The Grand County Council is considering whether to enter in to an inter-local agreement with six other eastern Utah counties. Proponents say the alliance would foster economic and enhance infrastructure development in eastern Utah.
The Seven County Infrastructural Coalition would be a partnership between Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Duchesne, Daggett, Carbon, and Emery counties.
The expressed purposes of the agreement are to encourage and promote multiple uses of natural resources; foster communication, coordination and planning; promote resource utilization and protection; and identify and secure funding for ownership and control of projects, infrastructure, facilities, and improvements.
“(The agreement) gives the seven eastern counties more unity and power in dealing with the Wasatch Front and the Community Impact Board (CIB) when competing for ever-shrinking funds to build large single or multi-county infrastructure projects,” County Council chairman Lynn Jackson said.
The agreement gives member counties the opportunity to aid in the development of projects in other counties in exchange for a chance at earning a percentage of the revenue generated by the projects. Counties in which given projects occur would retain 70 percent of revenue generated, while 20 percent would be distributed among participating members. Ten percent would remain in a coalition fund to cover coalition expenses, and as start-up funding for other projects.
Jackson said the concept for the agreement is to create an entity that would function similar to a special services district for all seven counties. It would provide oversight and management of specifically targeted projects within the seven county areas.
“Project-specific participating counties could ostensibly build and own these infrastructure improvements and thereby generate revenue from them for the member counties that chose to participate in that specific project,” Jackson said.
Each county would have one representative that would serve on a board. They would vote on whether an infrastructure project proposed by a county or counties within the coalition should receive the support of the coalition. If support is given, individual counties still have the option to opt in or out.
Infrastructure elements covered in the agreement include roads and highways; pipelines for oil, gas and water transmission and distribution; electrical transmission and distribution; water storage; railroads; airports; waste water collection and treatment; and tourism infrastructure.
The planning section of the agreement seeks to “catalogue both the existing private and public infrastructure, and also plans for additional infrastructure that has been planned by public or private entities.”
The initial planning phase will also study potential corridors that can be used to cross the region with infrastructure elements, transportation routes, and to “connect communities and commodities both within the region and beyond its boundaries where it will benefit all or a portion of the region.”
Local retired attorney Michael Suarez wondered why the county needs to enter into such a binding agreement when Grand County can already talk to the other counties about a project it wants to undertake with them.
“This looks like a loss of local control,” Suarez said.
Suarez is also concerned about language in the agreement which he said is broad, and that may obligate Grand County tax payers to debt or financial involvement for coalition projects they haven’t consented to. Of particular concern to him is language about amendments that can be made to the agreement by a 5/7 majority of those present.
“As few as three Coalition members and five outside counties can amend the agreement and require Grand County to pay for projects that Grand taxpayers don’t even want,” he said. “And that could happen even if Grand County’s Council unanimously votes against the project. It needs to be crystal clear that Grand County cannot be bound to an agreement entered into by other members of the coalition.”
Jackson maintained that the agreement does not bind the county to any projects in whixh it chooses not to participate.
Emery County has twice tabled the discussion, according to an article in the Emery County Progress. Local residents have expressed concerns ranging from financial liability to the county, as well as the idea of creating another layer of bureaucracy when there are already mechanisms in place for reaching agreements with other counties.
Jackson said that belonging to a coalition such as this gives Grand County extra clout if at some point in the future the county needs to develop a large project and secure funding.
“Why wouldn’t we want to join as long as we are legally covered?” Jackson said. “Having a coalition behind us just seems like a good idea.”
Though there are no immediate projects that Jackson can see where Grand County would benefit, he said that in the future, the proposed Book Cliff’s road would be a project where the county could benefit from this agreement.
Jackson also referred to the county’s need for a $5-to-7 million jail remodel.
“The other counties would not likely directly participate in this project, but the additional leverage provided by our county’s membership in this eastern Utah county coalition when applying for funding would be significant,” he said. “This type of inter-local agreement establishes a level of regional county cooperation which has not been seen in the past.”
Local resident and County Council candidate Mary Mullen McGann said that she has many concerns about Grand County joining the coalition.
“Grand County has very little in common with the six other counties in the coalition,” she said, citing Grand County’s thriving tourist economy and much higher property values.
“Grand County’s citizens are widely varied in their philosophies, the other counties’ citizens are much more homogenous,” she said. “Because of these differences, I see very little we could gain by joining a coalition with counties that do not share our diversity or needs.”
The Grand County Attorney is currently doing a legal review of the council’s draft agreement. When that is completed, the council will work with the other counties to make whatever modifications may be necessary. Then, hopefully by August, Jackson said, it will be put up for a vote by the council.
“Project-specific participating counties could ostensibly build and own these infrastructure improvements and thereby generate revenue from them for the member counties that chose to participate in that specific project.”
The Seven County Infrastructural Coalition would be a partnership between Grand, San Juan, Uintah, Duchesne, Daggett, Carbon, and Emery counties.
Officials and residents weigh in on pros and cons
