Commission debates scale key procedures, payment rules and brand-inspection role for county livestock scale

Daggett County commissioners and staff discussed repeated problems with the county livestock scale key, unclear payment procedures and whether to involve the state brand inspector or county offices as a contingency keyholder.

The discussion began after staff reported multiple occasions when the single scale key circulated informally and payments for scale use were not consistently collected. "We have the scale key that goes missing. Somebody will come in and check it out... they give it to somebody else and then we don't know who has it," a county staff member said.

Fee schedule and collection Participants said the county has a fee structure — discussed in prior paperwork but not immediately available at the meeting — and that some users may not be paying because they do not know the rate. One speaker recited the rate discussed in the meeting as "50¢ a head with a minimum of $5." Staff agreed to locate the existing fee schedule and then review whether it needs updating. Several commissioners proposed giving the treasurer's office responsibility for payments or using a deposit process tied to driver’s-license verification.

Key control, spares and scheduling The group discussed limiting key circulation, signing a form when a key is checked out, and keeping a key-drop box at the county building for after-hours returns. Staff said only one key is typically issued to the public at a time but spares exist for county use. Options floated included a formal sign-out sheet, a tear-off receipt at the scale house, scheduled key reservations (similar to county vehicle scheduling), or providing limited keys to trusted parties (for example, the brand inspector or facilities staff) so producers who weigh animals outside office hours are not delayed.

Brand inspector role and liability concerns Several participants proposed the state brand inspector as a practical contingency keyholder. The brand inspector already performs inspections and could confirm counts and ownership in many transactions. But speakers cautioned against shifting county liability. Kent, identified during the meeting as an attorney, recommended a simple contractual approach: an implied contract or signed form stating that by using the key or scale the user accepts responsibility for fees and return of the key.

Weight vs head and recordkeeping Commissioners discussed whether to bill by head or by weight. Current practice typically uses weight tickets provided at weigh-in, but participants said head counts are used in some calculations and brand-inspection reports may be necessary in certain sales or cross-border transport. Staff suggested keeping a weight-based ticket as verifiable evidence and providing ticket forms at the scale house to support later verification.

Maintenance, damages and scope The county uses a maintenance service for the scale (company referenced in discussion as Fairbanks) and acknowledged that normal wear-and-tear should not make a user automatically liable. Speakers agreed to draft language that holds users responsible for damage outside normal use while insulating them from routine maintenance needs.

Next steps and direction The group agreed on near-term actions: locate the existing scale-fee paperwork and bring it back for review, create a sign-out/receipt form to be used when keys are checked out, consider issuing a key to a small set of identified contingency holders (brand inspector, buildings & grounds or treasurer as appropriate), and create clear signage and printed tickets in the scale house. No formal policy vote was recorded during the discussion; staff will return with draft procedures and the existing fee schedule for formal review.

Ending: County staff will locate the historical fee schedule and prepare proposed procedures for key control, payment collection and recordkeeping for future consideration by the commission.