Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daggett County Commission revises 2025 CIB one-year priority list, leaves final approval for next week
Summary
Daggett County commissioners reviewed and updated their draft 2025 Community Impact Board (CIB) one‑year priority list during a meeting that included substantive discussion of property acquisition, airport and trail projects, rodeo grounds improvements and several water and sewer projects.
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daggett County commissioners reviewed and updated their draft 2025 Community Impact Board (CIB) one‑year priority list during a meeting that included substantive discussion of property acquisition, airport and trail projects, rodeo grounds improvements and several water and sewer projects. The commission removed one previously listed item from the one‑year list and asked staff to return a revised list for final approval next week.
The commission kept “property acquisition — purchase property adjacent to existing facility for expansion” (estimated $1,000,000) on the one‑year list and discussed moving other items up or down. Commissioners agreed to remove a previously listed $5,000,000 “community health and social services center” entry from the county’s one‑year submission after noting the county had already been promised that funding. "We already been promised the money," a participant said during the discussion, prompting commissioners to agree to scratch that item from the one‑year list.
Members discussed airport projects at both Dutch John and Manila. Commissioners said Dutch John apron, taxiway, resurfacing and lighting work should remain on the list, but several commissioners suggested the airport projects were unlikely to require CIB funding this year and could be moved toward the bottom of the list. Commissioners noted ongoing coordination with FAA and state aeronautics and that timing of state or federal partners would affect whether an airport project needs county CIB requests this year.
Rodeo grounds improvements were discussed with participants asking that the project scope be broadened to include grandstands, restrooms, electrical/lighting and other improvements. Commissioners agreed to increase the project estimate from $50,000 to $90,000 for the CIB list to better reflect likely needs and to increase the project’s competitiveness for loans and grants.
Other items: the commission left a placeholder for a bike and pedestrian path (noting they were not counting on CIB funds but wanted a placeholder), moved the Taylor Flats sewer/water study to the 2–5 year list, and agreed to relabel the shooting‑range entry from “establish shooting range” to “enhancements to the shooting range.” Commissioners also discussed jail improvements and agreed to increase that project estimate to $200,000 for planning purposes. Commissioners noted a shooting range application had received feedback and that the applicant had applied for about $240,000 in outside grant funding.
Several participants raised interagency process issues for environmental and water projects, noting delays with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and that state agencies (DEQ, water rights) are part of sequential review processes. One commissioner suggested using the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs in the White House and state contacts to press outstanding administrative reviews, while others recommended escalating through regional Army Corps offices.
Commissioners sketched a revised ranking for the top projects: property acquisition at No. 1; rodeo grounds and improvements; bike/trail work (top‑5); ski‑resort environmental study (elevated into the top five by some commissioners); jail improvements; shooting‑range enhancements; Manila airport instrument approach work; Dutch John airport work; and Dutch John water and sewer projects. Throughout the discussion commissioners emphasized that ranking order could be adjusted depending on interagency timing and funding availability.
The commission did not take a final vote to adopt the list. Instead commissioners asked staff to prepare a cleaned, numbered list and return it for final approval at the next meeting. “So we’ll table the final approval of the 2025 CIB priority 1‑year list until next week,” one commissioner said. The county clerk confirmed staff will present a completed draft at the next meeting.
Ending
Commissioners agreed to return the revised CIB one‑year priority list for final approval after staff updates. Several projects remain on the list in revised scope or priority, and some items were moved to a 2–5 year horizon pending further local interest and interagency actions.
