[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

Cache County Council Workshop Meeting – 05-12-2026

Transcript