Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Utah County approves previously signed Bateman removal-bond after tense debate over indemnity language
Summary
County commissioners approved an amended construction-removal bond with Lance Bateman after a 2-1 vote; debate focused on whether paragraph 7's indemnity language was one-sided and enforceable and whether "negligence" should be excluded.
County commissioners narrowly approved an amended construction project removal bond with property owner Lance Bateman after a lengthy debate over indemnity language that disclosed a split among elected officials.
Commissioner Sakovich led the challenge to paragraph 7 of the agreement, saying the clause as written was “too one-sided” and could leave property owners without meaningful recourse. He proposed removing language that would prevent a property owner from seeking relief if the county's actions caused harm.
“I never even talked to the Batemans about this paragraph 7,” Sakovich said. “This is simply my own discovery here, and I was thinking about current and future agreements that we shouldn't come across as, you have no choice in a matter.”
Commissioner Ainge and Commissioner Lee defended adopting the prior version of the agreement, which the Batemans and their counsel had already signed. Commissioner Ainge said he did not want the county to renegotiate a document that the other party already accepted: “I can't understand why we would ever negotiate on their behalf and make it easier for them to sue the county, even if they've already agreed to it and signed it.”
County Attorney Rob Moore told the commission that some indemnity phrasing commonly appears in settlement and enforcement agreements and that the enforceability of provisions tied to negligence or intentional acts can be limited in practice. Moore also noted that enforcement of the county's zoning ordinance usually resides with the county attorney's office rather than the commission.
After discussion, the commission voted to adopt the previously signed (earlier) version of the amended agreement. The motion carried 2-1: Commissioners Ainge and Lee voted in favor, and Commissioner Sakovich voted against.
Next steps: the signed agreement becomes the operative document; commissioners asked for a separate work-session discussion about whether similar enforcement agreements should be handled administratively by the county attorney's office going forward.
