[{"_1":2,"_95":-5,"_96":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6662717,"mediaKeyId","2392900-327af46237c405b09e30bc8821e1373a","parentId",2392900,"title","Commission hears updates on housing, clinic bills, TRT changes and state interest in county jail","audioSeconds",411,"startMs",694000,"endMs",1105000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2392900-327af46237c405b09e30bc8821e1373a&start=694&end=1105","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6662717/Utah/Commission-hears-updates-on-housing-clinic-bills-TRT-changes-and-state-interest-in-county-jail","mediaUrl","author","Daggett County Commission","date","2025-02-11T09:15:00Z","article","Commissioners reviewed a set of issue updates spanning housing, public safety, health clinic finances, roads and legislation.

On affordable workforce housing, commissioners said they received a request from a local program (referenced as UBAG in email from Laurie Brummond) seeking two more participants for a self-help housing program; a staff member said more details were with a county staffer named Jesse. Commissioners noted program costs and household incomes can affect eligibility.

Staff reported a clinic bill for December of $27,901, which commissioners described as \"still high.\" The county also flagged an upcoming agenda item on Sears Canyon Road to be discussed with Clay Crozier. Code enforcement was noted as active and helpful.

On staffing at local airports, commissioners discussed a person (Kim Bond) who had expressed willingness to do some volunteer work in an airport manager capacity but not take on a full-time or heavy involvement.

In legislative discussion, commissioners addressed a new version of the transient room tax (TRT) bill. One commissioner said a bill was introduced that would redistribute TRT for counties receiving under $3,000,000 in TRT; small counties (the speaker cited roughly 18 counties) would gain flexibility in how TRT funds are spent. The speaker said Daggett County's TRT receipts were \"somewhere around $207,000 to $260,000,\" phrased as an estimate during the meeting, and urged a unified county-level voice to influence implementation. The commission also referenced ongoing conversations with tourism directors and noted differing perspectives between counties and tourism-industry stakeholders.

Separately, commissioners said they and county representatives met with the state Department of Corrections to discuss the possibility of the state procuring and operating the county jail. County representatives said the state had concerns about facility size and staffing needs and planned a site visit; commissioners said the state would visit the facility but the exact date needed verification. Commissioners expressed cautious optimism about potential state partnerships, including discussion of industry partner programs to provide work opportunities for inmates approaching release.

Commissioners urged colleagues and county staff to follow bill tracking resources and to coordinate across clerk, assessor, treasurer, tourism, economic development and public lands groups on legislative positions.

No formal board action on these items was taken at this meeting; commissioners directed staff to follow up on outreach, verify scheduling and continue coordination with state and local partners.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Daggett County Commission Meeting - February 11 2025 Commission Mtg Audio 2 Of 5","oneSentenceSummary","County commissioners heard brief updates on affordable workforce housing recruitment, clinic billing, an upcoming roads agenda item, a new transient room tax (TRT) bill affecting small counties, and continued talks with the state corrections department about the county jail.","taxTitle","Daggett County Commission, Daggett County Commission and Boards, Daggett County, Utah","taxId",74902,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6662723,"Commission approves RDA minutes from Feb. 4 with correction",56,363000,419000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2392900-327af46237c405b09e30bc8821e1373a&start=363&end=419","/articles/6662723/Utah/Commission-approves-RDA-minutes-from-Feb-4-with-correction","The Daggett County Commission and Redevelopment Agency approved minutes from the RDA meeting of Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025, after a commissioner noted and the body agreed to correct the record to show that Commissioner Lytle (not Commissioner Tibbetts) called that meeting to order.

A motion to approve the RDA minutes from Feb. 4 was made and seconded, and commissioners voted \"Aye.\" The approval included the correction to the first paragraph, second-to-last sentence, as requested during the review.

No further discussion or amendments were recorded; commissioners then proceeded to other issue updates and agenda items.","Daggett County commissioners approved minutes from the Redevelopment Agency meeting of Feb. 4, 2025, correcting the recorded chair who called that meeting to order.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6662726,"Property owner objects to county—notice on Dutch John Draw easement, urges negotiation over eminent domain",1782,1557000,3339000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2392900-327af46237c405b09e30bc8821e1373a&start=1557&end=3339","/articles/6662726/Utah/Property-owner-objects-to-countynotice-on-Dutch-John-Draw-easement-urges-negotiation-over-eminent-domain","Thompson Davis, a Dutch John property owner, told the Daggett County Commission during the public comment period that a proposed county resolution and notice about a permanent utility easement for Dutch John Draw contained misleading language and implied the county had already finalized negotiations.

Davis said the county's notice (identified in meeting discussion as related to a proposed resolution, cited by Davis as \"25 0 1\") misstated the status of negotiations and the appraisals underlying the county's position. He described a long-running disagreement over a roughly 39-acre parcel in Dutch John, criticized an appraisal he called \"off base,\" and urged the commission to meet with him before moving forward with eminent domain.

The exchange mattered because the county told Davis it intends to proceed with both continued negotiation and the formal legal process if a negotiated settlement cannot be reached. A commissioner told Davis that the county cannot act on an item that is not on the agenda and that, for clarity and transparency, the county intends to re-notice the matter (the commission said the applicable public notice period is 10 working days). Commissioners also said they are open to additional meetings or a closed-session negotiation and that, if terms are agreed, the county can halt the legal process.

Davis disputed aspects of the county's account of events. He said the county's explanation that multiple appraisals had been reviewed was incorrect and that county and owner appraisals differ by roughly $400,000 (commission discussion described the difference as \"three hundred and some thousand dollars\"). Davis said the county's appraiser treated the site like undeveloped grazing land rather than as in-town, utility-served property bordered by a highway and Forest Service land. He called the county's last apparent alternative 'taking by eminent domain' and said that outcome would leave him facing substantial legal costs.

Commissioners responded that negotiation has been attempted over years and that the county's recent offers and counterproposals had not closed the gap. One commissioner described a prior proposal to square and realign the dirt road through the parcel, move utility alignments to run beneath the road, and thereby free up the remainder of the property for development; commissioners also said that any road relocation would be subject to town permitting standards, including curb, gutter and hard-surface requirements under Dutch John rules.

Commissioners discussed a tentative site visit by Department of Corrections staff to the county's jail site, and noted they had met with state corrections representatives about potential state procurement of the facility; they said the state would be visiting the county facility (dates mentioned included March 5 and March 12 in discussion, and commissioners said the date needed verification). In the context of the easement dispute, commissioners emphasized they remain willing to meet and may schedule a closed-session negotiation. They also said that, procedurally, the county will re-notice the proposed action with the 10-working-day notice and place it on a future agenda (a commissioner indicated that, unless negotiations result in a settlement, the legal process would continue and that a judge ultimately would determine compensation if eminent domain proceeds).

Davis asked that language he considered misleading be revised and requested additional conversations and negotiation. Commissioners said they would review Davis' specific objections to the notice wording and follow up with staff and counsel. No final vote or change to the county's course of action was recorded during the meeting; commissioners stated the county's intent to both continue legal processes if needed and to remain open to negotiation that could halt or alter that process.

Key clarifying details discussed in the meeting included that the parcel identified by Davis is about 39 acres, the county and owner appraisals differ by roughly $400,000 (as described on the record), the permanent easement at issue was described in debate as 25 feet (commissioner discussion referenced a mistaken 50-foot assumption in one appraisal), and that county staff stated the public-notice requirement for adding the item to a future agenda is 10 working days.

If no settlement is reached, commissioners said the court would ultimately determine just compensation; if the parties reach agreement, the county said it could stop the legal process. Davis repeatedly requested continued direct negotiation and a closed-session opportunity; commissioners invited him to schedule that meeting with county staff and counsel.","A Dutch John property owner raised objections to language in a county notice about a proposed permanent utility easement and eminent domain, asking commissioners to delay action and continue negotiations; commissioners said the matter will be re-noticed and that legal proceedings can continue if talks fail.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission hears updates on housing, clinic bills, TRT changes and state interest in county jail

Commission approves RDA minutes from Feb. 4 with correction

Property owner objects to county—notice on Dutch John Draw easement, urges negotiation over eminent domain