[0:00] It's now 3:30. We are excusing um both

[0:03] council members Dave Erickson and Marc

[0:05] Hurd. They're coming after they are able

[0:07] to wrap up a few things that that they

[0:09] have at work.

[0:10] Um and our chair uh Sandy Goodlander is

[0:13] not going to make it today. So, we thank

[0:16] you very much for coming and joining us

[0:18] at our workshop um

[0:20] of the uh council Cash County Council

[0:23] and the Cash Open Space Advisory

[0:25] Committee. And um we welcome uh this

[0:28] chance that we have to speak a little

[0:30] bit uh

[0:31] in more informally and uh

[0:34] hear some of the projects and and the

[0:36] vetting that we've been able to

[0:38] uh receive from you and an update on the

[0:41] program. So, I think I'm going to turn

[0:43] the time over to Chris who's the chair

[0:46] of the COSAC and uh you've got some

[0:49] information for us.

[0:50] >> I do.

[0:51] >> Thank you.

[0:52] >> So, thank you.

[0:55] Um

[0:57] Okay, great.

[0:59] And so, exactly right um

[1:02] Councilwoman um

[1:05] I noticed in going through my notes and

[1:07] stuff that it's been uh 11 months since

[1:10] we got together last. So, it seems like

[1:12] an appropriate time to just kind of

[1:13] touch on on the program, let you know

[1:16] about um some of the things we've been

[1:19] working on,

[1:21] but hopefully spend um the bulk of our

[1:24] time talking about things we feel like

[1:27] we need some guidance from the council

[1:30] on in particular. And so, I'll do a

[1:33] brief overview

[1:35] and um and then um

[1:38] partway through my overview, I'm going

[1:41] to ask if Seneca can come up and show

[1:45] you some of the GIS work associated with

[1:48] some of these projects that's been

[1:49] completed by staff.

[1:51] Um it's a pretty amazing tool that uh we

[1:55] just um brought forth. and um so I'm

[1:59] excited to show you about that. And then

[2:02] we'll spend the remainder of the time,

[2:03] thank you, on

[2:05] um

[2:07] the kind of the questions we have for

[2:09] you guys.

[2:10] Uh I've also invited Jeremy Christiansen

[2:13] uh with UDAF here, as well as Gabe

[2:16] Murray with Bear River Land Conservancy.

[2:20] Um

[2:21] some of the discussion may involve

[2:23] questions that we have for organizations

[2:25] like them. You may want to give them a

[2:28] couple of minutes to chime in on our

[2:29] conversation, that sort of thing. Um I

[2:32] do think most uh because we have an

[2:35] hour, right? Uh we want to leave I want

[2:39] to leave plenty of time for um some

[2:41] discussion. And then I'm also not

[2:44] expecting that you're going to have

[2:46] answers necessarily today, especially

[2:48] without having the full council here, um

[2:51] to some of our questions. So I'm

[2:52] assuming

[2:54] uh you might provide feedback or

[2:57] guidance at a later date.

[2:59] Totally up to you guys, though.

[3:01] Okay? Does that sound okay?

[3:03] >> Yeah.

[3:04] >> All right.

[3:05] Let's see.

[3:08] This way. It's the wheel, right?

[3:09] >> Yes.

[3:12] » Hm?

[3:13] Okay.

[3:15] Yeah, I got to turn it on.

[3:19] Okay. So um

[3:21] the COSAC exists because in November of

[3:27] 2022 uh

[3:29] the citizens were offered an opportunity

[3:32] to vote on an open space bond, which

[3:34] they approved at that time. So we're

[3:37] coming up on the 4-year anniversary in a

[3:40] few more months, later this fall,

[3:42] um since the residents voted um on the

[3:45] bond.

[3:49] Uh in general,

[3:50] uh

[3:51] we uh here's a quick overview of the

[3:54] COSAAC, really.

[3:56] Formed by ordinance in February 2023,

[4:00] you appointed the members, the initial

[4:03] members of COSAAC in April of 2023.

[4:07] We had our first meeting in June 2023.

[4:10] Um our current membership is made up of

[4:13] seven voting members, two ex officio

[4:16] members, and um those who could attend

[4:20] today are here with me, and you can see

[4:21] the list there. I think you guys know

[4:24] most most of our committee.

[4:27] Um

[4:28] and uh we meet generally on the first

[4:32] Monday of uh each month, and if we need

[4:36] to, we also meet on the third. Um and

[4:39] lately we've been meeting twice,

[4:41] sometimes three times a month, because

[4:43] we've had a number of site visits on

[4:45] projects that have come in on

[4:47] applications lately. So, um over that

[4:50] time frame, so that's about 30 months,

[4:53] if you will, uh we've had over 52

[4:56] meetings,

[4:58] and uh we started receiving applications

[5:01] in January of 2024.

[5:04] Okay?

[5:07] Oops, sorry, backwards.

[5:09] Okay, and this is just a graphic that

[5:12] kind of shows our process. In general,

[5:15] if someone's interested, they can come

[5:17] to one of our meetings and have a

[5:19] conversation with us in a

[5:20] pre-application

[5:22] uh type of uh arrangement. Um

[5:26] and we'll we'll give anyone time if they

[5:28] would like to talk about a potential

[5:30] project. Um they have a chance to ask

[5:32] questions, we give them guidance, and if

[5:34] they choose, they can submit an

[5:36] application. So, our application process

[5:39] is broken down into two rounds. The

[5:41] first round is

[5:45] get to know you, and um know about your project, go and do a

[5:51] site visit and score the project. And

[5:54] then we if if the COSAC recommends

[5:56] approval, we bring that to the council

[5:58] and then there's a

[6:00] first round approval process. Then the

[6:02] second round is when the landowner and

[6:05] if they're working with other partners

[6:07] does their due diligence and they come

[6:08] back to us with a price um and an

[6:12] a an arrangement, if you will, um for

[6:15] the program. And then if uh it proceeds

[6:18] forward with approval from COSAC, we

[6:20] would bring that also to the council.

[6:22] So, that's in a nutshell, that is the

[6:25] two-step process. We try to really make

[6:28] it quite easy. And so, in our open space

[6:31] funding application, we're just looking

[6:33] for some basic information, contact

[6:35] information, are you willing to enter an

[6:38] agreement with the county, is the is

[6:40] your property does it have clear title?

[6:43] Um what are the past and present and

[6:46] future uses of the property? And then in

[6:49] particular here, what benefits will the

[6:50] public receive from this? Is it

[6:52] something that protects a scenic vista

[6:54] or gateway?

[6:55] Um does it have important wildlife

[6:57] habitat or waterways, floodplains,

[7:00] wetlands, wildlife habitat, those kinds

[7:02] of things?

[7:03] Um we also ask landowners if they're

[7:05] willing to allow for public access,

[7:07] especially if, you know, according to

[7:09] our uh trails master plan, if there's a

[7:11] trail

[7:13] uh adjacent to or through the property,

[7:15] are they willing to allow for that

[7:17] public access? And then we ask them if

[7:19] they're working with other partner

[7:21] organizations.

[7:23] And uh we get a variety uh and I'll talk

[7:26] about the overall applications that

[7:28] we've received today.

[7:30] But then once somebody for an open space

[7:32] funding submits their application, the

[7:34] COSAC will arrange a site visit with

[7:36] them. We will um go out and um

[7:42] evaluate the project on the ground.

[7:44] Staff prepares detailed report telling

[7:47] us about the particulars of

[7:50] the project. And we come back, we score

[7:53] it, and then we meet and decide if

[7:56] we recommend that it move on to the next

[7:58] round.

[8:00] Similarly, we have a process for trail funding projects.

[8:07] So, this is securing easements for

[8:10] potential trail projects.

[8:12] The application process is very similar.

[8:14] All the criteria is slightly different

[8:16] as you can imagine.

[8:18] And

[8:20] the scoring it's a similar program, but

[8:22] of course we're evaluating

[8:24] different aspects

[8:26] like trail connectivity,

[8:28] funding,

[8:30] is it part of a master plan, so on and

[8:31] so forth.

[8:33] Do you have willing land owners?

[8:35] Those kinds of things.

[8:38] Okay, so

[8:41] this is

[8:44] a a slide I'll I'll spend a little bit

[8:46] of time on because this kind of just

[8:48] tells you

[8:50] what's been happening over the last

[8:53] two and a half years since since we

[8:55] started receiving applications. So,

[8:58] we've had 20 potential projects come

[9:01] before COSAC

[9:04] and they represent over 2,000 acres of

[9:07] land private land in the county. And 19

[9:10] of those projects are open space

[9:12] projects and one of them was a trail

[9:14] project, trail easement project.

[9:16] So, of those 20 potential and and and of

[9:20] course

[9:21] we we don't do a lot of advertising and

[9:23] marketing and that sort of thing.

[9:25] Although, we did do a recent mailer out

[9:27] to

[9:28] some of the gateway land owners which we received great feedback on

[9:32] as far as applications go.

[9:36] We don't do a lot of marketing. So,

[9:38] these are willing landowners who've

[9:40] heard about the program or or spoken

[9:42] with our agency partners or organization

[9:44] partners

[9:45] and um have brought projects into us.

[9:49] So, of those 20 so far, 12 have actually

[9:53] submitted applications.

[9:55] Um

[9:56] 11 were open space and one trail

[9:58] projects.

[9:59] Uh of those 12 so far um because some

[10:04] are still uh in the process, if you

[10:06] will.

[10:08] Nine projects have received round one

[10:11] approval and two projects have received

[10:15] round two approval with fixed dollar

[10:17] amounts associated with them.

[10:20] And so, uh the bond funds

[10:23] uh that those two projects so far

[10:27] represent is 1.8 million as you can see

[10:30] there for 344 acres. Now, um

[10:34] the total bond project

[10:37] is uh the bond amount is $20 million

[10:41] and um

[10:42] the council has also, as you are aware,

[10:45] done a couple of projects of fee title

[10:49] acquisitions where you've purchased the

[10:51] properties. And so, that um last bullet

[10:55] there represents what the council has

[10:57] done um for their portion of the uh of

[11:00] the bond monies so far, 5.9 million and

[11:04] just over 1,000 acres um

[11:06] acquired

[11:08] uh as part of those projects. I didn't

[11:10] include any of the matching funds and

[11:12] those kinds of things, but

[11:14] on the COSAAC funded projects so far,

[11:17] the projects that have received the

[11:20] approvals, they generally are partnered

[11:23] with other funding sources as part of

[11:26] their request or their application.

[11:29] Okay? So, the amount of money that

[11:31] they're asking for us is going to be a

[11:33] portion of the total project amount.

[11:38] And we've the CO Sack has for those

[11:41] projects allocated between 25 and 30% of

[11:44] the project funds.

[11:46] And so we've been able to leverage

[11:50] 60 70 to 75%

[11:52] of those projects.

[11:54] So

[11:55] >> When you say that is it 75% of the value

[11:58] of these one year

[11:59] >> Yes, sir. Correct.

[12:06] Okay.

[12:07] Any questions so far?

[12:11] >> I do have a question. So you have 20

[12:13] potential projects have come which have

[12:15] resulted in 12 applications. So the

[12:18] remaining eight have come to the just

[12:20] conversation phase of

[12:22] >> Three applications.

[12:23] >> Yeah.

[12:23] >> Yep.

[12:24] >> And and

[12:24] >> Most of those and I'll I'll talk about

[12:25] this in a couple of minutes, but most of

[12:28] those are small parcel projects. So less

[12:31] than 50 acres.

[12:33] >> And then

[12:34] >> Six out of eight of those are small parcel projects and they have

[12:39] I would say a unique set of challenges

[12:43] and we'll kind of touch on that in a few

[12:45] minutes.

[12:46] >> Yeah.

[12:48] Okay. Any other questions so far?

[12:51] So if you don't mind what I'd like to do

[12:53] is turn a few minutes over to Seneca if

[12:55] that works for you, Seneca. And

[12:58] have her come up and kind of walk us

[13:00] through some of the GIS mapping so that

[13:03] because we're just these are words.

[13:07] It's fun to see maps and I think the

[13:09] maps tell a story that I'd like to

[13:11] highlight as well.

[13:12] >> Also the graphics have been really good.

[13:14] Are all of the pictures from projects

[13:17] that we've received? They're cool. Are

[13:18] the pictures I guess not graphics but

[13:19] pictures have been cool.

[13:20] >> Yes. Yes. All those pictures are

[13:22] projects.

[13:23] >> has gotten those with his drone?

[13:25] >> The ones from a drone, yes.

[13:27] Except for there is

[13:29] uh a more

[13:31] that's

[13:32] until his drone crashed.

[13:34] >> [laughter]

[13:35] >> RIP drone. Okay, good. It can come back.

[13:39] >> Well, I just have a question.

[13:42] Did you say that the county pays 25% of

[13:45] the funding?

[13:47] >> Say that again.

[13:48] >> How much of that funding comes from the

[13:50] county? Is that 100% or a portion?

[13:53] >> Those dollar amounts are our funding.

[13:56] The actual project values are much

[13:59] higher than that. So, for the 1.8

[14:01] million, if you will, that has

[14:05] our COSAAC [snorts] projects.

[14:07] That

[14:09] 1.8 million represents 25 to 30% of the

[14:13] value. So, you can imagine that the

[14:16] total value of those two projects is in

[14:20] the neighborhood of 6 to 7 million

[14:21] dollars.

[14:22] >> But the funding comes outside of the

[14:24] county, part of it.

[14:26] >> Correct. So, those projects in

[14:28] particular, and I can touch on that as

[14:29] well,

[14:30] have received other federal and state

[14:33] funding as well as land owner donation.

[14:37] >> Thank you.

[14:38] >> You bet.

[14:40] >> Okay.

[14:41] So, Chris asked us

[14:43] to kind of

[14:44] help organize and visualize these

[14:46] projects.

[14:48] We felt like it was a lot to throw at

[14:50] people cuz we felt like maybe not

[14:52] everyone has understood this process.

[14:54] So, we did create a story map, is what

[14:56] we call it. We kind of walk people

[14:58] through what's happening.

[15:00] So, it's just got a little bit about

[15:01] what it is and then we break it down.

[15:03] So, these are all the preliminary

[15:05] applications.

[15:07] And then it goes to like first round,

[15:08] what that means, what's happening. It

[15:10] has the score sheet if they want to know

[15:12] what that looks like.

[15:14] These are the ones in the first round.

[15:16] Then we have the second round.

[15:18] Any of these, if you click on them,

[15:20] it has all the dates when things are

[15:21] passed, any resolutions,

[15:24] and um any money, so what they've

[15:26] donated, what they've got from

[15:27] different funding sources.

[15:29] Their score, and then also is attached

[15:31] the resolutions and whatever they've

[15:33] turned in as their packet, so you can

[15:35] see all that together.

[15:37] It also

[15:39] talks about the ones that the county

[15:40] bought.

[15:42] A little bit of information about that,

[15:43] how that happened.

[15:45] Um talk about the trails with the trail

[15:47] scoring sheet, so people can just kind

[15:49] of walk you through it slowly.

[15:52] The graphic of how all works.

[15:54] And then we have a map where all of them

[15:56] are together and you can zoom in

[15:59] and see existing conservation easements,

[16:01] also.

[16:02] And they also have attachment of

[16:04] whatever those conditions are, whatever

[16:06] the use is, how it is done.

[16:10] We have the completed projects, so you

[16:12] can see the press release and say, "Oh,

[16:14] yeah, we bought it, what can we do with

[16:15] it? Like, can we go access it? How would

[16:17] it all that happen? What are the money

[16:19] like?"

[16:21] We have the funding totals, so that's

[16:23] what has been spent from the coffers,

[16:25] and we have what's been promised in

[16:27] round two, so what's gone through county

[16:28] resolution, what that round two has been

[16:30] promised.

[16:32] We also have um

[16:34] a dashboard. So, as you get more, they

[16:36] get more funding,

[16:38] we can track how many acres are in which

[16:39] phase, and then eventually we'll be able

[16:42] to say like how much are we getting from

[16:43] the

[16:44] We can be able to calculate how much

[16:45] you're getting from the landowner.

[16:47] See how much money's left from your 20

[16:50] million, and also how many acres are

[16:52] totally in conservation.

[16:55] >> So, what that shows right there is

[16:58] um

[16:58] we've documented at least 17,000 acres

[17:01] of existing conservation easements, so

[17:03] that pre-dates the county's program.

[17:07] And so, of course, as we add to that

[17:09] total number, that number will increase,

[17:12] but there's there's been, you know, well

[17:15] over 25 years of conservation easement

[17:19] and conservation programs

[17:22] um

[17:23] for projects in Cache County. And so, we

[17:26] know there's

[17:28] uh a land land ownership uh

[17:33] landowners many landowners in in Cache

[17:36] County that are interested in this type

[17:37] of program.

[17:42] Can you uh click on back back on the map

[17:46] that so we can just kind of pan around a

[17:48] little bit?

[17:50] Uh

[17:51] please.

[17:52] >> Yeah.

[17:54] >> And so, yeah, just maybe zoom in a

[17:56] little bit as we start to see

[18:03] » been approved they've got a lot of

[18:05] different funding mechanisms that are

[18:06] coming in.

[18:09] >> Zoom out just a little bit just so that

[18:11] folks can see. Yeah, I think what's

[18:13] helpful to

[18:15] note those those light blue polygons are

[18:18] all existing easements. Some of them are

[18:22] owned by PacifiCorp, for example,

[18:25] or Division of Wildlife Resources, or

[18:28] um

[18:29] but most of them are are private

[18:31] landowners.

[18:34] And so, this is great because

[18:38] we like to build on those where we can.

[18:41] And so, knowing knowing where other

[18:43] conservation easement projects are

[18:46] >> Adjacent to those, yeah.

[18:47] >> Yeah.

[18:50] So, a great tool that we have now, so

[18:52] thank you, Seneca. Appreciate that.

[18:58] Um

[19:01] Okay.

[19:03] Back to where we left off.

[19:10] Um so, that's kind of an overview of the

[19:13] current projects. This is going to be

[19:15] hard to read. This is kind of a detailed

[19:18] table of those 12 projects that that

[19:21] have made it that far in the in the

[19:23] process and that sort of thing. So, um,

[19:26] this is not really readable. So, I won't

[19:27] spend any time on it, but we have the

[19:29] details if we need to refer to that at

[19:31] all.

[19:34] Um, here here's the kind of the key slide for my presentation today.

[19:40] And these these are items that we're

[19:43] looking for County Council guidance on.

[19:47] And uh, there's I've kind of grouped

[19:49] them into three categories.

[19:51] Um,

[19:52] what's the county's role in open space

[19:54] projects?

[19:56] What are small or are there any really

[20:00] small parcel funding opportunities for

[20:02] the program? And then uh, the question

[20:05] of greenbelt rollback tax.

[20:08] And so, digging in a little bit more,

[20:11] uh, this is how I would phrase each of

[20:14] these. And so, under the county's role

[20:16] in open space projects, you know, right

[20:18] now you're at level one, that first

[20:21] level, fund funding only, right? You're you've you've purchased uh,

[20:26] you've acquired um, a couple of

[20:28] properties, but outside of that, I'm

[20:30] focused on kind of the COSAAC role um,

[20:33] in [laughter] funding. And does the

[20:36] county just want to be involved in

[20:40] funding these projects, being a partner,

[20:42] that sort of thing?

[20:44] Or do you want to go a step further and

[20:48] have staff help facilitate some of these

[20:51] projects? Let's say if there's not a

[20:54] partner available. But the county really

[20:57] likes the project and wants to see it

[20:59] move forward. How do we

[21:02] make that happen? Do we um,

[21:05] hire out those services, do we try to

[21:09] have in-house staff

[21:12] um provide those due diligence, if you

[21:15] will, tasks, those kinds of things. That

[21:17] that's an option. Some programs have

[21:19] that level of involvement. And then the

[21:22] third level of involvement is the county

[21:24] want to be an easement holder. And so,

[21:27] what that means is once you take on that

[21:29] responsibility, then that means in

[21:31] perpetuity you're going to in have those

[21:34] investments in monitoring and protecting

[21:38] um the easement itself. And so, do you

[21:41] want to go to that level? So, and and

[21:43] your answer may be no to

[21:45] all of those. We're happy to stay at at

[21:47] level one.

[21:48] But, I think we're going to have

[21:51] projects that

[21:53] are going to get stalled

[21:55] if we

[21:57] if they don't fit into a different

[21:58] category. So, something to think about.

[22:02] As far as the small parcel funding

[22:04] opportunities,

[22:06] um as as mentioned earlier, we've got um

[22:09] seven projects so far that are

[22:12] um

[22:13] six of those are in the pre-application

[22:15] phase. One of those we approved for

[22:17] around one funding, but it was unique as

[22:19] it's a long one of our gateway

[22:22] um

[22:22] areas um at the mouth of Sardine Canyon.

[22:26] Um the rest of them are within

[22:29] communities. They generally are um

[22:33] parcels of land that are within North

[22:35] Logan or Smithfield or that sort of

[22:38] thing.

[22:39] Or Hyde Park. And um

[22:42] they're not going to attract other

[22:45] funding sources, likely. So,

[22:49] should we um

[22:52] say no to all of those projects, or is

[22:55] there some value there worth looking at

[22:57] that we should consider pursuing? I

[23:01] think the the risk there is if we're not

[23:03] going to find other funding sources,

[23:06] either that difference in what you may

[23:09] spend on a a a project that's attracting

[23:13] other funding sources

[23:14] um is going to have to be made up by

[23:17] additional funding or

[23:20] um larger landowner donation or both,

[23:23] obviously. But

[23:24] >> They're going to have a higher value if

[23:26] they're located in North Logan.

[23:29] >> on a commercial

[23:30] >> to a commercial. Yeah.

[23:31] >> basis.

[23:31] >> Yeah.

[23:32] >> kind of thing. So, but

[23:34] the you know, and and um

[23:37] not every one of those is going to be

[23:39] worthy, you know, of your support. But some may be, and I think we're we've

[23:44] we're starting to see enough of those

[23:45] like

[23:46] we want to know

[23:48] from I think the council how interested

[23:51] you are in in looking at those because I

[23:53] think we can continue to process them

[23:55] and bring them to you the format of

[23:58] funding and that sort of thing and uh

[24:00] potential easement holder so on and so

[24:03] forth may be different than what we've

[24:05] been doing.

[24:06] And then is there a role for the

[24:10] greenbelt rollback taxes um for small

[24:14] parcel projects or something like that

[24:16] is a question we have for you guys and

[24:19] um worth worth exploring.

[24:22] And then okay, and detailed the last

[24:23] section there, greenbelt rollback tax.

[24:26] Is Is there a role for COSAAC in project

[24:30] selection, for example? Um the council,

[24:33] of course, can choose to um

[24:38] look at and accept applications or

[24:41] pursue projects outside of COSAAC,

[24:44] obviously. For for greenbelt rollback

[24:46] tax funding, you could also

[24:49] um funnel those projects through our

[24:52] application process.

[24:54] Um

[24:56] Do you

[24:58] Can't can and then therefore if if if

[25:02] you want us to participate

[25:05] uh can we use that as a source to fund

[25:08] projects or even if you don't want us to

[25:10] participate? Um is that There's a potential for a project that

[25:16] comes through our door that we're really

[25:17] interested in that scores high but

[25:21] somehow can't get that

[25:24] bigger federal funding for example.

[25:27] Um say

[25:28] uh there's an

[25:30] the NRCS is going to value farmland

[25:34] that's prime farmland irrigated. We have

[25:36] a lot of great dry land farm projects.

[25:40] So they're not going to attract that

[25:42] federal funding or less likely to

[25:43] attract that federal funding.

[25:45] So um

[25:47] in that case can greenbelt rollback tax

[25:50] be added to the bond funds, you know,

[25:52] for a bigger combined total amount?

[25:55] So I'm just sort of

[25:57] throwing out scenarios that I can see

[25:59] happening or coming now [snorts] that

[26:01] we've

[26:02] had this program and we've we've seen 20

[26:05] projects come through the the door and

[26:07] then

[26:08] uh lastly if you choose to

[26:13] use the greenbelt rollback tax funding

[26:15] mechanism

[26:17] what are the funding scenarios that that

[26:19] may make sense? Are those projects that

[26:21] we're still going to try to leverage

[26:23] with other funding sources?

[26:25] Or

[26:26] are those projects we're going to say

[26:28] this project is great, it's small

[26:32] um

[26:34] and it's important

[26:36] and we're going to

[26:38] spend

[26:40] 100% on that particular project.

[26:44] >> Chris, on on using greenbelt rollback

[26:48] >> Yes.

[26:48] >> Do you capitalize it, make projection of

[26:52] what you're going to have, and then

[26:53] capitalize it to create

[26:56] that amount of money in that category.

[26:58] Is that how you do it?

[26:59] >> Great question. I I don't know. Um I

[27:02] think and and that may be a question

[27:05] that Jeremy could answer since he's

[27:08] going all over the state and talking to

[27:10] counties and how they want to use that

[27:12] tax. So, maybe that's a better question

[27:15] for him to answer because at this point

[27:18] I say whatever you however you want to

[27:21] organize it is okay with me, but

[27:24] do you have thoughts?

[27:25] >> I I

[27:27] like you said, we've been going around

[27:28] and and talking to a bunch of different

[27:30] counties and trying to understand how

[27:31] they are planning to utilize the

[27:34] rollback taxes and as you could kind of

[27:37] guess, they're all over the place on how

[27:39] they want to do it, and I think

[27:41] >> How much does that amount to? How much

[27:43] in cash flow a year do we get out of it?

[27:46] >> Varies.

[27:48] Last year was what? Seven? What did

[27:50] Craig tell us?

[27:51] I mean, it's it varies depending on how

[27:53] much

[27:53] >> Right.

[27:54] >> But

[27:54] >> We've We've done a look back. I know. Um

[27:58] I think I'm going to say over the last

[27:59] 10 years or something like that, and the

[28:01] average was a million dollars. So, it's

[28:03] some some years it's been more.

[28:05] >> I think last year Craig told us was 700

[28:07] something thousand.

[28:08] >> Okay, so

[28:09] >> It's a significant amount.

[28:11] >> What do we do with the money now?

[28:14] We do

[28:14] >> It's a new program. So, 2025 is the

[28:17] first

[28:17] >> but before that, did we it came into our

[28:20] general fund, right?

[28:25] Who says we can do without it?

[28:32] » True.

[28:33] >> Right?

[28:33] >> [laughter]

[28:34] >> That's beyond

[28:35] uh COG.

[28:38] >> It's new legislation that is passed and

[28:41] >> I don't know if it's shall or

[28:44] >> May?

[28:45] I don't know the verbage of the Do

[28:48] you just

[28:48] >> It is required that the counties take

[28:51] 100% of the rollback taxes collected and

[28:54] they maintain those in a separate

[28:56] account at the county

[28:58] for

[29:00] land conservation type projects.

[29:02] >> Jeremy, do you mind I'm sorry. We are

[29:04] informal, but do you mind coming to the

[29:05] microphone?

[29:06] >> Not at all.

[29:07] >> Just so that we can make sure that

[29:08] everyone that may be viewing remotely

[29:11] can hear you.

[29:12] >> Of course. Um so, House Bill 237 was

[29:15] passed two sessions ago.

[29:17] Um

[29:18] the session before that they had passed

[29:20] some amendments to the rollback taxes

[29:22] where uh a portion went to uh was to be

[29:26] set aside for these types of projects.

[29:28] And then two sessions ago they passed

[29:30] House Bill 237, which amended that to

[29:33] say 100% of the rollback taxes will be

[29:36] set aside for land conservation. Uh they

[29:39] kind of define it fairly broadly. The

[29:41] statute gives the county pretty wide

[29:44] discretion on how they interpret that.

[29:47] >> land conservation?

[29:48] >> Exactly. And so, it talks about

[29:50] conservation easements, but it also

[29:51] talks about similar methods for

[29:55] protecting land and they just kind of

[29:56] leave it open at that. And so, other

[29:58] counties are interpreting that in

[30:01] different ways, but that money gets set

[30:02] aside at the county. It It hopefully

[30:05] gets spent at the county, but there is a

[30:07] mechanism that after 10 years any money

[30:11] that is collected that is unspent would

[30:13] then get directed to the LeRay

[30:15] McAllister fund to be spent anywhere in

[30:18] the state. Um but as the program manager

[30:21] for LeRay McAllister,

[30:23] our desire is that we would never see a

[30:26] dollar of that. We want to help empower

[30:29] the counties to be able to spend that

[30:32] locally on projects because we have a

[30:35] source of matching funds that we would

[30:37] love to be able to leverage with those

[30:40] county rollback taxes for these types of

[30:42] projects.

[30:43] Um so, we would very much like to to

[30:45] help spend, you know, help the counties

[30:48] spend those dollars locally.

[30:52] >> What's your funds availability that you

[30:53] have typically in the LeRay McAllister

[30:55] fund?

[30:56] >> So, the fund's been around since the

[30:57] late '90s. We never had a permanent

[30:59] appropriation until about 4 years ago

[31:01] when we received a million dollars a

[31:03] year, and that's for the entire state,

[31:06] which is

[31:07] >> Not much.

[31:08] And then just last session we

[31:10] actually took a 15% haircut. So, now

[31:13] we're at $850,000

[31:15] a year for our statewide, which again,

[31:18] highlights the importance of figuring

[31:20] out how to put these other matching

[31:22] funding sources into play.

[31:27] » You're the whole state

[31:30] from the McAllister fund.

[31:31] >> $850,000.

[31:34] >> Cache County is somewhere between 700

[31:36] and a million a year.

[31:37] >> Correct.

[31:38] >> Cache County.

[31:39] >> Correct.

[31:41] >> That represents about 5% of our tax

[31:43] base.

[31:47] I mean, are we

[31:48] in the top five in the state in terms of

[31:51] >> So, just to make sure I'm uh uh

[31:54] interpreting that correctly, the the

[31:56] LeRay McAllister fund is just an

[31:58] appropriation from the general fund at

[32:00] the state. It doesn't come

[32:02] >> No, I'm not talking about that. I'm

[32:03] talking about this rollback money.

[32:05] >> Yes.

[32:06] >> We must be near the top

[32:08] >> Oh, I would think so. Yeah, I would

[32:10] think so. We don't have a real clear

[32:12] accounting statewide yet because this is

[32:14] new and the counties have not don't have

[32:17] a standardized way to account for and

[32:20] report. So, we don't have a real clear

[32:22] picture across the state, but I would I

[32:25] would wager that that you guys are up

[32:28] there in the

[32:29] one of the top, you know, collecting

[32:31] counties.

[32:33] Well, exactly, right.

[32:36] >> And then total conservation, I would

[32:38] say, too. in total conservation, I would

[32:41] say too.

[32:42] >> I mean, that's I mean, if you're getting

[32:44] a million dollars a year,

[32:46] capitalized that's that's another

[32:50] that almost doubles that are open space

[32:52] money.

[32:53] Because we put 20 million in.

[32:56] >> That's right.

[32:58] >> And

[32:59] can we use it to [laughter] pay the open

[33:02] space fund?

[33:04] >> That would be a question for your county

[33:06] attorney.

[33:06] >> That sounds like a creative banker right

[33:08] there. Uh Nolan, you had a comment.

[33:11] >> Well, I'm just saying because this is

[33:13] green belt, so that's farm ground taken

[33:15] out.

[33:15] >> Right.

[33:16] >> Are some of the counties saying, "Okay,

[33:18] we're going to focus that going back to

[33:20] preserving farm ground or agriculture

[33:22] land?"

[33:22] >> Most of the counties are taking that

[33:23] approach, you know, I mean, this was

[33:25] really designed

[33:26] >> in the same category.

[33:27] >> Exactly. I mean, this was designed at

[33:29] the legislature to be kind of a closed

[33:31] loop, you know, this opportunity comes

[33:34] because, like you said, farm ground is

[33:36] being developed, taken out of farming,

[33:38] that creates this funding, which then

[33:41] was intended to go back and be

[33:44] um invested in farmland protection.

[33:48] Permanent, but not wanting to hamstring

[33:52] the counties unnecessarily, the statute

[33:54] does give some some

[33:56] discretion. Um so, it it's not quite

[33:59] that specific in the statute, but

[34:01] >> Um Jeremy, I'm going to rely on you for

[34:04] the first three bullet points there.

[34:06] >> Yeah.

[34:07] >> As you've traveled and and

[34:09] I don't know if there are similar

[34:11] programs throughout the state. Have you

[34:14] seen best practices

[34:16] um regarding those?

[34:17] >> So, in anticipating meeting with with

[34:20] Cash and with my experience in in the CO

[34:22] SAC program, I think Cash is probably

[34:25] one of the more further along counties,

[34:28] you know, you've passed the open space

[34:30] bond, you have this whole process stood

[34:32] up. You guys have putting these projects

[34:34] together. And so, I think for you guys

[34:36] to integrate some of the

[34:39] rollback tax spending into this existing

[34:42] framework makes a lot of sense. And

[34:44] that's kind of what I would anticipate

[34:47] seeing. Um it doesn't make sense to me

[34:49] to say, "Well, let's stand up a whole

[34:52] duplicative process over here for

[34:54] Greenbelt, and then we've got this for

[34:55] Cossack." That being said, you know, the

[34:57] county doesn't necessarily have to say

[34:59] we have to spend all of our rollback tax

[35:02] money on Cossack projects. I think the

[35:05] county could take a broader look at what

[35:08] types of projects they want to spend,

[35:10] but they would say, "Hey, this is meant

[35:12] to be kind of a closed loop, you know?"

[35:15] And that gets to do we project and

[35:17] capitalize how much we're going to

[35:18] spend, and we say a portion of that

[35:20] needs to go to agricultural projects,

[35:22] and then a portion can be discretionary

[35:24] for other types of projects.

[35:27] >> But

[35:27] my question is

[35:30] this this money, and I'm talking about

[35:33] Greenbelt

[35:34] >> Yeah.

[35:34] >> and then some of then Cossack,

[35:37] could be focused on trying to keep

[35:40] farmland productive,

[35:42] but

[35:44] we have land that we want to preserve

[35:46] that

[35:47] frankly is lousy farm ground.

[35:49] >> Mhm.

[35:50] >> And it it we can buy more vistas on

[35:53] cheap land

[35:54] >> Right.

[35:55] >> than fancy land.

[35:56] >> True.

[35:56] >> The other thing I wonder is

[35:59] does buying sellable land count as open

[36:03] space?

[36:04] >> Not typically, but I guess

[36:07] Well, because it's not I mean, it's it's

[36:10] intended to be utilized in a way that

[36:13] would probably preclude it long-term

[36:15] from remaining as open space cuz at some

[36:18] point it's going to get sold for

[36:21] development or some other beneficial

[36:23] use.

[36:24] >> What I mean is instead of selling

[36:26] sellable land to the developer, we come

[36:29] in with Cossack funds and buy several

[36:31] land.

[36:31] >> Potentially, yeah.

[36:34] Potentially.

[36:34] >> Yeah, there's there's no One of the

[36:36] problems with several is they're going

[36:38] to

[36:39] want us to get in

[36:40] by fee title, which wouldn't give us

[36:42] much bang for our dollar.

[36:45] >> And then saddles the county with all the

[36:48] requirements of owning and stewarding

[36:50] that land if you own it in fee versus

[36:53] with an easement, the land stays in

[36:55] private ownership, stays on the tax

[36:57] rolls as as privately owned, but the the

[37:00] county now has a

[37:02] uh

[37:02] use restriction interest that they've

[37:05] purchased or paid for that they can

[37:07] enforce

[37:08] to really to make sure that it's used in

[37:11] the way that it was intended to.

[37:15] » One of the things about the green belt

[37:18] is

[37:18] when we put Cossack money on it, we

[37:22] pretty much

[37:24] preserve that land in green belt status

[37:27] in terms of our property taxes.

[37:29] >> Correct.

[37:30] >> Long term.

[37:31] >> Correct.

[37:32] Yeah, and so I mean I think for the

[37:34] county it makes a lot of sense to look

[37:35] at this not just as a conservation tool,

[37:38] but also kind of a long-term land use

[37:40] planning tool cuz like you said, it

[37:42] stabilizes things and so you know, okay,

[37:45] this area we're not going to have to

[37:46] spend a whole bunch of money to put new

[37:49] utilities and new services out to

[37:51] because that area is we know is going to

[37:53] be maintained as agriculture. So, I

[37:56] think it is useful as a

[37:57] >> flip side of that, Mr. Executive, the

[38:00] reason you're getting rollback taxes is

[38:02] now that farm ground is giving you tax

[38:05] revenue cuz it's out of that part. So,

[38:08] >> There are

[38:09] >> There's two sides to it.

[38:10] >> Exactly. And that's where we're really

[38:12] trying to look for those opportunity

[38:13] zones of, you know,

[38:16] areas that are not so far gone where

[38:18] they're completely hemmed in by

[38:19] development, but areas where if we go in

[38:22] now and invest we can kind of change the pattern or or

[38:27] >> Well, there's

[38:28] the reality in our own valley now is

[38:31] there is no virtually no land that is

[38:33] for sale that is agricultural land.

[38:36] >> Right, exactly.

[38:40] >> It's not there anymore, so

[38:42] >> Well, mine is.

[38:44] >> What?

[38:44] >> Quiet.

[38:46] >> For sale at ag value?

[38:47] >> At ag value?

[38:48] >> value?

[38:49] >> But I'm only selling it to

[38:50] >> my kids.

[38:52] >> Limited buyer pool.

[38:53] >> [laughter]

[38:55] >> So, today there isn't any land that you

[38:58] can buy for a dime.

[38:59] >> Every everything has speculative value now, everything.

[39:03] >> And that's where the easements um play

[39:06] another role in the long-term

[39:08] agricultural viability because once you

[39:11] extinguish the development pressure,

[39:13] you've taken away the main driver of

[39:14] value in the market. So, then those

[39:17] properties can then change hands at a

[39:18] later date at the ag value, and then

[39:21] you've got an opportunity for a young

[39:24] farmer who wants to start in the

[39:26] business, and they've actually got a

[39:28] piece of property that they could buy

[39:30] and pay off the note by farming, which

[39:32] is not the case with a single piece of

[39:34] real estate anywhere in the state at

[39:36] this point in time, so.

[39:41] » Um I have a question regarding the

[39:44] federal funding. Have we seen that it's

[39:48] becoming less available or what's the

[39:50] trend with the current administration?

[39:52] >> So, um we've kind of been through the

[39:54] ringer over the last year or two as you

[39:56] can imagine. Uh there's a lot of

[39:57] uncertainty. There's still a lot of

[39:58] uncertainty. Um but it seems kind of

[40:02] like if you can follow the shells

[40:04] around, you know, a lot of that money

[40:06] that was put into programs like the

[40:08] Inflation Reduction Act and things like

[40:11] that under the previous administration

[40:12] have been pulled back, but then have kind of promised into back into

[40:17] these conservation programs like the

[40:19] agricultural conservation easement

[40:21] program and the regional conservation

[40:23] partnership programs through NRCS. So,

[40:25] it seems like that money should still be

[40:27] available, but a lot of what has

[40:29] happened also is that they've pulled

[40:31] back the control over those funds from

[40:33] the state level staff and decision

[40:35] makers and back to the national level.

[40:38] And so, it's a little bit more of kind

[40:39] of a black box where we just don't have

[40:42] know what's going to be coming. And so,

[40:44] you know, like recently they did a an

[40:46] announcement for funding for the state

[40:48] and they actually had less applications

[40:51] than they kind of anticipated. So, they

[40:53] had to, you know, um release another pot

[40:57] of of money which they're considering

[40:59] now. So, it's just kind of been a little

[41:01] uncertain.

[41:02] >> Cuz we have two pending, if I remember

[41:04] and Chris, we have one with the USDA in

[41:07] the north, right? That that was a

[41:09] matching funds. Yeah, the Harris and

[41:10] then we have in the south. That one is

[41:13] the NRCS.

[41:14] >> Elkhorn, that one received all of its

[41:16] funding and they're working through due

[41:18] diligence now.

[41:19] >> Okay.

[41:21] >> You know, I

[41:22] in the schedule

[41:25] >> And Chris, I'm sorry. Can you stand to

[41:26] the microphone? I'm sorry. We're trying

[41:28] to just make sure that anybody that

[41:30] >> For for Elkhorn in the overall graphic of the from

[41:34] beginning to end, I want to say it's

[41:36] near the end, but I can't say how long

[41:38] that's going to be.

[41:39] >> Jinx anything.

[41:40] >> get held up on little technical things

[41:43] and then

[41:44] >> That's right.

[41:44] >> five different have to sign it. You

[41:46] know, when you when you bring in

[41:47] partners on project, then everybody gets

[41:51] a chance to review and approve. And

[41:53] everybody's going to want things a

[41:55] little bit different. And that includes

[41:56] the county, right? You're a partner. Um

[41:59] NRCS, the state, they all want to have

[42:02] their two cents worth on the project and

[42:05] will get to sign off on it. It just

[42:06] makes things take longer.

[42:08] >> But But they've been the main Federally,

[42:11] that's been the biggest hiccup.

[42:12] >> the slow down, right? Cuz I think

[42:14] there's some efficiency

[42:16] with all the others.

[42:17] >> Yeah, we've been trying to reduce red

[42:19] tape and

[42:20] >> I that that has been the the hiccup and

[42:23] the push the you know, next next next

[42:26] >> Yeah.

[42:26] >> deadlines go on and on. But it's

[42:29] interesting how they've not only just

[42:30] affected

[42:32] these kind of projects, but

[42:34] you know, there's participations in a

[42:36] whole bunch of other projects that have

[42:37] been promised and they've just

[42:40] pushed them out to where there's been a

[42:41] lot of other people lose

[42:43] opportunities to, you know, for to

[42:46] extend dollars within this state because

[42:48] of

[42:49] promised participation that just hasn't

[42:51] come.

[42:51] >> Yeah.

[42:52] >> So.

[42:53] addressing these questions cuz we

[42:55] don't have a lot of time that Chris has.

[42:58] Um, I'd love to open discussion to the

[43:01] COSEC committee to give some of your

[43:02] thoughts um

[43:05] about some of the smaller parcels. I

[43:06] would you've been receiving these

[43:08] applications and some of the merits of

[43:11] the the smaller parcels.

[43:13] Um

[43:14] >> I have a comment.

[43:15] >> Yeah, Reagan.

[43:16] >> They won't fly unless the county gets in

[43:17] the game a long ways.

[43:20] Feds will never come in there and take

[43:21] 20 acres in North Logan, Utah. And the

[43:23] value problem

[43:25] the family isn't willing to

[43:26] >> Will you turn on your microphone? Just

[43:30] Maybe? Yeah, perfect. Thanks.

[43:32] >> The the families, I think have to

[43:34] realize in order to get those some of

[43:36] those values of North Logan.

[43:38] >> Yeah.

[43:39] >> The family has got to step forward and

[43:41] the county. I don't think you'll see

[43:43] That's the only way you're going to get

[43:44] 20 acres in North Logan.

[43:46] >> Yeah.

[43:47] >> You're not going to get it through NRCS.

[43:49] And and when you get NRCS involved,

[43:51] that's 50% of the funding.

[43:54] But it hasn't showed up.

[43:56] And it'll never I say it'll never show

[43:57] up in North Logan, Utah.

[43:58] >> And do you think that North Logan, I

[44:01] mean, just as an example, North Logan

[44:03] would have any interest in in

[44:05] participating as a municipality as well?

[44:07] >> They they could. Yeah. If it's

[44:09] >> That's a maybe, yeah.

[44:10] >> Yeah, I mean I think

[44:11] >> I think if we're doing anything inside

[44:12] [clears throat] a municipality,

[44:13] depending on what we do, that there

[44:15] ought to be some municipality

[44:17] focus on that and participation.

[44:19] >> Yeah.

[44:19] >> Depending on the parcel and where it

[44:21] fits in the city.

[44:22] >> Right.

[44:23] But alternatively, they could say that

[44:25] is not what we want. You know, we have

[44:27] plans for that area and so you could it

[44:31] could get pushed back.

[44:32] >> Mostly it's families who have had that

[44:35] property two or three generations,

[44:37] elderly people.

[44:39] Uh

[44:40] >> A legacy.

[44:41] >> If if they don't get it before they die,

[44:42] the kids will have it on the market the

[44:43] next day.

[44:44] >> Yeah, they want a legacy.

[44:46] >> Yeah.

[44:47] >> But if you ask all the residents, you

[44:50] know, in that area, of course they would

[44:51] love to

[44:52] >> They love looking at 20 acres of open

[44:54] >> They they do. They do. Now,

[44:56] um

[44:58] that's that's one kind of small parcel

[45:00] example. Another kind of example is

[45:03] similar to the one that we'll be talking

[45:06] about tonight, where it's it's only 5

[45:08] acres, right? It's really small, but it

[45:11] happens to abut uh county owned

[45:14] property. And um it's also part of um a

[45:19] trail corridor, um has a lot of uh other

[45:24] values, non-farmland values, for

[45:26] example. And so

[45:28] >> That was going to

[45:29] >> How do we make those work?

[45:31] >> But my input there

[45:33] is that there are I believe that there

[45:35] will be significantly important smaller

[45:38] parcels that will present to the council

[45:41] from time to time.

[45:42] That one in particular,

[45:44] >> [snorts]

[45:44] >> um

[45:46] I scored a little bit higher because it

[45:48] does abut

[45:50] county owned land, and I know that it's

[45:53] a priority of uh the state, and Landis

[45:57] is all over this with the Bonneville

[45:59] Shoreline Trail.

[46:01] >> For continuation of the trail. Yeah.

[46:03] >> going to happen with small parcels that

[46:06] may not score in an overwhelmingly

[46:10] high way.

[46:12] Uh may not be involved with agriculture

[46:14] or wetlands. But it's a it's a very

[46:18] important connectivity piece.

[46:22] Uh and I hope that we can I I know

[46:24] there's part of our scoring process,

[46:26] too, where we can

[46:28] add extra points for those these types

[46:32] of reasons. So, we figure that out in

[46:34] our scoring.

[46:35] >> You have the verbiage of the bond?

[46:37] >> Yeah, it's on that first slide. Let me

[46:39] flip to it.

[46:39] >> Does it does mention trails?

[46:41] >> It does. Trails is one of the seven

[46:43] >> uses, right? I did I thought so. Yeah.

[46:46] >> Yeah.

[46:47] >> So,

[46:48] that was presented to the taxpayers when

[46:50] they voted for it. Okay.

[46:51] >> And that's this is my personal

[46:52] background, so that's why I'm

[46:54] >> This is not

[46:56] >> a quote, but it's pretty close.

[46:58] >> Purchasing land, conservation easements,

[46:59] and other interests in land from willing

[47:00] landowners in order to protect scenic

[47:02] vistas, preserve open lands near valley

[47:04] gateways, add trails and trail

[47:05] connectivity. Maintaining our cultural

[47:07] waterways and wildlife habitat.

[47:09] So, yeah.

[47:10] >> Yeah.

[47:11] >> That's all within the

[47:12] intent.

[47:13] >> Yeah.

[47:13] >> Of the bond.

[47:14] >> Yeah. We have some other prospective

[47:16] applicants that I've spoken with

[47:19] who own parcels where they just, you

[47:22] know, they're they love trails, and

[47:24] these trails may not have any connection

[47:27] to a master trail plan, but they would

[47:30] like to preserve this uh area and allow for trails to be

[47:36] built within that area.

[47:39] So,

[47:40] uh

[47:41] anyway, hopeful that you guys will

[47:43] continue to just kind of understand that

[47:47] smaller parcels may have big value.

[47:52] » I think

[47:54] if my opinion, and everyone can weigh

[47:56] in, I

[47:58] Granted, I think smaller parcels are

[48:00] going to have more developmental

[48:03] pressure, so that they will require

[48:05] larger dollar amount. So, if we're

[48:08] willing to work with the landowner for

[48:10] the donation piece, I I still can see

[48:13] value in smaller parcels. And, you know,

[48:17] it's it's a going to be case-by-case,

[48:18] but all of this has been case-by-case.

[48:20] So, I see that there can be value and it's not like we have oodles of

[48:24] applications coming in.

[48:26] >> And a municipality

[48:28] contribution.

[48:29] >> Yeah, that would

[48:30] >> Some of these could be a nice park in

[48:32] the city.

[48:37] » I was just going to say

[48:38] that some of the properties they get

[48:41] landlocked.

[48:42] >> Mhm.

[48:42] >> You have a piece of like 20 acres that's

[48:44] landlocked, well, now how do you get a

[48:45] piece of equipment in there to work that

[48:47] ground? And so, then that's the other

[48:49] consideration is once you

[48:51] have a island within a a sea of houses,

[48:54] how do I get large equipment in to

[48:56] operate that? And that's

[48:57] one of the things I get hit with a lot.

[48:59] It's like

[49:00] do you know somebody has a How How do I

[49:02] get this bailed? How do I get this cut?

[49:04] Well, how do I bring a 30-ft

[49:06] >> Yeah.

[49:06] >> for 20 acres is really hard, too. So,

[49:09] you got to be careful of what It's not

[49:11] going to be ag anymore. It's going to be

[49:13] vistas and other things that you're

[49:14] going to be protecting on those small

[49:15] acreages because there's no return for

[49:18] the family we're sitting on that.

[49:20] >> Yeah.

[49:21] So.

[49:22] Those are challenges.

[49:24] >> Um

[49:25] I will say that um

[49:28] I think we'll have our third project for

[49:31] round two funding come in pretty soon.

[49:34] Jeremy let me know about that uh the

[49:37] Silva project, which is over the one

[49:40] over in Trenton, um received the NRCS

[49:43] funding.

[49:44] And so, Jeremy's working on the LeRay

[49:47] McAllister funding portion of it, but

[49:49] that'll be coming

[49:51] to us for a round two approval, I think,

[49:54] in the near future.

[50:04] » I think this observation

[50:06] while

[50:07] I I'm not critical of the

[50:10] e-title purchases we made.

[50:14] Our dollars don't go very far when we do

[50:17] that.

[50:17] >> Yeah.

[50:18] >> And

[50:19] if if we can

[50:21] find larger tracts to buy development

[50:26] rights off those lands, we'll get a

[50:28] bigger bang out of our dollars.

[50:30] >> Mhm.

[50:31] >> I think that for a number of reasons the

[50:36] our Wellsville project makes a lot of

[50:39] sense because it's also a network into

[50:41] trails and things like that with

[50:44] virtually no added value up there. It's

[50:48] >> That's open space for vistas and

[50:52] >> Um

[50:53] >> Well, and and it was a huge protection

[50:55] zone

[50:56] >> Mhm.

[50:57] >> for watershed.

[50:58] >> Yeah, that

[50:58] >> That as well.

[50:59] >> And that partnership with Wellsville was

[51:02] That was huge.

[51:03] for them, too, cuz they wouldn't

[51:05] have been able to themselves.

[51:07] >> being critical, I look at the Shoop purchase

[51:11] and and a lot of money there. It is a

[51:16] connection with the

[51:18] uh

[51:20] Burlington Trail.

[51:21] But

[51:22] um

[51:24] we we just spent a lot of money on that

[51:26] project to get ownership of it.

[51:29] >> And and there's and there's talks

[51:32] I know some government entities that

[51:34] want to come in and actually utilize a

[51:37] big chunk of that. We'll take a and then

[51:40] those returning dollars would come back

[51:41] into this

[51:42] project.

[51:43] >> kind of what I'm thinking is the

[51:45] conservation on it is but then sell it

[51:48] back and get the money back out.

[51:51] All all options for us, yes.

[51:53] >> Yeah, it it is.

[51:54] >> Yeah, I

[51:55] >> There's a There's some critical area

[51:57] down down below that I think was

[51:59] necessary,

[52:01] but as far as the rest of it, I think

[52:03] there's a There's some huge wildlife

[52:05] uh area up there which I know I've I've

[52:09] been contacted by the state

[52:11] about just somehow meshing in with their

[52:14] property.

[52:15] >> Yeah, those two are really good showcase

[52:17] pieces for what we can do,

[52:20] but

[52:21] timing meant we had to do in a certain

[52:24] way that may not have been the most

[52:26] financially appeasing way, but it got

[52:29] the job done.

[52:31] >> It It is something if we have a

[52:33] continual flow into our

[52:36] open space fund of a million dollars a

[52:39] year, that gives us

[52:41] I mean, I've I've looked at that 20

[52:42] million that

[52:43] that's not going to go very far, and

[52:45] we're going to be out, but if we have a

[52:47] million dollars a year flowing, and that

[52:49] actually should increase because

[52:52] of the development

[52:54] >> land values and

[52:56] >> So, that that's good news.

[53:00] >> Yeah, I'm I'm actually quite surprised

[53:02] how far it will go.

[53:04] >> Yeah.

[53:04] >> 20 million is is one of those with you

[53:07] with participation

[53:09] with the buy-ins and everybody,

[53:11] you can turn 20 million, you know, into

[53:13] 60 70 million with participation and

[53:16] things that

[53:17] >> Yeah.

[53:17] >> Which that can have a dent. That's how

[53:20] I've I've I've looked at that. That's

[53:22] We need to look at That's the bigger

[53:23] picture.

[53:24] >> to be very judicious about when we put

[53:26] the money into a project if we're buying

[53:29] fee simple.

[53:30] Because we really don't want to have fee

[53:33] simple in the end.

[53:34] What we really want is is the land to be used productively,

[53:40] but keep it open in one way or the

[53:43] other.

[53:43] >> [clears throat and cough]

[53:45] >> I know we've had that conversation,

[53:46] George. I'm I'm a big fan of if we can

[53:49] on those projects put an easement on

[53:51] them and turn around and sell them. Not necessarily both of them, but uh the

[53:55] shoot property in particular.

[53:57] >> I want to pitch something else to you,

[53:59] Chris. I really feel like

[54:01] we need to improve

[54:04] our trail systems in the valley.

[54:07] I go to other places to visit like Sun

[54:10] Valley.

[54:11] >> Yes.

[54:12] >> And one of the real attractions of going

[54:14] to Sun Valley is the trail network they

[54:16] have up there.

[54:17] >> Yes.

[54:17] >> It's just phenomenal.

[54:20] And

[54:21] uh

[54:21] their mountains are kind of puny

[54:23] compared to ours.

[54:24] We We have

[54:26] 3/4 of this county is mountain land.

[54:29] >> Yeah.

[54:30] >> And a fair fair amount of it is private,

[54:33] too. And so, we ought to focus on some

[54:35] of those things

[54:37] and take a look at where we might get trails.

[54:42] And SITLA

[54:44] owns some parcels and has

[54:48] uh right-of-ways to those parcels that

[54:50] would help us with that connectivity in

[54:53] our mountain area. And we ought to

[54:56] maybe be strategic in talking to SITLA

[54:59] about

[55:01] And uh

[55:02] SITLA is

[55:03] should be receptive [clears throat]

[55:05] to an effort to sell us

[55:08] at

[55:09] lower

[55:10] prices that we can then use to tie into

[55:13] trail network that would really assist

[55:17] us in doing what we want to do.

[55:21] » You know, it was You can actually put

[55:23] You can put partial easements on any

[55:25] sale.

[55:26] Even SITLA SITLA can come in say, "Okay,

[55:29] we'll we'll sell it, but you can only do

[55:31] this, this, and this with that

[55:33] property." Which is a partial easement,

[55:36] which does put limitations and then it

[55:39] again purchase price comes down, but

[55:41] you're still maintaining an open space.

[55:43] >> Am I reading this correctly?

[55:46] You could actually use this open space

[55:49] bond

[55:51] to buy a trail.

[55:52] Correct?

[55:53] >> To secure trail easements, but not to

[55:56] build the trail. We We still need

[55:59] partners for that, but yeah.

[56:03] Yep.

[56:04] And the easement, frankly, is

[56:06] sometimes the hardest thing to secure or

[56:09] is the component that doesn't come with

[56:11] any kind of funding. Like, they'll pay

[56:13] for you to build the trail, but they

[56:15] won't pay for you to acquire the

[56:16] easement, for example.

[56:18] >> But we can acquire the easements using

[56:20] this land.

[56:21] >> Correct.

[56:21] >> This money.

[56:22] >> Correct. Correct.

[56:24] >> And we have local trails nonprofits that

[56:26] are willing to help build the trail and

[56:29] raise funds to build that trail.

[56:30] >> And frankly, citizens that are willing

[56:32] to

[56:32] >> Absolutely. Absolutely.

[56:35] >> In terms of donating

[56:37] things that would be You would donate

[56:40] for a building, donate for a trail.

[56:42] >> Yeah.

[56:44] I I know that's possible. And when I was

[56:46] with Cache Trails Alliance,

[56:48] I was one of the founding members and

[56:50] ran that for 7 years.

[56:52] We raised about $50,000 in all that went

[56:56] towards lots of different trails

[56:58] projects.

[56:59] And

[57:01] uh

[57:02] etc.

[57:04] You know, the the Logan City Bike Park,

[57:06] the Bridger Bike Park is one example.

[57:09] It was an idea

[57:11] at a small level. The idea was presented

[57:14] to Logan City, who said, "Well, go see

[57:17] if you can raise some money."

[57:19] So, we raised some money.

[57:21] Then the county doubled what we raised

[57:24] and the Utah Outdoor Rec Department is

[57:26] always interested in funding new trails

[57:30] and trails connectivity. So, in the end

[57:32] it was about a $400,000

[57:35] um

[57:37] amount that we raised

[57:40] and

[57:41] we're able to multiply.

[57:44] >> Any parking lot is full on the weekend.

[57:48] >> Oh, yeah.

[57:48] >> At any trailhead.

[57:49] >> And some are

[57:50] >> Any trailhead.

[57:51] >> Some are beyond full.

[57:53] >> Yeah.

[57:54] >> Even with the new payment restrictions

[57:57] at some of the trailheads like Green

[57:59] Canyon.

[58:00] Still very popular.

[58:04] » What other guidance in the time we have

[58:06] left would you feel is beneficial from the council?

[58:11] >> I I think

[58:13] yeah, any of these that you want to

[58:16] say this is what we'd like you to do or focus on and

[58:21] maybe we work it out over the next

[58:25] few months or something like that, but

[58:27] >> You know, I think reaching out if you're

[58:29] getting small parcels within cities, I

[58:31] think reaching out to those

[58:33] municipalities

[58:35] I think would be

[58:38] we know that they have funds too and it

[58:39] would be interesting to see what their

[58:41] response is, too.

[58:42] Because we can't be the sole provider of funds for those.

[58:46] >> Yeah.

[58:46] >> So, I think

[58:48] that would be useful to see to get their

[58:50] interest.

[58:51] >> Yeah.

[58:51] >> And well, not their interest say if you

[58:54] want this, this is something we want.

[58:56] Your feedback.

[58:57] >> Projects that maybe don't have a a

[58:58] county-wide

[59:00] >> Yeah.

[59:00] significance.

[59:01] >> Yeah.

[59:02] >> Okay.

[59:03] >> So, that's something I would say.

[59:04] Anything else that

[59:06] >> Well, I can't say that

[59:08] if the municipality isn't going to work

[59:10] with us, then it's not a it's not a good

[59:12] working relationship.

[59:14] >> if we're even going to want to entertain

[59:15] those. So, that might help answer some

[59:17] of those questions on small parcels.

[59:19] >> Right.

[59:19] >> We worked at the volunteer farm that's

[59:22] between River Heights and Robin.

[59:26] I doubt that it's 40 acres. Maybe it's

[59:28] 45 acres or something like that. That's

[59:30] a small project, but

[59:32] uh that that's a very nice open space

[59:35] green area.

[59:39] » Absolutely beautiful.

[59:40] >> Mhm.

[59:41] And it's seen from a distance.

[59:45] >> Doesn't it go up to there?

[59:46] Not quite up there.

[59:47] >> There's some land behind it.

[59:49] >> What is it?

[59:52] Uh in the middle of

[59:53] >> Mhm. River Heights.

[59:55] >> Very nice greenery.

[1:00:01] » And that would have a high value into

[1:00:03] River Heights and Providence.

[1:00:05] >> Yeah.

[1:00:05] >> Mhm.

[1:00:06] >> But as far as expanded value to most

[1:00:10] people in the county,

[1:00:12] some of these other projects that you've

[1:00:14] been doing, everyone has been will

[1:00:16] benefit from a lot of those projects.

[1:00:21] » And I think the green belt

[1:00:25] I think that's something we probably

[1:00:26] need to talk to as far as a council and maybe write some ordinance to how we

[1:00:30] want to to use that. I don't know.

[1:00:33] >> To me, if it's coming if we're taking

[1:00:35] agricultural out, I like it going back

[1:00:38] to agricultural.

[1:00:41] Cuz that's out in the county more or

[1:00:43] less, it seems. There isn't much

[1:00:44] agricultural in too many municipalities,

[1:00:46] although there is some, but

[1:00:48] >> So, you're going to have a million

[1:00:50] dollars at your doorstep.

[1:00:52] >> I think No, I think the stuff that's

[1:00:54] coming in the most value is in the

[1:00:56] municipalities. Like, look at what's

[1:00:57] coming out of Nibley. That's selling for

[1:00:59] $100,000 an acre.

[1:01:01] I mean, that's going to be significant

[1:01:03] value.

[1:01:04] >> Yeah, but we just had two in our last

[1:01:05] council meeting that was the Vistas that

[1:01:08] um

[1:01:09] cuz now you're talking

[1:01:11] bang for buck.

[1:01:14] In the municipalities, it's higher

[1:01:16] priced because

[1:01:18] closer to development. But if you go to

[1:01:19] your Vistas,

[1:01:21] um out at Petersburg everything. You

[1:01:23] have more?

[1:01:26] » I mean, yeah, we can say that we would

[1:01:28] give preference to that, but if we're

[1:01:29] not getting applications for it, we

[1:01:31] would hate for it to go into the Lee

[1:01:32] into the McAllister fund. Lee Ray or Lee

[1:01:34] Roy?

[1:01:35] >> Lee Ray.

[1:01:37] Generational name.

[1:01:41] » Well, I think we'll put a time period on

[1:01:42] that, you know, 10 years. So, say by 6

[1:01:44] year nothing's happening, then start

[1:01:46] looking in sites. I don't know, there's

[1:01:48] a lot of ways to go.

[1:01:49] None of them are wrong if we're getting

[1:01:50] some ground for open space.

[1:01:52] >> Let's let's

[1:01:53] we'll put that on O&P.

[1:01:55] >> Yeah, I think O&P should be next.

[1:01:56] >> start we'll start vetting some ideas and use each of them.

[1:02:00] >> So

[1:02:00] >> And start throwing them out and

[1:02:01] >> Is it okay to say that

[1:02:02] >> Our agenda's getting really small, isn't

[1:02:04] it?

[1:02:05] And O&P?

[1:02:06] >> What?

[1:02:06] Line item

[1:02:07] >> So, maybe that would be the first step

[1:02:09] is maybe reach out to the cities and and

[1:02:11] gauge their interest for and and then

[1:02:13] that would help with

[1:02:14] >> some of those projects

[1:02:15] >> of those projects and small parcels.

[1:02:17] And

[1:02:18] >> Sure. Yeah, unless unless they come to

[1:02:21] our program with other funding secured,

[1:02:24] which then I'd say we maybe look at it

[1:02:25] differently, but

[1:02:27] um

[1:02:29] Yeah, we can certainly do that. I think

[1:02:31] we're going to see projects that

[1:02:35] you're likely to see projects that are

[1:02:38] only going to be county funded. You

[1:02:41] know, it might be the right land owner

[1:02:43] who says, you know, I'm not in this for

[1:02:46] the cash,

[1:02:48] um so I'm willing to give a bigger

[1:02:49] donation, but I I don't want to do it for nothing. I do

[1:02:54] want some something or I need something

[1:02:57] and and uh so there could be 100% county

[1:03:00] only funded projects, small or

[1:03:03] otherwise. Because again, they're not

[1:03:05] going to attract other funding, for

[1:03:06] example, or even some of the ones that

[1:03:09] we've looked at that we're interested

[1:03:11] in.

[1:03:12] What if they don't get the other funding

[1:03:14] that we're hoping for? Do we step in

[1:03:18] with Greenbelt rollback tax or something

[1:03:21] like that to make up the difference? And

[1:03:23] now all of a sudden we are funding you

[1:03:26] know, the lion's share of a project. I I

[1:03:28] think those scenarios are coming.

[1:03:30] >> Yeah.

[1:03:30] >> Uh if we don't already have them. And so

[1:03:34] you've got to be prepared for that. I I

[1:03:36] think is is what I'm saying. And then uh

[1:03:40] if there's uh a bigger role that you

[1:03:43] want to pay play in the process as a

[1:03:45] potential easement holder, you know, so

[1:03:47] in those circumstances where we're doing

[1:03:50] most of the funding, right? And the

[1:03:52] landowner is donating who rest who's

[1:03:54] going to hold the easement? Right?

[1:03:57] >> Right.

[1:03:58] >> So we might be able to partner with

[1:04:00] somebody even with without financial

[1:04:03] support who will hold the easement.

[1:04:05] Possibly. So uh

[1:04:07] >> And maybe that's more education that I think we would need as a group to

[1:04:12] >> Yeah.

[1:04:13] >> understand all of that.

[1:04:15] >> If if my takeaway just from our

[1:04:17] conversation can be, you know, there could be a unique project that

[1:04:21] doesn't fit the mold like we're seeing

[1:04:23] on most of them that we bring to you.

[1:04:25] [clears throat]

[1:04:26] And we're just going to have to provide

[1:04:29] a detailed overview. Here here's the

[1:04:32] project. Here's the funding. Here's the

[1:04:33] opportunity.

[1:04:35] Um

[1:04:36] >> Here's why it's unique.

[1:04:38] >> Yeah.

[1:04:39] >> Could you if it's in a municipality,

[1:04:41] could you add another scoring table to

[1:04:43] that such as municipality participation,

[1:04:46] what's going on in there? I mean

[1:04:49] for example, if one says a park, that's

[1:04:52] a little bit different that's there, but

[1:04:53] it's still open space.

[1:04:55] But if it's going to be a park, which to

[1:04:57] me benefits the municipality, then there

[1:04:59] ought to be a scoring side from

[1:05:01] >> Yeah.

[1:05:02] >> the municipality as to what their

[1:05:04] engagement is like, okay, we'll supply

[1:05:07] utilities or something or what they'll

[1:05:09] come into. It doesn't have to be so much

[1:05:10] cash, but improvement to that part.

[1:05:13] >> The the city um you know, the the law

[1:05:17] allows for local governments to hold

[1:05:19] easements, too. So, the city could

[1:05:21] choose to hold the easement.

[1:05:22] >> Right.

[1:05:23] >> Uh and receive the funding as a as also

[1:05:25] an option. So, there there are many

[1:05:27] different ways to

[1:05:29] um

[1:05:31] secure open space, I think. And even in

[1:05:34] cities, a park could be a passive park,

[1:05:36] right? Like a nature park with just

[1:05:38] trails and habitat.

[1:05:40] >> Yeah, I think

[1:05:41] I draw Nibley a lot. Sorry, it's

[1:05:43] >> Yeah.

[1:05:43] >> I'm Nibley. Uh that park in Nibley, the

[1:05:47] we call it Firefly Park.

[1:05:48] >> Yeah.

[1:05:48] >> You see people on it all day, every day,

[1:05:52] and we only have I've run it a few

[1:05:53] times. I think it's a mile of boardwalk

[1:05:55] that's available, but it is constant

[1:05:58] use.

[1:05:59] And that's that passive park. Don't have

[1:06:01] >> projects like that. I you know, we're seeing these great, nice, large

[1:06:06] farm ground type projects. And but I

[1:06:09] think we'll see more other type

[1:06:10] projects, too, going forward. So,

[1:06:13] um we're just trying to think ahead um

[1:06:15] and anticipate the different scenarios

[1:06:17] that could be that aren't don't fit the

[1:06:20] template that we've seen so far.

[1:06:22] >> Yeah.

[1:06:23] >> And trying to get to your

[1:06:24] >> I think you're saying that we're willing

[1:06:26] to entertain those.

[1:06:27] >> Yeah.

[1:06:28] >> I

[1:06:29] Let's hear it.

[1:06:29] >> Good. And I think your idea of let's

[1:06:32] circle back on the green belt, you know,

[1:06:34] however whatever format you want to

[1:06:36] pursue that in, just let me know, and I

[1:06:38] think we can bring in others um to to

[1:06:42] facilitate that conversation.

[1:06:44] >> Right. Great.

[1:06:45] >> I have a question for you.

[1:06:47] >> Yes, ma'am.

[1:06:47] >> Would you define the easements? What do

[1:06:50] you mean by that? Are they

[1:06:52] things

[1:06:52] >> easement?

[1:06:53] >> Uh-huh.

[1:06:53] >> So, a conservation easement um

[1:06:57] there's probably other people in the

[1:06:58] room that can explain it better than I can, but uh basically, you're

[1:07:04] entering uh uh, an arrangement with a

[1:07:06] landowner to purchase their development

[1:07:09] rights.

[1:07:10] And in exchange for us purchasing those

[1:07:13] rights from them, they are required to

[1:07:16] put a conservation easement on the

[1:07:18] property, which restricts the

[1:07:20] development of that property.

[1:07:22] So, we're buying those

[1:07:24] >> That's the only thing that's restricted

[1:07:26] or what about other restrictions?

[1:07:29] >> We can define that.

[1:07:31] But

[1:07:31] >> But you don't have a general definition

[1:07:34] for easement when you talk about it, cuz

[1:07:36] sounds like you talk about it on nearly

[1:07:38] every parcel.

[1:07:39] >> Yeah, that's what this program is. It's

[1:07:41] a purchase of development rights

[1:07:43] program. And um

[1:07:45] >> But that was my question if it's more

[1:07:47] than just development.

[1:07:49] >> It can be more than just development,

[1:07:51] but that's typically what you're

[1:07:53] purchasing is you're taking the rights

[1:07:55] uh, you're extinguishing the rights to

[1:07:58] develop that property into a subdivision

[1:08:00] or whatever. It's going to stay farmland

[1:08:02] or wildlife habitat, whatever the case

[1:08:05] may be in perpetuity.

[1:08:07] And uh, you get to decide

[1:08:10] the specifics.

[1:08:12] >> And

[1:08:12] >> You and the landowner.

[1:08:13] >> Yes, with participation. Some landowners

[1:08:16] we've spoken with

[1:08:18] really don't want certain uses to happen

[1:08:20] with their

[1:08:22] easement. And so, they can uh, make a lot of those

[1:08:27] declarations and then the county would

[1:08:30] decide

[1:08:31] >> Yeah.

[1:08:31] >> um, if you liked it.

[1:08:33] >> Does the landowner still retain

[1:08:35] ownership of the land just forfeiting

[1:08:37] some of their rights?

[1:08:37] >> Yeah.

[1:08:38] >> But I've heard even the

[1:08:40] perpetuity bar part is kind of

[1:08:43] dangerous, too, because so, you know,

[1:08:46] mother nature

[1:08:48] alters

[1:08:50] land.

[1:08:51] >> Sure.

[1:08:52] >> You know, with rivers and different

[1:08:53] things like that. So, I don't know if I

[1:08:56] was a landowner, I'd

[1:08:58] I don't know if I'd like that.

[1:09:00] >> It's not It's not for everybody, right?

[1:09:02] It's really

[1:09:04] um it it's

[1:09:04] >> So, does it have to be in perpetuity?

[1:09:07] >> It does. It does.

[1:09:08] >> That's what I thought.

[1:09:11] » Okay, well, we're going to recess. Um

[1:09:13] thank you very much for coming. Thank

[1:09:15] you to our state partners and nonprofit

[1:09:18] partners for being here and for being

[1:09:20] resources for us and and and uh we

[1:09:23] appreciate all that you do on COSAAC and

[1:09:25] the work that you do in the many

[1:09:27] meetings that you have. So, uh as a

[1:09:29] council, we're going to recess until our

[1:09:31] meeting starts at at 5:00. So, we stand

[1:09:36] >> Thank you.

Cache County Council Workshop Meeting – 06-09-2026

Transcript