Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commission Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves two agenda items, holds several and continues another to Feb. 19
Summary
At its Feb. 12 meeting Utah County commissioners approved two regular-agenda items (6 and 7), placed multiple items on hold or strike for later consideration and continued item 16 to the Feb. 19 meeting.
Get email alerts on the Commission Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County commissioners voted on several routine agenda items and set hearing holds and continuances during the Feb. 12 meeting.
Commissioners approved item 6, moving administration of a program from Community Development to Public Works, and approved item 7, which contained clarifying edits related to an easement and references to an agreement (staff and attorney edits were included in the redline attachments). Both items were approved by voice vote; the meeting record shows an affirmative voice vote but does not list a roll-call tally.
The commission agreed to hold items 16 and 19 for further consideration, strike items 20 and 21 from the agenda and hold item 22. Commissioners also preserved a 40-item consent agenda with item 22 highlighted for its significance to a canyon grant; the consent agenda otherwise moved forward. The board asked that item 16 be continued for one week, and a motion was made to continue item 16 to the Feb. 19 meeting and carried by voice vote.
Earlier in the meeting a public hearing occurred on a budget amendment described by Jeremy Walker, director of financial services, as a “cleanup amendment” that moves dollars between funds and departments without increasing overall spending; no final budget vote was recorded during the public hearing segment. County Clerk Aaron Davidson stated on the record that he had not been consulted about moving a division from his office to the commissioners’ office and said he objected to the unilateral move.
Commissioners also reviewed the planning commission’s recommended edits to the easement language referenced in item 7 and noted that staff and the attorney’s office had provided language to ensure continuity and to record a restricted covenant to protect occupancy rights if agreements change. No ordinance-level changes were adopted in that discussion; the two items were approved as placed on the regular agenda.
