’s disruptive.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I would just slow the percentage. I would like to keep our employees not having to go through those hiccups that will undoubtedly happen if we switch insurance.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes, Commissioner Hadler. I’m one of those who has to provide their own insurance for my wife and my two kids.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And we shop in the open market every single year and switch frequently. And it’s a pain.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think both these plans are decent. And I very much applaud our HR department for all the work and energy that’s gone into really finding a good solution either way.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So thanks, Tess, for all your effort. But I think that this is one of the biggest reasons, one of the best reasons to come and work in Gray County and to retain employees and not having to change plans is a big bonus.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And thanks to everyone who’s made this work. Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Once again, just thank you, Tess, for going out and doing this work. You know, we asked to try to find ways to reduce the overhead of the county.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But you went out and looked at something that was, that could really reduce it. And, you know, coming in at 8% to start with, you know, and then going through this whole negotiation process and coming out at 4% I think like Commissioner McCandless had said, I think is a big deal.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I don’t know if that would happen had we not gone out and put this out for good. With that being said, we’re still looking at $250,000 in savings.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And when we look at that, I mean, I see these benefits and I see the changes. And the reason I had so many questions, right, is because, I mean, do these changes equal the people that we might have to lose, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The adjustments that we’re making in, that we’re talking about in the policy so that people can not have to work full time and still make these adjustments in these offices so that we can meet the revenues that are coming in right now. These are some of the tough choices that we’re being faced with as we’re coming in.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I think this is all, it gets back to, you know, previous years of talking down our economy. I think that if our economy was, you know, running strong and, you know, we had money coming in and we were on an increase, I think it wouldn’t be such a hard decision.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But with the way that our revenues have been looking and the current trends, I mean, this makes this a very difficult decision. As I’ve looked at the averages, they do look very similar right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And, you know, I’m still trying to look and find the main pain points right there or switch right now. I know that we’ve talked about, there’s a 7% increase with PHP in 2027, but that doesn’t mean that we couldn’t switch back again.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I understand that it’s hard. And I did have, yeah, you’re okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And that was why I asked that question. It was how difficult this is gonna be for your office, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But with that said, I mean, I do agree with both Commissioner Hadeen and Commissioner Hadler on the importance benefits for people at the county. Me myself, I mean, I just got health insurance two years ago, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Like I’ve lived without health insurance my whole life. You know what I mean?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I think that there’s a lot of people here in Grand County who are that same way, right? And so when we’re talking about this, we have to realize, I think, you know, the people that we’re representing, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s a lot of people that are out here paying property taxes, right? They don’t have health insurance themselves.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I just wanna kind of put a couple of those things out there. Thanks.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Thank you, Commissioner. I just wanna make sure that it would be my second turn.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I don’t want- Commissioner Hadeen, please go ahead. You guys are good.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m gonna push back a little bit on Brian. I agree.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think we’re deep into the budgeting process and we do need to be making cuts. But as of yet, it’s not really happening.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And we keep spending money in random ways. And we have one on the agenda tonight.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so I think we need to start prioritizing what is important. And to me, the employees are at the top of my list in taking care of our employees.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So if we need to start cutting travel budgets, if we need to start cutting random spins that we’re not sure where that money goes, that’s where we need to start hacking. So that it’s not- it wouldn’t take us that much to absorb this within our budget, this increase, by making some minor changes, which we’re still not doing.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, some departments have done a really good job. But I think we need to look at ourselves and see what we can do.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Yes, Commissioner.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’d just like to add that. I just heard that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So what you just mentioned right there, Commissioner, you would add up to $45,000. We’re talking about- I mean, I could go on.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I agree, but there are little things. Thank you.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s $45,000. This is $250,000.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was an example. Oh, thank you.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I just wanted to just point that out right there, that it is going to be difficult, and these are tough choices, no matter if it’s, you know, cut in travel budgets that are going out, trying to bring money back into this community, or that’s, you know, a cloud sync program that’s being funded by the state.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I will close up and then call for a vote. I too see a need to take care of our employees here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I know, Tess, you’ve done a lot of work on this, and I appreciate the workshop that we had here prior to the commission meeting, but I think that if we were to do this again, that we should probably hold some workshops for the employees to kind of get them to where they understood and where a lot of their questions were answered maybe in advance. I know that it answered a ton of my questions, and I think that if they had the chance to sit down and go over some of this, they might have seen where we’re at the end of the day.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I feel like we’re very close to apples to apples here, but I don’t think that they feel that way, and I’m going to support, you know, I agree with all the commissioners that want to support our staff here. I do as well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I don’t see any reason to bring up travel budgets, or we can talk about trying to increase the snow level here, all of these minuscule things. That’s not what we’re dealing with.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’re dealing with our employees, and the fact that they still feel more comfortable on Cigna right now, and I think that’s the way that I’m going to have to go. So I’m going to support that, but if we do look at this again next year, I think we’ve really got to engage them a lot more and show them exactly what we’re looking at.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I appreciate all your time and effort for everything we’ve done in here as well. I think Mark was pretty heavily involved in this as well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So thank you. And with that, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All in favor of Melodie’s motion to stay with Cigna? Those opposed?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Passes with one opposed, Commissioner Martinez. Moving on to item number six, the 2026 High Impact Special Events Ready for Review with Janabeth Jones.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And thanks to you guys staying online, even though we didn’t have any more questions. It’s at least at the top of it yet.
Pam Hackley: Yeah, I didn’t think you’d catch on that.
Jenny Beth Jones: My name is Janabeth Jones. I’m the Special Events Coordinator, and I’m just presenting.
Jenny Beth Jones: Looks like we have six events ready for approval in 2026. Starting out with Cruise Moab on April 13th through the 18th.
Jenny Beth Jones: It’s a 28-year recurring event for the four-wheel drive Toyota vehicles and enthusiasts. Mostly takes place at Osta.
Jenny Beth Jones: Next is the Red Rock Rally. Let me back up again.
Jenny Beth Jones: April 23rd through the 25th. Again, taking place at Osta.
Jenny Beth Jones: We have the CO2 UT Gravel Race. Taking place on April 25th.
Jenny Beth Jones: It is a recurring event of six years. It’s a cycling event that starts and ends in Fruta.
Jenny Beth Jones: And then moving on to May, we have the Trans Rockies Bike Fest. So this one, they are combining a couple of their events this time around, and it’s April 30th through May 4th.
Jenny Beth Jones: It’s a recurring event of 12 years. The C10 Red Rock Retreat, which was new to us last year.
Jenny Beth Jones: However, their entire event is a charity benefit for Search and Rescue. And it mostly takes place in the city, but they do do a cruise down the river road to Red Cliffs Lodge.
Jenny Beth Jones: And then the final one is not until September. It’s the 19th through the 21st.
Jenny Beth Jones: The Skinny Tire Fall Festival. This one’s a recurring event of 25 years.
Jenny Beth Jones: And that’s a three-day road cycling event. Pretty straightforward.
Jenny Beth Jones: Any questions?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thank you, Mr. McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’d like to make the motion. Motion that we approve the high-impact special events as presented.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy. Seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Discussion? Yes or no?
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I do just want to comment just because we had on our last high-impact meeting, we had the Red Rock Rally in here. And it is going to be during the car show.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I do have that concern. So I’m hoping that they’re listening somewhere and that we are going to make sure that to encourage their participants to not drag Maine with our old car show.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But they’re getting a two-for-one. You know, they get to come to Moab and go Red Rock Rallying, but they also get to be here during one of our most awesome events, which is the car show.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I would hate to have that. You know, next year, the day wouldn’t be open for that if that’s the case.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So anyways, I just want to put that out there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I didn’t catch you.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think Mike was first.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mike was first?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think so.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: You know, I’m going to like what Mel said, Commissioner McCandless said today, but I’m going to encourage the C10 Rock Retreat to cruise Maine. During their event also.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So because pretty awesome trucks out there. Commissioner Hadler and then Commissioner Heddy.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I want to state, I’m in favor of five of these events. I’m not in favor of the Red Rock Rally at that particular time.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: If they stayed to their June date, I would vote to approve. I think it’s a much more appropriate time for them to be in town.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think the, I love car show. I’m stoked about it every year.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s also one of the very noisiest events that we have. And any UT event, UTV event town is also going to be very noisy.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: When you pile those on top of each other for a weekend, I think it’s going to be, I think it’s going to put a burden on visitors and residents alike. So I, again, I would, I’m not going to vote for the motion as presented.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’m fairly certain it’ll pass anyway. So I’m not even going to bother to make a substitute motion to approve the other five.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I hope that Red Rock Rally can figure out a better date next time. I also want to say with these special events, it’s not a net.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s not always a net gain. I mean, there’s plenty of people who don’t come to town during, especially a motorized event.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Back when I was running the bike shop for years, people would specifically call and ask. And again, I very much support the Eastern Jeep Safari, but frequently my customers would call and ask when Jeep Safari was, because they didn’t want to come to Moab that week.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And a lot of times they just didn’t come to Moab because it didn’t work out. They, it conflicted.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And that is what it is. But if we, when we have these big cloud events that clash with other users, it’s not, you don’t, you don’t get, it’s not a net, you know, we don’t get 450 people from Red Rock Rally here without losing other people coming to town.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I just want to point that out. I’m done.
Speaker 37: Mary.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Oh, yes.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m going to agree with Jacques, and I want to make it very clear that every time the Red Rock Rally has come up for a vote, I have voted for it. But this time I’m not because of laying over the top of car show.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think it’s a really, I think it’s a bad move. Hopefully it’s not.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, hopefully if it occurs, we say, oh, there was no conflicts and it was fine. And they weren’t dragging Maine along with all the old cars.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But anyways, I guess we’ll just see if it does pass today. But I will not vote for it because of laying over the top of car show.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s simply the only reason.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Commissioner McGann. I share the concern of it being at the same weekend of car show, because, you know, it’s going to bring the car show weekend is extremely busy.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And restaurants become extremely busy, you know, hotel. Yeah, it’s it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I believe that if we add more people onto the already large number of people that are coming, what it’s going to do is sour the event for both events, because they’re going to be waiting for an hour to get into restaurants. They’re going to be, it’s going to just, you know, I remember one weekend years ago that before we started really looking at our events, we had two large events accidentally happen on the same weekend or without awareness.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And it was it was scary. I mean, I remember pedestrians coming close to being hit.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, you know, the problems in all parking lots, the city market to a walker drug to village market parking lots. I mean, there was just so many people that became a health safety hazard.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I support the Red Rock event. I, I would, you know, I just am really concerned about being on the same weekend as the car show.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I’m really sad that we have all these events here and two on my weekend without any in June or July that we go from May. And I understand it’s hot, but, you know, it’s I, you know, it’s not against.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: You know, the TV event. It’s just hard for us.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And it’s been an ongoing thing for I can’t remember how many years. So I just am uncomfortable putting another huge event on top.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Martuz.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Yeah. So.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Jackie brought up a good point, you know, about the, you know, the capacity of the town. I mean, I’ve noticed it, not with just motorized events, but with movies.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s a big movie that comes in town at our business. You know, people can’t find good deals.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I have 1000 rates go up and, you know, we’ll see less travel. And if you’re not actually involved with the movie shoot, you know, you’re missing out.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Right. So I think that that’s that’s something that happens all across the board, whether it’s, you know, motorized event and same thing with the half marathon.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, I mean, we take a hit on that, you know, because we can’t go up on the river because they close the river road down. And, you know, those are days that we’ve had to, we’ve had to take off on a river schedule.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I think a lot of businesses are used to kind of navigating this past over. But, you know, I do think that our town’s capacity where that I think that we can hold somewhere around people inside of this town is kind of where we’re at.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I’m not sure if these two events right here are going to cause us to to go over that capacity. When you’re including all the campgrounds and everything like that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But what it will do is it will put strains on local businesses that are used to running tours and all types of things out there on the back country. As far as the noise goes, you know, I think that, you know, acting all that noise into one, I don’t think it’s going to get loud.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It would have been it was just a car show. Right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, having having the, you know, the loud vehicles driving up and down Main Street and the OHVs driving down Main Street at the same time, I don’t think that’s going to make it any louder than it would. I think it’s just going to be putting it in at the same time.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then the safety factor, I think that’s the big reason that they moved it. Right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: They did have some, I mean, this is an event that we all support right here. They did have some EMS calls out on their on their previous time because it got hotter in that June period.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And June, like we talked about our last meeting, it can go it can go either which way with the weather. June can be marvelous or it can be, you know, it can be really hot.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I think that them moving back this year is great. Will it be available next year?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’m not sure how that calendar is going to go. But it’s something that I support.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, I’d like to make a couple of comments and maybe suggestion here that might help some of the other commissioners be more open to supporting what we’re doing here. And that is, I think there’s a lot of responsibility on Red Rock’s shoulders with this event.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ve already, we have a very comfortable event with the car show. And for the most part, I know that some people don’t enjoy the noise when they do get out on the streets.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But for the most part, the car show is run and it’s like clockwork. They do a very good job here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And introducing the Red Rock at the same time here is going to create an opportunity for them to succeed or fail at how we handle our local community here. And next year when they come back, if they have made a mess of this community, it’s going to be hard for them to get a permit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’d really like to see the support from the rest of the commissioners here in both of these events. And I know it’s going to be tricky and that there’s going to be a huge responsibility on their shoulders to make this go off.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I see you, Mary, when I finish, I’ll call on you. But I think there’s an opportunity here to try and let it happen this year because they don’t have another option.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We just can’t force them into the summertime when we have these health issues that we had last time. And so I really think that I think there’s room here for everybody to kind of come together on this and make a very clear message to Red Rock that you’ve got to work this out and you’ve got to understand that we have a large event that we don’t ever want to lose.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The car show, I mean, it’s pretty sacred here to me more so than the Jeep Safari is. And so I say, let’s look at this and see if we can come to agreement and support it and put a little responsibility on their shoulders.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’ll go with Mary, Mike and Trish. Did you have your hand up?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, my bad.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I just wanted to make it clear. It wasn’t a thought like in the red.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: You know, I thought I did an excellent job last year. I just, it’s, I’m concerned, not just the noises of my concern is that I’m afraid that next year there will be people that choose not to come to either one of the events.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Their experience in town will be diminished because of the size of the grounds. But I support both.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Thank you.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Mike, pardon the hands, we’re too in the bush. We can, we as businesses, half of us out here can plan ahead for a lot of these events to into next year’s schedule.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: That’s, pardon the hands, we’re too in the bush. Where the saying comes from, knowing how busy I’m going to be is just as good as hoping for twice as much.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And do we have a motion on the table?
Speaker 37: Yeah.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And a second. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Do we have any further discussion?
Pam Hackley: Wait a second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Sorry about that. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All those in favor of the high impact special events, those opposed? Passes with three opposed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler and Commissioner McGann. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We will move on to. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you again, Beth. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Kaufman, item number seven, consideration of denial of tax relief applications. 10-9-2025.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Good evening.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: Chris Kaufman, Grand Canyon Treasurer. And about the tax bills, we’ll hopefully be hitting mailboxes very soon.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: So I come to you at this time of year to get approval and denials on tax relief applications that we have received so far. The deadline for tax relief applications is officially September 1st.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: So we have received the vast majority of them. We do get a few stragglers in that we have some flexibility on approving the rest of the year.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: And I will bring those to you at the beginning of next year. We have received four applications this year that unfortunately were over the income limit.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: There is a state income limit, but then the county has its own limit, which is 120% of that limit per ordinance that was passed, I believe, in 2022. And all of these applications were over that county limit as well.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: These applications are protected documents. So they’re not in the public domain.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: But I did provide them to commissioners and they are numbered one through four if there are any questions or if we need to discuss any of them. The tax commission has recommended that the commission approve the denial of these applications as opposed to my office doing it on its own.
Speaker 37: So any questions about these?
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: Yes.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Oh, no questions. I was just gonna make a motion.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I move to approve the denial of tax relief applications numbered one through four for 2025 as presented.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that. Motion by Commissioner McCanva.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner Hedin. Further discussion?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: No, I just, sorry. I just wanna reiterate what Chris said that in 2022, we passed, you know, raising that threshold.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So hopefully to absorb more people under that umbrella. And so I think we’re trying really hard to do what we can do to give some tax relief.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Maybe we’ll have to raise it more.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor? Passes six with one absent, Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Moving on to number eight, consideration of the 2025 property tax abatements and cancellations through 10-9-2025. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Kaufman again. Thank you.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: So this is the good part, approving all of the applications that have been accepted and that meet the criteria to receive tax relief. Again, this is for veterans with a service-related disability, persons who are legally blind, and also low-income individuals who are also age 64 or over, a surviving spouse, disabled, or experiencing an extreme hardship.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: I’m also including on this some tax cancellations that we have had throughout the year. In your packet, there is a line-by-line explanation of each cancellation and how much they were for and the reason for each of those.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: I do want to note that in that list of cancellations, I am recommending that we cancel the taxes on a state-assessed parcel, which I believe is some old oil and gas equipment out in the desert somewhere that the tax commission has finally decided is no longer worth, or it has fallen below the exemption limit, so we don’t tax it anymore. And the reason we don’t take these kinds of things to tax sale is that if no one bids on it, then the county ends up owning it and then we would be responsible for going out and cleaning it up.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: And so the tax commission has recommended that we do not take it to tax sale and instead we cancel the taxes. So I just wanted to make a quick explanation on that one.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: I have listed the fiscal impact here. I do want to make a note on that, which is that that fiscal impact is spread across all of the taxing entities.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: School district would be the biggest one and that additionally, because it lowers the collection rate, the taxing entities actually are going to have a slightly higher tax rate. And so basically it doesn’t have an impact on the taxing entities.
Chris Kaufman, Treasurer: The impact is to other taxpayers who do end up paying a little bit more taxes to cover these abatements.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yes, Mike. I move to approve the 2025 property tax relief and cancellations through 10-9 of 2025 as presented.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second by Commissioner Hadler. Further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote both in favor of the motion. Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kaufman.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we will move on to number nine, award 2026 commercial property appraisal contract.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Debbie Swayze, Grand County Assessor. And I’m here to present the RFP for the 2026 commercial detailed review.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: We put it out a bit early this year, so we have a little bit more time to work on it. Unfortunately, we only had two people who bid on it.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: The Appraiser’s Inc., they’re out of Provo, Utah, bid 69,762. And BBG Real Estate Services, they’re actually out of Michigan or somewhere like that, but they do have people in Utah that do their appraisals for them.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And they came in at 165,430. We did publish it on the county website and the bonfire website.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And I would recommend that we go with the appraisers because the other people are 2.5% higher than what the appraisers came in at. That’s up to you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Melodie.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: When this came up, I was like, we already did this. So I went back and it was on the March 18th agenda and we had the 2025 commercial appraisal.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And at that point in time, there was another group, it was called the Cook Group, that was on there. And I think one of the things is we had to ask you to reach back out to them because we had some questions with what they were actually going to offer.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: They were a little bit more money than the appraiser group, but not like what you’re showing on…
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Yeah, I never got any response from them and they didn’t…
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Okay, they’ve never got a response. That’s why I was curious.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’m like, whatever happens with them. So I wish we could get some more appraisals out.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Do we have time to put it back out to them?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Well, the problem was last year because it was asked at the last minute to put an RFP out, it only gave them four months to get finished before the tax roll had to close. And so it was rushed.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So that’s why we do it is so that they can start hitting the ground in October, November. So this year it’ll just be November when they can get started.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin, you have your hand up?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: No, I was just scratching my head.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, so I looked at the two bids right there and can you tell me a little bit why there’s such a difference in the… I mean, I looked at the…
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Was it the BBG?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: BBG.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: BBG, and they broke down their cost based on each one of the properties and everything like that. Do you have any idea?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s no breakdown that I saw for the…
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: I believe the difference is just because the Appraiser’s have been doing it for so long and they’ve already got all of our data where BBG is going to have to come in new. And so they’re going to have to reinvent the wheel.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: They’ll have to measurements, everything. So it is a property.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And so we’re looking at a hundred… Is it about a $100,000 difference?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Is that correct? Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And so on that though, when they’re doing that reappraisal, they might come up and actually… I mean, I know like, let’s say an auditor or someone who’s been doing this for years as they go through and they just check the boxes, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: As opposed to somebody who’s coming in and has to redo the work, they might come up with some different conclusions while they’re out there.
Speaker 37: Is that correct?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Yes, that’s pretty good.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Thank you.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And I did have a contact with the BBG, one of the appraisers that’s here. He’s the previous Wasatch County Assessor and he did contact me about putting in for this, but he said there’s no way he could come in that way.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: There’s no way they’d be able to do that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So the quote that we’re giving is going to be historic. It’s going to be low for anybody.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s going to be hard for anybody to compete with that because as they come in, they’re going to have to go through and do this. Just one of the things that I heard, at least when I was out knocking doors, there were a lot of people that were upset with the appraisal process.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: They didn’t have faith in it. I’m wondering if maybe considering going with somebody who’s higher, because either we go for somebody higher this year or next year, it might take a fresh set of eyes on something like this to go ahead and give some fair appraisals out there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Hadler.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think that’s a valid point. I’m not sure that this is the year considering where we’re at financially, but this group has the obvious advantage of being familiar, like Brian said, maybe just being able to check the boxes.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And that’s why they do save so much money compared to anybody else. But maybe next year, if we get the RFPs out earlier or whatever, we might be able to attract some more palatable offers.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And we might be looking at spending a little bit more money, maybe not $100,000 more, but something more and maybe getting a little bit more for our money or at least just changing the paradigm a little bit.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: And I had emailed Steven Vowles about putting this out there sooner and didn’t realize that he was gone. So that’s one reason.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody else?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yes, that’s something that we’re going to consider. I think that we shouldn’t be considering that in our budgeting processes to plan for an increase right here so that we can bring somebody new in in the following year and actually go ahead and start working.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, plan ahead for an expense like that.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes, just one more question. How much did we pay for their services last year, Debbie?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: It was around the same.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I guess I’ll weigh in just a little bit, Debbie. And I know that I’ve been involved for two and three quarters years.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ve been on the commission many times in there and there’s just a huge lack of support for that firm that we’re getting ready to vote on here because they seem to be the only option available. And I don’t think that it’s always that they do a bad job.
Bill Winfield, Chair: It’s that I don’t think that we’re equalizing across the county well enough. And we have these people that come in and we all know who they were.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s been many of them with neighbors with such disparity. And, you know, I’m not here to bad mouth the vendor, but we’ve had a huge amount of problems.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I think we had 69 this year, am I correct? Of people who filed because they disagreed with this service.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So it’s hard to vote in favor of him again, even though we’re talking double the money for the other one, it’s a real struggle. And I don’t know how to send that message to him that we would like a little better service and our clients who are the property owners in this county expect better.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Well, and I can tell you, Gordon and those guys this year, they did use a different model so that it was more equitable across the whole county. On the appeals, we didn’t make a lot of adjustments.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: The ones that we did mostly make adjustments to were the ones that were willing to provide information that we’d asked for previously. So when you go in and ask them for ADRs and occupancy and the expenses, and they don’t provide it, we don’t have anything to go off of.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So they go off the program that they have.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you feel like he did a better job this year of equalizing across the county.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We’ll find out.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, I mean, we’re the ones that suffer from his, what he does because we hear those people. I can’t tell you how many emails we’ve had in there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I don’t wanna be the sole bearer of disgruntled commissioner here, but there were enough people that we have to speak to it. We can’t not speak to it.
Stephen Stocks: So can I ask a couple of questions? So how many appeals, the public doesn’t know how many appeals you get in a given year.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So right now I’m at 188.
Stephen Stocks: Okay, and how many of those 188 return with a reduction?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I don’t have them.
Stephen Stocks: But it’s not, it’s probably less common. And that’s a process that they have.
Stephen Stocks: They have an ability to appeal that through you. And then they can go to the appraisal or the appraiser and have a full hearing.
Stephen Stocks: And if they’re unhappy with that, they can go to the state. And that’s going through that whole process.
Stephen Stocks: A lot of times doesn’t result necessarily in substantial changes in valuations. Okay.
Stephen Stocks: And I think that’s one thing that just from what I’ve been involved with Debbie on this. Sometimes I’ll go and I’ll sit with Debbie to have these hearings or help participate in these hearings.
Stephen Stocks: This is an uncomfortable part of the assessor’s job. It’s a comfortable part of the attorney’s job.
Stephen Stocks: We make people, by our job, If we do our job correctly, we hold people accountable to valuations. And so I invite commissioners.
Stephen Stocks: I know commissioner, I think commissioner Hedin, commissioner McGann, commissioner Winfield and commissioner McCandless all went to appeals this last year, right? And I think that’s great to see.
Stephen Stocks: And I just want to encourage you guys to go through that process to see it because it’s not, it’s really weird because you’ll get a lot of folks from the public that are concerned and frustrated and upset about that process. But when you see it done, I think they do it as professionally as they can.
Stephen Stocks: And there’s a lot of data that’s missing and a lot of information that we don’t have. And on the cases that we’ve had together, we’ve offered to the other attorney, show us the record, show us the documents.
Stephen Stocks: And a lot of times we don’t get a full disclosure that would show everything. So I just bring us all.
Stephen Stocks: And the other hard part is kind of giving education to the community about these things. So just noting that additional thought.
Stephen Stocks: Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I make a motion. I move to accept the bid from the appraisers Inc for $69,762.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m doing so because I’m being thrifty and I appreciate Debbie’s feedback that they’re doing a better job.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Hedin. Second, Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any further discussion? Yes, ma’am.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’ll just in the last year’s justification, it did say Grand County has received some complaints in the past regarding professional behavior, but Debbie has taken steps to coach them on desired practices and behavioral changes. So thank you if they got better this year.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: I didn’t put that in there, Stephen Vowles put that in there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But anyway, so it just continued on.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Can I ask a question? When you said that people came to the appeals and you raised your hands– I didn’t have anybody in the appeals issue.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I went to the business one, to commercial.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So one, that’s it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I went to.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, I think Commissioner McGann was a year prior.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: What do you mean?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Did you come into the BOE this year to listen to the appeals?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Maybe I’m confused, but I went to an appeal. That was last year, yeah.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I know I went to an appeal.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’m glad other commissioners get emails. I get stopped in the street.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: People more than not happy with previous work. I am very happy to hear that you–
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Okay, once again, I’d like to face that. I got nothing for you guys.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Not one.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Not what?
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Not one email from you guys. Forwarding those emails of concern to me.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Not one.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I didn’t get emails. I get stopped in the street of concerns that my evaluations are quite high.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Yes, ma’am. So you would like us to.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: Absolutely.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Okay, okay. I guess the past commission.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: So we got all of the emails and all of the phone calls.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So when we get the commission thing, it doesn’t go.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: It doesn’t go to you?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: The assessor. Okay, that’s really, you know, that would be good.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Forward for you.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, the email chain, when it comes to the commission, all the commissioners get it. Calm admin team gets it.
Stephen Stocks: I get it. Our quick auditor gets it.
Stephen Stocks: That’s it.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But that on a session or assessor topics, it doesn’t go to the assessor too.
Stephen Stocks: No, the system shows that when people email the commission, the system doesn’t know how to flag that and to give it to the assessor. And same if there’s a complaint, like if there’s a complaint about the surveyor or anybody else, they don’t, if they’re not on that email list, it’s not going to populate and send it.
Stephen Stocks: So if you ever see something that you’re like, if you guys get an email and you see something about IT, take the two seconds forwarded or crossed. And if you have, you know, contacts with constituents, it’s always great for the other electeds to kind of get that feedback because.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Didn’t know.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, you guys are probably a lot more accessible and approached and you outnumber, you know, any of us single office, you know, electeds.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Oh, yes. And you’re hearing from us now.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, unfortunately not in the best setting, but we thought you were in the loop just the same.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I hope the message goes back to this firm too, that we’re just trying to raise the level of service.
Debbie Swayze, Assessor: I got a meeting with you, Bill, in the attorney’s office about this, that I said, if you could get those to me. Again, I didn’t get them this year.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Any further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll call for a vote. Those in favor.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those against. Passes five with two against.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and Commissioner Winfield. Thank you, Debbie.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. We will move on to number 10, the ordinance to establish the separate office of the Grand County auditor and the Grand County clerk.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Worter.
Gabe Woytek: Thanks, Chair. And thank you to the commission for bringing this up for consideration so this conversation can happen.
Gabe Woytek: So I offered a sort of a pretty detailed proposal and presentation on this move. Not an insignificant move, obviously.
Gabe Woytek: So I wanted to make sure to present that in full with as much detail as possible and give you all the chance to offer feedback or concerns so I could be aware of the able to respond if needed. The general parameters and justification of my proposal remain unchanged from that presentation that I gave.
Gabe Woytek: I feel quite strongly about this being an excellent move for Grand County to make on behalf of the internal organization and the role that the clerk auditor plays inter-organizationally as well as in providing service, contributing to transparency to the public and all those things that we all strive for as public servants and public officials. Let’s see.
Gabe Woytek: I think that’s ultimately, you know, one way that I’m trying to describe this tension and this challenge that I am currently dealing with in my office. Maybe this will relate or maybe this, Commissioner McAnlis, this will resonate with you.
Gabe Woytek: A lot of times I feel like I’m running a restaurant and we’re serving Chinese food and Italian food out of the same shop and maybe some American on the side too and just keeping it all together and really being able to focus and specialize and make sure we’re serving stuff that tastes good. It’s just, I think that that’s a useful way of analogizing the situation and I think that there’s a real opportunity to do better with this type of action and that’s all I’ll say right now.
Gabe Woytek: I will say that I would request if approval be considered that it be done pending legal review. There wasn’t a chance for this ordinance to pass a legal review in time for this meeting but it does need to be approved and passed by the 1st of November.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Clerk Wojtek. I will just start with Commissioner Hedin.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, Jacques, go ahead then if she’s going to defer.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Thank you. Actually, I’ll just go ahead and make a motion then I’ll speak.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’ll move to approve the ordinance establishing separate offices of Grand County Auditor and Grand County Clerk made effective in January 2027 according to all applicable laws and statutes pending legal review.
Gabe Woytek: Is that 2027 Gabe or supposed to be 2026? Yeah, it would take effect and official separation will only take effect I mean, January 27 after the election.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that. Right, okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Hedler, second by Commissioner Hedin for discussion. Yeah, and I wanted to speak on that too.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, I’ve looked at this a lot and I’ve heard Gabe and I think at the end of the day it does just make sense. I mean, I think the duties of the Clerk and the Auditor, when I first got elected, I remember thinking that it was odd.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Some of the varied amount of stuff that the Clerk and the Auditor does doesn’t seem to have much in common with some of the other stuff. And I appreciate I’ve worked in restaurants plenty also Gabe’s analogy, but I also appreciate the work we’ve put into it to ensure that this wouldn’t increase our budget.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It doesn’t look like at all. And I think it would streamline each of those duties.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Obviously it might add complexity having one more elected official, but I think that is more than made up for by the simplification of each one of those officials kind of sticking to their narrower scope. And also, especially concerning the Auditor, I mean, we’ve spent a lot on the Auditors this year, a whole lot on especially internal Auditors and companies to double-check internal Auditors, we double-check external Auditors and having an Auditor that is just a dedicated Auditor in-house makes a lot of sense to me as well.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I’m supportive of this and I hope we can move forward.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin and then Commissioner McGann.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I did a little bit of research this morning as to other counties within the state of Utah that have separated clerk Auditors. And what I came up with was about 10 counties.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There was no rhyme or reason as to size. Daggett County has split and they have a population of 950.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And of course, Salt Lake County has a split and they have a population of 1.2 million. So I couldn’t find like, again, any consistency within the counties, the class of counties and why those would be split.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I would state that I also think, I think the amount of, and that being said to me, there’s no like comparison. We can’t really compare it because we also know that the amount of economic impact or just the economic driver, the amount of money that flows through this county is quite large.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So you can’t really compare our county to one of equal size. I think after looking at the documents and the breakdown, the fiscal impact is minimal at best, if anything.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Hopefully within a couple of years, we’re actually coming out in the black and maybe Gabe could speak to that a little bit more, the fiscal impacts. I think it makes sense to have two different departments where they’re solely responsible for those specific tasks.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think it makes them more efficient, more effective overall. And I think that’s what we’re seeking to do, especially when we’re talking about things like budget cuts, we’re talking about streamlining.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We want to make departments streamlined and more effective. And in the end, that’s what this would do.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Commissioner McCurdy. Oh, I’m sorry.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, Commissioner McGann and then Commissioner McCurdy, my bad, Mary.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Oh, it’s okay, it’s okay. It’s hard to keep track, especially after a moment.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Well, you know, 11 years ago when I became a commissioner, I always thought the clerk auditor was an odd combination because, you know, if you did a thin diagram, there wouldn’t be any section where they really overlapped. And usually when you have a combined, like, you know, a job description, there’s some overlap and it makes sense.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: With this, I never felt like it made sense. And then the other thing I’ve noticed is things have become a lot more complicated.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, our election system has really become more, you know, people are much more focused on it, much more aware, there are much more questions. And so the importance of making sure that everything is done pristinely and, you know, with transparency is incredibly important.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And also just tax law and things that are coming in and the way things move, it’s the auditor’s job is also, it’s complexity has changed a great deal. So this makes a lot of sense to me.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Plus from Gabe’s presentation last two weeks ago, there’s not going to be a fiscal impact. So without, you know, so if we’re going, you know, and an elected official, another elected official has come and, you know, presented this.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I respect that and I appreciate that. And that it is being done that we’re not like with OHL where we were the first, you know, it was virgin ground in a sense.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: This is being done in other counties successfully. So I would like to follow the lead of Doggett and Salt Lake and those two departments.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Make that department into two departments and make it more effective. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and then Commissioner Martinez. I mean, you spoke, sorry.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’d be far more behind this if I could see the fiscal impact not happening. We can run these numbers through a blue in the face, but creating another elected position at $108,500 a year.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But we’re going to fire, fire or let go of someone because there’s not enough bodies there in the proposed and pay another person another $108,000 to do half of a job.
Gabe Woytek: I don’t see where we’re going to cost savings on that.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Can you answer that?
Gabe Woytek: This is not about me wanting to do half a job or anyone. Let’s make that very clear.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCannon, are you still going live?
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I know my biggest concern about this and I appreciate all the work you’ve done, Gabe and then putting this out there. But to become an elected auditor in Grand County, you need to be a registered voter, be a resident of Grand County and then file.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, that’s your position to be an auditor. And I mean, Mary just talked about the complexity of being an auditor.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, Gabe speaks to the difficulty of being an auditor. It’s a big job.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I don’t think that opening up to another elected person in Grand County is our best decision. Right now we have openings in our planning and zoning and our building department and other areas that we can’t find qualified people to fill.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so finding someone qualified that wants to run for office really scares me. And there’s not any part of it that doesn’t scare me as far as having somebody that’s running our financials that’s an elected official that doesn’t have any training.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so Gabe’s been doing a good job and I know it’s challenging for him and I feel for him. But having that position in there with a financial director is helpful.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I think it’s easier to hire a financial director than it’s gonna be to find an elected official that is gonna be able to do that job. And that’s my biggest concern.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I’m sorry, Gabe, that I can’t.
Gabe Woytek: No, I think that that’s a really valid concern. And I think that, yeah, I’m not blaming you for that one.
Gabe Woytek: And I think if there was an articulated concern that I couldn’t necessarily respond to, that might be the one. Yeah, I’m sorry to call you ahead of time.
Gabe Woytek: It’s okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I’ll just really quick. You know, it was one year ago that we hired a financial director.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: To take over. So I mean, I think that having that position that the commission kind of awarded right there, that additional position, I thought it was kind of supposed to already take care of this problem that we have.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And so I still see this as the growing government, the way that we’re doing it. And I know that we’re taking one position and we’re moving it over here and we’re doing this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But I just wanna put out this case is what happens if a person runs and they win the popularity contest for the clerk auditor and they’re not qualified. We’re once again, then gonna have to hire another financial director.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And we’ve gone back to that space of doing nothing more than just growing government.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, commissioner. I’d like to weigh in and then I’ll go back around.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But, you know, Gabe, I know you put a lot of work into this and you and I have talked at different times over the year. And I’ve really pushed that I believe we need a financial CFO, whatever title we would have to call that individual under the administrator who can help with our budget issues and with our complexity of our finances that we have here at the county.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I know that this budget is now excess of 25 million, I think. And I really feel that we should have somebody that has their finger on that who’s going through as we’ve talked in our budget meetings, the copy machines that we have at the county.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We need to have somebody over our telephone system here or our Verizon system to where we get these all on a plan so that we’re all working. And I think that’s better suited in a financial position that the administrator has.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And, you know, I mean, we’ve tried to use Mr. Bowles in the past or I have and backed away from that a little bit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And now we’ve got the addition of CFO. And I just see that, again, I don’t think I need to go down the road that we’re growing government, but I’ve also from, I believe when I first became a commissioner, I’ve been supportive of further education to bring up the financial level, you know, skills for you in any way forward.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I’m supportive of that in other departments as well, not just yours. I know that eventually we’re gonna see something for the judge so that she can be reimbursed through the county that we have those available to us.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I just think they’re a much cheaper option rather than trying to separate here and come up with another elected official. And we all know there are popularity contests and some days you wish you hadn’t won the popularity contest.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So yes, I’ll go back around. I know Mary is ready there, but go ahead.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We had a budget officer before and we never replaced the budget officer. We’ve said, yeah, that was kind of a replacement.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So it wasn’t like we added a new person. We never replaced the budget officer.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I agree with Melodie. I mean, it’s not just an auditor.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I’ve always, I don’t know if anybody was living here that one time they elected an attorney that didn’t know what she was doing. I mean, this was years ago.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I mean, it can happen, you know? So I’m looking at the clerk, the auditor, the treasurer, the attorney, these are very skilled jobs.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I’ve always questioned, why are they elected? Why aren’t they part of the process that we go through vetting and resumes and such like that?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So changing this dynamic is not gonna change that. That is an issue in not just that department.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s an issue. I mean, we’re fortunate we have good.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We have a good attorney. We have a good treasurer right now.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: You know, we could, you know, you can have a poor reporter or poor. I mean, some of these offices, I wonder why they’re even elected, especially when they’re not doing any legislating, you know, but that, you know, so that’s beside the point.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So I agree with you, but I don’t think it has any bearing on this decision because it’s going to be there no matter what. And I just think it makes good sense and it’s going to improve our customer service and improve just making sure that things run smoother and the things are, you know, the dots are, lines are dotted and keys crossed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, seeing no further hands, I will call for a vote. Oh, I just had one thing.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yes, we’ve had a situation where we had a CFO, CEO style admin office. And to be perfectly honest, it’s one of the worst situations that we’ve had in Grand County under my tenure.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I didn’t think that worked out very well. And I think that position under the auditor office is a better paradigm.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yes, Commissioner. Gabe, I wanted to say, I don’t think you do half a job.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I don’t want my thoughts or I don’t want to separate at that pay rate to create another job to do half the work that you achieve. You achieve an immense amount of work.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I agree with that. I just don’t want to look towards creating another position at 100 round numbers, 110K a year.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I look towards relieving the stress that you personally take on in that job setting. I know elections take a toll above auditing on the clerk side, but at 110K a year, it’s a steep price to pay.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: He did send out a document, I believe it was a couple of days ago. And so there wasn’t two positions at 110 again.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: 108,500, 108,500 on his document.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: It gets rid of the financial director though.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yeah.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So it gets rid of a position. But I’d rather have that higher position.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That personally, that’s how I feel. I’d rather have the higher position than create another elected official.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So just so we know, I think Kevin Walker did do the research on this and the only individual other than commissioners that has to be elected is the sheriff. So it is feasible that if we have these ideas, we can go down that path someday.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So it’s just, it’s an interesting, we didn’t go, he kind of did some initial research. So it’s an interesting thought.
Stephen Stocks: Not the attorney.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The attorney is not the attorney of the Utah constitution.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, sorry. I could be a little wrong on that a while ago that he did that research.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I look forward to a commissioner bringing forward ideas on how to remove some other electeds. But at this point, I will, I can say one more thing after the vote.
Gabe Woytek: So thanks, Mike, for saying that. I know you weren’t trying to take a dig.
Gabe Woytek: I know you all trust me not to take things personally. And quite frankly, I feel that it’s a great compliment that you all trust me to continue on and carrying this combined role.
Gabe Woytek: Because you know and trust that I’ll continue to try to improve it and do the best that I can with it. And I definitely 100% plan on running next year to maintain this role.
Gabe Woytek: And I think I have a great shot at winning that role because the people that I work with, the members of the public that need to work with me, know that I’ll treat them with respect. It’s because of that, not only because I’m popular.
Gabe Woytek: But thanks, y’all.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. With that, I will call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner Hadler, seconded by Commissioner Hedin. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? The motion fails with four opposed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner McCandless, and myself, Commissioner Winfield. We move on to number 11.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Our citizens to be heard. Oh, you’re right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. I’m sorry, Sean.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ve got citizens to be heard. And so at that point, I will open this up to citizens to be heard.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those that haven’t spoken previously at the four o’clock, they’re welcome to come up, introduce yourselves if there’s anybody that wishes to. Yes, we’ve got one.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, we’ll start with Lynn. Do we have anybody online, Quinn?
Chris Wilson: I don’t know yet. Hang on, hang on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Lynn Jackson.
Lynn Jackson: I’m going to talk really fast because I want to address two things. Hang on, hang on.
Lynn Jackson: Oops. Oh, I’m getting free time?
Lynn Jackson: This is great. No, no.
Lynn Jackson: This goes back to my 32 years working for the BLM in this area. Number one, regarding your infrastructure overlay on that particular parcel.
Lynn Jackson: That is an RNPP, Recreation and Public Purposes parcel. It can’t be used for anything but public purpose.
Lynn Jackson: So I know a lot of people think, oh, that’s a great place for development. And if that’s proposed, the city will lose title to that property.
Lynn Jackson: It will revert back to the BLM. And I’ve dealt with that situation during my career.
Lynn Jackson: The second thing I want to talk about is the letter regarding the travel management plan. Well-written letter, supported 100%.
Lynn Jackson: I want to give just a little bit more perspective I was there as an associate manager at the BLM when we did the 2008 resource management plan and the travel management plan. We, at that time, had inventory in cooperation with Red Rock Four-Wheelers 6,000 miles of roads in the entire field area office, not just Lappert.
Lynn Jackson: So that’s all Grand County and about a quarter of northern San Juan County. At that time, we closed about 3,000 miles.
Lynn Jackson: Now, it may be 100 miles this way or the other. But we closed half the roads at that time.
Lynn Jackson: And in that process, what I want to, I’ve heard people say, well, Lappert, this latest round in 2023 didn’t go through public comment. And when we went through that initial travel plan in 2008, took about three years, started in 2005, there were at least a dozen public hearings and comment periods.
Lynn Jackson: We met in Salt Lake. We met in Moab.
Lynn Jackson: We met in Grand Junction. We were working with six other field offices in this side and this end of the state.
Lynn Jackson: They were all combined. There was massive public input went into that entire process.
Lynn Jackson: Just in Moab office alone, we received over 90,000 comments on that RNP and travel management plan. So if anybody’s going to get up here and say there was no public input into that, that would simply be untrue.
Lynn Jackson: So the 2023 thing kind of ended up being this combination, weird political mess that the Biden administration brought to the table to resolve a lawsuit that had been filed against all seven travel management plans. It was a political solution.
Lynn Jackson: It was wrong. And they had no right to shut down.
Lynn Jackson: BLM has no right to shut down RS-2477 roads. The ninth district court ruled last summer that those RS-2477 are a right the state and the county have.
Lynn Jackson: Now, there’s a process where BLM can shut down those roads, but you can’t do it administratively with the signature of a PIN. It has to go through a judicial process.
Lynn Jackson: So thank you very much for going after this. Let’s get those roads back opened like they should have been.
Lynn Jackson: Thank you. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Yes, please.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second row there. Third row.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thanks for having us, Commission. I’d like to speak on the Labyrinth Road.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Introduce the travel plan yourself real quick, please. Thomas Firestack, Grand County.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I would like to also encourage that we reopen these trails. Not having these trails open people in the midst of off-road and biking communities all here that the roads are getting shut down.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Moab’s shutting down. That’s really hurting our economy here in this town.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I would hope that we could continue to try and get these roads back open, allow all activities that used to be allowed, motorized, non-motorized. This is the American people’s land.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Let’s keep it open. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room that would like to come up?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anybody online that would like to speak at the six o’clock citizens to be heard? I see Pam.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Are you online to speak?
Pam Hackley: Yes, I am. Thank you.
Pam Hackley: Can you hear me?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, I can. Please introduce yourself and then it’s all yours.
Pam Hackley: Thank you. My name is Pam Hackley.
Pam Hackley: I live in Castle Valley, Grand County. I wanted to just comment on item 17.
Pam Hackley: I support the current Labyrinth Canyon travel plan. This was passed in 2023 after a long series of hearings.
Pam Hackley: A lot of input as has been noted. I think it was a good compromise.
Pam Hackley: This is an area, the Labyrinth Canyon area is a quiet flat float for people who like to canoe. We have taken our grandkids who are now in their early 20s on that numerous times since they were little kids.
Pam Hackley: This is a really special place and it’s great to have it quiet. The other item I wanted to comment on is item 16 about the county’s possible plans to spend $10,000 on cloud seeding.
Pam Hackley: From what I have read over the years about this, this cloud seeding is not effective. At best, you might get 10 to 20 percent results.
Pam Hackley: It’s very difficult to monitor whether it works or not. I think this is a waste of money for Grand County to spend on.
Pam Hackley: We have plenty of other projects that need this kind of money. Thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Do we have anybody else online?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. I will move back to the chambers.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, please.
Laurie McFarland: Laura. Good evening.
Laurie McFarland: I want to thank… Oh, I’m Laurie McFarland.
Laurie McFarland: I’m with High Point Hummer and ATB. But as an outfitter, we do not actually actively use the Labyrinth areas.
Laurie McFarland: When I was running for district for commission seat, I did get out and talk to a lot of people in the community. When I asked them what they cared about, they said what I care about is the fact that for 40 years, in April for Easter, we would go and recreate, have two, three days where we would be in this area.
Laurie McFarland: And then they went and closed it. Why are we closing this to locals?
Laurie McFarland: And like I said, I don’t personally have any commercial aspect of use. But the fact that there are people who adore that land, who use it and have used it for years and lost that ability, I feel like I have an obligation to speak up just a little bit and say that was something that they said was important to them.
Laurie McFarland: And I really want to thank the BLM and all of you for having a look at trying to find good solutions for the locals that are actually trying to recreate in those areas. And I just want to say thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to speak up at 6 p.m.?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Seeing none, we will move on to item number 11, the ordinance around the major utility overlay of parcel 02-0021-0113, City of Moab.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Yates.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I know we’ve got folks that are waiting out in the hall. And Cory over here on the side, if we need any help, Sean, I feel free to pull any of them up.
Sean Yates, Engineer: I’m Sean Yates, Grand County, Utah engineer. As well as in-room planning and zoning administrator.
Sean Yates, Engineer: The summary of this request is zone amendment to apply the major utility overlay to approximately three acres located at 2651 South Spanish Valley Drive, Moab, Utah. Parcel number 02-0021-0113.
Sean Yates, Engineer: Construction of a 2.5 billion gallon municipal water storage tank associated with facilities. The findings and conclusion are that the City of Moab planning and engineering staff appear to have done their due diligence in selecting the best location for the City of Moab of the water tank as indicated in the attached documents to the agenda.
Sean Yates, Engineer: As such, the proposed zone amendment is to apply the major utility overlay MU02 to approximately three acres located as stated before. If approved by the commission, the condition for a development agreement is required under the Grand County Land Use Code.
Sean Yates, Engineer: And since this project directly abuts to a residential zone, the county commission may under 4.10.3 increase the standards, including setbacks, buffers, height, scale and massing and landscaping.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Campos.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I would like to make a motion to approve the additional use of the ordinance, the major utility overlay of parcel 02-0021-0113. The proposed zone amendment is to approximately three acres located at 2651 South Spanish Valley Drive, Utah.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: For the construction of, well, I don’t know that I have to say that right now. We’re just putting in a major utility overlay.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And if approved, the condition for development agreement is required under the Grand County Land Use Code. The project directly abuts a residential zone.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: The county commission may under 4.10.3 increase standards, including setbacks, buffers, height, scale and massing, landscaping and fencing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second. Motion by Commissioner McCann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner Martinez. Do we have, yes, Commissioner?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, I just want to kind of give you some feedback on the planning commission. So when this was brought up at the planning commission, we did have seven people come to speak.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One just provided some informational. Robert Buckingham from the Cemetery District kind of went over that BLM patent.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We had four against and speaking to impacts such as feasibly the leak of the tank and the geology of that area, a pump that’s going to be turning on and off next to a neighborhood, lighting of that facility and the possible other uses for that land. And then there were two in favor, both from groundwater and sewer that spoke to the interconnect.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I just want to reiterate. I don’t know if you spoke about this, Sean, sorry, but that the planning commission sent forward an unfavorable recommendation.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Five in favor with one abstention. Jerry Klaes made that motion and that was seconded by Tony.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: The main reasons were that, you know, via our future land use plan and future land use map, that area is designated as a regional, a possible regional center. But part of that is parks and rec.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that’s actually what it was. When you look at the future land use map, it’s designated as a possible park and rec area.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There were other people that just spoke to the concerns about the, again, the geology and feasibly what could happen if there was any kind of leakage to that community that’s specifically downhill from them. And then lastly, that we’ve talked about, I’ll just keep beating this drum.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We do have this broken land use code and we really need to have that updated before we continue to do rezones and overlays and all of these things. We just need to eventually pull on the reins and stop for a while while we wait for that land use code update.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so I just wanted to give that information that came out of the Planning Commission because they are a recommending body. And I think it’s important.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It’s very, we have a very diverse Planning Commission and I really respect their opinion. It’s quite diverse.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so hopefully we listen to them.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner McCann.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I agree. And thanks, Tricia.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I did watch that meeting. And I think that the presentation that was brought to the Commission when this came before us was a lot more comprehensive than what came before the Planning Commission.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And had they saw that, had that been there, it might have been a different outcome. But we don’t know.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But we’re here to make these decisions now. And I appreciate all the people that have come and spoke.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We’ve had lots of community involvement, mostly of the people that are in that neighborhood. The people that have spoken in the neighborhood like the way that it is.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And it won’t change much when you put a water tower or a water tank in there that’s buried. It won’t change much.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And when we’re talking about this public works piece of land that was deeded to the city, it was for public works, which could be recreation. And if you go into our public works is what it was for.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But that’s actually expired. So they could do something different with it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But it’s staying, it’s with this water tank, it’s staying within that use of the land. The other piece of it is, you know, we just had fires in California that they went to go hook up to the water and there was no water came out for the fire trucks.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so it’s a safety issue. We want to make sure that we have water down the future.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: 10 years from now goes by and we have a catastrophic fire in the valley and or in town and we run out of water. I don’t want to be the one responsible to not have that water storage there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So that’s why I’m voting yes for it. I know that there’s concerted citizens, but my job is to vote for the entire constituents of Grand County, not just for the people that live right next to that piece of property.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Mike.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Anyone else? I think you’re it.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Most of everyone can’t say it’s been a dirt triangle for 40 years since I’ve been here. It’s gonna be a dirt triangle with a bump on it now, at least from the renderings and drawings from the city.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And it has a purpose. I see that as a net positive.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So that’s my vote. Anyone else?
Stephen Stocks: Yes, Commissioner Martinez. Mr.
Stephen Stocks: Stocks, would you like to go ahead? Sure.
Stephen Stocks: Just noting for the commission, and we might have to go back and make sure that the motion’s clean. So one of the things that when we have a vote for this type of issue, we need to have explicit findings and conclusions on the record by the basis.
Stephen Stocks: If you want to adopt those, I don’t know if I didn’t hear specifically, if you’re gonna just adopt the findings from the planner. And if that’s cleaned up, I think that’s sufficient.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then- The only thing that concerns me about that right now is we’re just approving a overlay. We’re not actually approving the ins and outs of a water tank.
Stephen Stocks: The recommendation from my office is if approved, the condition for the development agreement is required under Grand County Land Use Code. It lists the setbacks, but whether approved or denied, the County Commission must make explicit findings and conclusions on the record to provide for a reasonable basis for the decision.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Okay, I read all that.
Stephen Stocks: Right, but did you make, are you adopting the findings made by the planner? That’s the part I didn’t hear.
Stephen Stocks: And if you didn’t want to make all of the findings that he made in the document, major utility overlay SR under item C, 9.2.5 issues for considerations A through K, there are specific different factual findings or criteria that you could read through into the record as findings. Or you can just adopt- I will adopt those.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I will add that to my motion to adopt those findings that are in the major utility overlay.
Stephen Stocks: Okay, so you’re making a motion, a substitute motion. Will you restate the whole thing?
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I’ll restate the whole thing.
Speaker 37: Is she amending it?
Stephen Stocks: She can’t, it’s been made, there’s been a second on the motion and because it’s the second that’s been made, it’s now of motion before the body. So now it has to be a substitute motion.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Okay, so I make a motion to substitute motion to approve the major utility overlay parcel number 02-0021-0113, which is approximately three acres located at 2651 South Spanish Valley Drive. For construction of a 2.5, I’ll just add that in there, I guess, 2.5 million gallon municipal water storage tank and associated facilities.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: When approved, the conditions for development agreement is required under the Grand County Land Use Code. Since this project directly abuts a residential zone, the county commission may enter 4.10-3, increase standards including setbacks, buffers, height, scale, and massing, landscape and fencing and adopt the, sorry, issues for consideration in the document, major utility overlay, SRCC item C9.2.5 and adopt all of A through A.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. Okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll second that one. I make a motion to substitute motion by Commissioner McCanvas, seconded by Commissioner Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Further discussion? Did that hit all the points?
Stephen Stocks: We just have to have a basis for it because of the type of motion it is, or because of the type of process it is.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, seeing no further discussion, I’ll call for a vote on the substitute motion. Oh, I’m sorry.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I thought Brian was going to speak before that, but I’ll, yeah, this has been a tough one for me. I think there’s, I think I’ve heard some very strong arguments on both sides and I’ve been out to the site many times.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, we all pass through there all the time and I’ve been out specifically to look at it and through eyes, they’re looking at it as a future site with a water tank and also a future site with maybe something else. And I guess at the end of the day, to me, it’s a matter of letting the, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I think it would be great if we could develop that whole corner in a fashion that would create like a node, like some of the future maps have called for, you know, a nice little business area or a community center or whatever. But I think at this point, I’m probably in favor of supporting it for a, for the water tank.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think it makes sense at this time and the money’s there, work’s been done.
Wes Usry: So it’s a very difficult decision, but I’m out. All right, anything further?
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right, I will call for a vote on the substitute motions by Commissioner McCandless, second by Commissioner Martinez. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? The substitute motion passes five with two opposed, Commissioner Hedin and Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And does that bury the original motion then? Correct.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we can move on, correct. City of Moab, thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Bye-bye. All right, number 12, Resolution Meador Drive Townhomes Final Plan.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Again, Mr. Yates, our County Engineer.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So this number 12 has been pulled from the agenda, but not on time. Next one here is 13.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So we’ve pulled number 12? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: My apology, I did not know that.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I didn’t either.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, so we will move on to number 13, our Resolution for the Grandview Business Park Subdivision Final Plan Approval. Again, Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yates.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I think that’s 12.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, there might be some confusion.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Online, number 13 is the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board Bylaws. Number 12 is the Grandview Business Park Subdivision Final Plan Approval.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I don’t know all the ones I have printed. I have one I printed at home and one that Dana just gave me.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’m looking at that. I just refreshed it, the one online.
Sean Yates, Engineer: I apologize for that. This has just occurred in the last couple of days, and I’ve been advised that that Bader Drive town home.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So then we are going to move on to number 12, which is the Resolution for the Grandview Business Park Subdivision Final Plan Approval. All right, Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yates, thank you. Sorry for the confusion there.
Bill Winfield, Chair: But I got a lot of confusion.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So Mr. Tim Keogh requests Final Plan Approval for the Grandview Business Park Subdivision dividing up existing business park individual lots for transfer to his tenants.
Sean Yates, Engineer: The subdivision vacates existing parcel 02-0008-0048 and parcel 02-008-0008-00057. The Grand County Future Land Use Map designates this area for highway commercial supporting the current and future intended use.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So essentially what’s going on there is Mr. Keogh has buildings on his two parcels.
Sean Yates, Engineer: He’s leased them out to tenants, and the desire is to give them ownership of those properties, both real estate and his building, and to do so by creating a total of four lots. And just in the last few hours, as we’ve taken a closer look at the legal standpoint with our own effect, and we know there’s some length, we have no legal concern with the parcel that’s going to be evaded, verge, which is what Mr.
Sean Yates, Engineer: Keogh is proposing with the final plan. We’ve also found out that this is an administrative decision rather than a legislative one.
Sean Yates, Engineer: So under state law, if the applicant meets the ordinance’s requirements, it must be a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: As an administrative, we still need to vote on it, correct? Okay, so real quick, I would like to mention that Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Keogh and I, our previous business partners, I believe that partnership dissolved five years ago, might’ve been four and a half, but it’s quite a ways in the past. I just want that out there so that it’s clear that we are not business partners and I don’t have a conflict when we vote on this current place.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So then I will go to Mr. McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: As an administrative decision, does this check all boxes?
Stephen Stocks: So yeah, it’s got through legal review. There’s no, like Mr.
Stephen Stocks: Yates has indicated, there’s no legal concerns assuming that the parcels have been vacated and merged. It’s an administrative decision, which means there’s not as much flexibility that the commission has in other regards.
Stephen Stocks: That means that the application meets the ordinance requirements, it must be approved, and the board’s gone through and reviewed all of the different applicable codes, reviewed the Clubman process, the preliminary plat review, and he’s not found anything that would be an issue for approving this application.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you. All right, Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I move to approve the Grandview Business Park final plan. I second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Martinez, second by Commissioner McCandless. Further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: The motion passes unanimously. Thank you, and sorry for the long wait.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so now that I know my numbers aren’t the thing, we’ll go to the resolution amending the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board bylaws.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So over the past several years, this board has evolved through the merger of multiple boards and each with different origins, responsibilities, and expectations. That evolution has created a set of bylaws that being even well-intentioned has become difficult to interpret even for the board members themselves, including what it means to advise on how the board interfaces with Planning and Zoning Commission and where its authority begins and ends.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so this resolution just returns the board to its clear statutory purposes defined under state law for the County Economic Opportunity Boards to assist the county in applying for the rural county grants and the rural opportunity grant. They recommend projects and help meet reporting requirements.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: These bylaws follow the standard template recommended by the county attorney and the EOAB remains fully empowered to edit these bylaws and shape how it fulfills its role within the statutory responsibilities. Basically taking it back to bare bones and we can move from there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We have something we have to accomplish and that’s just what I’m trying to do. This change shouldn’t come as a surprise because over the past year there’s been many discussions about aligning the board’s work with its core mission and this resolution is a formal step in that long conversation.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So with a clear mandate from the state statute bylaws, the EOAB can positively impact Grand County’s economy. And I want to acknowledge and thank all of the members for the deep engagement and commitment to this process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I hope that this gives them a clearer focus and we can continue to focus on that $200,000 to $800,000 worth of money that comes into our economy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner McGann.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: These bylaws are a really big change from what was done before and I’m not opposed or in favor of the changes but I do think to, we need to honor our voluntary boards and from the information I’ve gotten from members, they would really like to talk and discuss this. So I want to make a motion to postpone this number 13, the resolution to amending the economic opportunity advisory board bylaws until the advisory board has had an opportunity to discuss it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m going to second that if I may.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McGann. To postpone.
Bill Winfield, Chair: To postpone, second by Commissioner Hedin.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: To postpone until the advisory board has had a meeting. So I’m not sure where that will be.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So I don’t know if it’s for the next meeting or the following meeting. We have a meeting next Wednesday.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Okay, so perfect for the next meeting.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Especially, I think, Mr. Wilson, you said that they weren’t updated until like three today and the packet is second?
Chris Wilson: Final update, final revision.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So yeah, to me, I want to go back to, we heard this quite a bit in the initial citizens. We’ve heard that, you know, the objective, it should be the objective that we are transparent.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so to have updated an updated agenda item that’s literally updated an hour before the meeting is not transparent. It doesn’t, you know, at least give them 24 hours.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I understand it takes a while to get information into the packet. I totally understand.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’ve been there myself. But I think we should give our general citizenry just the grace to at least have 24 hours to peruse an item.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And in this case, they had an hour. I will state that I have had board members from this board reach out to me.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Quite upset about this change. And that’s concerning to me.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m not sure why we would want to rattle cages when we have an amazing board. Everything I’ve heard, I’ll state that I think I went to one of these board meetings a bajillion years ago and I have not watched the meetings.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I don’t have the dedication that you do, Mel, can’t do it. But I’ve heard that it’s a really engaged, amazing board and an advisory board.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I think when we have those members of our community, like I think so highly of our planning commission, that are willing to give their time and energy to a board, why would we want to rattle their cage? So I would like at least the board to have the ability to go through the bylaws again.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think that that’s a fair, very fair thing to ask, that it goes back to them, let them go through it and then move forward with it. Because I think it’s a.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, I think it’s dismissive if you don’t.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, so I’d just like to point out that the reason that they were updated is because Commissioner McCanvas was working with Chris on making amendments and honoring his request. So I think that there has been some communication going both ways.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Also, and I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that resolutions to our board are ways that we communicate how that works, how the work is, it should be done, right? So by setting those bylaws right there, I think that Commissioner McCanvas is letting the board know that this is what the commission would like to have them work on and setting those standards up for them right there by resolution.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Okay, good. I just wanted to make sure that that’s what we’re doing.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And what my understanding is, is she’s providing clear direction to that board on the ways that she would like to see that board work I’m sorry, the way that this commission body, this body right here, would like to see that board operate.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hadler and then Commissioner McGann.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, I also think it’s appropriate to postpone them in the final bylaws got into the agenda three or two was reached out to you by a few members of the board who were upset about it and feels like it’s unnecessarily limiting. We can use resolutions to give direction.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: We can also just give direction. It’s not difficult.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Also, I mean, this board is made up of a variety of talented individuals that really I think I haven’t seen anything other than goodwill at the effort of promoting economic development and expansion in Grand County. Honestly, this feels a little bit like a kick in the teeth to people who are volunteering their time and energies and talents to something.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And we’re just making them basically a board to oversee one specific grant. That’s fine and all.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: But I mean, what’s the big hurry? Why can’t we wait another couple of weeks and work on a little bit and get a little bit more consensus and work with people who have given us a lot of their free time and advice.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Commissioner McGann. She’s already spoke.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Can I speak first? Oh, certainly.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I didn’t realize. No, that’s OK.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I just I haven’t spoke. So the reason why is I’ve given direction multiple times throughout the year and it’s not listened to.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And if it’s just coming from me, then it’s not really direction, right? It needs to come from the commission.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so that’s why we’re bringing that forward to the commission. And so it can come not just from me as one commissioner, but from the board, from the whole commission.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’m continuing to if I take this back to them, I mean, I don’t see that it will be any different. When it comes back to us, they have a hard time figuring out what they want to do.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s part of it. They spend a lot of time talking about the direction that they want to go.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And the challenge that I have is that we have the rural communities grant and the rural opportunities grant. And we have no clear direction for that grant.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That board has been in existence since 2020. And like I said, it’s been different origins, different responsibilities.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But when I came onto that board this year, there was really no clear path. If Melissa wasn’t there, if he wasn’t there, if I wasn’t there, then the next year’s economic advisory board would not be able to continue to get these grants out.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: There’s not a clear process. There hasn’t been a clear process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s what I’ve asked is for us to focus on that clear process, which is what their statutory job is to do. And once we finish that and it’s duplicatable and we continue on this process in the future, then I’m absolutely open to expanding those bylaws.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But at the moment, we have right now, and I don’t know that a lot of people know this, but we’ve been trying to work with our RCOG, which is community, and the contract went extended over our other ones. Now our county doesn’t get to apply for the RCOG grant for this year, so we just lost out on $600,000 potentially because things weren’t done correctly in the past.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s something that I want to stop and be able to go forward to be able to recoup all that money from the state that they’re offering our county. And it’s in it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So there is an issue and that’s what I’m trying to do is fix that issue.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and Mary, I’ll get back to you after we’ve gone around. Commissioner McCurdy?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I could only see a benefit following within state statute. I understand that our EOAB, board has right now has is looking at planning commissions are eliminating conflicts, zoning regulations, county general plan language.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I’d like them to follow state statute and be very focused on that grant approval or grant process. I don’t see why arguing for state statute or expanding state statute would be a problem, just narrowing their goals.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Anyone else? Then I’ll go to Commissioner McGann.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Chris did say he talked to Melodie and he even complimented her and said she was easy to work with. But he also stated that he felt like it should be brought back to the board.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I just think it’s I just think it’s the right thing to do to respect and show respect to our boards. I mean, sometimes you can disagree with them.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We might be bringing back the very same thing. And in the bylaws right now, we even are addressing what’s in state code.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s just like the travel council. It’s larger than what’s the scope of the state.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s just larger. But it is addressing what they’re supposed to in state code, Michael.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s just that they have more opportunities.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Addressing state code, but we already missed out 600K.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But I think we need to take I mean, I don’t it’s not timely. There’s nothing that is timely about this.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And so I think waiting two weeks to give people who have dedicated their time the opportunity to talk and express what they want or their concerns. And then they’re going to probably feel better about it, too.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I just don’t see it as being a big deal to wait two weeks to give the transparency to the public by having it in the packet more than an hour before.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And to give the… Just to clarify there, it was on Friday and the whole gist of it was on Friday.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: The changes that got made today were because Chris asked me to change them. And instead of just walking you guys through it all, saying, OK, now go to line.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Now go to line. I just had them change so they were in there so that everybody could see.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Now we can walk through it. It was just a simple adding those adjustments in there.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I don’t want to hear again that only an hour before because I did have them in there on Friday. And I didn’t know.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So anyway, I just I think it wouldn’t hurt.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s not like it’s not going to hurt anything to wait two weeks to let the board know what’s going on, why it’s going on, and let them at least have some input.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Martinez, can I call for a vote? Yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. We’ll call for a vote on the motion by Commissioner McGann, seconded by Commissioner Hedin to postpone.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor? Till next meeting.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? Motion passes with two opposed.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and Commissioner Winkler. That item will be postponed until the next meeting.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we move on to item number 15. Resolution amending the bylaws of the Thompson Springs Special Service District, Commissioner Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any input that’s necessary for me, if you’re sure. Yeah, no, no problem, Bill.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So there’s this, the TSSD is needed to update their bylaws for some time. And these bylaws reflect some of the challenges that the Thompson SSD has had in the past with various things, ethics, failure, difficulty in recruiting members.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It also comes into compliance with some current state statute regarding SSDs. I believe our county attorney, I’ve looked over them, and I think they’re well stated.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I believe Steven’s also had a chance to look at them. One change I mentioned in those is the current liaison, as we all know, we voted for Bill to be the liaison.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So hopefully we can get that changed. So Steven, would we have to put that in the motion to approve that we’d, there’s just one spot in there that it says that I’m the fifth county member.
Stephen Stocks: Oh, it’s in, they list the names of the members in the bylaws. It actually is.
Stephen Stocks: I saw that in there. Yeah, that’s, it is.
Stephen Stocks: I can probably maybe. It’s in, I think it’s in.
Stephen Stocks: It is in the bylaws.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, it’s just gonna be weird because it should we just take out the names then, like put that in the motion to.
Stephen Stocks: Yes, I’d recommend removing that entire box because otherwise you will literally create an obligation to redo, which isn’t bad, but to redo the bylaws, you’re gonna have to do it again every time. So measure changes or somebody, you know, that makes sense.
Stephen Stocks: So I think just approving it with the necessary change to remove that box in any references to it, like the colon prior.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Now I can’t find it. So anyway, I think that there’s got, there’s been a lot of input on this.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think, you know, the board’s looked over a number of times our attorneys looked over it. And I think, I think these are all good changes, except for the part that we just mentioned.
Stephen Stocks: So Stephen, did you see which article that is? Yeah, so it’s TSSD bylaws 2025, page one of 18.
Stephen Stocks: It is the box under some, or section three. All right, hold on.
Stephen Stocks: That’s the third, third document attached.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: SSD bylaws 2025. Oh, sorry, 2025.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah. Okay.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And you said this article under article three. Oh, yeah, okay.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So just delete section three. Just the box.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Or just the box. Okay.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I would move to approve the updated TSSD bylaws as written with the exception of the box, which details the board positions, term ending times, and people holding those positions. And that is under section three.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second. Motion by Commissioner Hadler, second by Commissioner Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Further discussion? Seeing none, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the motion? I’ll make that motion.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Passes. Good job.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Six with one absent, Commissioner McCandless absent. And so I believe the next one is Commissioner McCandless’ item number 15.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Want to skip over?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Do you want me to?
Bill Winfield, Chair: We can skip over to the cloud seeding one.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So we’re going to do the Chamber of Commerce after the cloud seeding?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think she’s right there. I can hear her voice.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Oh, wait.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: You’re the ball thrower.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Maybe not. Sorry, guys.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Oh, she’s stuck around. All right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So we are up to the resolution of the Moab Chamber OHP Initiative, Commissioner McCandless. Thought I could be faster.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: There’s too many people in the hallway. All right.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So that’s where I’m going to. I just want to bring forward this Chamber OHP.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We heard from Cora earlier. She was talking about how the Chamber has specific things that they’re working on.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And this is an initiative to identify, sign and market beginner, intermediate and advanced OHP routes in Grant County. It’s a marketing plan.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I think the biggest ask from us is one to support it, which I think is super important to let the OHP community know that Grant County supports them. And then also the piece of the ask that does have a fiscal impact is if we get the OHP grant, our OHP coordinator, that’s paid for, but they’re asking for a total up to 20 to 40 hours of work from our OHP coordinator that’s been paid for by that grant.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So the grant, the cost to Grant County would be $459. And that would be for benefits if he was able to, if he used all those 40 hours and mostly he’d be used for mapping, but some other, you know, I don’t really know what they do, to be honest with you, but just to be helping, helping them with mapping and some other information, some GIS stuff.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so combined, that would be a maximum amount of $1,501. We might want to add that in the motion that it wouldn’t exceed that.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But like I said, most of it exceed, it’s on the fiscal impact on the front page. And I did just add that like barely.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So I’ll take that. But it’s on the main page in the agenda summary.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I had, I have reached out to the state and this does fit within that grant. And so if you have any questions, I can answer some more questions.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: It’s really just, they will go to the BLM. If this is the phase one, they’ll just start looking at it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: They’re going to bring in the groups, Red Rock Four-Wheeler. I’m going to attend those meetings on behalf of the, with the chamber.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And I think some other of the OHV community will be on that committee for the chamber to help recommend to the BLM to go to the BLM to find out what they can do. And I think it’s valuable.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I know just up in Duchesne, all of their trails are marked, super easy to see and go. I know that high people that are hardcore OHV users don’t need trails, but people like me, I appreciate them.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Even growing up in this community, I still want to be able to go out and make sure that I don’t get lost, even though I’ve been on a hundred times. So I think that does, that’s a lot of value and to keep our visitors safe.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yes, Commissioner Hedin.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I make a motion.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I move to approve the resolution to support the Moab OHV initiative to identify sign market beginner, intermediate, advanced OHV routes in Grand County, Utah and to provide county staff assistance to check GIS data on proposed routes for the volunteer Moab chamber of commerce OHV advisory committee. Not to exceed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Oh, not to exceed our financial commitment, $1,501.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner Hedin. Is that a second, Mike?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Question. You guys do a second and then I’ll go questions.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner McGann and we will start off with Mr. McCurdy and then go to Commissioner Hedin.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I know we spoke earlier. I just want to make sure that the public knows also this is in conjunction with the county also has a designation of using our OHV coordinator.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thank you for the business name. In with trails maintenance, etc.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: from within tying within a state group with Commissioner Martinez and our other board. I just want to make sure that that it’s with not an against or it’s in conjunction with it’s not against in any way or taking hours away from that process also.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: It was a question to you.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I think that they’re parallel paths. We have one that’s going to market and sign and help us signage, which is a process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then we have the other piece of our coordinator that is going to possibly work with the trails and the state crew. And so one is to create more trails and to do heavy maintenance on it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That’s what you guys are going to work on. But what the chamber’s initiative in is marketing signage.
Bill Winfield, Chair: OK, and also signage.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, just we had multiple people that came to speak in support of this, including the OHV community. And so I want to support that as far as businesses.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think it’s a great idea, too. I’m not, but I’m a biker hiker and it’s the same.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It’s like you go places with map systems, Bar M, for example. And it’s just great, right?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It just allows people that little bit of knowledge, a little bit of information, like you said, keep them out of. I like it.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hadler and then was it McGann or Martinez?
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I didn’t need. I didn’t raise my hand.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I just seconded it.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, I think it’s I think it’s a good idea, too. Honestly, I’m surprised that we don’t already have trails rated and signage.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, they make. Make mountain biking around here way easier.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Skiing ski resorts have had, you know, green, blue and green, blue, black trails where forever as a beginner skier, you end up on a black run. You know, you’re in trouble.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Same situation exists for you TV users. I mean, yeah, you’ve all seen situations where people get in over their heads.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s nice that that clearly marked. I think it also actually works pretty well, like Melodie was saying, with some of the other initiatives.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I think, Melodie, I think you misspoke. You said we’re going to be creating new trails with that, but we are going to be well maintaining existing trails and that and that goes along with it, too.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So maybe creating we create new biking trails so we could create a lab. That’s not what I was told.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I was told the improving and maintaining subject of this.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, but yeah, it’s a good idea. I think it’ll be beneficial to all of us, really.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: They always speak community. So I have a couple of concerns with this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So first off, my original concern was the grant. I brought that up when we were talking to the motorized trail community.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Commissioner McCandless went and she contacted the state and found out that it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any conflicts with that with that grant right there. So, you know, that’s great to see that right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But a couple of other things is I’d like to just point out that this was proposed to Emory County under public land solutions right here, and they denied this. And this was at the same time that the San Rafael Swell management plan, travel management plan was going on.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I’m not exactly sure why they denied this if it was, you know, such a popular type of idea. The other thing is that I’d like to bring up is the OHVR grant, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: One of the things of the OHVR grant is that money can be given basically to a governmental agency or to an OHV user group, right? And I’d just like to make sure that, and I know we’re talking about phase one, which is just identifying these routes, but on phase two, phase three, I’d really like to follow the money on this, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And make sure that the money is going to be ending up going and landing with the sponsor of this, which is the Red Rock Four Wheelers. And this money is not ending up at Public Land Solutions, because if that’s the case, there’s definitely going to be a clear conflict of interest in this whole process right here.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The other thing that I’d like to bring up as well is the fact that these grants are very competitive, right? So whatever grant that we’re putting together, we’re putting forth as a board, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I think that at least I’m realizing right now that these grants are competitive. There’s a lot of great projects.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And the total cost of this grant is $300,000. Now, you know, is that going to deter from any other grants that we’re looking for at the same time?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Possibly, right? But what it also might do is there might be another project that comes up in the near future.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And we look at that project and we go back to the board and go, hey, great. Can we go ahead and apply for this grant?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: They’re going to go, yeah, well, we just gave you $300,000, right? I mean, I think there’s what, 1.7 million in the OHBR fund right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So this is a good portion of that with 29 counties buying for that money right there. And then the third thing that was just brought up right here is one of the things that I would think that would be necessary to create a loop right there would be connector trails.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I think that that’s one thing that’s off the table for the chamber. And I think it’s going to be off the table for SUWA right now and the other people that have had some backdoor conversations on this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it’s going to be hard to make a great trail without adding in a couple of connect. And I almost think this might be a better place to be hosted at the county, but either which way, that’s something that we can discuss in the future.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: If right now we’re kind of just going out and identifying these routes. But for future, when we talk about this a little bit later, these are some of the considerations that I’d like to be, that I’d like to have addressed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Commissioner Hedin. Just a couple of questions for you.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so you mentioned, I guess I’m just a little confused. I’m not following all the pieces here.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So when you talked about the OHVR, you were saying that phase two, phase three would go to Red Rock Four Wheelers.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The 300,000 in phase two, I think, right? Phase one, this is just my understanding.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Phase one is not funded, right? You can’t get a grant if you don’t have an application basically filled out.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So phase one is getting that project idea together.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Right, OK. And then so why did you bring up Public Land Solutions?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Are they, why is that?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Because this exact, this exact, this exact initiative right here was brought to Emery County in 2021, right? From Public Land Solutions.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, you can look it up.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: You don’t know why Emery County turned it down?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I don’t. I actually, I contacted Jim Jennings to find out, but it was prior to this time.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I just, I just wanted to figure out why, you know, I mean, because I presented to the travel council board and to their commission. And I just wanted to figure out why they turned it down.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: He wasn’t able to answer me in such a short time.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m quoting you, but I thought you said that there would be a conflict of interest and I, if public land solutions was involved.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Why is that?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Well, I would see a problem with the head of the chamber, right? Who also, who also pulls money from an organization to be running something and then being pulling money back inside.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I guess, you know, the only statement I’ll make, since we don’t know why Emery County didn’t move in that direction. I, I, I, I don’t want to make implications against Public Land Solutions.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s all I’m saying. Okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Okay. Okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Okay. I appreciate that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I stated for the record, I stated that the money does need to go to the OHVR group and it cannot be going to public land solutions. Got it.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yes. Perfect.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: My other question that I have even further with that, right, which is going to be hard is going to be that Red Rock Four-Wheelers is for profit, right? And I’m not sure if these OHVR grants can go to a for-profit business.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So the sponsor itself might, might not even be, but I still think, like I said, we can discuss that later. And I do think that it’s a valuable, and I think that it’s a great initiative, but I’m just, I see some problems with the grant as a whole, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But the, the initial phase that we’re at right now, I, I completely support it. Okay.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Good.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. I’m going to let Melodie speak, but I want to go and just make a quick point here is that I know we get a little bit out of Robert’s Rules here when we have this debate back and forth between two commissioners.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I don’t really see it as an issue, as long as we all understand that it might happen in the future somewhere else, and it shouldn’t be pointed out as a negative because it has been in the past. So Melodie, I will let you go on and speak to some of Brian’s concerns, please.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Yeah, I just wanted to state that this, we’re just in phase one. So we’re not worrying that there’s not a grant and they haven’t necessarily stated that that’s the particular grant they’re going to go after.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: They just said that they’re going to be doing some grant writing. So they haven’t specified that it would be the OHV grant that is competitive with some of the other things that we have going on in our county.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And at that point in time, that was us as a support letter and we can decide if that’s what we want to do. And the money would go to the, actually to the BLM.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I clarified that too. So if the chamber writes a letter on behalf of this project and the BLM’s happy with it, then the money would be, the grant would go on behalf of BLM and the BLM would purchase the stuff.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So it’s not, wouldn’t go to anybody else. We’re not worried about it going to any entities.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: If it was going to BLM, they would pay for the stuff, get it up and probably with help, with help of some of our other groups. But that’s to clarify that.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that’s down the road. So we’re not doing any grants or anything right now.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And that letter of support would come to us. And at that point in time, we could decide if we have other things that are competing.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And so.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. I will call for a vote on the motion by Commissioner Hedin, second by Commissioner McGann for the OHV initiative.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All those in favor? Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we move on to the cloud seeding contributions. And this is Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So let’s see here. At the last commission meeting, we brought in Rainmaker to give us a presentation.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was the second time that I heard it. They also gave that presentation to Grand Water and Sewer.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Grand Water and Sewer is in favor of this right here. Just a little bit of background.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Utah has been cloud seeding since the early 1950s to help augment the state’s water supply. The Cloud Seeding Act of 1973 gave authority to the Utah Division of Water Resources to oversee state cloud seeding projects.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The Utah legislature continues to support operational cloud seeding activities and pushes for innovation in the field. The state of Utah has provided $350,000 for funding of Rainmaker drone teams this winter with a $50,000 match for the La Sal and Abajo Mountains.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Grand County is looking to partner with San Juan County, the City of Moab, Grand Water and Sewer Conservancy to meet that match.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I have a question. Commissioner Hedin.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Are you thinking that, is this ask, Brian, just to kind of say, OK, we’re going to maybe earmark it and I would assume discretionary is where we’re going to take that money out of for 26 out of the discretionary fund?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’m not sure yet. It’s going to be for 2026.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s what I said, the 2026 discretionary. And are we just earmarking it for now?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct. So, yeah, it’s not due in time.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: OK. And so the grant hasn’t necessarily been written because you were saying it’s a match, I would assume on a grant.
Bill Winfield, Chair: The grant has been written as the cloud seeding is going to take place and we are coming up with the $50,000 in the meantime.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So in the grant wasn’t in the packet. The grant wasn’t in the packet.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I have all these.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I don’t have the grant.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So who are the partners? San Juan County.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Grand Water and Sewer. City of Moab.
Speaker 37: Correct.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: What about San Juan, Spanish Valley Special Service District?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I think that would be coming from San Juan. OK, right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Because I mean, I guess. Commissioner Maughan is going out and asking the folks in San Juan County.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So she’s trying to she’s trying to come up with funds from San Juan County. Right.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Right. And then we were coming up with funds.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so are all the splits, are all the splits equal? How are you distributing those splits?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Our split is for $10,000. We’re not worried about how the other people come up with their split.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So OK, so now can I make a statement? So where I where I’m struggling, I’m struggling on twofold.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One, we don’t really know the science of cloud seeding. We have, you know, it’s variable.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I did a fair amount of research today and everything I read was kind of like. Work sometimes.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that’s fine. You know, I mean, that is science.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. So that’s fine.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: My rub is we’re not water service providers, right? We don’t make money off of water.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Grand Water and sewer does. San Juan, City of Moab does.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so does San Juan’s Spanish Valley Special Service District. So to me, what I would like to see is those three entities, and I’m not saying maybe equal, they would have to kind of do their own, you know, dairy rigging.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They take the brunt of the grant match because they’re going to then turn around and sell that water. We’re not.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I think we, you know, step forward as saying we support it. Maybe I’m more apt to say like five grand and even San Juan five grand.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Like we support these water service providers selling the possible water that could come out of this. That’s the way I see it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So I’m just kind of throwing that out.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy and then Commissioner McCandless.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’ll make the motion. I move to allocate $10,000 from the 2026 budget to apply toward the required match for cloud-seeded Sal and Abajo mountains this winter.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’ll second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second by Commissioner McCandless for discussion. Oh, yes.
Bill Winfield, Chair: County Attorney.
Stephen Stocks: I’m just, however we want to do this, I was just going to ask a question again, whether it’s easier to just put this as a line item in the budget because there’s no contract here. There’s no document here or because otherwise it’s just this floating approval in this meeting from these minutes that we have to give to the budget.
Stephen Stocks: Like, are we guys want to do it? Are we going to approve it?
Stephen Stocks: That’s fine. It just, that’s what Quinn and I were discussing.
Stephen Stocks: It kind of seems more akin to being put into the budget because we’re not assigning it to a particular unless it’s saying that we’re going to take those funds and utilize it specifically for Rainmaker. But there’s nothing in the motion that says that we’re going to give it to Rainmaker.
Stephen Stocks: It says that we’re going to do it for a match. So I’m just pointing that out there.
Stephen Stocks: I was just going to ask you his preference, but I don’t have a dog on the fight on where it goes. I’m just trying to make it make sense.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I guess that’s why I said within our discretionary budget, because I do think we earmarked a few things. I know that timed entries was earmarked that we don’t just earmark that, right?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then that way we know where those monies, cause we did elevate that budget quite a bit. And so to me, it’s great to have those kind of line items within that.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I believe that there will be some documentation from the state that this grant match will go to the state. It is not going to go to Rainmaker to my knowledge.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Now we would have to, but that’s the weird float.
Stephen Stocks: That’s the weird floating thing that normally we have. We have expenditure tied to whoever.
Stephen Stocks: If it’s best to put it in the budget, we could do a lineup for the budget. Obviously, if it passes on a vote, we could allocate to a line item in the budget.
Stephen Stocks: I’m just trying to make sure whenever we have a document, we can have that tracking for ComAdmin. They go, perfect, we’ve got a document.
Stephen Stocks: The next step here is, I don’t know. And that’s where then the commission is going to have to either remind Mark on which company and how we want it to go.
Stephen Stocks: And so I’m just noting that it might be easier to just put it in the budget. That’s however you want to work it out.
Stephen Stocks: I’m just noting that this is a thread that now Mark’s going to have to keep track of to make sure it gets to where we want to get to. And you probably are going to have to, it’s going to come back to you guys if it’s going to be a contract with the state of Utah to be a match part of a grant.
Stephen Stocks: You guys are going to see that grant again. We’d want to make sure it gets put on the preauthorized expenditure list.
Stephen Stocks: So we’re here to facilitate whatever it is you guys want to do. I’m just trying to help make sure that’s the next step.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll stop talking.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Commissioner McGann. That makes more sense.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Well, we’re still going to vote for the allocation. We are going to have to come up with the documentation and find out where Gabe wants to put it in the budget.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Commissioner McCurdy. It’s my time too.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Unless it’s someone else’s time.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Commissioner Hadler, please. It’s going to send me down a rabbit hole.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It was interesting. Just, you know, what is this thing?
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And there are hours of looking stuff up online. I’m not convinced it works.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think it’s like murky at best. It’s kind of 50-50.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It might work. It might not.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I don’t think we’re gonna get 20% out of it. I don’t think we’re gonna get 5% out of it.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: But maybe we will. I think under the circumstances of our financial situation right now, that spending $10,000 on this is unwise.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And kind of grasping at straws. that we don’t need to grasp at.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I’m not, I don’t support it.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hedin. And then Commissioner McCurdy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’m time too. I’m coming back for it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think I’m time too.
Bill Winfield, Chair: You’re time too first.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Okay, so I am not gonna vote for it. However, I would, and I’m just throwing this out.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: If it came back with the actual grant, we have an understanding of the breakdown. We actually, we have a firm understanding of where this is going.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I don’t think we have any of that. To me, this is very, we have a PowerPoint from the company.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then two, again, I’d reiterate that I think it’s important for the county to show support. But we’re not selling water.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I think those water service providers should be bearing the bulk of this. And then we say, yeah, we’re here.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We support you. We’ll give you five grand.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: San Juan County gives you five grand and we’re in. And we’re in for a little bit, but I’m not gonna support it at this amount.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And without any grant, without any knowledge as to who, what the split is, we got nothing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay, Commissioner McCurdy. And then Commissioner McCandless.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: How do we float 100 grand for housing? Oh, we can float 10 grand on the budget for, I mean, last year we floated 100 grand for housing.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: We put it in the budget.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Can we just not do the same with 10?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We could earmark that in the discretionary.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Gabe, do you want to weigh in, I apologize.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah, sorry, Gabe.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I skipped you. It’s all you.
Gabe Woytek: I’m ready whenever. Yeah, please do.
Gabe Woytek: Let’s move to you and then down the line. All I had to say, like the motion as it reads is kind of just as what is being suggested.
Gabe Woytek: And it would still require sort of a follow-up approval for the contract and a purchase, whether it’s on the preauthorized list or if it’s just part of the contract that gets approved. And so it’s pretty clear to me.
Gabe Woytek: I can manage it as it is as far as, and we can sort of certainly follow up on what line it would end up on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Commissioner McCandless. And then Commissioner Martinez.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I just want to comment on, again, we’re not in the water selling business, but we are in the wanting water for our community and to keep our mountain wet so we don’t have forest fires. I know, and I agree.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I read a lot of that stuff on the cloud seeding and it’s really intriguing. And I mean, there is proof that some water, actually, there’s no way to really know, but if it works, great.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: That’s what we know. We know what we don’t know.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I mean, they’ve been going since 1973. They do have a lot of data and it takes, it’s going to take a lot more time than the two weeks that I’ve had to go through and actually pile through that and understand how effective this is going to be.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And not only just how effective this is going to be, but how effective it’s going to be in our mountains, right, which is something that we don’t know, right? I mean, it’s going to be different.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We’ve tried it in the past. You know, we tried to use the ground method in the past up in the La Sal Mountains and it wasn’t successful.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Oh, Tara’s singing to me.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: What’s that? Oh, the ground.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, the ground. Yeah, yeah, gotcha, yeah, yeah.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it was the same silver iodide that they shot up and they found that there wasn’t enough uplift to actually get the iodide up into the clouds. And so, you know, I mean, this is checking out.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, I think the fact that the state’s putting in $350,000 on this, I mean, it’s well worth going out there and seeing, right, is this something that’s viable, especially for a little desert community that’s constantly concerned about water. I think that it’s a wise spend just, I mean, just for the research alone that it’s worth.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Any further discussion? I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner McCurdy, seconded by Commissioner McCandless. Those in favor?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those opposed? You want to bring that in the motion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, I’ll send that in the motion. Opposed Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler and Commissioner McGann.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we will move on to the letter to the BLM regarding Labyrinth Rim and Gemini Bridges reassessment. And I believe this is you, Commissioner Martinez.
Speaker 37: Yeah, give me one second here. Background.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So this letter right here is in response to the Bureau of Land Management officials releasing the motorized vehicle route designations with the Labyrinth Gemini Bridges travel management area. In particular, the BLM is reassessing whether certain routes currently designated as closed or limited to off-highway vehicles should be re-designated as open to OHV use.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The process has and will be informed by agency, cooperators and the public, including public comment period that ends October 24th, 2025. The comment period was about a month.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So it was the standard comment period on something like this. In the Labyrinth Gemini Bridges travel management plan completed in 2023, the BLM designated about 700 miles of routes as open to off-highway vehicle travel.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: The BLM also designated about 100 miles of routes as available for limited OHV use and about 300 miles of routes closed to OHVs. The interactive map is available online if people want to comment on their own.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I highly suggest that they do that. And yeah, I think it’s, I think this is, I’ll just go ahead and speak for just a minute, but I do like the fact of the process that has happened.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: As I followed this, you know, this travel management all the way from 2008, I’ve noticed that it’s been a net-sum game, right? Is everyone’s concerned like, oh, I got 20% of this or I got 40% of this or I got 60% of this and everyone’s kind of using these numbers and they’re pushing it around.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I really appreciate the fact that this is a route-specific, right, because there are some routes in here that are, I mean, the Tubes and Dead Cow, for instance, I mean, I take that as the equivalent of the whole enchilada, right? I mean, it is that great of a ride.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: People will travel all around the world to come see that. You know, the historical significance of Hey Joe is, I mean, it’s for the locals more than for anybody else.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, the fact that we can get inside of these things and all the comments that I heard, you know, tonight and that I’ve read, you know, there’s a lot of talk of the negatives of this as we’re going against this plan. I don’t think it’s going against the previous plan.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s concessions that are made inside of this letter right here, just in itself, right? I mean, if we look at it from 2008 and it’s hard to kind of get the numbers of, and Trish, I do appreciate you helping me out with my letter and going through there, but it is hard to find that 2,000 miles because as Lynn actually brought up, right, they didn’t go ahead and survey and monitor that area specifically.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So they had to go ahead and pull and take and say, this is part of this management plan and this is part of this travel management area. So the 2,000 is pretty rough when you kind of look at it, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But either which way you look at it, we went from having 2,000 miles of trails to 1,000 miles of trails. And I think that that was a pretty big compromise right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it’s hard when we look at these maps and we talk about, you know, like the areas, right? Because you have roads and then you have trails.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: When you have trails, the trails, they go all over the roads, right? Because they’re going after the most unique terrain, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: There’s all kinds of different ways. They’re going out to these special overlooks, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s just the certain flow of how things were built out there. And when we look at the Legacy and Road Act, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It says that we need to have an adequate system of roads and trails, right? So that we need to have an adequate system of both of them.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And right now, I just don’t know if there’s really an adequate system of roads and trails out there. I mean, I’ve been biking out in that area for a long time and I can cover the majority of that in a couple of days on those 600 miles on a bike.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Sure.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Hadler.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: First off, the Legacy Roads and Trails Act just pertains to the Forest Service, not the BLM, so it doesn’t apply here. So it doesn’t apply here.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: 630 miles is still, it’s 630 miles. And that’s way more than there is biking trails.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, you can ride it in a few days or whatever. I mean, I’ve ridden every mountain bike trail in this area probably 20 times, you know?
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I still love it. It’s awesome.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: But a couple of other things. I mean, I think the, I’ve heard tonight, a lot of people say that there’s this narrative that Moab is closed to UTVs.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And that narrative was propagated by the motorized crew. That was a BLM, or BLM, that was a Blue Ribbon Coalition fundraising point.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I mean, on their website, if you went to that, you would have thought that Moab was closed from all the negative comment there that I think was directly propagated by them so that they could raise money. I think that hurt the perception of Moab way more than anything else.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: As far as the routes go, I’ve heard about Easter Jeep safari routes. And I think those are cool.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: A lot of those are great. I’ve driven many of them myself.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: We still have 91% of the Easter Jeep safari routes available to us. Only 19.4 miles out of 978 miles of Easter Jeep safari routes were closed.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Contrary to the assertions in the letter, the BLM actually supports its decisions with verifiable information. Just a small example of that is that BLM has determined that use in Ten Mile Canyon is having ongoing adverse impacts to riparian and cultural resources.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think that’s very fair. And I think that previous to the closure, they weren’t able to mitigate those at all.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I am fairly convinced that they wouldn’t be able to in the future. All of the closures that BLM talked about in their decision are well justified by science and research.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And just because you don’t like it, Brian, doesn’t mean you get to assert that it’s not true. That’s just not right.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I’m actually okay with reopening quite a few of the routes. I really am.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: There’s a few that I think are particularly impactful and impactful on the environment and other user groups. To me, and I know these are probably the most contentious ones, but to me, the kind of the most impactful and important routes are Ten Mile, which the BLM actually didn’t even include in their assessment.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: They didn’t put that in there. You added that.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And the Motorized Trail Committee added part of that. I think that’s an extremely sensitive canyon.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: There’s lots of other places to ride. And I realize that a lot of these places are cherished to people.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And it does hurt. I’ve had cherished places where I’ve enjoyed riding mountain bikes closed.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I totally understand. But I think that sometimes it’s necessary.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I also think along with Ten Mile, the Hey Joe section, I think the section along Bowknot Bend, that I don’t think that should be a motorized route. I mean, I’ve done, I’m not really a river runner.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I’m not a good boatman like you are and other people are. But I love that section of river because I can take my family.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I took my kids on it when they were like two and five because there’s no, it’s not dangerous. There’s no rapids.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s easy. You can do it in a canoe.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: You can cruise along. And it absolutely impacts you when you get to that area, when you’ve been out in the wilderness for two days and you get to that area and all of a sudden there’s UTVs rolling around on that road.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And it’s not, I don’t think it’s a massive ask to close a small piece of road in that area to keep that canyon closed to folks who come for that aspect of recreation. I mean, there’s not many beautiful rivers like that that someone like me can run that doesn’t have a road along it in the whole Western U.S.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: There’s very, very few. People can access it by boat.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: You can hike in. You can do those kinds of things.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s not inaccessible. So I mean, those are two of the big ones for me.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I don’t dirt bike, but I have a ton of friends in town who dirt bike and they’ve said what you’ve said. They said Dead Cow and the Tubes are a cherished motorcycle route.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And I think that there are ways, I think Cliff mentioned in his letter that there are ways to reroute part of that away from the river so that we can still have that. And I’d endorse that if we could do that.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I understand the recreational value of that route for people. So I think that could potentially be an option.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And there’s user conflict with motorized. I’ve said this before.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: When I’m out riding my bike and someone blows past me on a UTV with their headphones on or music blaring and dust flying, it’s not a conflict for them. They don’t notice.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: It’s a conflict for me when I get run off the road or when you’re on the river and you’re experiencing solitude and wilderness and all of a sudden five UTVs roll past you. It’s a conflict.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: The definition of conflict isn’t just two guys going face-to-face and jawing. And it’s a conflict for wildlife, riparian areas that are super sensitive in those areas.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So I don’t support the letter. I think it goes way too far.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I think there are absolutely concessions that can be made. And I think that a number of the routes are justifiable in reopening.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: I don’t have a problem with that. I mean, if we sat down and looked at it route by route and maybe had some give and take, but that’s probably not gonna happen.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: So yeah, for now that’s… This is an initiative under this administration.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: This letter is gonna pass. BLM is gonna open a bunch of routes.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: And then in five years, we’re gonna be looking at the same thing again, unfortunately. So it is what it is.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’m Commissioner Hedin, and then I’m going to weigh in.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then I’ll… I asked Quinn to…
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Can you project that map that I sent? If you don’t mind, share that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And what this is is simply a map from pre when we had the closures in 23. And what there was actually Jacques’ wife did the GIS work on it and just put a buffer on the road.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So a half mile buffer. And so then that way you just get a visual if it does come up, if it doesn’t, life goes on.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But we just have a visual of that area and the amount of roads in that area. So that we have an understanding when we say there’s not enough roads.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Hopefully this gives you a visual as to the amount of roads. And I’m sure everybody has an understanding of the…
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So again, that half mile buffer is in red. And then once you go farther out, you can see the areas that I think it’s a mile and then three miles.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And it’s really interesting to look at Grand County in totality because you get into green and I think the green was three miles. I can’t see the key, but is it say three miles, Quinn?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: The green, yeah, over three miles. Really the only area in the entire county that has that is some areas in the bookclips.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So, which is kind of intriguing just to look at maps like that. I find them quite intriguing.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But I think we all know that the bulk of these roads came from mining exploration, cattle to get water or cattlemen to get water to their cattle. And now we’ve moved into a rec economy.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that being said, we need to think about parsing out those user groups, right? So I’m not anti OHV.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I love to hear that all the time. It’s not that, it’s just we as a commission have to think about our rec economy holistically.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And we look at things like Betrayal to Tomorrow. It said the bulk of our visitors come to hike, right?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They come to bird watch. They come to do all these other things.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so when we look at that rec economy, I think we need to think about, okay, how do we try to, which is very difficult, satisfy all of those users. And there is conflict.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’ve heard again and again, we don’t have user conflict. There’s literally, I tried to like do a quick Google search on how many research papers are out there on user conflict.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And it’s like, I can’t even, it’s endless. And when we have entire departments, USU has an entire rec resource management department.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m within, you know, the umbrella of that larger college of natural resources. And we have an entire department that just deals with rec resource management.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so these managers are, you know, saddled with trying to say, how do I provide solitude for some? And motorized travel for others.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And it’s difficult, right? And that’s where I think we need to be thinking more about compromise.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’ll state, you know, and I actually said this to Brian when we were out with Kendall looking at the Dolores triangle. I think it was one of you said, what’s your rub?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And for me, it’s wildlife, right? That’s my rub.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I’m gonna just kind of give you a few quick statistics. So in 1960, in the state of Utah, there were remnant amounts of bighorns, desert bighorn.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s all they say there. I can’t find a number.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They say remnants, right? So they existed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We know they existed because they’re all over Patrick lift panels, but they barely existed. And so now we have about 2,800 desert bighorns.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: When you look at desert bighorns and their range and the management plan, it’s all along those river corridors, right? That is where they exist a lot.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so it’s just imperative. I just, I really quickly, the rattlesnake herd, there’s 138 La Sal potash, 134 Lockhart 55.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So approximately 325 sheep kind of in that area. There is, again, a lot of studies.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I actually just had a week within my class. I teach a class human dimensions and wildlife management on just transportation systems and their effects on wildlife, all transportation systems.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And this is what they do. It fragments habitat.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It destroys habitat in some case, soil compaction, erosion. It’s an invasive species.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It erodes water quality. It’s stress these animals to where they’re not foraging enough, where they’re not mating effectively.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And in the end, then it displaces animals. So in the end, you know, these animals, when you look at a map like this, they need areas of refuge.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And when you look at a map like this, there’s just not a lot. I actually was just hunting down on Elk Ridge.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And, you know, it was funny because every hunter I talked to was like, where are the elk? Where are the elk?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Where are the elk? Two, a couple of things.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One, it was hot. And two, there was full moon.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So those animals just feed at night when it’s full moon. But it’s like when there’s that many people and there was a ton of people ripping around, trucks, UTVs, you name it.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They just dive into those canyons. They go down in Dark Canyon.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And they’re not going to stand up on top and know that some, you know, they hear that thing coming. It’s like somebody’s going to shoot at me out of this thing.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And so it affects wildlife. And so for me, it’s a wildlife deal.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I, you know, I appreciate how much, how in-depth you went on the different trails. And I support, you know, again, if Jacques supports, oh, we could reopen this and this.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: One thing I did say, Brian, I think there’s a couple of things in this letter. They’re just unnecessary jabs.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And to be honest, and this is me just being a professor here for a second. I don’t think they’re really representative of a legislative body making a comment to a land management agency.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There’s no need for them, to be honest. And I did point those out to you, whether you want to make any changes or not.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I just said, I don’t think that they’re necessary. I do appreciate, one, you giving me that letter and allowing me to make comments.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And then also giving me feedback on where the numbers come from. And I appreciate all that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But I think, you know, to say things like this demonstrates responsible management, particularly when compared to 2020, 2023, which was fueled by political influence of expanding wilderness groups and marked by questionable practices and self-dealing. That’s just not needed.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: That’s just not needed. We’re trying to make a recommendation to a land management agency.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We don’t need to be throwing out our our political jabs. I just I don’t I don’t think it’s appropriate.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But that’s just me. So I won’t be voting for this either.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: But again, I felt like it was imperative that I made it known as to why.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, so I’m going to weigh in on a few items and then I know Mary McGann and then Mike McCurdy and then Brian Martinez. We get a chance here.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I want to just go off a few points. The previous commission went too far in expecting the BLM to close down our S-2447 roads.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you could even say that when they made statements, they were actually considering breaking the law because they were trying to take away the right that the Grand County owns to those roads and the state of Utah. So we were giving up access to our S-2447 roads that we didn’t have the authority to do as a commission.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I just got multiple points I want to go through on. And this letter doesn’t undo what the BLM put in place.
Bill Winfield, Chair: This is just a comment to the BLM. This is our comment to the BLM as a cooperating agency.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Now, the previous commission, they sent their letter in and I’m sure that there were commissioners of voter against it. I probably did.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you’re free to vote against this one as well. I disagree with the remarks that we shouldn’t be putting some of those things in there because they were in the previous letter and they’re referenced.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so, you know, I want to go to the fact that I really have a new appreciation for the BLM, the people at the BLM and the Moab office, because working the Deer Creek Fire as I did and then working with them out on Mud Springs, I know that they’re going to take our comments. They’re going to take all the comments of everybody in this community, even out of this community, and they’re going to weigh them all in and they’re going to make some decisions.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And so I have a new respect for them. And I think that they’ll do a good job when all of this comes out.
Bill Winfield, Chair: This letter is just giving a statement to them. This isn’t telling them that this is the way it’s going to be.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’re still going to have to wait and see what they come up with. Over a few other things, you mentioned bike trails.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’d really like to know how many miles of bike trails Grand County has. That’s an interesting thought as to how many miles there are.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So we could have a little bit of a comparison here. And then I want to discuss the wildlife just a little bit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: When I was a kid, it was stated that there were 15 elk left on the La Sal Mountain Range. You weren’t allowed to hunt elk.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They were trying to bring them back. And so from 1962 until this time right now, we see elk overrunning the LaSals to the point that they put out special hunts on them.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And all during the time when there’s OHV traffic and there is increased traffic by recreation, there’s increased traffic by ranchers, there’s increased pressure from fires because of poor fire management. We can look at wildlife and see that when they have the right circumstances, they proliferate quite well.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we talk about the sheep and I like the sheep. I see them everywhere.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I go around quite a bit. And lots of times I see the most of them right out here on the highway as I’m going past arches.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And you go up the hill to where the train cut is there. They’re always along the highway.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They are walking on the path where the train track is there. It’s astounding to me that we constantly use them as an excuse to try and block people out of something.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And I might be aging myself just a little bit, but I was hauling ore out of Hay Joe Canyon and Mineral Bottom riding in a dump truck with my dad and with another friend, probably before you were born, Jacques. So a little four or five mile, I was eight years old and I’m 67.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I don’t know where we are. You might have been born, but I’m saying there’s a little section going into Hay Joe Canyon of approximately five miles that I would like to have access for the rest of my life to motorized.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So it’s understandable the canyon from Green River all the way down. I don’t know how many miles are there to the confluence, 50, 60 miles of river.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And we want to share five miles of it. I think that’s not a big request.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I think that it should be considered. I just don’t think that there isn’t room here to share a little bit.
Bill Winfield, Chair: There’s room for the wildlife. We’ve done a good job on the La Sals with the elk.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We’ve done a good job all over with the bighorn. There’s plenty of room for compromise in this letter.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And again, it’s going to fall on the shoulders of some people at the BLM that are going to have to make this decision. And I just two years ago, I wouldn’t have been as confident as I am now.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I feel like those people do a good job. They work hard.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They get attacked by the left. They get attacked by the right.
Bill Winfield, Chair: They’re never not doing enough. They get sued by everybody.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And to be honest with you, I wouldn’t want a job at the BLM for a lot more money. So I just think that sometimes we blow things a little bit out of proportion.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We need to learn to work together a little bit more, collaborate on these things. And I understand your points, Jacques.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I wouldn’t want the dust when I’m on a bicycle either. But I know a lot of bike trails that you don’t have that problem on.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I’m trying to find you the number of trails in Grand County, too. I’m going to go to Mary and then I think it was Mike and then Martinez.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So thank you.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I’m going to make mine very short because I think we know how people are going to vote. I don’t mind opening some of the trails.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I don’t mind that at all. I think some of you could be.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But I think this letter goes way too far. So I think the one that concerns me the most is the University of New Mexico and the University of Utah State.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: Universities, both separate, totally different people studied Ten Mile Canyon. And they both came up with the same conclusion that motorized vehicles can cause irreparable damage and problems in an area where there is that’s not one of the only riparian areas.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s a very, you know, it’s very, it needs it’s very sacred. So I, you know, I, you know, I’ve got my papers open.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I, you know, I’m not I have no opposition to some of them being open. But I do.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: I do think this is just when I read something in the newspaper and, you know, and then all of a sudden in the middle of this explanation, you know, where facts are being given, somebody throws out a philosophy or a political point of view. It, it tends to make me question everything else, because then I see the point of view that they’re coming from rather than seeing it, that this is this, this and this and this and this.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And so, you know, I feel the hyperbole you put in there, for instance, critics or the one that Trish wrote. And there was another one that I didn’t mark it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But I think that takes away from the power of your letter. I think your letter would be more powerful because a lot of people read with discernment like that because they’re even teaching it in school to to read.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: So, you know, what’s being presented as fact, but yet on many levels is somebody’s opinion. It’s an editorial.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: It’s not factual. So I think that I think it weakens the letter to put in all of that.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: And I think it goes way too far. And so because of that, I won’t be voting for it.
Mary McGann, Commissioner: But there’s I’m not against a lot of the things you say in there. But I do think if you took that hyperbole out, it would strengthen your view.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Mr. McCurdy.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Thank you, Commissioner Martinez, for asking me to fill in for your motorized trail committee. I have traveled some of the area prior to closures.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I mean, have it after closures. I was pretty neutral on the on the subject.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: A lot of my constituents haven’t been so neutral to me meeting in the streets over the years on this subject. But we a lot of these trails and roads predate.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Well, all of us easily, even though some of you are old. But let’s that’s why we’re pushing touchy subjects.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But OK, the easier would be to open reading, open existing trails. We’re not looking to even the motorized community committee isn’t looking to add trails.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: They’re looking for trail access to existing roads and trails. They’re not looking out.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: They’re looking to make a bunch of new ones. So I mean, it was pretty eye opening going to their meeting and attending.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: But that’s why this letter has my my backings, because it’s existing routes not going out there making new ones. And they’re existing for, I mean, tens of years, 50s of years.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: These these trails were like like Trish stated, cattle trails and roads. I mean, mining roads.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: They weren’t. It worked for motorized recreation originally, but they’ve been roads that long back in the cattle and mining times within our area.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: So reopening existing trails in my eyes is nothing but a good thing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Sorry, so I am absolutely in favor of opening these roads. I grew up here and the majority of the people that I grew up with are just super disappointed when these were closed.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Lots of my friends that come to Moab. We’re very disappointed.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: A lot of them don’t come here anymore. You know, we have other areas like Duchesne, Salina, Richfield opening up opening up trails and creating new trails.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I mean, we just want to open up the ones that we used to have. And I do agree with Bill and I have faith that the BLM is going to look at it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And if there is real reasons for them to keep those roads closed, that they will do it. So I don’t.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: This is a suggestion. I want 10 mile back open.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I’m not going to lie. It’s where my family went to Easter every single year of my life.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But you know, and it’s super neat. And if they decide not to reopen it, then I’m going to respect that.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But am I going to ask? Absolutely.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Because I would love for it to be open. I would love to go there all the time.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Hardly even go out that area anymore because all the roads I used to go to are closed. And so I understand the sheep and the animals and all of it, all of your concerns.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: But I know that the people that I grew up with in this community, this is what they want. And I know there’s a lot of people that don’t.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: We’ve heard both sides. So we’re here.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Like I said, we’ve got the same as the water tank. We’ve got people that don’t like it and people that do like it.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: People that, you know, are going to benefit from it and others that don’t. And I’m sorry that people dust you out on your bike.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I always try when I run around on my OHV to slow down. Sometimes they pass me.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: I have to pass them again.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I’m just going to I’m just going to kind of refute a couple of things that we’re saying right here. So first off, it’s, you know, Jacques said this is a political football and I don’t think so, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, there is compromise, even in this right here. I have them put up the map right here of the routes that we’re asking.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We’re not asking for the 300 miles back, right? We’re not asking for the 100,000 miles that was taken back in 2008.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That would be a political football. If we wanted to go and say, we want everything open that’s ever been closed.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That would be a political football. We’re asking for the routes to be opened back up again, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s where we’re at. And, you know, this conflict, this user conflict going both ways that you don’t, there’s no user conflict when you get dusted out, Jacques.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I disagree because you went and told the BLM that they weren’t going far enough to close down the trails. So yeah, there is a user conflict.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You told them to go ahead and close our trails down, right? I think of that as harm done towards me and users that like those areas.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then second off, kind of going back to a couple of the routes, 10 Mile Canyon, the 2008 decision was decided that they could manage the impacts, right? Without closing trails, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’d like to see them go out and go ahead and make that decision again. Go out and do the research and find out if the impacts can be mitigated because it’s a cherished spot.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, it’s the spot that I took my kids to learn how to dirt bike and ride in the sand. It doesn’t sound like something, you know, something to somebody else, but anybody who’s learned how to ride in the sand, you know that you have spent a whole lot of blood, sweat and tears that day because it’s terrible.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, you’re sliding all around. You’re just moving all over the place.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then once you get it, you’re like, this is the greatest thing in the whole world. I’m having so much fun out there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And when we go riding on the trail and we get back to that spot and they see that sign that says that it’s closed down, it’s hard because they’re like, well, why, why is this closed down? And I explained to them that, you know, we have to go around that this was the decision that was made.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: But I would like to see that open. And I’m only one generation in this.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, there are people who’ve been visiting this for three, four generations out there in these same places. And they have traditions that are being broken because of these closures.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I’d like to have that re-evaluated. And that’s kind of where we’re at.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Talking about Hey Joe, right? I mean, two words, the Dingle Act, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Part of the Dingle Act said that if we’re going to designate this as a scenic river right there, right? That we were going to still allow the roads to still be there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I mean, we just spoke with John Curtis who was involved in that. That was part of the negotiations that happened.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And the second that that negotiation happened, right? We went right after those roads.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And it is a beautiful spot. I love that section of river.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I just had a trip get pulled off of there and the people had a fantastic time. And I ran trips there, you know, for 20 years and it’s a great spot.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I’m talking a little bit about the wildlife. You know, the last biologist that I spoke to from the BLM said that right now we’re seeing an increase in lambing, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And that’s happening at a time where we’re seeing an increase in use. So I do think that there’s probably some time for a little bit more research to be done out there before we’re going to go ahead and close down trails based on just the sheep.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And you know what? I’m so happy that Bill brought that up.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We have the BLM to go ahead and make those decisions. We’re not making those decisions.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: We’re just asking for them to go ahead and reanalyze those spots. And then, you know, finally, I’d like to just ask you guys a question.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Were you guys involved with Nina Colbert in the BLM Labyrinth Rims discussions prior to this? In 2023.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: In 2023, did you have discussions with her? Yes.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So was that when she was the deputy director? Or was that when she was the head of the Wilderness Society?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Oh, was that when she was the lawyer that she was pushing? No, she worked for the BLM.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Oh, OK. She worked for the BLM.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Yeah. So it wasn’t when she was the lawyer.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: My understanding is, yeah, she was just below.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, but it wasn’t when she was the, it wasn’t when she was the lawyer working on the SUWA versus the Department of the Interior.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: No, I didn’t. I wouldn’t have even known that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I wouldn’t have even known that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: What I know is, when we were speaking to her, she worked for the BLM. OK, perfect.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Because that’s what we were talking about when we’re talking about the, yeah, what was the statement that was brought up? I have to go back and go look at it.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Here how I brought that up. It was the self-dealings, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: That’s what we were, that’s what I was mentioning when I was talking about that. And that’s also the legal basis.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And one of the legal basis is of why they’re going ahead and re-analyzing this.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Commissioner McCurdy, I’m trying to, do we have a motion?
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: No.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We do not.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I move to approve the letter of the Bureau of Land Management regarding Labyrinth Rims-Gemini Bridge’s travel management area.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy. I’ll second.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Second by Commissioner McCandless. Further discussion?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Mr. Hadler.
Bill Winfield, Chair: 150 miles, Bill. Thank you.
Jacques Hadler, Commissioner: Yeah, I can do that a couple times in a month.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, it’s still good. Y’all can see 175.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. Seeing no further discussion, I’ll call for a vote.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Those in favor of the letter? Those opposed?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Motion passes with Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler, and Commissioner McGann opposed. Good luck, Bill.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Moving on. We are up to a discussion item.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Is that right? Yes, discussion item.
Bill Winfield, Chair: It’s a creation of a county policy regarding the process of applying administrative fees to county departments. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Martinez.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Yeah, I’ll go ahead and start off. So at the last NTAB board, we went through the budget.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: One of their duties is, one of the special duties actually that was by the state, they’re required to approve the budget and also provide a recommendation to the spots right here of the standard TRT and NRCCA. The week previous, we held a budget workshop prior so that we could go through and let everybody have their chance to make any kind of tweaks or comments that they have.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And then the day that we were going to approve the budget, there was a request from the clerk auditor’s office to add $250,000 in admin fees. And that was given to the, she’s an assistant director right there.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I never saw that. The board had never seen that.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was just go ahead and try to figure out the budget with an additional $250,000. Now I’m not exactly sure if that’s all of the details right there, but it was definitely something that was difficult to deal with at that board meeting.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It came from the clerk auditor. And so what we’re discussing is, is there a policy to put administration fees into on to departments?
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I know. Yeah, I don’t know.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: It’s interesting. I know I’ll kind of bring up my other job at a school district level.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: We definitely, any exterior money we bring in they take a cut. And the bummer is they take a pretty big cut.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They take like 18% of all my grants, which is hefty, right? It’s hefty.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, it’s, yeah. So I guess I don’t know what the county policy is.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So it’s an interesting topic.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Well, I would think that maybe we need to hear from the clerk auditor. Yeah, and then possibly come up with a policy.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’ll be able to share what I came up with.
Gabe Woytek: There wasn’t a boost at a late time. We have something in place that I haven’t ever really been been able to figure out.
Gabe Woytek: Allergy that was used to derive, but I know for a fact that it’s been at least seven years since it’s been updated and costs of things certainly have gone up, you know, not to, you know, perhaps that’s the degree to which the sort of the, the relative increase that was, you know, that was offered or proposed. I want to stress that it was a proposal.
Gabe Woytek: The office of tourism budget still has to go before advisory board, still has to go before the commission, perhaps be discussed more. So certainly I was, it certainly is a starting point, but I was able to get some feedback from another county auditor one in particular that I’ve gotten to know at UF conferences and I know to be highly respected in our fields.
Gabe Woytek: And she, she, as Chantelle and I were working through different approaches to how to figure out and what we’re talking about for anyone kind of like having a hard time sort of catching up. It’s just all the overhead that is provided to departments that aren’t funded by the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: And there’s quite a long list of things that are offered to the departments in particular. It would include sand flats, the MOAB office of tourism, the roads department.
Gabe Woytek: Those are the kind of the top examples. I believe the library, maybe not the library, nevermind.
Gabe Woytek: Trails was the fourth one. There are four.
Gabe Woytek: So anyway, I have been always nervous about that or not having the appropriate amount of justification and backup to in terms of how we assess it. And I wanted a solid approach to get into this budget and everything’s happening really fast.
Gabe Woytek: And so what Allison McCoy from Tooele County offered is what she does in her county, which is assess 10%, which is the federal indirect cost overhead rate on all expenditures that don’t include things like capital projects and grants. And so as far as having something that’s clear, measurable, like transparent in how it’s applied and something that can be very easily updated from year to year, I thought it was a viable solution.
Gabe Woytek: And the 250 was represented, the cap that is established that also is used in that county. That’s what was proposed.
Gabe Woytek: And it’s a lot.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I’d like to go to the county attorney and then I’ll take comments around the room.
Stephen Stocks: And just giving context to what we’ve seen historically from USU, when we had those discussions, I think Commissioner Hadler was involved in that. I can’t remember if Commissioner Wentfield was.
Stephen Stocks: When we talked with them originally, when we were giving the funding to USU to fund the position for Tom Peters, I think it is in that role now. No, that’s not right.
Stephen Stocks: No, no, it’s Thompson. They took a percentage and a chunk out of it.
Stephen Stocks: And I can’t remember what the percentage for USU was, but it was kind of a shock factor for, I think for all of us when we sat and talked about it because we thought that we were funding the full position and then they informed us. And I think there was between seven and nine percent.
Stephen Stocks: It might even have been emails around that. Yeah, yeah, I remember that, but I can’t remember.
Stephen Stocks: This is something that is, it is seen, it is, you know, we experienced it. And so if we do have that policy, I think it’d be a good practice to that whenever we issue grants to other entities, they’ve tried to do this with us in the past.
Stephen Stocks: We had people who received the grants that wanted to have money set aside for taxes or things like that. So whatever policy, I’d encourage the commission to consider the percentage point and then also make the policy clear so that it’s not attempted to be utilized against the county when we’re giving out grants and then turn around and say, hey, we want to use X amount of percentage for an administrative fee.
Stephen Stocks: So that’s, again, don’t have a dog in the fight. I’m just pointing out options on best practice.
Bill Winfield, Chair: OK, I believe Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner McCurdy, Commissioner McGann.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And I just had that quick question. Yeah, that’s exactly it’s indirect that the school district takes out of my department.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I want and what’s interesting is we get a chart every year with every year with all the counties, and it actually varies per county. So I don’t know if it was something that was negotiated internally.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Does that make sense? But that rate is different for every county, and I’m not exactly sure why.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So maybe it’s just a matter of, I don’t know if we do a little bit of research and find out what a good indirect cost rate is, because it is great when you are grant writing. Also, like we actually get these documents that as soon as we put in numbers, it’s actually calculating the indirect cost rate.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: They’re just skimming it right off the top. So, yeah, I think if we can do a little bit of research and come up with a number that’s palatable.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Yes, Commissioner McCurdy. If I would have known that Utah State was taking seven to nine percent, et cetera, I would have changed my vote and I wouldn’t have gave them that money.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And Dave, there’s plenty of good going on up there.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, and they had a conversation. It was a surprising thing, but we all discussed that last time.
Stephen Stocks: But I do think it makes sense when you’re trying to fund this that the idea is that you’re receiving an additional benefit from the county that you normally wouldn’t have on a standalone entity. So like the roads department, they get benefits from the county that aren’t being funded exactly.
Stephen Stocks: So, for example, roads department gets a lot of funding in. We pay for the salaries, but then we have an entire HR department that helps facilitate this system.
Stephen Stocks: And so that’s what the conversation is about. One other way to look at this, and this is and the auditor, correct me, but the understanding of their ability is that you can utilize this mechanism to charge that fee to take and maybe remove any restrictions on those funds.
Stephen Stocks: Like, for example, if you’re using it to facilitate making expenditures for what would have been would be a promotional salary. I don’t know if there’s an ability to do that when you’re looking at the promotable salary and taking a percentage of it and charging that back to the county for that salary.
Stephen Stocks: And then using those TRT funds, I don’t know, in that voice sense.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, I mean, we’ve all like for years and years, we’ve spent TRT promotion on administrative service, not to the scale that had been proposed by.
Stephen Stocks: So I recognize that.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, but you know, Seth came and looked at our books and that was there was no problem with that.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, and that’s not a weird practice, but it allows you to free up some of those funds that come in, be it through the roads department to help offset the costs that the county is incurring, facilitating and supporting that department. It also offsets general fund expenditures.
Stephen Stocks: So it’s not a negative thing.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Couple of things. I mean, you mentioned the federal.
Bill Winfield, Chair: I mean, is there a state statute we can follow or look into? And then the third thing is I just did look that up and the USU took 9% of our money on that project.
Bill Winfield, Chair: So I think it’s worth coming up with something so that we’re all on the same page. It’s not a surprise and that it can be used as it should be.
Gabe Woytek: And I want to be very clear, like Chantel can attest to this because we spent a few weeks off sort of bouncing this idea around and trying to develop what might be more in-depth methodologies that would be harder to replicate from year to year. But like I was very clear with Chantel every step of the way, I reminded her multiple times that this is not a scheme to create more money.
Gabe Woytek: That’s not what this is about. This is about accurate accounting and this is just about accurate defensible accounting.
Gabe Woytek: Has nothing to do with trying to up that budget number.
Stephen Stocks: So I just want to make that clear. That’s where I’m coming from.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Go ahead, Stephen.
Stephen Stocks: Sorry, just teasing off that point. Yeah, any of these expenditures when we do, it’s like when we do any of these like these studies or any of the expenditures that the county is paying and billing and charging, it has to be defensible.
Stephen Stocks: So, and that’s why tying it to another standard.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So, I mean, I just have a couple of questions. So I’ve been with Bill and Trish on the Budget Advisory Board and we have not seen this come up in the Budget Advisory Board, right?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Not to our knowledge. And so to see this and maybe in previous years it came up, but not since I’ve been a commissioner and not since I’ve been at the Budget Advisory Board has this come up.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I also have not seen this applied to any other department.
Gabe Woytek: So if you weren’t looking, I’m sorry.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And that’s what I’m saying. Like, I’m not, that’s what I’m saying.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Like, I probably don’t, you’re asking the wrong person. My memory is like a sip.
Gabe Woytek: Did 10% of the roads budget get pulled out of this? And develop the methodology.
Gabe Woytek: And so clearly with the response to this, I thought it would be wise to hold off on applying the same assessment to the appropriate departments. Cause clearly this needs more discussion.
Gabe Woytek: I agree.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Just on the process. I mean, would the process have been to put this into someone’s budget?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: You know, I’m just, and I’m asking all the commissioners, is it best to have the clerk auditor to put this into someone’s budget, right? And have them find out about it?
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Or would the process have been proper to come to this, to come to the commission and have this discussion prior to that? So it still is my understanding that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There’s, I mean. Are you scolding me?
Gabe Woytek: We gotta be in here scolding me? Like, come on, man.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: There’s no reason that, I mean, here’s the thing. We’re having the discussion right now.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And let’s come up with the process.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And hopefully we can get the process done by the end of the year and move forward.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I didn’t, yeah.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Did you say there’s already something, Gabe, it seemed like you had mentioned that there was already, is there already something that we can base that off of? As we go forward with this.
Gabe Woytek: So this was shared with commission administration the day before. I knew MTAB was presenting their item.
Gabe Woytek: Commission administration had every opportunity to share it with the board and the commission. I recognized it was last minute.
Gabe Woytek: But don’t act like I didn’t create, like offer any backup or just like, this is ridiculous. I’m not gonna take that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I will just say it’s a common practice. I actually just looked up, you’ll really hate these numbers.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: University of Utah within their research grants, they take 51% of grants that come in and Utah State, they take 21%. So it’s like, oh my gosh.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So that’s a glut. There’s kind of, I’m trying to like lighten the mood a little bit.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: When I started my program, it was so lean. It was super lean.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And Margaret Hoffman was the superintendent. And she wouldn’t take indirect costs from my program because it’s like, you need him.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: You need him to survive. And then the latest, the new interim, and then I brought that up and he goes, well, she wasn’t doing it right.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m taking your, you know, so he won’t give at all. Cause I’m always like, dude, you’re taking too much of my money.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: And he was like, tough. Cause it does cost a lot to provide that over.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It was very difficult at that meeting because they only have that once a month meeting. And so, and it went from $20,000 to 250.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: Let’s just come up with a number.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: And then it goes across all the parts. And I think it’d be all departments.
Stephen Stocks: And that’s what it’ll have to, it’ll have to, you can’t, you can’t utilize a different person. Absolutely.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: It sounded like there was a maximum. It’s not like he was saying there was a maximum.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: Cause 10% of TRT is 10% of the MLT budget is much more than two. It’s much more.
Melodie McCandless, Commissioner: So he actually, he was saying that there was a maximum. So I think that, that needs to be.
Stephen Stocks: I think, I think I’m more than happy to facilitate a conversation with the, with the clerk and we can sit down and we’ll work with ComEd and myself and we will put it together. And emulate a policy.
Stephen Stocks: Tag with everybody. And I think that’ll work good.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, the last thing I’ll state, and I don’t really need to state this, but I think we, we need to, we all need to do this. This is, I am not scolding anybody.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m saying it to myself also. We need to respect one, our staff always, but we are all electeds.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: Gabe is also an elected and we need to treat all, you know, we need to treat each other with respect. You know, we’re, we’re way more effective and efficient when we do that.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: So, and I think tonight we’ve had a really nice meeting.
Speaker 37: Thanks.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I’m not, I don’t want to go home and drink, you know, a gallon of vodka. Oh, please.
Trish Hedin, Commissioner: I mean, you know, so.
Stephen Stocks: And y’all made. I can’t, I could.
Stephen Stocks: But you’re going to find one. No, no, I just, we don’t.
Bill Winfield, Chair: We weren’t like, quick note on the one box. Mr.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Reports can. Oh, okay.
Bill Winfield, Chair: All right. So we do have general commission reports and elected official reports.
Bill Winfield, Chair: And then those are all contained tonight. They’re all contained within the documents that have been loaded within the agenda items.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Okay. Just real quick.
Stephen Stocks: So for commissioners, for the benefit at the beginning of the year, Commissioner Hadler, commissioner Winfield and I were assigned on a committee to clean up the rules. We’ve had a couple of conversations about that tonight.
Stephen Stocks: I am not here to say anything about anything, but I do think it’d be really good if both the commissioners and I get our calendars together to kind of address some of those things. I think they, they keep coming up.
Stephen Stocks: I know the state statute for OPMA has a really low threshold. It doesn’t require documents.
Stephen Stocks: The reason why is the commission changes documents during the meeting last minute. It’s not great.
Stephen Stocks: If the commission really wants to see a hard deadline, that’s something that we can get to Comm-Admin and we can facilitate and put it in that packet. But it’d be really awesome if we could have something from that subcommittee before the end of the year.
Stephen Stocks: So I’m saying it aloud so that everyone can keep all three of us accountable on this because I think we can make some changes on that front. I think that’ll really alleviate some of the issues.
Stephen Stocks: And so, and I’ve been busy and I know the commissioners have been busy, but I do think that that’s one that can really have some good impacts. So I just want to note that one on everybody’s mind.
Stephen Stocks: So that was the only thing in the reports. I don’t know if you have other items in the reports.
Stephen Stocks: That’s all I’ve got. Yes, Mike.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: I’ve been looking for a place to add a future consideration. I would like to add a future consideration.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Going into budget season, I would like to know the feasibility. I see a necessity for OWLS.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Our OWLS, not just OWLS, but our YouTube recording device. Our video recording device.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: It’s called an OWL. It’s called an OWL at every SSD meeting, at every board meeting.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: And I want to know what it would take financially to do so. For about $800 a piece, $1,200 a piece.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Okay, then logistically, what are the requirements needed? Because I know we have at least one that travels.
Mike McCurdy, Commissioner: Because I keep getting asked.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Future consideration sounds great. Great, great.
Bill Winfield, Chair: 8.06, and I haven’t joined this meeting.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: I do have one other one. I do want to bring it back just to everybody’s concerns.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: So I’ve been going to NACO quite a bit and following them. And there is a bill right now called the Small County Built Parity Act.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: And I would like to bring that up for a future consideration. That’s all.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: If you guys want to look into it or if you have any questions, just email me. But I think it’s something- Could you email us?
Bill Winfield, Chair: Yeah, they’re working to increase our bill payment.
Brian Martinez, Commissioner: It’s definitely worth it.
Bill Winfield, Chair: That’s basically- Well, you don’t get to leave before- All right, with that, I will adjourn the meeting at 8.06. Thank you, everybody.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Hanging in there. Larry, thank you.
Bill Winfield, Chair: Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Larry.
Workshop
2026 Employee Benefits Selection Workshop
The Grand County Commission weighed whether switching from Cigna to PEHP for healthcare insurance could save the county money without disrupting employees’ access to care. HR Director Tess Barger said the potential move was prompted by budget pressures, though most staff preferred staying with Cigna. Commissioners noted that while PEHP’s bid appeared slightly cheaper, any savings must be weighed against employee satisfaction and ease of use and that higher deductible plans that shift expenses to employees may impact staff.
Public Comment
Begins at 1:06:00
General Business & Action Items
Consent Agenda
- Approval of Meeting Minutes from October 7, 2025
- Ratification of Payment of Bills
- Ratification of emergency purchase of the county phone system
- Indemnification Release for Alta Ski Lifts
- Approval of quote with APCO International for IntelliComm dispatch software
- Release of the one-year maintenance bond for the Arrawarra Subdivision
- GCSO Court Security Chief – Job Description Revision
- Ratification of Grant Application from the Utah Commission on Criminal Juvenile Justice
- 2026 County Fire Warden Agreement
Approve unanimously.
Moab Office of Tourism – travel show attendance/expense approval
The commission approved the Moab Area Travel Council’s request to cover expenses for staff to attend several regional and national travel trade shows in 2026, funded through county transient room tax revenues.
Approved unanimously.
2026 Employee Health Insurance Selection
Commission voted to renew employee health insurance with Cigna after the final negotiated rate increase of 4. 78% was less than expected and the insurance was preferred by employees. Martinez opposed the vote, saying that he was unconvinced that Cigna was the best financial option for the county.
Passed 6-1 with Brian Martinez opposed.
2026 High Impact Special Events Ready for Review
Special events for Spring 2026 were reviewed, with both the Red Rok Rally and the Moab Rotary Car Show scheduled for the same weekend in April. Commissioners expressed dismay at having two large events scheduled at the same time. Chair Bill Winfield commented that organizers would have to work hard to keep the event under control or “..next year when they come back, if they have made a mess of this community, it’s going to be hard for them to get a permit.”
Passed 4-3 with commissioners Hedin, Hadler and McGann in opposition.
Consideration of denial of tax relief applications through 10-9-2025
The commission approved the county assessor’s recommendation to deny several property-tax relief applications submitted after the deadline or found to be ineligible. Commissioners noted that applicants still have the right to appeal through the State Tax Commission.
Passes 6-0 with Hadler absent.
Consideration of the 2025 Property Tax Abatements and Cancellations through 10-9-2025
Commission approved abatements and cancellations for properties qualifying under state law, including corrections for clerical errors and adjustments for parcels meeting hardship or exemption criteria.
Passed unanimously.
Award 2026 Commercial Property Appraisal Contract
The commission approved awarding the 2026 commercial property appraisal contract to the current firm, as the next bid was significantly more expensive. However, commissioners openly questioned the quality of service the current firm provided and said a different firm may be chosen in the future.
Passed 5-2 with Winfield and McCurdy in opposition.
An Ordinance to establish the separate offices of the Grand County Auditor and the Grand County Clerk
The commission discussed a proposal to formally separate the combined Clerk/Auditor’s Office into two independent elected positions — a County Clerk and a County Auditor. Several commissioners said the combined role has become increasingly difficult for one person to manage given expanding state reporting requirements, election oversight duties, and financial compliance responsibilities. Opponents questioned the timing and cost of adding another elected office, noting the county had managed under a combined structure for years.
Motion fails 3-4 with Winfield, McCurdy, McCandless and Martinez in opposition.
Ordinance Major Utility Overlay of parcel 02-0021-0113
Approval related to the planned installation of a water tank for fire mitigation. The Grand County Planning Commission recommended denial of the overlay.
Approved 5-2 with Hedin and McGann opposed.
Resolution Grandview Business Park Subdivision Final Plat Approval
A request for final plat approval of the Grandview Business Park Subdivision, which divides two existing parcels into four lots so tenants can purchase the properties they currently lease.
Passed unanimously.
Resolution amending the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board bylaws
Commissioner Melodie McCandless introduced a resolution to amend the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board bylaws, explaining that the board’s structure had become confusing after several mergers and that the proposed bylaws would simplify its purpose to align with state statute. The changes would focus the board on helping the county apply for and manage rural economic grants. McCandless said the county may have missed out on roughly $600,000 in potential grant funding due to unclear processes. After discussion, the commission voted to postpone consideration of the resolution until the next meeting.
Motion postponed by a 5-2 vote with McCurdy and Winfield opposed.
Resolution amending the bylaws of the Thompson Springs Special Service District
Revisions to bring Thompson Springs bylaws into compliance with current state statutes governing special service districts.
Motion passes 6-0 with McCandless absent.
Resolution supporting Moab Chamber OHV Initiative
Support for a Chamber of Commerce initiative to identify, sign, and market beginner, intermediate, and advanced OHV routes in Grand County. The project aims to improve visitor safety and promote local recreation, with the county’s cost capped at $1,501 for limited staff time from the OHV coordinator to assist with mapping and GIS work.
Passed unanimously.
Cloudseeding contribution
Commissioner Brian Martinez proposed allocating $10,000 from Grand County’s 2026 budget to help match state funding for a cloud seeding project over the La Sal and Abajo Mountains. The state has committed $350,000, with local partners including Grand Water and Sewer, San Juan County, and the City of Moab contributing to a $50,000 match. Commissioner Trish Hedin questioned the effectiveness of cloud seeding and argued that water service providers should bear more of the cost. Commissioner Jacques Hadler also opposed the spending, calling it uncertain and imprudent given recent county budget cuts County staff recommended earmarking the funds in the budget pending a formal contract.
Passed 4-3 with Hedin, Hadler and McGann in opposition.
Letter to BLM regarding Labyrinth Rim and Gemini Bridges reassessment
Commissioner Brian Martinez introduced a letter to the Bureau of Land Management supporting the reassessment of certain route closures in the Labyrinth Rims–Gemini Bridges travel management area. He said the letter asked the BLM to reopen select long-used routes like Ten Mile Canyon and Hey Joe, emphasizing that it was a request for reevaluation, not a demand. Commissioners Jacques Hadler, Trish Hedin, and Mary McGann opposed the letter, arguing it overstated claims, ignored environmental research, and included unnecessary political language.
Passed 4-3 with Hedin, Hadler and McGann in opposition.
Discussion Items
Discussion of the creation of a county policy regarding the process of applying administrative fees to county departments
Commissioners discussed creating a county policy on administrative fees after confusion arose when $250,000 in fees were added late in the Moab Area Travel Council budget. Clerk/Auditor Gabe Woytek said the proposal was meant to update a seven-year-old policy and reflect indirect costs the county provides to departments funded outside the general fund, such as tourism, roads, and trails.
Appreciate the coverage? Help keep local news alive.
Chip in to support the Moab Sun News.
