Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Millard County Commission approves volunteer committee grant recommendations; commissioner discloses family conflict
Summary
The Millard County Commission voted to accept recommendations from a volunteer grant committee on how to allocate remaining state grant funds, asked staff to summarize meeting comments for the committee, and recorded a commissioner conflict-of-interest disclosure about a son-in-law on the applicant list.
The Millard County Commission on an unspecified date approved recommendations from a volunteer committee on how to allocate remaining state grant funds and directed staff to include the commission's discussion and concerns in the committee's summary.
The commission's action followed a lengthy discussion of how the committee had originally allocated percentages in an earlier grant application and whether those allocations could change in future applications. Commissioner B, a member of the Millard County Commission, said the county "voluntarily applied for it" and that "we don't have to do it. We just the state would not care at all if we didn't take it." Commissioner B moved to approve the committee's recommendations; Commissioner C seconded the motion. The motion was accepted by voice vote with no opposition recorded.
Why it matters: the discussion centered on how a multi-purpose state grant's funds should be split among priorities such as small-business support, scholarships and municipal assessments. Commissioners said the committee had considered the "best bang for the remainder of those dollars" while accounting for program eligibility rules built into the original application.
Commissioners and staff stressed that the committee's original application included fixed allocation percentages — for example, speakers recalled figures like "20%" for some elements and "30 or 40%" for others — and that those allocations affect how grant reviewers determine eligibility. Several commissioners noted the committee retains discretion to change suggested percentages on future grant applications.
Several commissioners praised the volunteer committee's time and engagement. Commissioner A said the committee had a "2 hour meeting" and that members "play devil's advocate" and do research to guide recommendations. The commission asked staff (Jacob and Elise were mentioned by commissioners) to prepare a concise summary of the commission's comments and concerns to accompany the committee's recommendation to guide future decisions.
Public comment and annexation note: Ron Larson, with Jones and DeMille, told the commission he and city staff were coordinating an annexation plan with the City of Delta aimed at streamlining development and helping municipalities plan infrastructure. "We're moving forward with an annexation plan that is gonna be beneficial," Larson said.
Conflict disclosure: one commissioner disclosed that a son-in-law appeared on the applicant list for the grant; the commissioner said he had not encouraged the relative to apply and formally disclosed the relationship before the vote. The disclosure was noted on the record; the commission proceeded with the vote.
Clarifying details and next steps: commissioners emphasized that the committee process has evolved and that future grant applications could change suggested allocations. Staff were asked to capture today's discussion and include it with the committee's materials. No statutory citations or ordinance references were provided during the discussion.
