Minutes for 2008-07-08, Direct pdf link.

MINUTES
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, July 8, 2008 - 5:30 p.m.
Commission Chambers, Weber Center, Ogden, Utah
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: Jan M. Zogmaister, Chair; Craig L. Dearden, and Kenneth A. Bischoff.

Others Present: Alan D. McEwan, Clerk/Auditor; David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney; Fátima Fernelius, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.

A. Welcome - Chair Zogmaister
B. Pledge of Allegiance - Shelly Halacy
C. Thought of the Day - Chair Zogmaister

D. Presentation of a plan to develop single track hiking/biking/horseback trails in North Fork Park.

Jennifer Graham, County Recreation Facilities Director, showed area maps. The Parks and Recreation Department has been working with the Forest Service and volunteer organizations (i.e., Ogden Nordic, Weber Pathways, Ogden Valley Pathways, Backcountry Horseman, Mountain Bikers) to develop single track trails inside the Park. Once the Forest Service approves different trails, the group will discuss putting them into place.

E. Consent Items:
1. Purchase orders in the amount of $43,909.45
2. Warrants #239284-239454 in the amount of $1,490,951.97
3. Minutes for the meeting held on July 1, 2008
4. Cancel the regular Commission Meeting for July 15, 2008
5. Ratification of the County Library Board’s approval of Change Order #3 to contract #2008-140, agreement with Jacobson Construction for the Pleasant Valley Branch - Contract C2008-165
Commissioner Dearden moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

F. Action Items:

1. Resolution to make certain appointments to the Weber County Recreation, Arts, Museums and Parks (RAMP) Advisory Committees - Resolution 13-2008

Seshachari Candadai, RAMP Chair, noted that four of the members’ terms from the Advisory Board and committees had expired. He recommended that David Holmstrom, Stephanie Christiansen and Sara Toliver be re-appointed, and Morris Sterret and Carolyn Nebeker be appointed to RAMP.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Resolution 13-2008 appointing David Holmstrom, Stephanie Christiansen, Morris Sterret, Carolyn Nebeker and Sara Toliver to the Weber County Recreation, Arts, Museums and Parks Advisory Committees and Board; Commissioner Dearden seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Dearden aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Zogmaister aye

 2. Second reading/final approval & enactment of an Ordinance formalizing the County Finance Committee - Ordinance 2008-22

Dan Olsen, County Comptroller, stated that this ordinance formalized the process the county had already been following through a finance committee that reviewed all proposed issuance of debt over $1 million and provided criteria under which the county could issue conduit debt.
Commissioner Dearden moved to adopt Ordinance 2008-22 formalizing the County Finance Committee; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Dearden aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Zogmaister aye

3. Contract with Buck Consultants, LLC for actuarial services related to the county’s post-employment health insurance benefit plan - Contract C2008-166

Dan Olsen, County Comptroller, noted the requirement by the Government Accounting Standards Board for entities to provide an actuarial valuation of the OPEB plan. Commissioner Bischoff asked if this item had been issued as a Request for Proposal and if there were any local firms offering this service. Mr. Olsen responded that an RFP was issued a couple of years ago and the couple of local firms that responded came in at a higher cost.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2008-166 with Buck Consultants, LLC for actuarial services related to the county’s post-employment health insurance benefit plan; Commissioner Dearden seconded, all voting aye.

 

4. Contract with the 2nd District Court for bailiff and security services - Contract C2008-167

Weber County Undersheriff McLeod presented this contract renewal. Chair Zogmaister noted that the contract amount was $557,700.00 through FY09.
Commissioner Dearden moved to approve Contract C2008-167 with the Second District Court for the county to provide bailiff and security services; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

G. Public Hearing (will begin at 6:00 p.m.)

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

2. Public Hearing for discussion and/or action regarding the Powder Mountain Development Agreement and Rezone Proposal of Zoning Petition #18-2006

Scott Mendoza, County Planning Department, stated that Powder Mountain submitted a petition in August 2006 to amend the Weber County Zoning Map to allow for a Master Plan for a 4-season destination resort. The petition involved 4,258 acres located within Weber County and 3,486 located in Cache County, and today’s item was limited to Weber County. The request was to rezone 70 acres of FR-3, 582 acres of FV-3, nearly 25 acres of CVR-1, and 3,582 acres of F-40 as follows: 2,129 acres of FV-3, 125 acres of CVR-1, and 2,007 acres of F-40 to support approximately 2,800 units. Currently, the existing zoning would allow 1,218 units. The new and expanded resort development was proposed to be a mixed-use site consisting primarily of ski facilities, a mountain village (commercial, condo, hotel, single and multi-family dwellings, etc.), two 18-hole golf courses, a club house, two new lodges, miscellaneous maintenance buildings, a 30,000 sq. ft. recreation center, a public safety building, an undetermined number of helipads, and expanded ski area facilities to accommodate 10,000 skiers.

The Planning Commission recommended approval with 19 conditions, summarized as follows:
1. Village core commercial space & multi-family resort village to commence with any Phase 1 improvements;
2. A seasonal emergency route be provided and improved in a manner that accommodated passenger cars; route to be in place prior to any commercial/residential building permits being issued by the Weber County Building Official. Gated or un-gated access needed to be addressed with the Planning Commission;
3. A second permanent access road to be improved to appropriate county standard prior to site plan approval or final approval of any dwelling unit and/or sleeping room beyond the entire (Weber and Cache County) project's 895th unit and/or room;
4. A transit plan to be submitted prior to any Phase 1 improvements commencing;
5. An employee housing plan to be approved by the Ogden Valley Planning Commission and County Commission;
6. No private, corporate or commercial air transportation into the Resort (excluding resort air operations, medical and heli-ski operations);
7. A minimum of 30% of proposed project's gross acreage to be permanently preserved by a conservation/open space easement granted to Weber County or another county approved entity whose purpose was conservation of open space and wild lands (approved by the Ogden Valley Planning Commission and County Commission prior to any developer submitting any development application/plans for any improvements within Phase 1);
8. The conceptual development plan to be amended to further reduce road lengths;
9. Powder Mountain to agree to adhere to the State of Utah Department of Wildlife Resources recommendations;
10. Powder Mountain to agree to limit golf course development to one 18 hole golf course incorporating a design type utilizing native vegetation and limited large formal turf landscapes;
11. All construction to utilize Best Management Practices. Each application to be accompanied by a summary of what Best Management Practices were being utilized;
12. Development and implementation of a wild fire prevention/suppression plan consistent with the U.S. Forest Service letter dated November 13, 2006;
13. Powder Mountain to agree to follow recommendations of Department of Environmental Quality and Utah Geological Survey as outlined in letters dated 10/12/2007 and 9/18/2007 respectively;
14. Powder Mountain to agree to present a construction mitigation plan, landscape plan, lighting plan and sign plan to the Ogden Valley Planning Commission and obtain Planning Commission's approval prior to presenting the Powder Mountain Resort Master Plan to the County Commission;
15. Powder Mountain to agree to construct and ensure operation/maintenance of a waste water treatment facility within the resort boundary & provide treated water for golf course; 16. The Powder Mountain development is limited to 3 corporate retreats with a combined number of rooms not to exceed 36;
17. The Powder Mountain Resort density shall not exceed 1,218 dwelling units;
18. Hotel development is limited to no more than 4 hotel structures with a combined number of rooms not to exceed 385 individual rooms;
19 Powder Mountain commercial development shall not exceed 150,000 square feet

Brooke Hontz, Project Manager for Powder Mountain, stated that after analyzing the Planning Commission’s approval and all the feedback received, the petitioners decided to file for incorporation in January. Immediately there had been much feedback and in March 2008 Commissioner Dearden approached the petitioners to discuss the issue and see if possibly there was another option such as a development agreement. The petitioners had agreed to discuss the issue and the public had a great opportunity to offer input. Ms. Hontz said there were two possible solutions: agreement on a development agreement or completing the incorporation petition.  The proposed agreement included about 6,350 acres of Powder Mountain land in Weber County, which was about 1,800 acres added to the area covered by the development agreement at the Commission’s request. The 1,800 acres was about 90% open space, located west of the 4,500 acres in the original plan. Within the 1,800 acres there was an island of 160 acres that would be excluded. She indicated that the petitioners had included all the conditions, or intent of the conditions, they felt the project could support in this draft agreement. They would like to have the sewer treatment onsite but were unable to put it in the agreement. They wanted to bring the treatment to a level whereby they could reuse the water onsite for various applications, however, this was subject to State approval. Ms. Hontz outlined some of their key points of this draft development agreement including that it ran with the land; that the petitioners would align what they felt appropriate (including ski & golf) on the property; it established the maximum density of 3,950 dwelling and hotel units on the entire 6,350 acres–the density would average .62 units per acre, which was less units per acre than the originally proposed rezone because hotel units were unrestricted, and was lower than other world class resorts; it had a minimum of 70% open space; created the Powder Mountain Local District; established a 1% transfer fee assessed when any parcel within the project was transferred to a buyer; and the incorporation petition would be automatically withdrawn by the incorporation sponsors at the meeting of the approval of the development agreement.

Commissioner Dearden asked about the following: plans for the batch plant/gravel pit for the development because concerns had been expressed; the fire station, which was not written in the agreement but had always been in the discussions and was referenced in the Weber Fire District’s letter that the petitioners would build and equip; and that the petitioner wanted the sewer system higher on the mountain. Ms. Hontz responded that they planned to use onsite materials as much as possible, trucks would not run on certain days/times of the day, the petitioners had an agreement with the Fire District to have an onsite fire station and would have to sign the agreement before moving forward with development; and the technology being used by Powder Mountain Water & Sewer currently used for the Resort was “old school” (sewer ponds) and the petitioner had not planned on utilizing more ponds because there were better ways to treat effluent. They hoped to treat it onsite and closer to the development but the exact location was not known because the State had to approve it. Commissioner Bischoff asked if the State permitted water re-use because he was not aware of it and Ms. Hontz believed they did but could not cite those facts and added that the petitioners were willing to try to get the State to change that. She showed a map stating that the items labeled villages were areas of more intense uses.

Chair Zogmaister noted that there had been much interest in this issue. She invited public comments and following is a summary:

Ron Gleason, of Huntsville, asked the Commission not to take any action until the public had an opportunity to see the development agreement. Mr. Gleason asked the petitioner to publish it, including all maps. He stated that the 3,950 units were just for Weber County and there was no idea how many there were in Cache County and had no information on a road to reach those additional units. He would like Weber County to conduct its own traffic analysis, not to simply accept the petitioners’ document. He added that nothing was mentioned in the new development agreement regarding the heli-pads and he would like them used for possibly construction and medical emergencies, not commercial operations because of the disturbance it would cause for Ogden Valley.

Paula Sowers, of Eden, expressed concern with traffic stating that there was already significant traffic on one road and everything coming out of the development would have to use that same road. She asked where all the water would come from for two golf courses and the culinary water. Ms. Hontz said that the water would come from sources on the site–some existing, some new well sources within the project boundary.

Richard Webb, of Liberty, asked for clarification on the secondary road and whether the rights of ingress/egress would be secured and Ms. Hontz responded that those public rights already existed, that there should be a certain level of need for the property to be developed before traffic would be sent that way, and the petitioners would want the county and those affected to participate in that decision. The petitioner did not feel a secondary access was warranted by the amount of traffic to be generated by the current proposal, but were willing to look at a secondary access in the future.

Sharon Holmstrom, of Eden, expressed how critical it was not to have commercial air in the tiny bowl of the Upper Valley where every sound carried, which would not be acceptable to the ambiance of the Upper Valley. Ms. Holmstrom reiterated the need for the public to have the opportunity to see the development agreement. She noted that Powder Mountain had originally requested 2,800 units and now they were asking for 3,950, and felt the petitioners were taking advantage of a loophole because last August they got prior knowledge that HB466 would be forthcoming. She asked if any of the villages would lie on the Valley floor. She said that there was a policy not to add density above what currently ran with the land, unless it was density that was traded for open space and cautioned that the Commission consider they might have to allow the same for Snow Basin, Wolf Mountain, etc., and this proposal was above and beyond what ran with the land.

Steve Clarke, of Eden, of Eden, asked if the petitioner would commit to an emergency access/all-season access into Cache County, rather than to evaluate it as traffic increased, and date that document, if in return for the difference in density between 1,218 and 3,950 the petitioners would provide a 5% real estate transfer fee in perpetuity, rather than 1% (to provide some money to buy land/development rights in the future)–this would be more comparable to the amount of ground and the number of units proposed, and if the petitioner would be willing to purchase property on the Valley floor and turn it over to the land trust now–commensurate with the difference in the number of units and the number of acres to be determined by review and agreement. Additionally, that the public needed the opportunity to read the details of the plans to ensure the Planning Commission recommendations were being addressed in the development agreement.

Courtney Orum, of Eden, expressed her major concern as the sewage treatment plan because the location had not been defined, that Valley residents should know where it would be located and said that everyone lived downstream.

John Klisch, of Eden, noted that it would be a huge giveaway to go from existing zoning of 1,218 to 3,950 units and as an example, the property was worth $100,000 each, with the rezoning that the county would be giving, Powder Mountain would receive $273,200,000.

Keith Rounkles, of Ogden Canyon, had been on the Planning Commission and noted they had been very careful on establishing the conditions and felt they had been fair. He expressed concerns with other developments asking for this same thing. He noted that Snow Basin Resort had been willing to work with them and had come up with the 1% real estate fee and to retire the entitlements on the properties but Powder Mountain was not willing to do that, but simply wanted more, which he did not see as fair. He expressed frustration with Powder Mountain holding the county hostage because of another law, and that they did not consider the detriment to the community.

David Hartman, resident of South Ogden, President of Ogden-Weber Chamber of Commerce, said that our economy was strong and believed that working with Powder Mountain would be valuable to the community long term.

Cami Geiger, of Ogden City Business Development, read a letter from Ogden Mayor Matthew Godfrey, which spoke in favor of the proposed development, that it would help recognize the community as the capital of outdoor recreation.

Cindy Purcell, of Eden (Powder Mountain Road), asked if there were plans to improve the existing road, that she could stand on her driveway any day of the year and smell the vehicle brakes, and the 4,000 homes with two cars per home concerned her greatly.

Kirk Langford, of Eden, felt that development at Powder Mountain was a good idea but was extremely concerned at the proposed density, which was too big of a project considering the size of Ogden Valley. The Master Plan called for a rural atmosphere and another 4-7 resorts had not yet come to ask for extra density. He noted that currently there were 17,000 units in that small bowl of Ogden Valley, a city of 40,000, with a small highway, and a proposed 10,000 skiers/day. Nearby resorts had much smaller allowed number of skiers. Other resorts had been amenable to transferring units and not just ask that they be handed to them. He expressed concern that people would not want to come to Ogden Valley to be in such traffic congestion on a road that was about 15% grade, with the air pollution, stumbling over 10,000 others, and failure of this proposal adversely affected re-branding Weber County, Ogden City and the rest of the Ogden Valley.

Dan Schroeder, of Ogden, speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club in the county (300+ members), expressed that Powder Mountain did not have to be good neighbors because they had this land that they could hold over the county and threaten to incorporate if they did not get what they wanted, and this concerned him greatly. It is important to look at what immediately borders the Powdered Mountain property–a wildlife management area, that there were some conditions in the Planning Commission’s recommendations that would help in this regard but the petitioner had said nothing about implementing those in the development agreement. He said they felt that those conditions needed to be even stronger than recommended by the Planning Commission. He expressed concern if the backyards abutted that boundary and people considered that wildlife management area an extension of their backyards–which happened frequently in northern Utah–and people did inappropriate things. He recommended a buffer zone around the boundary of the wildlife management area, which benefitted everyone in the county who enjoyed the wildlife. They were also very concerned about the total number of proposed units.

Kent Lundell, of Huntsville, said that not all homeowners would live there at the same time and if built right it could be a good project.

Steve Clarke, of Eden, said that there seemed to be a question about the density and he noted that 1,800 acres zoned at 1 per 3 acres would be 600 more residences, which would raise it to 1,800 but it was unlikely that it was all zoned at 3 acres, probably most of it was zoned at F-40, in which case there could only be 45 more residences, and by right density it should be between 1,218+45 and 1,218+600 with the extra 1,800 acres requested by Powder Mountain and with the rezone they had requested, it raised it to 2,800 and an increase to their CVR-1 by a large amount. However, the Planning Commission came up with 1,218 and that was what the county was obligated to, anything beyond that was at the county’s discretion, but it was a large difference and the county had the right to ask for some kind of quid pro quo for that kind of density.

Catherine Feeney, of Ogden and owner of a ranch in South Fork Canyon, spoke in opposition to the proposal because the petitioner was trying to circumvent the Planning Commission’s rules, which she considered cheating. She expressed concern with traffic and the road stating that anyone who had gone up there skiing had burned up their brakes, and thus another road could help. She also expressed concerns with sewer and where they would get the needed water. She asked the Commission to deny the request.

Susanna Sherman, of Eden, asked the Commission to consider the youth because they would be the ones dealing with these issues later. Other young people she had talked with did not want to have to deal with the congestion and all the problems. Devon Coggins, stated he did not live in Ogden Valley but felt this development could do a lot of good to the community.

Alan Day, part time resident of Eden, Utah, and of Arizona, stated that there were numerous examples of large and small developments that failed due to water and other problems after the fact when the developers are long gone. Mr. Day noted that developers can prepare a beautiful package with inadequate things in place leaving others to pick up the pieces and that new development generally does not pay its way, that impact fees are after the fact discovered not to have been adequate. He stated that Ogden Valley had been down zoned and the huge majority of those residents were in favor of it, but the only issue being discussed was an up-zoning and asked why down zoning was not on the table.

Sharon Zini, of Huntsville, asked the Commission to let the people see the details on the proposal. She had been to every Ogden Valley Planning Commission meeting and some of the items presented today were new. She asked that the development agreement be very specific on every single item for the developer to accomplish, not to leave room for items to be changed to the petitioners’ discretion.

Kimball Wheatley, of Huntsville, former Ogden Valley Planning Commissioner, stated that the Master Plan included the Carrying Capacity Analysis chapter which stated the Valley would be saturated on three natural boundaries at a buildout of 6,200 units and that the Planning Commission realized what an error had been made at the by rights buildout of about 17,000. The County Commission adopted the Recreational Element chapter which had several recommendations for retiring density and in no case does the Master Plan state that density should increase, that it would be beneficial. He asked the Commission to consider the risk of approving a project of this magnitude up that road over the advice of UDOT. Over the last six years four people died from brake failure going down Powder Mountain Road. If traffic is increased by ten fold, which was being proposed in the petitioner’s traffic analysis, the deaths would significantly increase.

Russ Brown, of West Haven, stated that in the 1970's he had driven for UTA on Powder Mountain Road every weekend and the bus had made it, and he felt that the project would be a good tax base.

Leann Bose, of Huntsville, asked that because of the loophole in the law if the Commission denied this proposal would they become Powder Mountain Inc. and do what they pleased and not consider the Valley. Chair Zogmaister responded that the petitioner still had the opportunity to incorporate. Regarding the comment by Mr. Brown, she said that she had ridden that bus and they had slid on the first corner.

Mike McMann, of Huntsville, stated that he worked at the Alta ski area and had driven those canyons daily for 20 years and if asked, the Snow Bird Corporation would say their biggest concern would be the road. It now was bumper to bumper every weekend from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and this was with no mishaps.

Gary Fulmer, of Eden, noted a town in Colorado where there were major ski resorts and that most people came in by buses. Mr. Fulmer was extremely concerned about other ski resorts coming in to Ogden Valley or the current ones expanding, and how to transport people around the Valley from resorts, hotels, etc. He encouraged the Commission to ask the petitioners and other resorts to formulate a plan for a mass-transit system to mitigate the traffic. Regarding the Planning Commission’s 19 conditions, he was still unclear as to what the petitioners had agreed to and what they opposed and it was a reasonable expectation that the public know before any formal vote on this petition. Ken Camello, resident on the road to Powder Mountain and representing 38 owners of Wolf Star P.R.U.D., stated that he was not against development but a development of this scale with so many contentious issues was beyond comprehension. He asked the Commission that a couple of items be completed prior to considering this rezoning–that the road be tied to specific development stages and if they wanted to go beyond (i.e., 1,200 units) that the petitioner put in another road. He noted how dangerous it was to go to the top of that road and that a tram would help. He said that a lot of Valley residents had no confidence in this Powder Mountain group, indicating the petitioners had done nothing in the last few years to show credibility, citing other groups that did the job right and that were willing to work with the community. From Mr. Camello’s experience, when developers got most of their requests, they put the property up for sale and moved on, leaving problems behind.

Commissioner Dearden summarized the major questions that had been asked during tonight’s meeting for Ms. Hontz to respond:

1) if any of the villages were below the plateau of the Valley floor. Ms. Hontz showed an area (as one goes up the road) stating that was not on the Valley floor but was not up on the mountain either.

2) if there was an emergency access commitment. Ms. Hontz read the statement from the development agreement stating that Powder Mountain would support Weber County in pursuing development of a seasonal emergency ingress/egress route providing alternative access other than SR 158 to and from Powder Mountain, which was to be a collaboration between Powder Mountain Resort, Weber County and appropriate stakeholders. Because it was a public road, the developers supported Weber County in improving it. Commissioner Dearden noted that the county had a right-of-way that could be utilized and it was not necessarily the one to be used.

3) a commitment to a certain density along the road. Ms. Hontz stated that the petitioners’ traffic study and supplement showed that the traffic was supported by the proposed density and the road could be utilized in an appropriate manner, that there were access points in the area and the county was responsible to determine when and where they were appropriate. The road mitigation plan included plans to enhance it at certain stages of development.

4) wildlife management buffers. Ms. Hontz did not have that part of the development agreement with her but stated the petitioners had been in contact with the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR) and county staff, and that DWR was enthusiastic about being able to control access points to/from the property and they had discussed with staff locations to have appropriate size buffers.

5) traffic mitigation issues. Ms. Hontz said that the plan included with the development agreement was a preliminary one and would be enhanced as development evolved. The initial plan combined airport shuttles, on/offsite transit service, park & ride locations, and employee shuttles.

5) 5% transfer fee/buying property on the Valley floor. Ms. Hontz said that the proposal was for 1% and the petitioners felt this was adequate, that they had done much research. Commissioner Dearden had asked the petitioner to consider putting some money, $250,000, into an account right now as part of this agreement to get the process moving if that was the chosen direction and he had not received an answer yet. Ms. Hontz said that the petitioners were willing to frontload the 1% fee and that could be written into the agreement but she would check on the amount.

3.Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public hearing and reconvene the public meeting; Commissioner Dearden seconded, all voting aye.

 4. Action on public hearing:

Chair Zogmaister expressed thanks for all the comments. She noted that the purpose of tonight’s hearing had been to consider the rezone request and to have Powder Mountain present their development agreement. She asked if Powder Mountain would consider making the development agreement available. David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, said that at this point it was a draft agreement and there were still considerable changes to be made, that the main body of the document could be made available one week from today on the county’s website and County Planning would continue working through the details and the exhibits. Chair Zogmaister noted that she anticipated comments being received once the development agreement was made available and that no action would be taken tonight.

Commissioner Dearden stated that one point that had come out repeatedly throughout discussions on this item was density and he asked Ms. Hontz that the petitioners revisit it and see what they could do. Chair Zogmaister noted that the other key issue that kept resurfacing besides density was the road and she asked Ms. Hontz to see if these issues could be better addressed by the petitioners. Commissioner Bischoff thanked Powder Mountain for being willing to have dialogue and he commended Commissioner Dearden for reaching out to Powder Mountain and starting discussions on options to an incorporation.

H. Assign Pledge of Allegiance &Thought of the Day for Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 10 a.m.

I. Public Comments: None

J. Adjourn
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn at 8:12 p.m.; Commissioner Dearden seconded, all voting aye.

Jan M. Zogmaister, Chair
Weber County Commission

Alan D. McEwan, CPA
Weber County Clerk/Auditor