[0:00] All right, we are going to go ahead and
[0:01] get this meeting started. Um, this is a
[0:04] workshop meeting for the county council.
[0:07] It was a a way for us to have a
[0:09] discussion about the fire board just
[0:11] amongst ourselves so that we can make
[0:14] sure that everyone's up to speed and
[0:16] what the fire district is doing. And um
[0:20] I was going to maybe turn let you and
[0:22] Dave kind of give an overview of where
[0:24] we're at with the fire district and um
[0:28] some of the legalities about their
[0:29] taxing and some of those things that we
[0:31] had questions about.
[0:33] >> Excellent.
[0:34] >> That's a big binder. I hope you don't
[0:35] start reading from page one.
[0:37] >> Yes. That's wraps.
[0:40] >> Okay, Dave, do you want
[0:44] >> Go ahead. You're your chair. You
[0:47] >> I'll be happy.
[0:48] jump in where where any uh where I leave
[0:52] any holes.
[0:53] >> Um
[0:55] >> so a year and a half ago, two a year and
[0:58] a half ago about was that two years ago?
[1:00] When did we start?
[1:01] >> It's been a couple years.
[1:02] >> Got a couple years. We started as a
[1:03] three member um fire board and
[1:07] >> we've always actually it's been going
[1:08] for years and years and years.
[1:10] >> It's been going for a long time since
[1:12] 1965.
[1:14] >> So a long time long long time.
[1:18] Um there was a fire board and fire
[1:21] district established in 1966. Um and
[1:25] it's everything outside of Logan. So
[1:28] Logan um I I don't know the impetus for
[1:30] it is I don't know. It doesn't really
[1:32] matter.
[1:33] >> They said they didn't want to be
[1:34] involved at the very beginning when it
[1:36] was formed,
[1:36] >> right? And so um but as we know with our
[1:41] budget um we still pay for the county
[1:44] fire department and is resulted in that
[1:46] double taxation for the Logan city um
[1:50] residents. So um we've been in the
[1:53] process of trying to find the right um
[1:57] structure for fire board and for the
[1:59] right services for the fire district for
[2:02] those that are outside the city of
[2:03] Logan. And the the reason that the
[2:05] double taxation occurred is that it was
[2:09] all being utilized and monies were
[2:11] coming out of general fund
[2:13] >> versus a municipal services tax which
[2:17] then could have had boundaries and only
[2:21] tax certain areas. And so it's where the
[2:26] money was coming from was creating the
[2:28] double taxation because it was a tax to
[2:31] everybody.
[2:32] >> Thank you. Thank you. And
[2:35] in last year the we created a bylaws
[2:40] which expanded our board and to include
[2:44] so it had one member of the county
[2:46] council from the south, one member of
[2:48] the county council from the north, the
[2:50] county executive and then two mayors
[2:52] from the north and two mayors from the
[2:54] south. and we started meeting to try to
[2:58] um define what the fire district would
[3:03] be moving forward. Um,
[3:06] and it now consists of uh Mayor Lindseay
[3:11] Peterson from North Logan and Mayor Erin
[3:15] Rudy from Smithfield in the north uh
[3:19] with Dave. And then in the south we have
[3:23] Mary Mayor Larry Jacobson with Nibbly
[3:26] City and Mayor Steve Miller with Hyram
[3:31] City. and uh and then the executive with
[3:35] myself and then the executive at large
[3:37] >> and of which we only received two
[3:41] applications from the south and three
[3:44] applications from the north of which two
[3:49] were selected and one was not
[3:51] >> from the from the board the board
[3:54] >> to make up that board. I have a question
[3:55] though as as we I know that those um the board members come to us for advice
[4:02] and consent. When the new mayoral
[4:04] elections happened, did we ever do that
[4:07] for the new mayor of Smithfield and the
[4:09] new mayor of Hyum or did they just
[4:10] automatically move on to the board? Is
[4:12] that a procedural thing?
[4:13] >> We accepted applications. Um we we um
[4:17] advertised the positions again and we
[4:20] accepted applications and they were the
[4:22] cities that applied again.
[4:23] >> I But did that ever come back to the
[4:24] council? Those two mayors,
[4:26] >> it did. It did. Their names came back to
[4:27] the came back to the council.
[4:30] >> Procedurally, we're moving along.
[4:31] >> Yeah.
[4:31] >> And so, um, now we are at the point of
[4:35] trying to define what the service will
[4:40] look like as a fire district. Um, and and we're still trying to define
[4:46] what the fire board looks like. And that
[4:48] goes into I think that leads into the
[4:51] service as well. Um we have in the south
[4:55] end of the valley and this is where
[4:56] Chief George can probably help us and
[4:58] talk about um where we have services as
[5:02] far as the county has services and what
[5:04] services are provided if you don't mind.
[5:06] That would be helpful.
[5:07] >> Yeah. Um so we provide EMS service to uh
[5:11] Paradise Hyum Wellsville Mend uh
[5:15] Milville and I know I'm leaving one out
[5:19] >> thank you. um to those six plus the
[5:21] incorporated county on the south end and
[5:23] the boundaries kind of tuck down along
[5:26] and then run out to um SR30 that runs
[5:30] out but like college ward is part of
[5:31] Logan's district. Uh we also provide uh
[5:34] code enforcement or fire prevention
[5:36] support um through either interlocal
[5:38] agreements or kind of friendly
[5:40] agreements with Wellsville, Nibi, a
[5:43] little bit in Millville as well,
[5:45] Paradise. Um and just more kind of off
[5:49] and on with with Hyum. They've primarily
[5:51] taken that over for themselves on the
[5:53] south end. Um and then obviously we
[5:55] provide countywide um training services
[5:58] as well as partial coordination with the
[6:00] countywide hazmat and uh technical
[6:04] rescue programs that are out there. Uh
[6:06] we also do all the coordination um for
[6:10] burn permits and so we have a website we
[6:12] host that for anybody in the county that
[6:14] does burn permits on their own. Cities
[6:16] can also go through the state on that.
[6:18] Um but like in the last 30 days we
[6:21] processed about 581
[6:24] uh burn permits in that time period. So
[6:27] >> and then um as far as in the north uh
[6:30] the coordination that we have or how are
[6:32] services provided in the north?
[6:33] >> Yeah. So we contract with all the
[6:35] smaller municipalities to cover the
[6:38] unincorporated area. We essentially uh
[6:41] match per capita what their budgets are
[6:43] to provide the services um to our
[6:45] citizen well I hate to say it that way
[6:47] to the uninccorporated citizens out
[6:49] there. Uh and Smithfield provides the uh
[6:51] ambulance transport services through the
[6:54] north end.
[6:55] >> Excellent. Okay. Thank you very much.
[6:57] Yep. Stay close. You're probably going
[6:59] um now get us copies of all the I think
[7:03] should have a copy of this.
[7:04] >> Yeah. If you could if you could ask
[7:06] Janine if she could print out like I
[7:08] have a copy.
[7:09] document from from executive.
[7:12] >> Yeah, you can take this with you if you
[7:13] just want to copy it.
[7:14] >> Um
[7:15] >> I just want everyone to see that. So
[7:17] about
[7:19] three months ago, um the executive came
[7:24] up with the option.
[7:26] there's been a uh friction between all
[7:30] of the different departments that we
[7:31] have across the county outside of Logan
[7:33] of what where they've already built up
[7:36] departments of of losing autonomy and
[7:39] also um their where they've um invested
[7:43] for their cap for their infra their uh
[7:46] where they've invested in their
[7:47] infrastructure and um in their
[7:50] departments of of joining the district
[7:53] fully and the in order to leave the
[7:56] district. It's very complicated. You
[7:59] have to do um a feasibility study over
[8:01] the course of 18 months.
[8:03] >> It takes about that long.
[8:04] >> Yeah. A feasibility study um you have to
[8:07] get gather so many signatures like
[8:10] however many signatures from your from
[8:12] your city in order for them to leave and
[8:15] then um take it to in order to get it on
[8:17] the ballot. And then once they gather
[8:19] that many signatures and put it on the
[8:20] ballot, then it has to pass within their
[8:22] city to be able to leave the special
[8:24] service district if I understand. Is
[8:25] that is that correct? Okay. And so there
[8:28] um they're there's been some concern
[8:31] about losing some of their autonomy and
[8:33] losing um and feeling that they have
[8:35] invested so much in their own
[8:38] departments and in kind of giving that
[8:40] up to the district. There was there was
[8:43] early also early on the vision of the
[8:46] fire board was to transition
[8:51] to an all elected
[8:54] board elected specifically by the people
[8:57] for fire district.
[9:00] >> Kind of like the water district.
[9:02] >> And that's what we were trans we were in
[9:04] the process of trying to transition
[9:06] into.
[9:08] Uh and then uh
[9:10] >> we passed ordinance as a council that
[9:13] states such in
[9:14] >> they matter of fact the board passed the
[9:16] fire district board all passed the their
[9:19] uh resolution resolution ordinance.
[9:22] >> It's an inter local agreement
[9:24] >> interlocal agreement to do that. It came
[9:26] to us as a council and then we passed
[9:28] that but that was the process that we
[9:31] were going to go to to become an alled
[9:33] board.
[9:35] uh specifically
[9:37] >> specifically elected for the fire
[9:41] district board. Right, Eric?
[9:43] >> Eric has can speak to that too or
[9:46] >> we can both help out with that. So the
[9:48] way that the district bylaws are set up
[9:50] right now, it's a two it's a double vote
[9:53] to pass bylaw changes. So the first time
[9:56] through basically sets the standard. Um
[9:58] they passed that by the supermajority
[10:00] that was necessary, five out of the
[10:01] seven votes. It came to the council for
[10:04] basically ratification because you are
[10:06] the appointing authority
[10:08] >> and that's required under 17B1 10001 and
[10:11] you guys passed it by resolution.
[10:12] >> Yeah.
[10:13] >> The council passed it when it went back
[10:15] to the fire board for ratification on
[10:17] their side. That's where it stalled. Um
[10:19] and then the the clock ran out on it.
[10:21] >> Yep.
[10:22] >> So it's null. Is that what it is now? Is
[10:24] it null?
[10:25] >> Because the the resolution said it had
[10:27] they had four years to move to an
[10:28] elected board and then we passed that.
[10:31] >> Stalled out. Where is it now, Eric?
[10:33] >> So, with the board, they would have to
[10:35] bring up a new resolution, which I think
[10:37] that is currently in play to do a new
[10:38] bylaw amendment. Um, if they went if
[10:43] they decided to change course and still
[10:45] do elected board and they still changed
[10:47] it, which they we know they need to
[10:48] because they're conf they're changing.
[10:51] Sorry, let me they're they're they're
[10:53] telling you how who to appoint, which
[10:55] they can't, which was our bad when we
[10:58] made those bylaws. Um, but
[11:01] if if they did go to an elected board
[11:03] again, it would have to come to you for
[11:04] approval under state code. But
[11:06] >> so so we don't have to do anything to
[11:08] move away from having an elected board.
[11:10] That's where like as it currently
[11:12] stands, that is not um that was not done
[11:15] completely. Y
[11:16] >> So we don't have to do Okay.
[11:17] >> Yeah. Because it takes two steps. It
[11:18] took you guys and them and it went to
[11:20] you guys and it went to them and then
[11:21] they didn't do it.
[11:22] >> They didn't they didn't do it again. So
[11:24] >> they just it seems like they're going in
[11:25] a different direction. So right now it's
[11:26] not the that's not the code that they
[11:28] have to move to.
[11:29] >> And right now it everything right now is
[11:32] with the fire district
[11:35] >> and the direction that they want to now
[11:37] go
[11:38] >> in the hands of the fire board.
[11:40] >> Yes.
[11:40] >> Yeah. The fire district board of
[11:42] trustees. Yeah.
[11:43] >> Fire protection district board I think
[11:45] is what they're forwarded to. I guess
[11:47] >> fire
[11:49] county fire district board of trust
[11:51] trustees. Yeah.
[11:53] >> So
[11:54] >> yes.
[11:56] So now we're trying to establish
[12:00] um
[12:02] the the composition of the board of
[12:05] trustees and and we have an amendment to
[12:08] the current bylaws that are in place of
[12:11] how that uh the composition of that
[12:12] board will be and we had discussion
[12:14] about that today with an amendment that
[12:16] was proposed um by the executive um for
[12:21] uh representation in the county uh and
[12:26] his amendment includes
[12:29] to representation from an additional
[12:31] larger city in the north. But a
[12:33] recommendation because it's not it
[12:36] ultimately the county council is still
[12:38] the approval the approving um appointing
[12:41] authority.
[12:42] >> The pointing authority thank you but the
[12:43] recommendation to include the cities
[12:46] that are currently in it of in the north
[12:48] of North Logan Smithfield and then
[12:51] include Hyde Park and small city that
[12:55] they would decide or the board would
[12:57] decide.
[12:58] >> No, the small cities would get together.
[12:59] >> The small cities, which would be the
[13:02] remaining cities in the north, would
[13:05] choose one of their mayors to be on that
[13:09] board. And the same thing in the south.
[13:11] >> Well, and it would have to be they would
[13:15] choose someone to apply and then you as
[13:17] the appointing board would have to
[13:19] appoint them. You guys have that
[13:20] authority to appoint who?
[13:22] >> Yeah. So that so it would come to the to
[13:25] the board of trustees and we would vet
[13:26] that and and then bring it to the county
[13:29] council who would then ultimately
[13:31] appoint be the appointing authority.
[13:33] >> So they want to make that board 11
[13:34] people now.
[13:35] >> So then the the the amendment has that's
[13:38] the amendment that has been presented by
[13:40] the executive um for the governance of
[13:43] the board. As far as services, that's
[13:45] where we're still trying to understand
[13:48] where the
[13:50] um the proper balance is to keep we
[13:54] don't want any of the cities to leave
[13:55] the district. Even though it's is very
[13:57] ownorous process to leave, we don't we
[13:59] want to keep as cohesive as we can. Um
[14:02] and that's where um the executive has
[14:05] come up with the option of of having a a
[14:09] countywide um levy. a countywide. Every
[14:13] time I say countywide, it's everything
[14:14] excluding Logan, right? I'm just gonna
[14:16] say that disclaimer. Everything
[14:18] excluding fire districtwide
[14:20] levy. There you go. um that uh would be
[14:23] collected by the fire district and then
[14:27] distributed to the diff either the
[14:29] different municipalities to um pro be
[14:32] able to provide services either within
[14:35] their own departments or contract
[14:37] through the county or contract um with
[14:39] neighboring departments that have the
[14:41] capacity to serve them. Um I think
[14:44] George has do you have copies of that
[14:45] for the council of your voucher of your
[14:48] voucher? I kind of prepared this memo
[14:52] that kind of sets out the timeline and
[14:54] the steps, but Katherine's doing a good
[14:57] job of explaining it.
[14:58] >> Yeah. I just thought when we get to the
[15:00] voucher program that that you
[15:02] >> Here we go.
[15:03] >> Yeah. Georgia termed this the voucher
[15:05] program because each city would receive
[15:07] those funds that were collected by the
[15:09] fire district to be able to kind of have
[15:13] their autonomy in in deciding how to use
[15:16] those
[15:16] >> and the board would determine the
[15:18] allocation
[15:18] >> and the board would determine the levy
[15:22] >> both the both the levy and how it's
[15:24] distributed.
[15:24] >> Yes. So so what we've been talking about
[15:27] too is
[15:28] >> George
[15:29] >> Yeah. and and I'll George, I'll let you
[15:31] talk about this in detail, but but kind
[15:33] of what what we looked at was we want to
[15:36] preserve the fire district because for a
[15:39] lot of reasons to have a countywide fire
[15:41] service. And so the the the point is
[15:46] this is going to be a way to pay the
[15:48] cities how much they need to provide
[15:50] their fire out of that levy, but we want
[15:52] to make sure there's a certain amount of
[15:54] the general fund that we still keep a
[15:56] fire department in the county. And
[15:59] that's
[16:00] >> I I don't think that's completely right.
[16:02] I think the the retainage would be kept
[16:06] by the fire district for a for a
[16:09] countywide fire district.
[16:14] I I said it would come out of our
[16:16] >> even the county would pay to the fire
[16:19] district for services that they could
[16:21] potentially uh
[16:22] >> well
[16:24] >> provide. Let me explain that.
[16:26] >> Let me go step by step. Maybe I should
[16:29] just walk through this memo because I
[16:31] think it'll clarify everything.
[16:33] >> Okay,
[16:34] >> so this is kind of the steps and the
[16:36] timeline. Please stop me. I I have to
[16:40] tell you that it seems like
[16:42] misunderstandings occur as rapidly as
[16:44] explanations are given and and frankly
[16:47] there's been a lot of input into this. I
[16:49] started off with some rough ideas and
[16:51] they've been changed and adapted as
[16:54] we've gone along and I appreciate the
[16:58] reference to me as being the source of
[17:00] all of this information. And what I am
[17:03] doing is aggregating the wishes of a lot
[17:06] of different people. I'm trying to
[17:08] respond to that. The the first step is a
[17:12] separation of the county fire EMF to a
[17:15] separate funer levy reference to the
[17:18] fire protection district. This action
[17:21] set for decision before the Cash County
[17:23] Council tonight. This change will
[17:26] recognize that Logan City residents do
[17:28] not receive significant services from
[17:31] county fire EMS.
[17:33] utilizing a separate levy implements the
[17:36] necessary tax reallocation. All this is reallocating. It's not budgeting more
[17:42] or less money. It's simply reallocating
[17:46] it. So when you pass that levy, our fire
[17:50] budget will only be collected from
[17:53] parties outside of Logan City.
[17:57] So the what you appropriated for your
[17:59] fire department remains appropriated. It
[18:03] just there's a a smaller denominator.
[18:08] The Logan City taxpayers would not be
[18:11] included in the levy for the new fire
[18:13] protection district. The loss of Logan's
[18:16] taxable value will require the
[18:18] reortionment of the current Cash County
[18:20] Fire EMS budget to the remaining taxable
[18:24] value in the fire protection district.
[18:28] The reaportionment will amount to an
[18:30] approximate 50% increase in the portion
[18:34] of the property tax associated with
[18:37] support for the current Cash County Fire
[18:40] EMF budget for properties outside of
[18:43] Logan City. The reason that's 50% is
[18:47] Logan's taxable value is about onethird
[18:50] of the county. So when you take that out
[18:53] the remaining 2/3 goes up about 50%. The
[18:58] change is revenue neutral to the county
[19:01] but the reortionment will change the
[19:04] revenue sources. Everybody follow what I'm saying there.
[19:09] A typical primary home in Cash County
[19:12] with an appraised value 600,000 has a
[19:15] taxable value of 330.
[19:18] Current county fire EMS cost is
[19:21] approximately $7443.
[19:25] That's a portion of our county taxes
[19:28] that goes to support our fire efforts.
[19:33] At this point, all county taxpayers are
[19:37] assessed as cost. As a result of the
[19:39] reaportionment
[19:41] associated with removing Logan's taxable
[19:44] value, there would be an increase of
[19:46] approximately $39.75
[19:50] on homes of primary homes that are
[19:53] outside Logan
[19:55] to 114. It was $74. Now it's 114.
[20:02] County residents in Logan would cease to
[20:04] pay any assessment a savings of $7443
[20:09] on a typical primary home. The
[20:11] assessment goes from 0.00226
[20:16] to 000349.
[20:19] This change would be reflected in Logan
[20:21] City resident paying less property taxes
[20:24] to Cash County.
[20:27] The reallocation would first appear with
[20:29] the 2026 taxable that are payable this
[20:34] November because it's revenue neutral
[20:36] and we're simply moving it to another
[20:38] budget line. We can do that if we pass
[20:41] this tonight.
[20:44] Cash County appoints the members of the
[20:46] fire protection board. Fire protection
[20:49] district board is currently composed of
[20:51] the mayors of Hyrams, Midfield, North
[20:53] Logan, and Nibi. two county council
[20:55] persons in the county executive in an
[20:58] effort to provide complete
[20:59] representation all county residents. A
[21:02] new set of bylaws is proposed to the
[21:05] current board would be added the
[21:06] recommendation that the county appoint
[21:08] the mayors of Providence and Hyde Park
[21:10] and that two additional mayors be added.
[21:12] One mayor from the north recommended by
[21:15] the mayors of Richmond, Lewis and Newton
[21:17] Park and the Ma Trenton and Cornish. one
[21:20] mayor from the south recommended by the
[21:22] mayors of Wellfield, Milville,
[21:23] Riverhike, Men, and Paradise. The board
[21:26] would increase from seven members to 11
[21:29] members with the addition of these four
[21:31] additional mayors. Terms would match
[21:34] time of service in the office of mayor.
[21:37] Uninccorporated residents would be
[21:39] represented by the north and south
[21:41] council person. Thus, all residents
[21:44] outside of Logan are represented on the
[21:47] fire protection district board. Now,
[21:50] that's up to the board to decide whether
[21:52] they want to do that or not.
[21:55] My understanding is that we we did
[21:59] present that for discussion today. Fire
[22:02] board had to come back and with a super
[22:05] majority put it on the table for passage
[22:08] and then they have to come back to a
[22:10] second meeting and pass it. So, it's not
[22:12] like it was done today. It was just
[22:14] simply put on the table. We have a
[22:17] meeting a week from tomorrow where they
[22:21] could buy a super majority put it up for
[22:25] vote and then they would have another
[22:27] meeting passing it
[22:28] >> and then those would come to us for
[22:30] advice and consent those names.
[22:32] >> The bylaw change may but is not required
[22:35] to be approved by the Cash County
[22:36] Council. That's my legal advice from I'm
[22:39] getting from Eric and Mr. Anderson is
[22:42] that we've given enough authority to the
[22:44] fire board that they can make that
[22:46] decision. But I think it would be
[22:49] helpful if we want to speak on that to
[22:52] give them our advice.
[22:57] » So
[22:59] now I'm down to number seven. The owners
[23:02] of the unincorporated property are not
[23:04] contributing an equal share to fire EMS
[23:08] service. County residents living in
[23:11] cities pay the same fund to the county,
[23:14] but they also contribute to the cost of
[23:16] fire EMS service through a municipal tax
[23:19] levies.
[23:20] So, for example, someone living in North
[23:22] Logan
[23:24] pays us for fire and EMS coverage and
[23:27] then they're also taxed by North Logan
[23:30] for for that. A person who lives in the
[23:34] unincorporated county only is taxed by
[23:38] us. So, we talk about it being unequal
[23:41] with Logan. It's also unequal out in the
[23:44] county between cities and unincorporated
[23:47] county.
[23:49] It is proposed that Cash County
[23:51] equalizes differential between county
[23:53] taxpayers living in cities and in the
[23:56] unincorporated area by levying a
[23:59] municipal services levy on the
[24:01] unincorporated property. It is proposed
[24:04] that the total levy be 00800
[24:09] which is approximately the total
[24:11] assessment paid for properties in the
[24:13] county which are located in cities. In
[24:16] implementing the municipal services
[24:19] levy, the unincorporated properties
[24:22] would receive a credit for the fire
[24:24] protection levy against that amount. So
[24:27] whatever
[24:30] the fire protection levy is right now,
[24:33] we think it's going to be 346 mills.
[24:37] They'd receive a credit against the 800
[24:39] mil for what they're already paying.
[24:42] So we would in this case I would propose
[24:45] that we put a levy on the unincorporated
[24:48] money equivalent to 0.00
[24:54] » 4 54.
[24:57] >> Gotcha. So, George, will you um just
[25:02] answer like I'm having questions about
[25:04] the logistics of that when we when we
[25:07] make the the um process that we're going
[25:10] to do tonight to take Logan out, that
[25:12] won't change our 2026 revenue at all.
[25:15] >> No.
[25:15] >> Like, but this levy this this would have
[25:18] to be something that the council sets up
[25:20] a um a municipal services levy and it
[25:24] couldn't be done until 2027. Correct.
[25:26] >> I believe that's correct.
[25:27] >> Okay. I just the process of that is what
[25:30] I'm looking at.
[25:31] >> Matt is the one that researched the
[25:32] municipal services levy and that that's
[25:35] what I understand.
[25:36] >> Okay. And what's that process?
[25:38] >> It would need to go through a truth in
[25:40] taxation. We would have to go through
[25:41] all those uh hurdles and uh
[25:45] >> separately.
[25:46] >> Sorry,
[25:46] >> it would be a separate truth and
[25:48] taxation process. Well, if you would do
[25:51] it, I suspect if you were to make any
[25:53] other changes to the general fund taxes
[25:56] that require a TNT, uh, I believe you'd
[25:58] do it at the same time. So, a a TNT to
[26:01] cover both of those,
[26:03] >> but we couldn't do that until
[26:04] >> See, it's 2027, right?
[26:06] >> Exactly. It's 2027. Nothing that you do
[26:09] on that municipal service uh levy could
[26:12] happen until November, December, and it
[26:14] would be effective. First time we'd
[26:16] collect money for it would be in
[26:18] November 2027.
[26:20] >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was
[26:22] understanding that process.
[26:24] >> Now, as we So, I'm calling one a
[26:27] reallocation.
[26:28] This is equalization.
[26:31] A as a result of this equalization, the
[26:34] typical home in the unincorporated
[26:36] county would see two increases. First,
[26:38] the reallocation which they're going to
[26:41] receive this year of $39.75.
[26:45] Second, for the equalization with
[26:47] municipal taxpayers, which would be
[26:50] $14,983,
[26:53] the total increase would be $18,957
[26:57] for the typical primary home appraised
[26:59] at 600,000.
[27:03] » So, the unincorporated county
[27:05] >> be more for you.
[27:08] >> Cut to the chase. I've caught on to that
[27:11] >> and no better service. Yeah, I've caught
[27:13] on to that. So, there's two parts to my
[27:16] question
[27:18] and I had a quote, but I won't say it
[27:20] now. So, I'm in public. But anyhow, the
[27:23] unincorporated is going to be at 800
[27:25] mil,
[27:26] >> right?
[27:27] >> Yeah.
[27:28] >> Do we know the differences of the
[27:30] municipalities who are going to be in
[27:31] this fire district of how their
[27:33] municipal levy is as far as their tax
[27:35] rate so that we understand what those
[27:37] municipal cities are seeing? We've
[27:39] collected the information from all the
[27:42] cities and it does vary significantly
[27:45] but for example the municipal levy in
[27:49] North Logan and Providence is in the
[27:53] range of 600 mills.
[27:56] The levy in Smithfield is
[28:02] » you know it's on this chart. Am I trying
[28:04] to remember it?
[28:06] >> Um
[28:09] If if you look at the top line, it says
[28:11] current fire EMF budget city general
[28:15] fund. So if you go across there, you can
[28:17] see how much is is each generated in
[28:20] each city is allocated. And let me just
[28:22] say it's it's a little murky, Nolan,
[28:25] because
[28:25] >> holy crap.
[28:27] >> U Menon, for example, collects an EMS
[28:30] fee with the water bill.
[28:34] Some of these cities when you look at
[28:37] their budget they put what they're
[28:40] spending but they also have contracts
[28:42] with other cities. So you're constantly
[28:45] trying to drain out what the
[28:47] differential is for all of them. The
[28:49] other thing that's also happening is
[28:52] some of the cities have large areas of
[28:55] unincorporated
[28:56] that are coming into their fire budgets
[28:59] too. For example, Mendon served Mendon
[29:03] City, but it also serves a large area of
[29:06] the county. And the area outside Menden
[29:10] actually has more taxable value than the
[29:13] um than the city does. So, it it's a
[29:18] little murky, but it it seemed to coales
[29:22] around 800 mills.
[29:24] >> Okay. Second part, and I I think this is
[29:27] a hard question to answer, but it's been
[29:29] asked to me before.
[29:31] This change, is this going to propel
[29:34] changes from a home insurance type of
[29:37] thing for fire coverage that a resident
[29:40] will face? Because, for instance, when I
[29:43] build my house, I had to disclose where
[29:45] my fire department is and what's going
[29:47] on. And you do the same in Bear Lake.
[29:49] So, I'm wondering, have we looked at
[29:51] that or thought about that impact?
[29:53] >> And frankly, He's pretty
[29:55] >> changing funding,
[29:57] >> but I don't I don't think there's going
[29:59] to be actually much different service on
[30:02] the ground.
[30:03] >> Yes, you're basically asking about the
[30:05] ISO rating for the cities or
[30:07] unincorporated area.
[30:08] >> It would take a quite a bit longer
[30:10] period of time, but if the cities were
[30:12] able to reinvest that into
[30:15] infrastructure, whether it's water
[30:16] supply or services that they provide,
[30:19] there's a potential that that can
[30:21] happen. Um, but it's more than just what
[30:23] fire service is available right now that
[30:25] goes into that rating specifically.
[30:28] >> So, it depends is the answer.
[30:30] >> But it could be better.
[30:31] >> Well, what we're hoping
[30:32] >> we probably shouldn't pitch it as you
[30:34] get the same service for more money.
[30:37] >> The the reallocation doesn't bring any
[30:40] more money into it. The equalization
[30:43] does. This equalization would actually
[30:46] add
[30:48] about a million3
[30:50] to the money that's devoted to fire in
[30:54] the county.
[30:55] So, as you've met with the mayors and
[30:57] stuff like that, and I've talked to some
[30:59] and some citizens, um,
[31:02] are we going to be able to say to the
[31:06] citizens, and and this is where I'm
[31:07] looking because I'm representing the
[31:08] uninccorporated part of the county, is
[31:12] there's still something coming from the
[31:14] county in fire protection, such as
[31:16] training, such as help, such as those
[31:18] other things that I don't want to see be
[31:20] given up because I really lean to the
[31:24] decide that the fire board has some kind
[31:27] of an election point to it rather than
[31:29] appointment. And I don't know what how
[31:30] the others differ on that, but I just
[31:32] wonder if that's been discussed.
[31:34] >> Let me let me get to that question. And
[31:39] >> I think I'm
[31:42] down to number
[31:43] >> down to to almost an answer to that
[31:46] question.
[31:48] >> I just jump around in this.
[31:50] >> I just get more questions because you're
[31:51] going to charge me more. So,
[31:53] >> okay.
[31:55] Nine, it proposed that the board execute
[31:58] its responsibility to part to do this by
[32:01] entering into interlocal agreement. So
[32:03] there's going to be a an interlocal
[32:05] agreement between the fire district and
[32:07] every single city. So that essentially
[32:10] the money is going to go out to the
[32:12] city, but the city's going to sign an
[32:13] interlocal agreement that says this
[32:15] money is going to be used for fire and
[32:17] EMS. Doesn't have to be spent
[32:19] immediately, but it can't get into a
[32:22] different allocation. can't move the
[32:24] money for their water department or
[32:26] their parks. It has to stay in fire EMS.
[32:29] That's um
[32:32] a paragraph A B. Um
[32:37] the county would go into the
[32:40] unincorporated areas Nolan and
[32:44] essentially decide what services
[32:47] we would contract with the cities. So
[32:50] for example, Mendon is is has this large
[32:54] uninccorporated area around it. The
[32:56] interlocal agreement between the fire
[32:59] protection board, the fire protection
[33:02] district and mend would address the
[33:05] services that are both re received by
[33:08] the unincorporated area of the county
[33:11] that that's there.
[33:14] So we're going to be collecting more
[33:16] money from them. uh Nolan and our intent
[33:20] is to make sure those those
[33:23] uninccorporated areas of the county get
[33:27] their share of services for that money
[33:29] that we're collecting.
[33:31] So, we're already doing some of that
[33:34] just because we put pumper trucks and
[33:37] tankers out in these rural fire
[33:39] departments so that they can handle
[33:42] fires that don't have fire hydrants
[33:45] adjacent. So we're going to be wanting
[33:47] to do that and that it's going to be
[33:49] part of those interlocal agreement both
[33:52] smaller and rural cities.
[33:55] Now
[33:57] um
[34:00] C is is really the answer to the
[34:02] question that you asked me that is the
[34:05] funds collected by the fire protection
[34:07] district would be distributed to the
[34:09] cities based upon their taxable base
[34:13] subject to a retention percentage as
[34:16] determined from time to time by the fire
[34:18] protection board. So we're not going to
[34:20] distribute all the money
[34:23] that
[34:25] This retention amount would be retained
[34:28] by the fire district to cover its costs
[34:30] associated with the provision of
[34:31] countywide services such as
[34:34] administration, burn permits, wildland
[34:36] fire protection, county training, etc.
[34:40] The transition amount for the first year
[34:43] transition time would be set at 10% but
[34:46] thereafter would be set by the fire
[34:47] protection board. So essentially we we'd
[34:50] retain some of that money for countywide
[34:55] fire services.
[34:58] >> So how many and here's another question
[35:00] and chief you may have to answer this
[35:02] for me. Um wildland wildland fire
[35:05] protection right now we have some in the
[35:08] county who are full-time for doing that
[35:10] in this. I'm not sure where that
[35:12] full-time people meet because we're
[35:15] talking administration and that and so
[35:17] how do we
[35:20] are we contracting with Wellsville to
[35:22] say you're going to go help us fight a
[35:23] wireland protection.
[35:24] >> It's kind of all over the law as to how
[35:26] we handle that and and details still be
[35:29] worked out in those interlocal
[35:30] agreements. But the point is is is
[35:33] this is going to retain three to
[35:36] $400,000 of money that's going to remain
[35:40] with the with the fire district to to
[35:44] represent the countywide. And now let me
[35:48] mention this about Logan. Logan,
[35:52] we're we're taking them out of the
[35:54] assessment pattern
[35:56] tonight. So they're not contributing
[35:58] anything. I've had this discussion with
[36:00] Logan that they still should be
[36:02] contributing something to the countywide
[36:05] effort
[36:07] and they have agreed to that. We talked
[36:11] about 10% of the savings to Logan City.
[36:15] is saving taxpayers are
[36:18] saving about a,360,000
[36:21] by no longer being taxed by the county.
[36:25] If I take 10% of that, that's roughly
[36:28] equal to what the unincorporated and the
[36:30] other cities are paying. So that's the amount we fixated on as a
[36:37] retention amount. Can't really get money
[36:40] out of Logan because there's no money
[36:43] that's going to pass through our hands
[36:45] that we can do a retainage on. So Logan
[36:48] has agreed in lie of that that they'll
[36:50] pick up responsibilities that are
[36:53] equivalent to that that otherwise would
[36:55] fall on the county. And the
[36:57] responsibilities we talked about are
[37:00] providing fire and EMS service to
[37:02] Collie's Young Ward, Logan Canyon, and
[37:05] some of the forest areas which we now
[37:08] pay Logan to do. We pay him roughly
[37:12] $100,000 a year to do those services for
[37:16] us. So they would pick that up as their
[37:19] share of this countywide effort.
[37:24] >> C can I ask a question, George, about
[37:26] the um the structure of the
[37:29] I I see the count the fire board and
[37:32] they are going to be the ones who retain
[37:34] that 10% to provide services to the
[37:37] whole county or will the will the county
[37:40] just keep that and have our own payroll,
[37:42] our own department that we are providing
[37:44] for everyone? I I think it's it's going
[37:46] to be duplicative to do that because I
[37:50] think our fire district
[37:52] is is going to be one administration
[37:55] system.
[37:57] I think it's likely,
[37:59] not for sure, but likely that the fire
[38:03] department that we now have will become
[38:06] the administrative head of the fire
[38:10] district that retains and that they will
[38:13] continue to provide fire and EMS service
[38:16] on a contractual basis to a number of
[38:18] cities principally in the south county.
[38:22] >> Okay. So the I'm just thinking about
[38:24] where the payroll comes from. Yeah,
[38:26] that's that's what I'm thinking.
[38:28] >> Yeah,
[38:28] >> because I mean we we could try and
[38:31] retain it as a county, but then we'd
[38:34] have
[38:35] two two things and I I think we'd be
[38:38] more efficient if we said that's the
[38:41] fire district's responsibility
[38:44] is to do those things. You talk about
[38:46] training, burn permits. Um, there's a
[38:49] whole list of things that um,
[38:54] but I I I don't see us keeping a county
[38:57] fire department.
[38:59] >> Can I just add something to that?
[39:01] >> Yeah.
[39:01] >> I think this is we're dealing with a
[39:04] similar issue at the airport authority
[39:06] because it's a separate separate legal
[39:09] entity and they they have the ability if
[39:12] they don't have the administrative
[39:14] capacity to to manage their own finance
[39:16] department or anything. They have the
[39:18] ability to contract with with the
[39:20] county, with another city to handle that
[39:22] because
[39:24] that's true. We to run payroll to do
[39:26] human resources and things, but that's
[39:28] something that the fire district is
[39:29] going to have to to figure out on their
[39:32] own
[39:32] >> because I don't see them that I don't
[39:34] see that group of mayors having an the
[39:37] fire knowledge to manage burn permits,
[39:40] you know, for the whole county. I that
[39:42] >> we'll have a chief that will advise us
[39:45] I'm sure.
[39:46] >> Yeah. I just guess just about how is it
[39:48] structured and where does the payroll
[39:50] come from?
[39:51] >> There there's a lot of detail to work
[39:53] through here. But I think I think we
[39:56] need to recognize that the there's going
[39:59] to be a migration over time from
[40:02] volunteer fire department to
[40:04] professionals. And I think having the
[40:07] fire district stood up and functioning
[40:11] and and doing the things it can do at
[40:14] this point leaves the door open
[40:18] for more responsibility as we go
[40:20] forward. I think the cities recognize
[40:23] that value
[40:25] >> not all of them and maybe not 10% but I
[40:28] think if we let them choose the county
[40:32] >> what they'll do.
[40:34] >> We're not without representation on that
[40:36] board. Um,
[40:39] we will continue to have three of us who
[40:42] sit on that board and and we're going to
[40:44] be interested in seeing that the
[40:45] countywide responsibilities are
[40:47] fulfilled. Let me let me just say the
[40:50] attached spreadsheet shows more in
[40:52] detail the funding of the various
[40:54] interlocal agreement. It is anticipated
[40:57] the cities will contract with each other
[40:59] or the fire protection district to
[41:02] provide fire and EMF. I've had a couple
[41:05] of cities who have asked us to not only
[41:08] provide EMS service but also to provide
[41:11] fire, not us, but the district to do
[41:14] that. And so, Chief George and I are
[41:18] looking at that budget and and I think
[41:21] we're close to being able to cover it.
[41:27] is anticipated the fire protection
[41:30] district would begin preparation to
[41:32] implement the interlocal agreement
[41:34] beginning on January 127.
[41:37] Anticipated that the interlocal
[41:39] agreement would all be negotiated
[41:41] approved by the fire protection board
[41:43] and the county and cities prior to that
[41:45] day.
[41:46] >> The city after those are in place we
[41:49] also make the dispersions.
[41:52] That's that's
[41:53] >> that's what I'm trying to understand
[41:56] >> the steps and
[42:01] » did I answer your question Nolan?
[42:05] >> So
[42:07] the unincorporated is going to see an
[42:09] 800 mil levy.
[42:12] The municipality is going to receive a
[42:14] less levy because they're already
[42:16] getting one from the municipality.
[42:18] Right.
[42:19] >> Right.
[42:20] >> How do we factor that? if each
[42:21] municipality's mill levy is so
[42:24] different. Does that make sense?
[42:26] >> Yeah. And and all I can say is is the
[42:29] mill levy that we transfer to them will
[42:32] be the same.
[42:34] That's and let's just use the number 394
[42:38] because that that's what ours amounts
[42:40] to. But we really don't have any control
[42:43] over whether the city then
[42:46] keeps their mill levy just the same
[42:48] anyway. And and because of doing that,
[42:52] they would harvest four or five like a
[42:55] city like Providence or North Logan
[42:57] would have four or $500,000 extra money.
[43:00] They should be reducing their municipal
[43:04] uh tax a corresponding amount, but I
[43:08] have no way to compel them to do that.
[43:10] But I think once the citizens see that
[43:14] this is the tax, they're going to want
[43:16] to answer from their city is why there
[43:18] isn't a corresponding reduction in the
[43:21] city. But I can tell you, I've talked to
[43:23] some of them. Some of them are going to
[43:25] pass it right on through and give them
[43:28] the discount and other cities are
[43:30] saying, "This is terrific. We'll have
[43:32] extra money to do something else we want
[43:35] to."
[43:35] >> Okay, one more question. You mentioned
[43:37] that Mend has a large area. Chief, you
[43:40] can answer this. I think Hireman
[43:42] Paradise have a larger area when you
[43:44] bring in Scare Canyon at Flat Road and
[43:46] all of that up there.
[43:47] >> What I've been looking at is the taxable
[43:50] value that's outside the city. We have
[43:52] the county divided into fire districts.
[43:54] Now,
[43:55] >> so you're taking property value from a
[43:57] standard
[43:58] >> taxable value. I've been looking at
[44:00] taxable value
[44:02] >> versus geographical area and the other.
[44:04] >> Well, it's geographical. I've been
[44:06] looking at both geographic, but I I've
[44:08] had these fire districts now and I've
[44:10] had the assessor and and Craig have
[44:14] given me the taxable value that like
[44:17] within men and outside of men.
[44:20] >> So, can we and bring this up is I'm
[44:24] hoping that then some of this extra tax
[44:28] hits those places up in Scare Canyon.
[44:32] >> Oh, yeah. flat road and everything else
[44:34] because if we send a tender or a water
[44:38] truck out there, we're really going out
[44:40] there.
[44:40] >> Yeah. That that everything that is
[44:43] assessed by the county is going to get
[44:45] hit by our taxes.
[44:50] » Does that make sense?
[44:52] >> Yeah. I think you're looking at is there
[44:54] a way to increase service or decrease
[44:56] the amount of time to service in those
[44:58] areas?
[44:59] >> Well, I just want to make sure that
[45:00] those up there are paying their fair
[45:02] wearing their face shirt because it
[45:03] requires
[45:05] >> I I would imagine the same tax rules
[45:06] would apply to any of the second non-
[45:09] primary residencies that they would get
[45:12] hit with that same rate.
[45:13] >> Yeah. I mean, I used the taxable value
[45:16] that the assessor if the assessor hadn't
[45:18] got a house that somebody scab together
[45:21] up one of those canyons, we just need to
[45:24] get the assessor to go up and and put an
[45:27] assessment on the house.
[45:28] >> I've been saying that for a while. We
[45:29] need to be watching up there.
[45:32] >> I see I see some houses up there that
[45:35] >> flipping pretty nice.
[45:37] >> I can say House Bill 48 has helped with
[45:39] that a little bit, but we've really had
[45:41] to dive into some of those areas that
[45:43] are in that extreme high risk area, but
[45:46] we are now looking property, private
[45:48] property, and saying, do we have an a
[45:50] value assessed to it? And if not, what's
[45:52] it going to take to get that to happen?
[45:54] And so that that has been helpful in
[45:56] that regard. Is that what's that other
[45:58] program that's just coming from the
[46:00] state that increases the
[46:01] >> the WOOI?
[46:02] Is that being watched in those
[46:04] areas pretty heavy?
[46:05] >> They're they're going the ones the
[46:07] state's going to come out and do those
[46:08] um assessments, right?
[46:10] >> So So they'll assess the property for
[46:12] defensible space around it. But that's
[46:14] that same program. That's House Bill 48,
[46:16] which is the wildland urban interface
[46:18] program. Um, and so they send us a list
[46:21] every year of the areas that are now
[46:23] deemed as kind of extreme high-risisk
[46:26] based upon a whole bunch of different
[46:28] variables in that mix. Uh, we can take
[46:30] the partial map do an overlay on that
[46:33] and then using the aerial photos that
[46:36] get run on the I can't remember the
[46:38] frequency of that. I think it's five
[46:39] years. we can zoom in and see, okay,
[46:42] what is that structure? And then go back
[46:44] through the records to identify who the
[46:46] property owner is, what the assessed
[46:48] value has been, yes or no, what the
[46:50] permitting processes have been in those
[46:52] areas. Um, so quite a few of them as
[46:54] we've looked at those. There's a lot of
[46:56] smaller sheds that we may have two sheds
[46:59] that are within I think it's 750 ft or
[47:01] 250 meters of each other. they're
[47:03] triggering that there while the value of
[47:06] those properties or the structures is
[47:10] negligent and so but it is generating
[47:13] they're going to get hit with the fee
[47:14] now for sure
[47:15] >> I have a concern not a concern but I
[47:17] just think it's disproportionate to say
[47:19] okay you live in a shed so we're not
[47:20] going to tax you as much but yet there's
[47:22] still a body in there that we need to
[47:24] protect
[47:25] if that makes sense
[47:28] >> what's the most equitable way to do it
[47:31] >> that's a good question because if we're
[47:33] sending a $400,000 pumper up there. So,
[47:35] >> I know that's the tough part.
[47:39] >> You know, one thing that I wanted to
[47:41] that that was kind of
[47:42] >> I was just wondering how you did.
[47:44] >> I I want just wanted to share
[47:46] >> far away you built from fireplace.
[47:48] >> Yeah.
[47:50] Um, one of the no, one of the original
[47:52] ideas was that the county council would
[47:55] have to levy this tax and take all the
[47:57] truth in taxation and then send all the
[47:58] money to the cities, but through
[48:01] different legal opinions and and some
[48:03] roundabout ways. It the this new fire
[48:06] district board will levy their own tax.
[48:09] >> Even if they're not elected, they can do
[48:10] that.
[48:11] >> They are elected people. They're just
[48:12] not elected to that board. They're all
[48:14] elected their mayors or county council.
[48:18] They will have the authority to set that
[48:19] tax.
[48:20] >> Eric, Eric can speak to that.
[48:22] >> Yeah.
[48:25] » 171
[48:27] >> 17b1 1001 three.
[48:30] >> So our role they'll have to come to us
[48:33] and we'll have a hold a p public hearing
[48:36] but we don't get to accept or deny the
[48:39] tax rate. We just get to hold the public
[48:40] hearing and then um I do they have to
[48:43] have a public hearing as well or is ours
[48:47] they have to go through
[48:48] >> the county. Yeah. So the fire the lucky
[48:50] members that are both members of the
[48:52] county council and the fire district get
[48:54] to listen to it twice. That's that's
[48:56] what I was if ahead
[48:58] >> if your thing but what I want to know is
[49:00] in 2029 when it the mill levy needs to
[49:03] be raised what's the process for the
[49:05] >> it's the
[49:06] >> so so there are options if you look at
[49:08] um 3A2
[49:11] the proposed tax or increase in the
[49:13] property rate has been approved by and
[49:15] then if you look at B subject to 3B an
[49:17] appointed board of trustees so a tax
[49:20] increase can be and that's an or later
[49:23] on I think there was some confusion
[49:25] because we were looking at it as if it
[49:27] was an and because lower right below
[49:29] that it says the legislative body of the
[49:30] appointing authority which is the Cash
[49:32] County Council. However, um 2B says
[49:35] subject to 3B and appointed board of
[49:36] trustees. You jump down to 3B and they
[49:39] have to go through the process in 17B1
[49:41] 103. Now 103 requires them to go through
[49:45] truth and taxation. It requires them to
[49:48] come to create a report um and it's very
[49:50] specific on what has to be in that
[49:52] report. It has to come before this body
[49:54] in a public meeting and it has to be
[49:56] open to public comment and then you this
[50:00] body can also make a comment on how they
[50:02] feel about the tax levy in the increase.
[50:05] >> That that seems to put a lot of pressure
[50:07] on two council members. You're covering
[50:10] how many districts in the count in the
[50:11] south in the south then? Three.
[50:14] >> Well, just mine and yours.
[50:17] >> Yeah. How many does Dave cover in the
[50:20] north area?
[50:20] >> Marks and Dave.
[50:22] So as the appointing authority, you guys
[50:25] don't have to be on the board
[50:28] >> with that stress
[50:30] >> and that'll happen.
[50:31] >> But at the same time, it gets you gives
[50:32] you a say, but it also gives you the
[50:34] responsibilities.
[50:35] >> I just want to make sure that
[50:38] here we sit as a council that we are
[50:40] able to help the unincorporated or
[50:42] anybody in our district. and and as I've
[50:46] heard that means and I'm getting back to
[50:49] this administration part that we lead
[50:51] for the county. I hope that's enough to
[50:54] step in and help a city like Wellsville
[50:56] or Mendon who doesn't have a great
[50:58] amount of area to do that and training,
[51:00] but yet we provide the expertise and
[51:03] everything for them in the training and
[51:05] all that side. Well, I think that's what
[51:07] we've been advocating for is that that
[51:08] we keep that fire district in place with
[51:12] highly professional staff. You know, our
[51:14] current
[51:15] >> That's what I'm too resource for them.
[51:18] And we also know that the trending
[51:22] what's trending with volunteerism is
[51:23] that it's it's not
[51:24] >> it's dying down.
[51:25] >> It's dying. And so as those volunteer
[51:28] departments are going to be dwindling,
[51:30] we already have a framework in place
[51:32] with the fire district to go in and and
[51:36] help and and eventually kind of not
[51:38] consume them, but go in and and and help
[51:40] supplement their the needs that they
[51:42] have.
[51:43] >> Nolan, there will be an interlocal
[51:46] agreement between the fire district and
[51:50] Cash County.
[51:52] There there actually is currently an
[51:53] agreement um in place, but I believe
[51:55] that the
[51:56] >> and that will be specifically addressed
[51:58] there.
[51:59] >> Let me guess, it's not done right.
[52:00] >> We want these services be provided to
[52:04] these cities so that we're assured that
[52:08] our unincorporated citizens are
[52:10] protected.
[52:12] And we still have the ability, if we
[52:15] choose, to do just what the
[52:17] municipalities are doing, which is raise
[52:21] money
[52:22] sufficient to provide that protection.
[52:25] And and that municip municipal services
[52:28] levy gives us the ability to tax the
[52:32] uninorporated citizens for that purpose.
[52:38] That we're we're just like a city now.
[52:41] the city comes and says, "I want the
[52:43] fire district to do this and this and
[52:45] this for me and and signs an interlocal
[52:48] agreement. You give me the money." Well,
[52:51] we're in the same situation. Our
[52:53] municipal services levy gives us money
[52:57] that the county
[52:59] to tell the fire district we want these
[53:02] services. And it may well be that the
[53:08] beginning levy I set up of 800 mills is
[53:11] too much,
[53:13] just right or not enough.
[53:16] But but you will have that ability to
[53:19] protect the unincorporated citizen
[53:22] because you can tax them and them alone
[53:25] to do that. Now instead of having to tax
[53:28] the whole county to benefit them, you
[53:31] tax them.
[53:34] >> So
[53:34] >> and their services don't increase.
[53:37] >> That's going to be the issue.
[53:38] >> Pardon me.
[53:39] >> They are going to see a huge spike in
[53:42] dollars and those in the unincorporated
[53:45] will see absolutely no increase in
[53:47] services for those dollar. Well, the
[53:49] part of the problem with that statement,
[53:51] Dave, is they have been getting services
[53:54] that are equivalent to a city and not
[53:57] paying anywhere near what the cities
[53:59] pay.
[53:59] >> It's been subsidized by Logan. So, when Joanne runs for mayor in a couple
[54:03] years in Logan, she can tout that she
[54:05] lowered the Logan taxes. There's a
[54:07] benefit on the other side, too. Um, I
[54:10] have Can we just review how many taxing
[54:12] entities there are in the county?
[54:14] There's obviously the
[54:15] >> There's 19.
[54:16] >> Okay. And that includes Logan.
[54:18] >> All right. And
[54:19] >> and then the water and then the water
[54:21] district
[54:23] mosquitoes.
[54:24] >> And then some of them have sewer the
[54:26] school and then
[54:28] >> cemeteries. So would they do did they do
[54:31] truth and taxation the same way that
[54:33] this is done
[54:35] >> cuz that that'll help me understand what
[54:37] the process is. So, same thing, fill a
[54:40] report,
[54:42] but not all of them are beholden to the
[54:44] council like the school district isn't
[54:46] where this would be. They'd still have
[54:48] to present it to the council.
[54:50] >> School districts do truth and taxation.
[54:52] Nobody ever comes
[54:53] >> because it's appointed.
[54:56] >> Why don't we want to make it fully
[54:57] elected?
[55:00] » Oh, we should at least ask the question
[55:02] and talk about it, right?
[55:03] >> Back and forth because because so much
[55:05] of the
[55:07] >> We could That's why I'm sitting there.
[55:10] >> That's a big chunk to bite.
[55:16] » A lot of county residents that have not
[55:19] >> city services
[55:21] >> couple conversations, but what what are
[55:23] we actually voting on or potentially
[55:25] voting on tonight?
[55:26] >> Nothing.
[55:27] >> Oh, tonight workshop. Oh, tonight
[55:28] >> no. Tonight we're going to take Logan
[55:30] City out of the mix.
[55:33] >> But we're not deciding if there's 11
[55:35] board members. We can't make decisions
[55:37] here.
[55:37] >> No, no, no, no. That's we will vote on
[55:39] that.
[55:40] >> I I didn't say what would our decision
[55:41] be. I said what's the
[55:43] >> Andrew, I got you covered there. Okay,
[55:45] you guys. Maybe we don't have to worry
[55:48] about
[55:48] >> voucher or any of that. just the
[55:51] >> this is just this was just so that you
[55:52] guys are all aware of the conversations
[55:54] and the the uh direction that we're
[55:58] going and that things have been done so
[56:00] that because I feel bad because at some
[56:02] point some of this comes to us and I
[56:05] want everyone to be educated
[56:06] >> so we can table the discussion of the
[56:09] board composition for another time
[56:10] because if there's one thing I love
[56:11] talking about George you know it's
[56:13] boards and their composition with you
[56:16] >> yes
[56:16] >> but we but yeah I think that merits a
[56:19] discussion of how many, how are they
[56:21] appointed, what's all that stuff.
[56:23] >> Well, and ultimately that's with the
[56:27] board right now.
[56:28] >> The board will make a recommendation.
[56:30] >> So, just one thing, the current
[56:33] interlocal agreement between the county
[56:34] and the fire district, the obligation on
[56:37] the fire district board is to move to an
[56:40] elected and that's why I said that that
[56:41] interlocal needs to because it's been
[56:43] signed by both parties. So, it needs to
[56:45] be looked at. If you don't want to move
[56:47] >> if you don't want if the if they don't
[56:49] want to move towards an elected board.
[56:51] If you don't want
[56:51] >> that is a contrast to what you posted up
[56:53] here is the state code then right.
[56:55] >> So well that's just the current because
[56:57] the current board is an appointed board
[56:59] and that's what they currently are at
[57:01] and they've got four years to move to an
[57:02] elected board under the contract which
[57:04] gives them until May of 2028 to do that.
[57:07] However, I am not sure what I'm not the
[57:09] elected official to tell them what to
[57:10] do. But I thought you said since it
[57:12] never was went back to the fire that it
[57:15] was null and void.
[57:16] >> I'm talking that. So yeah, that's nil
[57:18] about the resolution but not about the
[57:21] contract. The contract is still in place
[57:23] and it needs to be looked at.
[57:26] >> Yeah. You'll have to guide us through
[57:27] that as we go
[57:28] >> as a council like
[57:29] >> because we we made an agreement the the
[57:31] county and fire district made an
[57:33] agreement and at that time that it was
[57:36] saying, "Okay, you guys want to move to
[57:38] an elected board. We're on board with
[57:39] that. we want you to move to elect board
[57:40] so that you because we we thought that
[57:42] it was going in the direction of like
[57:44] the water district the county agreed the
[57:46] fire district agreed and it was executed
[57:49] that agreement is still in place.
[57:51] >> So that's the default thing that's going
[57:52] to happen unless it's altered or is
[57:55] >> so there's there's the interlocal
[57:57] agreement which is essentially the
[57:59] contract but then there's the resolution
[58:00] that was to move towards the elect board
[58:04] which has not been passed. So there's
[58:06] the interlocal agreement which was
[58:08] agreed to by by both parties and is
[58:11] signed by both parties is in effect and
[58:13] that is something that will need to be
[58:15] changed if we're not going towards
[58:18] >> before May of 2028.
[58:21] >> okay
[58:22] >> sorry I just wanted to bring that up if
[58:24] you're talking about board composition
[58:25] because that was agreed to by this body.
[58:28] >> Okay. We probably need to wind down this
[58:30] meeting to get ready for our next
[58:31] meeting. And I know this wasn't a public
[58:33] hearing, but is there anyone in the
[58:35] public that like a twominut question
[58:37] that those of you that are here, did we confuse you more or did you have
[58:41] something burning that you wanted to
[58:43] have clarified?
[58:46] >> Okay,
[58:46] >> good for me.
[58:47] >> All right. Thank you for being here. We
[58:49] appreciate you. And I think
[58:50] >> Well, had a chance to say something.
[58:53] What the man? We were so happy that
[58:55] George is going to get money out of your
[58:57] pocket. We don't dating any
[58:58] >> Oh, that's helpful, Chad. That's really
[59:01] helpful.
[59:02] >> What about the council?
[59:03] >> This is This is also still a proposal.
[59:06] Nothing has been
[59:06] >> Yes. This is a work in progress. I'm
[59:10] sorry.
[59:11] >> Yes.
[59:12] >> Do you want to come up?
[59:14] >> Can you come up?
[59:20] » Yes.
[59:26] Uh, first of all, Mayor Lley from
[59:30] Wellsville would just like to thank
[59:32] George and Kurt for the amount of time
[59:35] and effort that they've put in to this.
[59:38] It's uh even as in a small city like
[59:41] Wellsville, it's become consuming for
[59:44] us. I can't even imagine what it is at
[59:47] their level. At the same time, I I
[59:50] believe we have a couple of entities
[59:52] here that that's involved. We have we as
[59:55] politicians, even though we don't like
[59:57] to be called that, we are, but we also
[1:00:00] have our fire protection people. I'm
[1:00:03] hearing a lot from
[1:00:06] this group. I would be interested to
[1:00:09] really hear what our fire protection
[1:00:13] people need to be successful and to
[1:00:16] protect the citizens of Cash County.
[1:00:23] Two, three weeks ago or three meetings
[1:00:25] ago in Wellsville,
[1:00:27] we proposed to move our mill levy to
[1:00:31] eight mills. We had two ardent tax
[1:00:36] opponents in that meeting and we got
[1:00:39] absolutely zero blowback. Now that would
[1:00:41] change ours I think by four 4.7 uh mills
[1:00:46] something like that.
[1:00:48] I I don't believe that that's
[1:00:50] unreasonable for our citizens to get
[1:00:53] that protection.
[1:00:55] However, as I sit in various meetings,
[1:01:00] I'm concerned that we as mayors are
[1:01:03] still splintered there. I don't know
[1:01:06] what we need to do to uh
[1:01:11] become more united the direction that
[1:01:13] we're going. Very honestly, if if
[1:01:15] Wellsville had the resources that uh
[1:01:18] Smithfield and Hyram has, uh we would be
[1:01:21] in a much different position than than we are. However, uh I just I just
[1:01:27] appreciate the county for what they're
[1:01:29] trying to do, for the clarity that they
[1:01:32] are giving we as mayors, particularly me
[1:01:35] as a new mayor, I certainly appreciate
[1:01:38] that. Uh doesn't matter which direction
[1:01:40] we go, I believe there are going to be
[1:01:42] bumps. There's a steep learning curve,
[1:01:45] but I also believe that we need to
[1:01:48] address those and move forward, but we
[1:01:51] need to do that as an entire group of
[1:01:53] mayors and and council members from the
[1:01:55] county. So, thank you.
[1:01:57] >> Thank you for being here, mayor. We
[1:01:59] appreciate it. And I I think all of us
[1:02:00] feel like public safety is probably one
[1:02:02] of the number one things we do, and this
[1:02:04] is a part of that. We to make sure that
[1:02:06] we provide fire service and that
[1:02:08] everyone's paying adequately and
[1:02:10] receiving adequate service. And that's
[1:02:12] the goal, but it might take a while to
[1:02:14] get there, but that's the process we're
[1:02:16] starting. So, okay, we're going to go
[1:02:18] ahead. I'll take a I don't have to have
[1:02:20] a motion. We're just going to adjourn
[1:02:21] this meeting and we'll be back at five
[1:02:23] o'clock to start our regular meeting.
[1:02:25] Thank you everyone for being here.
[1:02:28] Chief