Minutes for 2008-08-19, Direct pdf link.
MINUTES
OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, August 19, 2008 - 10:00 a.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 - Commissioner Dearden
D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase orders in the amount of $141,771.89
2. Warrants in the amount of $1,507,251.14
3. Minutes for the meetings held on August 5 and 12, 2008
4. New business license
5. Set public hearing for September 9, 2008, 10 a.m., to consider Zoning Petition #8-2007 by the Weber County Planning Division to amend Zoning Ordinance, Agricultural Chapters 5, 5B, 6 and 7 (A-1, AV-3, A-2 and A-3 respectively) ,by changing an existing permitted use to a conditional use, clarifying its language and eliminating an existing conditional use
6. Set public hearing date for September 23, 2008, 10 a.m., regarding the vacation of a portion of a public road within the Ward Acres Subdivision, Phase 3
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the consent items; Commissioner Dearden seconded, all voting aye.
E. Action Items:
1. Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Weber County appointing members to the Weber County Board of Adjustments - resolution 19-2008
Rob Scott, County Planning Department Director, presented this item for five vacancies: three regular member appointments and two alternates. For the regular appointments the recommendation was to reappoint Phil Hancock (for a 5-year term) and Celeste Canning (for a 4-year term), and to appoint Douglas Dickson (for a 1-year term). The alternate appointments were Deone Smith (for a 5-year term) and Max Hohman (for a 4-year term).
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Resolution 19-2008 appointing Phil Hancock (through 6/30/2013), Celeste Canning (through 6/30/2012) and Douglas Dickson (through 6/30/2009) as regular members and Deone Smith (through 6/30/2013) and Max Hohman (through 6/30/2012) as alternates to the Weber County Board of Adjustments; Commissioner Dearden seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Dearden aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Zogmaister aye
2. Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Weber County appointing members to the Western Weber County Township Planning Commission - resolution 20-2008
Rob Scott, County Planning Department Director, stated that there were two vacancies and there were three applicants–two from western Weber County and one from the Uintah Highlands area.
Commissioner Dearden moved to adopt Resolution 20-2008 appointing John T. Parke and Jannette T. Borklund to the Western Weber County Township Planning Commission through 5/4/2011; Commissioner Bischoff seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Dearden aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Zogmaister aye
3. Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Weber County appointing a member to the Ogden Valley Planning Commission - resolution 21-2008
Rob Scott, County Planning Department Director, stated that there was a resignation due to the incorporation of the Town of Powder Mountain. The recommendation was to appoint Gary Allen to fulfill the unexpired term of Jamie Lythgoe through 5/4/2011.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adopt Resolution 21-2008 appointing Gary Allen to the Ogden Valley Planning Commission through 5/4/2011; Commissioner Dearden seconded.
Roll Call Vote:
Commissioner Dearden aye
Commissioner Bischoff aye
Chair Zogmaister aye
4. Contract with CCG Systems, Inc. for a program to more effectively manage the fleet program - Contract C2008-179
Doug Dickens, County Operations Department, stated that this contract provided the software program needed for reports and analytical tools to more efficiently manage the county’s fleet vehicles. The contract amount was $67,600. Mr. Dickens addressed Chair Zogmaister’s questions about the overall program. Commissioner Bischoff noted that there was an ongoing support fee of $6,800 that was covered the first year but would need to be requested in future budgets. Mr. Dickens pointed out that there was a 3% annual increase to that fee. He had spoken with other entities that used this program and felt confident about it.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2008-179 with CCG Systems, Inc. with a program to more effectively manage the fleet program; Commissioner Dearden seconded, all voting aye.
5. Motion to approve participation by Weber County with the Utah Association of Counties in their action to challenge the Utah State Tax Commission’s redistribution of certain tax collections
Chair Zogmaister explained that the telecommunications industry taxed individuals on their bills and that tax was then sent to the Tax Commission. It should be sent with information as to how the funds are to be distributed but was not and the full amounts were distributed to all counties over a period of time. When the Tax Commission found their error, they determined that they needed to collect the money, all at once, and redistribute it. The counties disagree with how far back the Tax Commission had determined to make the distribution retroactive.
Commissioner Dearden moved to approve participation by Weber County with the Utah Association of Counties in their action to challenge the Utah State Tax Commission’s redistribution of certain tax collections; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
6. Request for approval of Resolution of the Board of Commissioners of Weber County appointing the mayor and town council for the town of Powder Mountain
Chair Zogmaister stated that at the August 5, 2005 Commission meeting the commissioners were presented with a list of six people for these appointments and had not been given any background on how the list was created or how those persons were selected. By submitting a list of only six, the commissioners had felt that it stripped them of any choice in this issue and that was not acceptable. The item had been tabled to today to give the Commission and the sponsors an opportunity to prepare a list and meet to discuss the applicants. The law did not specify who would create the list and it was the Commission’s understanding that any registered voter who lived in the town for at least one year was qualified. The Commission’s goal was to select a mayor and council that would act in the best interest of the town. To achieve that, the Commission contacted and interviewed those original six persons and also others who expressed an interest in serving and submitted a list to the incorporation sponsors of 19 persons, including the six submitted by the Powder Mountain Petitioners. The Commission asked the Petitioners to review the list and approve the list as potential town council members or explain why Petitioners could not approve any individual they desire to remove from the list.
Brooke Hontz, Project Manager for Powder Mountain, stated that the petitioners had submitted a letter yesterday to the Commission with 11 qualified names, 5 additional to the original 8/5/08 list, and felt that they met the statute. The commissioners asked what criteria or process was used to remove others that were on the list provided by the county, that the Commission wanted to understand because they were not on this list to be considered, and they were also qualified under the governing statute. Ms. Hontz responded that the petitioners felt those on their list were most qualified and fit the criteria of the law. Chair Zogmaister then asked if those that were eliminated did not fit the criteria of the law and Ms. Hontz said that they were not on the petitioners’ list per the Petitioner’s criteria. Chair Zogmaister again asked what was the criteria for selecting individuals and Ms. Hontz stated that the petitioners compiled the list and felt strongly about those individuals. Commissioner Dearden stated that the Commission had spent a lot of time interviewing people who had expressed an interest to serve and participate in good faith in the town council.
Chair Zogmaister noted that during joint interviews with Powder Mountain one of the individuals asked what criteria they looked for when selecting for these positions and that Melissa Cameron, with Powder Mountain, had criteria at that time and Chair Zogmaister asked if she would share now what criteria was used to select those that were on the petitioners’ list. Maura Carabello, with Powder Mountain, stated she had not been at those joint meetings but the criteria was much the same as the Commission’s: an interview, personal contact, a sense they needed to support the town/community, and personal characteristics. Ms. Cameron stated that they looked for general characteristics that they were fair and reasonable, had a willingness to serve and support the town. Chair Zogmaister stated that during one of the interviews when asked what criteria the Petitioners were utilizing to screen potential council members, Ms. Cameron replied, “support of the Development Agreement.” Ms. Cameron said that was not one of their criteria.
Commissioner Bischoff noted that even though there were 11 names now on the Petitioners’ list, the Petitioners had simply added the spouses of three individuals who were already on the list, so now there were three married couples, and the Commission probably would not appoint two people from a family, which would again bring the list to 8, which was only two more than what the petitioners presented at the last meeting, and which was offensive to him. Chair Zogmaister also pointed out that there was a grandfather, granddaughter, grandson and a spouse of a grandson on the list. Ms. Carabello responded that they had been looking for the most qualified individuals. Commissioner Bischoff reiterated that Powder Mountain representatives were not answering why they had chosen the individuals on their list, other than that they thought they were more qualified. Ms. Carabello said that they had complied by providing a list of additional people. Commissioner Bischoff was not contending whether they were top quality people, but was amazed that once they removed those of close family relations, they were left with the petitioners’ exact same number of people originally submitted, when the list could have been expanded because there were 19 people to choose from. The commissioners stated that they had submitted 19 qualified, solid candidates that had not been included on the petitioners’ list.
Additionally, Powder Mountain had just added a husband and wife and another person by email and the Commission had not been given an opportunity to interview them. Another name was totally new to the Commission today. Chair Zogmaister stated that it was difficult to understand how the list of 19 qualified persons was reduced to this list because the Commission’s question was not being answered. There had been some individuals at the interviews that appeared that perhaps they would not perform in the best interest of the town but the majority were supportive of Powder Mountain and wanted the town to succeed. Commissioner Bischoff cited statute that they were to appoint qualified individuals and the Commission qualified them and the petitioners disqualified them but were not giving any reasons why. He expressed concern with that, and did not believe that was the intent of the law. The Commission believed they had been moving ahead in good faith.
David Wilson, referred to the language of the law “from a list of qualified individuals approved by the petition sponsors.” He explained that the interpretation of that phrase was the key issue and that perhaps a court may need to make that decision. He indicated that there were a couple of options to pursue from this point. Petitioners could explain to the Commission why certain individuals were removed from the list submitted by the Commission to Petitioners; Petitioners could submit more names to the Commission allowing the Commission more discretion for appointments or the Petitioners could take some legal action. Mr. Wilson stated that if the Commission did not take action today and the Petitioners felt they met the law, the Petitioners could file a declaratory action. He said that the only legal qualifications for appointment is that a person be a registered voter who has lived in the town boundaries for one year. Chair Zogmaister felt the Commission had been moving forward in good faith to come up with a list of qualified individuals, however, she reiterated that the Commission had not been given any information as to why they did not approve any of the individuals on their list of 19. Chair Zogmaister also noted that when the Commission submitted its list of 19, they had included those 6 that the petitioner wanted and had hoped that the petitioners would consider those on their list, rather than just adding spouses. No action was taken today and Chair Zogmaister invited the petitioners to meet with the Commission if they desired and help them understand the reason for eliminating those on the list of 19.
F. Assign Pledge of Allegiance &Thought of the Day for Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 10 a.m.
G. Public Comments:
Steve Clarke, of Eden, addressed the Commission on item E.6. He thanked the commissioners for the effort they had devoted to the Powder Mountain issue, and there was applause of consensus from the audience. He asked why the county chose not to sue the State for requiring it to impose an unconstitutional law. Commissioner Dearden said that he disagreed with the law, but the issue had not gone to court and had not been declared unconstitutional. David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, responded that the only body to decide that a law was unconstitutional was a superior court. He noted that the county was generally not in the business of filing lawsuits, that the courts did not hear an action unless it had standing, and if there had been harm to a party. Mr. Clarke felt that the county’s standing in this matter was certainly real because the Commission had been forced to take disagreeable action, had been damaged as a result of this law and would have the right to recover damages. He struggled to view the county as the protector of its citizens when it was unable to stand up and fight.
Kimball Wheatley, of Huntsville, thanked the Commission stating that he believed they had done the right thing on the Powder Mountain item.
H. Adjourn
Commissioner Dearden moved to adjourn at 10: 52 a.m.; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.
Jan M. Zogmaister, Chair
Weber County Commission
Alan D. McEwan, CPA