Speaker 9: Thank you. Hey, Steven, if you can hear us, will you give us a sound check, please?
Stephen Stocks: I can hear you guys loud and clear.
Mary McGann: Thank you, Steven. Where’s Steven? He’s on Zoom.
Bill Winfield: He was doing something. Everyone feels you’re good to go. All right, thank you.
Bill Winfield: At this time, I will open this workshop meeting with our Clerk Auditor Gabe Woytek. It’s 3 p.m. on the 5th of November.
Bill Winfield: Those present, Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler, Commissioner McCurdy, Commissioner McGann, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner McCandless, and myself, Commissioner Winfield. We also have Administrator Mr.
Bill Winfield: Tiner and Deputy Administrator Quinn Hall, who just stepped away, as well as Tess Barger, the HR audience, and Andrea Brand, and Chantelle as well. So, Gabe, I will let you start us off with this, and we will follow your lead.
Gabe Woytek: Thank you, Chair. I don’t have a big presentation in mind for today. Mostly, I want to just give an overview of the materials that are included in the packet, and then see the floor to Tess to present new positions or reclassifications.
Gabe Woytek: I would expect that conversation and presentation to take up the better part of this hour that we have here. But I think just leading off with a little bit of an overview of what’s in the packet is my goal right now.
Gabe Woytek: So, this tentative budget was presented to you all by the 1st of November, and there’s a formal action to adopt this tentative budget at you as the governing body.
Gabe Woytek: And then moving forward, there’s a period of time whereby you may edit, revise, enter changes as you see fit, and then we’ll have public hearings in order to allow the public to speak on this budget as it continues to evolve, and hopefully aiming for final adoption of a final budget, as well as the end of year amendment for 2025 at the second meeting, commission meeting in December.
Gabe Woytek: As for that end of year amendment, ultimately this last green column to the right, 2025 estimated end of year amendment is what is currently estimated to be entered or proposed as an amended budget.
Gabe Woytek: And then, of course, the tentative budget presented here. There’s some key features in this tentative budget document.
Gabe Woytek: A lot of improvements have been made in terms of cleaning up deadlines that were always displayed and making this pretty unruly to look at, just cleaner formatting, and then in addition to these embedded links that you all, the commission, or the public can use to quickly refer to more additional detail as it relates to any line, in terms of revenues, sales and use tax revenues, or department budgets as we saw them at the budget advisory board, and then further revised as needed.
Gabe Woytek: On these department budgets, there’s a note here that says orange shading indicates change post-budget advisory board in the effort of trying to maintain as much transparency as possible regarding changes that might have been made after that presentation in a public meeting.
Gabe Woytek: And then there’s a, if you can remember, there’s a button here at the top to go back to where you left off. So, that’s the tentative budget document.
Gabe Woytek: Next, there’s, here is a compilation of formal recorded comments made at budget advisory board meetings. That’s a process that we took, I believe it was 10 meetings starting in September. There’s a YouTube link to the recording of those meetings.
Gabe Woytek: I have to finish timestamping in those links each department report, just so that you can just as easily as possible refer back to every department budget presentation, if you feel the need to lean more closely or get any more potential additional information regarding the budgets entered into this tentative.
Gabe Woytek: We also still have to get in the minutes from the final meeting, as well as the YouTube link. We’ll get those, I’ll get those updated as soon as possible. I also decided to attach the meeting minutes in full towards the end of this document.
Gabe Woytek: My chief deputy, Dane Bett-Jones, did a great job of very detailed minutes. So, it’s, I thought it would be a useful reference for this process. Sales and use tax revenue projections.
Gabe Woytek: This summary document, according, in accordance with statute, revenue projections are to be accompanied in the tentative budget. Of course, that’s entered into each line of the budget.
Gabe Woytek: So, by virtue of it being entered into the tentative budget, that is such a projection. However, I am, of course, providing more background detail regarding the projections for sales and use taxes that are entered.
Gabe Woytek: You’ll see in the tentative budget that Treasurer Kaufman has a method that we’ve used for some years now for entering in property tax related revenue projections.
Gabe Woytek: I have sent, today, updated this document to include a breakout for each of these tax types, each of these sales and use tax types. That show monthly distributions dating back to 2021.
Gabe Woytek: And a chart showing those monthly distributions up here, but more importantly, total annual distribution.
Gabe Woytek: A chart here that shows a trend line and where that trend line crosses that 2026 on the horizontal axis is that trend line that is painted by 23, 24 and 25 numbers. And so where that red trend line extrapolates out into 2026.
Gabe Woytek: And hits that 2026 mark is the figure that is currently entered in as a revenue projection. For 2026 entered in the tentative budget. So, there’s a sheet here for each tax type for your review with the data used.
Gabe Woytek: All there laid out, there’s an October 2025. Yeah, this is a sales and use tax revenue update that includes October 2025 numbers. That we’ve got updated and cleaned up.
Gabe Woytek: This is a capital projects list.
Gabe Woytek: Also, according to statute, along with the tentative budget, it is to include a list of potential capital projects in the current year, as well as a estimate of capital projects that could be reasonably expected in the following 3 fiscal periods, or the following 2 fiscal periods from the one that we’re preparing for the tentative budget.
Gabe Woytek: And so this is a process of gathering information from department heads and other departments that are requesting or offering information regarding large capital type expenses. So, the 1st, 1 is projects to be considered in 2026, that’s 2 pages.
Gabe Woytek: And then there’s a header for capital projects, 3 year estimated schedule. Next, we have a document that I prepared. That I just think is a useful overview compared to 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026, specifically as it relates to the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: It’s important to know when we’re talking about a budget or a balanced budget, or just whatever machinations that we’re talking about, regarding really focusing on fund 10, which is the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: All the other funds operate largely within their own restrictive revenues, largely self-funded for the most part, not 100%, but really when we’re talking, and obviously we want to maintain oversight and ensure responsible practices across all funds.
Gabe Woytek: But the general fund is really where the rubber meets the road in terms of how we’re managing our restricted, unrestricted revenues and our main bulk of our expenses.
Gabe Woytek: But really wanted to offer up what the tentative budget has regarding how it compares to last year’s opening budget. The ratio of these department budgets that are made up of salary and benefits.
Gabe Woytek: The amount of salary benefits in the general fund that make up the entire for general fund costs. All sorts of things. I hope this is a helpful document.
Gabe Woytek: I prepared it in the hopes that it would help you all in your decision making processes. Fund balance estimates, so each fund has a reserve balance.
Gabe Woytek: And these are pulled from financial statements directly from our accounting software, including some estimates, because we have a couple of months left in this year.
Gabe Woytek: And sometimes it’s hard to pinpoint without further detail from department heads, exactly how its expenditures are going to land by the end of this year.
Gabe Woytek: So that’s why it’s important to say that this is an estimate, but it is the best estimate that I can come up with right now.
Gabe Woytek: And then, so it includes what the reserve balances are at the beginning of this year, what the impacts are looking to be for this year, and then results and what we’re looking at moving forward, looking ahead.
Gabe Woytek: Again, I prepared this out of my own volition, because I anticipated that this is information that would be useful to you all in your decision making processes.
Gabe Woytek: This is the Moab Tourism Advisory Board Transient Route Tax Tourism Related Convention and Cultural Activities Recommendations, as required by statute. I’m not sure if this should probably end up as a formal action item on a future commission agenda.
Gabe Woytek: I would assume that that would be appropriate, so you all could accept and discuss as needed.
Gabe Woytek: But it’s relevant to this entire conversation as a very principled revenue that exists at the county, and this board’s recommendation, obviously, is important as well.
Gabe Woytek: And so that was a good solid 10 minute run through, and I think that that’s really the main thing that I wanted to accomplish today.
Gabe Woytek: If there are any burning questions, I think you all have found anyone that has come with me with questions up to now since I presented the tentative, I’m prioritizing the quickest response possible.
Gabe Woytek: I welcome any more, you know, if there’s any more information that I might be the best person to provide. I want to be useful in that process to you all.
Gabe Woytek: But ultimately, yeah, just let me know how I can help you all and your administration set up workshops to further suss out decision making, any adjustments that you may want to make.
Jacques Hadler: Thanks for preparing all that, Gabe. Yeah, excellent. Thank you.
Jacques Hadler: I think we’re more comprehensive and compact than we’ve had in the past. Yeah, 100%.
Gabe Woytek: Thank you. All right, without further ado, I would invite Tess Barger to come up and discuss the positions and reclassification. Are there such things that are included in the agenda packet?
Stephen Stocks: You want to use my machine?
Mary McGann: I’m logged off the line. Thank you very much.
Stephen Stocks: I will stop my share.
HR Tess Barger: All right there. Hello, Commissioner. I’m going to start sharing and we will get right into it.
Stephen Stocks: All right, excellent.
HR Tess Barger: So to start off, last Friday’s budget advisory meeting, I went ahead and ran through these presentations.
HR Tess Barger: We had some really great discussion, some really excellent ideas were brought up, questions, and then some additional asks about more information that would be beneficial to you all. Some of that has been sent out.
HR Tess Barger: Some of it is still in the works of being put together and will be sent out. But it was a fairly swift turnaround from completing the BAB presentation and then getting all of these materials over to Dana to put in the packet.
HR Tess Barger: So again, not all of that information is available yet, but you will be receiving more.
HR Tess Barger: My primary goals of the presentations today are, in addition to, of course, providing the information available that I’ve provided to the BAB, is also hearing feedback from the commission on how you all would, or options that you would like to consider in proceeding forward this year.
HR Tess Barger: So, for instance, last year and in prior years, from my understanding, when it came to new positions and reclassifications, there was a survey sent out.
HR Tess Barger: Commissioners would essentially rank their priorities and provide justification for those priorities. There was some mixed feedback last year on the effectiveness of that, and so that’s just an example.
HR Tess Barger: But I’d like to dig into some of those questions a little bit more so that I understand how to best support you all in making informed decisions this budget season. All right.
HR Tess Barger: So, first, jump into the new positions and reclassification proposals presentation, and then after this, the pay plan and cost of living adjustment presentation.
HR Tess Barger: So, first, we’ll dive into new position requests, and what I’ll preface is that these are the requests that we’ve received as is.
HR Tess Barger: So, I went ahead and we had the requests and the expectations of the information that we needed to include proposals, but we’ve not yet, we’ve not done any of our own filtering of or advancing of particular proposals.
HR Tess Barger: So, that will be, you know, ultimately, again, based on the conversations that we have today, we’ll be able to outline some of the steps that you all would like to take in terms of being able to determine how you rank, prioritize, and advance.
HR Tess Barger: There are several proposals that are also mandatory for reasons that I’ll, that I will expand on, and so with that, I’ll flag those particular proposals. So, the first proposal we’ll go into is Old Spanish Trail Arena.
HR Tess Barger: Going into 2025, requested an additional maintenance technician position. They’re re-requesting that position this year. The position would impact the general fund and the amount of, and again, these are rough estimates.
HR Tess Barger: So, how we estimate for new positions and back bills is we, of course, have a grade that’s assigned to a position. Grades follow positions, and then steps in our chart follow people.
HR Tess Barger: So, we estimate, typically, unless we have historical data that says otherwise, we estimate all of our vacant positions at a step five, so roughly 10 years of relevant experience.
HR Tess Barger: And with our high deductible two, so one of our most commonly elected health plans for full-time positions, and that’s how we’re able to generate that, that estimate of what a new position would, would ultimately cost.
HR Tess Barger: The justification for the maintenance technician position at OSTA is, again, this position was, was first requested for year 2025, and is again being requested. Oftentimes, the OSTA staff are responsible for covering a seven-day-a-week schedule.
HR Tess Barger: They are already over the $15,500 that were budgeted for overtime this year.
HR Tess Barger: Part of that is demand of events, and then also coupled with their currently short-staffed, we’ve not back-billed one of their vacant technician positions that has been vacant since early July.
HR Tess Barger: And so other staff are having to pick up additional hours to, you know, to, to account for, for that vacant position. In 2026 thus far, their event calendar is booked from every weekend starting in late February until mid-July.
HR Tess Barger: They have a little bit of a break, and then it starts again from the beginning of September through November.
HR Tess Barger: So in addition to all of these weekends that they will be mandated to work to facilitate these already scheduled events, there will be additional events that are inevitably added, typically more private events that, that they are, that they add to the schedule, you know, one to six months out.
HR Tess Barger: And so with this, the fact that on top of, you know, that, that calendar of events, the fact that it is a, you know, a public facility that’s utilized 24-7, and that it’s 65 acres large, the, the amount of, of work that, that even on a day-to-day basis, the staff is responsible for carrying out is, is very significant.
HR Tess Barger: And so that is the basis for the maintenance technician request.
HR Tess Barger: And I’ll also preface that, whatever is beneficial to you all, whether it be that there are discussions along the way, or I, or I kind of just can, you know, run through, whatever, whatever would be most beneficial to you all in your time today, you just let me know, and I’m happy to facilitate that.
HR Tess Barger: Very good. I’m going to, I’m going to click to the next slide, and then we’re going to keep this moving and grooving. Do you remind me, how many other of the similar positions are there?
HR Tess Barger: I don’t know, are there two other maintenance tech positions? That’s a great question. So they have, oh, let’s see, they have, they already have three other technician positions.
HR Tess Barger: One of them is vacant. They have an administrative assistant position that helps also kind of backfill their needs, and then assistant director.
Jacques Hadler: Assistant director, it’s not a lot of that. Okay. And they’re, they’re at the same position grade.
HR Tess Barger: That’s correct. Yes, exactly. It’s, it’s the exact same grade and then position description.
Melodie McCandless: So, I know this doesn’t fit within the new employees, but so with that backfill position, currently, we haven’t been letting anybody rehire, right, Mark?
Melodie McCandless: No, but with our budget, the tentative budget that Gabe has prepared for us, does that include that, that position that’s empty in that budget?
Gabe Woytek: I believe so, yes.
Melodie McCandless: Okay, so our vacant positions for currently for 2025 that are vacant and have already been approved are going to be in our budget for 2026.
Gabe Woytek: That’s correct. I don’t believe any indication was given that those positions were eliminated.
Melodie McCandless: Okay, just making sure the difference between we have positions that need filled, and then we also have new positions that need backfilled.
HR Tess Barger: Yes, thank you. And this is for an entirely new position, not a vacancy. That’s a, that’s a great clarification.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you very much.
Trish Hedin: And I’ll just say that I was a big advocate. Angie’s not going to ask for this, but I’m really pushed for this in the sense that we have been really pushing for OSTA to be utilized more, and they, staff are working super hard.
Trish Hedin: And I think you would agree with that, Mike. They’re working, you know, Angie works every weekend, and my concern is we’re going to, she has already lost a staff member this year that just kind of fizzled out.
Trish Hedin: And that’s my concern is they have been working that much. My concern is losing them, and the cost of having to replace and retrain and all.
Stephen Stocks: Thank you all very much.
HR Tess Barger: This next request is one of those that again I indicated I would, I would flag. So, this request is out of the Grand County Attorney’s Office, it’s for a part time victim advocate budgeted at approximately 25 hours proof.
HR Tess Barger: The justification for this position is, in the past number of years, the Grand County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney’s Office, and Children’s Justice Center has had a memorandum of understanding with Moab City PD for their victim advocate program to provide victim services to the victims of those agencies.
HR Tess Barger: That MOU will not be renewed and this is going to create a gap in victim services that we are mandated to fill.
HR Tess Barger: And so with that, this request would allow for a victim advocate that would serve Sheriff’s Office, Attorney’s Office, and CJC, in order to ensure that victims are receiving services provided by Grand County.
Jacques Hadler: It’s a mandated position?
HR Tess Barger: Yes. We are required to provide victim services and with that MOU not being renewed then we do have a requirement to fill that gap ourselves.
Bill Winfield: It’s also the position that typically has been a $20,000 MOU with the City of Moab but in an effort to offset dispatch fees they’ve raised that to nearly $300,000.
Jacques Hadler: I’m aware of that.
Stephen Stocks: And if anyone has any questions on it, I’m also here to answer any questions on the on the on the position and the ask.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you, Attorney Stocks. All right. This next request comes specifically from from the Film Commission director but out of the Moab Office of Tourism, and it is for a part time Film Commission assistant.
HR Tess Barger: And so the justification for this is that currently for the Moab to Monument Valley Film Commission.
HR Tess Barger: There is only one staff person that is devoted to do activities under that Film Commission which is a Film Commission director and so the establishment of an assistant would allow for increased support to the Film Commission director, as well as the opportunity to facilitate the opportunity for additional institutional knowledge to be held by more than just that one staff person.
HR Tess Barger: I would be happy to.
HR Tess Barger: I know in the Budget Advisory Board meeting I passed it over to Commissioner Martinez as an individual who’s been involved in the MTAB meetings because these presentations and requests have gone before MTAB and that’s, you know, been a separate process from from what’s happening today, although of course they dovetail together.
HR Tess Barger: But, Commissioner Martinez, I don’t know if you’d like to provide any additional information like you did in the BAB about this.
Brian Martinez: No, I mean, there’s, there’s not so much that to bring from the, I’m sorry, from the MTAB board on this that they, they recognized the value that the Film Commission brings into this community, and they saw the value of this.
Brian Martinez: There was two things, there was this and also a… They were both supportive of both.
Mark Tyner: This assistant would be specifically for the Film Commission, or would this assistant be an assistant for both of those entities?
HR Tess Barger: So, the way that the proposal has been presented to me thus far is that it is specific to the Film Commission.
HR Tess Barger: I do know that earlier this year there was initially some discussion and the potential of a request for an administrative assistant that would either be part-time or full-time and would serve the entire office, but this specific proposal that was provided to me is for the Film Commission.
Brian Martinez: There was discussion at that MTAB meeting of this might be the best decision for the new director to make. They go ahead and jump into that department, how they best want to organize that office.
Jacques Hadler: So, what your suggestion is potentially kicking it down the road until the new director is hired and letting them make the call on this? Correct.
Melodie McCandless: That would come under TRT funds, right? Or is it TRCCA, right?
Brian Martinez: No, it would be TRT. TRT promotion. The film is now included in the TRT.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you all very much. And also, as it indicates in this, the position request is for a part-time position budgeted at approximately 25 hours weekly. All right, this next request comes out of our Noxious Weeds Department.
HR Tess Barger: Currently, we have a four-year grant cycle that we’re coming up to finishing our first year of the grant. It’s the Community Wildfire Defense Grant.
HR Tess Barger: And so, in this four-year grant, it was outlined a number of goals and objectives that the county would complete over the course of four years.
HR Tess Barger: Already, two positions have been established through this grant, an invasive species, a full-time year-round invasive species technician position, and then a fuels reduction coordinator, which is also a full-time year-round position, to continue working towards the grant goals and objectives that were outlined.
HR Tess Barger: Additional goals were that we could continue to expand the fuels reduction programming and add this full-time fuels reduction technician, which would be year-round full-time, and support the fuels reduction coordinator, both during seasons where we have a seasonal fuels reduction crew, and then also during the shoulder seasons where we do not have a crew working.
HR Tess Barger: From what we’ve been able to find, and certainly, we’ve, you know, Ken will be wrapping back to the grant administrator, is that the salary is reimbursable from the grant.
HR Tess Barger: The benefits would need to be county-funded, and so that’s why there’s that breakup that indicates what the financial impact would be for the general fund versus what would go towards the grant reimbursement.
Jacques Hadler: Would not accepting this position jeopardize any other part of that grant?
HR Tess Barger: So my understanding is yes, and that’s because the grant, as it was outlined, was that the funds that we requested were to essentially continue to build on our fuels reduction programming, by building out our team, in order for us to complete projects within the community.
HR Tess Barger: So we would be following the outlined objectives of the grant if we don’t backfill, or if we do not create, excuse me, some of these positions that would be positions that are actually carrying forward those grant objectives.
Jacques Hadler: And we’re in which year of the four-year cycle?
HR Tess Barger: We’re completing our, we’re finishing up on our first year, so it will end in 2029.
Jacques Hadler: So if we finish one year, this would be year two. And is the next position the same grant?
Stephen Stocks: It is, yes.
Jacques Hadler: Would that negate the grant entirely if we said no thank you to this position?
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. That would be one that I would need to work with the director more on.
HR Tess Barger: Certainly there are, you know, at least during my previous experiences with multi-year grants, sometimes just depending on short-staffing, etc., you may need to make some amendments and modifications to a grant.
HR Tess Barger: The degree to which we would be able to do that, however, would certainly, I imagine, depend on what the grant administrators would deem appropriate and allowable.
Jacques Hadler: And how many other positions is it funding other than the two that are proposed right here? There’s current positions as well?
HR Tess Barger: So we established an invasive species technician and then a fuels reduction coordinator position this year from this grant.
Jacques Hadler: So it’s paying for two currently, or it paid for two in the 2025 year? And we’d be looking at paying then the four positions for next year?
HR Tess Barger: So it would be four to eight, and I can actually perfectly segue into this next one. So for the seasonal fuels reduction technician position that is being requested, it would be requested for up to four seasonal crew members.
HR Tess Barger: And so each crew member would be budgeted at approximately 900 hours annually. That would be during their peak season for projects.
HR Tess Barger: Again, we would be able to get reimbursed for the salaries or the wages of those positions, the benefits being specifically workers’ compensation payroll taxes the county would take on those costs.
HR Tess Barger: And again, the request is for up to four seasonal crew members.
Jacques Hadler: And then the benefits estimate is per crew member? Okay, so we’re talking about $8,000 for the four?
Brian Martinez: About $34,000 total.
Jacques Hadler: Right, right. Okay.
HR Tess Barger: And these seasonal crew members would report to the fuels reduction coordinator. That is already an established position that we have within the Noxious Weeds Department structure. Okay.
HR Tess Barger: Do we have any additional questions on this item before we move on?
Jacques Hadler: I guess one more just to help me totally understand this. Would this grant be looking to make any further hires next year? Do you know?
HR Tess Barger: I’m not aware of that, but that’s a great question and an additional one that I can work with the supervisor on.
Mike McCurdy: Are there project plans for a five-member team?
HR Tess Barger: Yes. I will be transparent in reflecting that I don’t know the ins and outs of the projects that have been allocated.
Mike McCurdy: I didn’t figure you would have, but I was just asking.
Brian Martinez: So, they had, I think to go back to Jock’s point, I think there’s about $30,000 that they’re going to basically have to turn back in for 2025. It was unused because they were unable to fill that lead and then the four positions.
Brian Martinez: I think we’re looking at about $60,000 for next year. The reason that they were awarded the grant in the first place is that they felt that this crew did have the projects and were able to complete those tasks that they applied for in the grant.
Brian Martinez: I think that they can. There are the projects there to do. The work is there.
Brian Martinez: I think we have five employees that we’re looking at. It’s basically $34,000 that would be coming out of the county right there and then a total of $152,000. If you’re kind of looking at it, that’s the basics.
Mike McCurdy: It’s like $30,000 for five employees. That’s pretty good too.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you all very much. Those are the new proposal groups that we have. We’ll go ahead and move into the reclassification requests.
HR Tess Barger: Again, I’ll flag the reclassification that is mandatory for us to consider this year. First, in terms of reclassifications, this is really more of a salary adjustment, not reclassification.
HR Tess Barger: With elected positions, I went ahead and included this in it. Last year, there’s been discussion of continuing to do this every year to ensure that we are maintaining at least average compensation for our elected positions.
HR Tess Barger: Treasurer Chris Kaufman was extremely helpful and put together a spreadsheet of all 5th to 1st class Utah counties, excluding Uinta County.
HR Tess Barger: That was because they had not done a reevaluation or adjustment to their elected salaries for approximately 10 years. They were an outlier. They were going to skew the data, but calculated the average compensation for each of these elected positions.
HR Tess Barger: The caveat is that for the surveyor position, there wasn’t enough comparable data to look at. What he did was he averaged the average increase to the other elected positions and applied that to what the surveyor position’s increase would be.
HR Tess Barger: This is one of those standardized requests that may be included in future new position reclassification proposals.
HR Tess Barger: Just to ensure that we are every year assessing, are we compensating electives that are competitive and comparable to how electives are being compensated elsewhere in the state of Utah within county classes that are relevant to ours.
HR Tess Barger: If all of these adjustments… What I’ll also preface is that the sheriff, county attorney, and commission positions were not included in this because those averages were actually higher in Grand County than in the state.
HR Tess Barger: It would require reductions in pay, which is not something that we would be looking at. It was assessed for assessor, reporter, treasurer, clerk, auditor, and surveyor for 2026.
HR Tess Barger: The full fiscal impact of increasing all of these elected positions to the average of fifth to first class electives and comparable positions would be a total of about $12,500.
Jacques Hadler: Based on Gabe’s proposal to separate out the clerk and the auditor so that I know quite a few counties have that position separated out, is this the average of just the counties that have a clerk slash auditor position?
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. Treasurer Coffman, if you are available and would like to explain more of your methodology behind that, I’d be greatly appreciative. He did explain it to me.
HR Tess Barger: My understanding was that… Well, actually, I’ll let him go ahead. He’s going to explain it better than I can.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: Sure. First of all, can you hear me? Yeah, thanks, Chris.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: Okay, great. When the position is split between a clerk and an auditor, I took an average of those two salaries and put that in for the clerk auditor line for the purposes of our average.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: I will say that in many counties they’re paid exactly the same, so there wasn’t necessarily a lot of averaging I had to do. And there’s another situation where we have a few counties with combined treasurer and recorders.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: And in that case, I took the salary for the treasurer recorder and used that for both the treasurer and recorder separately for the purposes of our averages. Okay.
Jacques Hadler: Do you think it would be fair to look at just the counties that have a clerk slash auditor since the duties are more, I guess, probably greater and giving us that data, too?
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: So last year I did an analysis on the, you know, how if there are a lot of differences in the salary, whether they’re split or combined, and I could pull that up again.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: I haven’t looked at it for a while, but there was not a big difference between counties where they’re split and where they’re combined. Yeah, that’s fine. Thank you, Chris.
Mary McGann: Excellent. Do we have any additional questions on this slide?
Stephen Stocks: All right. Thank you all.
HR Tess Barger: And then I’ll go ahead and continue through the individual position reclassifications. And so the first one is for the clerk auditor position.
HR Tess Barger: And the justification for this is that pursuant to state code 1753-1, there’s a threshold at which time or under which a county clerk can act as an ex officio auditor. We’ve very far should have a threshold.
HR Tess Barger: And so if we are to continue keeping the clerk auditor’s office together, the request is for the clerk auditor is that there’s a salary increase that comes with that to compensate for the additional duties, responsibilities, and demands that are placed on the clerk auditor’s combined office.
HR Tess Barger: And the full fiscal impact of that would be $8,514 with a salary adjustment of approximately $7,000. This next position reclassification is one that, again, I’ll flag as mandatory.
HR Tess Barger: And so during our FAA audit earlier this year, it was indicated that we are required to have an operations manager position as part of our departmental structure at Canyonlands Regional Airport.
HR Tess Barger: This request is to, instead of adding a new position, and what I’ll preface as well is that an operations manager was a new proposal request that was provided in 2025 by the airport. It wasn’t approved for going into 2025.
HR Tess Barger: Now that we’re in a position where it is mandatory in order to account for the fact that we are experiencing concerns pertaining to our budget, it is being proposed as a reclassification instead so that there’s less of a fiscal impact.
HR Tess Barger: And we would be reclassifying one of our two lead operations specialist positions to an operations manager for an estimated total fiscal impact of $13,359.
HR Tess Barger: And we are required to put this operations manager position into effect by December 31st of this year.
Jacques Hadler: Is that person already in place right now? Okay, thanks.
Mike McCurdy: Excuse me? I was like, when do we do a sign specifically on that one instead of putting?
HR Tess Barger: When do we, I apologize.
Mike McCurdy: Yeah, I was like, can that be put to a single decision, be put to the next meeting? Could that move along faster?
Stephen Stocks: I think it needs to go just like we have it. Okay. That’s part of the budget process.
Stephen Stocks: Thank you all.
Quinn?: To Tess’s point though, could we not, once the budget passes on December 16th, would we not, do we have to make that position start on December 31st instead of January 1st? Does that one day difference make a difference?
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. I would certainly want us to defer to the airport director to get an answer to that. But I can follow up with him to clarify that.
Quinn?: Because if the one day puts us out of compliance, that’s an easy fix.
HR Tess Barger: Definitely. Thank you for calling that out. I’ll check in with the airport director about that.
HR Tess Barger: So this next position request is also from Canyonlands Regional Airport. And the request is to reclassify the airport administrative assistant from a part-time to a full-time position.
HR Tess Barger: The justification for this is that the airport’s billing has become a lot more complex since they started following their airport leases as written. And they’re also working to establish additional revenue streams.
HR Tess Barger: And with this, the additional administrative work that’s come with it can’t be accomplished by a part-time individual.
HR Tess Barger: What I will say is that a creative idea that was proposed during the budget advisory board meeting is that if we essentially need additional hours to go towards this work, as opposed to reclassifying the current assistant from part-time to full-time, perhaps another option that may be kinder to the budget, but also still accomplish the goal of providing additional administrative support to the airport, is establishing another part-time position.
HR Tess Barger: Because ultimately that would have less of a financial impact by approximately $30,000. And so I wanted to share that with the commission that that was an idea that was discussed in the budget advisory board.
Jacques Hadler: And again, that’s a position that’s currently full that we need to hire another part-time person.
HR Tess Barger: Or reclassify the current part-time employee to a full-time employee. And there would be no grade changes to that. It would simply be moving them up to 40 hours a week with benefits.
HR Tess Barger: With full-time benefits. All right. This next position reclassification is out of the Office of Tourism for the film commission director.
HR Tess Barger: The request, my understanding is how it has been presented in IMTAB has been with a salary amount, which is a little bit different than sometimes we do with grades.
HR Tess Barger: And so I translated over to grades because that’s the structure in which we reclassify positions. And so for this position to be reclassified for the salary adjustment from the current.
HR Tess Barger: And what I’ll say too is that this position would, when I have the current, what I mean is for the current table, it’s the projection of what the position will be making in 2026 factoring in if they are eligible for a merit increase and when that merit increase would go into effect.
HR Tess Barger: So the positions salary increase that was requested was to increase the salary to $115,000 annually. I can’t quite make that fit into our grade and step chart.
HR Tess Barger: And so the best that I could get was at about $114,000 and that would adjust this position’s grade from a 12 to a 15. And this reclassification, this position was reclassified last in 2024 from a grade 9 to a 12.
HR Tess Barger: And so if this reclassification went forward, then it would be reclassified by an additional three grades.
Jacques Hadler: So this position received a similar reclassification just last year. Two years ago.
HR Tess Barger: Yes, entering into 2024. It went into effect January 1 of 2024.
Jacques Hadler: What are some of the other grade 15 positions in the county that’s a high grade?
HR Tess Barger: It’s a great question. Grade 15 is actually interestingly, for whatever reason, not one of our grades that’s commonly used. But a number of.
HR Tess Barger: Yeah, exactly. So. So, for instance, our associate planner is a grade 15, but some of our directors are grade 14.
HR Tess Barger: Our most common director grade is a grade 16. And so it’s again, it’s a little and I can provide comparables as well. So grade 15, for whatever reason, is somewhat underutilized.
HR Tess Barger: But our our directors range from grades 12 up to 20, depending on a variety of factors, team size, level of, you know, skill, education, et cetera. That’s required to take on a position responsibility, et cetera.
Jacques Hadler: But what are we advertising the MOT director position as a grade 18?
Gabe Woytek: The attorney has a question.
Stephen Stocks: When we adjusted this salary previously, did we do a salary survey or a study when we looked at it last time? I’m just trying to refresh my recollection on that.
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. Attorney stocks. My understanding is that there was there wasn’t there has been some salary data provided.
HR Tess Barger: I can’t speak to the specifics that went into that reclassification.
Quinn?: We did not do a comprehensive salary.
HR Tess Barger: OK, thank you. And my understanding is that the county has not done a comprehensive salary survey since twenty twenty one. And even during that twenty twenty one salary survey, not all positions were re were were reassessed, actually.
HR Tess Barger: So some of our our positions have not actually had a salary survey conducted for their particular role since twenty twenty one. This next position reclassification is out of the Green County Active Transportation and Trails Department.
HR Tess Barger: It’s for the OHV trail ambassador. Current position that we have. There is a grant that is that was has already been requested and awarded for twenty twenty six in the grant.
HR Tess Barger: It was already requested. It was requested that we would be able to adjust the job description, role and responsibilities of this position to expand it past just the current roles and responsibilities.
HR Tess Barger: The trail ambassador to an OHV trail coordinator and with the additional responsibilities and duties assigned. The request is to adjust the grade of the position from a six to an eight. The grant covers the salary adjustment.
HR Tess Barger: We would need to cover the difference in benefits. And that difference would be one thousand three hundred dollars approximately. We have any additional questions on this.
HR Tess Barger: Great. Excellent. And then the final reclassification proposal that we have for today is for the San Flats director.
HR Tess Barger: The current grade of this position is a fourteen and the request is for an adjustment to a grade sixteen.
HR Tess Barger: San Flats director job description has expanded since it was last revised, formally revised in twenty seventeen to include larger trail systems, larger budget, greater fiscal responsibility, more significant partnerships, et cetera.
HR Tess Barger: And so with the with the significant expansion of the job description since twenty seventeen. And the fact that this position is one of those that was not reassessed during a salary survey in twenty twenty one.
HR Tess Barger: The request is for that adjustment, that two grade adjustment to be applied to this. Do you have any questions on this proposal?
Jacques Hadler: That’s not paid out of the general fund.
HR Tess Barger: Correct. This is this is not paid out of the general fund. Thank you for finding that out.
HR Tess Barger: It’s out of San Flats fund. So fund 70.
Brian Martinez: I think we were talking about in the budget advisory board meeting going through and finding if there were any other positions that had been not been reclassified since twenty seventeen.
HR Tess Barger: I haven’t I haven’t had a chance to go through all of our positions, but I can certainly guarantee you that particularly for the positions that have had extensive tenure, that there are quite a few that have not been reclassified.
HR Tess Barger: And what I’ll say as well as reclassification is in and of itself is not necessarily the solution.
HR Tess Barger: What I more so see is is, you know, an objective that that we need to have is to recomplete a salary survey because our current ranges assigned to each grade may need to actually be what’s adjusted.
HR Tess Barger: So maybe a position stays a grade 16 after we do a survey, but the minimum to maximum of a grade 16 has been adjusted. Thank you.
Bill Winfield: We would want to do that while we’re in this process. Would we not? I mean, I certainly think it’s optimum that we look at Andrea’s salary when it’s been eight years.
Bill Winfield: But we wouldn’t want just one individual if there’s 10 out there. We need to. We need that information, I would say, for this budget cycle for other employees that are in possibly the same situation.
Melodie McCandless: I probably wouldn’t be possibility for this budget cycle, though, but I think that much on our plans for next year, for sure.
HR Tess Barger: And thank you. That’s it. That’s an excellent point.
HR Tess Barger: And what we’ve been certainly discussing is we’re certainly due for a salary survey with the last one having been completed in 2021 every several years up to five years is certainly recommended.
HR Tess Barger: And so a more holistic, comprehensive approach could be us looking at putting it into our plans and budgeting for us to have an external agency complete a comprehensive salary survey for us.
Melodie McCandless: Would you be able to get that to us for this budget? Because that’s more realistic to get that into this budget than an actual done for this year. Yes, absolutely.
Melodie McCandless: I’ll work on that.
Bill Winfield: That’s where I was going. Thank you for the clarification.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you all very much.
Bill Winfield: And so is that all that you have then? I’m just looking at our time and trying to make a decision on what we’re going to do.
HR Tess Barger: No, I appreciate it. And I’m happy to go ahead and yes.
HR Tess Barger: So I’ll go ahead and this is this is all added, but there we’re trying to move all of our director, assistant director, chief deputies, office managers, supervisors to an exempt status for uniformity.
HR Tess Barger: Currently, we have about 50% non exempt and 50% exempt. And in order to ensure that we have, again, that uniformity continuity that we go ahead and have everybody within those types of positions. Consider exempt.
HR Tess Barger: All right, great. And then I’m happy to thank you all so much for all the excellent questions. I know that we didn’t have time to go over the cost of living adjustment presentation.
HR Tess Barger: And so I happily, you know, come back to do that at another point or whatever you all determine this is most helpful to your process.
Bill Winfield: I see this as this is just going to be an ongoing budget week workshop meeting meeting moving forward. So I’d like to suggest that we put that on the next one. And then I’ve got a few things that I would like to see if it’s possible to request.
Bill Winfield: And then if there’s any other questions that we go around. You know the table so if that’s okay with you. Move that and gave if that’s fine with you.
Gabe Woytek: I’m ready to record any requests here.
Bill Winfield: Okay. One that I have is possible to get this budget in an Excel spreadsheet. It takes them off a lot of calculations with a calculator when possibly an Excel spreadsheet would allow us to work back and forth.
Bill Winfield: Sometimes you’re very easily. Yeah. And then the other one I wanted to do a request and an update regarding the administrative fee that has been discussed.
Bill Winfield: And supplied I think to the four different departments.
Gabe Woytek: So I guess we should clarify like. So I created a proposal we talked about it 15 days ago. The next step is for there to be an alternative presented to the proposal that I entered into the tentative budget.
Gabe Woytek: That’s where I stand on it.
Bill Winfield: So that’s kind of what I’m in the process of. And what I did was I reached out to set so this and on it to get a little bit of a background. I also reached out to the county attorney on it.
Bill Winfield: But any administrative request out of restricted funds needs to come with a spreadsheet backing up that request was what I was made to understand by Mr. And so what I would like to do in. I’m moving forward is remove those admin fees.
Bill Winfield: And come up with where our budget would sit without those in there and there’s rational. Methodology excuse me, if I’m mispronouncing that. To go through to put in an actual request to change those admin fees on.
Bill Winfield: Reserved funds, but what I think would be beneficial moving forward in our budget is if we had 1 chart. That has line by line in it. Everything that we want to consider from Miss brands raised to any other employee line by line as we go through.
Bill Winfield: So that as we see and start adding these numbers in, because we’re pulling out of the general fund to meet our budget as presented. Correct. And so when we add in, let’s say.
Bill Winfield: I would like to be able to see that in our document and we can have a discussion and the commission can say, okay. Let’s give a thumbs up to the cola or a thumbs down, whichever way that was and go line by line item through those.
Bill Winfield: I, I don’t see any way if we don’t have those individually listed out how we’re going to be able to work through all of them. And I’m open that I’m making sense here.
Gabe Woytek: So, something of a live calculator that has a list of decision points. And when you enter in impact, some sort of figure in or not, it sort of updates the bottom line.
Bill Winfield: Totally on impact and it would just make it easier because we’ve got so many different documents here and really the bottom line is what’s this doing to the general fund.
Bill Winfield: And can we justify that and I think that will have to be done at this level clearly, but I’m trying to simplify the process and.
Bill Winfield: Maybe that would also allow some discussion outside of here that would help to move this along when people have one that’s important to them that we see we get it added in there.
Gabe Woytek: Yes, Mr. And I will say the administrative fees, all of the methodology and the derivation has been shared with commission adventure. So, that’s been made available.
Bill Winfield: Okay, then I would say that on that one, we want to get that out to the commissioners to be able to look at that as well. That was my understanding. It was just moved up to 10% is what I saw there.
Bill Winfield: And so that’s where my research went on it, but on the other one, being able to add these in as we go and see what that’s doing to our budget.
Bill Winfield: And really what I guess I’m getting at is what it’s doing to the request additional funds out of the general.
Bill Winfield: Fund every time we do math here and if anybody wants to add on to that suggestion or have questions your own I’m trying to simplify this process and it’s an adaption to where we can work through them line by line.
Mike McCurdy: The. Would the Excel sheet be like live calculator like you said, can we do that in discussion just show us like on the Excel sheet, put it in a different figure, and it changes the numbers.
Gabe Woytek: I mean, that’s what we’re talking about. Yeah, yeah, that’s what there might be a simplified version of it though that we can see on one page.
Gabe Woytek: And we can, it can be something that we can add things to and work together to, you know, get one or two pages, whatever it adds up to.
Andrea Brand – Sand Flats: And yes, I just wondered, the main reason I came today was I wanted to know what was happening with the proposed administrative fees to the departments that are outside of the general fund.
Andrea Brand – Sand Flats: And so I wanted to just know when that might be discussed in a future budget workshop so that I can attend and say the very next one.
Andrea Brand – Sand Flats: Okay, I know that Cody McKinney would have liked to like to attend that as well because he has some questions and concerns as well. He couldn’t be here today because he has a core of engineering.
Bill Winfield: I would say it’s probably the top of our list. I mean, I’ve just mentioned three things and the Excel spreadsheet isn’t one that requires any discussion on other than it just probably puts a workload on.
Gabe Woytek: I just think it would be really great if there were an alternative like some alternatives were developed in anticipation of the next conversation because it’s going to be hard to actually reach a resolution unless there’s sort of a counter.
Gabe Woytek: And that’s really what I’ve been welcoming.
Bill Winfield: Yeah, and I’m fine with that. I wasn’t aware of that scenario, but I’m glad to do that. Maybe we talked about it the other day and I flipped my mind.
Bill Winfield: So, that’s fine. I think we can come up with some of those. Great.
Bill Winfield: Don’t forget the attorney. Yes, Attorney Stocks
Stephen Stocks: So, and maybe for those, this is the benefit for both the commissioners and the public.
Stephen Stocks: So, clerk auditor Woytek essentially we’re putting that admin fee on on some of those accounts that come in with the restricted funds that may increase the budget for that department.
Stephen Stocks: But then those funds that are paid into the county go into the general account. And then that would in some ways help increase how much money that we would have accessible in the general fund is, am I misunderstanding that.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, it’s not, but it’s not meant to be a mechanism to. It’s only meant to be a mechanism to offset expenses that are occurred in the general fund. It’s not a mechanism to make money for the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: Correct. That’s not the purpose of it.
Stephen Stocks: Right.
Stephen Stocks: And I’m not saying I’m not saying that that it is, I’m saying this is a mechanism like for us you when we when we worked with them they took a percentage, and then that those amounts help off offset the amount of money that let’s say HR has because HR assists those departments with additional services.
Stephen Stocks: So although it is something that is increasing a budget’s bottom line. It does help offset the costs for HR, so it’s not necessarily. I don’t know how I don’t necessarily perceive it as a negative that’s why I’m trying to understand.
Stephen Stocks: So I’m just noting that. And then I think that’s that’s part of the, I think that’s part of the conversation. And then the second part I guess is just determining the percentage and then just applying it uniformly.
Stephen Stocks: And so, it doesn’t matter what percentage we set that amounts going to be is going to be taken off of those monies that come in to help offset the HR cost.
Stephen Stocks: And I’m just making sure that I understand it correctly and that the public can understand when we talk about these admin costs that this isn’t funds that we were sending outside the county.
Stephen Stocks: It’s funds that we’re offsetting the, the weight and the expense of, of assisting those agencies that but for grand counties HR services, they wouldn’t have their own independent HR services.
Gabe Woytek: Right. And it’s not just limited to HR services, but that can be all brought out further.
Brian Martinez: I know, I, I understand the reasonableness of putting those charges on the departments.
Brian Martinez: The, the, the road that I have, or where I see the problem, and I think we’re maybe even coming from Seth Overson is, is it’s, it can’t be a percentage that I see that applied straight across unilaterally.
Brian Martinez: There has to be accounting that goes along with. And so, I mean, just like when I, you know, put miles on my car, you know, for work, I’m like, I’m like, I drove from here to here and I found those miles.
Brian Martinez: And at the end of the year, I have to account for those miles if I want to take that off on my taxes. I think that same principle needs to be applied to each 1 of these departments if we’re going to go ahead and do that.
Brian Martinez: And I think that’s what he’s talking about is the accounting of that, not the, not, not, we can’t just, it’s not a university where we can just put it straight 10% on on this or an 8% or a 4% and say, this is the industry average.
Brian Martinez: I think there has to be accounting, because these are strictly funds.
Bill Winfield: And, and I think that we can carry this into the next 1. I think that with our Board of Education and other things that we’ve got to move forward here, I would like to suggest a quick recess if folks want it or.
Bill Winfield: All right, so we will end the workshop then at 4.03 and come back here in 5 minutes to start. With the Board of Equalization.
Speaker 9: Go ahead. Thank you.
Trish Hedin: Jump seats in the back.
Bill Winfield: All right. And I have read them at the end, or the LSA special meeting, November 5 2025. Those present.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner Dean Commissioner Hadler Commissioner McCurdy Commissioner again Commissioner Martinez Commissioner McCandless. Myself Commissioner Winfield administrator. Mr.
Bill Winfield: So, with that, we will skip our first general business action item which is the approval of the minutes, quick auditor said that he will have two of those at the next meeting we can approve simultaneously.
Bill Winfield: And we will move on to the second item which is the approval of hearing office recommendations on 2025 property tax appeals. And do you have any explanation or do we have both them and I’ll just, I’ll give a short little overview of this.
Gabe Woytek: So, folks in July received their tax valuation notices, which include the updated valuation for the current tax year on their property. And so then they’re offered an opportunity to appeal that valuation to order equalization.
Gabe Woytek: Commission contracts with the gentleman named Randy Kelly is an office. So basically what happens is for many folks who requested in person hearing.
Gabe Woytek: They come forward into these chambers and make their case for why they feel like their evaluation should be difference.
Gabe Woytek: And assessor Swayze who I don’t think is here right now, makes their case for the evaluation that she for office called property and the hearing officer makes a determination.
Gabe Woytek: So what’s displayed what’s displayed in this determination chart that’s being considered for approval are changes or not that the hearing officer determined were appropriate, given all of the information that was presented in hearings.
Gabe Woytek: There are, I’ve got these broken out into different categories for type of change. Some of these happened outside of the confines of the hearing, such as software errors.
Gabe Woytek: Also, primary to secondary and secondary to primary are often a result of just folks filing the appropriate paperwork and supporting documentation to prove that change.
Gabe Woytek: We usually see a lot of these secondary to primaries because obviously those are taxed at a much less rates, and then a lot of no change as well.
Gabe Woytek: So, access was given to the commission to every full appeal file so if there were any, if there was any written prepared information associated with the appeal.
Gabe Woytek: That was the commission had access or the this board of equalization had access to those appeal files that associated with the binds in this chart. And overall we see a.
Gabe Woytek: You know, a decrease, both in the market value and taxable value and factored in with the certified rate that you all certified in June of this year. It does show an approximate property tax collection decrease of $39,829.35.
Gabe Woytek: It’s important to note that that doesn’t necessarily mean that we take that hit and revenue. Ultimately, when a certified rate is is calculated and proposed for 2026, it takes into account appeal changes that were made in the previous year.
Gabe Woytek: So, kind of has a way of more or less washing it out is my best way of explaining that. So, it’s not just a direct hit in that way.
Gabe Woytek: Once these approvals are made, my office will send out a determination letter to all each of these property owners, informing of them, informing them of the determination.
Gabe Woytek: And then also laying out and outlining instructions, if they wish to forward and additional further appeal to the Utah State tax commission for the valuation on their property on 1.
Gabe Woytek: Last little detail is that appeal applications were accepted for the 1st time via an online application process. And I’m proud to have been able to offer that convenience to property owners. Thank you.
Stephen Stocks: All right, looking for a motion to approve.
Melodie McCandless: Yes, I’ll make a motion to approve the Board of Equalization. Yes. The hearing officer will determine the nations for the 2025 year.
Gabe Woytek: I think I put as I didn’t show it in their motion. Shoot, I have one in there, but there’s not like an agenda file. I guess I think I had something as presented.
Bill Winfield: Yeah, that’s presented. All right motion by Commissioner McCandless second by Commissioner Hadler. Further discussion.
Bill Winfield: Seeing none. All in favor. Motion passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield: It’s closing this meeting. Yeah. Do you then still have to restart the video or.
Bill Winfield: Okay. All right. So, with that, I will close this Board of Equalization meeting at 415.
Bill Winfield: And we will move into our regular commission meeting and I will call that to order now. At 415, and we will start with our pledge of allegiance.
Bill Winfield: 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: And I forgot to mention those present are the same as we’re here for the meeting. And now we’re waiting on the sheriff. We’ve got a presentation that he would like to do.
Stephen Stocks: As everyone.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: So, what do you know, Sarah. Trying to embarrass her. So, on behalf of the Grand County Sheriff’s Office, we would like to present you with a civilian Medal of Appreciation.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Sarah has been an invaluable asset to the county. For many years, she consistently goes above and beyond in her efforts from coordinating community recycling initiatives. To assisting individuals need a sport.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Her dedication is exceptional. She insists that she’s on call 24, 7 through 65. The sheriff’s office has called her at all hours and she always responds immediately with the willingness to help.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Sarah has always shown her compassion and eagerness to assist. Or raging and facilitating transportation food and clothing to our vulnerable population.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Most recently, Sarah has initiated and developed additional programming resources for the grand county jail. Helping to provide assistance for homeless persons and prevention to those that are incarcerated.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: And so, it’s my honor and these guys wanted to be a part of this. So, you guys can come up here too and we’ll take a photo.
Speaker 20: Yeah.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Then we got this nice little, that’s the least that we can do. And so, we wanted to give you this.
Stephen Stocks: Take a nice photo.
Sara Melnicoff: Thank you very much. My honor. And these folks are like family to me.
Stephen Stocks: Thank you. Thanks a lot. That’s the least we can do.
Stephen Stocks: We appreciate it.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, Sarah, for all you do. I enjoy having the availability to call Sarah also whenever something’s going on. And we do that back and forth over different things here in the community.
Bill Winfield: But I really appreciate the fact that you are available. It’s a sign of your heart.
Mary McGann: Well, we’re happy to and I’ve perfected the art of sounding wide awake at three o’clock. Hey, what’s going on? Thank you all very much.
Bill Winfield: No, thank you. You’re an asset to the community, Sarah.
Bill Winfield: With that, we will start our 4 p.m. citizens to be heard, which we’re a few minutes late on. If we have anyone that would like to speak up, please.
Bill Winfield: I’m going to start in the lobby here and then I’ll call for online if we have no volunteers. All right. Is there anybody online that you’re aware of?
Bill Winfield: Well, 4 p.m. Citizens to be heard. All right.
Bill Winfield: Well, with that, we will move on. We will also have an opportunity if somebody shows up late to speak at 6 p.m. or as close as we can be to that time.
Bill Winfield: So thank you. And with that, we will move into our first public hearing, which is a proposed text amendment to 6.5.5A4, permitted signs, freestanding signs. Mr.
Bill Winfield: Yates, County Engineer.
Andrew Jackson -: It’s like it’s Mr. Jackson. Andrew Jackson with Horax.
Andrew Jackson -: In plain English, the applicants building a convenience store, gas station at Crescent Junction. And when it came to get the sign permit, realized that it can only go 24 feet high. And so he requested a variance.
Andrew Jackson -: The administrative judge on the variance stated that the zoning text changed by variance, which isn’t permitted by state code because there are two different processes.
Andrew Jackson -: So he’s come in and requested that the county code for on-premise signs be amended to allow up to 65 feet in the highway commercial zone along I-70. So we have other highway commercial zones that it wouldn’t be applicable to.
Andrew Jackson -: We have other property along I-70 it wouldn’t be applicable to. So it’s just the highway commercial in the corridor of I-70. And basically we’re looking at anything within 350 feet of the right-of-way.
Andrew Jackson -: And it’s typically what you see in most places. I can go into more detail if you like.
Bill Winfield: I think that’s great. And this doesn’t even require a motion at this time. We will just leave the public hearing open until 5 p.m.
Bill Winfield: on Wednesday, November 12th. And then there will be a vote at the following meeting. I have a question, Andrew.
Jacques Hadler: Yes. It would be interesting who said it was just in the highway commercial along Highway 70. How much of the frontage along I-70 is highway commercial?
Andrew Jackson -: When I was just looking at the basic zoning map, because some of the property is federal lands or state lands, it’s not zoned. So it’s mostly just those areas along the interchanges.
Jacques Hadler: Along the interchanges. So up by Green River. Yeah.
Jacques Hadler: Exactly.
Bill Winfield: Any other questions? All right. We will leave the meeting open then until Wednesday, 5 p.m.
Bill Winfield: on November 12th. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Bill Winfield: And we will move into the next public meeting, which is the Waterwise Landscape Ordinance. And again, this one is Mr. Jackson as well.
Andrew Jackson -: So just in plain English, the state has a program where they have a turf buyback program. But in order to be eligible for that, you have to have living turf. That then is approved.
Andrew Jackson -: You get a picture of it. You remove that, and then you can get buyback off of that.
Andrew Jackson -: And so in order to be eligible for that, the county has to pass the Waterwise Landscaping Ordinance, which we did, which just amends the area of the code dealing with landscaping. So it’s Section 6.4.3A is the start of that.
Andrew Jackson -: But the amendments only come in on Part E. And this is just standard template that most all counties in Utah have passed.
Andrew Jackson -: And then additionally, because this has gone a couple times before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Kleist had some, Planning Commissioner Kleist had some additional recommendations that go into the section related to occupancy.
Andrew Jackson -: As it was stated before, you can get an occupancy of a dwelling unless you had your landscaping in, but it’s not practical to put that in at certain times.
Andrew Jackson -: So this allows for that to occur and be like a $1,000 cash bond that’s refundable for anybody that puts that forward, does the landscaping, they can get that back. We had one comment in person.
Andrew Jackson -: It was after the public comment period had closed, but a person in the audience just mentioned that it would be a problem for low-income people to do that $1,000. And you could waive that if you wanted on certain places.
Andrew Jackson -: A lot of those low-income housing projects are sponsored by state or USDA or whatever, so they have that built in that they will do the landscaping.
Andrew Jackson -: And that’s really, I had the Planning Commission pass that on with Commissioner Klaes’s recommendations for those changes. And so that’s just incorporated in the third ordinance document that you have incorporates those actual changes into that.
Andrew Jackson -: If you’d like to just replace the one with the other, you can do that or modify it whatever you like.
Bill Winfield: Okay, any questions? All right, we will also leave this public meeting open until 5 p.m. on Wednesday the 12th as well, and then come back at the next meeting and vote that in.
Bill Winfield: All right, thank you, Mr. Jackson. So we are up to our commission member disclosures and future considerations.
Bill Winfield: We have anybody that, yes?
Melodie McCandless: I did have a future consideration after attending the EMS budget meeting this morning and having Prop 13 passed. The EMS would like to be true to their word that they would give the PILT money back to the county to disburse.
Melodie McCandless: And so I don’t know if that’s the proper way for them to do it, or I know that I sent an email to Gabe today, and he was concerned if we did that resolution that it’s going to take a little while for that tax revenue to go to them.
Melodie McCandless: And so I just wanted to put that out there. And also, the EMS special service district could just donate that money back to the county later on once it came in.
Melodie McCandless: So I just wanted to put that as a future consideration, either to redo the resolution for the PILT reallocation, or they would find another way, which is the easiest and most appropriate.
Stephen Stocks: Yes, Trish, go ahead.
Trish Hedin: All the money that we gave them earlier in the year. Anyways, it’s just, you might not know off the top of your head.
Melodie McCandless: Okay, I know, I know. They’ll end up this year with a little bit, which will help them to keep making that low. So it’s not all the way gone.
Melodie McCandless: But it’s going to help them to get to those first few months where they don’t have any money, and then by the end of next year, they’ll be good. I hope they hadn’t spent it, and they could give it back.
Speaker 20: Yeah, it’s not all the way gone.
Melodie McCandless: They’ll definitely give back the PILT money, whether we do it through resolution of reallocation, or they just donate that back. Okay, thank you.
Jacques Hadler: And along those lines, I believe we have to put that on our next agenda, correct, to ratify that vote? That’s my understanding.
Melodie McCandless: Steven. Maybe we can ask Steven. That is correct.
Jacques Hadler: Okay, so I would love to see that on the next agenda as well.
Melodie McCandless: Yeah, the reallocation, or the funds, the allocation of funds for that request, I did put that on the next agenda. But I don’t know about the acceptance of the vote. Is that when we do that next meeting as well?
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, I think we’re slated to certify the election next week, which would happen before the next commission and meeting. So we line it up on the agenda with the assumption that results will be certified by the time the meeting happens. Absolutely.
Quinn?: Thank you. Chair, is it appropriate to bring that up now, Gabe, about making a meeting for next Friday? Yeah, it might be a good time.
Quinn?: Could we make a meeting on next Friday to certify the election? Do you guys have an objection to that? Next Friday is the 7th or the 14th.
Gabe Woytek: The 14th. Noon time.
Melodie McCandless: I’ll be at it. It’ll be a short meeting. I’ll be out of town.
Melodie McCandless: Very short.
Gabe Woytek: And we’re not going to be looking at these municipal election results. We’re going to be focused on, I mean, well, you know, there will be an overview of that, but we’re going to be focused on the special election. So it will be quite short.
Bill Winfield: And you guys would meet as the Board of Canvassers for the Prop 13 election. And that’s this Friday at noon?
Gabe Woytek: Next Friday. Yeah, we have to do it between 7 and 14 days after the election.
Mary McGann: Is that going to be at noon? Next Friday. The 14th.
Mary McGann: Thank you.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, fine with me.
Quinn?: Everybody else thinks that’s all right. And Gabe, what time? Noon?
Quinn?: Noon. I’ll put it on the calendar right now. Awesome.
Quinn?: Thank you.
Bill Winfield: All right. I’m going to also mention a future consideration that I’ve already requested that Dana have on the next agenda. And that is I’ve been working with the folks that are doing the low-income housing LIHTC program up at the top of Mill Creek.
Bill Winfield: And they have approached the city, and they also approached myself with the county to consider helping fund that.
Bill Winfield: And so there will be a request to utilize the funds out of the housing funds that we set aside to put some money towards that, and then possibly some money out of the payment in lieu of housing fund.
Bill Winfield: And I talked about that at one time, and I don’t know if we ever discussed exactly what was available. But I’m looking to possibly use something out of both of those. And I had a real soft conversation with Jason.
Bill Winfield: They’re looking at $150,000, and I thought we would try and match that. But we would need to know if that’s available out of that payment in lieu fund that we have there.
Bill Winfield: And I think whatever else the balance is on the housing, I think it was $100,000 that was set aside. And I know we’ve spent $16,000 or something out of that. So if I could, by that next meeting, if we could have those.
Bill Winfield: Yes, Trish.
Trish Hedin: We have a housing subcommittee. None of this has come to the housing subcommittee. We actually just had a meeting the other day that was quite extensive discussing those funds.
Trish Hedin: So I’m pretty taken aback by this action. You know, we do have a housing subcommittee, and three commissioners are on that subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: And so I would, to me, the appropriate avenue would be to first have this funneled through the housing subcommittee before it ever comes before the commission.
Bill Winfield: Well, I have it on the next commission meeting, and your comments are duly noted.
Trish Hedin: I’m just completely taken aback. We have three commissioners here that have worked really hard. It’s helping out some low-income housing, or what’s changing?
Trish Hedin: Yes, we have a housing subcommittee, and we’re working on those monies and on a variety of projects and where those monies should be funneled. This was never brought to the housing subcommittee.
Bill Winfield: I think seven commissioners ran on housing.
Trish Hedin: It’s just a complete disregard for that subcommittee and the three commissioners and all the people that work on that subcommittee.
Bill Winfield: I’ll be sure and let them know that they disregarded your information, but they made the decision to reach out to me, and here we are. We can have that discussion in a commission meeting. The developers?
Trish Hedin: Who made the decision to reach out to you?
Bill Winfield: Yes, the developers.
Trish Hedin: Right. Came directly to you, and now you’re going to override the housing subcommittee.
Bill Winfield: We’re bringing it up in a meeting, and you’ll have time to voice your opinion then as you are now.
Trish Hedin: Do either of the other commissioners on that subcommittee want to approach this? To me, it’s completely bypassing that subcommittee that we worked very hard on.
Trish Hedin: We’re going to allow developers to go directly to one commissioner and bypass the subcommittee and all the people that are working on that subcommittee with us.
Bill Winfield: Mind you, it’s developers that are working on low-income housing.
Trish Hedin: I know a lot about LIHTC. I know a lot about LIHTC.
Bill Winfield: Yes, Michael.
Mike McCurdy: Just playing catch up. I have a disclosure. It’s going to be on first responders first.
Mike McCurdy: My wife works for the Sheriff’s Department. Okay. Thank you.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, I just had a comment. Sure. To your question right there.
Brian Martinez: In that housing subcommittee, there was $360,000 in lieu of housing that’s available, and then there should be about $85,000 left over in the $100,000 that we put aside last year for housing like that. Okay.
Brian Martinez: And there was a small discussion of this project right here at the housing subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: I have none of that in my notes.
Brian Martinez: I sent out the notes. I didn’t look at the minutes, but we did talk about it with the city, and there was talk at that point of a revolving- Not come to the housing subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: Okay. We talked about a revolving loan fund. I agree with you, and I’ll go through that when we have our commission reports.
Trish Hedin: Sure. That is- Oh.
Stephen Stocks: The attorney has- Yes, Mr. Stocks. Just noting that I would be receiving potential benefits from the first responders first that’s on the commission agenda.
Stephen Stocks: It provides mental health and therapy help for individuals that are involved in the child abuse cases, so I just wanted to disclose that.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, sir. All right. We will move on to the approval of the consent agenda, and we will- Let’s see.
Bill Winfield: There are no minutes listed for approval. Item A, we will move into B, ratification of payment of bills in the form of $1,335,016.77 with a payroll of $590,108.78. Totaling bills and payroll $1,925,125.55.
Bill Winfield: Let’s see. Item C, Grand County City of Moab 2025 elections ILA. D, ratification of letter of support for Southeast Utah Regional Development Agency grant application.
Bill Winfield: E is independent contractors agreement. Excuse me, first responders first. F, first amendment to contract public defender.
Bill Winfield: D is a ratification of change order Finley Productions Moab’s old growth for forests filming. And H, award bid for holiday lighting project at the Colorado River Bridge.
Bill Winfield: I, approval of quote for the integration of the Intel com software computer aided dispatch. J, renew crowd riff contract for Moab office of tourism. K, ratification of ICA with the appraisers incorporated 2026 commercial property appraisal service.
Bill Winfield: Yes, Commissioner McCurdy. I move to approve consent agenda as read. Motion, Commissioner McCurdy.
Bill Winfield: Second, Commissioner Hadler. All in favor?
Trish Hedin: I’m abstaining.
Bill Winfield: Motion passes. Six with one abstention, Commissioner Hedin. Moving on to number seven, appoint commissioners to subcommittee for commission administrators annual performance review.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless: So, in our policies and procedures, I didn’t know I was presenting this, but there’s a policies and procedures that’s from like, 2015, and it’s talks about doing an appraisal of the administrator. And in that, it says that the chair can do it.
Melodie McCandless: But if we want to have a subcommittee, then we bring it before the commission.
Melodie McCandless: And so I’m recommending that Bill, I, and Jacques be on that subcommittee to not only get together the appraisal of our administrator, but also, you know, send out some surveys and stuff to the director.
Mike McCurdy: So, you want that? Mike, you were first. I move to appoint Commissioner Hadler, Commissioner Winfield, Commissioner McCandless.
Mike McCurdy: To a subcommittee for the commission administrators annual performance review.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second. I’ll second. Commissioner Hadler.
Jacques Hadler: Open up the discussion. Sure. Yeah, this is something that I was chair for a few years and I ran this also, I think it was like Melodie said, it’s in our policies and procedures.
Jacques Hadler: And yeah, it’s a heavy responsibility. I don’t, you know, it’s, I think it’s just, it’s standard. I think, yeah, Mary, you’ve been on the commission much longer than I have.
Jacques Hadler: I think that happens every, every year. And I know, I think, I think everyone in the, in the county has a boss and Mark’s boss is us. So, I think that gives us the responsibility for that.
Jacques Hadler: Also, in the past, yeah, I organized that. I think it was mostly myself as chair and Trish helped me on that. On that committee with, with doing the review for at the time it was Chris and Mallory were the administrators then.
Jacques Hadler: And yeah, I took the, I took the, took the task seriously. I think it’s a, it’s a good process and I would, I would definitely defer to the chair to, to, to run the process and to work with. With HES and HR should be very helpful.
Jacques Hadler: And there are past paradigms that you can look at for how we did that in previous few years. I think we did kind of the same process every time.
Jacques Hadler: But again, I think it, I think it is mostly the responsibility of the chair and the vice chair and I’d be happy to lend any, any support or institutional knowledge.
Bill Winfield: Your help would be duly appreciated and my.
Mike McCurdy: My question is actually to Stephen Stocks. Is it okay saying names in that motion or should I have went with positions? Chair, vice chair and Commissioner Hadley.
Stephen Stocks: I think that the point is taken across. I think commissioners understand which commissioners you guys are suggesting. I think that’s clear.
Stephen Stocks: I tend to refer all commissioners by commissioner and then last name. You guys can theoretically do it via roles, but I think it gets confusing after chair and the vice chair.
Mike McCurdy: Even a stance. Thanks.
Bill Winfield: Further discussion. Seeing none. I will call for a vote.
Bill Winfield: Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner McCandless seconded by Commissioner Hadler motion passes six with one abstention. Commissioner Hedin and we will move on to. Number eight, the ordinance high density housing overlay county attorney stocks.
Stephen Stocks: So this is this is the throwback to the original HDA show approval that was passed in on July 1st by the commission. There was a verbose motion that was proposed that motion required us to go to legal review. Bart did the full legal review on this.
Stephen Stocks: He reviewed all the items in this packet provided it back. We tried to provide enough enough information in the agenda summary and background to kind of bring the public up to speed as to where we’re at.
Stephen Stocks: Those those adjustments and changes have been consolidated into exhibit a to ordinance seven to zero. The recommended motion is within the document. Again, this is the motion that passed previously we put in the minutes in the packet as well.
Stephen Stocks: And the clean version and the red line version. And so that’s all put together. Therefore, the commissioners for your review.
Stephen Stocks: This is From the attorney’s office, their review or our review of all the documents to make it consistent with the motion that was passed back in July. Oh, and then one additional note. How this passes.
Stephen Stocks: It’s still a decision up to the commissioners to vote. However, they’d like just because this conforms with what the commissioners intended from the last meeting doesn’t mean that you all would have to approve it. So there is still agency there.
Stephen Stocks: So I don’t know if I’ve made it clear enough, but this is putting into effect what what you folks have previously voted on per the majority.
Bill Winfield: We’re just for clarification. We’re just voting on a cleaned up version of what we previously voted on. Is that my understanding.
Stephen Stocks: Where you’re voting to approve the revised exhibit a to ordinance seven to zero, which does Complete what the commission originally had intended with the previous motion and ordinance and review of those documents.
Stephen Stocks: But instead of redoing the entire ordinance. We’re fixing an exhibit a to that document making amendments there.
Mike McCurdy: Okay, thank you. Commissioner McCurdy like to make motion.
Mike McCurdy: I moved to approve the clean copy of the revised exhibit a to ordinance seven twenty consistent with the approved motion made by made at the July first twenty twenty five meeting for the reasons stated by the county attorney’s office.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy second Commissioner McCandless further discussion. Seeing none, I will call for a vote those in favor. Those opposed motion passes five to two with two opposed Commissioner had been Commissioner again.
Bill Winfield: And we will move on to Number nine the ordinance for the major utility overlay of parcel 02 dash 0021 dash 0113 city of Moab. Mr. Yates, county engineer.
Sean Yates – Engineer: John Yates, county engineer. This item was approved by the commission last week on October 21st. However, the most up to date ordinance was not included in the agenda at that time.
Sean Yates – Engineer: So as I suppose on amendments to apply the major utility overlay to approximately three acres specifically parcel in question. So that’s it.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, sir.
Melodie McCandless: Looking for Commissioner McCandless, I make a motion to approve the updated ordinance for the major utility overlay.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCandless. Second, second by Commissioner Martinez. Further discussion.
Bill Winfield: Seeing none, I will call for a vote. Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner McCandless. Those opposed.
Bill Winfield: Motion passes five to two with Commissioner had been and Commissioner again against. We will then move on to resolution releasing the maintenance bond for the ROR subdivision. Mr.
Bill Winfield: Yates our county engineer again.
Sean Yates – Engineer: So the one year warranty period for the portion of improvements to be accepted by the county began on October 1st, 2024. And such that the warranty collateral was to be held by the county until October 1st, 2025.
Sean Yates – Engineer: So this is to authorize the complete release of the remaining bond amount in the amount of $4,516 and 40 cents.
Mike McCurdy: Okay. Commissioner McCurdy. For Dave, should I include the amount?
Mike McCurdy: And it’s it’s clear in the record. Okay. I’d like to make the motion.
Mike McCurdy: I move to approve the resolution releasing the remaining bond for the ROR subdivision.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy. Second, Commissioner McGann. Further discussion.
Bill Winfield: Seeing none, I will call for a vote. Those in favor of the motion. Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, Mr. Yates. Move on to the resolution amending the economic opportunity advisory board bylaws Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless: So we took this back to the economic opportunities advisory board last week and had a nice discussion about the bylaws and were able to come to a happily approved, you know, what was added in there is that they would be a resource to our staff.
Melodie McCandless: And so that was something that seemed like everyone was in favor of, and it does move the board down to from nine to seven people. And so in the in the recommended motion, I have those specific things listed out.
Melodie McCandless: I’d also like to have this go into effect on December 31st, because we do have two outgoing board members that I don’t want to exclude them by the end of the year. And so that’s why that that is there. I’d be happy to answer any questions anyone has.
Melodie McCandless: But it’s so so there’s a little bit advised, it’s going to be the version 2.4 is the one that was revised after the meeting. The 2.2 is the one that I was proposing at the last meeting.
Trish Hedin: So did the question is that okay? Did the board make a formal recommendation, whether they approved it or didn’t approve it?
Melodie McCandless: They didn’t know Chris, the chair didn’t call for a vote or anything.
Mike McCurdy: Mr. McCurdy, I moved to approve the resolution of the economic opportunities bylaws as presented. And to take effect on December 31st, 2025.
Mike McCurdy: These changes will affect the makeup of the board, whereas voting membership will be represented in. In this way listed below. Open voting representative from a good.
Mike McCurdy: Voting a representative from the municipality in grand county. Commission admin, a voting member, grand county representative. Actually, a voting workforce development representative.
Mike McCurdy: Aaron limber, a voting member of the public who lives in grand county. Brittany, Brittany, Melton, a voting member of the public who lives in the county. Randy Martin voting, a voting member.
Mike McCurdy: Appointed by Moab area, chamber of commerce. Chris Wilson voting private sector representative.
Bill Winfield: Motion commissioner McCurdy, 2nd, commissioner McCandless for the discussion commissioner.
Trish Hedin: I’m not going to vote for this mail. I do commissioner McCandless. I really appreciate that.
Trish Hedin: You did go back to the board. So I want to state that, but I am not going to vote for it because. Again, I don’t think there was any need to manipulate these bylaws.
Trish Hedin: I think the current bylaws give that board flexibility to give input on economic development within the county. And so I just didn’t see the need for. To again, you know, rattle that case.
Quinn?: The attorney does.
Stephen Stocks: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Sure.
Stephen Stocks: County attorney, and then I’ll get to commissioner. A few points of clarification or question. When we went through and removed those board members.
Stephen Stocks: Did you guys go back through and look at staggering? The number of people that were appointed each year to make sure we have. Kind of like an, kind of an even turnover each time.
Stephen Stocks: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Jacques Hadler: Commissioner. A couple of questions. Who are the, what are the two positions that will be.
Jacques Hadler: Turning out at the end of the year.
Melodie McCandless: So, Forrest Rogers. He was planning on the. He would be a voting member of the public.
Melodie McCandless: Who was in the county. And then the other one is Jasmine Duncan. And so she’s leaving the board as well, but her position will be open.
Melodie McCandless: That’s the open position.
Melodie McCandless: And then Melissa Jeffers position was the other open position. So she’s part of. You know, the advisory part of the board.
Melodie McCandless: So it’s just really allowing the changes being effective on December 31st is allowing Jasmine and. And then the other one is. I’m not sure what the other one is.
Melodie McCandless: I’m not sure what the other one is. But it would be open. And for us to continue out the rest of the year, which they were planning on anyways.
Melodie McCandless: And then it would just be. Looking for that person. In that we did, because it is a voting representative from the municipality in the county.
Melodie McCandless: And that was Jasmine as a, from Castle Valley. We did ask Jasmine to go back to Castle Valley. So it would be either an elected member or a member.
Melodie McCandless: are someone that works for the city of Casa or the. Township of Casa Valley. And so she was going to go back and ask.
Melodie McCandless: There and see if there was anyone that was interested in taking that position. And then if not, then we’ll switch that over to the city. So, and, and, and.
Melodie McCandless: Reach out to probably the mayor and the city council. And then they’ll recommend someone. So it won’t really even be a board decision.
Melodie McCandless: I think it’d be more either the Castle Valley or. Well, I’ve cities decision. Who they would choose to go in that position.
Melodie McCandless: I mean, we can always. I don’t want to say for sure. The way that we’re going about.
Melodie McCandless: Asking for that. To be filled.
Jacques Hadler: Yeah, it makes sense. I I’ll I do. I appreciate you going back also and speaking with the board.
Jacques Hadler: I think that’s, that’s great. Board members and they were, they were also appreciative of the efforts to take it back and make it. A better discussion.
Jacques Hadler: I’ll vote for it. And I, but I do think that we have an opportunity with this board to. We have some, some really good people on there.
Jacques Hadler: Really good ideas. And pros. And, and I think.
Jacques Hadler: Once everything kind of settles out next year, we’ll see how it goes. But I still think that going forward. Maybe next year or the year after that, it’d be worth revisiting this and making that board a little bit more.
Jacques Hadler: I guess you could say robust.
Melodie McCandless: Yeah. And if I continue to be the liaison for that board or whoever’s there, that’s definitely something that we talked about and I’m open to that. And then as well as.
Melodie McCandless: You know, any other liaison that might be on that board. To finish. To really push.
Melodie McCandless: The RCG and RCO. And make that really duplicatable and complete and the best in class for. The counties.
Melodie McCandless: Because right now we don’t have that in there, so they can focus on that. And then once they do that, they can prioritize what the next. Kind of attack will be in.
Melodie McCandless: And we can go back and revise the bylaws at that point in time.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner. I’m sorry.
Mary McGann: I’m going to vote. No. And I do appreciate what Melodie did.
Mary McGann: And I’ve talked to various board members and they appreciated it too. They really appreciated it. But they were also.
Mary McGann: Not happy. You know, they weren’t. Like happy with.
Mary McGann: Totally happy with the results. And I felt that was a pretty functional board before.
Bill Winfield: Yes.
Stephen Stocks: County attorney. Just, just one other note and the commission can disregard this thought. We don’t have very many boards that we specifically give first preference to castle Valley for.
Stephen Stocks: I don’t know if that’s something that the commission would like to include in the bylaws. It does just state one representative of a municipality in the county. If it’s the intent to allow.
Stephen Stocks: A permanent board from castle Valley. If it’s the intent to allow castle Valley, the first opportunity for that. It doesn’t really say it in the bylaws.
Stephen Stocks: And so you could put that language in and if they disagreed or if they didn’t have somebody to appoint it, perhaps go to the city. But this is a nuance. There’s very few boards.
Stephen Stocks: I think the only other board that I know of is the. The boundary. Subcommittee that has a permanent board from castle Valley.
Stephen Stocks: There’s just not as many just noting it. I don’t know if that’s something that the commission would like to I, I. Put that thought out there for the commission to think about.
Stephen Stocks: Yes. Again.
Mary McGann: The solid waste also has a. Person from a castle Valley. And they found it very difficult to fill.
Mary McGann: Just for your. I mean, it was. In fact, we’re talking about making it.
Mary McGann: So that it could be castle Valley or the greater. You know, the San Juan section. Because they use the.
Mary McGann: Solid waste services. So. To extend it to that part of the county and castle Valley.
Mary McGann: So that we’re not always fighting to get that. So, you know, I just. Not sure if that’s helpful.
Mary McGann: I don’t know. But we find. Castle Valley small.
Mary McGann: And sometimes.
Bill Winfield: Another board that I sit on. When it requires participation from municipalities is when the board seat comes up. Then it.
Bill Winfield: Changes to another municipality. Flip flops back and forth. So there’s.
Bill Winfield: All kinds of options there, but I’m fine with it as it is. I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know if it’s a good thing to do because unless the county attorney wants to change something.
Bill Winfield: No.
Melodie McCandless: Yeah. It has a liaison. The city has a liaison position.
Melodie McCandless: So we could put in there. To reach out to castle Valley first, if we wanted that to be ongoing. But.
Melodie McCandless: I mean, as it is right now, we just, the board. Jasmine’s leaving. So it’s just like, yeah, reach out to castle Valley first.
Melodie McCandless: Just kind of made sense. I mean, I’m open to putting that in there. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know.
Melodie McCandless: I don’t know. It could have. Yeah.
Melodie McCandless: It didn’t have to be like a first choice. And then you just go to the city, but.
Brian Martinez: I just had a quick question. Was there any other changing of the positions? So did anybody else move around?
Melodie McCandless: Well, because the bylaws were, there was. There was two members of the public and there was two members. Of the private sector.
Melodie McCandless: Well, they didn’t move around. And allowing the mob chamber of commerce in there. So that’s not in state statute, but we left that in there.
Melodie McCandless: So that, that basically is taking one of the private sector representatives. So some of them didn’t move around as far as their official. What they’re.
Melodie McCandless: Representing. What they’re doing, but. Really the private sector and a person that lives.
Melodie McCandless: In the. Public and the county. Kind of interchangeable.
Bill Winfield: Further discussion. I will call for a vote on the motion by commissioner. By commissioner McCandless all in favor.
Bill Winfield: Those opposed. Motion passes five to two with commissioner. Dean and commissioner McGann against.
Bill Winfield: Moving on to number 12. Adopting the 2026. Kennedy budget.
Gabe Woytek: Mr. This is more or less just a formality to kick off the budget season. And we’ll, we’ll ultimately sure to be lengthy discussion about modifications.
Gabe Woytek: That would be made at your will to this presented budget.
Bill Winfield: Yes. Commissioner.
Melodie McCandless: I moved to adopt the 2026 tentative budget as presented.
Bill Winfield: Motion by commissioner McCandless second by commissioner. Again, further discussion. I will call for a vote.
Bill Winfield: Those in favor. Passes unanimously. Thank you.
Bill Winfield: Mr. Well, And we will move on to our general reports. Seeing as we have time.
Bill Winfield: We will start with the commission reports. And. Rather than just leave them on.
Bill Winfield: I’ll start on my side and read. Our way around to the other side. I’m a couple of meetings.
Bill Winfield: Let’s see. Start off with. Multiple budget advisory board meetings.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner. Mr. Martinez.
Bill Winfield: I’m sorry. And myself. Let’s see.
Bill Winfield: I was also in. Meeting with that. What I mentioned previously regarding the low-income housing and the LIHTC program.
Bill Winfield: Also in a meeting with. Council member. Taylor regarding that.
Bill Winfield: Also. I participated in the tribe. Board meeting, which oversees the food bank.
Bill Winfield: And the TANF funds also the RLF board meeting revolving loan fund. As well as the economic development executive board meeting and the Southeastern community action partnership. Also participated in the ORI ranking committee.
Bill Winfield: There was approximately. $4.5 million in grant money that was different projects that applied for. And we ranked those in an order of.
Bill Winfield: Which we thought were most. Fundable as they stand. Shovel ready.
Bill Winfield: Also. Brief. Update from the Kem C Gardiner.
Bill Winfield: And. Really the majority update was based around the fact that they are still in the process of. they are several weeks behind.
Bill Winfield: And doing everything they can to try and. Still have us some information in December. I also attended the airport board meeting.
Bill Winfield: And the Utah film commission meeting, and then I. Updated. Commissioner Hadler, but I was also part of a couple of different meetings.
Bill Winfield: Out of mud springs that involved. You. San Juan county.
Bill Winfield: San Juan county roads and. Grand county. Meaning myself.
Bill Winfield: And so what. Where that kind of is, is that you. And.
Bill Winfield: The city of Utah is in the process of. Trying to bring. Right away up to mud springs from the pack Creek cutoff, rather than exiting.
Bill Winfield: Off of the highway. At the bottom of the hill. And they have an estimate for that.
Bill Winfield: Exit at the bottom of the hill of about 3.4 million. And they feel that. It would be better money spent to move it down to pack Creek, which already has term lanes to get on and off of the highway.
Bill Winfield: And then they would somewhat follow a power line easement. Provided all of the entities that are involved in that. Are in agreement with it.
Bill Winfield: There would be the access up there. And San Juan county through. I don’t remember the gentleman’s last name.
Bill Winfield: His first name is Todd. And Lori. Commissioner mom.
Bill Winfield: They are also working to. Try and open up and improve the road that exits off at the top of the hill. And I don’t know what that’s called, but that you would be able to come down to mud springs from the top.
Bill Winfield: On what’s basically the old highway alignment. And so it’s still possible. What is it?
Bill Winfield: Black Ridge. On the left. So he would be able to exit at pack Creek.
Bill Winfield: Cut off for. If you’re coming the other direction, come down the hill from the black Ridge cut off. Turn off there.
Bill Winfield: And so they’re, they’re in the process of seeing what that’s going to take to open up and the kind of money that it’s going to involve. And so between the two of them, there was also, I forgot to mention SIPA was a part of the.
Bill Winfield: Conversation and SIPA wants to. Work with the BLM when they open back up to do a recreation lease for what would be the parking area for these. NICA events.
Bill Winfield: And I think Jacques said they need like 10 acres for a state. And basically 20 acres for a state. So that’s all kind of in the process.
Bill Winfield: It’s a busy. It’s a busy process. There’s still, you hope to have that right away open by spring.
Bill Winfield: And there they at multiple meetings and surveyors out there. And they seem to be moving along and eager to do something. So that was the end of my report.
Melodie McCandless: So. I just going to start. I just want to start with.
Melodie McCandless: The URC, which is the Utah Renewable Communities, it’s the largest, they asked us to present to our commissions and let them know what’s going on. So there’s four different pieces in the packet.
Melodie McCandless: One is just a memo, talks about the Utah Renewable Communities, which I think is really great because this whole year I’ve been going to monthly meetings and really trying to put it all together.
Melodie McCandless: And I think that Emily, who is the secretary, put this together and did a really good job of explaining what is Utah Renewable Communities, what are we trying to accomplish, who’s in it, and so there’s that, and then there’s the low-income plan, which once this passes, that we will actually have a active participation between Castle Valley, the city of Moab, and Grand County in putting the word out for the low-income, and it’s got the plan in there.
Melodie McCandless: And then the slides, it walks through as well. So I think the most important is if you go to slide 12 on the Utah Renewable Communities update slide, and it’s in the packet, it’s got my name on it.
Melodie McCandless: So number 12 is just basically the follow-up of what’s coming up. So you have the PSC hearing, a public hearing, that’s on December 16th. You can zoom into that.
Melodie McCandless: They’re encouraging participation. And then as the approval has come as early as January, then we need to do, we have a 90-day window to consider the program ordinance.
Melodie McCandless: And if we can’t, our communities can’t be involved with this if we don’t do this ordinance. So there’s also a sample ordinance.
Melodie McCandless: It’s the draft model ordinance 01-2025, which is just a generic ordinance for us to implement if this does pass in January.
Melodie McCandless: So I just wanted to give an update, and I will take questions, even though I’m not an expert at this, if anyone had some questions on the URDB. But there’s lots of information that I think people need to read up.
Mary McGann: I don’t have so much as a comment, but it’s nice to see something moving. Is this project has been in the works, how many? Since 2019.
Mary McGann: Yes, since 2019. I remember the first meeting, and it’s very complicated. And I’m sure that’s why it’s taken so long, but it’s nice to see that it’s finally moving forward.
Mary McGann: So thank you for your work on that.
Melodie McCandless: And then just some other comments from, if anyone didn’t have any other questions on URC.
Melodie McCandless: So just other things that I’ve been busy doing, lots of Trail Ambassador meetings, just sorting out their needs and helping Anna maneuver through getting the non-profit. They’ve got their EIN number set up. They’re getting a bank account.
Melodie McCandless: So they’re moving along with the process. They have their board of directors set up. Really good.
Melodie McCandless: Anna’s a go-getter, and I look forward to bringing that to a commission meeting in the future with us, being able to help them out, possibly we’ll see at the budget.
Melodie McCandless: And then I’ve had also a re-entity meeting with EMS Fire and Healthcare Special Service Districts, talking about the needs of each.
Melodie McCandless: I met with Jen Sadoff at the hospital to talk to her about the DISH payment funding, which comes from the Canyonlands Healthcare Special Service District.
Melodie McCandless: I also met with the accountant for the Canyonlands Healthcare Special Service District to understand their budget and needs a lot more. And I also am doing the Utah Rural Leadership Academy. We’re in our seventh week of that.
Melodie McCandless: It’s on Wednesday, and I’m really learning a lot. We’ve had representative Celeste Malloy come and talk. We’ve had representatives from AOGs up north, not versus, it’s the third up north.
Melodie McCandless: Today, we had Speaker of the House present and talk, and it’s question and answer. It’s a really small group. I’m really enjoying it.
Melodie McCandless: I’m learning a lot, and I think, you know, we’ll put it into practice with the commission, and I will remind you how you guys feel. So today we had an EMS budget meeting, and it was really good because Prop 13 passed.
Melodie McCandless: And so we’ll be able to reinstate some of the staff sets and programming, training, equipment that they haven’t had in years.
Trish Hedin: And that’s all. And if you don’t mind, I wanna thank Mel again, or Commissioner McCandless, I thanked her today, but she did a lot of work on that proposition, and I appreciate it. It’ll help the county out also, you know, so thank you.
Trish Hedin: Help our budget out for next year, for sure.
Brian Martinez: Commissioner Martins. Perfect. So I’m gonna start off with something in the future.
Brian Martinez: On November 10th, we’re gonna have the Moab Office of Tourism is gonna have a community open house. That’ll be at Josie Wyatt’s from five to seven on the 10th, November 10th.
Brian Martinez: With all commissioners, all commissioners are invited as well as the community.
Brian Martinez: And so this is a part of the branding project right here that’s being held by Camp 4, and it’s one of the porch light series where people can go in and talk about what’s important to them in the community. Utah Office of Tourism will be here.
Brian Martinez: Our agency of record, Madden, will be here, and also our PR agency, Camp Story. So this is an opportunity for the community to come out and see what the Moab Office of Tourism has been up to this year, which is quite a bit.
Brian Martinez: Let’s see here, going back in the past, October 22nd, I was in a housing subcommittee, you’d assume, and that was with Commissioner Hedin and Commissioner… Mike. I always get them all confused.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, it does feel weird. Anyways, yeah, and we discussed our goals for the subcommittee there. On the 23rd, I came in and met one of the candidates for the planning commission.
Brian Martinez: I missed the one on the 22nd with Andrew there, and then also had an ARCHES SSD meeting at that ARCHES SSD meeting. We discussed WSSA’s interest in the sewer system up there. So how that would kind of play out.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed the status of their discharge permit that they have into the Colorado. On October 24th, I was part of the UAC Public Lands Council meeting, and we discussed HB48, which is a discussion on the WUI properties.
Brian Martinez: And- I don’t know which properties. WUI, wilderness, yeah, the properties are- Wild land, urban interface. Yeah, yeah, wild land, urban interface, yeah, perfect.
Brian Martinez: And there’s a lot of questions being asked right now about when that assessment needs to be done and where those fees are gonna land on. And the classification of the high-risk properties.
Brian Martinez: And let’s see here, it looks like there’s gonna be two to $4 million that’s gonna be required to support that program right now. So there’s quite a bit of interest in folks. I don’t know how many properties we have here.
Brian Martinez: That would be a question for the assessor, that kind of about that. But I know in a lot of other counties, it’s definitely a high priority. Let’s see here.
Brian Martinez: I was at the Budget Advisory Board, and then we had the Film Commission, Moab Office of Tourism, and the Public Defender that day. And then on the 27th, I was at the Planning and Zoning meeting.
Brian Martinez: We had a public hearing on the Waterwise Landscape Ordinance, which we just opened up here today, and also the Sign Ordinance. We had one public comment there from a past, who’s that? Katie Murphy.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, Katie Murphy, but her position previous was a- I think she was just a VISTA. I shouldn’t say just, she was a VISTA. She was a VISTA, yeah, yeah.
Brian Martinez: And she was gonna have to put some work into that. And so she had some things to say on the Landscape Ordinance, which I would imagine that we would look into when we actually look at the entire overwrite of the Land Use Code.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed the Agricultural Ordinance. And I think that we’ll be seeing some of that a little bit later on. And then also discussed the water element of the General Plan that’ll be required by the State of Utah.
Brian Martinez: And now we’re gonna be putting that back together, or incorporating that into our General Plan.
Brian Martinez: Also on that, and I just talked with Andrew about that, but I did bring that up at another meeting, which was at the Southeastern Advisory Council for the Colorado River Authority.
Brian Martinez: And one of the suggestions there is to talk to Doug Bennett out in Washington County, just for all the great work that he’s done incorporating the water element into the General Plan down there. He did a lot of the work out there in Las Vegas.
Brian Martinez: And then he was acquired by Washington County. He’s doing a lot of work down there for one effort. Let’s see here.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed that we were gonna move the MFR 45 to the next meeting. And we would be looking for a public hearing in a month.
Brian Martinez: And there was also some discussion about having a larger community outreach on that right there before moving it in. Just so folks know, it would be nice to see this get finished by fourth quarter of 2026.
Brian Martinez: So that’s the timeline that we’re trying to look to see to get an answer on this right now. October 28th, I had a special events meeting with MTAB members.
Brian Martinez: And what we’re trying to do is put together the application for that $250,000 matching marketing grant that we approved a couple of meetings ago.
Brian Martinez: And so they’ve gone ahead and coordinated a bunch of work, taking the old application that we had and turning it into a Google form.
Brian Martinez: And hopefully we’ll have some more information on where that will be posted and how folks can find out if they qualify for those grants and what the process is gonna look like. Let’s see here, what else do we got? Let’s see here.
Brian Martinez: Oh, on the 29th, Commissioner McCurdy and Commissioner Hadler, we met with the Division of Outdoor Recreation and discussed the motorized trail crew and kind of went through that MOU and looked at the possibilities of how that’ll work.
Brian Martinez: We did receive a response back on that of the state’s preferred method for that MOU. And we’ll be bringing that up for the commission at the next meeting. Do you guys got something you wanna throw in about that or over here?
Brian Martinez: No? I thought it was great. I think it was a good meeting and everything went pretty well.
Brian Martinez: Seemed like it was received well. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think everybody has the same idea that we just wanna see some work done on some of our motorized trails now.
Brian Martinez: Let’s see here on the 30th, I was at the Housing Subcommittee, which was discussed earlier. We discussed what our steps are moving forward.
Brian Martinez: And some of the things that we talked about is funding additional positions, revolving loan program and how we could use the fees that we’ve collected already and keep those in perpetuity moving on.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed the county properties that might fit into future programs, new programs. And then also the needs of the county to complete the pipeline study. And that was part of that 15,000 that we authorized out of that.
Brian Martinez: And they’re gonna need some, they’re not GIS data, but they’re gonna need some. iWorks data. What’s that?
Brian Martinez: iWorks. That’s it right there. iWorks data from that.
Brian Martinez: I had to complete that study right there. The city, when that ended up going through, the city ended up just providing the data and then said that that was basically an in-kind contribution.
Brian Martinez: So if you guys remember, it was originally going to be a match to where the county put in this and then the city put in this. And they have said that their contribution was the data that they provided and it was gonna be a in-kind contribution.
Brian Martinez: Let’s keep moving on. The 31st, I was at another budget advisory meeting and kicked off the weekend. November 3rd, I was at the Southeastern Advisory Council for the Colorado River Authority.
Brian Martinez: That was a really interesting meeting. The interim guidelines, the self-propelled or deadline is gonna be November 11th. So we’re coming right on up for where those negotiations are supposed to be at.
Brian Martinez: And right now, it looks like we’re just coming to a point where the upper basin is coming to a point where they can agree on something.
Brian Martinez: So it’s looking, there’s some positives, but I also don’t know, I don’t see the reality of if the upper basin is just coming up with what we can agree on, how the upper basin and the lower basin are gonna come together and put something together here by November 11th.
Brian Martinez: That’s really the first deadline. The next deadline will actually be in February, which they’re gonna need to have a plan in place by February for how they’re gonna manage the two reservoirs. That’s gonna be the next big deadline that they have.
Brian Martinez: How that comes through, I don’t know, but what we are looking at though is the possibility of the Bureau of Rec taking it. So that is a real possibility of the upper basin and the lower basin cannot come together with an alternative.
Brian Martinez: Right now, the Bureau of Rec is gonna say what the alternative is. So we are looking at that and that is a little bit scary. I mean, you wanna have as much say as you can in something like that and have as much local control put inside of that.
Brian Martinez: And then also, we’re also looking at the end of 2026, there could be a call on the Colorado Compact. So the way that the basin, the Colorado Compact is written, which is really neat, it was great.
Brian Martinez: They gave us a copy of the Colorado Compact and I always thought it was this huge document because there’s all these things. It’s three pages.
Brian Martinez: Like, it’s amazing that the Colorado River is three pages and then the fourth page is just a signatory page. But we need to send down 750,000 million, 750 million acre feet over a 10 year period, right?
Brian Martinez: And so if we can’t send that down, then we would be in breach of the Colorado Compact. And so we kind of went over in that, what does that look like? How does that actually play out?
Brian Martinez: And, you know, cause I mean, it’s like, there’s this fear of what happens if it gets, you know, if we become in breach of this contract right now.
Brian Martinez: And it was a really interesting meeting kind of going through those scenarios and how it would play out.
Brian Martinez: A couple of things is, you know, first the lower basin would send letters basically to each of the upper basin states, hey, you got to send down some water. And that’s like, really, that’s kind of where it starts off.
Brian Martinez: And then you would have your lawsuit that would start from there. And the lawsuit, I mean, it would be very expensive, right?
Brian Martinez: Because you’re going to have, not only are you going to have the arguments between the upper and the lower basin, but you would also have arguments for, I’m just trying to kill time here, guys. We got to wait till six. We don’t have to wait till six.
Brian Martinez: We don’t have to wait till six? Okay, yeah, yeah. It was interesting seeing how it would all play out.
Brian Martinez: But you know, the feds would take in, you’d have a lawsuit and in the interim, the Bureau of Reclamation would take over operations of the Colorado River in that interim.
Brian Martinez: That lawsuit could look at, like we’re looking at a 20-year lawsuit or something like that. It would be very expensive to the state of Utah and the Southwest in general. So something that it’s- The most endangered river in the United States.
Brian Martinez: For sure. Yeah. And then we kind of went through some of our 2026 recommendations that that advisory council would provide to the Colorado River Board.
Brian Martinez: And then on that day as well, I went to the Noxious Weed Board and they approved two new board members. And they talked about some of the work that they completed up on Labyrinth Canyon and Westwater Canyon. So a lot of Russian fizzle.
Brian Martinez: I’m sorry. Russian olives. Russian olives.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, Russian olives that they’ve gone through. They’ve gone a few times.
Bill Winfield: All right. Commissioner McGinn.
Mary McGann: 17 minutes. 17 minutes. I thought we had a minute until six.
Mary McGann: No, I don’t.
Mary McGann: What is that timer? End of the month is always slow for me. And for one meeting, I was looking forward to and excited about the steering committee for the Umtra project canceled because it was shut down.
Mary McGann: And the celebration we’ve been planning for the third to celebrate our final tile being moved is canceled as well. There’s no way to get it organized and when and if the shutdown happens.
Mary McGann: And, but the one thing I did work on is I was even working yesterday calling people and encouraging them to vote yes on the proposition. And it’s going to not only help our, those three entities, it’s going to help us a lot.
Mary McGann: I was really happy for our budget and for all of their budgets. And it was a significant win. I was afraid right to the end and it was two to one.
Mary McGann: So I was very happy with all our hard work paid off. So that’s my report.
Mike McCurdy: Commissioner McCurry. I’m going to let the rest of you guys talk about meetings. I was there with you.
Mike McCurdy: The one I didn’t have anyone with me. I had a meeting with Angela Book and OSTA staff, Patty Jones, Barbara Hicks and Barbara Croson. Thank you.
Mike McCurdy: Of the Moab Friends Pickleball. Yeah. Just updates.
Mike McCurdy: Thank you for pulling that picture up. The project is moving along. It’s coming up.
Mike McCurdy: The small hiccup right now is some dirt work. Mark was actually on that today. Just moving along to get the dirt work started hopefully in a week or two and see progress.
Mike McCurdy: But I brought this picture from that meeting that’s going to show this is the playground side. You can see the pickleball courts on the left there.
Mike McCurdy: There were some talks about wants from the pickleball community, but I’m really happy to see this thing. I mean, we voted on it and it’s moving forward. Not at the speed of usual government.
Mike McCurdy: So I like to see that.
Trish Hedin: Is that you Mike in that big chair?
Mike McCurdy: Yeah, that’s me in that big chair. That’s just a normal chair.
Jacques Hadler: I was on a lot of meetings that have already been discussed, especially the Melodie and I have been on three Trail Ambassador Working Groups since our last commission meeting.
Jacques Hadler: And I think Melodie went over those well and we’ll actually be working on getting a contract going next week that we should be able to bring to the commission at one of the soon future meetings. But just again, Anna’s a go-getter.
Jacques Hadler: This has been a really compressed time schedule for doing all this. And she’s been hitting all her deadlines very well. And she’s got something important for us every single week.
Jacques Hadler: So that group’s been really productive and appreciate everyone’s work and collaboration on that. Mike mentioned the meeting with Jason Curry and others from the DOR about the motorized trail crew. That was a good meeting.
Jacques Hadler: Interesting. We’re gonna talk about that at our next meeting, I believe. And I went out to the non-motorized trail master plan final TAC meeting, the advisory board meeting there.
Jacques Hadler: And we reviewed the process. There was robust public engagement. It’s great collaboration with folks from the city as well.
Jacques Hadler: They helped pay for the study and hope to bring that to the commission soon. I think it has to go through the planning commission for approval first, then I’ll come here.
Jacques Hadler: If we don’t get it in here by the end of the year, then I think we’d have to make an amendment to the contract for the grant. They paid for that to be a great planning product that they came up with. This is awesome.
Jacques Hadler: You guys will get to see it soon. And hopefully we’ll get that through. And then let’s see.
Jacques Hadler: Then a month springs a couple of times. Actually, we did a collaborative trail work day with the NICA team and with GCAT.
Jacques Hadler: And that brings up another sad note on that crew was Fred Wilkinson, who was a stalwart of the NICA trail crew for the last, not NICA, the county trail crew for the last six years.
Jacques Hadler: And a local guy who was an amazing trail builder and he was found deceased yesterday morning. So he will be very much missed by GCAT and the community. I knew Fred for 25 years, probably not super well, but it was pretty shocking thing.
Jacques Hadler: So rest in peace, Fred, and best wishes to any of his family members there. Yeah, and I think he was, Fred was just an awesome example of GCAT and the work that they do.
Jacques Hadler: He literally contributed to almost every one of the single track trails that have been built here in the last 10 years. And he was a master with rock work. People know him as the guy who was really good at arms some of our kind of iconic trail spots.
Jacques Hadler: Like for example, Hawks Glide, there’s that, I don’t know if you guys have done it, but there’s a really cool rock slide and there’s a really cool, gnarly rock section that comes down that looked like it was impossible to put a trail through.
Jacques Hadler: And they managed to squeeze one through with a whole lot of manipulation and rock work. It’s right up at the Porcupine Stock Tank Trailhead. It comes down, it’s an incredible piece of engineering that he was a big part of that.
Jacques Hadler: So yeah, that’s the ending, I guess. But yeah, best of luck to Fritz.
Trish Hedin: Okay, on October 22nd, I met with Brandon Black. We’re still working on Dark Skies, slowly but surely. The goal right now is to shield approximately 47 streetlights throughout the Valley.
Trish Hedin: He’s got a quote from Rocky Mountain Power, it’d be like 210 bucks per piece. So basically they’re the most significant violators of light pollution.
Trish Hedin: And so the objective is we do have a little bit of money and then I was gonna scratch together the remainder of your two travel budgets to see if we could get those shielded.
Trish Hedin: And then the other big piece, and this I will not even touch in 26, but maybe in 27, is really the county should be leading Dark Skies if we want other people to become Dark Sky compliant.
Trish Hedin: And so we really need to think about retrofitting county facilities to be Dark Sky compliant.
Trish Hedin: As Brian and Mike mentioned, we had a brief housing subcommittee on the 22nd and I’ll talk about, and that was to kind of go over the larger subcommittee that we had a few, I think it was like a week later.
Trish Hedin: But the goal was to make sure that we encompass the main players. And so we invited Kaitlin Myers, Ben Riley, Aaron Lindbergh, Tony Mancuso and Steven Stocks to that second subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: On the 23rd, I actually met with Michael Black, the city manager and the cemetery sextant. And the objective was, the cemetery would really like that property. It belongs to the city of Moab.
Trish Hedin: They’d really like it deeded to the cemetery. The city’s not having it, which is fine. But Michael just assured Robert that the city has no plans to do anything with those properties.
Trish Hedin: And so Robert Buckingham’s gonna move forward with engineering and mapping out that second portion of that cemetery so that it’s actually all, it has water lines in it already.
Trish Hedin: And so just, you go through an engineering firm to map out the future grave sites. And then that way it’ll kind of be set in stone.
Trish Hedin: I met with both, went to both the planning and zoning director candidate meet and greets on, I’ve gone to two budget advisory committees in the interim. I thought you did a great job, Brian, talking about the planning commission.
Trish Hedin: I don’t think I have anything to really add there. I had a bunch of stuff. With the housing subcommittee, when we did meet, Steven gave us an update on HDHO, which we talked about tonight.
Trish Hedin: Ben and Caitlin gave us the update on the housing study. And again, Brian, you did a good job on that.
Trish Hedin: The one thing I will say is that we asked and I sent out an email, I think yesterday to Quinn that Corey and Joanna from the city do need data from the county’s I-WORKS. So hopefully they can utilize Lisa Sanicero’s to get that data.
Trish Hedin: And then that way they can start putting together those final, what we’re looking for. We did talk about plans for the expenditure of 85K. Do we build a revolving loan fund?
Trish Hedin: How do we grow that revolving loan fund? We did discuss, we already talked about county properties and maybe city properties.
Trish Hedin: The city has their public works, which is kind of like prime housing property and could they possibly move and jerry-rig that. We talked a little bit about MFR-45 and I appreciate that, Brian.
Trish Hedin: We talked a little bit about like, yes, we really need to encompass the public because when we went with the high-density housing overlay, there was a tremendous amount of public input to go to that type of density.
Trish Hedin: And so it was a recommendation from Ben Riley that we do the same procedure if we wanna see the higher density within this community. Couple advisory, like I said, budget advisories.
Trish Hedin: And then last night I went to, or two nights ago to the mosquito abatement. They really had a mellow year because these later rains, you know, larval production is basically gone.
Trish Hedin: And once the thing that they are in desperate with those rains came lots of leaks.
Trish Hedin: So the problem with their facility, and we have talked about that facility for a long time is, you know, it’s not just leaking into where maintenance, it’s leaking into the offices.
Trish Hedin: And of course you have computers and you have all this biological testing equipment. And so I said, so I reached out to Chantel and admin to say, I understand we have capital improvements.
Trish Hedin: I really think Sean, to me, and I’m just stating this, I’m not asking for discussion. Sean should be the one to really assess those needs and like prioritize them because he understands them, right?
Trish Hedin: Like we don’t, we all have our own preferences as to where we wanna see money go. But I think some of these facilities are in way worse shape than others, right? And we really need to prioritize them on need.
Trish Hedin: So anyways, that place is, it’s struggling. It has been for a long time. And just kind of a quick number on mosquito larvae and they put out traps.
Trish Hedin: In 25, they collected like 7,000 mosquitoes and in 24, 30,000, just so you get an idea of the difference in mosquito production, larvae production.
Trish Hedin: And then the last thing I’ll say, just future considerations, I would ask, so I did ask Kaitlin and the city tabled this idea when those developers came to the city for money for the LIHTC project, because the city felt that it was imperative that they create a policy for a revolving loan fund.
Trish Hedin: I would ask the same. I think that here’s the deal. We’ve already given away a big chunk of money to the airport that in theory was supposed to be a loan.
Trish Hedin: We still do have not, I’ve not seen the loan documents on that. I’ve seen no documentation as to how we’re gonna get paid. Is there interest involved?
Trish Hedin: And I think we should see that. So in this case, if we have these pockets of money, I really think we need to capitalize on that money. There is no need to give it away.
Trish Hedin: I think if we come up with a revolving loan fund, we can reconvene with the housing subcommittee, push through some kind of idea with a revolving loan fund and put it out there. But I think there’s no reason for us to give that money away.
Trish Hedin: We wanna put it out in a loan where we’ll actually get some return on those monies. I think that’s something that would be wise, especially in the budget pickle that we are moving into in 2016. So I’m just gonna throw that out.
Trish Hedin: I’ll reach out to you too and talk about that farther.
Bill Winfield: All right. Do you have any recent stocks if you wanna give them a chance? Oh yeah.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner County Attorney Stocks, please, if you have something.
Stephen Stocks: Yep. Got a couple updates for you folks. Number one, please mark your calendars for the CJC open house that will be on November 14th.
Stephen Stocks: It will be at 2473 Vista Grand Street. Time starts at three o’clock for the ribbon cutting with an open house to follow through 6 p.m. So again, November 14th, and that’s going from three until 6 p.m.
Stephen Stocks: So all commissioners are invited, encouraged to attend. There should be individuals from the Attorney General’s office and other individuals that are donating funds. And I don’t want to ruin their thunder.
Stephen Stocks: The events made possible through the generous support of the Friends of the Grand County Children’s Justice Center. No taxpayer funds are utilized for this event.
Stephen Stocks: Additionally, the commissioners and board members, committees, everybody else in between will be getting a memo from my office later this month. Just a reminder about how we conduct meetings in an open and transparent way.
Stephen Stocks: A reminder to commissioners and anybody that’s in those meetings, no texting, no passing notes during those meetings. So that memo will come out and everybody will get a copy.
Stephen Stocks: It will be circulated with any of the departments and any of the entities that have meetings. For my last week right now, I’m at the Utah Misdemeanor Prosecutor Association meeting.
Stephen Stocks: And then next week, I’ve got a training as well for the recovery report that’s done every year. This week, I attended the Domestic Violence Coalition meeting. That’s with the judges and prosecutor’s office.
Stephen Stocks: We talked a bit about having more involvement from commissioner levels. A lot of times I think commissioners and other electeds don’t really see this fear of law enforcement and the number of cases that we have in this community.
Stephen Stocks: We’re talking about potentially requesting a commissioner or city council member to join those meetings because it’s kind of a different world that law enforcement prosecution lives in.
Stephen Stocks: And it seems different from that of the commissioners and city council members at times. They’re very different. Additionally, I assisted the assessor.
Stephen Stocks: There were some appeals that we had for a hearing officer, for a lines back and another location as well. And so I think that’s everything that I have. Thank you.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, Attorney Stocks. Admin, anything you would like to add to the mix?
Mark Tyner: Comm Admin is fairly busy at this point. There’s a lot going on. We are in the process of hiring a couple of department heads.
Mark Tyner: So those processes are ongoing and hopefully we’ll have a decision on those really soon. Okay, good to hear. Good to hear.
Bill Winfield: All right, Mr. Hall. Okay.
Bill Winfield: All right, with that, I will move to citizens to be heard. If there’s anybody in the audience, we normally hold this at 6 p.m. or a little early tonight.
Bill Winfield: Everybody can go home early or anybody want to speak up? Anybody online? All right, with that, I will adjourn this meeting at 537.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, everyone.
Stephen Stocks: I can hear you guys loud and clear.
Mary McGann: Thank you, Steven. Where’s Steven? He’s on Zoom.
Bill Winfield: He was doing something. Everyone feels you’re good to go. All right, thank you.
Bill Winfield: At this time, I will open this workshop meeting with our Clerk Auditor Gabe Woytek. It’s 3 p.m. on the 5th of November.
Bill Winfield: Those present, Commissioner Hedin, Commissioner Hadler, Commissioner McCurdy, Commissioner McGann, Commissioner Martinez, Commissioner McCandless, and myself, Commissioner Winfield. We also have Administrator Mr.
Bill Winfield: Tiner and Deputy Administrator Quinn Hall, who just stepped away, as well as Tess Barger, the HR audience, and Andrea Brand, and Chantelle as well. So, Gabe, I will let you start us off with this, and we will follow your lead.
Gabe Woytek: Thank you, Chair. I don’t have a big presentation in mind for today. Mostly, I want to just give an overview of the materials that are included in the packet, and then see the floor to Tess to present new positions or reclassifications.
Gabe Woytek: I would expect that conversation and presentation to take up the better part of this hour that we have here. But I think just leading off with a little bit of an overview of what’s in the packet is my goal right now.
Gabe Woytek: So, this tentative budget was presented to you all by the 1st of November, and there’s a formal action to adopt this tentative budget at you as the governing body.
Gabe Woytek: And then moving forward, there’s a period of time whereby you may edit, revise, enter changes as you see fit, and then we’ll have public hearings in order to allow the public to speak on this budget as it continues to evolve, and hopefully aiming for final adoption of a final budget, as well as the end of year amendment for 2025 at the second meeting, commission meeting in December.
Gabe Woytek: As for that end of year amendment, ultimately this last green column to the right, 2025 estimated end of year amendment is what is currently estimated to be entered or proposed as an amended budget.
Gabe Woytek: And then, of course, the tentative budget presented here. There’s some key features in this tentative budget document.
Gabe Woytek: A lot of improvements have been made in terms of cleaning up deadlines that were always displayed and making this pretty unruly to look at, just cleaner formatting, and then in addition to these embedded links that you all, the commission, or the public can use to quickly refer to more additional detail as it relates to any line, in terms of revenues, sales and use tax revenues, or department budgets as we saw them at the budget advisory board, and then further revised as needed.
Gabe Woytek: On these department budgets, there’s a note here that says orange shading indicates change post-budget advisory board in the effort of trying to maintain as much transparency as possible regarding changes that might have been made after that presentation in a public meeting.
Gabe Woytek: And then there’s a, if you can remember, there’s a button here at the top to go back to where you left off. So, that’s the tentative budget document.
Gabe Woytek: Next, there’s, here is a compilation of formal recorded comments made at budget advisory board meetings. That’s a process that we took, I believe it was 10 meetings starting in September. There’s a YouTube link to the recording of those meetings.
Gabe Woytek: I have to finish timestamping in those links each department report, just so that you can just as easily as possible refer back to every department budget presentation, if you feel the need to lean more closely or get any more potential additional information regarding the budgets entered into this tentative.
Gabe Woytek: We also still have to get in the minutes from the final meeting, as well as the YouTube link. We’ll get those, I’ll get those updated as soon as possible. I also decided to attach the meeting minutes in full towards the end of this document.
Gabe Woytek: My chief deputy, Dane Bett-Jones, did a great job of very detailed minutes. So, it’s, I thought it would be a useful reference for this process. Sales and use tax revenue projections.
Gabe Woytek: This summary document, according, in accordance with statute, revenue projections are to be accompanied in the tentative budget. Of course, that’s entered into each line of the budget.
Gabe Woytek: So, by virtue of it being entered into the tentative budget, that is such a projection. However, I am, of course, providing more background detail regarding the projections for sales and use taxes that are entered.
Gabe Woytek: You’ll see in the tentative budget that Treasurer Kaufman has a method that we’ve used for some years now for entering in property tax related revenue projections.
Gabe Woytek: I have sent, today, updated this document to include a breakout for each of these tax types, each of these sales and use tax types. That show monthly distributions dating back to 2021.
Gabe Woytek: And a chart showing those monthly distributions up here, but more importantly, total annual distribution.
Gabe Woytek: A chart here that shows a trend line and where that trend line crosses that 2026 on the horizontal axis is that trend line that is painted by 23, 24 and 25 numbers. And so where that red trend line extrapolates out into 2026.
Gabe Woytek: And hits that 2026 mark is the figure that is currently entered in as a revenue projection. For 2026 entered in the tentative budget. So, there’s a sheet here for each tax type for your review with the data used.
Gabe Woytek: All there laid out, there’s an October 2025. Yeah, this is a sales and use tax revenue update that includes October 2025 numbers. That we’ve got updated and cleaned up.
Gabe Woytek: This is a capital projects list.
Gabe Woytek: Also, according to statute, along with the tentative budget, it is to include a list of potential capital projects in the current year, as well as a estimate of capital projects that could be reasonably expected in the following 3 fiscal periods, or the following 2 fiscal periods from the one that we’re preparing for the tentative budget.
Gabe Woytek: And so this is a process of gathering information from department heads and other departments that are requesting or offering information regarding large capital type expenses. So, the 1st, 1 is projects to be considered in 2026, that’s 2 pages.
Gabe Woytek: And then there’s a header for capital projects, 3 year estimated schedule. Next, we have a document that I prepared. That I just think is a useful overview compared to 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026, specifically as it relates to the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: It’s important to know when we’re talking about a budget or a balanced budget, or just whatever machinations that we’re talking about, regarding really focusing on fund 10, which is the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: All the other funds operate largely within their own restrictive revenues, largely self-funded for the most part, not 100%, but really when we’re talking, and obviously we want to maintain oversight and ensure responsible practices across all funds.
Gabe Woytek: But the general fund is really where the rubber meets the road in terms of how we’re managing our restricted, unrestricted revenues and our main bulk of our expenses.
Gabe Woytek: But really wanted to offer up what the tentative budget has regarding how it compares to last year’s opening budget. The ratio of these department budgets that are made up of salary and benefits.
Gabe Woytek: The amount of salary benefits in the general fund that make up the entire for general fund costs. All sorts of things. I hope this is a helpful document.
Gabe Woytek: I prepared it in the hopes that it would help you all in your decision making processes. Fund balance estimates, so each fund has a reserve balance.
Gabe Woytek: And these are pulled from financial statements directly from our accounting software, including some estimates, because we have a couple of months left in this year.
Gabe Woytek: And sometimes it’s hard to pinpoint without further detail from department heads, exactly how its expenditures are going to land by the end of this year.
Gabe Woytek: So that’s why it’s important to say that this is an estimate, but it is the best estimate that I can come up with right now.
Gabe Woytek: And then, so it includes what the reserve balances are at the beginning of this year, what the impacts are looking to be for this year, and then results and what we’re looking at moving forward, looking ahead.
Gabe Woytek: Again, I prepared this out of my own volition, because I anticipated that this is information that would be useful to you all in your decision making processes.
Gabe Woytek: This is the Moab Tourism Advisory Board Transient Route Tax Tourism Related Convention and Cultural Activities Recommendations, as required by statute. I’m not sure if this should probably end up as a formal action item on a future commission agenda.
Gabe Woytek: I would assume that that would be appropriate, so you all could accept and discuss as needed.
Gabe Woytek: But it’s relevant to this entire conversation as a very principled revenue that exists at the county, and this board’s recommendation, obviously, is important as well.
Gabe Woytek: And so that was a good solid 10 minute run through, and I think that that’s really the main thing that I wanted to accomplish today.
Gabe Woytek: If there are any burning questions, I think you all have found anyone that has come with me with questions up to now since I presented the tentative, I’m prioritizing the quickest response possible.
Gabe Woytek: I welcome any more, you know, if there’s any more information that I might be the best person to provide. I want to be useful in that process to you all.
Gabe Woytek: But ultimately, yeah, just let me know how I can help you all and your administration set up workshops to further suss out decision making, any adjustments that you may want to make.
Jacques Hadler: Thanks for preparing all that, Gabe. Yeah, excellent. Thank you.
Jacques Hadler: I think we’re more comprehensive and compact than we’ve had in the past. Yeah, 100%.
Gabe Woytek: Thank you. All right, without further ado, I would invite Tess Barger to come up and discuss the positions and reclassification. Are there such things that are included in the agenda packet?
Stephen Stocks: You want to use my machine?
Mary McGann: I’m logged off the line. Thank you very much.
Stephen Stocks: I will stop my share.
HR Tess Barger: All right there. Hello, Commissioner. I’m going to start sharing and we will get right into it.
Stephen Stocks: All right, excellent.
HR Tess Barger: So to start off, last Friday’s budget advisory meeting, I went ahead and ran through these presentations.
HR Tess Barger: We had some really great discussion, some really excellent ideas were brought up, questions, and then some additional asks about more information that would be beneficial to you all. Some of that has been sent out.
HR Tess Barger: Some of it is still in the works of being put together and will be sent out. But it was a fairly swift turnaround from completing the BAB presentation and then getting all of these materials over to Dana to put in the packet.
HR Tess Barger: So again, not all of that information is available yet, but you will be receiving more.
HR Tess Barger: My primary goals of the presentations today are, in addition to, of course, providing the information available that I’ve provided to the BAB, is also hearing feedback from the commission on how you all would, or options that you would like to consider in proceeding forward this year.
HR Tess Barger: So, for instance, last year and in prior years, from my understanding, when it came to new positions and reclassifications, there was a survey sent out.
HR Tess Barger: Commissioners would essentially rank their priorities and provide justification for those priorities. There was some mixed feedback last year on the effectiveness of that, and so that’s just an example.
HR Tess Barger: But I’d like to dig into some of those questions a little bit more so that I understand how to best support you all in making informed decisions this budget season. All right.
HR Tess Barger: So, first, jump into the new positions and reclassification proposals presentation, and then after this, the pay plan and cost of living adjustment presentation.
HR Tess Barger: So, first, we’ll dive into new position requests, and what I’ll preface is that these are the requests that we’ve received as is.
HR Tess Barger: So, I went ahead and we had the requests and the expectations of the information that we needed to include proposals, but we’ve not yet, we’ve not done any of our own filtering of or advancing of particular proposals.
HR Tess Barger: So, that will be, you know, ultimately, again, based on the conversations that we have today, we’ll be able to outline some of the steps that you all would like to take in terms of being able to determine how you rank, prioritize, and advance.
HR Tess Barger: There are several proposals that are also mandatory for reasons that I’ll, that I will expand on, and so with that, I’ll flag those particular proposals. So, the first proposal we’ll go into is Old Spanish Trail Arena.
HR Tess Barger: Going into 2025, requested an additional maintenance technician position. They’re re-requesting that position this year. The position would impact the general fund and the amount of, and again, these are rough estimates.
HR Tess Barger: So, how we estimate for new positions and back bills is we, of course, have a grade that’s assigned to a position. Grades follow positions, and then steps in our chart follow people.
HR Tess Barger: So, we estimate, typically, unless we have historical data that says otherwise, we estimate all of our vacant positions at a step five, so roughly 10 years of relevant experience.
HR Tess Barger: And with our high deductible two, so one of our most commonly elected health plans for full-time positions, and that’s how we’re able to generate that, that estimate of what a new position would, would ultimately cost.
HR Tess Barger: The justification for the maintenance technician position at OSTA is, again, this position was, was first requested for year 2025, and is again being requested. Oftentimes, the OSTA staff are responsible for covering a seven-day-a-week schedule.
HR Tess Barger: They are already over the $15,500 that were budgeted for overtime this year.
HR Tess Barger: Part of that is demand of events, and then also coupled with their currently short-staffed, we’ve not back-billed one of their vacant technician positions that has been vacant since early July.
HR Tess Barger: And so other staff are having to pick up additional hours to, you know, to, to account for, for that vacant position. In 2026 thus far, their event calendar is booked from every weekend starting in late February until mid-July.
HR Tess Barger: They have a little bit of a break, and then it starts again from the beginning of September through November.
HR Tess Barger: So in addition to all of these weekends that they will be mandated to work to facilitate these already scheduled events, there will be additional events that are inevitably added, typically more private events that, that they are, that they add to the schedule, you know, one to six months out.
HR Tess Barger: And so with this, the fact that on top of, you know, that, that calendar of events, the fact that it is a, you know, a public facility that’s utilized 24-7, and that it’s 65 acres large, the, the amount of, of work that, that even on a day-to-day basis, the staff is responsible for carrying out is, is very significant.
HR Tess Barger: And so that is the basis for the maintenance technician request.
HR Tess Barger: And I’ll also preface that, whatever is beneficial to you all, whether it be that there are discussions along the way, or I, or I kind of just can, you know, run through, whatever, whatever would be most beneficial to you all in your time today, you just let me know, and I’m happy to facilitate that.
HR Tess Barger: Very good. I’m going to, I’m going to click to the next slide, and then we’re going to keep this moving and grooving. Do you remind me, how many other of the similar positions are there?
HR Tess Barger: I don’t know, are there two other maintenance tech positions? That’s a great question. So they have, oh, let’s see, they have, they already have three other technician positions.
HR Tess Barger: One of them is vacant. They have an administrative assistant position that helps also kind of backfill their needs, and then assistant director.
Jacques Hadler: Assistant director, it’s not a lot of that. Okay. And they’re, they’re at the same position grade.
HR Tess Barger: That’s correct. Yes, exactly. It’s, it’s the exact same grade and then position description.
Melodie McCandless: So, I know this doesn’t fit within the new employees, but so with that backfill position, currently, we haven’t been letting anybody rehire, right, Mark?
Melodie McCandless: No, but with our budget, the tentative budget that Gabe has prepared for us, does that include that, that position that’s empty in that budget?
Gabe Woytek: I believe so, yes.
Melodie McCandless: Okay, so our vacant positions for currently for 2025 that are vacant and have already been approved are going to be in our budget for 2026.
Gabe Woytek: That’s correct. I don’t believe any indication was given that those positions were eliminated.
Melodie McCandless: Okay, just making sure the difference between we have positions that need filled, and then we also have new positions that need backfilled.
HR Tess Barger: Yes, thank you. And this is for an entirely new position, not a vacancy. That’s a, that’s a great clarification.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you very much.
Trish Hedin: And I’ll just say that I was a big advocate. Angie’s not going to ask for this, but I’m really pushed for this in the sense that we have been really pushing for OSTA to be utilized more, and they, staff are working super hard.
Trish Hedin: And I think you would agree with that, Mike. They’re working, you know, Angie works every weekend, and my concern is we’re going to, she has already lost a staff member this year that just kind of fizzled out.
Trish Hedin: And that’s my concern is they have been working that much. My concern is losing them, and the cost of having to replace and retrain and all.
Stephen Stocks: Thank you all very much.
HR Tess Barger: This next request is one of those that again I indicated I would, I would flag. So, this request is out of the Grand County Attorney’s Office, it’s for a part time victim advocate budgeted at approximately 25 hours proof.
HR Tess Barger: The justification for this position is, in the past number of years, the Grand County Sheriff’s Office, Attorney’s Office, and Children’s Justice Center has had a memorandum of understanding with Moab City PD for their victim advocate program to provide victim services to the victims of those agencies.
HR Tess Barger: That MOU will not be renewed and this is going to create a gap in victim services that we are mandated to fill.
HR Tess Barger: And so with that, this request would allow for a victim advocate that would serve Sheriff’s Office, Attorney’s Office, and CJC, in order to ensure that victims are receiving services provided by Grand County.
Jacques Hadler: It’s a mandated position?
HR Tess Barger: Yes. We are required to provide victim services and with that MOU not being renewed then we do have a requirement to fill that gap ourselves.
Bill Winfield: It’s also the position that typically has been a $20,000 MOU with the City of Moab but in an effort to offset dispatch fees they’ve raised that to nearly $300,000.
Jacques Hadler: I’m aware of that.
Stephen Stocks: And if anyone has any questions on it, I’m also here to answer any questions on the on the on the position and the ask.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you, Attorney Stocks. All right. This next request comes specifically from from the Film Commission director but out of the Moab Office of Tourism, and it is for a part time Film Commission assistant.
HR Tess Barger: And so the justification for this is that currently for the Moab to Monument Valley Film Commission.
HR Tess Barger: There is only one staff person that is devoted to do activities under that Film Commission which is a Film Commission director and so the establishment of an assistant would allow for increased support to the Film Commission director, as well as the opportunity to facilitate the opportunity for additional institutional knowledge to be held by more than just that one staff person.
HR Tess Barger: I would be happy to.
HR Tess Barger: I know in the Budget Advisory Board meeting I passed it over to Commissioner Martinez as an individual who’s been involved in the MTAB meetings because these presentations and requests have gone before MTAB and that’s, you know, been a separate process from from what’s happening today, although of course they dovetail together.
HR Tess Barger: But, Commissioner Martinez, I don’t know if you’d like to provide any additional information like you did in the BAB about this.
Brian Martinez: No, I mean, there’s, there’s not so much that to bring from the, I’m sorry, from the MTAB board on this that they, they recognized the value that the Film Commission brings into this community, and they saw the value of this.
Brian Martinez: There was two things, there was this and also a… They were both supportive of both.
Mark Tyner: This assistant would be specifically for the Film Commission, or would this assistant be an assistant for both of those entities?
HR Tess Barger: So, the way that the proposal has been presented to me thus far is that it is specific to the Film Commission.
HR Tess Barger: I do know that earlier this year there was initially some discussion and the potential of a request for an administrative assistant that would either be part-time or full-time and would serve the entire office, but this specific proposal that was provided to me is for the Film Commission.
Brian Martinez: There was discussion at that MTAB meeting of this might be the best decision for the new director to make. They go ahead and jump into that department, how they best want to organize that office.
Jacques Hadler: So, what your suggestion is potentially kicking it down the road until the new director is hired and letting them make the call on this? Correct.
Melodie McCandless: That would come under TRT funds, right? Or is it TRCCA, right?
Brian Martinez: No, it would be TRT. TRT promotion. The film is now included in the TRT.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you all very much. And also, as it indicates in this, the position request is for a part-time position budgeted at approximately 25 hours weekly. All right, this next request comes out of our Noxious Weeds Department.
HR Tess Barger: Currently, we have a four-year grant cycle that we’re coming up to finishing our first year of the grant. It’s the Community Wildfire Defense Grant.
HR Tess Barger: And so, in this four-year grant, it was outlined a number of goals and objectives that the county would complete over the course of four years.
HR Tess Barger: Already, two positions have been established through this grant, an invasive species, a full-time year-round invasive species technician position, and then a fuels reduction coordinator, which is also a full-time year-round position, to continue working towards the grant goals and objectives that were outlined.
HR Tess Barger: Additional goals were that we could continue to expand the fuels reduction programming and add this full-time fuels reduction technician, which would be year-round full-time, and support the fuels reduction coordinator, both during seasons where we have a seasonal fuels reduction crew, and then also during the shoulder seasons where we do not have a crew working.
HR Tess Barger: From what we’ve been able to find, and certainly, we’ve, you know, Ken will be wrapping back to the grant administrator, is that the salary is reimbursable from the grant.
HR Tess Barger: The benefits would need to be county-funded, and so that’s why there’s that breakup that indicates what the financial impact would be for the general fund versus what would go towards the grant reimbursement.
Jacques Hadler: Would not accepting this position jeopardize any other part of that grant?
HR Tess Barger: So my understanding is yes, and that’s because the grant, as it was outlined, was that the funds that we requested were to essentially continue to build on our fuels reduction programming, by building out our team, in order for us to complete projects within the community.
HR Tess Barger: So we would be following the outlined objectives of the grant if we don’t backfill, or if we do not create, excuse me, some of these positions that would be positions that are actually carrying forward those grant objectives.
Jacques Hadler: And we’re in which year of the four-year cycle?
HR Tess Barger: We’re completing our, we’re finishing up on our first year, so it will end in 2029.
Jacques Hadler: So if we finish one year, this would be year two. And is the next position the same grant?
Stephen Stocks: It is, yes.
Jacques Hadler: Would that negate the grant entirely if we said no thank you to this position?
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. That would be one that I would need to work with the director more on.
HR Tess Barger: Certainly there are, you know, at least during my previous experiences with multi-year grants, sometimes just depending on short-staffing, etc., you may need to make some amendments and modifications to a grant.
HR Tess Barger: The degree to which we would be able to do that, however, would certainly, I imagine, depend on what the grant administrators would deem appropriate and allowable.
Jacques Hadler: And how many other positions is it funding other than the two that are proposed right here? There’s current positions as well?
HR Tess Barger: So we established an invasive species technician and then a fuels reduction coordinator position this year from this grant.
Jacques Hadler: So it’s paying for two currently, or it paid for two in the 2025 year? And we’d be looking at paying then the four positions for next year?
HR Tess Barger: So it would be four to eight, and I can actually perfectly segue into this next one. So for the seasonal fuels reduction technician position that is being requested, it would be requested for up to four seasonal crew members.
HR Tess Barger: And so each crew member would be budgeted at approximately 900 hours annually. That would be during their peak season for projects.
HR Tess Barger: Again, we would be able to get reimbursed for the salaries or the wages of those positions, the benefits being specifically workers’ compensation payroll taxes the county would take on those costs.
HR Tess Barger: And again, the request is for up to four seasonal crew members.
Jacques Hadler: And then the benefits estimate is per crew member? Okay, so we’re talking about $8,000 for the four?
Brian Martinez: About $34,000 total.
Jacques Hadler: Right, right. Okay.
HR Tess Barger: And these seasonal crew members would report to the fuels reduction coordinator. That is already an established position that we have within the Noxious Weeds Department structure. Okay.
HR Tess Barger: Do we have any additional questions on this item before we move on?
Jacques Hadler: I guess one more just to help me totally understand this. Would this grant be looking to make any further hires next year? Do you know?
HR Tess Barger: I’m not aware of that, but that’s a great question and an additional one that I can work with the supervisor on.
Mike McCurdy: Are there project plans for a five-member team?
HR Tess Barger: Yes. I will be transparent in reflecting that I don’t know the ins and outs of the projects that have been allocated.
Mike McCurdy: I didn’t figure you would have, but I was just asking.
Brian Martinez: So, they had, I think to go back to Jock’s point, I think there’s about $30,000 that they’re going to basically have to turn back in for 2025. It was unused because they were unable to fill that lead and then the four positions.
Brian Martinez: I think we’re looking at about $60,000 for next year. The reason that they were awarded the grant in the first place is that they felt that this crew did have the projects and were able to complete those tasks that they applied for in the grant.
Brian Martinez: I think that they can. There are the projects there to do. The work is there.
Brian Martinez: I think we have five employees that we’re looking at. It’s basically $34,000 that would be coming out of the county right there and then a total of $152,000. If you’re kind of looking at it, that’s the basics.
Mike McCurdy: It’s like $30,000 for five employees. That’s pretty good too.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you all very much. Those are the new proposal groups that we have. We’ll go ahead and move into the reclassification requests.
HR Tess Barger: Again, I’ll flag the reclassification that is mandatory for us to consider this year. First, in terms of reclassifications, this is really more of a salary adjustment, not reclassification.
HR Tess Barger: With elected positions, I went ahead and included this in it. Last year, there’s been discussion of continuing to do this every year to ensure that we are maintaining at least average compensation for our elected positions.
HR Tess Barger: Treasurer Chris Kaufman was extremely helpful and put together a spreadsheet of all 5th to 1st class Utah counties, excluding Uinta County.
HR Tess Barger: That was because they had not done a reevaluation or adjustment to their elected salaries for approximately 10 years. They were an outlier. They were going to skew the data, but calculated the average compensation for each of these elected positions.
HR Tess Barger: The caveat is that for the surveyor position, there wasn’t enough comparable data to look at. What he did was he averaged the average increase to the other elected positions and applied that to what the surveyor position’s increase would be.
HR Tess Barger: This is one of those standardized requests that may be included in future new position reclassification proposals.
HR Tess Barger: Just to ensure that we are every year assessing, are we compensating electives that are competitive and comparable to how electives are being compensated elsewhere in the state of Utah within county classes that are relevant to ours.
HR Tess Barger: If all of these adjustments… What I’ll also preface is that the sheriff, county attorney, and commission positions were not included in this because those averages were actually higher in Grand County than in the state.
HR Tess Barger: It would require reductions in pay, which is not something that we would be looking at. It was assessed for assessor, reporter, treasurer, clerk, auditor, and surveyor for 2026.
HR Tess Barger: The full fiscal impact of increasing all of these elected positions to the average of fifth to first class electives and comparable positions would be a total of about $12,500.
Jacques Hadler: Based on Gabe’s proposal to separate out the clerk and the auditor so that I know quite a few counties have that position separated out, is this the average of just the counties that have a clerk slash auditor position?
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. Treasurer Coffman, if you are available and would like to explain more of your methodology behind that, I’d be greatly appreciative. He did explain it to me.
HR Tess Barger: My understanding was that… Well, actually, I’ll let him go ahead. He’s going to explain it better than I can.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: Sure. First of all, can you hear me? Yeah, thanks, Chris.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: Okay, great. When the position is split between a clerk and an auditor, I took an average of those two salaries and put that in for the clerk auditor line for the purposes of our average.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: I will say that in many counties they’re paid exactly the same, so there wasn’t necessarily a lot of averaging I had to do. And there’s another situation where we have a few counties with combined treasurer and recorders.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: And in that case, I took the salary for the treasurer recorder and used that for both the treasurer and recorder separately for the purposes of our averages. Okay.
Jacques Hadler: Do you think it would be fair to look at just the counties that have a clerk slash auditor since the duties are more, I guess, probably greater and giving us that data, too?
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: So last year I did an analysis on the, you know, how if there are a lot of differences in the salary, whether they’re split or combined, and I could pull that up again.
Treasurer Chris Kauffman: I haven’t looked at it for a while, but there was not a big difference between counties where they’re split and where they’re combined. Yeah, that’s fine. Thank you, Chris.
Mary McGann: Excellent. Do we have any additional questions on this slide?
Stephen Stocks: All right. Thank you all.
HR Tess Barger: And then I’ll go ahead and continue through the individual position reclassifications. And so the first one is for the clerk auditor position.
HR Tess Barger: And the justification for this is that pursuant to state code 1753-1, there’s a threshold at which time or under which a county clerk can act as an ex officio auditor. We’ve very far should have a threshold.
HR Tess Barger: And so if we are to continue keeping the clerk auditor’s office together, the request is for the clerk auditor is that there’s a salary increase that comes with that to compensate for the additional duties, responsibilities, and demands that are placed on the clerk auditor’s combined office.
HR Tess Barger: And the full fiscal impact of that would be $8,514 with a salary adjustment of approximately $7,000. This next position reclassification is one that, again, I’ll flag as mandatory.
HR Tess Barger: And so during our FAA audit earlier this year, it was indicated that we are required to have an operations manager position as part of our departmental structure at Canyonlands Regional Airport.
HR Tess Barger: This request is to, instead of adding a new position, and what I’ll preface as well is that an operations manager was a new proposal request that was provided in 2025 by the airport. It wasn’t approved for going into 2025.
HR Tess Barger: Now that we’re in a position where it is mandatory in order to account for the fact that we are experiencing concerns pertaining to our budget, it is being proposed as a reclassification instead so that there’s less of a fiscal impact.
HR Tess Barger: And we would be reclassifying one of our two lead operations specialist positions to an operations manager for an estimated total fiscal impact of $13,359.
HR Tess Barger: And we are required to put this operations manager position into effect by December 31st of this year.
Jacques Hadler: Is that person already in place right now? Okay, thanks.
Mike McCurdy: Excuse me? I was like, when do we do a sign specifically on that one instead of putting?
HR Tess Barger: When do we, I apologize.
Mike McCurdy: Yeah, I was like, can that be put to a single decision, be put to the next meeting? Could that move along faster?
Stephen Stocks: I think it needs to go just like we have it. Okay. That’s part of the budget process.
Stephen Stocks: Thank you all.
Quinn?: To Tess’s point though, could we not, once the budget passes on December 16th, would we not, do we have to make that position start on December 31st instead of January 1st? Does that one day difference make a difference?
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. I would certainly want us to defer to the airport director to get an answer to that. But I can follow up with him to clarify that.
Quinn?: Because if the one day puts us out of compliance, that’s an easy fix.
HR Tess Barger: Definitely. Thank you for calling that out. I’ll check in with the airport director about that.
HR Tess Barger: So this next position request is also from Canyonlands Regional Airport. And the request is to reclassify the airport administrative assistant from a part-time to a full-time position.
HR Tess Barger: The justification for this is that the airport’s billing has become a lot more complex since they started following their airport leases as written. And they’re also working to establish additional revenue streams.
HR Tess Barger: And with this, the additional administrative work that’s come with it can’t be accomplished by a part-time individual.
HR Tess Barger: What I will say is that a creative idea that was proposed during the budget advisory board meeting is that if we essentially need additional hours to go towards this work, as opposed to reclassifying the current assistant from part-time to full-time, perhaps another option that may be kinder to the budget, but also still accomplish the goal of providing additional administrative support to the airport, is establishing another part-time position.
HR Tess Barger: Because ultimately that would have less of a financial impact by approximately $30,000. And so I wanted to share that with the commission that that was an idea that was discussed in the budget advisory board.
Jacques Hadler: And again, that’s a position that’s currently full that we need to hire another part-time person.
HR Tess Barger: Or reclassify the current part-time employee to a full-time employee. And there would be no grade changes to that. It would simply be moving them up to 40 hours a week with benefits.
HR Tess Barger: With full-time benefits. All right. This next position reclassification is out of the Office of Tourism for the film commission director.
HR Tess Barger: The request, my understanding is how it has been presented in IMTAB has been with a salary amount, which is a little bit different than sometimes we do with grades.
HR Tess Barger: And so I translated over to grades because that’s the structure in which we reclassify positions. And so for this position to be reclassified for the salary adjustment from the current.
HR Tess Barger: And what I’ll say too is that this position would, when I have the current, what I mean is for the current table, it’s the projection of what the position will be making in 2026 factoring in if they are eligible for a merit increase and when that merit increase would go into effect.
HR Tess Barger: So the positions salary increase that was requested was to increase the salary to $115,000 annually. I can’t quite make that fit into our grade and step chart.
HR Tess Barger: And so the best that I could get was at about $114,000 and that would adjust this position’s grade from a 12 to a 15. And this reclassification, this position was reclassified last in 2024 from a grade 9 to a 12.
HR Tess Barger: And so if this reclassification went forward, then it would be reclassified by an additional three grades.
Jacques Hadler: So this position received a similar reclassification just last year. Two years ago.
HR Tess Barger: Yes, entering into 2024. It went into effect January 1 of 2024.
Jacques Hadler: What are some of the other grade 15 positions in the county that’s a high grade?
HR Tess Barger: It’s a great question. Grade 15 is actually interestingly, for whatever reason, not one of our grades that’s commonly used. But a number of.
HR Tess Barger: Yeah, exactly. So. So, for instance, our associate planner is a grade 15, but some of our directors are grade 14.
HR Tess Barger: Our most common director grade is a grade 16. And so it’s again, it’s a little and I can provide comparables as well. So grade 15, for whatever reason, is somewhat underutilized.
HR Tess Barger: But our our directors range from grades 12 up to 20, depending on a variety of factors, team size, level of, you know, skill, education, et cetera. That’s required to take on a position responsibility, et cetera.
Jacques Hadler: But what are we advertising the MOT director position as a grade 18?
Gabe Woytek: The attorney has a question.
Stephen Stocks: When we adjusted this salary previously, did we do a salary survey or a study when we looked at it last time? I’m just trying to refresh my recollection on that.
HR Tess Barger: That’s an excellent question. Attorney stocks. My understanding is that there was there wasn’t there has been some salary data provided.
HR Tess Barger: I can’t speak to the specifics that went into that reclassification.
Quinn?: We did not do a comprehensive salary.
HR Tess Barger: OK, thank you. And my understanding is that the county has not done a comprehensive salary survey since twenty twenty one. And even during that twenty twenty one salary survey, not all positions were re were were reassessed, actually.
HR Tess Barger: So some of our our positions have not actually had a salary survey conducted for their particular role since twenty twenty one. This next position reclassification is out of the Green County Active Transportation and Trails Department.
HR Tess Barger: It’s for the OHV trail ambassador. Current position that we have. There is a grant that is that was has already been requested and awarded for twenty twenty six in the grant.
HR Tess Barger: It was already requested. It was requested that we would be able to adjust the job description, role and responsibilities of this position to expand it past just the current roles and responsibilities.
HR Tess Barger: The trail ambassador to an OHV trail coordinator and with the additional responsibilities and duties assigned. The request is to adjust the grade of the position from a six to an eight. The grant covers the salary adjustment.
HR Tess Barger: We would need to cover the difference in benefits. And that difference would be one thousand three hundred dollars approximately. We have any additional questions on this.
HR Tess Barger: Great. Excellent. And then the final reclassification proposal that we have for today is for the San Flats director.
HR Tess Barger: The current grade of this position is a fourteen and the request is for an adjustment to a grade sixteen.
HR Tess Barger: San Flats director job description has expanded since it was last revised, formally revised in twenty seventeen to include larger trail systems, larger budget, greater fiscal responsibility, more significant partnerships, et cetera.
HR Tess Barger: And so with the with the significant expansion of the job description since twenty seventeen. And the fact that this position is one of those that was not reassessed during a salary survey in twenty twenty one.
HR Tess Barger: The request is for that adjustment, that two grade adjustment to be applied to this. Do you have any questions on this proposal?
Jacques Hadler: That’s not paid out of the general fund.
HR Tess Barger: Correct. This is this is not paid out of the general fund. Thank you for finding that out.
HR Tess Barger: It’s out of San Flats fund. So fund 70.
Brian Martinez: I think we were talking about in the budget advisory board meeting going through and finding if there were any other positions that had been not been reclassified since twenty seventeen.
HR Tess Barger: I haven’t I haven’t had a chance to go through all of our positions, but I can certainly guarantee you that particularly for the positions that have had extensive tenure, that there are quite a few that have not been reclassified.
HR Tess Barger: And what I’ll say as well as reclassification is in and of itself is not necessarily the solution.
HR Tess Barger: What I more so see is is, you know, an objective that that we need to have is to recomplete a salary survey because our current ranges assigned to each grade may need to actually be what’s adjusted.
HR Tess Barger: So maybe a position stays a grade 16 after we do a survey, but the minimum to maximum of a grade 16 has been adjusted. Thank you.
Bill Winfield: We would want to do that while we’re in this process. Would we not? I mean, I certainly think it’s optimum that we look at Andrea’s salary when it’s been eight years.
Bill Winfield: But we wouldn’t want just one individual if there’s 10 out there. We need to. We need that information, I would say, for this budget cycle for other employees that are in possibly the same situation.
Melodie McCandless: I probably wouldn’t be possibility for this budget cycle, though, but I think that much on our plans for next year, for sure.
HR Tess Barger: And thank you. That’s it. That’s an excellent point.
HR Tess Barger: And what we’ve been certainly discussing is we’re certainly due for a salary survey with the last one having been completed in 2021 every several years up to five years is certainly recommended.
HR Tess Barger: And so a more holistic, comprehensive approach could be us looking at putting it into our plans and budgeting for us to have an external agency complete a comprehensive salary survey for us.
Melodie McCandless: Would you be able to get that to us for this budget? Because that’s more realistic to get that into this budget than an actual done for this year. Yes, absolutely.
Melodie McCandless: I’ll work on that.
Bill Winfield: That’s where I was going. Thank you for the clarification.
HR Tess Barger: Thank you all very much.
Bill Winfield: And so is that all that you have then? I’m just looking at our time and trying to make a decision on what we’re going to do.
HR Tess Barger: No, I appreciate it. And I’m happy to go ahead and yes.
HR Tess Barger: So I’ll go ahead and this is this is all added, but there we’re trying to move all of our director, assistant director, chief deputies, office managers, supervisors to an exempt status for uniformity.
HR Tess Barger: Currently, we have about 50% non exempt and 50% exempt. And in order to ensure that we have, again, that uniformity continuity that we go ahead and have everybody within those types of positions. Consider exempt.
HR Tess Barger: All right, great. And then I’m happy to thank you all so much for all the excellent questions. I know that we didn’t have time to go over the cost of living adjustment presentation.
HR Tess Barger: And so I happily, you know, come back to do that at another point or whatever you all determine this is most helpful to your process.
Bill Winfield: I see this as this is just going to be an ongoing budget week workshop meeting meeting moving forward. So I’d like to suggest that we put that on the next one. And then I’ve got a few things that I would like to see if it’s possible to request.
Bill Winfield: And then if there’s any other questions that we go around. You know the table so if that’s okay with you. Move that and gave if that’s fine with you.
Gabe Woytek: I’m ready to record any requests here.
Bill Winfield: Okay. One that I have is possible to get this budget in an Excel spreadsheet. It takes them off a lot of calculations with a calculator when possibly an Excel spreadsheet would allow us to work back and forth.
Bill Winfield: Sometimes you’re very easily. Yeah. And then the other one I wanted to do a request and an update regarding the administrative fee that has been discussed.
Bill Winfield: And supplied I think to the four different departments.
Gabe Woytek: So I guess we should clarify like. So I created a proposal we talked about it 15 days ago. The next step is for there to be an alternative presented to the proposal that I entered into the tentative budget.
Gabe Woytek: That’s where I stand on it.
Bill Winfield: So that’s kind of what I’m in the process of. And what I did was I reached out to set so this and on it to get a little bit of a background. I also reached out to the county attorney on it.
Bill Winfield: But any administrative request out of restricted funds needs to come with a spreadsheet backing up that request was what I was made to understand by Mr. And so what I would like to do in. I’m moving forward is remove those admin fees.
Bill Winfield: And come up with where our budget would sit without those in there and there’s rational. Methodology excuse me, if I’m mispronouncing that. To go through to put in an actual request to change those admin fees on.
Bill Winfield: Reserved funds, but what I think would be beneficial moving forward in our budget is if we had 1 chart. That has line by line in it. Everything that we want to consider from Miss brands raised to any other employee line by line as we go through.
Bill Winfield: So that as we see and start adding these numbers in, because we’re pulling out of the general fund to meet our budget as presented. Correct. And so when we add in, let’s say.
Bill Winfield: I would like to be able to see that in our document and we can have a discussion and the commission can say, okay. Let’s give a thumbs up to the cola or a thumbs down, whichever way that was and go line by line item through those.
Bill Winfield: I, I don’t see any way if we don’t have those individually listed out how we’re going to be able to work through all of them. And I’m open that I’m making sense here.
Gabe Woytek: So, something of a live calculator that has a list of decision points. And when you enter in impact, some sort of figure in or not, it sort of updates the bottom line.
Bill Winfield: Totally on impact and it would just make it easier because we’ve got so many different documents here and really the bottom line is what’s this doing to the general fund.
Bill Winfield: And can we justify that and I think that will have to be done at this level clearly, but I’m trying to simplify the process and.
Bill Winfield: Maybe that would also allow some discussion outside of here that would help to move this along when people have one that’s important to them that we see we get it added in there.
Gabe Woytek: Yes, Mr. And I will say the administrative fees, all of the methodology and the derivation has been shared with commission adventure. So, that’s been made available.
Bill Winfield: Okay, then I would say that on that one, we want to get that out to the commissioners to be able to look at that as well. That was my understanding. It was just moved up to 10% is what I saw there.
Bill Winfield: And so that’s where my research went on it, but on the other one, being able to add these in as we go and see what that’s doing to our budget.
Bill Winfield: And really what I guess I’m getting at is what it’s doing to the request additional funds out of the general.
Bill Winfield: Fund every time we do math here and if anybody wants to add on to that suggestion or have questions your own I’m trying to simplify this process and it’s an adaption to where we can work through them line by line.
Mike McCurdy: The. Would the Excel sheet be like live calculator like you said, can we do that in discussion just show us like on the Excel sheet, put it in a different figure, and it changes the numbers.
Gabe Woytek: I mean, that’s what we’re talking about. Yeah, yeah, that’s what there might be a simplified version of it though that we can see on one page.
Gabe Woytek: And we can, it can be something that we can add things to and work together to, you know, get one or two pages, whatever it adds up to.
Andrea Brand – Sand Flats: And yes, I just wondered, the main reason I came today was I wanted to know what was happening with the proposed administrative fees to the departments that are outside of the general fund.
Andrea Brand – Sand Flats: And so I wanted to just know when that might be discussed in a future budget workshop so that I can attend and say the very next one.
Andrea Brand – Sand Flats: Okay, I know that Cody McKinney would have liked to like to attend that as well because he has some questions and concerns as well. He couldn’t be here today because he has a core of engineering.
Bill Winfield: I would say it’s probably the top of our list. I mean, I’ve just mentioned three things and the Excel spreadsheet isn’t one that requires any discussion on other than it just probably puts a workload on.
Gabe Woytek: I just think it would be really great if there were an alternative like some alternatives were developed in anticipation of the next conversation because it’s going to be hard to actually reach a resolution unless there’s sort of a counter.
Gabe Woytek: And that’s really what I’ve been welcoming.
Bill Winfield: Yeah, and I’m fine with that. I wasn’t aware of that scenario, but I’m glad to do that. Maybe we talked about it the other day and I flipped my mind.
Bill Winfield: So, that’s fine. I think we can come up with some of those. Great.
Bill Winfield: Don’t forget the attorney. Yes, Attorney Stocks
Stephen Stocks: So, and maybe for those, this is the benefit for both the commissioners and the public.
Stephen Stocks: So, clerk auditor Woytek essentially we’re putting that admin fee on on some of those accounts that come in with the restricted funds that may increase the budget for that department.
Stephen Stocks: But then those funds that are paid into the county go into the general account. And then that would in some ways help increase how much money that we would have accessible in the general fund is, am I misunderstanding that.
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, it’s not, but it’s not meant to be a mechanism to. It’s only meant to be a mechanism to offset expenses that are occurred in the general fund. It’s not a mechanism to make money for the general fund.
Gabe Woytek: Correct. That’s not the purpose of it.
Stephen Stocks: Right.
Stephen Stocks: And I’m not saying I’m not saying that that it is, I’m saying this is a mechanism like for us you when we when we worked with them they took a percentage, and then that those amounts help off offset the amount of money that let’s say HR has because HR assists those departments with additional services.
Stephen Stocks: So although it is something that is increasing a budget’s bottom line. It does help offset the costs for HR, so it’s not necessarily. I don’t know how I don’t necessarily perceive it as a negative that’s why I’m trying to understand.
Stephen Stocks: So I’m just noting that. And then I think that’s that’s part of the, I think that’s part of the conversation. And then the second part I guess is just determining the percentage and then just applying it uniformly.
Stephen Stocks: And so, it doesn’t matter what percentage we set that amounts going to be is going to be taken off of those monies that come in to help offset the HR cost.
Stephen Stocks: And I’m just making sure that I understand it correctly and that the public can understand when we talk about these admin costs that this isn’t funds that we were sending outside the county.
Stephen Stocks: It’s funds that we’re offsetting the, the weight and the expense of, of assisting those agencies that but for grand counties HR services, they wouldn’t have their own independent HR services.
Gabe Woytek: Right. And it’s not just limited to HR services, but that can be all brought out further.
Brian Martinez: I know, I, I understand the reasonableness of putting those charges on the departments.
Brian Martinez: The, the, the road that I have, or where I see the problem, and I think we’re maybe even coming from Seth Overson is, is it’s, it can’t be a percentage that I see that applied straight across unilaterally.
Brian Martinez: There has to be accounting that goes along with. And so, I mean, just like when I, you know, put miles on my car, you know, for work, I’m like, I’m like, I drove from here to here and I found those miles.
Brian Martinez: And at the end of the year, I have to account for those miles if I want to take that off on my taxes. I think that same principle needs to be applied to each 1 of these departments if we’re going to go ahead and do that.
Brian Martinez: And I think that’s what he’s talking about is the accounting of that, not the, not, not, we can’t just, it’s not a university where we can just put it straight 10% on on this or an 8% or a 4% and say, this is the industry average.
Brian Martinez: I think there has to be accounting, because these are strictly funds.
Bill Winfield: And, and I think that we can carry this into the next 1. I think that with our Board of Education and other things that we’ve got to move forward here, I would like to suggest a quick recess if folks want it or.
Bill Winfield: All right, so we will end the workshop then at 4.03 and come back here in 5 minutes to start. With the Board of Equalization.
Speaker 9: Go ahead. Thank you.
Trish Hedin: Jump seats in the back.
Bill Winfield: All right. And I have read them at the end, or the LSA special meeting, November 5 2025. Those present.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner Dean Commissioner Hadler Commissioner McCurdy Commissioner again Commissioner Martinez Commissioner McCandless. Myself Commissioner Winfield administrator. Mr.
Bill Winfield: So, with that, we will skip our first general business action item which is the approval of the minutes, quick auditor said that he will have two of those at the next meeting we can approve simultaneously.
Bill Winfield: And we will move on to the second item which is the approval of hearing office recommendations on 2025 property tax appeals. And do you have any explanation or do we have both them and I’ll just, I’ll give a short little overview of this.
Gabe Woytek: So, folks in July received their tax valuation notices, which include the updated valuation for the current tax year on their property. And so then they’re offered an opportunity to appeal that valuation to order equalization.
Gabe Woytek: Commission contracts with the gentleman named Randy Kelly is an office. So basically what happens is for many folks who requested in person hearing.
Gabe Woytek: They come forward into these chambers and make their case for why they feel like their evaluation should be difference.
Gabe Woytek: And assessor Swayze who I don’t think is here right now, makes their case for the evaluation that she for office called property and the hearing officer makes a determination.
Gabe Woytek: So what’s displayed what’s displayed in this determination chart that’s being considered for approval are changes or not that the hearing officer determined were appropriate, given all of the information that was presented in hearings.
Gabe Woytek: There are, I’ve got these broken out into different categories for type of change. Some of these happened outside of the confines of the hearing, such as software errors.
Gabe Woytek: Also, primary to secondary and secondary to primary are often a result of just folks filing the appropriate paperwork and supporting documentation to prove that change.
Gabe Woytek: We usually see a lot of these secondary to primaries because obviously those are taxed at a much less rates, and then a lot of no change as well.
Gabe Woytek: So, access was given to the commission to every full appeal file so if there were any, if there was any written prepared information associated with the appeal.
Gabe Woytek: That was the commission had access or the this board of equalization had access to those appeal files that associated with the binds in this chart. And overall we see a.
Gabe Woytek: You know, a decrease, both in the market value and taxable value and factored in with the certified rate that you all certified in June of this year. It does show an approximate property tax collection decrease of $39,829.35.
Gabe Woytek: It’s important to note that that doesn’t necessarily mean that we take that hit and revenue. Ultimately, when a certified rate is is calculated and proposed for 2026, it takes into account appeal changes that were made in the previous year.
Gabe Woytek: So, kind of has a way of more or less washing it out is my best way of explaining that. So, it’s not just a direct hit in that way.
Gabe Woytek: Once these approvals are made, my office will send out a determination letter to all each of these property owners, informing of them, informing them of the determination.
Gabe Woytek: And then also laying out and outlining instructions, if they wish to forward and additional further appeal to the Utah State tax commission for the valuation on their property on 1.
Gabe Woytek: Last little detail is that appeal applications were accepted for the 1st time via an online application process. And I’m proud to have been able to offer that convenience to property owners. Thank you.
Stephen Stocks: All right, looking for a motion to approve.
Melodie McCandless: Yes, I’ll make a motion to approve the Board of Equalization. Yes. The hearing officer will determine the nations for the 2025 year.
Gabe Woytek: I think I put as I didn’t show it in their motion. Shoot, I have one in there, but there’s not like an agenda file. I guess I think I had something as presented.
Bill Winfield: Yeah, that’s presented. All right motion by Commissioner McCandless second by Commissioner Hadler. Further discussion.
Bill Winfield: Seeing none. All in favor. Motion passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield: It’s closing this meeting. Yeah. Do you then still have to restart the video or.
Bill Winfield: Okay. All right. So, with that, I will close this Board of Equalization meeting at 415.
Bill Winfield: And we will move into our regular commission meeting and I will call that to order now. At 415, and we will start with our pledge of allegiance.
Bill Winfield: 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: And I forgot to mention those present are the same as we’re here for the meeting. And now we’re waiting on the sheriff. We’ve got a presentation that he would like to do.
Stephen Stocks: As everyone.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: So, what do you know, Sarah. Trying to embarrass her. So, on behalf of the Grand County Sheriff’s Office, we would like to present you with a civilian Medal of Appreciation.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Sarah has been an invaluable asset to the county. For many years, she consistently goes above and beyond in her efforts from coordinating community recycling initiatives. To assisting individuals need a sport.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Her dedication is exceptional. She insists that she’s on call 24, 7 through 65. The sheriff’s office has called her at all hours and she always responds immediately with the willingness to help.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Sarah has always shown her compassion and eagerness to assist. Or raging and facilitating transportation food and clothing to our vulnerable population.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Most recently, Sarah has initiated and developed additional programming resources for the grand county jail. Helping to provide assistance for homeless persons and prevention to those that are incarcerated.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: And so, it’s my honor and these guys wanted to be a part of this. So, you guys can come up here too and we’ll take a photo.
Speaker 20: Yeah.
Sheriff Jamison Wiggins: Then we got this nice little, that’s the least that we can do. And so, we wanted to give you this.
Stephen Stocks: Take a nice photo.
Sara Melnicoff: Thank you very much. My honor. And these folks are like family to me.
Stephen Stocks: Thank you. Thanks a lot. That’s the least we can do.
Stephen Stocks: We appreciate it.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, Sarah, for all you do. I enjoy having the availability to call Sarah also whenever something’s going on. And we do that back and forth over different things here in the community.
Bill Winfield: But I really appreciate the fact that you are available. It’s a sign of your heart.
Mary McGann: Well, we’re happy to and I’ve perfected the art of sounding wide awake at three o’clock. Hey, what’s going on? Thank you all very much.
Bill Winfield: No, thank you. You’re an asset to the community, Sarah.
Bill Winfield: With that, we will start our 4 p.m. citizens to be heard, which we’re a few minutes late on. If we have anyone that would like to speak up, please.
Bill Winfield: I’m going to start in the lobby here and then I’ll call for online if we have no volunteers. All right. Is there anybody online that you’re aware of?
Bill Winfield: Well, 4 p.m. Citizens to be heard. All right.
Bill Winfield: Well, with that, we will move on. We will also have an opportunity if somebody shows up late to speak at 6 p.m. or as close as we can be to that time.
Bill Winfield: So thank you. And with that, we will move into our first public hearing, which is a proposed text amendment to 6.5.5A4, permitted signs, freestanding signs. Mr.
Bill Winfield: Yates, County Engineer.
Andrew Jackson -: It’s like it’s Mr. Jackson. Andrew Jackson with Horax.
Andrew Jackson -: In plain English, the applicants building a convenience store, gas station at Crescent Junction. And when it came to get the sign permit, realized that it can only go 24 feet high. And so he requested a variance.
Andrew Jackson -: The administrative judge on the variance stated that the zoning text changed by variance, which isn’t permitted by state code because there are two different processes.
Andrew Jackson -: So he’s come in and requested that the county code for on-premise signs be amended to allow up to 65 feet in the highway commercial zone along I-70. So we have other highway commercial zones that it wouldn’t be applicable to.
Andrew Jackson -: We have other property along I-70 it wouldn’t be applicable to. So it’s just the highway commercial in the corridor of I-70. And basically we’re looking at anything within 350 feet of the right-of-way.
Andrew Jackson -: And it’s typically what you see in most places. I can go into more detail if you like.
Bill Winfield: I think that’s great. And this doesn’t even require a motion at this time. We will just leave the public hearing open until 5 p.m.
Bill Winfield: on Wednesday, November 12th. And then there will be a vote at the following meeting. I have a question, Andrew.
Jacques Hadler: Yes. It would be interesting who said it was just in the highway commercial along Highway 70. How much of the frontage along I-70 is highway commercial?
Andrew Jackson -: When I was just looking at the basic zoning map, because some of the property is federal lands or state lands, it’s not zoned. So it’s mostly just those areas along the interchanges.
Jacques Hadler: Along the interchanges. So up by Green River. Yeah.
Jacques Hadler: Exactly.
Bill Winfield: Any other questions? All right. We will leave the meeting open then until Wednesday, 5 p.m.
Bill Winfield: on November 12th. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
Bill Winfield: And we will move into the next public meeting, which is the Waterwise Landscape Ordinance. And again, this one is Mr. Jackson as well.
Andrew Jackson -: So just in plain English, the state has a program where they have a turf buyback program. But in order to be eligible for that, you have to have living turf. That then is approved.
Andrew Jackson -: You get a picture of it. You remove that, and then you can get buyback off of that.
Andrew Jackson -: And so in order to be eligible for that, the county has to pass the Waterwise Landscaping Ordinance, which we did, which just amends the area of the code dealing with landscaping. So it’s Section 6.4.3A is the start of that.
Andrew Jackson -: But the amendments only come in on Part E. And this is just standard template that most all counties in Utah have passed.
Andrew Jackson -: And then additionally, because this has gone a couple times before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Kleist had some, Planning Commissioner Kleist had some additional recommendations that go into the section related to occupancy.
Andrew Jackson -: As it was stated before, you can get an occupancy of a dwelling unless you had your landscaping in, but it’s not practical to put that in at certain times.
Andrew Jackson -: So this allows for that to occur and be like a $1,000 cash bond that’s refundable for anybody that puts that forward, does the landscaping, they can get that back. We had one comment in person.
Andrew Jackson -: It was after the public comment period had closed, but a person in the audience just mentioned that it would be a problem for low-income people to do that $1,000. And you could waive that if you wanted on certain places.
Andrew Jackson -: A lot of those low-income housing projects are sponsored by state or USDA or whatever, so they have that built in that they will do the landscaping.
Andrew Jackson -: And that’s really, I had the Planning Commission pass that on with Commissioner Klaes’s recommendations for those changes. And so that’s just incorporated in the third ordinance document that you have incorporates those actual changes into that.
Andrew Jackson -: If you’d like to just replace the one with the other, you can do that or modify it whatever you like.
Bill Winfield: Okay, any questions? All right, we will also leave this public meeting open until 5 p.m. on Wednesday the 12th as well, and then come back at the next meeting and vote that in.
Bill Winfield: All right, thank you, Mr. Jackson. So we are up to our commission member disclosures and future considerations.
Bill Winfield: We have anybody that, yes?
Melodie McCandless: I did have a future consideration after attending the EMS budget meeting this morning and having Prop 13 passed. The EMS would like to be true to their word that they would give the PILT money back to the county to disburse.
Melodie McCandless: And so I don’t know if that’s the proper way for them to do it, or I know that I sent an email to Gabe today, and he was concerned if we did that resolution that it’s going to take a little while for that tax revenue to go to them.
Melodie McCandless: And so I just wanted to put that out there. And also, the EMS special service district could just donate that money back to the county later on once it came in.
Melodie McCandless: So I just wanted to put that as a future consideration, either to redo the resolution for the PILT reallocation, or they would find another way, which is the easiest and most appropriate.
Stephen Stocks: Yes, Trish, go ahead.
Trish Hedin: All the money that we gave them earlier in the year. Anyways, it’s just, you might not know off the top of your head.
Melodie McCandless: Okay, I know, I know. They’ll end up this year with a little bit, which will help them to keep making that low. So it’s not all the way gone.
Melodie McCandless: But it’s going to help them to get to those first few months where they don’t have any money, and then by the end of next year, they’ll be good. I hope they hadn’t spent it, and they could give it back.
Speaker 20: Yeah, it’s not all the way gone.
Melodie McCandless: They’ll definitely give back the PILT money, whether we do it through resolution of reallocation, or they just donate that back. Okay, thank you.
Jacques Hadler: And along those lines, I believe we have to put that on our next agenda, correct, to ratify that vote? That’s my understanding.
Melodie McCandless: Steven. Maybe we can ask Steven. That is correct.
Jacques Hadler: Okay, so I would love to see that on the next agenda as well.
Melodie McCandless: Yeah, the reallocation, or the funds, the allocation of funds for that request, I did put that on the next agenda. But I don’t know about the acceptance of the vote. Is that when we do that next meeting as well?
Gabe Woytek: Yeah, I think we’re slated to certify the election next week, which would happen before the next commission and meeting. So we line it up on the agenda with the assumption that results will be certified by the time the meeting happens. Absolutely.
Quinn?: Thank you. Chair, is it appropriate to bring that up now, Gabe, about making a meeting for next Friday? Yeah, it might be a good time.
Quinn?: Could we make a meeting on next Friday to certify the election? Do you guys have an objection to that? Next Friday is the 7th or the 14th.
Gabe Woytek: The 14th. Noon time.
Melodie McCandless: I’ll be at it. It’ll be a short meeting. I’ll be out of town.
Melodie McCandless: Very short.
Gabe Woytek: And we’re not going to be looking at these municipal election results. We’re going to be focused on, I mean, well, you know, there will be an overview of that, but we’re going to be focused on the special election. So it will be quite short.
Bill Winfield: And you guys would meet as the Board of Canvassers for the Prop 13 election. And that’s this Friday at noon?
Gabe Woytek: Next Friday. Yeah, we have to do it between 7 and 14 days after the election.
Mary McGann: Is that going to be at noon? Next Friday. The 14th.
Mary McGann: Thank you.
Stephen Stocks: Yeah, fine with me.
Quinn?: Everybody else thinks that’s all right. And Gabe, what time? Noon?
Quinn?: Noon. I’ll put it on the calendar right now. Awesome.
Quinn?: Thank you.
Bill Winfield: All right. I’m going to also mention a future consideration that I’ve already requested that Dana have on the next agenda. And that is I’ve been working with the folks that are doing the low-income housing LIHTC program up at the top of Mill Creek.
Bill Winfield: And they have approached the city, and they also approached myself with the county to consider helping fund that.
Bill Winfield: And so there will be a request to utilize the funds out of the housing funds that we set aside to put some money towards that, and then possibly some money out of the payment in lieu of housing fund.
Bill Winfield: And I talked about that at one time, and I don’t know if we ever discussed exactly what was available. But I’m looking to possibly use something out of both of those. And I had a real soft conversation with Jason.
Bill Winfield: They’re looking at $150,000, and I thought we would try and match that. But we would need to know if that’s available out of that payment in lieu fund that we have there.
Bill Winfield: And I think whatever else the balance is on the housing, I think it was $100,000 that was set aside. And I know we’ve spent $16,000 or something out of that. So if I could, by that next meeting, if we could have those.
Bill Winfield: Yes, Trish.
Trish Hedin: We have a housing subcommittee. None of this has come to the housing subcommittee. We actually just had a meeting the other day that was quite extensive discussing those funds.
Trish Hedin: So I’m pretty taken aback by this action. You know, we do have a housing subcommittee, and three commissioners are on that subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: And so I would, to me, the appropriate avenue would be to first have this funneled through the housing subcommittee before it ever comes before the commission.
Bill Winfield: Well, I have it on the next commission meeting, and your comments are duly noted.
Trish Hedin: I’m just completely taken aback. We have three commissioners here that have worked really hard. It’s helping out some low-income housing, or what’s changing?
Trish Hedin: Yes, we have a housing subcommittee, and we’re working on those monies and on a variety of projects and where those monies should be funneled. This was never brought to the housing subcommittee.
Bill Winfield: I think seven commissioners ran on housing.
Trish Hedin: It’s just a complete disregard for that subcommittee and the three commissioners and all the people that work on that subcommittee.
Bill Winfield: I’ll be sure and let them know that they disregarded your information, but they made the decision to reach out to me, and here we are. We can have that discussion in a commission meeting. The developers?
Trish Hedin: Who made the decision to reach out to you?
Bill Winfield: Yes, the developers.
Trish Hedin: Right. Came directly to you, and now you’re going to override the housing subcommittee.
Bill Winfield: We’re bringing it up in a meeting, and you’ll have time to voice your opinion then as you are now.
Trish Hedin: Do either of the other commissioners on that subcommittee want to approach this? To me, it’s completely bypassing that subcommittee that we worked very hard on.
Trish Hedin: We’re going to allow developers to go directly to one commissioner and bypass the subcommittee and all the people that are working on that subcommittee with us.
Bill Winfield: Mind you, it’s developers that are working on low-income housing.
Trish Hedin: I know a lot about LIHTC. I know a lot about LIHTC.
Bill Winfield: Yes, Michael.
Mike McCurdy: Just playing catch up. I have a disclosure. It’s going to be on first responders first.
Mike McCurdy: My wife works for the Sheriff’s Department. Okay. Thank you.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, I just had a comment. Sure. To your question right there.
Brian Martinez: In that housing subcommittee, there was $360,000 in lieu of housing that’s available, and then there should be about $85,000 left over in the $100,000 that we put aside last year for housing like that. Okay.
Brian Martinez: And there was a small discussion of this project right here at the housing subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: I have none of that in my notes.
Brian Martinez: I sent out the notes. I didn’t look at the minutes, but we did talk about it with the city, and there was talk at that point of a revolving- Not come to the housing subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: Okay. We talked about a revolving loan fund. I agree with you, and I’ll go through that when we have our commission reports.
Trish Hedin: Sure. That is- Oh.
Stephen Stocks: The attorney has- Yes, Mr. Stocks. Just noting that I would be receiving potential benefits from the first responders first that’s on the commission agenda.
Stephen Stocks: It provides mental health and therapy help for individuals that are involved in the child abuse cases, so I just wanted to disclose that.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, sir. All right. We will move on to the approval of the consent agenda, and we will- Let’s see.
Bill Winfield: There are no minutes listed for approval. Item A, we will move into B, ratification of payment of bills in the form of $1,335,016.77 with a payroll of $590,108.78. Totaling bills and payroll $1,925,125.55.
Bill Winfield: Let’s see. Item C, Grand County City of Moab 2025 elections ILA. D, ratification of letter of support for Southeast Utah Regional Development Agency grant application.
Bill Winfield: E is independent contractors agreement. Excuse me, first responders first. F, first amendment to contract public defender.
Bill Winfield: D is a ratification of change order Finley Productions Moab’s old growth for forests filming. And H, award bid for holiday lighting project at the Colorado River Bridge.
Bill Winfield: I, approval of quote for the integration of the Intel com software computer aided dispatch. J, renew crowd riff contract for Moab office of tourism. K, ratification of ICA with the appraisers incorporated 2026 commercial property appraisal service.
Bill Winfield: Yes, Commissioner McCurdy. I move to approve consent agenda as read. Motion, Commissioner McCurdy.
Bill Winfield: Second, Commissioner Hadler. All in favor?
Trish Hedin: I’m abstaining.
Bill Winfield: Motion passes. Six with one abstention, Commissioner Hedin. Moving on to number seven, appoint commissioners to subcommittee for commission administrators annual performance review.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless: So, in our policies and procedures, I didn’t know I was presenting this, but there’s a policies and procedures that’s from like, 2015, and it’s talks about doing an appraisal of the administrator. And in that, it says that the chair can do it.
Melodie McCandless: But if we want to have a subcommittee, then we bring it before the commission.
Melodie McCandless: And so I’m recommending that Bill, I, and Jacques be on that subcommittee to not only get together the appraisal of our administrator, but also, you know, send out some surveys and stuff to the director.
Mike McCurdy: So, you want that? Mike, you were first. I move to appoint Commissioner Hadler, Commissioner Winfield, Commissioner McCandless.
Mike McCurdy: To a subcommittee for the commission administrators annual performance review.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy, second. I’ll second. Commissioner Hadler.
Jacques Hadler: Open up the discussion. Sure. Yeah, this is something that I was chair for a few years and I ran this also, I think it was like Melodie said, it’s in our policies and procedures.
Jacques Hadler: And yeah, it’s a heavy responsibility. I don’t, you know, it’s, I think it’s just, it’s standard. I think, yeah, Mary, you’ve been on the commission much longer than I have.
Jacques Hadler: I think that happens every, every year. And I know, I think, I think everyone in the, in the county has a boss and Mark’s boss is us. So, I think that gives us the responsibility for that.
Jacques Hadler: Also, in the past, yeah, I organized that. I think it was mostly myself as chair and Trish helped me on that. On that committee with, with doing the review for at the time it was Chris and Mallory were the administrators then.
Jacques Hadler: And yeah, I took the, I took the, took the task seriously. I think it’s a, it’s a good process and I would, I would definitely defer to the chair to, to, to run the process and to work with. With HES and HR should be very helpful.
Jacques Hadler: And there are past paradigms that you can look at for how we did that in previous few years. I think we did kind of the same process every time.
Jacques Hadler: But again, I think it, I think it is mostly the responsibility of the chair and the vice chair and I’d be happy to lend any, any support or institutional knowledge.
Bill Winfield: Your help would be duly appreciated and my.
Mike McCurdy: My question is actually to Stephen Stocks. Is it okay saying names in that motion or should I have went with positions? Chair, vice chair and Commissioner Hadley.
Stephen Stocks: I think that the point is taken across. I think commissioners understand which commissioners you guys are suggesting. I think that’s clear.
Stephen Stocks: I tend to refer all commissioners by commissioner and then last name. You guys can theoretically do it via roles, but I think it gets confusing after chair and the vice chair.
Mike McCurdy: Even a stance. Thanks.
Bill Winfield: Further discussion. Seeing none. I will call for a vote.
Bill Winfield: Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner McCandless seconded by Commissioner Hadler motion passes six with one abstention. Commissioner Hedin and we will move on to. Number eight, the ordinance high density housing overlay county attorney stocks.
Stephen Stocks: So this is this is the throwback to the original HDA show approval that was passed in on July 1st by the commission. There was a verbose motion that was proposed that motion required us to go to legal review. Bart did the full legal review on this.
Stephen Stocks: He reviewed all the items in this packet provided it back. We tried to provide enough enough information in the agenda summary and background to kind of bring the public up to speed as to where we’re at.
Stephen Stocks: Those those adjustments and changes have been consolidated into exhibit a to ordinance seven to zero. The recommended motion is within the document. Again, this is the motion that passed previously we put in the minutes in the packet as well.
Stephen Stocks: And the clean version and the red line version. And so that’s all put together. Therefore, the commissioners for your review.
Stephen Stocks: This is From the attorney’s office, their review or our review of all the documents to make it consistent with the motion that was passed back in July. Oh, and then one additional note. How this passes.
Stephen Stocks: It’s still a decision up to the commissioners to vote. However, they’d like just because this conforms with what the commissioners intended from the last meeting doesn’t mean that you all would have to approve it. So there is still agency there.
Stephen Stocks: So I don’t know if I’ve made it clear enough, but this is putting into effect what what you folks have previously voted on per the majority.
Bill Winfield: We’re just for clarification. We’re just voting on a cleaned up version of what we previously voted on. Is that my understanding.
Stephen Stocks: Where you’re voting to approve the revised exhibit a to ordinance seven to zero, which does Complete what the commission originally had intended with the previous motion and ordinance and review of those documents.
Stephen Stocks: But instead of redoing the entire ordinance. We’re fixing an exhibit a to that document making amendments there.
Mike McCurdy: Okay, thank you. Commissioner McCurdy like to make motion.
Mike McCurdy: I moved to approve the clean copy of the revised exhibit a to ordinance seven twenty consistent with the approved motion made by made at the July first twenty twenty five meeting for the reasons stated by the county attorney’s office.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy second Commissioner McCandless further discussion. Seeing none, I will call for a vote those in favor. Those opposed motion passes five to two with two opposed Commissioner had been Commissioner again.
Bill Winfield: And we will move on to Number nine the ordinance for the major utility overlay of parcel 02 dash 0021 dash 0113 city of Moab. Mr. Yates, county engineer.
Sean Yates – Engineer: John Yates, county engineer. This item was approved by the commission last week on October 21st. However, the most up to date ordinance was not included in the agenda at that time.
Sean Yates – Engineer: So as I suppose on amendments to apply the major utility overlay to approximately three acres specifically parcel in question. So that’s it.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, sir.
Melodie McCandless: Looking for Commissioner McCandless, I make a motion to approve the updated ordinance for the major utility overlay.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCandless. Second, second by Commissioner Martinez. Further discussion.
Bill Winfield: Seeing none, I will call for a vote. Those in favor of the motion by Commissioner McCandless. Those opposed.
Bill Winfield: Motion passes five to two with Commissioner had been and Commissioner again against. We will then move on to resolution releasing the maintenance bond for the ROR subdivision. Mr.
Bill Winfield: Yates our county engineer again.
Sean Yates – Engineer: So the one year warranty period for the portion of improvements to be accepted by the county began on October 1st, 2024. And such that the warranty collateral was to be held by the county until October 1st, 2025.
Sean Yates – Engineer: So this is to authorize the complete release of the remaining bond amount in the amount of $4,516 and 40 cents.
Mike McCurdy: Okay. Commissioner McCurdy. For Dave, should I include the amount?
Mike McCurdy: And it’s it’s clear in the record. Okay. I’d like to make the motion.
Mike McCurdy: I move to approve the resolution releasing the remaining bond for the ROR subdivision.
Bill Winfield: Motion by Commissioner McCurdy. Second, Commissioner McGann. Further discussion.
Bill Winfield: Seeing none, I will call for a vote. Those in favor of the motion. Passes unanimously.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, Mr. Yates. Move on to the resolution amending the economic opportunity advisory board bylaws Commissioner McCandless.
Melodie McCandless: So we took this back to the economic opportunities advisory board last week and had a nice discussion about the bylaws and were able to come to a happily approved, you know, what was added in there is that they would be a resource to our staff.
Melodie McCandless: And so that was something that seemed like everyone was in favor of, and it does move the board down to from nine to seven people. And so in the in the recommended motion, I have those specific things listed out.
Melodie McCandless: I’d also like to have this go into effect on December 31st, because we do have two outgoing board members that I don’t want to exclude them by the end of the year. And so that’s why that that is there. I’d be happy to answer any questions anyone has.
Melodie McCandless: But it’s so so there’s a little bit advised, it’s going to be the version 2.4 is the one that was revised after the meeting. The 2.2 is the one that I was proposing at the last meeting.
Trish Hedin: So did the question is that okay? Did the board make a formal recommendation, whether they approved it or didn’t approve it?
Melodie McCandless: They didn’t know Chris, the chair didn’t call for a vote or anything.
Mike McCurdy: Mr. McCurdy, I moved to approve the resolution of the economic opportunities bylaws as presented. And to take effect on December 31st, 2025.
Mike McCurdy: These changes will affect the makeup of the board, whereas voting membership will be represented in. In this way listed below. Open voting representative from a good.
Mike McCurdy: Voting a representative from the municipality in grand county. Commission admin, a voting member, grand county representative. Actually, a voting workforce development representative.
Mike McCurdy: Aaron limber, a voting member of the public who lives in grand county. Brittany, Brittany, Melton, a voting member of the public who lives in the county. Randy Martin voting, a voting member.
Mike McCurdy: Appointed by Moab area, chamber of commerce. Chris Wilson voting private sector representative.
Bill Winfield: Motion commissioner McCurdy, 2nd, commissioner McCandless for the discussion commissioner.
Trish Hedin: I’m not going to vote for this mail. I do commissioner McCandless. I really appreciate that.
Trish Hedin: You did go back to the board. So I want to state that, but I am not going to vote for it because. Again, I don’t think there was any need to manipulate these bylaws.
Trish Hedin: I think the current bylaws give that board flexibility to give input on economic development within the county. And so I just didn’t see the need for. To again, you know, rattle that case.
Quinn?: The attorney does.
Stephen Stocks: I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Sure.
Stephen Stocks: County attorney, and then I’ll get to commissioner. A few points of clarification or question. When we went through and removed those board members.
Stephen Stocks: Did you guys go back through and look at staggering? The number of people that were appointed each year to make sure we have. Kind of like an, kind of an even turnover each time.
Stephen Stocks: Yes. Okay. Thank you.
Jacques Hadler: Commissioner. A couple of questions. Who are the, what are the two positions that will be.
Jacques Hadler: Turning out at the end of the year.
Melodie McCandless: So, Forrest Rogers. He was planning on the. He would be a voting member of the public.
Melodie McCandless: Who was in the county. And then the other one is Jasmine Duncan. And so she’s leaving the board as well, but her position will be open.
Melodie McCandless: That’s the open position.
Melodie McCandless: And then Melissa Jeffers position was the other open position. So she’s part of. You know, the advisory part of the board.
Melodie McCandless: So it’s just really allowing the changes being effective on December 31st is allowing Jasmine and. And then the other one is. I’m not sure what the other one is.
Melodie McCandless: I’m not sure what the other one is. But it would be open. And for us to continue out the rest of the year, which they were planning on anyways.
Melodie McCandless: And then it would just be. Looking for that person. In that we did, because it is a voting representative from the municipality in the county.
Melodie McCandless: And that was Jasmine as a, from Castle Valley. We did ask Jasmine to go back to Castle Valley. So it would be either an elected member or a member.
Melodie McCandless: are someone that works for the city of Casa or the. Township of Casa Valley. And so she was going to go back and ask.
Melodie McCandless: There and see if there was anyone that was interested in taking that position. And then if not, then we’ll switch that over to the city. So, and, and, and.
Melodie McCandless: Reach out to probably the mayor and the city council. And then they’ll recommend someone. So it won’t really even be a board decision.
Melodie McCandless: I think it’d be more either the Castle Valley or. Well, I’ve cities decision. Who they would choose to go in that position.
Melodie McCandless: I mean, we can always. I don’t want to say for sure. The way that we’re going about.
Melodie McCandless: Asking for that. To be filled.
Jacques Hadler: Yeah, it makes sense. I I’ll I do. I appreciate you going back also and speaking with the board.
Jacques Hadler: I think that’s, that’s great. Board members and they were, they were also appreciative of the efforts to take it back and make it. A better discussion.
Jacques Hadler: I’ll vote for it. And I, but I do think that we have an opportunity with this board to. We have some, some really good people on there.
Jacques Hadler: Really good ideas. And pros. And, and I think.
Jacques Hadler: Once everything kind of settles out next year, we’ll see how it goes. But I still think that going forward. Maybe next year or the year after that, it’d be worth revisiting this and making that board a little bit more.
Jacques Hadler: I guess you could say robust.
Melodie McCandless: Yeah. And if I continue to be the liaison for that board or whoever’s there, that’s definitely something that we talked about and I’m open to that. And then as well as.
Melodie McCandless: You know, any other liaison that might be on that board. To finish. To really push.
Melodie McCandless: The RCG and RCO. And make that really duplicatable and complete and the best in class for. The counties.
Melodie McCandless: Because right now we don’t have that in there, so they can focus on that. And then once they do that, they can prioritize what the next. Kind of attack will be in.
Melodie McCandless: And we can go back and revise the bylaws at that point in time.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner. I’m sorry.
Mary McGann: I’m going to vote. No. And I do appreciate what Melodie did.
Mary McGann: And I’ve talked to various board members and they appreciated it too. They really appreciated it. But they were also.
Mary McGann: Not happy. You know, they weren’t. Like happy with.
Mary McGann: Totally happy with the results. And I felt that was a pretty functional board before.
Bill Winfield: Yes.
Stephen Stocks: County attorney. Just, just one other note and the commission can disregard this thought. We don’t have very many boards that we specifically give first preference to castle Valley for.
Stephen Stocks: I don’t know if that’s something that the commission would like to include in the bylaws. It does just state one representative of a municipality in the county. If it’s the intent to allow.
Stephen Stocks: A permanent board from castle Valley. If it’s the intent to allow castle Valley, the first opportunity for that. It doesn’t really say it in the bylaws.
Stephen Stocks: And so you could put that language in and if they disagreed or if they didn’t have somebody to appoint it, perhaps go to the city. But this is a nuance. There’s very few boards.
Stephen Stocks: I think the only other board that I know of is the. The boundary. Subcommittee that has a permanent board from castle Valley.
Stephen Stocks: There’s just not as many just noting it. I don’t know if that’s something that the commission would like to I, I. Put that thought out there for the commission to think about.
Stephen Stocks: Yes. Again.
Mary McGann: The solid waste also has a. Person from a castle Valley. And they found it very difficult to fill.
Mary McGann: Just for your. I mean, it was. In fact, we’re talking about making it.
Mary McGann: So that it could be castle Valley or the greater. You know, the San Juan section. Because they use the.
Mary McGann: Solid waste services. So. To extend it to that part of the county and castle Valley.
Mary McGann: So that we’re not always fighting to get that. So, you know, I just. Not sure if that’s helpful.
Mary McGann: I don’t know. But we find. Castle Valley small.
Mary McGann: And sometimes.
Bill Winfield: Another board that I sit on. When it requires participation from municipalities is when the board seat comes up. Then it.
Bill Winfield: Changes to another municipality. Flip flops back and forth. So there’s.
Bill Winfield: All kinds of options there, but I’m fine with it as it is. I mean, I don’t know. I don’t know if it’s a good thing to do because unless the county attorney wants to change something.
Bill Winfield: No.
Melodie McCandless: Yeah. It has a liaison. The city has a liaison position.
Melodie McCandless: So we could put in there. To reach out to castle Valley first, if we wanted that to be ongoing. But.
Melodie McCandless: I mean, as it is right now, we just, the board. Jasmine’s leaving. So it’s just like, yeah, reach out to castle Valley first.
Melodie McCandless: Just kind of made sense. I mean, I’m open to putting that in there. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t know.
Melodie McCandless: I don’t know. It could have. Yeah.
Melodie McCandless: It didn’t have to be like a first choice. And then you just go to the city, but.
Brian Martinez: I just had a quick question. Was there any other changing of the positions? So did anybody else move around?
Melodie McCandless: Well, because the bylaws were, there was. There was two members of the public and there was two members. Of the private sector.
Melodie McCandless: Well, they didn’t move around. And allowing the mob chamber of commerce in there. So that’s not in state statute, but we left that in there.
Melodie McCandless: So that, that basically is taking one of the private sector representatives. So some of them didn’t move around as far as their official. What they’re.
Melodie McCandless: Representing. What they’re doing, but. Really the private sector and a person that lives.
Melodie McCandless: In the. Public and the county. Kind of interchangeable.
Bill Winfield: Further discussion. I will call for a vote on the motion by commissioner. By commissioner McCandless all in favor.
Bill Winfield: Those opposed. Motion passes five to two with commissioner. Dean and commissioner McGann against.
Bill Winfield: Moving on to number 12. Adopting the 2026. Kennedy budget.
Gabe Woytek: Mr. This is more or less just a formality to kick off the budget season. And we’ll, we’ll ultimately sure to be lengthy discussion about modifications.
Gabe Woytek: That would be made at your will to this presented budget.
Bill Winfield: Yes. Commissioner.
Melodie McCandless: I moved to adopt the 2026 tentative budget as presented.
Bill Winfield: Motion by commissioner McCandless second by commissioner. Again, further discussion. I will call for a vote.
Bill Winfield: Those in favor. Passes unanimously. Thank you.
Bill Winfield: Mr. Well, And we will move on to our general reports. Seeing as we have time.
Bill Winfield: We will start with the commission reports. And. Rather than just leave them on.
Bill Winfield: I’ll start on my side and read. Our way around to the other side. I’m a couple of meetings.
Bill Winfield: Let’s see. Start off with. Multiple budget advisory board meetings.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner. Mr. Martinez.
Bill Winfield: I’m sorry. And myself. Let’s see.
Bill Winfield: I was also in. Meeting with that. What I mentioned previously regarding the low-income housing and the LIHTC program.
Bill Winfield: Also in a meeting with. Council member. Taylor regarding that.
Bill Winfield: Also. I participated in the tribe. Board meeting, which oversees the food bank.
Bill Winfield: And the TANF funds also the RLF board meeting revolving loan fund. As well as the economic development executive board meeting and the Southeastern community action partnership. Also participated in the ORI ranking committee.
Bill Winfield: There was approximately. $4.5 million in grant money that was different projects that applied for. And we ranked those in an order of.
Bill Winfield: Which we thought were most. Fundable as they stand. Shovel ready.
Bill Winfield: Also. Brief. Update from the Kem C Gardiner.
Bill Winfield: And. Really the majority update was based around the fact that they are still in the process of. they are several weeks behind.
Bill Winfield: And doing everything they can to try and. Still have us some information in December. I also attended the airport board meeting.
Bill Winfield: And the Utah film commission meeting, and then I. Updated. Commissioner Hadler, but I was also part of a couple of different meetings.
Bill Winfield: Out of mud springs that involved. You. San Juan county.
Bill Winfield: San Juan county roads and. Grand county. Meaning myself.
Bill Winfield: And so what. Where that kind of is, is that you. And.
Bill Winfield: The city of Utah is in the process of. Trying to bring. Right away up to mud springs from the pack Creek cutoff, rather than exiting.
Bill Winfield: Off of the highway. At the bottom of the hill. And they have an estimate for that.
Bill Winfield: Exit at the bottom of the hill of about 3.4 million. And they feel that. It would be better money spent to move it down to pack Creek, which already has term lanes to get on and off of the highway.
Bill Winfield: And then they would somewhat follow a power line easement. Provided all of the entities that are involved in that. Are in agreement with it.
Bill Winfield: There would be the access up there. And San Juan county through. I don’t remember the gentleman’s last name.
Bill Winfield: His first name is Todd. And Lori. Commissioner mom.
Bill Winfield: They are also working to. Try and open up and improve the road that exits off at the top of the hill. And I don’t know what that’s called, but that you would be able to come down to mud springs from the top.
Bill Winfield: On what’s basically the old highway alignment. And so it’s still possible. What is it?
Bill Winfield: Black Ridge. On the left. So he would be able to exit at pack Creek.
Bill Winfield: Cut off for. If you’re coming the other direction, come down the hill from the black Ridge cut off. Turn off there.
Bill Winfield: And so they’re, they’re in the process of seeing what that’s going to take to open up and the kind of money that it’s going to involve. And so between the two of them, there was also, I forgot to mention SIPA was a part of the.
Bill Winfield: Conversation and SIPA wants to. Work with the BLM when they open back up to do a recreation lease for what would be the parking area for these. NICA events.
Bill Winfield: And I think Jacques said they need like 10 acres for a state. And basically 20 acres for a state. So that’s all kind of in the process.
Bill Winfield: It’s a busy. It’s a busy process. There’s still, you hope to have that right away open by spring.
Bill Winfield: And there they at multiple meetings and surveyors out there. And they seem to be moving along and eager to do something. So that was the end of my report.
Melodie McCandless: So. I just going to start. I just want to start with.
Melodie McCandless: The URC, which is the Utah Renewable Communities, it’s the largest, they asked us to present to our commissions and let them know what’s going on. So there’s four different pieces in the packet.
Melodie McCandless: One is just a memo, talks about the Utah Renewable Communities, which I think is really great because this whole year I’ve been going to monthly meetings and really trying to put it all together.
Melodie McCandless: And I think that Emily, who is the secretary, put this together and did a really good job of explaining what is Utah Renewable Communities, what are we trying to accomplish, who’s in it, and so there’s that, and then there’s the low-income plan, which once this passes, that we will actually have a active participation between Castle Valley, the city of Moab, and Grand County in putting the word out for the low-income, and it’s got the plan in there.
Melodie McCandless: And then the slides, it walks through as well. So I think the most important is if you go to slide 12 on the Utah Renewable Communities update slide, and it’s in the packet, it’s got my name on it.
Melodie McCandless: So number 12 is just basically the follow-up of what’s coming up. So you have the PSC hearing, a public hearing, that’s on December 16th. You can zoom into that.
Melodie McCandless: They’re encouraging participation. And then as the approval has come as early as January, then we need to do, we have a 90-day window to consider the program ordinance.
Melodie McCandless: And if we can’t, our communities can’t be involved with this if we don’t do this ordinance. So there’s also a sample ordinance.
Melodie McCandless: It’s the draft model ordinance 01-2025, which is just a generic ordinance for us to implement if this does pass in January.
Melodie McCandless: So I just wanted to give an update, and I will take questions, even though I’m not an expert at this, if anyone had some questions on the URDB. But there’s lots of information that I think people need to read up.
Mary McGann: I don’t have so much as a comment, but it’s nice to see something moving. Is this project has been in the works, how many? Since 2019.
Mary McGann: Yes, since 2019. I remember the first meeting, and it’s very complicated. And I’m sure that’s why it’s taken so long, but it’s nice to see that it’s finally moving forward.
Mary McGann: So thank you for your work on that.
Melodie McCandless: And then just some other comments from, if anyone didn’t have any other questions on URC.
Melodie McCandless: So just other things that I’ve been busy doing, lots of Trail Ambassador meetings, just sorting out their needs and helping Anna maneuver through getting the non-profit. They’ve got their EIN number set up. They’re getting a bank account.
Melodie McCandless: So they’re moving along with the process. They have their board of directors set up. Really good.
Melodie McCandless: Anna’s a go-getter, and I look forward to bringing that to a commission meeting in the future with us, being able to help them out, possibly we’ll see at the budget.
Melodie McCandless: And then I’ve had also a re-entity meeting with EMS Fire and Healthcare Special Service Districts, talking about the needs of each.
Melodie McCandless: I met with Jen Sadoff at the hospital to talk to her about the DISH payment funding, which comes from the Canyonlands Healthcare Special Service District.
Melodie McCandless: I also met with the accountant for the Canyonlands Healthcare Special Service District to understand their budget and needs a lot more. And I also am doing the Utah Rural Leadership Academy. We’re in our seventh week of that.
Melodie McCandless: It’s on Wednesday, and I’m really learning a lot. We’ve had representative Celeste Malloy come and talk. We’ve had representatives from AOGs up north, not versus, it’s the third up north.
Melodie McCandless: Today, we had Speaker of the House present and talk, and it’s question and answer. It’s a really small group. I’m really enjoying it.
Melodie McCandless: I’m learning a lot, and I think, you know, we’ll put it into practice with the commission, and I will remind you how you guys feel. So today we had an EMS budget meeting, and it was really good because Prop 13 passed.
Melodie McCandless: And so we’ll be able to reinstate some of the staff sets and programming, training, equipment that they haven’t had in years.
Trish Hedin: And that’s all. And if you don’t mind, I wanna thank Mel again, or Commissioner McCandless, I thanked her today, but she did a lot of work on that proposition, and I appreciate it. It’ll help the county out also, you know, so thank you.
Trish Hedin: Help our budget out for next year, for sure.
Brian Martinez: Commissioner Martins. Perfect. So I’m gonna start off with something in the future.
Brian Martinez: On November 10th, we’re gonna have the Moab Office of Tourism is gonna have a community open house. That’ll be at Josie Wyatt’s from five to seven on the 10th, November 10th.
Brian Martinez: With all commissioners, all commissioners are invited as well as the community.
Brian Martinez: And so this is a part of the branding project right here that’s being held by Camp 4, and it’s one of the porch light series where people can go in and talk about what’s important to them in the community. Utah Office of Tourism will be here.
Brian Martinez: Our agency of record, Madden, will be here, and also our PR agency, Camp Story. So this is an opportunity for the community to come out and see what the Moab Office of Tourism has been up to this year, which is quite a bit.
Brian Martinez: Let’s see here, going back in the past, October 22nd, I was in a housing subcommittee, you’d assume, and that was with Commissioner Hedin and Commissioner… Mike. I always get them all confused.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, it does feel weird. Anyways, yeah, and we discussed our goals for the subcommittee there. On the 23rd, I came in and met one of the candidates for the planning commission.
Brian Martinez: I missed the one on the 22nd with Andrew there, and then also had an ARCHES SSD meeting at that ARCHES SSD meeting. We discussed WSSA’s interest in the sewer system up there. So how that would kind of play out.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed the status of their discharge permit that they have into the Colorado. On October 24th, I was part of the UAC Public Lands Council meeting, and we discussed HB48, which is a discussion on the WUI properties.
Brian Martinez: And- I don’t know which properties. WUI, wilderness, yeah, the properties are- Wild land, urban interface. Yeah, yeah, wild land, urban interface, yeah, perfect.
Brian Martinez: And there’s a lot of questions being asked right now about when that assessment needs to be done and where those fees are gonna land on. And the classification of the high-risk properties.
Brian Martinez: And let’s see here, it looks like there’s gonna be two to $4 million that’s gonna be required to support that program right now. So there’s quite a bit of interest in folks. I don’t know how many properties we have here.
Brian Martinez: That would be a question for the assessor, that kind of about that. But I know in a lot of other counties, it’s definitely a high priority. Let’s see here.
Brian Martinez: I was at the Budget Advisory Board, and then we had the Film Commission, Moab Office of Tourism, and the Public Defender that day. And then on the 27th, I was at the Planning and Zoning meeting.
Brian Martinez: We had a public hearing on the Waterwise Landscape Ordinance, which we just opened up here today, and also the Sign Ordinance. We had one public comment there from a past, who’s that? Katie Murphy.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, Katie Murphy, but her position previous was a- I think she was just a VISTA. I shouldn’t say just, she was a VISTA. She was a VISTA, yeah, yeah.
Brian Martinez: And she was gonna have to put some work into that. And so she had some things to say on the Landscape Ordinance, which I would imagine that we would look into when we actually look at the entire overwrite of the Land Use Code.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed the Agricultural Ordinance. And I think that we’ll be seeing some of that a little bit later on. And then also discussed the water element of the General Plan that’ll be required by the State of Utah.
Brian Martinez: And now we’re gonna be putting that back together, or incorporating that into our General Plan.
Brian Martinez: Also on that, and I just talked with Andrew about that, but I did bring that up at another meeting, which was at the Southeastern Advisory Council for the Colorado River Authority.
Brian Martinez: And one of the suggestions there is to talk to Doug Bennett out in Washington County, just for all the great work that he’s done incorporating the water element into the General Plan down there. He did a lot of the work out there in Las Vegas.
Brian Martinez: And then he was acquired by Washington County. He’s doing a lot of work down there for one effort. Let’s see here.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed that we were gonna move the MFR 45 to the next meeting. And we would be looking for a public hearing in a month.
Brian Martinez: And there was also some discussion about having a larger community outreach on that right there before moving it in. Just so folks know, it would be nice to see this get finished by fourth quarter of 2026.
Brian Martinez: So that’s the timeline that we’re trying to look to see to get an answer on this right now. October 28th, I had a special events meeting with MTAB members.
Brian Martinez: And what we’re trying to do is put together the application for that $250,000 matching marketing grant that we approved a couple of meetings ago.
Brian Martinez: And so they’ve gone ahead and coordinated a bunch of work, taking the old application that we had and turning it into a Google form.
Brian Martinez: And hopefully we’ll have some more information on where that will be posted and how folks can find out if they qualify for those grants and what the process is gonna look like. Let’s see here, what else do we got? Let’s see here.
Brian Martinez: Oh, on the 29th, Commissioner McCurdy and Commissioner Hadler, we met with the Division of Outdoor Recreation and discussed the motorized trail crew and kind of went through that MOU and looked at the possibilities of how that’ll work.
Brian Martinez: We did receive a response back on that of the state’s preferred method for that MOU. And we’ll be bringing that up for the commission at the next meeting. Do you guys got something you wanna throw in about that or over here?
Brian Martinez: No? I thought it was great. I think it was a good meeting and everything went pretty well.
Brian Martinez: Seemed like it was received well. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think everybody has the same idea that we just wanna see some work done on some of our motorized trails now.
Brian Martinez: Let’s see here on the 30th, I was at the Housing Subcommittee, which was discussed earlier. We discussed what our steps are moving forward.
Brian Martinez: And some of the things that we talked about is funding additional positions, revolving loan program and how we could use the fees that we’ve collected already and keep those in perpetuity moving on.
Brian Martinez: And then we also discussed the county properties that might fit into future programs, new programs. And then also the needs of the county to complete the pipeline study. And that was part of that 15,000 that we authorized out of that.
Brian Martinez: And they’re gonna need some, they’re not GIS data, but they’re gonna need some. iWorks data. What’s that?
Brian Martinez: iWorks. That’s it right there. iWorks data from that.
Brian Martinez: I had to complete that study right there. The city, when that ended up going through, the city ended up just providing the data and then said that that was basically an in-kind contribution.
Brian Martinez: So if you guys remember, it was originally going to be a match to where the county put in this and then the city put in this. And they have said that their contribution was the data that they provided and it was gonna be a in-kind contribution.
Brian Martinez: Let’s keep moving on. The 31st, I was at another budget advisory meeting and kicked off the weekend. November 3rd, I was at the Southeastern Advisory Council for the Colorado River Authority.
Brian Martinez: That was a really interesting meeting. The interim guidelines, the self-propelled or deadline is gonna be November 11th. So we’re coming right on up for where those negotiations are supposed to be at.
Brian Martinez: And right now, it looks like we’re just coming to a point where the upper basin is coming to a point where they can agree on something.
Brian Martinez: So it’s looking, there’s some positives, but I also don’t know, I don’t see the reality of if the upper basin is just coming up with what we can agree on, how the upper basin and the lower basin are gonna come together and put something together here by November 11th.
Brian Martinez: That’s really the first deadline. The next deadline will actually be in February, which they’re gonna need to have a plan in place by February for how they’re gonna manage the two reservoirs. That’s gonna be the next big deadline that they have.
Brian Martinez: How that comes through, I don’t know, but what we are looking at though is the possibility of the Bureau of Rec taking it. So that is a real possibility of the upper basin and the lower basin cannot come together with an alternative.
Brian Martinez: Right now, the Bureau of Rec is gonna say what the alternative is. So we are looking at that and that is a little bit scary. I mean, you wanna have as much say as you can in something like that and have as much local control put inside of that.
Brian Martinez: And then also, we’re also looking at the end of 2026, there could be a call on the Colorado Compact. So the way that the basin, the Colorado Compact is written, which is really neat, it was great.
Brian Martinez: They gave us a copy of the Colorado Compact and I always thought it was this huge document because there’s all these things. It’s three pages.
Brian Martinez: Like, it’s amazing that the Colorado River is three pages and then the fourth page is just a signatory page. But we need to send down 750,000 million, 750 million acre feet over a 10 year period, right?
Brian Martinez: And so if we can’t send that down, then we would be in breach of the Colorado Compact. And so we kind of went over in that, what does that look like? How does that actually play out?
Brian Martinez: And, you know, cause I mean, it’s like, there’s this fear of what happens if it gets, you know, if we become in breach of this contract right now.
Brian Martinez: And it was a really interesting meeting kind of going through those scenarios and how it would play out.
Brian Martinez: A couple of things is, you know, first the lower basin would send letters basically to each of the upper basin states, hey, you got to send down some water. And that’s like, really, that’s kind of where it starts off.
Brian Martinez: And then you would have your lawsuit that would start from there. And the lawsuit, I mean, it would be very expensive, right?
Brian Martinez: Because you’re going to have, not only are you going to have the arguments between the upper and the lower basin, but you would also have arguments for, I’m just trying to kill time here, guys. We got to wait till six. We don’t have to wait till six.
Brian Martinez: We don’t have to wait till six? Okay, yeah, yeah. It was interesting seeing how it would all play out.
Brian Martinez: But you know, the feds would take in, you’d have a lawsuit and in the interim, the Bureau of Reclamation would take over operations of the Colorado River in that interim.
Brian Martinez: That lawsuit could look at, like we’re looking at a 20-year lawsuit or something like that. It would be very expensive to the state of Utah and the Southwest in general. So something that it’s- The most endangered river in the United States.
Brian Martinez: For sure. Yeah. And then we kind of went through some of our 2026 recommendations that that advisory council would provide to the Colorado River Board.
Brian Martinez: And then on that day as well, I went to the Noxious Weed Board and they approved two new board members. And they talked about some of the work that they completed up on Labyrinth Canyon and Westwater Canyon. So a lot of Russian fizzle.
Brian Martinez: I’m sorry. Russian olives. Russian olives.
Brian Martinez: Yeah, Russian olives that they’ve gone through. They’ve gone a few times.
Bill Winfield: All right. Commissioner McGinn.
Mary McGann: 17 minutes. 17 minutes. I thought we had a minute until six.
Mary McGann: No, I don’t.
Mary McGann: What is that timer? End of the month is always slow for me. And for one meeting, I was looking forward to and excited about the steering committee for the Umtra project canceled because it was shut down.
Mary McGann: And the celebration we’ve been planning for the third to celebrate our final tile being moved is canceled as well. There’s no way to get it organized and when and if the shutdown happens.
Mary McGann: And, but the one thing I did work on is I was even working yesterday calling people and encouraging them to vote yes on the proposition. And it’s going to not only help our, those three entities, it’s going to help us a lot.
Mary McGann: I was really happy for our budget and for all of their budgets. And it was a significant win. I was afraid right to the end and it was two to one.
Mary McGann: So I was very happy with all our hard work paid off. So that’s my report.
Mike McCurdy: Commissioner McCurry. I’m going to let the rest of you guys talk about meetings. I was there with you.
Mike McCurdy: The one I didn’t have anyone with me. I had a meeting with Angela Book and OSTA staff, Patty Jones, Barbara Hicks and Barbara Croson. Thank you.
Mike McCurdy: Of the Moab Friends Pickleball. Yeah. Just updates.
Mike McCurdy: Thank you for pulling that picture up. The project is moving along. It’s coming up.
Mike McCurdy: The small hiccup right now is some dirt work. Mark was actually on that today. Just moving along to get the dirt work started hopefully in a week or two and see progress.
Mike McCurdy: But I brought this picture from that meeting that’s going to show this is the playground side. You can see the pickleball courts on the left there.
Mike McCurdy: There were some talks about wants from the pickleball community, but I’m really happy to see this thing. I mean, we voted on it and it’s moving forward. Not at the speed of usual government.
Mike McCurdy: So I like to see that.
Trish Hedin: Is that you Mike in that big chair?
Mike McCurdy: Yeah, that’s me in that big chair. That’s just a normal chair.
Jacques Hadler: I was on a lot of meetings that have already been discussed, especially the Melodie and I have been on three Trail Ambassador Working Groups since our last commission meeting.
Jacques Hadler: And I think Melodie went over those well and we’ll actually be working on getting a contract going next week that we should be able to bring to the commission at one of the soon future meetings. But just again, Anna’s a go-getter.
Jacques Hadler: This has been a really compressed time schedule for doing all this. And she’s been hitting all her deadlines very well. And she’s got something important for us every single week.
Jacques Hadler: So that group’s been really productive and appreciate everyone’s work and collaboration on that. Mike mentioned the meeting with Jason Curry and others from the DOR about the motorized trail crew. That was a good meeting.
Jacques Hadler: Interesting. We’re gonna talk about that at our next meeting, I believe. And I went out to the non-motorized trail master plan final TAC meeting, the advisory board meeting there.
Jacques Hadler: And we reviewed the process. There was robust public engagement. It’s great collaboration with folks from the city as well.
Jacques Hadler: They helped pay for the study and hope to bring that to the commission soon. I think it has to go through the planning commission for approval first, then I’ll come here.
Jacques Hadler: If we don’t get it in here by the end of the year, then I think we’d have to make an amendment to the contract for the grant. They paid for that to be a great planning product that they came up with. This is awesome.
Jacques Hadler: You guys will get to see it soon. And hopefully we’ll get that through. And then let’s see.
Jacques Hadler: Then a month springs a couple of times. Actually, we did a collaborative trail work day with the NICA team and with GCAT.
Jacques Hadler: And that brings up another sad note on that crew was Fred Wilkinson, who was a stalwart of the NICA trail crew for the last, not NICA, the county trail crew for the last six years.
Jacques Hadler: And a local guy who was an amazing trail builder and he was found deceased yesterday morning. So he will be very much missed by GCAT and the community. I knew Fred for 25 years, probably not super well, but it was pretty shocking thing.
Jacques Hadler: So rest in peace, Fred, and best wishes to any of his family members there. Yeah, and I think he was, Fred was just an awesome example of GCAT and the work that they do.
Jacques Hadler: He literally contributed to almost every one of the single track trails that have been built here in the last 10 years. And he was a master with rock work. People know him as the guy who was really good at arms some of our kind of iconic trail spots.
Jacques Hadler: Like for example, Hawks Glide, there’s that, I don’t know if you guys have done it, but there’s a really cool rock slide and there’s a really cool, gnarly rock section that comes down that looked like it was impossible to put a trail through.
Jacques Hadler: And they managed to squeeze one through with a whole lot of manipulation and rock work. It’s right up at the Porcupine Stock Tank Trailhead. It comes down, it’s an incredible piece of engineering that he was a big part of that.
Jacques Hadler: So yeah, that’s the ending, I guess. But yeah, best of luck to Fritz.
Trish Hedin: Okay, on October 22nd, I met with Brandon Black. We’re still working on Dark Skies, slowly but surely. The goal right now is to shield approximately 47 streetlights throughout the Valley.
Trish Hedin: He’s got a quote from Rocky Mountain Power, it’d be like 210 bucks per piece. So basically they’re the most significant violators of light pollution.
Trish Hedin: And so the objective is we do have a little bit of money and then I was gonna scratch together the remainder of your two travel budgets to see if we could get those shielded.
Trish Hedin: And then the other big piece, and this I will not even touch in 26, but maybe in 27, is really the county should be leading Dark Skies if we want other people to become Dark Sky compliant.
Trish Hedin: And so we really need to think about retrofitting county facilities to be Dark Sky compliant.
Trish Hedin: As Brian and Mike mentioned, we had a brief housing subcommittee on the 22nd and I’ll talk about, and that was to kind of go over the larger subcommittee that we had a few, I think it was like a week later.
Trish Hedin: But the goal was to make sure that we encompass the main players. And so we invited Kaitlin Myers, Ben Riley, Aaron Lindbergh, Tony Mancuso and Steven Stocks to that second subcommittee.
Trish Hedin: On the 23rd, I actually met with Michael Black, the city manager and the cemetery sextant. And the objective was, the cemetery would really like that property. It belongs to the city of Moab.
Trish Hedin: They’d really like it deeded to the cemetery. The city’s not having it, which is fine. But Michael just assured Robert that the city has no plans to do anything with those properties.
Trish Hedin: And so Robert Buckingham’s gonna move forward with engineering and mapping out that second portion of that cemetery so that it’s actually all, it has water lines in it already.
Trish Hedin: And so just, you go through an engineering firm to map out the future grave sites. And then that way it’ll kind of be set in stone.
Trish Hedin: I met with both, went to both the planning and zoning director candidate meet and greets on, I’ve gone to two budget advisory committees in the interim. I thought you did a great job, Brian, talking about the planning commission.
Trish Hedin: I don’t think I have anything to really add there. I had a bunch of stuff. With the housing subcommittee, when we did meet, Steven gave us an update on HDHO, which we talked about tonight.
Trish Hedin: Ben and Caitlin gave us the update on the housing study. And again, Brian, you did a good job on that.
Trish Hedin: The one thing I will say is that we asked and I sent out an email, I think yesterday to Quinn that Corey and Joanna from the city do need data from the county’s I-WORKS. So hopefully they can utilize Lisa Sanicero’s to get that data.
Trish Hedin: And then that way they can start putting together those final, what we’re looking for. We did talk about plans for the expenditure of 85K. Do we build a revolving loan fund?
Trish Hedin: How do we grow that revolving loan fund? We did discuss, we already talked about county properties and maybe city properties.
Trish Hedin: The city has their public works, which is kind of like prime housing property and could they possibly move and jerry-rig that. We talked a little bit about MFR-45 and I appreciate that, Brian.
Trish Hedin: We talked a little bit about like, yes, we really need to encompass the public because when we went with the high-density housing overlay, there was a tremendous amount of public input to go to that type of density.
Trish Hedin: And so it was a recommendation from Ben Riley that we do the same procedure if we wanna see the higher density within this community. Couple advisory, like I said, budget advisories.
Trish Hedin: And then last night I went to, or two nights ago to the mosquito abatement. They really had a mellow year because these later rains, you know, larval production is basically gone.
Trish Hedin: And once the thing that they are in desperate with those rains came lots of leaks.
Trish Hedin: So the problem with their facility, and we have talked about that facility for a long time is, you know, it’s not just leaking into where maintenance, it’s leaking into the offices.
Trish Hedin: And of course you have computers and you have all this biological testing equipment. And so I said, so I reached out to Chantel and admin to say, I understand we have capital improvements.
Trish Hedin: I really think Sean, to me, and I’m just stating this, I’m not asking for discussion. Sean should be the one to really assess those needs and like prioritize them because he understands them, right?
Trish Hedin: Like we don’t, we all have our own preferences as to where we wanna see money go. But I think some of these facilities are in way worse shape than others, right? And we really need to prioritize them on need.
Trish Hedin: So anyways, that place is, it’s struggling. It has been for a long time. And just kind of a quick number on mosquito larvae and they put out traps.
Trish Hedin: In 25, they collected like 7,000 mosquitoes and in 24, 30,000, just so you get an idea of the difference in mosquito production, larvae production.
Trish Hedin: And then the last thing I’ll say, just future considerations, I would ask, so I did ask Kaitlin and the city tabled this idea when those developers came to the city for money for the LIHTC project, because the city felt that it was imperative that they create a policy for a revolving loan fund.
Trish Hedin: I would ask the same. I think that here’s the deal. We’ve already given away a big chunk of money to the airport that in theory was supposed to be a loan.
Trish Hedin: We still do have not, I’ve not seen the loan documents on that. I’ve seen no documentation as to how we’re gonna get paid. Is there interest involved?
Trish Hedin: And I think we should see that. So in this case, if we have these pockets of money, I really think we need to capitalize on that money. There is no need to give it away.
Trish Hedin: I think if we come up with a revolving loan fund, we can reconvene with the housing subcommittee, push through some kind of idea with a revolving loan fund and put it out there. But I think there’s no reason for us to give that money away.
Trish Hedin: We wanna put it out in a loan where we’ll actually get some return on those monies. I think that’s something that would be wise, especially in the budget pickle that we are moving into in 2016. So I’m just gonna throw that out.
Trish Hedin: I’ll reach out to you too and talk about that farther.
Bill Winfield: All right. Do you have any recent stocks if you wanna give them a chance? Oh yeah.
Bill Winfield: Commissioner County Attorney Stocks, please, if you have something.
Stephen Stocks: Yep. Got a couple updates for you folks. Number one, please mark your calendars for the CJC open house that will be on November 14th.
Stephen Stocks: It will be at 2473 Vista Grand Street. Time starts at three o’clock for the ribbon cutting with an open house to follow through 6 p.m. So again, November 14th, and that’s going from three until 6 p.m.
Stephen Stocks: So all commissioners are invited, encouraged to attend. There should be individuals from the Attorney General’s office and other individuals that are donating funds. And I don’t want to ruin their thunder.
Stephen Stocks: The events made possible through the generous support of the Friends of the Grand County Children’s Justice Center. No taxpayer funds are utilized for this event.
Stephen Stocks: Additionally, the commissioners and board members, committees, everybody else in between will be getting a memo from my office later this month. Just a reminder about how we conduct meetings in an open and transparent way.
Stephen Stocks: A reminder to commissioners and anybody that’s in those meetings, no texting, no passing notes during those meetings. So that memo will come out and everybody will get a copy.
Stephen Stocks: It will be circulated with any of the departments and any of the entities that have meetings. For my last week right now, I’m at the Utah Misdemeanor Prosecutor Association meeting.
Stephen Stocks: And then next week, I’ve got a training as well for the recovery report that’s done every year. This week, I attended the Domestic Violence Coalition meeting. That’s with the judges and prosecutor’s office.
Stephen Stocks: We talked a bit about having more involvement from commissioner levels. A lot of times I think commissioners and other electeds don’t really see this fear of law enforcement and the number of cases that we have in this community.
Stephen Stocks: We’re talking about potentially requesting a commissioner or city council member to join those meetings because it’s kind of a different world that law enforcement prosecution lives in.
Stephen Stocks: And it seems different from that of the commissioners and city council members at times. They’re very different. Additionally, I assisted the assessor.
Stephen Stocks: There were some appeals that we had for a hearing officer, for a lines back and another location as well. And so I think that’s everything that I have. Thank you.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, Attorney Stocks. Admin, anything you would like to add to the mix?
Mark Tyner: Comm Admin is fairly busy at this point. There’s a lot going on. We are in the process of hiring a couple of department heads.
Mark Tyner: So those processes are ongoing and hopefully we’ll have a decision on those really soon. Okay, good to hear. Good to hear.
Bill Winfield: All right, Mr. Hall. Okay.
Bill Winfield: All right, with that, I will move to citizens to be heard. If there’s anybody in the audience, we normally hold this at 6 p.m. or a little early tonight.
Bill Winfield: Everybody can go home early or anybody want to speak up? Anybody online? All right, with that, I will adjourn this meeting at 537.
Bill Winfield: Thank you, everyone.
Agenda for the Grand County Commission meeting, Nov. 5, 2025
Presentation Of Civilian Medal Of Appreciation to Sara Melnicoff
Public Hearings
Proposed Text Amendment To 6.5.5 A 4. Permitted Signs – Free Standing Signs
The Grand County Commission is considering a code change allowing signs up to 65 feet tall near I-70, prompted by the new Golden Gate gas station at Crescent Junction. The amendment would permit taller highway-visible signs while keeping dark-sky protections and limits. The hearing remains open until Nov. 12 at 5 p.m. for public comment.
Water Wise Landscape Ordinance
Grand County also opened a public hearing on a Waterwise Landscaping Ordinance, required for the county to qualify residents for Utah’s turf-removal rebate program. The hearing remains open until Nov. 12 at 5 p.m. for public comment.
General Business & Action Items
Consent Agenda
- Approval Of Meeting Minutes
- Ratification Of Bills
- Grand County – City Of Moab 2025 Elections ILA
- Ratification Of Letter Of Support For SE Utah Regional Development Agency Grant Application
- Independent Contractors Agreement – First Responders First
- First Amendment To Contract – Conflict Public Defender
- Ratification Of Change Order – Finley Productions – Festive Tree
- Award Bid For Holiday Lighting Project At The Colorado River Bridge
- Approval Of Quote For The Integration Of The Intelicom Software -Computer-Aided Dispatch
- Renew Crowdriff Contract For Moab Office Of Tourism
- Ratification Of ICA With The Appraisers, Inc. 2026 Commercial Property Appraisal Services
Approved 6-0, Commissioner Hedin abstaining.
Appoint Commissioners To A Subcommittee For The Commission Administrator’s Annual Performance Review
The commission voted to form a three-member subcommittee—Commissioners Bill Winfield, Melodie McCandless, and Jacques Hadler—to conduct the annual performance review of County Administrator Mark Tyner.
Approved 6-0, Commissioner Hedin abstaining.
Ordinance High Density Housing Overlay (HDHO)
County Attorney Stephen Stocks introduced changes that do not alter HDHO policy but clarify language and formatting to ensure consistency with state law and county code.
Approved 5-2 with Hedin and McGann opposed.
Ordinance Major Utility Overlay Of Parcel 02-0021-0113 (City Of Moab)
Grand County approved a Major Utility Overlay for vacant city-owned land at 2651 S. Spanish Valley Drive. The change allows Moab to build a future water storage tank and related infrastructure.
Commissioners Trish Hedin and Mary McGann opposed the Major Utility Overlay because they felt the city hadn’t provided enough detail about the planned water tank’s size, design, and visual or environmental impacts on nearby neighborhoods. Both said the county was being asked to approve zoning without a clear site plan or mitigation commitments.
Approved 5-2 with Hedin and McGann opposed.
Resolution Releasing The Maintenance Bond For The Arrawarra Subdivision
The developer completed the required maintenance period following approval of the 2.29 acre subdivision so the county formally released the developer’s bond.
Approved unanimously.
Resolution Amending The Economic Opportunity Advisory Board Bylaws
The commission approved a resolution amending the Economic Opportunity Advisory Board’s bylaws, reducing its size from nine to seven members and clarifying that the board serves as a staff resource. Commissioner Melodie McCandless said the update reflects board input and will take effect December 31, 2025.
Commissioners Trish Hedin and Mary McGann opposed, saying the changes were unnecessary and that the board had functioned well under its existing bylaws.
Approved 5-2 with Hedin and McGann opposed.
Adopting The 2026 Tentative Budget
Grand County adopted its 2026 tentative budget, a procedural step to begin public review and revisions before final approval in December. Clerk/Auditor Gabe Woytek said it serves as a working draft for upcoming workshops.
Approved unanimously.
Appreciate the coverage? Help keep local news alive.
Chip in to support the Moab Sun News.
