443
MINUTES OF THE SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S MEETING HELD
JUNE 21, 1982
Time: 10:00 a.m. in the Commissioner's room at the Monticello Courthouse.
Members Present: Chairman Calvin Black, Commissioner Robert Low and Commissioner Kenneth R. Bailey.
Minutes of the previous week were read and approved upon the motion of Commissioner Low and the second of Commissioner Bailey and it carried unanimously.
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL MEET REGARDING SERVICE AGREEMENT AND ENGINEERING;
Monticello Mayor Kieth Redd, Councilman Ron Sharp and City Manager Rick Terry, met with the Commission to discuss the stipulation in the Service Agreement for Road Maintenance requiring the City to furnish the necessary engineering work. Mayor Redd stated that the city would like to have the County Engineer, Doug Pehrson perform the engineering work. Commissioner Bailey reported that the County Engineers office is busy full time on the County's projects and that is why the Service Agreement specified that the cities will provide the engineering work. Commissioner Bailey suggested that the city could contract with Mr. Pehrson to do the necessary work on his days off. Doug Pehrson confirmed that he would be willing to contract his services to the City, but he would need the use of the County equipment. After a discussion of other possible engineering services from Cortez, Moab, and Blanding, it was agreed by the Commission that the City of Monticello may contract with Doug Pehrson for engineering work and the County will offer the use of the County equipment on a one year trial basis. The City of Monticello agreed they, would contac the Mayor of Blanding to find out if their City Engineer could do work for Monticello on a contract basis.
NUCLEAR REPOSITORY CORRESPONDENCE TO GOVERNOR APPROVED:
While the Monticello City Council was still present, Chairman Black requested that they help critique the following letter he had drafted in behalf of the County Commission to Governor Matheson concerning the locating of a "Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository," and conducting a complete EIS:
June 21, 1982
Honorable Scott M. Matheson Governor, State of Utah Capitol Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Governor:
We very much appreciated the opportunity to meet with you recently and present our positions on the proposed High Level Nuclear Waste Repository, which we perfer to call the Spent Nuclear Fuel Repository.
We would like to reiterate the importance of the uranium mining and milling industry to San Juan and Grand Counties, to the State of Utah in jobs and tax base, and to the Nation in helping to resolve our present and especially future needs for energy. The severe depression of this industry here with many mines and mills already shut down, and more likely, is directly related to; (1) The long licensing process, uncertainty, and continual changes in the requirements to nuclear generating stations due to the media generated "fear level" and (2) The failure to make a determination on how, where and when the spent nuclear fuel will be stored on a permanent basis and what the cost will be.
To help resolve these questions and save our economy from a present severe depression and what will be a devastating crash, we support the conuinued studies and testing as proposed prior to a complete EIS at this time. If the drilling and testing determines the site is not suitable as has already apparently been determined by tests and studies at three other locations in San Juan and Grand Counties, then there would be no need to spend the significant time and taxpayers money for such an exhaustive EIS. If the testing indicated possible suitability, it would then be an appropriate time to prepare a complete EIS.
The testing now proposed is no more extensive and in some cases less so then is being conducted daily in our State to do seismic work and test drill for oil, gas, coal, uranium, cooper and other energy and mineral resources. In many cases such testing and drilling, if successful, and in subsequent actions to develope and produce such resources, creates a far greater impact including hazards and land use than would be the case of the Spent Nuclear Fuel
444
Repository. To require a complete EIS at this time is not only premature, but would probably set a precedent that some would use sucessfuly to demand the same requirement for seismic and other testing, including drilling for the purposes previously outlined.
We wish to state again that we are not pre-judging the facts concerning the repository. We just want the studies to continue to be able to have all the information available on which to base future decisions. We would not oppose a complete EIS prior to the sinking of a shaft.
Again, thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to meet with us. The elected officials, business people, and other responsible people in both counties pledge to work with you, the federal agencies, and others to make sure the right decision based on factual information is ultimately made. The safety of all the public is the paramount consideration, but the National needs of energy and resources, and our own local needs, require jobs and a tax base to enable us to continue to live here and provide the necessary educational needs and other public services are also important
Very truly yours,
San Juan County Commission
/s/ Calvin Black, Chairman
/s/ Kenneth R. Bailey, Member
/s/ Robert Low, Member
Mayor Redd and the other commissioners felt the letter explained what the city and county was trying to put across during their meeting with the Governor last Monday. The letter was then approved and signed by each commissioner.
DARROLL YOUNG MEETS REGARDING GOLF COURSE BILLING:
Mr. Darroll Young met with the Commission at 10:30 a.m. He reported that he had come to inquire why the total invoice from Youngs Machine Company for work on the Monticello Golf Course was not approved. Comm-issioner Black said that from the conversations with Darroll Young in commission meetings, he was under the impression that Mr. Young had volunteered his time, efforts, and even some equipment (if necessary), for the Golf Course culvert project, and the County would provide the pipe, materials, and road equipment. Mr. Young said that he had met with Commissioner Bailey in Youngs Co. office, and asked if it would be proper for the Young's Machine Company to be compensated for their services at the golf course and Comm-issioner Bailey had thought that would be fine, but referred him to Commissioner Black. At this point in the Commission meeting, Commissioner Bailey said that he had talked with Mr. Young, but never agreed that he or Young's Machine should receive compensation.
Mr. Young also reported that he did discuss the matter of compensation with Commissioner Black at the golf course and suggested that the fees be waved for the Young's Golf Tournament in return for their labor on the culvert project. At that meeting Commissioner Black said the County would prefer that he pay for the services at the golf course and if he felt he should be compensated for work done, to submit a bill to the county. Commissioner Black reported that he also told Mr. Young that he had no authority to approve an agreement to employ anyone outside a public meeting. There began a difference of opinion as Mr. Young felt that he had been hired by the Commission and the billing he submitted for labor was equitable.
Commissioner Low confirmed that he was never aware of any request for compensation in a commission meeting Mr. Young stated that if proper procedures were not followed, it was not done intentionally, and he hoped something could be worked out in the future. For the record a copy of the invoice from Young's Machine Company will follow in the minutes:
YOUNG'S MACHINE COMPANY
Sold to the San Juan County Date May 24, 1982________
Work Order: 6134 Terms Net 10____________
Ordered Shipped________________Items__________________________Price Total_______
Work performed on San JUan County Golf course in accordance with agreement with the county commissioners on April 5, 1982 and April 12, 1982.
6 Days time for Young's winch truck $50.00 300.00
13 Days time for Young's Backhoe 75.00 975.00
10 Days time for Garold, Jack and Dow 100.00 1,000.00
26 1/2 Days time for Darroll 100.00 2,625.00
4,900.00
Exempt
"Claim Denied" /s/ CB /s/ Low
HEALTH CARE SERVICE FUNDS TO BE TRANSFERRED;
Commissioner Low reported that $691,000.00 is remaining in the Health Care Services Operating and Capital Outlay budgets. The Health Care Services Board has requested that these funds be transferred to their account. County Treasurer, Marian Bayles, advised the Commission on the procedures for transferring of such a large amount of funds and the possible impact on the County's cash flow. The transfer of the dedicated funds for the Trust Fund at this time was also discussed. Upon the approval of the County Commission Marian Bayles was authorized to draw a voucher to transfer the said funds to the Health Care Services Board and to also transfer the dedicated funds to the Trust Fund.
SOCIAL SERVICE CONTRACTS APPROVED:
Social Services Director , Bruce Shumway, presented a contract/agreement to contract equipment and vehicles
to the San Juan Community Social Services for use in the Mental Health Program. Commissioner Low moved
to approve the contract and authorize Chairman Black to sign the contract in behalf of the County. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Bailey and it carried unanimously.
Mr. Shumway also presented a contract/agreement to provide assessment, nursing services and personal
hygiene care to adults in San Juan County as an alternative to institutionalization. Commissioner Low
moved to approve the contract and authorize Chairman Black to sign the contract in behalf of the County.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bailey and it carried unanimously.
445
JIM STEVENS TRANSFERRED TO DUCHESNE COUNTY;
Extension Agent, Jim Stevens, reported that he has been transferred to Duchesne County. It will be approximately a month before his replacement will arrive. It was agreed that during the interval before the new agent!s arrival, Jim Heaton should have all Weed and Rodent Control program vouchers approved by Commissioner Bailey. Mr. Stevens reported that Alene McFarlane, an intern from U.S.U., will be working with the 4-H program in the county this summer. The Commission agreed to pay for mileage on her personal vehicle for the travel with the 4-H program. Mr. Stevens stated that his office appreciated the Clerk's office sending a monthly telephone bill for the regular and the watts line and hoped thy would continue this type of billing on a monthly basis.
The Commissioners stated that Mr. Stevens and his family have been an asset to the county and they will be missed. Mr. Stevens expressed his appreciation for the support of the County Commission and felt working in San Juan County had been one of his best experiences.
NUCLEAR WASTE INFORMATION OFFICE;
Mr. Carl Eisemann asked the Commission how they would perfer to charge the State Nuclear Waste Information Office that has been set up in the courthouse for use of the telephone and copy machine. The Commission requested that the Information office log all long distance telephone calls and also record the number of copies made per month and the county will bill the Information office monthly for these services.
MONTEZUMA CREEK POOL TILES;
Commissioner Bailey recommended to Commissioner Black that ceramic tiles held together with silicone be
used on the Montezuma Creek pool. The tiles are a product of American Olean.
ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION POLOICY NOTIFICATION;
Commissioner Bailey requested that the clerk's office notify the city of Blanding of the County's electrical
installation policy and the need for County building inspections.
PATROLS AUTHORIZED FOR ROAD DEPARTMENT;
Commissioner Bailey was authorized to make an offer to Wheeler Machinery of Salt Lake City, as per his report, for two patrols and request a trade in on county patrol #146. If the company will come close to the County's offer, Commissioner Bailey is also authorized to finalize the sale.
CATTLEGUARD PRICE POLICY UPDATE;
Commissioner Bailey reported that the County's price for installing a cattleguard for private individuals is based on the cost of a 14 foot cattleguard. The current cost to the county for a 14 ft. cattleguard is $1,318.00 and Commissioner Bailey recommended the' price be set to the individuals purchasing them accord-ingly. It was approved by the commission that as per county policy the individual will pay the current price of a 14 ft. cattleguard in effect at the time of purchase, and the county
will install the cattlegurad at no charge for labor or equipment.
MONTEZUMA CREEK ROAD DEDICATION;
The commissioners were invited to the Montezuma Creek road dedication at the Red Mesa Chapter House, June 26, 1982 at 9:00 a.m. Commissioner Bailey reported that the State regrets that the striping has not been done on the new road, but the State's paint truck is broken down.
PERSONNEL EVALUATIONS AND MERIT RAISES DISCUSSED;
Commissioner Bailey recommended that each County department use the personnel evaluation form that the Road Department is using for one year before any merit raises are given. The Commission agreed that a cost of living increase should be approved for this year and after the personnel evaluation has been in effect for one year, base future increases on cost of living and personal merit.
MONTICELLO AIRPORT LAWN DISCUSSED;
A bid was submitted for grass at the Monticello Airport by the Don Christensens. The Commission agreed that if Jon Hunt will furnish the labor, the county will provide the seed to start a lawn at the Monticello Airport.
POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS FAIR GROUND FOR STUNT SHOW;
Monticello Ploice Chief, Everett Johnson, requested the use of the County Fair Grounds on the weekend of September llth for a Stunt show sponsored by the Monticello Police Department. Mr. Haskins confirmed that the date requested was available and the Commission approved the use of the fair grounds for a stunt show.
Mr. Haskins reported that repairs on the fair grounds will be completed in time for the July Celebrations.
FOREST SERVICE ROAD CLOSURES PROTESTED;
Commissioners Low and Bailey will be meeting with the Forest Service on June 24th, and Commissioner Black requested that the Commission protest the closing of any "D" roads in the Manti-LaSal National Forest as shown on their use map.
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS LAWSUIT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT;
Upon the motion of Commissioner Bailey and the second of Commissioner Low it was unanimously voted to
approve the following agreement with the Association of Local Governments in Price:
AGREEMENT
It is the intent of San JuanCounty to become a party to the lawsuits filed by certain state-assessed property owners.
We understand that this will involve a financial commitment by our County. Dated this 21st day of June, 1982.
San Juan County Commission
By /s/ Calvin Black, Commissioner
By /s/ Robert Low, Commissioner
By /s/ Kenneth R. Bailey, Commissioner
446
Chairman Black reported that if the Association of Governments is is continue in operation after this year, the participating counties will have to provide a larger portion of the funding. The Commission
will recommend approving the County's participation in a two year program at $7,000.00.
STATE LAND BOARD MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING:
Upon the recommendation of Commissioner Black and the San Juan Development Board, Commissioner Low moved to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the State Land Board for use of a pull-out area at Mule Canyon on U-95. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bailey and it carried unanimously.
YOUTH TRANSPORTATION OFFICER:
Upon the motion of Commissioner Low and the second of Commissioner Bailey it was unanimously voted to approve an application of Grant Funds as presented by Sheriff Rigby Wright. The Grant is to extend funding of the yourth transportation officer intil the detension center is completed.
VOTING REGISTRATION AGENTS APPROVED:
Upon the recommendations of the party leaders, Commissioner Low Moved to approve the following people as voting registration agents for two yr. terms. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bailey and it carried unanimously.
DISTRICT NAME AND NUMBER REGISTRATION AGENT'S NAME
Bluff #1 Mariam McCleery
Montezuma Creek #2 Nora Manybeads
Aneth #3 Lorraine Thomas
Cedar Point #4 Alma Funk
Ucolo #5 Merle Richardson
LaSal #6 Jackie Fuller
Spanish Valley #7 Rose Ann Guire
North Monticello #8 Bonnie Dalton
South Monticello #9 Alice Lovell
Northwest Blanding #10 Claudia Orr
Southwest Blanding #11 Hilda Perkins
Mexican Hat #12 Jerold G. Baum
Oljato #13 Virginia Smith
Navajo Mountain #14 Joe Folgherieter
Hall's Crossing #15 Joan Hamel
Red Mesa #16 Edward Tapaha
Southeast Blanding #17 Susan Butt
Northeast Blanding #18 Elnora Nielson
Central Monticello #19 Devon Codner
1982 MILL LEVY SET:
The Commission reviewed the mill levies to be set by the County. Commissioner Bailey moved to approve
setting the County mill levy as follows:
General Fund 11.06 15.28
Capital Improvement/Building & Grounds Fund 4.22
Library Fund .38
Public Health Fund .28
Tort Liability____________________________________________________________ .38________
Total Mill Levy 6.32
Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Low and it carried unanimously. The vote was as follows:
Chairman Black......Aye
Commissioner Low..... Aye
Commissioner Bailey. . . Aye
Commissioner Bailey moved to ratify the following mill levies for Districts,
Monticello City District 16.03
Blanding City District 25.08
Monticello San Juan Cemetery Maintenance District 2.00
Blanding San Juan Cemetery Maintenance District 1.30
San Juan Water Conservancy 2.00 Uniform School District
Local School District (San Juan) 35.81 Transportation District
Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Low and it carried unanimously. The vote was as follows:
Chairman Black......Aye
Commissioner Low..... Aye
Commissioner Bailey . . . Aye
CORRESPONDENCE;
A notification of Claim was received from Bosie Cascade.
An application/contract for electric service to the softball park was received from Empire Electric Association, Inc. Upon the motion of Commissioner Bailey and the second of Commissioner Low it was unanimously voted to approve the application/ contract.
A Continental Telephone Company of the West maintenance agreement to be in effect through December 31, 1982, was received and approved by the Commission. Commissioner Bailey signed the service agreement in behalf of the County.
A computer print out of the 1982 State assessment of San Juan County was received from the State Tax Commission. Commissioner Bailey moved to request that Energy Fuels be locally assessed instead of State assessed, based on similar custom mill facilities such as Atlas and U.S. Steel-Geneva which are locally assessed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Low and it carried unanimously.
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDING;
Chairman Black reported that the Development Board has approved a resolution defining San Juan County's policy concerning industrial development revenue bonding. He recommended the the Board of County Comm-issioners also approve the resolution in order to set consistant guide lines for the County. Upon the motion of Commissioner Bailey and the second of Commissioner Low it was unanimously voted to approve the
447
following Resolution No. 1982-3
A RESOLUTION DEFINING SAN JUAN COUNTY,
UTAH'S POLICY CONCERNING INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDING
WHEREAS, San Juan County, Utah, is authorized pursuant ot Title 11, Chapter 17, Article 3 Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, to issue industrial development revenue bonds to provide financing for a project as that term is defined at Section 11-17-2 , and Section 15-1-801, Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, and
WHEREAS, the County desires to set minimum guidelines to assist in review of any proposed issue of industrial development revenue bonds;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY UTAH'S MEETING IN REGUALR SESSION OF THE 21st DAY OF JUNE, 1982:
1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this Resolution to establish San Juan County, Utah's policy on the issuance of its industrial development revenue bonds.
2. Demonstration of Benefit. In general, San Juan County will consider issuing industrial develop-ment revenue bonds only upon a clear and factual demonstration of direct economic benefit to San* Juan County's economic development goals, such as the creation of additional employment opportunities; expansion of the tax base and increasing sales, property, or other tax revenues to the county; maintenance and pro-motion of a stable, balanced and diversified economy among agriculture, natural resource development, business, commerce, and trade; and promotion of development of the use of agricultural, manufactured, commercial or natural resource products within or without the state. Consideration will also be given
to any adverse effect upon San Juan County's development or other goals of the County. The following guidelines apply:
A. No particular type of business or enterprise will be excluded from consideration for the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds by San Juan County, but every applicant should be prepared to demonstrate that the proposed facility, will promote the general economic development of San Juan County within the context of the existing rules, regulations and requirements of the county, State of Utah and the U.S. Government.
B. Proposals for issuance of all insustrial development revenue bonds will be carefully considered in order to determine whether there would result from such proposed issuance substantial benefit to the County and its inhabitants.
C. It must be demonstrated that each project for which industrial development revenue bonds are to be issued will meet the following public purposes:
1. The creation of new or additional employment opportunities in San Juan County;
2. Expansion of the tax basis and increase of sales, property or other tax revenues to San Juan County;
3. Maintenance and promotion of a stable, balanced and diversified economy among agriculture, natural resource development, business, commerce and trade;
4. Promotion or development of the use of agriculture manufactured, commercial or natural resource products within or without the state.
3. Applicant Financial Information. The County, in evaluating proposals for the issuance of indus-trial development revenue bonds will seek to protect the good fiscal reputation of the County and will require information and proof of such matters as may be necessary to establish the feasibility of the project and the financial responsibility and capacity of the applicant. At least 20 days prior to any meeting with County officials, the following information together with the application fee provided for in Section 4 shall be submitted to the County and used in its determination of whether or not to proceed with the proposed industrial development revenue bond financing:
A. A description of the project including a complete list of assets to be purchased or constructed and the estimated life of such assets, the estimated cost of constructing and acquiring the project, and the cost of the issuance of the industrial development revenue bonds.
B. A descriptive statement of how the proposed project would benefit San Juan County and fulfill the requirements of Section 2-C above.
C. A description of alternative forms of financing investigated, together with the reasons for seeking industrial development revenue bond financing.
D. History of applicant, including a description of its operations.
E. A resume of principals and key employees of applicant, including directors and officers if the applicant is a corporation or all of the partners, if applicant is a partnership.
F. Historical financial information for the applicant for the past five years, or for the entire time it has conducted business, including:
I. Sales
II. Gross Profit
III. Net income
IV. Cash flow
V. Net worth
VI. Earnings available for debt service
VII. Net fixed assets
VIII. Working capital
IX. Ratio of assets and liabilities
If a new business enterprise is involved, the County may require personal financial information from the principals of such enterprise.
G. Applicant's balance sheets and income statements for the most recent fiscal year and cash flow projections for the next five (5) years, reflecting the proposed revenue bond issue.
H. Applicant's financial statements, either audited or otherwise satisfactory to the County, dated within sixty (60) days of the application date.
I. Copies of the applicant's financial statements, either audited or otherwise satisfactory to the County, for the preceding five (5) years or the entire time during which the applicant has conducted business.
J. A report of any material litigation pending against the applicant.
K. A proposed bond redemption schedule including the estimated debt service on the proposed insustrial development revenue bonds.
L. Any other matters specifically desired by the County not set forth above.
4. Application Fee and Reimbursement for All Expenses. At the time of submission of the information
448
required by Section 3, the Applicant shall deposit with the Board of County Commissioners a non-refundable application fee in the amount of $1,000.00 Whether or not the proposed bonds are issued, the applicant will be required to execute an agreement to provide for the reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the County in evaluating the project proposal, and in connection with the issuance of bonds, if bonds are issued. In addition to the application fee, to cover any non-itemized expenses of the County in connection with the transactions contemplated by the bond issuance, the applicant will be required to ex-ecute an agreement prior to issuance of the bonds, obligating the applicant to pay, at the time of de-livery of the bonds, to the County, an amount which together with the application fee shall be referred to as the "financing fees," not to exceed .1% of the principal amount of the bonds outstanding each year for the life of the bond issue discounted back to present value at a rate not to exceed the average interest rate on the bond issue; provided, however, that the total amount of the financing fees shall not exceed that amount that would result in an increase in the yield of the financing arrangement to the County of more than .125%. That amount will be determined and verified by the applicant in a certificate to the County setting forth the basis and result of such calculation.
5. Marketing the Bonds. Applicant must demonstrate by acceptable evidence that the proposed industrial development revenue bonds issue can be sold without violating federal or state securities law through a qualified underwriter or to an experienced investor or group of investors. Where industrial revenue bonds are proposed to be marketed through negotiation with the bond underwriter, such underwriter shall submit to the County an analysis of current market conditions which indicate that the bonds are marketable. The consideration of the marketability of the bonds will be accomplished on the basis of the financial soundness of the applicant to meet debt obligations incurred by the issuance of the bonds and whether or not a market exists for the bonds. If the industrial development revenue bonds are not to
be marketed through negotiations with the bond underwriter, then applicant must submit evidence as to how the bonds are going to be marketed.
6. Commissioners Determination Conclusive. At such time as the applicant has satisfied all of the above-stated requirements, the Board of County Commissioners will review the material and information submitted, taking into consideration the findings and recommendations of such officers or employees of the County who have been requested by the Board to examine such information and make such findings and recommendations, and taking into consideration any other matters which the Board of County Commissioners in its sole discretion determines to be significant in deciding whether or not to proceed with the pro-posed industrial development revenue bonds issue. The decision of the Board shall be at the full and complete discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, and the Board reserves the right to modify, delete, or add to any of the requirements stated herein for good and sufficient reason. Further, the Board expressly declares that the fulfillment of the guidelines set forth in this Resolution in no way assures approval of the proposed issue of industrial development revenue bonds.
7. Liability of County and Bond Purchaser. The acceptance of the financial information and agreement by the County to issue industrial development revenue bonds does not constitute approval by the County of the applicant's financial condition or soundness. In case of a private placement of the bonds, the ultimate purchaser will be required to certify to the County that it has independently satis-fied itself of the credit worthiness of the applicant.
Regardless of whether the bonds are to be sold publicly or privately, no purchaser or underwriter shall in any way represent in an official statement, offering circular or other offering material, or otherwise, that the County has in any way reviewed or passed upon the financial condition or soundness of the applicant or has, in any way evaluated whether or not the bonds are marketable.
8. Limitation of Inducement Resolution. Upon the Board of County Commissioner's determination
to proceed with the industrial development revenue bond issue, it will entertain a resolution of induce-ment which, once passed, will be effective for the period stated in the resolution.
9. Repealer. All acts, orders, resolutions, or parts thereof, taken by the County and in conflict with this Resolution are hereby repealed except that this repealer shall not be construed so as to revive any act, order, resolution or part thereof thertofore repealed.
10. Severability. If any paragraph, clause or provision of this Resolution is judicially adjudged invalid or unenforceable, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining paragraphs, clauses or provisions hereof.
11. Amendments. The provisions of this Resolution may be amended by the Board of County Commissioners at any regular or special meeting thereof. Provided, however, that while such modifications are not favored, the Board may modify the application of the provisions of this Resolution to facilitate a particular transaction when such modification is deemed to be in the best interests of the County.
ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JUNE, 1982.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SAN JUAN COUNTY, UTAH
/s/ Calvin Black_____________
Chairman
ATTEST:
/s/ Clytie Barber
Clerk
BILLS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL AND PAYMENT;
Electro-Tek Sales Inc. Pacenter PC 20 A $ 340.95
San Juan County Road Department Petty Cash 87.41
San Juan Nursing Home Advance on 1982 Current Tax Collection 20,000.00
Harbor Freight Salvage Company Tools 216.00
Aquatech Pool & Patio Shoppe Umbrellas (Blanding Pool) 182.95
Bronson's Books and Supplies 25.98
Causeway Service Kerosene 77.00
Dixon Paper Company Paper 135.30
Freeda P. Guymon Meals for attending special Aging meetings 52.00
San Juan Hospital 1979 CMC Ambulance 21,600.00
Hogie's Restaurant Meal for Commissioners 23.05
Peggy Humphreys Foremost West International Marketplace 134.00
Suzanne R. Hunt Moab trip to Court 26.20
Johnson's Spraying Service Weed Killers 1,628.50
George Kensley Fire School 29.00
Motor Parts Supplies 220.01
Muhlestein Greenhouses Flowers 38.50
449
Newtah, Inc. For Ad in the Newtah, News $ 350.00 Primary Children's Medical Center Hospital services for Angelina Harvey 19.75 S & H Insurance Company and Rocky Mountain Harvestore - Mexican Hat Water systems-original contract with Jonco. 30,801.00
San Juan County Road Department Gasoline 865.54
The San Juan Record Notice of Reg. Comm. mtg. June 14, 1982 4.16
San Juan County Attorney's Office Petty Cash 44.83
Texaco USA Gasoline 588.01
Utah Association of Counties Registration Fees - County Roads School 150.00
Utah Dept. of Employment Security Unemployment Benefits 217.09
Utah Navajo Industries Masonite 5.93
Utah Power & Light Company Utility 87.86
Lynn Wright Fire fighter 10.50
You Too Can Do Ceramics Ceramic Supplies 264.23
There being no further business for this day, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Calvin Black, Chairman Mary Jane Phillips, deputy clerk