Minutes for 2004-09-21, Direct pdf link.

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, September 21, 2004 - 5:30 p.m.
Commission Chambers, Weber Center, Ogden, Utah

Each Commission meeting is recorded on CD or audio tape, which is available to the public through the
County Clerk's Office.
In accordance with the requirements of Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-7(1)(d), the County Clerk records in the minutes the names of all citizens
who appear and speak at a County Commission meeting and the substance “in brief” of their comments. Such statements may include opinion or
purported facts. The County does not verify the accuracy or truth of any statement but includes it as part of the record pursuant to state law.

Commissioners Present: Commissioner Camille T. Cain, Chair, Commissioner Glen H. Burton, and
Commissioner Kenneth A. Bischoff.

Others Present: Linda G. Lunceford, County Clerk/Auditor; David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney;
and Fátima Blackford, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, who took minutes.

A. Welcome by Chair Cain
B. Pledge of Allegiance was conducted by Shelly Halacy
C. Thought of the Day was offered by Commissioner Burton

D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $341,674.56
2. Warrants #192905 - #193201 in the amount of $854,333.78
3. Minutes of regular Commission Meeting held September 14, 2004
4. Request for final approval of Welch Subdivision consisting of 2 lots at 3950 N 2975 W
5. Request to set date of October 12, 2004 for a public hearing on Zoning Petition ZP #08-2004 to
amend the Zoning Ordinance by changing language in Chapter 23-29, Large Accessory Buildings
6. Request for the approval of Boundary Line Adjustment for lot 1 of Presidio Subdivision Phase 1
7. Request for approval of a Building Parcel Designation for lots 5 and 6 of Wolf Creek Subdivision #1
8. Request to set October 12, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing to consider initial zoning of 80
acres that was disconnected from Pleasant View City at approximately 2700 North Highway 89
9. Request for final approval of C-Hanging-H Subdivision at approximately 1500 South 5100 West, one
lot, and request for deferral for curb, gutter and sidewalk
10. Request for final approval of Belmont Park Estates Phase 1, 5-lots at 1800 South 4300 West, and the
acceptance of the $112,593.25 financial guarantee
Commissioner Burton moved to approve items D.1, 2, 3, 5, and 8; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all
voting aye.

 

D.4 Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, showed a map and stated that this 2-lot subdivision
was part of the old Bay View Ranchettes agricultural divisions. Several property owners desired to
build on their lots, which required that they do a residential subdivision of their lots. This subdivision
is located on an unimproved private road/easement. Mr. Hamilton said that there was a special
agreement between the county and these property owners allowing them to keep their infrastructure
as is until 80% of the original 32 lots in the Bay View Ranchettes are recorded as residential lots. The
Western Weber County Township Planning Commission recommended approval of this item.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve item D.4, granting final approval of Welch Subdivision
consisting of 2 lots, located at 3950 N. 2975 W.; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

D.6 Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, showed a map and stated that the owner of lot 1 owned
almost 2 acres adjacent to lot 1 and desired to add this property and use it as one lot.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve item D.6 approving the boundary line adjustment for lot 1 of
Presidio Subdivision Phase 1; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

D.7 Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, explained that a building parcel designation allowed
the owner of two lots to use them as one lot. Currently, the petitioner’s access to his lot is off of Wolf
Creek Drive, which has heavy traffic. The petitioner requested to combine lots 5 and 6 in order to
build the driveway across lot 6. The residence and buildings will remain on lot 5. To build across
the lot lines, the petitioner is required to have some of the easements removed. Mr. Hamilton
addressed Chair Cain’s question stating that the petitioner did not have to vacate easements before
putting the driveway across it and that the petitioner understood that if there was utility work in the
easements he might have to repair his driveway. Chair Cain requested that the property owner be
made aware that the easements were not being vacated with this action and Mr. Hamilton said he
would inform the petitioner. Commissioner Burton asked what the property address would be; he was
concerned that, for emergency purposes, it might be confusing that the house actually was on another
road. Mr. Hamilton said he would work with the petitioner on this issue.
Commissioner Burton moved to approve item D.7 approving a Building Parcel Designation for lots 5 and
6 of Wolf Creek Subdivision #1; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

D.9 Jim Gentry, County Planning Department, showed maps of this subdivision located in western Weber
County, which is currently zoned agricultural property. Mr. Gentry said that this subdivision was
within 1½ miles distance from an existing elementary school. He pointed out that 5100 W. was the
projected alignment for the proposed Legacy Parkway but there were no set plans or county policies
regarding reserving any corridor for 5100 W. He had, however, talked with the petitioner and his
contractor about possibly setting the home back further in case that road went through there. The
Western Weber County Township Planning Commission unanimously recommended final approval
of the subdivision and to defer curb, gutter, and sidewalk.

The commissioners asked if there were any other curb, gutter and sidewalk deferrals in the area or if
there were any other homes adjacent to the property. Mr. Gentry was not aware of any deferrals and
indicated the nearby homes on the map, but these had been there for many years. Chair Cain noted
that Legacy Parkway was not proposed for at least 20 years and that the county had made a
commitment to the School District that it would require curb, gutter and sidewalk within 1½ miles
of schools. Commissioner Bischoff said that this was a rural area and if they required curb, gutter and
sidewalk, it would only be placed in front of one house, leading nowhere. Commissioner Bischoff
asked if the students were currently being bussed to school but Mr. Gentry did not know and the
petitioner was not present. The commissioners tabled this item to obtain information from the School
District.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to table item D.9 until next week to obtain additional information;
Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

D.10 Jim Gentry, County Planning Department, showed an area map. The Western Weber County
Township Planning Commission unanimously recommended final approval of the Belmont Park
Estates Phase 1, 5-lots.
Commissioner Burton moved to approve item D.10 granting final approval of Belmont Park Estates Phase
1, 5-lots, located at 1800 South 4300 West, and the acceptance of the $112,593.25 financial guarantee;
Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

 

E. Action Items:

1. Request to approve contract by/between Weber County and DENCO Security Services
to provide electronic security equipment on monitoring for new Health Center

This item was held.

F. Public Hearings will commence at 6:00 p.m.

Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings;
Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye. 1.

 2. Public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit Application, CUP #12-03, for a
Planned Residential Unit Development (P.R.U.D.) known as Edgewater Beach Resort

Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, showed a map and concept plan of this P.R.U.D.
located in the Ogden Valley. This property is zoned CVR-1. The Planning Commission recommended
denial of this item earlier this year because the buildings were too high and too close to the adjacent
property, which is in a conservation easement. The Planning Commission had recommended that the
petitioner submit a plan for the buildings closest to the east side of the project–where currently there
is a similar development–to be no higher than 35 feet in those units and to have lower buildings as they
progressed towards open space to the west. The County Commission had recommended that the
petitioner return to the Planning Commission to address those issues. The petitioner did so, submitting
a new plan. In the interim, the East Huntsville Township Planning Commission changed to the Ogden
Valley Township Planning Commission. Mr. Hamilton said that the planning commissioners that had
come from the original township felt that the petitioner had done what they had asked him to do,
although they still had some concerns about the density, and because he had met the County
Commission’s conditions, they recommended approval of this development. Mr. Hamilton believed
the Planning Commission’s recommendation had been unanimous.

The petitioner had originally asked for 180 units. The number of units in this petition is 168. The
project consists of a main lodge, eight 12-plex condominium buildings, two 8-plex condominium
buildings, and two 6-plex condominium buildings. The two buildings on the western side of the
project will have a height of 25 ft., the maximum height allowed in the zone without a conditional use
permit. The other buildings (around the outside of the project) will have a height of 35 ft., which is
the height of most of the other buildings in the area. There are two other buildings that will have 25
ft. near the road. The main lodge will be 35 feet and will have 44 units in addition to some other
amenities such as a club house, fitness center, sales/rental office, coffee shop, and restaurant.

Mr. Hamilton addressed the commissioners’ questions stating that the petitioner had given a 50 ft.
setback on the property’s west side and had met the 100 ft. requirement from the Reservoir’s high
water mark. The commissioners felt this project appeared better than the original one and that the
petitioner had complied with their requests. Ron Catanzaro, petitioner, agreed that this was a better
plan. Commissioner Bischoff asked if he had been able to maintain all the underground parking and
Dr. Catanzaro replied he had except in the 25 ft. buildings. Chair Cain thanked him for the efforts to
bring the project into conformance. She invited public comments and none were offered.

3. Public hearing to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21 Section B-3,
to allow for a construction and demolition debris disposal landfill as a Conditional
Use within any Manufacturing Zones

Jim Gentry, County Planning Department, noted that this item was not to deal with a specific site but
to address a petitioner’s request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow construction and debris
(C&D) landfill as a conditional use within the Manufacturing Zones in the lower valley, particularly
in the M-1 zone. The Manufacturing Zones are cumulative, and what is allowed in the M-1 would be
allowed in the M-2 and M-3 zones. Mr. Gentry showed Weber County’s zoning map of
Manufacturing areas including the Weber Industrial Park, the Little Mountain area, the Ogden
Industrial Park, and small islands in unincorporated Weber County.

Bernie Allen representing the petitioner, Warren Construction Services, Inc. said that documentation
from 2002 projected the Wasatch Front area to increase by as much as one million people over the next
20+ years, resulting in a tremendous amount of construction and there was a substantial need for this
type of landfill. He said that Weber County currently had only one site available for construction
debris landfill on 21st Street, which was not the most appropriate site, and there wasn’t a zone for this
type of facility. They felt the Manufacturing Zones were appropriate because they already included
industry, large trucks, etc., and would not stress the area. Additionally, C&D landfills did not require
much handling and were substantially cheaper to use in comparison to the Transfer Station–$50 for
a C&D landfill and over $300 to dump at the Transfer Station, a significant expense to every building
operation. He pointed out that if good C&D facilities aren’t available, people dump the construction
debris anywhere. He said that having a site in Weber County would include an income stream for host
fees. If the zoning change occurs, the petitioner will come back for conditional use permits on specific
sites and any of their C&D site proposals would include setting aside money to totally rehabilitate the
property at the end of its use, including landscaping during the landfill’s use, preparing it for future
use.

Chair Cain invited public comments and following is a summary:

Greg Montgomery, Ogden City Planner, read the purpose of the Manufacturing Zones from the county
ordinance, expressing his concerns and Ogden City’s, making the following suggestions: not allowing
C&D’s in the M-1 zone, which is “the light manufacturing zone,” because that would be contrary to
the county’s regulations; looking at restrictions as conditions in addition to the conditional uses
process; C&D landfills restrict lifelong productivity of property and there should be provisions that
they should not affect other communities’ annexation policy declarations because it prohibits them
from fulfilling their requirements; the uses should not be visible from adjacent properties, and
establishing controls for dust, keeping roads clean, etc. Commissioner Burton noted three former
landfill properties that had been reclaimed.

Norm Ashton, Ogden City Attorney, referenced Mr. Allen’s comments stating that there was no
landfill at the Ogden City airport–environmental engineers and the Department of Environmental
Quality had not found one. He did not believe conditional use permits for landfills should be allowed
in any Manufacturing zones, particularly not in the M-1 zone, and would prefer an effort by the county
to find an area to overlay a zone specific for a regional C&D landfill. He said that three county
planning commissions, the Chamber of Commerce, and every city that surrounds at least one proposed
area had passed resolutions recommending against having C&Ds in M-1 zones, and there are safety
concerns with C&Ds, such as fires, and there must be water service at the site. Mr. Ashton said that
the petition filed with the county, and which had gone to the State, was very site specific, that this was
about a regional facility that would have100 trucks/day and servicing Weber, Davis, and Box Elder
Counties, having tremendous regional impact, and, although a good idea needed to be studied
appropriately. Commissioner Burton said that the county had been contacted for landfills in other M-1
zones.

Scott Buehler, Attorney, (Van Cott Bagley) representing developers of the Ogden Airport Gateway
Center, referred to a letter given to the County Commission in strong opposition to this petition to
amend the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21. They disputed allowing a Class-VI landfill (regulated by
the Division of Hazardous Waste) within any M-1 zone. It would create an incompatible land use, and
be contrary and inconsistent with the ordinance. They did not take a position regarding locating a
C&D within an M-2 or M-3 zone. He pointed out that this petition would turn the M-1 zone, one of
the most restrictive zones, into one of the least restrictive uses. He noted that the M-3 zone referenced
industrial use and the M-2 referenced heavy manufacturing, and the M-1 as a light manufacturing zone.
He agreed with Mr. Ashton’s suggestion for an overlay zone and strongly recommended it.

Mr. Gentry clarified that at one time there had been three Planning Commissions with jurisdiction for
this issue and one had never made a recommendation but tabled it and recommended it to WACOG.
The current township for the lower valley recommended 3 to 1 to deny this petition. He said that this
petition would also be subject to the county’s excavation ordinance, which addresses dust,
rehabilitation, vibration, noise, etc.

Lloyd McCaffrey, Director of Manufacturing Technology, representing Williams International (located
at the Ogden Hinckley Airport, manufacturer of jet engines for both military and commercial use, and
owner of a number of jet aircraft flying into the Ogden Hinckley Airport) stated their strong opposition
to degrading the manufacturing zones to allow any type of landfill use, including construction debris.
He also expressed concern with airborne dirt flying around the area where critical military and
commercial engines are being constructed. If permitted, this could potentially devalue their investment
of many millions of dollars, which they have invested based on current zoning regulations. They asked
the Commission to only consider measures that would enhance confidence in the community by
improving land uses, not degrading them. Chair Cain asked if they discriminated between M-1, M-2
and M-3. Mr. McCaffrey said he did not want anything disturbed in the M-1 zone and that currently
they did not have any problems with testing their engines relative to noise or dirt.

Mayor Wayment of West Haven City agreed that the M-1 was not the zone for the proposed use. He
referred to the enormous amount of growth that is to happen in western Weber County stating that
nothing should be allowed that would deter the kind of commercial businesses that generate revenue
sources for the communities.

Mary Jane Prevedel of Roy stated she was in favor of this issue because people did not want to pay the
high Transfer Station prices and were dumping illegally. She felt the county would benefit from this
and could later build golf courses, parks, etc.

Joe Pust currently of Clinton said he worked in the construction field and understood the need for a
construction debris site and there should be a zoning change so that a C&D would not be placed on
a bird refuge or in an agricultural site.

Bryce Gibby, representing Kemp Development, Inc., suggested that the petitioner work with the county
in drafting an appropriate zone–whether it be an overlay zone or a landfill zone. He stated that Kemp
Development had property adjacent to M-1 zoning and Kemp’s investment is predicated on land uses
that surround his projects, that those investments adjacent to M-1 zones be preserved and not be
degraded–to allow any type of landfill use would seriously impact development of those areas adjacent
to M-1 zones with landfills.

Gary Kapp, Ogden business owner adjacent to an M-1 zone, quoted from the Weber County General
Plan which provides that M-1, M-2 and M-3 zones should be “reserved for manufacturing uses and
other like industrial uses” and “Any new industrial uses should be directed to existing planned and
zoned industrial areas. Industrial uses that are non-polluting and which do not harm the environment,
the health and safety of residents or create nuisances for nearby property owners are favored.”

Lowell Dean, developer of 40 years, spoke of protecting the county’s developments and stated that this
petition was not consistent with M-1 zoning.

Ray Kimber of Roy, owner of commercial property near an M-1 zone near the Ogden Airport, spoke
his opposition to having any landfill in M-1 zoning, and not in M-2 until all M-3 sites were filled. He
suggested a significant impact fee would deter the idea of landfills within M-2 zones and asked that
the Commission consider each zone individually.

Andy Blackburn, Roy City Attorney, cautioned the Commission to carefully review what uses they
allow as conditional uses in any area because once they designate something as a conditional use, it
is almost impossible to deny a conditional use permit.

Cathryn Lorenzen said she was personally familiar with construction and demolition and enumerated
the many household items that go into C&D landfills, not just concrete, dirt and gravel. These things
can be recycled and the county should be pushing recycling. She said there was already a place on
1900 W. (which had not yet been mentioned) for concrete, dirt and gravel.

Bill Green of Green Disposal said his company had 50 years experience of hauling waste in Weber and
Davis Counties. He expressed concern with the exorbitant tipping fees in these counties, the lack of
C&D sites and the need to look to the future, although he was not speaking of any specific zones.

Adam Wadman of Roy spoke of recently digging up rebar, concrete, and other debris in his backyard
when putting in a sprinkling system. He spoke in favor of having specific C&D sites in the county.

 Mark Anderson, representing the Hooper Water Improvement District, emphasized that there were
health risks involved with C&Ds and stated that there was a particular site that was the driving force
behind this issue. When Hooper Water became aware of the particular site, they asked Gardner
Engineering to see if they could see any potential risks for any of their wells and Gardner Engineering
told them that there was a significant ground water risk with respect to one of Hooper Water’s wells.
Hooper Water had them look at the issue twice, and received the same answer. One of Hooper
Water’s concerns is that these Class VI landfills are not subject to ground water monitoring
requirements. Hooper Water is not opposed to any landfill site but is concerned and ground water
impacts need to be studied. Allowing C&D landfills in any manufacturing zone is far too broad and
not good policy. Commissioner Burton said he had a report from the Utah Environmental Department
stating they never had a contaminated water source from a C&D landfill.

Roger Burnett, Roy City Mayor, said that this was a site specific issue, pointing out the basic three sites
on map and stating his opposition to a C&D in an M-1 zone. He indicated on the map Hooper Water’s
well below an M-1 site, “maybe 200 ft. below.”

Bernie Allen responded to some of the comments stating that the Utah Hazardous Waste Board had
looked at the proposal for the C&D site and had approved it and repeatedly responded to issues
brought up by Mr. Anderson. He said that the well he had mentioned was 1.2 miles away from the
proposed site; that the Department of Environmental Quality had responded that there had been no
reports of any kind of odor problems from C&D sites across Utah; that across the country C&D
landfills were regularly placed next to airports because of the open spaces; that Hill Air Force had a
huge C&D by its runway and had sent a letter indicating that they saw no problem with this. He
showed a photograph near Williams International during a recent windstorm, stating that the whole
area was a sand bowel and Mr. Kapp had been excavating this area for years, and Williams
International was clear on the other side of the airport directly across from an M-2 zone and if airborne
dirt was a problem for Williams International, he had a problem now; that the FAA had indicated there
was no concern or requirement on a C&D site to set it back from an airport; the EPA had studied C&D
sites (and he had sent the report to Mr. Anderson) and found no reason to raise the requirements and
had actually relaxed them and indicated they would make no rulings on anything on C&D sites other
than on flood plains and wetlands. He said that the area around the airport already had enough traffic
that 100 trucks per day would impact that area to less than ½ of 1% of the traffic flow; that wherever
their C&D landfill would be located, recycling would be a huge component. He noted that Mr. Kapp
was part of the Hooper Water Board and was the driving force behind Hooper Water’s opposition.

Chair Cain asked how much waste was expected on a daily basis and Mr. Allen said they estimated
about 100 trucks/day and would actually generate savings to the county of $63 million over 10 years
(as opposed to using the Transfer Station). Chair Cain asked if he recognized that even under
conditional uses in the M-1 zone such as a cement batch plant, some of the conditions are that there
be no more than three cement trucks and no more than two other semi-trailer trucks used in the
operation or stored on the site and no more than 40 yards of sand and gravel mix stored on the site.
Mr. Allen said there was a cement batch plant operating now in an M-1 site and it was exceeding the
conditions she had enumerated. He said that their proposal, wherever located would require 24-hr.
camera monitoring, onsite inspection of loads, the use of recycled asphalt, that the area be watered
down and sand be kept moist, and to be good neighbors. He showed photographs next to a mobile
home near the Ogden Airport showing a big ditch filled with concrete from the former Ogden City
Mall stating he did not have a problem with them doing this, but that the debris is not being handled
the way it would be in their proposed site.

Ed Rich, Ogden Airport Manager, stated that the construction debris from the mall was stored there
temporarily and there were bids to crush it.

Mr. Anderson said that Gary Kapp was an elected member of the Hooper Water Board and it was not
true that he was the driving force behind Hooper Water’s opposition, that Mr. Kapp had abstained
when this issue came before the Board, that the driving force was Gardner Engineering’s advice.
 Commissioner Burton asked how far was the well from the site and Mr. Anderson said that it was not
200 ft. and could not confirm that it was 1.2 miles, but guessed the distance was somewhere in
between. Mr. Allen said that Gardner Engineering’s report stated it was 1.3 miles away.

Matthew Godfrey, Ogden Mayor, said we had heard today of how beautiful the site would be when
done, such as a park or a golf course, and they tried to illustrate that this would be a tremendous asset,
but what had been lost in the vision is that for the next 10-30 years there would be a dumping site,
debris, dust, etc., with 100 trucks per day. He expressed a legitimate concern with birds at the site near
the airport, even referring to a Standard Examiner’s photo showing birds there. He said there was a
deep depression near the airport and there is a desire to finish developing that area, but it has to be built
up. To companies want to use the site, thus Ogden City has been taking debris for that purpose. He
said all Planning Commissions reporting to the County Commission that had voted had been in
opposition to this proposal as well as WACOG–every city in the county had voted against the
proposition of C&D sites located in the M-1 zones. He noted that sending the message to potential
developers/employers/manufacturers which impact our economy, that the county was not willing to
protect their investment and that there was no guarantee they would have a neighbor that was
compatible with their use was not wise. The Mayor often hears complaints about how unattractive it
is to come into our area of the county and now someone is proposing to make another landfill but this
is not the place for such a site. Ogden City would like to work with the county in finding an
appropriate site, but that certainly is not the M-1 zone. Mayor Godfrey added that he had been told
there was no active C&D site at Hill AFB.

4. Commissioner Burton moved to adjourn the public hearings and reconvene the public meeting;
Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

5. Action on public hearings:

F.2. -Conditional Use Permit application, CUP #12-03, for Edgewater Beach Resort Planned
Residential Unit Development
Commissioner Burton moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit application, CUP #12-03, for a Planned
Residential Unit Development to be known as Edgewater Beach Resort; Commissioner Bischoff seconded,
all voting aye.

 

F.3. -Amending Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 21, Section B-3, to allow for a construction and
demolition debris disposal landfill as a Conditional Use within any Manufacturing Zones

The commissioners thanked everyone for their comments, recognizing that a lot of conflicting
statements had been made by both sides, and that it was a difficult issue. They concurred that there
is a need for a C&D landfill site in the county but further study was needed. Commissioner Burton
noted that there would always be opposition to a site regardless of its location. Commissioner Bischoff
felt that the current M-1 zone did not allow for this use. Chair Cain said that conditional uses typically
had similar design and use compatibility with existing requirements in a zone and felt that the M-1
zone was not a compatible area for a conditional use permit for a C&D landfill. She said that if the
Commission determined that conditional use permits could be issued for other manufacturing zones
for such a use as a clean landfill, it would be possible to request rezoning in some area that met the
criteria for that rezoning, even if it was currently M-1 zoned, which seemed a better course of action.
She favored considering changing an M-1 zone to a heavier use zone, if it was compatible with the
surrounding area and would like to explore the concept of overlays in relation to this item. David
Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, outlined the three options before the Commission. Mr. Wilson
clarified that the petition was to rezone the M-1 zone and Mr. Gentry stated this was correct.
Stating that the M-1 zone was not appropriate for this use, Commissioner Bischoff moved to deny the
petition to allow a construction and demolition debris disposal landfill as a conditional use in the M-1 zone;
Chair Cain seconded. Commissioner Burton voted nay.

 

 G. Assign Pledge of Allegiance & Thought of the Day for Tuesday, September 28, 2004 at 10 a.m.

H. Public Comments: None

I. Adjourn
Commissioner Burton moved to adjourn at 8:24 p.m.; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

Camille T. Cain, Chair
Weber County Commission

Linda G. Lunceford, CPO
Weber County Clerk/Auditor