Manila residents push back on proposed Daggett County curfew; commissioners to revisit park hours

Daggett County officials held a public meeting in Manila to review two draft ordinances — a proposed countywide curfew and a separate amendment to park rules — prepared at the request of the sheriff's office and county attorney after a recent incident at a county park.

County Attorney Kent Snyder told the meeting the drafts were written to close gaps in local code and to align certain provisions with state law and practices in other counties. He described two distinct measures: one addressing curfew and conduct "in and around" schools and another updating rules for county parks and rodeo grounds, including camping and fire restrictions. "If the county commissioners decide that we don't need the conduct around schools codified, that doesn't have to be included," Snyder said, explaining the drafts include exemptions for parents, employment and school activities.

Public commenters pressed the panel on scope and enforcement. Jared Marquis of Dutch John said he "disagree[d] with putting hours on our children" and warned the curfew language appeared year‑round and could forbid routine summer activity. Stacy Roush (Cedar Springs) asked whether Forest Service lands really have a curfew, saying she knew only of 10 p.m.–6 a.m. quiet hours; the attorney replied he had been told of comparable restrictions on federal land but would verify. Ben Veil, a local parent, gave an emotional account, saying "my kids are terrified" and that the draft would push families away rather than protect them.

Speakers also identified jurisdictional limits in the draft. Residents and the moderator clarified the county cannot impose ordinances inside an incorporated town; the town of Manila and its schools lie within town limits, so a county curfew would not apply inside town boundaries. Multiple commenters asked why a countywide rule was being proposed when the incident that prompted the review occurred inside town limits and whether a county property/park ordinance — or a targeted noise ordinance — would better address the problem. The moderator acknowledged the point and offered to schedule a separate meeting to focus specifically on park hours and county property rules.

Other questions centered on definitions and enforcement. Members of the public pointed to inconsistent language about age ranges and noted state statutory language concerning compulsory education (generally referring to ages roughly 6–18) differed from the draft's phrasing; attendees asked the attorney to resolve the discrepancy. Residents asked how deputies would enforce a curfew without additional patrols or budgets and whether ordinary activities — jogging, fishing, or families using playgrounds after dark during summer — could be criminalized. The attorney said employment and lawful business would be covered by exemptions in the draft.

No formal motion or vote took place during the public meeting. After hearing extensive public opposition to the countywide curfew and several requests for narrower, locally tailored rules, the moderator said commissioners would consider the feedback, offered to arrange a separate discussion on park hours, and adjourned the meeting.