Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Daggett County RDA hears 2025 amendments, reviews proposed 2026 budget; questions raised on admin charge and infrastructure commitments
Summary
At a public hearing, the Daggett County Redevelopment Agency reviewed a proposed administrative charge, discussed commitments to relocate infrastructure, and confirmed land sales as the revenue source for increased fund balance; members sought clarification on several line items and inconsistent figures in the transcript.
The Daggett County Redevelopment Agency held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the 2025 RDA budget and the draft 2026 RDA budget. The chair opened the session and asked staff member Carrie to review the 2025 amendments and the proposed 2026 figures.
Carrie said the only 2025 amendment staff proposed was to add an administrative cost if the board chooses to include it. The chair stated that the agency had committed "about $59,000, just under $60,000," toward relocating infrastructure. Later in the discussion Carrie said she "needs to add $69,000 to that," a discrepancy recorded in the transcript that the board did not resolve during the hearing.
The meeting then turned to the proposed 2026 budget. A committee member noted a $75,000 administrative cost line and asked where the figure came from. Carrie explained that last year the board revised the administrative allocation to be a percentage of revenue rather than a fixed amount; the committee member characterized the $75,000 figure as an estimate equal to roughly 10% of projected property sales and asked that staff confirm the basis for that percentage.
Board members also reviewed previously committed participation agreements tied to infrastructure projects. Staff reported that three separate project lines were folded into one participation agreement under "GRL holding," and mentioned Jesse Lasley and a project described in the transcript as "Red Storage" infrastructure. A committee member asked which project the $112,500 red storage line referred to; staff said the three items were combined and are represented under that single agreement.
The chair also read out outstanding commitments from the fund balance that remain allocated to infrastructure projects but the spoken amounts are unclear in the transcript and could not be verified at the hearing. When asked whether the increase in the fund balance was driven by interest or land sales, Carrie said the increase is from land sales (interest is shown separately).
There were no motions or votes recorded during the public hearing. The chair called for public comment on the 2025 amendments and the 2026 proposed budget; none was offered, and the chair adjourned the hearing.
The record contains a numeric inconsistency (the chair mentioned $59,000 while staff later referenced $69,000) and several spoken numeric amounts that are garbled in the transcript; those items were left unresolved in the hearing and should be clarified in the official minutes or by staff follow-up.
