A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Commission debates surplus and community use of SHSP‑funded porta‑potties

December 31, 2024 | Daggett County Commission, Daggett County Commission and Boards, Daggett County, Utah


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Commission debates surplus and community use of SHSP‑funded porta‑potties
Commissioners spent a lengthy portion of the Dec. 31 meeting discussing whether porta‑potties acquired with an SHSP grant should be surplused, transferred to community groups or retained for county use.

A commissioner raised that the units are used infrequently—"I think we only use them 3 times a year"—and argued that storage and deterioration make surplus or transfer sensible. Staff and other commissioners clarified that some of the units came through the SHSP (State Homeland Security Program) grant, which can restrict redistribution: "If they are from the SHSP, they cannot be given to the public. Those are... stock and used and maintained by those people... we'd have to pay them back." That understanding prompted concern about whether a transfer to the chamber or to event organizers would require repayment to the federal program.

Insurance and liability were central themes. Commissioners and staff said the county's insurer and past practice have required county employees to deliver, set up and maintain units, and that insurers pressured the county because of risks such as trailers rolling or people climbing on units. Commissioners proposed options including: asking UCIP (the county insurer) whether a liability waiver could permit private groups to borrow units; requiring a deposit equal to cleanup/refit costs; supplying chemical disinfectant while a borrower handles transport and cleaning; or transferring units to another county department for operational use. One commissioner suggested a deposit and a written agreement: "There would be equivalent to us having to take it somewhere... They get their deposit back."

No formal decision was made. Commissioners asked staff and counsel to contact UCIP and other relevant officials to see if a waiver, contract or deposit system is feasible; if not, surplus may be reconsidered. Commissioners also noted interest from community event organizers (e.g., fishing derby, snow rally, Tower Rock Run) who said they would handle pick‑up, cleaning and return if allowed.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Utah articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI