[0:00] on the 10.

[0:01] >> Hit hit really hard. Get everybody in

[0:03] order.

[0:03] >> Okay, it's 5 o'clock.

[0:07] » Okay, we're going to go ahead and start

[0:08] our council meeting. Welcome to everyone

[0:10] who's here. We appreciate you all

[0:12] joining us and we're um going to go

[0:15] ahead and get started with an opening

[0:17] remarks by council member Keegan Gerity.

[0:20] So, with all the fires that have been

[0:23] happening around the state, um I think

[0:26] all of us are grateful for our first

[0:28] responders and sometimes we recognize

[0:31] them in a very general way, but if

[0:33] you'll indulge me, I thought I would

[0:34] share four brief stories on that

[0:38] illustrate some of the work that they do

[0:40] that we may not be aware of.

[0:44] So, um, first one I wanted to share was

[0:47] probably the one that's the most local

[0:48] and the most obvious was the fire on

[0:50] Canyon Road. Um, so, uh, for those of

[0:56] you that may not know, um, firefighters

[0:59] and apparatus from Logan, Cash County,

[1:01] Smithfield, Paradise, and several other

[1:04] agencies worked together,

[1:06] uh, under a unified operational

[1:08] structure during that fire. um and they

[1:10] protected infrastructure and property.

[1:14] Um which highlights the importance of

[1:16] that coordination and building those

[1:18] relationships long before an incident

[1:20] occurs. Um if any of you have you know

[1:23] tried to coordinate with friends and

[1:25] family just to decide on a place to go

[1:26] for lunch, you can know how difficult it

[1:28] can be to gather consensus among a

[1:30] group. So to to work uh that quickly in

[1:33] an emergency situation requires a lot of

[1:36] preparation.

[1:37] Um, the second one I want to talk about

[1:40] is the statewide fire deploy deployment.

[1:44] So, I actually didn't know this before,

[1:46] but did you guys know that sometimes

[1:48] those in the county actually go to other

[1:49] counties to help out when they need it?

[1:51] Um, so specifically, um, the Cash Fire

[1:55] District deployed engine boss Tyrell

[1:57] Frederickson and firefighters Dawson

[1:59] Davis and Braden Wyn as part of an

[2:02] initial task force uh, supporting

[2:05] wildfire operations across northern

[2:07] Utah. During their deployment, the crew

[2:09] responded to several significant

[2:11] incidents, including the Canyon Fire in

[2:13] Logan, the Johnson fire in Boxelder

[2:15] County, the Bates fire near Stanbury,

[2:17] and the Rock Canyon fire in Morgan

[2:19] County. Um, and the deployment required

[2:22] the firefighters to spend approximately

[2:25] two weeks away from home and their

[2:27] families and their normal

[2:28] responsibilities and others, I'm sure,

[2:30] had to pick up the slack. If any of you

[2:32] have ever had to travel for work or

[2:35] something, you know that life doesn't

[2:37] wait for you and things happen with your

[2:39] family while you're gone. So, appreciate

[2:41] the sacrifice they made. Um the third

[2:44] one is um the Cash County Fire District

[2:48] paramedic and ambulance personnel um

[2:50] from Bshift along with volunteers from

[2:52] the Hyram City Fire Department responded

[2:54] to a medical emergency in Millville uh

[2:57] involving a 70-year-old man who had

[2:59] become unresponsive.

[3:01] The first arriving personnel found the

[3:02] patient not breathing and without a

[3:04] pulse. Uh advanced cardiac life support

[3:07] measures were immediately initiated.

[3:09] Crews provided high quality CPR,

[3:11] advanced airway management, life-saving

[3:13] cardiac medications, and defibrillation.

[3:16] And after about 15 minutes or about 18

[3:19] minutes of CPR and four cardiac defibs,

[3:22] the patient's pulse returned. He was

[3:24] stabilized and transported to Logan

[3:26] Regional and was later flown to MCD

[3:28] where he underwent a triple bypass

[3:30] surgery. And several weeks later, he

[3:32] returned home. So, they literally saved

[3:34] someone's life. Um, and then the last,

[3:37] um, story I'll share highlights an

[3:39] individual named Valerie Hubard, um, who

[3:42] represents the type of commitment that's

[3:45] essential, um, for providing reliable

[3:48] emergency services in smaller

[3:50] communities. She served with squad 140

[3:53] in Nibi since 2016, responding to EMS

[3:56] calls and providing patient care to

[3:58] communities of Nibi and Millville. In

[4:01] 2022, she expanded her service by

[4:03] joining the Cash County Fire District as

[4:05] an AM AEM firefighter and has continued

[4:09] to build her capabilities through

[4:10] additional fire and hazardous materials

[4:12] training. Today, she serves as both

[4:15] part-time and paid on call firefighter

[4:17] for the district and helps coordinate

[4:18] operations of squad 140. She routinely

[4:21] makes herself available for more than

[4:23] 200 hours of on call coverage each

[4:25] month, helping ensure that that an EMS

[4:28] responder is available to Nibi and

[4:30] Millville when an emergency occurs. Even

[4:33] with that commitment, she regularly

[4:35] finds additional time to work 12 and

[4:36] 24-hour shifts at station 150. And uh

[4:40] her service is backed by significant

[4:42] training and experience. She's certified

[4:44] as a firefighter one and two. She's

[4:46] completed the hazmat awareness and

[4:47] operations training. and she's also an

[4:50] experienced EMS educator, having served

[4:52] for six years as both EMS instructor and

[4:55] EMS training officer in addition to

[4:57] serving as the American Heart

[4:59] Association CPR instructor. So, I just

[5:02] want to recognize those folks and I want

[5:04] to thank uh our chief Brady George for

[5:07] helping me collect those stories and

[5:09] just uh recognize all that they do for

[5:12] us and keeping us safe. So, thank you.

[5:16] >> THANK YOU. [applause]

[5:22] IF YOU'LL PLEASE STAND and join me for

[5:23] the pledge of allegiance.

[5:27] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[5:30] United States of America and to the

[5:33] republic for which it stands, one nation

[5:36] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[5:40] justice for all.

[5:45] » Okay. Thank you, Keegan. Um, it was

[5:47] great to honor those people that work so

[5:50] hard and we don't always see them

[5:51] because they're behind the scenes. So,

[5:52] thank you for doing that. Um, does

[5:55] anyone want to make a motion about the

[5:57] agenda for tonight?

[5:58] >> I move to approve the agenda for

[6:00] tonight's meeting.

[6:01] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[6:03] approve the agenda. Those in favor say

[6:04] I.

[6:05] >> I.

[6:05] >> Any opposed?

[6:07] >> That is the amended agenda, right?

[6:08] >> Yes.

[6:09] >> Okay.

[6:09] >> And then the review and approve the

[6:12] minutes. Um I did have um there's a

[6:15] couple things on the minutes.

[6:17] >> I should say we had a discussion about

[6:20] the tenative budget. We're not going to

[6:21] be presenting that tonight. So that is a

[6:24] change in the

[6:25] >> Okay. Are you not going to present any numbers or like nothing? I knew it

[6:30] was going to be modified but um

[6:33] >> we're going to present all of it in two

[6:35] weeks. Okay.

[6:36] >> So that's that was our decision. And the

[6:39] word tentative actually has a legal

[6:42] meaning of of of something specific

[6:45] you're supposed to put in a tentative

[6:47] budget. It's a word used in the statute.

[6:50] We were going to give you preliminary

[6:52] numbers. And so I think the confusion

[6:55] over the word tenative means we probably

[6:57] just should not get involved in that

[7:00] because it will not be the tenative

[7:02] budget

[7:03] >> tonight. Okay.

[7:04] >> You want to strike that?

[7:05] >> Yep. Let me

[7:06] >> move to a strike 6B on the agenda.

[7:09] Second.

[7:09] >> Moved and seconded that we strike 6B

[7:11] from our amended agenda. Those in favor

[7:14] say I.

[7:14] >> I. Any opposed?

[7:16] >> Okay. Thanks, George. Okay. The the

[7:19] minutes. When I looked through the

[7:21] minutes, um Kurt Web's name is

[7:23] misspelled and so is Shawn Mills. And so

[7:25] that was the

[7:28] not a not a huge deal, but to them it

[7:30] probably is. It's a it'll be a record

[7:32] that goes down in history.

[7:35] So, if we can change those two things.

[7:37] Anybody else have any other um things

[7:39] that they noticed in the minutes?

[7:42] Does someone want to make a motion about

[7:43] the minutes?

[7:45] >> Move to accept the amendments from 7:28

[7:48] to county council the county council

[7:50] meeting from uh 728.

[7:52] >> Second

[7:53] >> with those amendments.

[7:53] >> With the amendments.

[7:55] >> Okay.

[7:55] >> Second.

[7:56] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[7:57] approve the meeting minutes from 728

[7:59] with the with the amenioned amendments.

[8:02] Those in favor say I. I.

[8:04] >> Any opposed?

[8:06] >> All right.

[8:07] Okay. Report of the county executive.

[8:09] >> There there's two or three things I

[8:11] wanted to talk about including

[8:13] appointments. Uh we we have been

[8:16] [cough and clears throat]

[8:17] obtaining u applications for the fire

[8:20] board. Uh I think the last count I had

[8:24] we had like 13 and we're continuing to

[8:27] receive those. The time period is open

[8:30] through I believe it's August 23rd or

[8:33] 24th.

[8:34] That's a weekend. So, we'll look at what

[8:36] we receive over the weekend as well. So,

[8:40] those appointments are getting those

[8:42] responses.

[8:44] Um, between tonight's meeting and the

[8:48] meeting previously, Logan City went

[8:50] ahead and approved our interlocal

[8:52] agreement regarding the airport. We'd

[8:55] like to get a fast start on that. Uh,

[8:58] we'd like to arrange a sponsor board

[9:00] meeting. If you recall, that isn't um a

[9:04] public appointment. The sponsor board is

[9:08] certain positions are to be filled. Um

[9:11] Mayor Anderson is is going to select

[9:14] himself and one councilman,

[9:17] council person, and he's he he is going

[9:21] to give me that name tomorrow. So, I'll

[9:24] have the two from Logan City. We have

[9:27] three council people, county council

[9:30] people who serve on that sponsor board.

[9:33] Uh Keegan is currently serving on the

[9:36] airport authority board. If you could

[9:38] determine what three you wish to serve

[9:42] on the sponsor board, that would

[9:44] complete that. The county executive is

[9:48] supposed to choose two county elected

[9:50] officials. and I have asked u Matt Funk

[9:55] and Bryson to serve as those two

[10:01] um elected officials. So that would

[10:03] complete our seven. Soon as we get the

[10:05] seven completed, we can have a brief

[10:08] meeting there and begin the process of

[10:11] soliciting for application to the

[10:13] airport authority board. So, um I

[10:16] believe it's your decision, uh Sandy,

[10:18] and your council as to which three

[10:21] persons you want to serve, but if you

[10:23] could determine that tonight, we could

[10:25] proceed with that sponsor board

[10:28] immediately.

[10:29] >> Okay. Um does there any I know Keegan's

[10:32] been involved along through through the

[10:34] whole thing, so I'm assuming you would

[10:36] want to stay on that sponsor board.

[10:37] >> I'll publicly express my desire to Yes.

[10:40] >> stay there. Yeah. Um, are there any

[10:41] other two council members who would like

[10:44] to take on that role?

[10:46] >> Yeah, the the rule is one at least no

[10:49] more than one is to be from Logan. So,

[10:52] >> okay. So, it can't be Joan or I. That's

[10:54] Keegan.

[10:55] >> That's right.

[10:55] >> And we need two others from the county.

[10:58] >> Okay. That leaves the three of you. Is

[11:01] there any four of you?

[11:06] Um I I am very interested in doing it,

[11:09] but I want to maybe publicly state it

[11:11] just to make sure that everyone's aware

[11:13] of part of what would come with that. Um

[11:16] where the Hide Park irrigation company

[11:19] does actually run through the airport

[11:21] property and the airport does hold

[11:25] could be a shareholder with that

[11:26] organization. That would just be

[11:28] something that we would would come up as

[11:30] a something I'd have to declare as a

[11:33] conflict of interest and abstain from

[11:34] any action that would involve that

[11:36] infrastructure.

[11:38] >> Aside from that, I feel like it would be

[11:39] an honor to serve on that board.

[11:41] >> Would you state why too and what your

[11:42] involvement is with the canal company?

[11:44] Just

[11:45] >> Oh, just because I currently serve as

[11:47] the um water master for that

[11:48] organization.

[11:50] >> Yeah, I don't see that as a problem with

[11:53] the sponsor board position, but I think

[11:56] you should declare it. So there's

[11:57] clarity there.

[11:59] >> Nolan, do your Catherine from the south

[12:02] have any

[12:02] >> play chicken?

[12:03] >> Yeah.

[12:04] >> Do I already have fire?

[12:06] >> That's a joy, right?

[12:08] >> I already have PNC.

[12:09] >> No,

[12:10] >> I know everybody talking.

[12:13] >> And when?

[12:14] >> Not not a lot. Uh maybe starting up

[12:17] there's some additional work, but we're

[12:19] hoping to hold it to four or five a

[12:21] year. And it, if you recall, the real

[12:24] active party in running the airport will

[12:27] be the authority board, not the sponsor.

[12:29] >> The sponsor board.

[12:31] >> Okay, I'll try it out. And that was not

[12:33] me expressing public interest in it. So,

[12:37] >> you accepting a responsibility.

[12:38] >> My arm is behind my back. I think Dave

[12:41] had a crooked neck while he was looking

[12:42] at me here. Sure.

[12:44] >> So, we'll have Mark and Nolan and Kegan.

[12:46] And if you guys want to get together, I

[12:48] can fill you in on kind of where we've

[12:50] been and we're at now.

[12:51] >> So, what I'll be doing is trying to

[12:53] schedule a sponsor meeting maybe later

[12:56] this week or early next week so we can

[12:58] get started on filling out the airport

[13:00] authority board because that is one of

[13:02] the primary duties of sponsor board is

[13:05] to select the authority board.

[13:08] >> Okay. Um maybe I'll ask you or and Dne,

[13:10] what is our do we need to make some kind

[13:13] of a um motion like what is the actual

[13:17] legal process to appoint this sponsor

[13:19] board members tonight? If we're going to

[13:22] if they're going to meet later this

[13:23] week, we need to make sure they're

[13:24] appointed tonight. What is the

[13:25] appointing process?

[13:27] >> So the council is the appointing

[13:28] authority. So there just need to be a a

[13:30] vote on the appointments.

[13:31] >> Okay.

[13:31] >> I would move that we accept uh those

[13:35] Keegan

[13:36] >> Mark and Nolan. Mark and Nolan uh as a

[13:39] SP on the sponsor board for the airport

[13:41] authority.

[13:41] >> I think there was a $1,000 retainer to

[13:43] have us on there. [laughter]

[13:45] >> I don't think I read that.

[13:46] >> I read the agreement a couple times. I

[13:48] don't remember that part.

[13:49] >> Excluding that was not in what OMP

[13:51] review.

[13:52] >> It wasn't that.

[13:53] >> And I get a second on that motion.

[13:55] >> Second.

[13:56] >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded that

[13:58] we accept Keegan, Mark, and Nolan to be

[14:00] on the airport sponsor board. Those in

[14:02] favor say I.

[14:04] >> I. Any opposed? Okay, perfect.

[14:07] >> One other matter. I I don't know if all

[14:10] of you had a chance to go to the fair,

[14:12] but it was a great party for Cash County

[14:15] and we compliment everyone involved in

[14:18] it. The rodeo was fun, the fair was fun,

[14:21] the 4 and the extension and everything

[14:24] was really well done. In the in the

[14:26] course of getting ready for the fair, we

[14:28] made an agreement with Logan that we

[14:30] would improve the parking. Uh, I don't

[14:33] know how many of you saw the north side,

[14:37] but it was done very quickly and very

[14:40] well by our county road crew. And I've

[14:43] asked uh Jeremy to bring the guys that

[14:46] were uh involved with that. Come on up

[14:50] front, Jeremy, with your these guys were

[14:53] down there working at night to get it

[14:55] done. And it's I went down and looked at

[14:57] it to see how much damage was done. It

[15:00] still looks really good, Jeremy. There's

[15:02] everything there. So, these are the five

[15:05] guys that went out there and

[15:07] accomplished just line.

[15:09] >> Come line right up here and face the

[15:11] camera

[15:14] >> and thank you.

[15:14] >> There's a lineup right here.

[15:16] >> Okay. And I appreciate that, too. So,

[15:18] >> Jeremy, you can do a bow or a curtsy if

[15:20] you prefer.

[15:20] >> Thank Thank you all of you. Thank you.

[15:22] [applause]

[15:22] >> Thank you.

[15:27] [applause]

[15:28] >> So, introduce everybody. Oh, okay.

[15:32] >> Yeah.

[15:33] >> Introduce yourself.

[15:52] Awesome.

[15:56] » Thanks, guys.

[15:58] >> We're gonna give you

[16:00] something to thanks for supporting

[16:05] all this stuff. So, thank you so much.

[16:08] >> It's a combined effort.

[16:10] >> It worked great.

[16:11] >> Yeah. So, Matt told me we as county

[16:12] council members, we could pull in and

[16:14] say we're from the county council and we

[16:15] would be given a parking place. And I

[16:17] pulled in and the lady said, "Oh, are

[16:18] you here for the senior parking?" I'm

[16:20] like, "Yeah. [laughter]

[16:22] But I am on the county council.

[16:25] So that was I was happy to have a place

[16:27] to park.

[16:28] >> That was better parking than the

[16:29] council.

[16:29] >> I [laughter] know it was.

[16:31] >> The last thing is to just report

[16:33] continuing progress with respect to the

[16:35] fire board. We're um meeting and we

[16:40] we've got another meeting this Friday

[16:43] with the South and I have a meeting on

[16:45] Thursday night with the North. So we're

[16:48] continuing to make progress.

[16:51] Okay. Thank you.

[16:52] >> Chair, if I could just speak up. I I

[16:54] just looking at the agenda and Andrew

[16:56] pointed this out for the appointments

[16:59] open and public meeting act is going to

[17:01] [snorts] require us to notice up that there were appointments going to be

[17:06] made.

[17:06] >> I wondered.

[17:07] >> And so I I'm just asked that we put that

[17:09] on the agenda for the next meeting for

[17:11] the appointments to the airport board. I

[17:12] don't want

[17:14] >> I I know there's been some contention

[17:16] with the airport. I don't want someone

[17:17] coming and pointing out a flaw in our

[17:19] appointment procedure at this meeting.

[17:22] >> Okay, we will add that.

[17:24] >> Come back and restart that process.

[17:25] >> Yeah, we'll add it to our agenda on the

[17:28] 25th

[17:31] and um

[17:34] thank you. Okay. Um

[17:38] 6A we need to ask for Shawn Mil.

[17:43] Good evening, council, and thank you for

[17:45] the opportunity to return and

[17:49] talk about my favorite subject, economic

[17:52] development.

[17:54] Um, you'll recall that last time I was

[17:57] here, I gave you the annual report

[18:01] for fiscal year 26

[18:05] on last year's activities and then made

[18:07] recommendations well passed along

[18:09] recommendations from the CEO board.

[18:13] And just to reacquaint you, the CEO

[18:15] board is a cash county economic

[18:17] opportunity advisory board. And as the

[18:19] namesake

[18:22] uh implies, they are advisory only to

[18:25] you. Oh, that's right. I am not hooked

[18:27] up to the internet anymore. I'm sorry.

[18:29] One moment, please.

[18:32] [clears throat and cough]

[18:38] And the Cash County Economic Advisory

[18:40] Board is advisory to you

[18:44] and you get to make the final

[18:45] determination.

[18:52] Isn't technology grand until it doesn't

[18:54] work?

[19:15] Excellent.

[19:17] There we go.

[19:19] All right. And you'd ask me to return um

[19:22] particularly with two elements in play.

[19:25] One is

[19:28] the CEO board appointments. We have some

[19:31] vacancies because

[19:33] this year, GOED, Governor's Office of

[19:36] Economic Development, Oh, by the way,

[19:37] Sean Melon, Bear River Association of

[19:39] Government's Director of Economic

[19:40] Development for the minutes. Um, this

[19:43] year, administrative rules through

[19:44] Go-AD, Governor's Office of Economic

[19:45] Development, uh, has sought to clarify

[19:48] that they no longer want any elected

[19:49] officials from a deciding body to be on

[19:52] the board. And so, we have a a number of

[19:55] those board vacancies that I'm uh going

[19:58] to ask you to consider. as well as the

[20:00] recommendations from the last meeting

[20:03] which are these that are shown on the

[20:05] screen the same as last time. the

[20:07] contract that the county has for Bragg

[20:10] for those economic development services

[20:12] which I'll go into a little bit more

[20:13] detail here in a moment referring to a

[20:15] contract that's in your media packet

[20:17] proposed contract and special projects

[20:21] uh related to

[20:23] um Bridgerland Technical College has a

[20:26] business and innovation center uh it's

[20:29] called the hub and they've been wildly

[20:31] successful uh several years ago they

[20:33] were recipients of this grant money and

[20:35] saw Mark Alexander uh increase the

[20:38] capacity of entrepreneurs or young

[20:40] businesses in age of the business, not

[20:42] necessarily young people that were

[20:44] founders or owners. Uh and has done a

[20:47] really great job of showing upward job

[20:49] count from those incubated businesses.

[20:52] He provides mentorship through well uh

[20:55] in line with that they've had a

[20:56] commercial kitchen which is separate

[20:57] from their culinary arts kitchen that

[20:59] they use at the school for the

[21:01] certification programs themselves. And

[21:03] he's now at 60 clients. That's 6 clients

[21:06] that are using that commercial kitchen.

[21:08] And he has requested of the CEO board

[21:10] and your consideration a contribution

[21:13] towards what he expects to be an $80,000

[21:15] expense in order to upsize that to

[21:18] accommodate the increase in clientele

[21:20] that he has. And then the last one is

[21:22] airport growth round three. Uh this last

[21:24] fiscal year was round two and a nearly

[21:27] equitable amount of money uh was set

[21:29] aside with the idea of furthering Dr.

[21:32] Jones's uh airport feasibility study

[21:35] conducted a couple of years ago. So,

[21:37] round three's money would join round

[21:39] two, which has been unspent from fiscal

[21:41] year 26 in order to advance uh whatever

[21:45] the newly discussed airport sponsor

[21:48] board and uh authority boards will

[21:51] consider. So, with that in mind,

[21:55] I have a couple of slides here I can go

[21:56] back to if you'd like, but the CEO board

[21:59] uh has to have a minimum of five

[22:01] members. Uh you can have more and this

[22:03] county traditionally has had majority of

[22:05] the board constitutes a quorum, which is

[22:07] good that right now I have a majority of

[22:09] the board that's still in place. Um and

[22:12] then you need to elect a chair and vice

[22:14] chair or they need to elect a chair and

[22:16] vice chair among themselves. And another

[22:18] change to the administrative rules this

[22:20] year seeks to take those terms from two

[22:22] years to four years. The five minimum

[22:25] are a representative for the county

[22:29] uh which is what the previous elected

[22:30] officials here on this body have served

[22:33] uh in that capacity, a municipal

[22:35] representative, someone from workforce

[22:36] development, private sector

[22:38] representative, and a public atlarge

[22:40] representative. uh this county as well

[22:43] as others that I help uh manage have

[22:46] historically included additional seats

[22:48] that represent industries that you would

[22:50] like to see more of in our county. So

[22:53] I've listed some of those that have been

[22:55] mentioned for this county here uh in the

[22:57] past aerospace and defense advanced

[22:59] manufacturing life or biosciences a and

[23:03] value added food processing and arts and

[23:05] culture. This has been the CEO board as

[23:08] constituted this last year. I have a

[23:10] very light highlight for those that are

[23:13] now off the board either through

[23:15] administrative rules or one member who

[23:17] due to health concerns has asked to be

[23:19] excused and and has effectively resigned

[23:23] which leaves us with the uh chart that

[23:25] you see in front of you there. That

[23:27] gives us the institutional knowledge of

[23:29] Brian Carver who now becomes chair. He

[23:31] represents your public at large member.

[23:33] Uh he also happens to work for Jub

[23:36] Engineering. uh Kirk Jensen who is my

[23:38] equivalent for Logan City proper and

[23:41] Mark Alexander who is as I noted with

[23:44] Ridgerland Technical College a moment

[23:46] ago he represents the workforce

[23:47] development spot that you need. I have

[23:51] suggested the terms of those three

[23:53] individuals being amended to end at the

[23:56] end of next calendar year which would

[23:58] give them about a year and a half left

[23:59] on a four-year term. And as state

[24:02] statute requests, they want the

[24:04] four-year terms uh mixed up and juggled

[24:07] so that you're not always losing 100%.

[24:10] So that leaves us four spots with uh

[24:12] myself and Elma Burgess, your grant

[24:14] manager, uh rounding out some staff

[24:17] exeicio positions that don't get to vote

[24:19] on the board. Of the five minimum, that

[24:23] would mean out of those four spots, you

[24:24] need to pick someone to represent the

[24:26] county and someone to represent private

[24:28] sector. I've proposed two more private

[24:31] sector representatives because that's

[24:32] what you've had previously.

[24:35] And in discussions since our last since

[24:37] your last county council meeting and my

[24:39] last being before you, uh several

[24:41] members have proposed some names. I have

[24:45] discussed uh at the direction of of uh

[24:49] council members uh Keegan and Mark. I've

[24:53] reached out to Mr. Wes Clark, Wendy

[24:56] Hassan,

[24:57] Jeff Cox, and Mike Presley. But there

[25:01] are a whole slew of names of

[25:02] individuals. And um

[25:06] you just need to fill those spots for

[25:09] those particular headings that are noted

[25:11] there. You could expand further if you

[25:13] wanted. You could just choose the bare

[25:15] minimum. The choice is really yours. But

[25:17] you can see that for the four that are

[25:19] vacant, I have proposed that they would

[25:21] get the full uh three and a half year

[25:24] uh spots to go out until the end of

[25:26] December 2029.

[25:29] I'm happy to discuss these individuals

[25:30] that I've spoken with at further detail

[25:32] if you'd like. Happy to take additional

[25:34] recommendations on your part, whatever

[25:36] you would like to proceed before we then

[25:38] discuss the next element on the agenda

[25:40] item, which is the proposed contract.

[25:43] >> Okay. I I talked to Sean just before the

[25:45] meeting and just to stay within our

[25:47] appointing um process. I would like to

[25:52] put those appointments off until the

[25:54] next meeting so that we can have a

[25:56] resume of each one. We have a list

[25:57] before the meeting starts and then that

[26:00] gives another week or so if you have any

[26:02] other names that you want to suggest to

[26:04] Sean. um if you would get those to him

[26:06] within the next just few days and then

[26:08] at our next meet before our next meeting

[26:11] starts in our media packet, we'll have

[26:13] those names to to be able to look at and

[26:16] discuss at that meeting so that we can

[26:19] because it the council is the appointing

[26:21] authority on this board.

[26:23] >> Correct.

[26:24] >> And um but I don't want to do that

[26:26] without having those names before the

[26:28] meeting if that's if that's okay with

[26:30] the rest of you.

[26:31] >> Would it be helpful to explain some of

[26:32] the nominations and why for the ones

[26:35] that we do have on the list now. Or do

[26:37] you want to wait?

[26:38] >> Um I I don't know. I think we could wait

[26:39] until next time when we have a full list

[26:42] and then we can talk about them and vote

[26:43] on them and um unless unless someone

[26:47] thinks of a better uh process or a

[26:50] different process that you want to do,

[26:51] but I just feel like I wanted to have

[26:53] names in advance of the meeting before

[26:55] we vote on them.

[26:58] >> I I can question.

[26:59] >> Yes, please support that. But also um we

[27:02] did have quite a few conversations about

[27:04] the process and that was not brought up.

[27:07] Um just to make sure we were okay

[27:09] timelinewise. Does that work?

[27:11] >> I for the time being you see the graph

[27:13] in front of you a minimum of five and I

[27:16] have three out of five. I have a quorum

[27:17] if 100% of them show up. [clears throat]

[27:19] So yes, I'm good. I will need a letter

[27:22] of attestation from the chair before the

[27:25] September one deadline for fiscal year

[27:27] 27's application and I should be able to

[27:30] arrange that with Mr. Carver because the

[27:32] proposals in front of you tonight as

[27:34] they were before are one and the same as

[27:36] they were in the last meeting. So it

[27:39] would be to an attestation that this is

[27:41] the recommendation that the board is

[27:43] constituted that they were consulted uh

[27:46] on the application that would be

[27:47] forthcoming by the September 1 deadline.

[27:49] So that is possible. I just need 100% of

[27:52] them, you know, to be engaged until

[27:54] there's more members appointed.

[27:58] >> Yeah. I just we're just going through so

[27:59] many different appointments at this at

[28:01] this point in time. I think the process

[28:03] we just need to stick to the processes.

[28:05] >> Yeah. Like I said, I thought we were

[28:06] asking those questions. So

[28:09] >> I just never saw those names before.

[28:11] >> Correct.

[28:11] >> In our media packet.

[28:13] >> Yeah. I think I think to Mark's point

[28:14] like we did discuss because I know in my

[28:17] report a month ago I mentioned let's be

[28:18] thinking about names and then last time

[28:20] we said let's come up with some names

[28:22] and so I think let's put our foot on the

[28:25] gas and if we're going to come up with

[28:26] names let's do it like yeah

[28:28] >> in the next three days.

[28:30] >> Let's make sure they're in the media

[28:31] packet before the meeting starts. That's

[28:33] >> and and I'll take care of that with my

[28:35] staff and and Andrew. Uh Councilman

[28:37] Gunnel, you had a question. So I saw on

[28:39] your list you had like the a value co-op

[28:43] food side. I would just like to see that

[28:45] we have somebody from the a industry

[28:48] whether it's farming or equipment or

[28:50] something related into that area I think

[28:52] would be an important area.

[28:54] >> Fantastic. I will say that in the list

[28:56] that had been developed since the last

[28:58] meeting um there were a couple of names

[29:01] that I could be specific with but again

[29:03] I I think it's been noted tonight that

[29:05] there may be a an additional window. I

[29:07] love the shortened time frame and

[29:09] welcome any of you to reach out and let

[29:11] me know if you choose to speak with

[29:13] somebody beforehand and just let them

[29:14] know what the opportunity is or the

[29:17] frequency of meetings, what the time

[29:18] commitment would be or would like me to

[29:20] join a call, happy to do so at your

[29:22] pleasure and then that way I can make

[29:24] sure [clears throat] I have that list

[29:25] vetted to get to Andrew in time to be in

[29:27] your media packet and we can proceed

[29:29] from there.

[29:31] >> Perfect.

[29:31] >> With with something that you said, Madam

[29:33] Chair, you did say resumes. Is there

[29:35] anything else you would like me to

[29:36] collect from these individuals in

[29:38] anticipation of the media packet?

[29:39] >> Yeah, maybe their contact information.

[29:43] >> You bet. Okay. Any other questions

[29:46] related to the CEO board? Okay. Then

[29:50] with that, you have in your media packet

[29:52] this evening a draft proposal for

[29:55] something else that's new to the

[29:57] administrative rules this year, and that

[30:00] is

[30:03] a contract to formalize the agreement.

[30:05] Um the [snorts] administrative rule

[30:07] change this year is that any in-house

[30:09] employees are contracted uh work being

[30:12] done on your behalf of this Royal County

[30:13] grant. And just to back up for the sake

[30:15] of the audio record, anybody present

[30:17] tonight or to refamiliarize yourself,

[30:19] you qualify for this rural county grant

[30:21] or RCG because Cash County is designated

[30:24] a rural county. Counties of the third

[30:26] through sixth class are designated by

[30:28] the state of Utah as rural and as such

[30:30] the state legislature a number of years

[30:32] ago sought to incentide

[30:35] flexibility for rural counties to

[30:37] perform economic development at the

[30:39] local level differently than what those

[30:41] legislators who had sponsored the

[30:43] legislation which was Senator Scott

[30:45] Sandal and Representative Carl Alrech

[30:47] differently than say Ogden Provo. And so

[30:50] what they conjured up and is in effect

[30:52] for several years now, $200,000 [snorts]

[30:55] from the state um legislature as an

[30:57] appropriation administered by GOED and

[31:00] comes to you for your purview. And

[31:02] that's where that CEO board comes into

[31:04] play. You must have one. It must be

[31:06] fully constituted. It must be uh

[31:09] genuinely used to provide advice to you

[31:12] on the best ROI or kind of activities

[31:15] for economic development. That being

[31:17] said, the state hereto for has not had a

[31:20] formalized contract requirement for any

[31:23] in-house employees. A number of counties

[31:26] do that as you did for the first few

[31:28] years that you had this program and

[31:30] others also like you do currently

[31:33] utilize someone like me through another

[31:35] AOG or governmental quasi governmental

[31:38] as well as third party private sector

[31:40] economic development consultants. This

[31:42] is what they've intended to memorialize

[31:46] in the form of a contract and this is

[31:48] what is before you as a proposed

[31:50] contract. They admit they being goed

[31:54] that this is a first draft or not this

[31:57] being a first draft. this is their first

[31:58] go at it and they fully expect that

[32:01] there will be some learning curve that

[32:03] they'll see from all of us that submit

[32:04] for fiscal year 27's

[32:07] uh application process uh from those

[32:09] third party private sector consultants

[32:11] to the in-house employees like DAG uses

[32:14] some of this money to pay for their

[32:15] in-house employee and because that

[32:17] employee that performs economic

[32:19] development for DAG does other duties as

[32:22] you know tasks they have other port

[32:25] parts of their general fund that pay for

[32:26] that employee So, I've listed here a

[32:29] number of activities that I've

[32:30] historically done on behalf whether as

[32:32] an in-house employee as I was before

[32:34] going over to Bragg or since that time

[32:37] and um I stand ready to answer any

[32:39] questions if you have them or seek to

[32:42] have your approval and proceed.

[32:45] Okay. Does anyone have any questions

[32:47] about this contract? I have looked

[32:49] through it and I know that the our legal

[32:52] team has looked through it and so has

[32:53] our executive.

[32:55] Um,

[32:58] anybody have any questions for Sean?

[33:00] >> Do we need to take a formal vote then to

[33:02] accept this contract? Okay. I would

[33:04] accept a motion to accept this contract

[33:07] on behalf of our rural opportunity

[33:10] grant.

[33:12] >> So moved.

[33:14] >> Second.

[33:14] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[33:16] approve this contract. Uh, is there any

[33:18] further discussion?

[33:21] All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed?

[33:25] Okay.

[33:25] >> Thank you very much. Uh may I presume

[33:27] that I'm automatically on the calendar

[33:29] for two weeks from today? Excellent.

[33:31] Thank you.

[33:32] >> Thanks.

[33:34] Okay,

[33:34] >> Madam Chair, given the time.

[33:37] >> Yes.

[33:37] >> Um should we move to setting the public

[33:40] hearing and holding public hearings?

[33:41] >> That's going to be okay.

[33:46] >> Would you make a motion for that on 9A?

[33:49] >> Yes. Um, I move to set the public

[33:51] hearing for August 25th, 2026 at or

[33:54] about 5:30 to receive public comment and

[33:57] hear candidate introductions regarding

[33:59] vacancies on the Cash County Fire

[34:01] Protection District Board of Trustees.

[34:03] >> Second.

[34:04] >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded that

[34:05] we set the public hearing for August

[34:07] 25th to receive public comment and hear

[34:09] candidate introductions for the County

[34:11] Fire Protection District Board of

[34:13] Trustees. Those in favor say I. I. Any

[34:16] opposed?

[34:17] >> Okay.

[34:19] and then we will go ahead and hold

[34:21] public hearings for the ordinances that

[34:24] we have here. I'm going to turn some

[34:25] time over to Matt Phillips to begin

[34:26] that. And um

[34:31] we have several public hearings to go

[34:33] through tonight.

[34:42] » What?

[34:43] >> Oh, geotechnical reports.

[34:48] for geotechnical reports. Okay.

[34:51] So, that one's not Matt. Okay. Who Who

[34:54] is going to present on that one for the geotechnical reports? Brian.

[35:03] » Good evening. Brian Abbott with

[35:04] development services. Uh tonight we have

[35:07] an ordinance amendment for sensitive

[35:08] areas uh potentially developable and

[35:11] geological hazards section 17.18.050

[35:16] B5.

[35:17] Um so right now sensitive areas some of

[35:19] our non-developable areas are wetlands

[35:22] steep slopes greater than 30%

[35:25] natural waterways and open water

[35:27] potentially developable developable

[35:30] are moderate slopes between 20 and 30%

[35:33] ridge lines flood planes important

[35:35] habitat areas geologic hazards wildfire

[35:38] hazards historic prehistoric and

[35:41] cultural resources

[35:43] um of those potentially developable

[35:46] sensitive areas as the moderate slopes

[35:48] and geological hazards include

[35:50] landslides, landslides, scarps, fault

[35:52] lines and liquefaction potential.

[35:55] Um the development developmental

[35:58] requirements for that those potential

[35:59] geologic hazards. Um they have to

[36:02] provide a geotechnical report and that

[36:04] must be prepared by a qualified

[36:06] professional and meet certain criteria.

[36:08] Right now our code exempts agricultural

[36:11] buildings as defined by the state code

[36:12] and structures that are less than 200

[36:14] square feet.

[36:16] We propose to amend that. Um that would

[36:20] increase the exemption from a structure

[36:21] less than 200 square feet to 2400 square

[36:25] ft for a onestory non-habitable

[36:28] accessory structure. And there would be

[36:31] no change to any of the agricultural

[36:33] exemptions that already exist. So the

[36:36] code would look something like this

[36:37] under section five of geologic hazards.

[36:40] These requirements do not apply to the

[36:42] following accessory structures that are

[36:44] not meant for human occupancy, a single

[36:46] story, and are 2400 square feet or less.

[36:49] Agricultural buildings not for human

[36:52] occupancy as defined by state code as

[36:55] amended. Uh this came before planning

[36:58] commission uh back in June and the

[37:00] planning commission recommended approval

[37:02] 6 to zero.

[37:05] >> Thank you.

[37:07] >> Okay. Is there anyone here from the

[37:09] public that would like to speak to this

[37:11] um ordinance?

[37:13] This is your time to speak up.

[37:16] >> Okay. Someone want to make a motion.

[37:18] >> Move to close the public hearing.

[37:19] Second.

[37:20] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[37:21] close the public hearing on ordinance

[37:23] 2026-33.

[37:24] Those in favor say I.

[37:26] >> I. Any

[37:26] >> opposed?

[37:28] Okay. Thanks, Brian. All right. Now, we

[37:31] can have Matt come up with our cog

[37:32] projects. Sorry.

[37:38] Matt Phillips, public works director.

[37:41] Um, there is quite a few of these COG

[37:45] public hearings. Um, I guess I would

[37:48] recommend that for the record and just

[37:51] for the ease of going through them if

[37:53] it's okay if we opened and closed for

[37:55] each one of them

[37:56] >> separately.

[37:58] >> Yeah, we don't have to make a motion to

[38:01] open public hearing, but we will make a

[38:03] motion to close it at the end of each

[38:04] one. So I I do believe the very first

[38:07] one on the list is 1,200 East

[38:10] um to for the sake of time.

[38:14] This project has been taken off of the

[38:16] COG applications this year. So I did

[38:19] want to introduce this project in case

[38:21] someone did come to provide public

[38:24] comment on it. This project is between

[38:27] Hyde Park and North Logan in a little

[38:28] section of county. Um, but this project

[38:31] has been this project won't move forward

[38:34] to COG applications this year. So, I

[38:38] don't think it's necessary to go into a

[38:40] lot of depth on this project at this

[38:41] time.

[38:43] >> Okay. Is there anyone here from the

[38:44] public that came to speak about this

[38:46] specific project?

[38:49] >> Okay. Close the public hearing.

[38:52] >> Been moved and seconded that we close

[38:53] public hearing on Cog project 12200 East

[38:57] from 3100 North to 3,400 North. Those in

[38:59] favor say I.

[39:01] >> I. Any opposed?

[39:03] >> Okay.

[39:04] >> Next project on the list is Wolfpack Way

[39:07] project. So

[39:11] Andrew brings up the slides for that

[39:12] one. I thought this would probably

[39:18] I thought it would be a good opportunity

[39:20] to at the start of all these public

[39:22] hearings to just kind of for the public

[39:24] and for the council and those here is to

[39:27] go over what the purpose of these public

[39:29] hearings are. And so as part of the COG

[39:32] rules, um, every project that has

[39:35] multi-jurisdictional,

[39:38] whether you know, you're doing a project

[39:40] in North Logan and it involves Hide

[39:42] Park's rightway or the county's

[39:43] rightway, the COG rules state that those

[39:45] projects need to have a public hearing

[39:48] so that the citizens of each of those

[39:50] jurisdictions have an opportunity to

[39:52] voice um their their

[39:55] opinions, whether they're support the

[39:57] project or they're against the project,

[39:59] to their local people instead of um at

[40:02] the council level. So, and then each one

[40:05] of these public hearings should address

[40:07] the general concept of the project, the

[40:09] estimate of the project, and the

[40:11] financial responsibilities of the

[40:13] jurisdictions of the project. So, um so

[40:17] go to the next one. So, the one that I'm

[40:19] going to present today and just give

[40:21] some background information is on the

[40:23] Wolf Pack Way project.

[40:26] So, this project is a continuation of

[40:28] projects that's been going on for a long

[40:31] time that starts all the way in

[40:33] Providence, goes through Logan, goes

[40:35] through North Logan, 200 East, trans

[40:38] transitions to Wolfpack Way. Um, kind of

[40:41] the area that the specific projects that

[40:43] we'll be applying for COG this year are

[40:45] kind of in that county portion between

[40:47] Smithfield and Hyde Park.

[40:51] Um, these applications will be broken

[40:54] into two phases. is a phase B and a

[40:56] phase C. So on the screen I have phase B

[41:00] is the first phase in green. The second

[41:03] phase is pha phase C and below that the

[41:08] phase A was funded last year through

[41:10] COG.

[41:12] Um so that's kind of gives you a little more indication of where those

[41:16] projects are. Next slide. This is not

[41:20] broken out into phases, but this So now

[41:23] we're looking north is to the right of

[41:25] the screen. This is uh

[41:28] engineering plans for what has been

[41:30] proposed for those projects. So at the

[41:33] end of phase A, you'll have some road

[41:36] improvements with a roundabout and phase

[41:39] B is going to end right about where that

[41:43] curve ends. And then from there into the

[41:46] Smithfield city limits, we would have

[41:48] phase C.

[41:51] Both of phases include a roundabout.

[41:53] One's a five-legged roundabout, the

[41:55] other one's a four-legged roundabout.

[41:59] This is just a a nice aerial looking

[42:02] from the Center Street in Hyde Park

[42:05] looking north. You can see part of phase

[42:08] A and where there's still dirt. So this

[42:11] project would pick up at the end of that

[42:14] where you can see the active

[42:15] construction projects going. Next one.

[42:19] This is at the end of phase A looking

[42:21] north. So uh this phase would start out

[42:24] where you see the little bit of the dirt

[42:25] road and then it would that's this is

[42:27] where it would make the S turn to

[42:29] connect to the road on the right side of

[42:31] the screen. Next one. This is looking at

[42:34] the intersection of 4400 looking north

[42:37] towards Sky View there in the

[42:38] background. Um, that's where the other

[42:40] roundabout would be located and that

[42:43] would be kind of the last section of

[42:46] this 200 East Wolfpack way to get us to

[42:48] 600 South in Smithfield and basically

[42:50] kind of complete the project. I was just

[42:53] going to add this this particular one

[42:56] represents the culmination of what 15

[42:59] years of at least our way.

[43:02] >> And our our desire is is to make this

[43:06] one the highest priority we can and try

[43:09] and get it done uh using our fixed

[43:13] guideway funding which we're going to

[43:15] talk about later. But that that

[43:20] go ahead. So, as part of this project,

[43:23] there's two cross-sections up there.

[43:24] One, the top cross-section is what is

[43:27] proposed

[43:28] um as part of the project because of

[43:32] there's no development on a lot of that

[43:34] portion. So, the curb gutter that you

[43:36] see in the bottom section would come

[43:38] later as part of development. So, in the

[43:40] top one, that's a 40 foot road section.

[43:43] The bottom one's 60 foot. So those

[43:46] developers would be responsible to add

[43:48] some of that asphalt curb and gutter and

[43:51] a sidewalk on the one side. But until

[43:53] that happened, we'd provide, you know,

[43:56] some nice travel lanes and a a walking

[43:58] path on one side to to make that work

[44:02] with everyone.

[44:04] >> Just a little bit more about the

[44:06] project. Um, again, we're applying to

[44:08] the COG for the construction funding.

[44:11] There is other options to apply for COG

[44:13] for rightway purchase. Engineering has

[44:16] been funded by the CMO through a

[44:18] different grant. Um there's still

[44:20] 400,000 left in that CMPO money for some

[44:24] of the some rightaway acquisition and if

[44:28] we're successful in the funding that

[44:29] would start in 2028.

[44:32] As far as cost and responsibility, Pike

[44:36] Park will submit the application. the

[44:39] county would would be a sponsor of that.

[44:43] So, as part of that, the county the

[44:45] council through George and I will submit

[44:48] a letter of support to Hyde Park so that

[44:50] they can apply for that project with our

[44:53] support.

[44:54] Um

[44:56] the there'll be two applications, one

[44:58] Wolfpackway phase B, one Wolfpack Way

[45:01] Phase C. So the cost breakdown for these

[45:04] phases, phase B is 5,850,000

[45:09] estimate and phase C is 5,350,000

[45:13] as as an estimate with rightaway costs

[45:16] and construction management included in

[45:17] there.

[45:19] the way it sits now the

[45:22] phase B if you look at which parts in

[45:26] the county and which parts in the cities

[45:28] you would have cash county is about 82%

[45:31] of that cost would be in the county for

[45:35] um so about 4,800 and our match amount

[45:39] would be 385 if you look at that once

[45:42] it's all annexed in in the future

[45:45] basically that's there's not going to be

[45:47] any in the county and there wouldn't be

[45:48] any match amount from from the county as

[45:50] that annex is in. So next one similar to

[45:56] phase C right now the county's

[46:00] um 100% of that so that match amount of

[46:03] 430 would be um for the county if when

[46:07] those annexed in in the future that

[46:09] there wouldn't be anything in the county

[46:11] and we wouldn't have any required match

[46:12] for that. So, just kind of giving you

[46:14] guys an idea as this progresses kind of

[46:18] the min and max of what the the county

[46:21] would be required to match.

[46:25] » One more. That's all I have for this

[46:28] presentation. So, if there any questions

[46:31] from the council or any clarification

[46:32] that I need, we'll let the public.

[46:37] » Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there

[46:39] anyone here from the public that would

[46:41] like to speak about this project, the

[46:43] Wolfpack Way from 400 North to 4700

[46:46] North?

[46:48] >> Move to close the public hearing.

[46:50] >> Okay,

[46:51] >> second.

[46:52] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[46:53] close public hearing. Those in favor say

[46:55] I.

[46:55] >> I.

[46:56] >> Any opposed? [clears throat]

[46:57] Okay,

[47:00] >> let's go to the next one. Matt,

[47:03] >> Madam Chair, for the next ones, we've

[47:04] asked the cities that are applying for

[47:07] those to come and present. So, Which

[47:09] one's the next one?

[47:11] >> It's the 600 South from 6 East to 10th

[47:14] East.

[47:22] » Good evening. I'm Craig Rasmmanson with

[47:25] Forsrren Associates, the contract city

[47:27] engineer for River Heights City. And I

[47:30] don't have quite the same presentation

[47:32] as as u as the Wolfpack Way project.

[47:36] This is a little bit more low-key. Um

[47:39] and uh could we go to the do you have

[47:42] the um

[47:44] uh the the project view address that one

[47:48] first and just uh

[47:51] >> that's all right. Thanks. So this

[47:53] project is um the county remembers maybe

[47:56] last year uh similar project same

[47:58] project we presented to to Cog last year

[48:02] but um um we did not have the public

[48:06] hearing with Cash County. um the very

[48:09] easterly segment of this project which

[48:11] is 600 south in River Heights City uh

[48:15] from the River Heights Elementary School

[48:17] approximately 770 east over to 10th east

[48:22] that eastern segment of the road. um

[48:25] looking at uh pavement widening um and now adding in intersection

[48:33] improvements at 10th East which was um

[48:36] left out because 10th East is in the

[48:39] county jurisdiction and um we didn't

[48:42] have a public hearing on that last year

[48:44] and so that easterly segment um

[48:48] we couldn't do that because it was

[48:49] multi-jurisdictional. So, we're here

[48:51] today to um have the public hearing uh

[48:54] to get the county that on record with

[48:56] the county and hopefully be able to be

[48:59] in a better position to move forward

[49:01] with the 600 South widening project,

[49:04] including the intersection at 10th East.

[49:08] And um costs haven't changed too much

[49:11] from last year um other than just uh

[49:14] some the work in the county at the

[49:17] intersection really is limited to um

[49:20] correcting some some curb and gutter uh

[49:23] that was installed as part of some

[49:24] development work that didn't account for

[49:27] widening the road and drainage structure

[49:30] relocation

[49:32] as well as just asphalt pavement. Um

[49:35] we're not asking for funding from the

[49:38] county although we would accept it and

[49:41] uh and uh the project budget is with

[49:44] contingencies approximately $750,000.

[49:48] Uh River Heights City's match on that um

[49:51] including the match as well as

[49:53] ineligible COG um work is about $82,000

[50:00] for that. So

[50:02] >> anybody questions? I don't I'll just

[50:04] explain the real briefly the you know

[50:07] the improvements. Um again widening out

[50:09] the road on the south side. Um the north

[50:12] side of the road that that was a one.

[50:14] Thank you. Uh the north side of the road

[50:17] has been developed through development

[50:19] growth in in River Heights City. Um

[50:23] the south side is in a different

[50:26] jurisdiction in Providence and was not

[50:28] uh improved with development. Providence

[50:32] couldn't require outside jurisdiction

[50:35] improvements. Um, unfortunately, it

[50:37] didn't happen. So, we're trying to get

[50:39] that road widened out. Uh, it's a

[50:41] regional, I guess I would say it's a

[50:44] multi-jurisdictional collector road um

[50:47] for traffic from Providence through

[50:49] River Heights coming on into Logan. Um,

[50:52] you know, CMPO has questions on whether

[50:56] that constitutes regional. I would say

[50:57] it's probably more aptly named

[50:59] multi-jurisdictional, but for people in

[51:01] that vicinity, it's it's an important uh

[51:04] section of road that um certainly is uh

[51:07] in need of some improvements for safety.

[51:10] Uh the project will add sidewalk on the

[51:12] south side of the of the of the road as

[51:15] well. Um a lot of pedestrian traffic and

[51:18] increasing amount of bike traffic there

[51:21] as well.

[51:24] Um the westerly end of this segment

[51:26] which is just off of the left side of

[51:28] the sheet um is River Heights Elementary

[51:31] School. So

[51:36] there any questions about that?

[51:40] >> Anybody have any questions?

[51:42] Public hearing.

[51:43] >> Thank you. Okay. This is a public

[51:45] hearing. If there's anyone here from the

[51:46] public that would like to speak about

[51:48] this project in River Heights, this

[51:50] would be your time to address us.

[51:54] Yes, please come forward.

[51:58] » Yeah, you'll have to come to the

[51:59] microphone. Tell us your name, please.

[52:01] And

[52:12] in my former life, I was a school bus

[52:14] driver and I drove from River Heights

[52:17] Elementary. Often I would go east

[52:19] because

[52:20] >> Can you tell us your name, please, sir?

[52:21] Oh,

[52:21] >> I'm sorry. Brent Smith.

[52:23] >> Okay. Thank you.

[52:24] >> And often I would go east because of the

[52:26] conflict of traffic going west in that

[52:29] intersection just west of the

[52:30] elementary.

[52:32] There are so many children that walk on

[52:34] both sides of that street. it. And

[52:37] during when school kids are out, it is

[52:41] very concerning to go east with kids

[52:44] because you can tell them to walk on the

[52:47] sidewalk, but they like it's you have to

[52:50] cross the street to do that and they

[52:52] would sooner stay on the south side. It

[52:55] is very necessary that this project be

[52:57] done with a sidewalk for the children of

[53:01] the River Heights Elementary School.

[53:04] >> Thank you. Is there anyone else that

[53:06] would like to speak to this project?

[53:10] >> Move to close the public hearing.

[53:11] >> Second.

[53:12] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[53:13] close public hearing. Those in favor say

[53:15] I.

[53:16] >> I. I.

[53:17] >> Any opposed?

[53:18] >> Okay. And I just want to clarify, we are

[53:20] not voting on these projects tonight.

[53:22] This is just part of the process. We

[53:23] have to attest that a public hearing was

[53:25] held. We won't be discussing them or

[53:27] voting on them tonight. From here, they

[53:29] go back to the there's a process where

[53:31] they go through COG. So, I just wanted

[53:32] to clarify that for the public.

[53:34] Okay, we'll go ahead with

[53:37] to the 200 West in Providence.

[53:42] >> Is our live stream up? Got an alert

[53:45] saying

[53:47] >> someone put the stream up.

[53:54] » Good evening, council. My name is Josh

[53:56] Nelson. Um, I'm I work for Sunrise

[53:59] Engineering. We're the contracted city

[54:01] engineer for Providence City. Um I'll

[54:04] also introduce Ryan Snow who's here with

[54:06] us um this evening uh city manager for

[54:08] Providence City. So um this presentation

[54:11] I have is the next two items on the

[54:14] agenda. So it is both uh 300 South and

[54:17] the 200 West project. Um so I'll discuss

[54:20] both of them and then I guess we can do

[54:21] public hearing separately but kind of a

[54:23] two for one presentation here. Okay.

[54:27] >> So um both projects 200 West and 300

[54:31] South in Providence. Um, so I'll discuss

[54:33] the 300 South project first. Um, it's a

[54:35] section of road widening to complete a

[54:38] section of road on 300 South. Um, so

[54:40] there are sidewalks on both sides of the

[54:42] road, curb gutter, a [snorts] complete

[54:44] roadway section as one of the the major

[54:46] collectors into Providence City from SR

[54:50] 165. Um, so safety improvements,

[54:53] enhancing, getting the correct width of

[54:54] the road, also adding in bike lanes for

[54:57] active transportation purposes and uh,

[55:00] sidewalks.

[55:01] 200 west project is from first north in

[55:04] Providence um which is about 1,200 south

[55:09] um down to 500 south in Providence. So

[55:12] six blocks of roadway reconstruction. Um

[55:16] [clears throat] this one's involved with

[55:17] the county because 200 West is a county

[55:20] road. Um this county road is is a major

[55:23] road through these communities. Uh

[55:25] there's I believe five elementary

[55:27] schools within um a block of this

[55:30] [clears throat] road. So lots of

[55:31] traffic. It's a major road um for

[55:34] Providence and River Heights um down to

[55:36] the the high school um ridge line. Uh

[55:41] existing road conditions are are poor.

[55:44] Um there is existing curb on the east

[55:46] side of the road and the plan would be

[55:48] to widen the road and build a sidewalk

[55:50] curb and gutter along the west side of

[55:52] the road as well as a roundabout at the

[55:54] intersection of 300 South which is a

[55:56] pretty ugly offset intersection so to

[55:58] fix traffic movement through there. So

[56:01] that's the two project locations.

[56:04] Next slide. So project need um kind of

[56:08] discussed a little bit on the previous

[56:09] side for safety improvements as well as

[56:11] deteriorating road um bad aligned poorly

[56:13] aligned intersections. This is the CMO

[56:17] countywide plan transportation master

[56:20] plan. Um it's a little difficult to see,

[56:21] but 200 West is a phase one project

[56:24] planned to [snorts] be done here um

[56:26] according to the plan within the next um

[56:29] between 2032 and then um the 300 South

[56:33] project is a phase two project.

[56:37] Next slide. So planned improvements um

[56:41] both are major collectors.

[56:43] Um for 300 South it's an 80 foot ride

[56:46] ofway. Um and on 200 West it's a major

[56:50] collector as well. Um the existing

[56:52] rightway varies um from 99 ft down to

[56:56] around 80 ft um through kind of where

[56:59] these old city surveys lined up with old

[57:01] farm surveys. So little differing

[57:03] through there, but this is generally the

[57:05] planned cross-section for both projects.

[57:07] Um, so through lane, spike lanes, some

[57:10] parking on the side, as well as

[57:11] sidewalks for um some awesome active

[57:14] transportation. And this cross-section

[57:15] is from the Providence City uh

[57:17] Providence City's transportation master

[57:18] plan.

[57:21] Um so project cost. Um the one I have on

[57:24] here um today is for 200 West. Um it

[57:28] includes construction right away um

[57:30] construction management, engineering,

[57:31] design um as well as some contingency

[57:33] money. We're anticipating just over $5

[57:35] million for this project. And um what

[57:38] the city is asking is to split what

[57:40] would be the match on this COG

[57:42] application for funding. Um $200,000

[57:46] from Providence, $215,000

[57:48] um estimated at this point from

[57:50] Providence City and $215,000 from Cash

[57:54] County. Um the other project um 300

[57:57] South um the city is not um anticipating

[58:00] on asking for any contribution from the

[58:02] county on that little spot improvement

[58:05] there.

[58:10] So, yeah, the spot improvement max for

[58:12] the project from uh the COG is $400,000.

[58:16] So,

[58:18] and then our schedule um following kind

[58:20] of the COG timeline. Um we're working on

[58:23] design over the next year um with plans

[58:26] for construction in 2028.

[58:28] It's kind of the general timeline there.

[58:32] Any questions?

[58:34] >> Any questions? I actually had a question

[58:36] on the

[58:38] >> sometimes you see the bike lanes on the

[58:40] very outside so they're sort of

[58:42] protected by the parked cars. Is that

[58:46] >> I see in this one the parked cars are at

[58:48] the very edge and the bike lanes

[58:50] positioned between the parked cars and

[58:51] the traffic. Is that I just was curious

[58:55] how come it was designed like that.

[58:57] >> Protect the cars.

[58:58] >> Um [laughter]

[59:00] someone please think of the cars.

[59:02] >> Bikes could hit all the mayors. Um I I

[59:05] wasn't involved in the creation of the

[59:07] transportation master plan for Prev

[59:09] City. Um but um what I would say is a

[59:12] lot of times when the bike lanes are on

[59:14] the uh the curb, cars park in the bike

[59:17] lanes and then there's not room for the

[59:19] bikes to bike anymore um because it gets

[59:21] taken up by the cars. So I'm assuming

[59:23] that was the thought process there.

[59:25] Gotcha.

[59:27] >> Got a question on the 300 South one. Uh

[59:31] has there been development occur on

[59:32] either side of that road?

[59:34] >> There's a house on both sides.

[59:36] Residential

[59:37] >> just residential.

[59:38] house on each side.

[59:40] >> No commercial or anything like that in

[59:41] that area?

[59:42] >> At this point,

[59:43] >> were they recent homes?

[59:45] >> No,

[59:45] >> they're older. Okay.

[59:47] >> So that's the reason there hasn't been

[59:48] sidewalks and correct. Okay.

[59:50] >> Yep. the on the south side it's one of

[59:52] those islands where the parcel's still

[59:54] in the county and on the north side yeah

[59:55] it's a single home with a bunch of large

[59:58] agricultural field around them but

[1:00:00] nothing's been developed besides the

[1:00:02] >> what's the

[1:00:02] >> the other one what's the reason for the

[1:00:04] 215,000 cash county match

[1:00:11] » it currently is a county road so the

[1:00:13] city's willing to [clears throat] come

[1:00:14] in and match uh half half with the

[1:00:18] county um but It's currently a county

[1:00:21] road.

[1:00:22] >> Currently,

[1:00:23] >> yes,

[1:00:23] >> currently county road. So, we're just

[1:00:25] asking for for both sides to come

[1:00:28] together. So,

[1:00:30] >> I have a question about the 300 South.

[1:00:32] Um why is it just that one section? Is

[1:00:35] it already developed on either side of

[1:00:37] that?

[1:00:37] >> Correct. So, that's just

[1:00:39] >> there's kind of a those older homes

[1:00:41] haven't no development has occurred and

[1:00:43] they just need to finish that. There's

[1:00:45] been development to the east and west

[1:00:46] that have built out the road and there's

[1:00:48] just these two older homes that haven't

[1:00:50] been

[1:00:52] >> developed at this point. So there's a gap in the roadway. So there's

[1:00:55] sidewalk on either side of this location

[1:00:57] and curb and gutter but through this

[1:00:58] area there's not.

[1:01:00] >> Thanks for the clarification there.

[1:01:02] >> Thank you.

[1:01:03] >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here

[1:01:05] from the public that would like to speak

[1:01:07] to this? Please approach.

[1:01:11] Make sure you let us know what your name

[1:01:12] is, please.

[1:01:18] Hi, my name is Joe Cotrol. Um, I

[1:01:22] >> Mr. Cockro, before I we need to do a

[1:01:24] public hearing on each of these

[1:01:26] separately. So, we're going to we're

[1:01:28] going to do a public hearing on the 200

[1:01:30] West project first before we talk about

[1:01:32] the 300 South. Is that the one you wish

[1:01:34] to address?

[1:01:34] >> I actually want to address both.

[1:01:36] >> Okay.

[1:01:37] >> Yeah.

[1:01:39] >> Stand up and wait.

[1:01:41] >> Tell me, make sure I'm doing this right,

[1:01:43] >> De. So, he'd need to make his public his

[1:01:45] comment on the the one we're in the

[1:01:48] hearing and then stand up again and make

[1:01:50] public comment on the next one

[1:01:53] >> we we just want to make sure

[1:01:54] everything's done properly so that this

[1:01:56] application

[1:01:57] >> first.

[1:01:57] >> No, we're going to do the 200 West

[1:01:59] first.

[1:02:00] >> Okay.

[1:02:00] >> Um I'm I'm here speaking on behalf of

[1:02:03] the elementary schools. Um I'm a

[1:02:05] principal at Spring Creek Elementary. We

[1:02:09] are making the transition from Spring

[1:02:11] Creek Middle School to elementary. And

[1:02:14] both of these roads, especially 200

[1:02:17] West, has a direct impact on our on mine

[1:02:20] and Providence Elementary's um safe

[1:02:23] walking route. And along that that road,

[1:02:27] there's multiple spots without curb and

[1:02:31] without sidewalk that this would have a

[1:02:33] direct impact on those families and

[1:02:34] ensuring that students make it safely to

[1:02:37] school. Um, with the transition to to

[1:02:41] Spring Creek, especially being an

[1:02:42] elementary school, we have students as

[1:02:46] young as five years old using these

[1:02:48] roads and they are busy and I think this

[1:02:50] is a great opportunity to ensure the

[1:02:52] safety of students making it to those

[1:02:54] schools. So, thank you.

[1:02:56] >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else

[1:02:58] that's here to speak about the 200 West

[1:03:00] project?

[1:03:09] Good evening, council. Um my name is

[1:03:12] Janelle Cely. I'm on the Providence City

[1:03:13] Council. Um I'm just here to express our

[1:03:16] support for this project um the 200 West

[1:03:20] 400 East County Grid Corridor um and 300

[1:03:24] South roundabout.

[1:03:25] This is a county road. It's county road

[1:03:27] 238 and it runs through our

[1:03:29] municipality. It affects it I would say

[1:03:32] in the language that River Heights used.

[1:03:34] This is definitely multi-jurisdictional

[1:03:36] and regional corridor in the CMO. It

[1:03:38] connects from Logan through River

[1:03:40] Heights, Providence down to Millville

[1:03:42] and then it and empties out and connects

[1:03:44] into Nibi City. Um

[1:03:48] I think you know especially as we look

[1:03:50] in Cash County, we really do need these

[1:03:53] corridors to be maintained well. Um

[1:03:56] where we don't have freeways [snorts]

[1:03:58] and we have our limited highway system.

[1:04:00] As we continue to grow, these corridors

[1:04:02] are are critical. Um, this is an

[1:04:06] important regional corridor and the city

[1:04:08] is open to considering acceptance of

[1:04:11] this road from the county with these

[1:04:13] improvements being made. Bringing this

[1:04:15] road up to the city standard, adding

[1:04:17] sidewalk, curb, and gutter. That makes

[1:04:19] it um a reasonable consideration for

[1:04:22] Providence City to take this roadway on.

[1:04:25] Um, these improvements are not optional.

[1:04:28] They're essential for the safety,

[1:04:30] functionality, and long-term stewardship

[1:04:32] of the area. Um, and and it's really

[1:04:35] important that we invest in this

[1:04:37] corridor. The county has been collecting

[1:04:39] funds for the maintenance of this road

[1:04:42] for decades and so it feels very

[1:04:44] appropriate and warranted to fund this

[1:04:47] project and to bring this road up to

[1:04:50] standard and to provide the regional

[1:04:53] mobility and public safety that um our

[1:04:56] municipality and our board

[1:04:57] municipalities need. So, I hope you will

[1:05:00] consider um matching the um splitting

[1:05:04] the match with us since this is a county

[1:05:06] road and funding this project. Thank

[1:05:08] you.

[1:05:08] >> Thank you.

[1:05:19] » Good evening. My name is Jeff Kek. Um I

[1:05:22] am the principal at Providence

[1:05:23] Elementary. Also here to voice my

[1:05:25] support for uh this project. Um with

[1:05:29] recent boundary changes uh in Cash

[1:05:32] County School District, we've taken on

[1:05:33] several well quite a few families uh

[1:05:36] from the west side of Providence. Um

[1:05:40] there is no clear safe way for those

[1:05:42] students to walk um and cross 200 West

[1:05:46] at this time. Um

[1:05:49] the ideal would be to get them across

[1:05:51] the road, I'm told, to to then walk down

[1:05:54] the east side, which has sidewalk. Um,

[1:05:56] but there's no on the on the south end

[1:05:58] of Providence, there isn't a safe way to

[1:06:00] get them across the road. Um, with

[1:06:05] a potential crosswalk further north up

[1:06:08] by Center Street in Providence, we would

[1:06:10] like that west side to have sidewalk for

[1:06:13] these kids to walk down um safely to get

[1:06:16] to that crosswalk to get to Providence

[1:06:18] Elementary. Um, so again, I would also

[1:06:20] encourage you to uh consider strongly

[1:06:23] helping out with this project for the

[1:06:24] safety of the kids. I am here to

[1:06:26] represent many families that have

[1:06:28] reached out to me who are who are not uh

[1:06:30] um satisfied or happy with um the

[1:06:33] options that they have at this point for

[1:06:35] their students to walk to school. Um but

[1:06:38] appreciate your consideration. Thank

[1:06:39] you.

[1:06:40] >> Thank you.

[1:06:42] Is anyone else that is here to speak on

[1:06:44] the 200 West Road project?

[1:06:48] Please.

[1:07:01] » Well, my name hasn't changed. I'm still

[1:07:03] Brent Spess. So, I'd like to address 200

[1:07:06] West. I also drove my school bus down

[1:07:09] 200 West because uh students were

[1:07:12] transported to River Heights and we came

[1:07:14] over and come went down 200 West to the

[1:07:17] south. And again, kids coming down from

[1:07:20] the elementary school in Providence when

[1:07:23] they got to 200 West became confused.

[1:07:26] How do we cross? and they stood there

[1:07:30] and the traffic school bus drivers knew

[1:07:33] what to do but the traffic didn't always

[1:07:37] know what to do and the students were

[1:07:38] there and then when they did stop then

[1:07:41] you'd see a herd of kids start running

[1:07:44] to get through the intersection while

[1:07:46] the cars were stopped. It needs to have

[1:07:49] more attention to it as these gentlemen

[1:07:52] here have spoken regarding these

[1:07:54] elementary kids. that needs to be more

[1:07:56] definitive so that they are not confused

[1:07:59] and they know what to do. Thank you.

[1:08:02] >> Thank you.

[1:08:04] >> Anyone else from the public that would

[1:08:06] like to speak to this project?

[1:08:09] >> Move to close public hearing.

[1:08:11] >> Second. It's

[1:08:12] >> been moved and seconded that we close

[1:08:13] public hearing. Those in favor say I. I.

[1:08:16] Any opposed? Okay. We'll now open the

[1:08:18] public hearing on the 300 South project.

[1:08:23] there's anyone that'll please

[1:08:25] Mr. Catrell.

[1:08:27] >> Thank you again. Um I will just note um

[1:08:31] we we share students that so Spring

[1:08:34] Creek Elementary is a dual language

[1:08:36] immersion magnet school. So we have

[1:08:38] students coming from Providence to

[1:08:41] Spring Creek that go along 300 South.

[1:08:45] And as Mr. Principal Kek alluded or

[1:08:48] talked about, we are at this time

[1:08:51] requiring that they cross 200 West to

[1:08:55] access sidewalk along the east side and

[1:08:58] then cross again at Center Street

[1:09:01] because we don't have um we don't have

[1:09:05] sidewalk along the the west side. So

[1:09:08] this it becomes a major issue once again

[1:09:11] with confusing children figuring out how

[1:09:14] to get how to access. So, I um thank you

[1:09:18] for your consideration. We obviously are

[1:09:21] in strong support of of this and for the

[1:09:25] safety of students and and speaking on

[1:09:27] behalf of Cash County School District as

[1:09:28] well. We've written letters about this u

[1:09:32] these issues as well. Thank you.

[1:09:34] >> Thank you. Is there anyone else from the

[1:09:36] public that would like to speak about

[1:09:38] the 300 South project?

[1:09:42] >> Move to close the public hearing.

[1:09:43] Second. It's been moved and seconded

[1:09:45] that we close public hearing. Those in

[1:09:46] favor say I.

[1:09:48] >> Any opposed?

[1:09:49] >> Okay. The last one we have is the 1200

[1:09:51] East North End project. Who's here to

[1:09:54] speak about that one? Matt.

[1:10:03] » Meet me again.

[1:10:04] >> Okay.

[1:10:06] >> And state your name again, please.

[1:10:07] >> Josh Nelson with Sunrise Engineering um

[1:10:09] for the 1200 East North End project.

[1:10:39] That's it.

[1:10:43] That's

[1:11:00] [clears throat]

[1:11:18] This one's not in our packet.

[1:11:20] >> It's right here.

[1:11:21] >> Where

[1:11:24] should be 9 B7? Mine goes from 9 B5.

[1:11:29] >> It

[1:11:33] B7.

[1:11:34] >> I don't have a 9 B7.

[1:11:38] » B2.

[1:11:42] That's the one we've put on hold.

[1:11:44] >> That's the one that got put on hold.

[1:11:45] >> Oh, this is it.

[1:11:47] >> That's the That's the north one.

[1:11:49] >> That's the north one.

[1:11:50] >> Oh, 1200 East.

[1:11:53] >> Further north.

[1:11:55] >> North end. I don't know.

[1:11:58] >> Sorry.

[1:12:00] >> Is it the same one stated twice?

[1:12:02] >> So, it's not in here then, right?

[1:12:03] >> No. Five. We end at five.

[1:12:05] This one's not our packet. Correct.

[1:12:09] >> B2.

[1:12:11] >> That's your first time.

[1:12:13] >> I thought that was the one they said we

[1:12:14] were going to

[1:12:15] >> say that one was confused with

[1:12:18] the other, 1200.

[1:12:20] >> Okay. So, the the one that's 9B number

[1:12:23] seven is the one that is going to be

[1:12:25] taken off.

[1:12:28] >> 9B number two.

[1:12:31] >> This one we're going to talk about now.

[1:12:33] Uh that was accidentally listed under 9.

[1:12:35] The presentation that's correct is

[1:12:37] accidentally listed under the incorrect.

[1:12:39] >> Yeah. In the packet

[1:12:40] >> title in the in the packet

[1:12:44] for [clears throat]

[1:12:45] >> there's there's two 12 east projects

[1:12:47] which is probably part of the concern on

[1:12:49] each side of Hide Park. So anyway,

[1:12:51] >> it's what we get for not naming our

[1:12:52] streets cute names, you know,

[1:12:54] >> and and part of the parenthesis is it's

[1:12:57] 12 east in the county, a th000 east in

[1:12:59] Smithfield, and it's 700 East in Hide

[1:13:00] Park.

[1:13:02] Not to make it more confusing.

[1:13:04] >> We should probably come up with another

[1:13:06] name with it so we get four. But uh Josh

[1:13:08] Nelson with Sunrise Engineering. I'm

[1:13:10] here on behalf of Smithfield City. We

[1:13:12] are the design engineer, a contracted

[1:13:14] design engineer for this specific

[1:13:15] project. Um so the objective of this

[1:13:18] project is to connect 1000 East with in

[1:13:20] Smithfield with 700 East in Hyde Park,

[1:13:22] which is 12 east through the county. Um

[1:13:25] there's very few roads that connect uh

[1:13:27] through Smithfield and Hyde Park. Um,

[1:13:29] and part of this goal is to help um,

[1:13:31] alleviate traffic off of Highway 89 or

[1:13:34] 91 um, to prevent con congestion. So,

[1:13:38] it's a phase 2 COG or COG CMPO project

[1:13:41] priority. Um, it's also identified in

[1:13:43] the Smithfield transportation master

[1:13:45] plan. Um, to the right you kind of see

[1:13:47] um, the the project map through here

[1:13:50] where it ties on to Southeast and Hyde

[1:13:52] Park. Um, it's up above the canal behind

[1:13:55] the Michel just east of that whole area.

[1:13:58] And then it ties in under that new

[1:14:00] development um on Sky View Hill on the

[1:14:02] north side with the proposed roundabout

[1:14:04] at 600 South and Thousand East in

[1:14:07] Smithfield.

[1:14:09] Next slide. Um this is CMPL map that

[1:14:12] shows the phasing priority as as well as

[1:14:15] um other future projects and roads

[1:14:17] planned through the area.

[1:14:19] Slide

[1:14:22] um the aerial exhibit of the project

[1:14:24] area. I'm just giving kind of a better

[1:14:26] view of of where this road will be

[1:14:28] going.

[1:14:30] On the the bottom of the picture, you

[1:14:32] see 700 East and then looking north, you

[1:14:34] see where it ties into Smithfield City.

[1:14:39] Um, so project details kind of the blue

[1:14:42] north is turned to the right at this

[1:14:43] point. Um, kind of the the plan for the

[1:14:46] project is to build a partial

[1:14:47] cross-section in the blue area. Um and

[1:14:51] it would be built out in the future

[1:14:52] pending development and then through the

[1:14:54] red area would plan on building the full

[1:14:56] cross section um where it's always

[1:14:58] already been developed um on the east

[1:15:00] side.

[1:15:03] So um plans to apply for COG funding

[1:15:05] this year. Um design's been funded by

[1:15:07] the CMO already. Um we're estimating $5

[1:15:10] million um in construct in in COG

[1:15:13] funding will be the request. Um and at

[1:15:16] this point, uh Smithfield City is not,

[1:15:18] uh requesting any participation from the

[1:15:21] county, um for funding.

[1:15:25] Um that's cross-section. Um so the 80oot

[1:15:28] standard cross-section, which will be

[1:15:29] more on that north end, and then that

[1:15:30] partial cross-section. Um, part of the

[1:15:33] plan is also to build a a eight-foot

[1:15:36] path on the, in this case, the west side

[1:15:39] of the road um along the canal there to

[1:15:41] give um some active transportation

[1:15:43] routes between um Hyde Park and

[1:15:45] Smithfield City up there along the

[1:15:46] canal.

[1:15:49] You have any questions?

[1:15:52] >> Does anybody have any questions for

[1:15:53] Josh?

[1:15:55] >> Found slide four very helpful. I like

[1:15:57] that aerial view.

[1:15:58] >> Yeah.

[1:16:00] >> Like to see more of those. Mhm.

[1:16:01] >> Wish I could take credit for it, but I

[1:16:03] was very impressed with my uh engineer

[1:16:05] who helped me on it. So, thank you.

[1:16:07] >> Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here

[1:16:09] from the public that would like to speak

[1:16:11] on this 1200 East North End project?

[1:16:16] » Anybody?

[1:16:17] >> Move to close the public hearing.

[1:16:19] >> Second.

[1:16:20] >> Okay. It's moved and seconded that we

[1:16:21] close public hearing. Those in favor say

[1:16:23] I.

[1:16:24] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:16:26] >> Okay.

[1:16:28] Thank you. Um, Jesse, I have all these

[1:16:31] signed if you want to just come grab

[1:16:32] them.

[1:16:34] Like I said, the these were not for us

[1:16:36] to discuss tonight. We're just attesting

[1:16:39] that we held the public hearing on

[1:16:40] those. So,

[1:16:45] » okay.

[1:16:46] >> I move that we enter the board of

[1:16:48] equalization.

[1:16:50] >> Second move and seconded that we enter

[1:16:52] board of equalization to talk about the

[1:16:54] 2026 assessment role colle correction.

[1:17:00] Moving along.

[1:17:01] >> You got a vote.

[1:17:04] >> Do we need to vote on that motion?

[1:17:06] >> Did we vote?

[1:17:07] >> Oh, those in favor. Okay. It's been

[1:17:09] moved and seconded that we enter the

[1:17:10] board of equalization. Those in favor

[1:17:11] say I.

[1:17:12] >> I.

[1:17:12] >> Any opposed?

[1:17:15] >> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the

[1:17:17] council. I'm here today to present the

[1:17:19] request for corrections to the 2026

[1:17:23] assessment role. Under Utah code

[1:17:26] 59-2-133,

[1:17:28] the assessor may supply or correct

[1:17:32] errors in the assessment book with the

[1:17:33] consent of the county legislative body.

[1:17:36] The corrections before you today

[1:17:37] represent necessary adjustments

[1:17:39] identified since the assessor's tax role

[1:17:42] was closed on May 22nd.

[1:17:45] Uh the majority of the corrections in

[1:17:47] this memo concern a specific cluster of

[1:17:50] parcels in the South Valley Recreation

[1:17:52] Area

[1:17:54] about 16 parcels there 16-

[1:17:58] 094-00005

[1:18:00] through 16-094-0023.

[1:18:05] So during our review, it was determined

[1:18:07] that an incorrect assumption was made

[1:18:09] regarding the property site

[1:18:10] characteristic characteristics for these

[1:18:12] cabin lots. Um the land value for these

[1:18:16] parcels should have been discounted to

[1:18:18] account for specific location

[1:18:20] attributes. We are requesting to correct

[1:18:22] these land attributes to ensure the

[1:18:24] assessed values correct accurately

[1:18:27] reflect the market conditions for the

[1:18:29] recreation area.

[1:18:31] Um, one parcel here we have identified

[1:18:35] 09-030-000012

[1:18:40] um was erroneously removed from the from

[1:18:43] green belt status.

[1:18:45] Uh the parcel consists of 25.35 acres

[1:18:48] that meet the criteria for green belt.

[1:18:51] We are requesting to reinstate this

[1:18:53] status to ensure statutory compliance

[1:18:55] and fair treatment of of this a land.

[1:18:59] And then finally, the remaining items on

[1:19:01] the list involve um updates to the

[1:19:03] residential exemption status for four

[1:19:05] parcels. We're adding the exemption to

[1:19:08] parcel 04-183-0805,

[1:19:13] which has been confirmed as the primary

[1:19:15] residence of a tenant.

[1:19:18] And we are asking to remove the

[1:19:21] exemption from three parcels where the

[1:19:22] owners maintain their primary residence

[1:19:24] elsewhere. 08-155-

[1:19:28] 0310

[1:19:30] 07-158-0078

[1:19:34] and 03- 021-000024.

[1:19:40] Um, these corrections are essential for

[1:19:43] maintaining the integrity of the

[1:19:46] assessment role and ensuring all

[1:19:47] property owners are assessed fairly and

[1:19:49] accurately. So I ask for your blessing

[1:19:52] and formal consent to approve these

[1:19:55] corrected assess values. I'm happy to

[1:19:58] answer any specific questions that you

[1:19:59] have.

[1:20:01] >> So [snorts] we have any questions?

[1:20:03] >> I have more of a procedural question. Is

[1:20:05] are these self-discoveries? Because I

[1:20:07] know we have a board of equalization

[1:20:10] hearing where someone discovers

[1:20:12] evidence, presents it to you, and that

[1:20:14] this is our office found it and we're

[1:20:16] making

[1:20:16] >> a little bit of both. I I I can't

[1:20:19] remember

[1:20:19] >> if it is both. Do you know why it

[1:20:20] doesn't go through the full hearing?

[1:20:22] >> We could we could ask them where we we feel like it was an error on our

[1:20:28] part. We we can ask to correct that. So

[1:20:31] we felt that rather than ask them to go

[1:20:34] through the regular process of

[1:20:36] appealing, this might be an efficient

[1:20:38] way to do it.

[1:20:38] >> Okay. It's like an outofc court

[1:20:39] settlement kind of situation.

[1:20:42] >> We think I mean we think this will this

[1:20:44] is more correct obviously.

[1:20:46] >> All right. Thanks. Were

[1:20:49] >> were these more like communication error

[1:20:51] or a just a hit the wrong button?

[1:20:54] >> There's there's about 53,000 parcels.

[1:20:57] So,

[1:20:58] >> taxable parcels. So,

[1:21:01] >> um I think in the past maybe we should

[1:21:04] have and we have in the last few years

[1:21:06] we've started to come before you and ask

[1:21:07] for these corrections and I assume there

[1:21:10] will be corrections in the future but um

[1:21:13] yeah, they're just data or

[1:21:15] misunderstandings or

[1:21:17] Are these from the patrons that have

[1:21:19] come forth or you you found these?

[1:21:21] >> Um I I think one the one in the

[1:21:24] recreation area did was brought forth

[1:21:26] was brought to our attention.

[1:21:28] >> But several of them you you found the

[1:21:30] air earner.

[1:21:32] >> I like that proactive attitude actually.

[1:21:35] >> So you have a description of where these

[1:21:37] the big number of land attributes are.

[1:21:40] Um yeah, these are these are south of

[1:21:44] south and a little east I think of Sheep

[1:21:46] Creek Cove if you know where that area

[1:21:48] is east of Ant Flat Road.

[1:21:51] >> So I was wondering about that and that's

[1:21:53] why I'm asking about the green belt how

[1:21:54] that got twisted in there because I've

[1:21:57] been

[1:21:57] >> uh I I don't

[1:21:58] >> wanting to focus on that area for a

[1:22:00] while on the green belt.

[1:22:01] >> Yeah. Um I don't believe I'd have to

[1:22:04] check. I don't believe that most of

[1:22:06] those ones that I'm asking for

[1:22:07] correction are in green belt.

[1:22:10] You just had the one that I saw.

[1:22:11] >> Yeah, that different one that I

[1:22:15] >> What are the incorrect land attributes?

[1:22:16] I mean, obviously they were all about

[1:22:18] the same. What What was exactly or

[1:22:22] overview? What

[1:22:25] >> you know, there was a there was a

[1:22:26] landline in our Puma software that I

[1:22:30] think just needed to be corrected. It

[1:22:32] was

[1:22:34] just an just an error.

[1:22:36] >> Okay.

[1:22:39] It ended up being about double the value

[1:22:41] that it should be.

[1:22:44] >> Are they all about the same acreage?

[1:22:46] >> Yes, they're roughly the same.

[1:22:50] Um I believe they're around 10 acres.

[1:22:54] I'd have to confirm.

[1:22:55] >> So when we see one go from 112 112, then

[1:22:58] we have a 277 278. Is that more acreage?

[1:23:02] >> Uh re help me see which parcel you're

[1:23:05] talking. They're on um 160940018

[1:23:08] and 0019. That's it's [snorts]

[1:23:12] more than double what the others are,

[1:23:14] but it's still the same attribute

[1:23:16] question.

[1:23:19] >> I can I email you on that and get some

[1:23:22] make sure I understand that.

[1:23:23] >> And there's one at 300,000. So,

[1:23:25] >> well, if you look at the next line over

[1:23:28] prop building, they obviously have a

[1:23:30] separate building that increases the

[1:23:32] value. I don't know what that means, but

[1:23:33] is that the explanation?

[1:23:39] » I'd be happy to.

[1:23:42] >> But that still takes about half of it

[1:23:45] >> in the building.

[1:23:46] >> These are the third and fourth ones down

[1:23:47] on the list, right?

[1:23:48] >> Yeah.

[1:23:51] >> Okay. Just email me.

[1:23:52] >> Yeah.

[1:23:55] >> Okay. Does anyone have any further

[1:23:57] questions for our assessor?

[1:24:00] Someone would someone make a motion to

[1:24:04] accept the assessment role corrections?

[1:24:07] >> All moved.

[1:24:09] >> So, I'll second it.

[1:24:10] >> So, it's been moved and seconded that we

[1:24:12] approve the 2026 assessment role

[1:24:14] corrections as they've been presented to

[1:24:17] us. Is there any further discussion?

[1:24:19] >> Did you want to see it first or you just

[1:24:20] want to get the information?

[1:24:22] >> I'll take their word on it. So,

[1:24:24] >> okay.

[1:24:25] >> That doesn't let me yet. So,

[1:24:27] >> all right. Those in favor say I.

[1:24:29] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:24:32] >> Okay. Does someone want to make a mo a

[1:24:34] motion to exit board of equalization?

[1:24:37] >> No, we have tax relief.

[1:24:39] >> Tax relief is not board of equalization.

[1:24:40] >> Oh, it's not.

[1:24:41] >> No, I already talked to Diana.

[1:24:43] >> Okay. I move to exit board of

[1:24:44] equalization.

[1:24:46] >> Second.

[1:24:47] >> Move and second exit board of

[1:24:48] equalization. Those in favor say I. I.

[1:24:50] >> I. Any opposed? Okay. Diana, tax relief.

[1:24:58] Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

[1:25:00] Diana Schaefer for the tax admin

[1:25:03] division of the auditor's office. So

[1:25:06] before you, we have tax relief two

[1:25:09] hardships. You can all see those in your

[1:25:11] package.

[1:25:13] If we can start with the one that's

[1:25:16] ending in 0012.

[1:25:19] This is a previous applicant.

[1:25:23] We do recommend approval on this. He's

[1:25:26] he is um has a disability

[1:25:31] has provided all the requisite

[1:25:32] paperwork.

[1:25:37] » I would move to approve 0012 at 50%.

[1:25:44] >> Second.

[1:25:45] >> Been moved and seconded that we approve

[1:25:46] hardship that ends in 0012 for a 50%

[1:25:50] hardship relief. Those in favor say I.

[1:25:53] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:25:55] Okay, moving on to parcel 0065.

[1:26:01] Uh, this individual

[1:26:04] does not come with the recommendation

[1:26:06] for approval as she was non-compliant in

[1:26:09] providing requested information. At that

[1:26:13] time, she was also over the income

[1:26:16] limit. She was also denied in 2018 for

[1:26:20] over income and has come to us once

[1:26:23] again. So,

[1:26:24] Recommendation is for a denial.

[1:26:28] >> I'd move to approve 0065 for denial.

[1:26:33] >> Second.

[1:26:34] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[1:26:36] >> on the basis of of a lack of information

[1:26:39] >> non-compliance with information request

[1:26:41] and also over income.

[1:26:44] >> Moved and seconded that we accept the

[1:26:47] denial for the application that in 0065

[1:26:51] for the reasons stated. Any further

[1:26:54] discussion?

[1:26:55] >> No, maybe we just restate the motion

[1:26:57] because it was stated as approved for

[1:26:58] denial, but can we just simplify it to

[1:27:00] deny?

[1:27:01] >> Okay.

[1:27:03] >> Is that

[1:27:03] >> Are you okay with the friendly amendment

[1:27:05] to

[1:27:06] >> Okay,

[1:27:06] >> same thing.

[1:27:07] >> Okay. Those in favor say I.

[1:27:10] >> I. Any opposed?

[1:27:11] >> Okay.

[1:27:13] >> And

[1:27:15] the next agenda item is for the tax

[1:27:18] relief extension request. This is

[1:27:23] something that we bring to you each

[1:27:24] year. We have

[1:27:27] the legislative body has the ability to

[1:27:30] extend the September 1st tax relief

[1:27:34] filing deadline through December 31st.

[1:27:37] We've always chosen November 30th.

[1:27:39] That's the time that the taxes are due.

[1:27:41] So that gives that us time to close the

[1:27:43] tax role. That's why we ask for the

[1:27:45] November 30th. So we have thousands of

[1:27:47] applicants that we process for these

[1:27:50] various types of tax relief.

[1:27:52] uh low income, the hardships like we

[1:27:54] just heard, also blind exemptions,

[1:27:58] uh military exemptions,

[1:28:01] and settlements and deferrals.

[1:28:04] And so the deadline, as I said, was

[1:28:07] September 1st, but can be extended if

[1:28:10] this body moves to approve this November

[1:28:14] 30th request. And it it helps because

[1:28:18] September 1st passes and then

[1:28:23] Mallister will send the actual bill

[1:28:27] sometime mid October but before November

[1:28:30] 1st and then there's a lot of people

[1:28:32] that haven't paid attention to

[1:28:33] [cough and clears throat] the office

[1:28:34] that says this is not a bill and then

[1:28:36] they're like oh my goodness I need some

[1:28:38] help. So that allows us to um

[1:28:42] [clears throat]

[1:28:44] you know help those people that need it

[1:28:47] you know within that time frame before

[1:28:50] they pay have to pay the tax.

[1:28:54] » Okay. So we want to make a motion about

[1:28:56] this extension.

[1:28:57] >> Move to extend the filing deadline to

[1:28:59] November 30th 2026 5 p.m. for the

[1:29:03] low-inccome abatements abatement blind

[1:29:05] exceptions senior deferrals and antigent

[1:29:07] deferrals. Second.

[1:29:09] >> It's been moved and seconded that we

[1:29:11] approve the tax relief filing extension

[1:29:13] request that has been before us. Any

[1:29:16] further discussion?

[1:29:18] >> Those in favor say I.

[1:29:20] >> I. I. Any opposed?

[1:29:22] >> Okay.

[1:29:23] >> Thank you very much. On the signature

[1:29:25] pages, do you want to just send them

[1:29:26] with the clerk's office?

[1:29:27] >> Yep. I'll make sure and get them over

[1:29:28] here.

[1:29:29] >> Perfect. Thank you very much, ladies and

[1:29:31] gentlemen.

[1:29:32] >> Thank you.

[1:29:36] » Those afterwards. Okay. Um, we are at

[1:29:40] number 10, proposals for consideration

[1:29:41] of action resolution 2026-28,

[1:29:45] multi-jurisdiction

[1:29:47] access request. Matt Phillips, public works director,

[1:29:58] here to discuss this resolution.

[1:30:00] There's been a lot of discussion tonight

[1:30:02] on Highway 238. So, here's here's a

[1:30:06] little bit more. So,

[1:30:07] Um, just as a reminder why we're here,

[1:30:10] this resolution, the road manual states

[1:30:13] that any

[1:30:14] um, municipal development that wants

[1:30:17] access to a county road needs the

[1:30:19] approval of the council for that. So,

[1:30:23] next one.

[1:30:26] Um, there there should be something

[1:30:29] letter in your packet. It's was this

[1:30:32] request came from Danny McFarland of

[1:30:34] Stackville. It's the access for a new 12

[1:30:36] lot subdivision that was recently

[1:30:38] reszoned within Providence City. He's

[1:30:42] proposing uh this access would be a new

[1:30:44] private road off 400 East our highway

[1:30:47] 238. This is 100 west in Providence.

[1:30:51] So just kind of showing the location

[1:30:55] with respect to River Heights and

[1:30:56] Providence where this is

[1:30:59] um highlighted in your screen if you can

[1:31:00] see it with all of the colors.

[1:31:03] Providence is kind of the pink color.

[1:31:05] River Heights is kind of the off yellow

[1:31:07] color and our road is in the middle of

[1:31:10] the slide in the pink highlighted.

[1:31:12] That's our highway 238. So this is just

[1:31:16] barely on the Great River Heights and

[1:31:18] Providence. Next one. This a little

[1:31:21] zoomed in of

[1:31:24] where the proposed development is.

[1:31:26] There's currently I think some a

[1:31:28] structures on there with a small a type

[1:31:33] driveway access. So next one, this is a

[1:31:37] proposal of how he's doing this 12 lots.

[1:31:41] Um

[1:31:43] what you can't see is on the very north

[1:31:45] edge of this property. There's wetlands,

[1:31:48] there's some ponds, and there's kind of

[1:31:50] a little stream.

[1:31:52] I wouldn't say that they're part of the

[1:31:54] flood plane, but they are it is wetlands

[1:31:57] and it is um water. So, kind of that's

[1:32:01] why there's I think he's proposing a

[1:32:03] park there, but it's very difficult for

[1:32:06] this subdivision to access off Spring

[1:32:09] Creek Parkway because of the

[1:32:11] environmental stuff along the north edge

[1:32:13] of this property. So,

[1:32:16] um

[1:32:18] that's about it. Matt, can

[1:32:20] >> you go back a screen?

[1:32:21] >> Yeah, go back. So, in approving this,

[1:32:26] it's still up to the city to worry about

[1:32:29] access like if there's a sec a second

[1:32:31] egress or the fire codes or whatever

[1:32:34] that we're all we're saying is they're

[1:32:35] going to access our the road that we

[1:32:37] own.

[1:32:38] >> Correct.

[1:32:39] We're not worrying about the

[1:32:41] actual development standards.

[1:32:42] >> No. So, as far as those road widths, the

[1:32:46] lot sizes,

[1:32:48] the emergency turnaround at the end of

[1:32:50] the road, all of those types of things,

[1:32:52] because this is in Providence City,

[1:32:54] they're all managed in part of their

[1:32:57] subdivision code or their development

[1:32:59] code.

[1:33:00] >> The only part that we have jurisdiction

[1:33:02] over is the rideway. So, it's basically

[1:33:04] from the rideway to our road. That's the

[1:33:06] part that we have jurisdiction over. So

[1:33:08] that would be per county standards.

[1:33:11] Where we run into a lot of issues with

[1:33:12] these is this road, our highway 238 is

[1:33:16] classified as an arterial, a minor

[1:33:19] arterial. And to put that into

[1:33:21] perspective of some of the other county

[1:33:23] roads, that is the the road from Menden

[1:33:26] to Logan. So the Menden road or from the

[1:33:30] airport airport road um to from 10th

[1:33:35] west to Daryl's appliance. So that's

[1:33:38] what an arterial is in the county. So

[1:33:41] our arterial standards for the county

[1:33:43] are set up for rural. So our road

[1:33:47] spacing and intersection grids are 660,

[1:33:51] you know, blocks. And so when you get

[1:33:53] into these urban environments and you're

[1:33:55] trying to push additional accesses on

[1:33:57] our road, they they don't meet our

[1:34:00] standard. So essentially when it gets to

[1:34:02] my level and they're applying for the

[1:34:03] actual permit to do the work, we we

[1:34:06] essentially have to issue them a design

[1:34:07] exception because it doesn't meet our

[1:34:10] standards. So, but in this in this case,

[1:34:13] we've wrote the resolution

[1:34:16] um given the fact that there is some,

[1:34:18] you know, discussions with Providence on

[1:34:21] this juris on the jurisdiction of the

[1:34:23] road and essentially he he's with the

[1:34:27] wetlands and some of the natural

[1:34:30] stuff that's going on along the north

[1:34:32] property, he's essentially he needs to

[1:34:35] access towards our road. So,

[1:34:38] >> uh, Matt, how many feet is there between

[1:34:40] this, uh, this egress and and Spring

[1:34:44] Creek Parkway

[1:34:47] to Is it like a block? Like, is it

[1:34:49] >> Well, you're talking a few hundred feet.

[1:34:53] >> Like 180. Okay,

[1:34:54] >> that's it. Yeah.

[1:34:56] >> Yes.

[1:34:57] >> Wow.

[1:34:58] >> What's the difference on this and what

[1:35:00] we've set for so long on the River

[1:35:01] Heights one where they were doing a

[1:35:03] subdivision one and a county road two?

[1:35:05] River Heights is basically the same

[1:35:07] thing, Nolan, is we the council approved

[1:35:09] that. So now he's gone back similar to

[1:35:12] this one. Once if we approve this, he's

[1:35:14] going to probably go through the

[1:35:16] subdivision process with the city. He'll

[1:35:18] have to bring in his power, his water,

[1:35:20] his sewer, and and get his engineer to

[1:35:23] design the project and the improvements.

[1:35:25] So, they're not really moving forward

[1:35:27] with these projects until they get the

[1:35:29] council's approval. Same with the last

[1:35:31] one. We haven't heard back from him

[1:35:32] because he's probably in that

[1:35:34] subdivision approval stage and

[1:35:37] improvement all the improvements

[1:35:40] >> like his sewer, his water, those types

[1:35:42] of thing. He's probably working through

[1:35:43] the city of River Heights for all that.

[1:35:45] So, he hasn't been back for us to

[1:35:47] actually get the permit to come in and

[1:35:49] do the work.

[1:35:50] >> It's just I've heard so much of River

[1:35:52] Heights and that issue. I've heard very

[1:35:53] little of this one. So,

[1:35:56] >> how does this if we approve this access,

[1:35:59] does that affect at all the plans that

[1:36:01] we have to like chip seal that road or

[1:36:03] the things that we plan to do before we

[1:36:06] let ownership of that change? Like, will

[1:36:09] that make any difference?

[1:36:11] >> So, he has one access that he'll

[1:36:14] probably have to close. He'll have he'll

[1:36:15] probably have to remove some curb and

[1:36:17] gutter, but he's his current access is

[1:36:20] not in that location. So where he's

[1:36:22] proposing, he'll have to move that

[1:36:24] location and most of that's going to be

[1:36:25] from the asphalt back. So because this

[1:36:29] is a private road, you're not going to

[1:36:30] see big intersections and street cuts

[1:36:33] like that. He'll he'll most likely leave

[1:36:37] most of the asphalt intact and just be

[1:36:39] working back. So Sandy, it shouldn't

[1:36:41] affect any of our

[1:36:43] more so it would be if he has to bring

[1:36:45] his sewer and water and stuff that has

[1:36:47] to cut the road. that would have more

[1:36:49] impact in his private driveway.

[1:36:52] >> He'd be responsible for all of that.

[1:36:54] >> Yeah.

[1:36:57] >> So So the frontage on 238 it would be

[1:36:59] the county standards.

[1:37:01] >> It Yes. Because that's again this is

[1:37:04] probably part of the issue going back is

[1:37:08] Providence doesn't have

[1:37:09] >> is Providence then ain't going to be mad

[1:37:11] because it's not up to their standards.

[1:37:13] >> Um

[1:37:14] >> Proidence give it to him.

[1:37:16] >> Providence isn't here. Providence isn't

[1:37:18] here to answer that, but when I reached

[1:37:20] out to Providence, they didn't have any

[1:37:22] comment of whether they were supported

[1:37:24] or against it.

[1:37:28] >> We could speed this up really fast.

[1:37:33] » Okay.

[1:37:34] >> Any other questions?

[1:37:37] >> Anybody have any other questions for

[1:37:38] Matt? Okay. Thank you. This is an

[1:37:42] initial proposal. It's a resolution.

[1:37:45] Um, does anyone want to make a motion on

[1:37:47] this or do you want to continue it or

[1:37:51] pass it?

[1:37:58] I'm at your disposal.

[1:38:01] Looks like we'll continue that until the

[1:38:03] next meeting. I don't have a motion on

[1:38:06] that.

[1:38:09] Okay. 10B.

[1:38:11] Uh, ordinance 2026-33, the square

[1:38:14] footage exemption for geotechnical

[1:38:16] reports.

[1:38:19] Brian.

[1:38:20] Okay, Brian already presented this. Um,

[1:38:26] does anyone have any questions for

[1:38:28] Brian? Do you want to discuss this? Uh,

[1:38:31] >> what's special about 2200 ft?

[1:38:34] >> 2400 square feet.

[1:38:36] >> No, no, 22. We already had 200 square

[1:38:39] feet, right?

[1:38:40] >> Now we're going to 24. So, what's

[1:38:42] special about 2200 ft?

[1:38:43] >> Uh, we just thought about the the

[1:38:45] majority of the sizes of accessory

[1:38:47] buildings we get

[1:38:48] >> um are 60 by 40 or under um it when we

[1:38:53] get the bigger buildings than that, they

[1:38:55] usually have

[1:38:56] >> a second story or a loft or they're

[1:38:58] putting dividing walls in it. So, we

[1:39:00] thought if we're going to raise the

[1:39:02] square footage, let's do it to the our

[1:39:03] most common buildings so that we can

[1:39:05] help the most amount that we can. That's

[1:39:08] kind of where 60 by 40 foot building

[1:39:10] came into play. Yeah, we threw a dart at

[1:39:12] a board. No, I'm just kidding.

[1:39:16] » Okay, any other questions for for Brian

[1:39:19] about this exemption changing this

[1:39:20] exemption?

[1:39:23] >> So, we see a lot of um

[1:39:28] buildings, barns going up and um

[1:39:32] out in the county.

[1:39:35] So

[1:39:36] are we being careful of what we're

[1:39:38] classifying as an agricultural building

[1:39:40] just because it's on green belt or

[1:39:42] what's going on in that manner? Does

[1:39:44] that make sense?

[1:39:44] >> Yeah. So right now the agricultural

[1:39:47] buildings aren't going to change how we issue those. This is for the

[1:39:51] accessory buildings.

[1:39:52] >> But are we sure that all of those that

[1:39:54] are being built are agricultural

[1:39:56] buildings?

[1:39:57] >> We take them at their word. They sign a

[1:39:58] document that says that it will always

[1:40:00] be an a building. They can never change

[1:40:02] the occupancy.

[1:40:05] Yeah, as far as determining people's

[1:40:07] intentions in the future, we we don't do

[1:40:10] that.

[1:40:13] » Yeah, my thoughts are more comment than

[1:40:16] question, but if we're going to pass it,

[1:40:18] we have to enforce it. And I think

[1:40:20] that's Nolan's point. I don't know how

[1:40:21] we enforce this all that. Well,

[1:40:23] >> well, I see a lot of buildings going up,

[1:40:25] but um

[1:40:28] pickle ball courts, whatever else,

[1:40:31] something's going on in there. So,

[1:40:35] There's

[1:40:36] >> how many square feet do you need for a

[1:40:37] pickle ball court?

[1:40:38] >> Paddle, a racket tapping.

[1:40:40] >> Well, it's just that you go back a

[1:40:42] couple years and Kathleen How when she

[1:40:44] was the assessor, she had to go in and at the request of the state checked

[1:40:49] to see what was in or going on in those

[1:40:51] buildings. And so, are we doing that? I

[1:40:54] mean, I'm not pointing the finger at

[1:40:57] anybody, but I'm just saying

[1:41:00] just like Mark said, if we prove it, how

[1:41:02] do we understand it? And that's my

[1:41:04] question. Kind

[1:41:09] buildings, you know, I've been here a

[1:41:10] long time. We've done a lot of a

[1:41:13] buildings and uh

[1:41:15] you know, if they meet certain criteria,

[1:41:17] uh they can have them. Um, if they do

[1:41:20] electrical or plumbing in them, they use

[1:41:22] a lot of people get electrical and

[1:41:24] plumbing inspections. That's about the

[1:41:25] best we can do on on an A building. I

[1:41:28] think this helps us with accessory

[1:41:29] structures because, you know, a lot of

[1:41:31] people come in with a building and they

[1:41:33] say, "Oh, we got to get a geological

[1:41:35] report." Well, never mind. It's an a

[1:41:37] building. So, I think this is actually

[1:41:39] going to help us instead of somebody

[1:41:42] maybe not being fully upfront about the

[1:41:44] A building. Now, they'll they'll get in

[1:41:45] a permit for an accessory structure and

[1:41:47] then it can be all upfront and legit.

[1:41:50] So, I I think this will help our case,

[1:41:52] not hurt it.

[1:41:56] [clears throat]

[1:41:58] » Any other questions or does someone want

[1:42:00] to make a motion on this?

[1:42:01] >> I guess we'd wave the rules on this,

[1:42:02] right? I move to wave the rules and uh

[1:42:05] pass ordinance 2026-33

[1:42:09] square footage exemption for geotech

[1:42:11] reports.

[1:42:12] >> Second. Okay, it's been moved and

[1:42:14] seconded that we suspend the rules and

[1:42:15] pass ordinance 2026-33.

[1:42:18] Any further discussion?

[1:42:20] Those in favor say I.

[1:42:22] >> I.

[1:42:22] >> Any opposed?

[1:42:24] >> Thank you.

[1:42:24] >> Okay. Thanks, Brian.

[1:42:26] >> All right, Andrew. 2026-30.

[1:42:36] » Let's see. Andy.

[1:42:40] » Andrew, this is

[1:42:51] » Good evening, council. Before you is

[1:42:53] ordinance 2026-34.

[1:42:55] Before I begin, I'm going to pass out a

[1:42:57] paper. Half of it you've already

[1:42:59] received. The other half just details

[1:43:02] some of the processes that are proposed

[1:43:04] in this ordinance. They're pretty uh

[1:43:06] just quick references.

[1:43:29] Mr. Chair,

[1:43:41] Let's begin.

[1:43:44] >> So, Utah code allows for counties to

[1:43:46] enact some uh several optional sales

[1:43:49] taxes. Currently, the following two

[1:43:51] taxes are enacted in county in Cash

[1:43:53] County. First off is what is called the

[1:43:55] TRCC tax. This is most known mostly

[1:43:58] known here as the restaurant tax just as

[1:44:00] a quick reference. Uh and the second one

[1:44:02] is the wraps tax which also has its own

[1:44:04] unique long title but the most important

[1:44:08] references in this are going to be the

[1:44:10] wraps tax and the restaurant tax which

[1:44:11] most of you are already familiar about.

[1:44:14] The wraps tax is used to support

[1:44:17] recreational and zoological facilities.

[1:44:20] And the restaurant tax is to help

[1:44:23] finance tourism promotion in the county

[1:44:25] as well as the development, operation,

[1:44:27] and maintenance of airports, convention

[1:44:29] centers, cultural facilities, recreation

[1:44:31] facilities, and tourist facilities in

[1:44:32] the county.

[1:44:33] >> Quick question.

[1:44:34] >> Yes.

[1:44:35] >> On that uh right there enacted in Cash

[1:44:37] County, that's the wraps tax is by vote.

[1:44:42] >> Correct. That one does every 10 years.

[1:44:44] >> So it is enacted but it is by vote by

[1:44:47] the people every 10 years. Right.

[1:44:49] >> Yes. The next one will be 2032 if

[1:44:51] >> I think that's important to also say.

[1:44:53] >> Yes.

[1:44:57] [snorts]

[1:44:58] >> So some more background. County code

[1:45:01] defines the specifics of h how Cash

[1:45:03] County implements some of the

[1:45:04] requirements of those tax programs uh

[1:45:07] that state code lays out such as the

[1:45:09] process of awarding funds. uh the size

[1:45:12] of the advisory board, what specific

[1:45:14] percentage allocations can be spent in

[1:45:16] what category of awards, etc., etc. Uh

[1:45:19] those parts of county code are chapters

[1:45:21] 3.80 and 3.82.

[1:45:25] Right now, Cash County uses a joint

[1:45:27] advisory board to advise on both the for

[1:45:31] the applications to the wraps tax and

[1:45:33] the restaurant tax. That's why it's

[1:45:34] referred to as the wraps and restaurant

[1:45:36] tax advisory board. Uh just to clear up

[1:45:39] any confusion there.

[1:45:41] So right now at the moment there are

[1:45:43] several outdated provisions in county

[1:45:45] code governing the specifics of how Cash

[1:45:47] County implements these programs as well

[1:45:49] as a lack of definition of several

[1:45:51] important issues such as out of cycle

[1:45:53] awards, formal requesting changes in in

[1:45:56] uh scope of applications and automatic

[1:45:59] return of unused funds as well as some

[1:46:02] other number of issues. up.

[1:46:06] Just in short, the ordinance itself aims

[1:46:08] to correct the provisions uh relating to

[1:46:11] these two tax programs. Uh like I said,

[1:46:14] there are several outdated and defunct

[1:46:16] provisions and there are certain

[1:46:19] processes that really ought to be

[1:46:21] defined at very minimum and some

[1:46:23] additional requested technical changes

[1:46:25] from the program administrator and just

[1:46:27] some uh some things that me and the

[1:46:30] auditor thought would be some good

[1:46:31] additions as well.

[1:46:36] So the first one is just some technical

[1:46:38] changes to the restaurant tax

[1:46:40] implementation.

[1:46:42] So on your papers it might be referenced

[1:46:44] as the TRCC but again I want to

[1:46:47] emphasize that essentially that is just

[1:46:49] the restaurant tax.

[1:46:52] This would remove some outdated language

[1:46:54] uh related to 2010 2009 2010 date

[1:46:57] clauses. Um, so state law actually

[1:47:00] allows you to use these funds for

[1:47:02] airports. County code currently doesn't

[1:47:05] list that as uh a permissible use. So

[1:47:09] that addition is important. And this uh

[1:47:12] specifically

[1:47:14] says that not only is this board going

[1:47:16] to be appointed by the county council,

[1:47:18] but specifically it's going to be

[1:47:20] exercised by a joint board reference

[1:47:22] later on in code. So that way it it

[1:47:24] clears up uh some a little bit of legal

[1:47:27] confusion if you're reading it for the

[1:47:28] first time. Uh and independent by

[1:47:30] itself, but it also updates the

[1:47:32] definition of restaurant. I had some

[1:47:34] questions on that earlier. U I believe

[1:47:37] the the state and the state tax

[1:47:39] commission

[1:47:41] uh oftent times are going back and forth

[1:47:44] on on changing what the specifics are

[1:47:46] under what a restaurant is. So, I

[1:47:48] believe the ordinance itself says

[1:47:50] restaurant means whatever the state uh

[1:47:53] defines it as. It keeps it rather

[1:47:55] simple. Does anyone have any questions

[1:47:57] so far?

[1:47:59] >> Yes.

[1:48:00] >> I don't know if this is um but is there

[1:48:03] one board to do both?

[1:48:05] >> Okay.

[1:48:05] >> Yep.

[1:48:08] And there is reason because a lot of the

[1:48:10] applications can actually cross over

[1:48:13] >> correct

[1:48:13] >> to each other and it makes it a lot more

[1:48:17] uh I guess it stretches the dollars when

[1:48:21] you're able to use some here, some there

[1:48:23] in applications. It works out really

[1:48:25] good.

[1:48:25] >> Yep. That way you also don't have to

[1:48:27] have two different boards meeting at

[1:48:28] different times and trying to coordinate

[1:48:30] all those logistics too uh between which

[1:48:32] one you're going to apply for. So it's

[1:48:34] nice to have them all at once.

[1:48:36] But in terms of amendments to the wraps

[1:48:38] tax itself under chapter 3.82

[1:48:42] this is where most of uh this entire

[1:48:45] process is defined. So right now uh the

[1:48:50] ordinance uh sorry county code 3.82 is

[1:48:54] rather short and while it's to the point

[1:48:57] it still has uh it's lacking in a lot of

[1:49:00] details. So this ordinance would expand

[1:49:03] and reorganize a chapter. It wouldn't be

[1:49:06] essentially muddling together different

[1:49:08] details that belong in different

[1:49:10] sections. So that's more of an

[1:49:11] organizational thing, but uh it does

[1:49:14] specifically add the general requirement

[1:49:16] for voter reauthorization every 10 years

[1:49:18] under state statute. So there's no

[1:49:20] confusion about that. It adds the

[1:49:22] statutory definition of a zoological

[1:49:24] organization and it clarifies that

[1:49:26] zoological funds can be used for either

[1:49:28] capital projects or operating expenses.

[1:49:30] that is also permissible under state

[1:49:32] law. Specifically,

[1:49:34] this reassigns the program administrator

[1:49:36] to report to the county auditor. Uh this

[1:49:38] is given that the county auditor is now

[1:49:40] the county's finance officer uh given

[1:49:44] the change within the past few years and

[1:49:46] the fact that the program is just

[1:49:47] administered under the finance office.

[1:49:49] Anyway,

[1:49:50] this specifically defines the board as

[1:49:52] seven as a seven member board appointed

[1:49:54] directly by the county council and that

[1:49:57] is also by state code as well. And this

[1:50:01] is probably one of the first substantive

[1:50:03] changes here is that this would set a

[1:50:06] two-year term limit for all the

[1:50:07] appointees to the board. So far, it's

[1:50:09] been one-year appointments, but if you

[1:50:12] want to have someone on the board for a

[1:50:14] little bit to gain experience, this

[1:50:17] gives them a little bit of time, but

[1:50:18] also keeps it short enough that if you

[1:50:20] want a change in membership, you can

[1:50:22] just wait the two years and go for

[1:50:24] someone new. But it also says that

[1:50:27] the board itself will elect a chair and

[1:50:29] the chair has to be an appointed council

[1:50:31] member. So that way there's a little bit

[1:50:33] of knowledge and organization kind of

[1:50:36] leading the the board itself. Another

[1:50:39] addition is that it mandates a level of

[1:50:41] recusal for the members on the board who

[1:50:43] are affiliated with like an applicant

[1:50:45] organization before the board with the

[1:50:47] exception of a county council member if

[1:50:49] the application is from the county.

[1:50:52] Does anyone have any questions on

[1:50:53] anything that I've said on the slide?

[1:51:04] All right,

[1:51:07] continuing on with the amendments to

[1:51:08] chapter 3.82.

[1:51:11] >> This this is probably one of the uh more

[1:51:13] important substantive parts. If you look

[1:51:15] on the back of the page that was printed

[1:51:18] out, page two of two, this is uh where a

[1:51:21] lot of this comes in. So right now there

[1:51:24] is no defined way for someone to

[1:51:26] technically apply for applications

[1:51:29] outside of the the set January to May

[1:51:32] regular cycle. That's when most of the

[1:51:34] people submit their applications. The

[1:51:35] review county council goes through them.

[1:51:38] Right now there's not an exception to

[1:51:40] any of that. And I would suggest plainly

[1:51:44] saying they aren't allowed period which

[1:51:47] that is acceptable. But with the

[1:51:50] outcycle applications as it's written

[1:51:52] now in the ordinance itself, it would

[1:51:54] establish a formal cycle by which the

[1:51:58] county council first takes I take that

[1:52:01] back. [snorts] Someone who is seeking an

[1:52:04] outofcycle application submits a written

[1:52:06] paper application to the administrator

[1:52:08] in which in this case is Alma uh Burgess

[1:52:11] with the with the finance office.

[1:52:14] Afterwards, it comes to the county

[1:52:15] council and the county council can

[1:52:18] either say yes or no to send it to the

[1:52:20] advisory board. But there's a a specific

[1:52:24] legal,

[1:52:26] how do I say this? A legal hurdle to be

[1:52:29] met, which is

[1:52:31] if the request meets the strict

[1:52:32] threshold of an emergency,

[1:52:34] time-sensitive grant deadline, or

[1:52:36] critical operational window that

[1:52:38] otherwise

[1:52:39] uh cannot wait until the next

[1:52:41] application cycle.

[1:52:43] So this uh kind of defines that. It also

[1:52:48] strictly bans the use of grant funds for

[1:52:51] indirect costs for those who are awarded

[1:52:53] the funds for indirect costs,

[1:52:56] administrative overhead or facilities

[1:52:57] expenses, which as I've come to learn is

[1:53:00] more of a a standard u a standard

[1:53:03] practice when it comes to giving out

[1:53:04] grants uh of of this type at least.

[1:53:08] But with the 31-month spending limit,

[1:53:12] this is something that some of the

[1:53:13] council members have expressed some

[1:53:15] interest in in the past is giving a hard

[1:53:18] deadline of when to spend money by. And

[1:53:22] the idea initially was 24 months, but uh

[1:53:25] Alma came up with the idea that we

[1:53:27] should do 31 and a half months because

[1:53:29] if you go 31 and a half months after the

[1:53:31] initial award in a May of of a year,

[1:53:35] that gives you until December of two and

[1:53:37] a half years later to essentially figure

[1:53:39] out if you need to be applying for funds

[1:53:41] again or to submit uh your final report.

[1:53:44] So that way the cycle just lines up

[1:53:46] well.

[1:53:48] Um, but it also mandates that unspent

[1:53:51] funds at the end of that time period are

[1:53:53] returned to the county counsel to the

[1:53:55] county within 14 days of expiration. So

[1:53:58] that also sets that hard specific

[1:54:00] deadline so that the county can re uh

[1:54:03] take the that money back if it's not

[1:54:05] been spent. This also prohibits

[1:54:08] extension requests uh unless they're

[1:54:11] submitted at least 90 days before they

[1:54:13] are expiring. So, that means you can't

[1:54:16] come in a week after uh say your

[1:54:18] playground uh let's say your costs have

[1:54:22] run overboard when you're constructing

[1:54:23] [clears throat] a playground out in the

[1:54:25] middle of nowhere. You can't come in

[1:54:26] just a week before and say, "By the way,

[1:54:30] we need an extension." You probably

[1:54:33] should know that something has has gone

[1:54:35] ary. So, that gives a reasonable uh

[1:54:38] amount of leeway for review.

[1:54:40] >> Hey, let's go back.

[1:54:42] >> Yes. You said that unspent funds they

[1:54:44] return to the county.

[1:54:46] >> I Yes.

[1:54:48] >> They didn't really ever get the like

[1:54:50] they apply for the funds, but if they

[1:54:51] haven't

[1:54:52] >> they don't get the money until,

[1:54:55] you know, they they show that the funds

[1:54:57] are or that they've spent.

[1:54:59] >> Yeah. It's a reimbursement, not a

[1:55:01] >> No. And I understand.

[1:55:02] >> Yeah. It's a reimbursement. It's not a

[1:55:04] you don't give them the money first and

[1:55:05] then

[1:55:06] >> So there's nothing to return unless

[1:55:07] money has been spent.

[1:55:08] >> That's what I'm saying. Yeah.

[1:55:10] >> And well, the idea is specifically if

[1:55:13] Oh, sorry. I know that with a lot of the

[1:55:15] requests, I know that some have been

[1:55:17] before the county council to do change

[1:55:18] of scope awards. It's kind of like,

[1:55:20] well, we've spent this much money and

[1:55:22] now there's a surrounder. So, there

[1:55:24] isn't necessarily an automatic provision

[1:55:26] saying that that just goes back to the

[1:55:28] county. But, um, unless I've uh been

[1:55:32] misinformed, which may very well be the

[1:55:34] case, but um

[1:55:36] >> I think your idea is correct. I just

[1:55:37] think the word return the money version

[1:55:39] is a different term.

[1:55:40] >> Fored and then we they forfeited.

[1:55:43] >> That's probably better. Sorry. That's

[1:55:44] probably

[1:55:45] >> Yes.

[1:55:45] >> Is that right, Matt?

[1:55:46] >> Yes, that's correct.

[1:55:47] >> Okay, then.

[1:55:48] >> Okay,

[1:55:48] >> that's a better

[1:55:49] >> Yeah, forfeited. Not the

[1:55:51] >> Yeah, for

[1:55:55] uh let's see.

[1:55:56] >> Sorry about that.

[1:55:57] >> It's all good.

[1:56:01] » Yes. So with the scope of award changes,

[1:56:05] which is something that has come before

[1:56:06] the county council a few times, there's

[1:56:08] also not a defined process for that. Um

[1:56:13] in this event, the ordinance would say

[1:56:16] that the if there are uh unforeseen uh

[1:56:22] events or the grantee submits a formal

[1:56:25] uh writing change of scope request to

[1:56:27] the administrator prior to the grant's

[1:56:28] expiration date. Uh the county wraps a

[1:56:32] tax advisory board, then convenes to

[1:56:34] review the request. Then after that, it

[1:56:36] gives the recommendation to the county

[1:56:38] council. Um then after that the council

[1:56:41] evaluates the request and uh grants

[1:56:45] formal authorization via a legislative

[1:56:48] resolution if it so chooses. That's not

[1:56:51] a mandate.

[1:56:52] >> I I worry about that one. Yep.

[1:56:55] >> Because I think that at that point when

[1:56:57] we've accepted and we've actually passed

[1:57:01] the allocations,

[1:57:04] uh I think that that at that point it is

[1:57:06] the council that owns that and that

[1:57:09] uh advisory board does not. So I think

[1:57:13] it would just stick with the council to

[1:57:15] make that change. Am I wrong?

[1:57:20] I I don't I just don't think we have to

[1:57:22] go convene that board again

[1:57:24] >> for the scope of change

[1:57:25] >> because they've just given us the ideas

[1:57:27] and then when we've enacted on it

[1:57:29] >> then that is the ownership of the

[1:57:31] council

[1:57:32] >> and so I don't think that review board

[1:57:35] would have to go back and look at it

[1:57:37] again.

[1:57:40] » I agree.

[1:57:41] >> Okay.

[1:57:43] >> Can I just want to hear his whole

[1:57:45] presentation and then maybe discuss.

[1:57:46] Would that be all No, I'm I'm fine with

[1:57:48] taking questions along the way, but uh

[1:57:51] with let's see, where was I?

[1:57:54] >> Sorry, Keegan. Interrupted again.

[1:57:56] >> You're good.

[1:57:57] >> 13.

[1:57:57] >> I have these questions, too. I'm trying

[1:57:59] to jot them down on the way.

[1:58:00] >> Yep. So this would codified a a a fixed

[1:58:04] reporting schedule which is currently

[1:58:06] not in county code. Uh specifically says

[1:58:09] here you have to give a number of

[1:58:10] progress reports and then a final

[1:58:12] closeout report to the program

[1:58:14] administrator just to make sure that

[1:58:15] everything is going to plan. That also

[1:58:18] helps keep those accountable along the

[1:58:19] way to make sure that they're meeting

[1:58:20] that 31 and a half month deadline.

[1:58:24] And the last thing that would be an

[1:58:26] amendment to chap this chapter would be

[1:58:28] it would establish an official board

[1:58:30] logo and it would encourage and give

[1:58:32] permission directly to the grant

[1:58:34] recipients to display it on unfunded

[1:58:36] assets and marketing materials. That had

[1:58:38] been a question before that had been

[1:58:39] brought up to the administrator and this

[1:58:42] would just be making it explicit that it

[1:58:44] can be used.

[1:58:46] So,

[1:58:49] [clears throat]

[1:58:51] but yes, I essentially went over the the

[1:58:55] main process improvements or at least

[1:58:57] establishing their uh

[1:59:01] let's see [clears throat] that's

[1:59:03] everything that I have in presentation.

[1:59:04] Does anyone have any questions? Yes. So,

[1:59:08] I'm not on the wraps for it, but I'm

[1:59:10] going to ask you guys a question. It

[1:59:11] seems to me, and I know Matt's going to

[1:59:13] be talking about it, but the out of

[1:59:14] cycle part here because when the

[1:59:18] original applications come in, they're

[1:59:20] during January, February, and you vet

[1:59:23] each one of them. So now we have money

[1:59:26] that we leave in there that's not

[1:59:28] awarded, but then we have a emergency is

[1:59:32] what we're classifying for an out of

[1:59:33] cycle.

[1:59:35] seems like that is going to be

[1:59:37] considered not against those others who

[1:59:40] were not granted any money and I'm

[1:59:42] trying to see the fairness of how an out

[1:59:44] of cycle review works with those who

[1:59:47] were in that original discussion of

[1:59:50] money. Does that make sense?

[1:59:52] >> Yeah, I had the same question because

[1:59:54] when you get them all, you're

[1:59:55] considering them relative to each other.

[1:59:57] >> Then when an emergency comes in, it's by

[2:00:00] itself.

[2:00:01] >> Yes. And sometimes their surplus money

[2:00:03] might [clears throat] be easier to

[2:00:05] >> and most of those that do not, they're

[2:00:08] usually scored quite low.

[2:00:10] >> Yeah,

[2:00:11] >> they wouldn't even compare probably with

[2:00:12] an emergency

[2:00:14] type request that may occur later. But

[2:00:16] if you know that we've put an out of

[2:00:18] cycle in here, is the board always going

[2:00:21] to pad that excess money down the road

[2:00:24] or what happens there? And I would see

[2:00:26] more if we've [clears throat] kept just

[2:00:28] it's had unlimited fund balance

[2:00:31] >> and and that's kind of been practice to

[2:00:34] have that there

[2:00:35] >> for even though this isn't practice that

[2:00:37] we've had but we've had it there for if

[2:00:40] there is some contingency.

[2:00:42] >> Do you think there's equal consideration

[2:00:43] in the January to May versus an

[2:00:45] emergency one who's by himself in

[2:00:47] consideration? I just hope I'm giving

[2:00:50] that equal. I think in the last few

[2:00:52] years we've had some things pop up that

[2:00:54] were unforeseen that we needed to um

[2:00:57] consider, but there was no formal

[2:01:00] process to do that legally and but we

[2:01:02] were kind of doing it anyway. This

[2:01:04] formalizes the process and it just makes

[2:01:06] it so that the council can choose

[2:01:08] whether we think it's an emergency or

[2:01:09] whether we even want to consider it. The

[2:01:11] first vote would be do we even consider

[2:01:14] it? If we do, it goes back to the wraps

[2:01:16] advisory board. they look at the merits

[2:01:18] of it and make a recommendation to us

[2:01:20] and then we take a vote again. And um I

[2:01:24] understand what you're saying, Nolan,

[2:01:25] that it's it's but think about the

[2:01:28] things that have come up like at the

[2:01:30] last minute the opera uh canceled all

[2:01:33] their dates and the the all the theaters

[2:01:35] were going to go out of business if we

[2:01:37] didn't do some real emergency funding

[2:01:39] for some of the other theater groups.

[2:01:41] like things happen that were unforeseen

[2:01:43] and that's there has to be a legal

[2:01:45] process in the code that allows us to

[2:01:49] look at those applications off

[2:01:52] >> the question lies upon emergency

[2:01:55] >> well it doesn't necessarily mean e

[2:01:57] there's there's several different

[2:01:58] classifications

[2:02:00] um

[2:02:01] >> unforeseen unforeseen unforeseen I think

[2:02:05] then I leave my then I leave my

[2:02:07] application till I'm the only one

[2:02:09] considered

[2:02:09] >> well but it's up to this body to

[2:02:11] determine if if that's to be

[2:02:13] entertained.

[2:02:14] >> Yeah,

[2:02:16] >> there's

[2:02:17] there have been some

[2:02:18] >> arbitrary, but still it's up to this

[2:02:20] body to say

[2:02:21] >> it either way in any of the scenarios,

[2:02:24] whether it's the natural process or the

[2:02:26] exception process,

[2:02:28] >> it's up to this body to deter determine

[2:02:29] if it's a need.

[2:02:30] >> Yeah.

[2:02:31] >> For the community.

[2:02:32] >> First, did you want to say something? Um

[2:02:33] I just

[2:02:35] as I look at voting and how you do

[2:02:37] [snorts] voting, the way you typically

[2:02:40] do things is by majority vote. If I then

[2:02:44] veto it, comes back and you have to override

[2:02:48] the veto with a twothirds.

[2:02:51] If if you require something to be a

[2:02:54] twothirds vote,

[2:02:57] no need your veto's gonna

[2:02:58] >> veto proof. And and I guess what I'm

[2:03:01] saying is is I I think if a majority of

[2:03:05] the county council wants something,

[2:03:09] um it doesn't really make a lot of sense

[2:03:11] to put a twothirds on it. I think it's

[2:03:13] an appropriation.

[2:03:16] Um, I kind of question whether we should

[2:03:19] ramp up to twothirds vote on anything

[2:03:22] because what you're doing that way

[2:03:25] [snorts] is you're and frankly I'm I'm

[2:03:29] really not hot on vetoing anything. But

[2:03:32] I think emasculating the county

[2:03:35] executive's veto by saying we're not

[2:03:38] going to pass anything unless it's

[2:03:40] twothirds really means that you're

[2:03:42] taking the county executive out of the

[2:03:45] legislative process which any more than

[2:03:48] >> which I don't think you should be doing

[2:03:52] >> the second half of that statement.

[2:03:54] >> Back to the question that Nolan raises.

[2:03:59] I I think that's a good reason to send

[2:04:02] any request out of cycle back to the

[2:04:05] advisory committee. And I I I had a hard

[2:04:08] time hearing Sandy be sorry. I think she

[2:04:11] may have made that point, but it seems

[2:04:13] to me that by sending things back to the

[2:04:16] committee who did prioritize things, you

[2:04:20] really avoid a situation where somebody

[2:04:23] escapes full review because they know

[2:04:27] how the system ran when they approved

[2:04:30] things.

[2:04:32] >> So, gentleman's raising his hand, but I

[2:04:35] don't think there's a public comment

[2:04:36] period.

[2:04:36] >> There is no public comment. I'm sorry.

[2:04:38] sir. Um,

[2:04:40] >> this is why I came.

[2:04:42] >> Sorry, there just there's not a public

[2:04:44] comment about this ordinance. It's an

[2:04:46] ordinance that the council is

[2:04:47] considering.

[2:04:48] >> And why is that?

[2:04:49] >> Um, because it was not noticed as a

[2:04:51] public hearing and it's um it's a count

[2:04:54] it's a internal council

[2:04:56] >> public input on this.

[2:04:58] >> No, that about another city

[2:05:01] council. I would love to share our

[2:05:05] comments on the exact thing

[2:05:07] [cough and clears throat] about

[2:05:08] >> I'm sorry we didn't notice a public

[2:05:10] hearing so we can't accept public

[2:05:11] comments at this time say something

[2:05:15] >> Paradise submitted an application that

[2:05:19] was late like 10 minutes it was early

[2:05:24] >> okay whatever it was

[2:05:26] >> I'm trying to help you I'm trying to

[2:05:28] help you by paring what I understand

[2:05:31] about Paradise so that you have the

[2:05:33] benefit of that information. Paradise

[2:05:36] had two requests.

[2:05:39] Our the report I received inaccurate or

[2:05:42] whatever is that one was not considered

[2:05:45] because it was delayed or incomplete or

[2:05:48] something and so Paradise has been

[2:05:50] sitting out there with a proposal that

[2:05:53] didn't get into the queue that was

[2:05:55] considered by the committee.

[2:05:58] That's that's one of the things that

[2:06:00] happened this year.

[2:06:06] » Okay,

[2:06:07] [clears throat] let's go. That's for

[2:06:09] now. Let's go through this ordinance. If

[2:06:11] we wanted to consider passing it

[2:06:13] tonight, we need to consider any changes

[2:06:16] to it. And it looks to me like we're not

[2:06:18] going to be able to pass it tonight.

[2:06:20] >> We didn't get your questions. All right.

[2:06:22] Well, no. I still had some, but it's 30

[2:06:26] pages and I think I got it yesterday. I

[2:06:28] need more time and

[2:06:29] >> Yeah.

[2:06:30] >> Yep.

[2:06:31] >> Okay.

[2:06:32] >> What the Let's keep talking about

[2:06:34] specific things. The the one is 3.82.080

[2:06:39] number four. Remove the 2/3 vote.

[2:06:42] Um

[2:06:47] that would be that was the other one.

[2:06:49] Um, when you have the paper that you

[2:06:51] gave us that said the money is returned

[2:06:52] to the county, that's not any that

[2:06:54] verbiage is not anywhere in this

[2:06:56] ordinance, is it? I

[2:06:57] >> was going to say we have to check the

[2:06:59] specifics.

[2:06:59] >> I didn't I didn't see I saw it in your

[2:07:01] explanation, but I didn't specifically

[2:07:03] see it in the

[2:07:05] >> 10

[2:07:06] >> in the ordinance.

[2:07:08] >> Yeah.

[2:07:08] >> Also talked about changing returning to

[2:07:11] forfeit.

[2:07:12] >> It's on page 18, I believe.

[2:07:17] I'm just looking through it.

[2:07:20] >> 3.8210

[2:07:24] » change of scope

[2:07:34] clawback.

[2:07:35] >> It says uses the word clawback. I don't

[2:07:37] know that that's

[2:07:39] >> under C. It says unspent project funds

[2:07:41] must be returned to the county within 14

[2:07:43] calendar days of the

[2:07:45] Okay. Yeah, that that verbiage is not

[2:07:50] okay. All right.

[2:07:53] So, there we need to do some work on

[2:07:54] this. Um

[2:07:56] >> Sandy,

[2:07:56] >> yes.

[2:07:57] >> Excuse me. If our discussions, we talked

[2:07:59] about the composition of the advisory

[2:08:01] committee.

[2:08:02] >> Yes.

[2:08:02] >> Um

[2:08:03] >> we'll deal with that in the before we

[2:08:05] convene committee in the spring.

[2:08:07] >> But that doesn't need to be addressed in

[2:08:08] the in the actual ordinance.

[2:08:10] >> No, because that's already part of state

[2:08:11] code. We will we will deal with that.

[2:08:15] why it's with our state. Okay, got you.

[2:08:18] >> I just wanted to mention just something

[2:08:20] to consider about the logo or some sort

[2:08:22] of attribution that it's paid for by

[2:08:24] county. I I think it's presented as an

[2:08:26] option in here. I'd love to make that a

[2:08:29] requirement and maybe we we make it a

[2:08:32] requirement if a certain percentage of

[2:08:33] the project is funded by wraps, but I

[2:08:35] think it gives the public the

[2:08:36] opportunity to have that feedback loop

[2:08:38] of like this is my tax dollars at work.

[2:08:40] So currently they do have to give some

[2:08:42] credit like on a a plaque or on a

[2:08:46] program or something they do have to say

[2:08:48] funding is provided by but the logo

[2:08:50] would if we could develop I thought we

[2:08:53] had a logo

[2:08:53] >> just just to have some sort of standard

[2:08:55] >> we do

[2:08:57] >> there is one I've seen it

[2:08:59] >> I don't remember the workings

[2:09:01] >> I've seen them on a lot of facilities

[2:09:03] but I don't know that it's on

[2:09:04] >> I see a lot of the signs but I didn't

[2:09:06] know that it was required I think it was

[2:09:08] just smart

[2:09:08] >> it does say application No,

[2:09:11] >> I know. But I think it was smart how

[2:09:12] they, you know, that they do attribute

[2:09:14] and there's signs put up for the brass,

[2:09:16] little things. But

[2:09:17] >> I did not know that it was ever

[2:09:19] required, but

[2:09:20] >> but maybe we define that a little bit

[2:09:21] more clearly. Yeah. Like, you know, if

[2:09:23] there's a disclaimer, it's like it has

[2:09:24] to be displayed prominently or has to

[2:09:27] occupy this much percentage of the just

[2:09:29] some sort of guidelines

[2:09:31] >> so people people know what that means.

[2:09:35] >> Okay. So, we've got all some work to do

[2:09:38] to get back to Andrew the things that we

[2:09:40] want amended on this.

[2:09:42] >> Would it would it be all right to

[2:09:44] suggest that this go through and P?

[2:09:46] >> That would be perfect if they can do it

[2:09:48] in the next two weeks.

[2:09:48] >> Can we get that added to this Friday's

[2:09:50] agenda and still meet the posting

[2:09:52] deadline? Andrew.

[2:09:54] >> Oh, you guys already have a meeting?

[2:09:55] >> Yeah, we have a meeting this Friday.

[2:09:57] >> 8:30.

[2:09:59] Anybody who has any changes, they

[2:10:01] need to make sure they get it to someone

[2:10:02] on the OMP committee before

[2:10:04] >> Thursday night.

[2:10:05] >> You add that Mark needs to bring donuts

[2:10:07] to that meeting.

[2:10:09] >> The suggestion that we move this to be

[2:10:14] » they can clean it up for us to pass next

[2:10:16] week or next at our next meeting. Okay.

[2:10:20] >> So, we want to continue that one. We

[2:10:22] won't want to take a vote on that

[2:10:23] ordinance tonight. And then so we need

[2:10:27] to so 10 E and 10F need to be struck

[2:10:30] from our agenda because we are not

[2:10:33] allowed we are not able to

[2:10:36] consider those requests until this

[2:10:39] >> um ordinance is passed that that

[2:10:42] outlines the out of cycle procedure

[2:10:46] >> and I agree with what you're doing here

[2:10:49] but um on these two requests for out of

[2:10:53] cycle view.

[2:10:55] There there are certain standards that

[2:10:57] have to be met before these should come

[2:10:59] before us.

[2:11:03] Should should these parties be advised

[2:11:07] that they need to do that so that

[2:11:09] they're they're properly before us at

[2:11:13] the next meeting?

[2:11:14] >> Yes.

[2:11:14] >> That is they should presume we're going

[2:11:16] to pass the ordinance.

[2:11:19] >> Uh Mr. s uh I've reviewed both

[2:11:21] applications and they do meet the

[2:11:23] standards that are

[2:11:25] >> that we have received.

[2:11:26] >> I didn't want to get a surprise to them.

[2:11:29] >> Okay.

[2:11:29] >> They've already they've already

[2:11:31] submitted letters and submitted the

[2:11:34] >> and they do have in them the reason why

[2:11:36] they're being asked. Okay. I mean,

[2:11:39] that's that's what I worry that we're

[2:11:40] trying to hold one hostage because we

[2:11:43] haven't

[2:11:44] >> and that's why we need to make this a a

[2:11:48] >> I mean, so they went ahead and did what

[2:11:51] we told them to go do and now we're the

[2:11:54] ones that getting the stink on our face

[2:11:56] for it. So,

[2:11:57] >> and that's why we need to make sure this

[2:11:59] works. When is our next appropriations

[2:12:01] meeting? Is it August 24th?

[2:12:02] >> Our next appropriations uh let me back

[2:12:04] up. Our next uh budget opening is the

[2:12:07] second meeting in September. And

[2:12:09] although I haven't discussed this yet

[2:12:10] with Mr. uh Mr. Andrews or Mr. Ericson,

[2:12:13] uh we are hoping to do appropriations on

[2:12:14] the 14th of September.

[2:12:16] >> Okay.

[2:12:16] >> Monday.

[2:12:17] >> That gives us time then.

[2:12:18] >> We can get this done on on

[2:12:19] >> the 25th. Y

[2:12:21] >> we can make this work if if if the board

[2:12:23] would advisory board get together that

[2:12:26] fast.

[2:12:26] >> Do we not have one?

[2:12:28] >> We had one on the 24th.

[2:12:29] >> On the 24th.

[2:12:29] >> So are we going to cancel the

[2:12:31] appropriations meeting on the 24th then?

[2:12:33] Yes.

[2:12:33] >> Okay. That was your going to be your

[2:12:35] suggestion.

[2:12:36] >> Yes.

[2:12:37] >> Okay.

[2:12:39] >> That's because you were assigned donuts

[2:12:40] on that day. [laughter]

[2:12:43] >> So you you want to do it on September

[2:12:45] 14th.

[2:12:46] >> That's a Monday.

[2:12:47] >> At what time?

[2:12:49] >> It is a Monday. Yes.

[2:12:52] >> I have two meetings that day at noon

[2:12:55] already. So it's going to have to be

[2:12:57] later in the afternoon.

[2:12:59] >> It is.

[2:13:00] >> Okay. Um, yeah, this is kind of I'm

[2:13:03] sorry. This was a little confusing. I

[2:13:06] was hoping we could get this passed

[2:13:07] tonight, but it obviously needs more

[2:13:08] work.

[2:13:10] Okay, I need someone if they would make

[2:13:12] a motion to strike number E and F off of

[2:13:15] our agenda. D was a duplication of C. So

[2:13:20] that

[2:13:22] >> moved.

[2:13:25] It's been moved and seconded that we

[2:13:26] strike

[2:13:27] >> strike it or just move to the next

[2:13:29] meeting. Just yeah, continue would be

[2:13:30] fine.

[2:13:31] >> Continue. Continue E and F to our next

[2:13:34] meeting. Strike D because it was a

[2:13:36] invitation.

[2:13:39] >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded.

[2:13:41] >> We don't have to make

[2:13:42] >> Do we need to vote on the continuation?

[2:13:43] I don't think we

[2:13:44] >> No, that's fine. Okay. All right. Let's

[2:13:48] continue. Pending items

[2:13:51] 11A.

[2:13:53] Resolution appointing members to the

[2:13:55] Cash County Regional Recreation Center

[2:13:57] feasibility study.

[2:13:59] County Council Regional.

[2:14:03] This is a council board.

[2:14:08] » Andrew, go ahead.

[2:14:09] >> Council, I'm listed as the presenter on

[2:14:11] this, but you were all present last week

[2:14:13] when this was discussed. The names that

[2:14:18] are still in the appointing resolution

[2:14:19] to this advisory committee to the county

[2:14:21] council are still the same. Um, if you

[2:14:26] have any questions, um, I am here to

[2:14:30] answer.

[2:14:31] >> Okay. Any

[2:14:32] >> question,

[2:14:34] >> what happened to the additional names

[2:14:36] that were submitted that aren't on the

[2:14:40] committee?

[2:14:42] >> Sorry.

[2:14:45] >> Yeah, our intention was that was a fly.

[2:14:48] >> Excuse me.

[2:14:50] Um I believe so to answer your question

[2:14:54] the appointing resolution itself has

[2:14:57] three spots for council members up to

[2:14:59] three and for the advisory members there

[2:15:02] are six there were 10 names that were

[2:15:05] floated uh from my count and so there

[2:15:08] were four names not included. These were

[2:15:10] the ones that I was uh directed to put

[2:15:12] in the resolution as placeholders. But

[2:15:14] this means that the ca anyone on the

[2:15:16] county council can motion to amend or

[2:15:18] strike any names that they would like.

[2:15:20] So if you are unhappy with any of the

[2:15:22] names, you are uh within your right to

[2:15:25] insert the ones you would like into the

[2:15:28] resolution.

[2:15:30] >> Well, I'd prefer an uneven number of

[2:15:33] people. So would it be possible to

[2:15:37] increase the number? maybe have three

[2:15:38] from the hour, three from the south,

[2:15:40] three from the county seat instead of

[2:15:43] one.

[2:15:45] >> That is a good question. Uh there is a

[2:15:48] way to do that. Uh in terms of the

[2:15:51] actual composition of the committee, I

[2:15:53] don't think that that can be changed by

[2:15:54] this resolution, but you could appoint a

[2:15:58] you could list a third member of the

[2:15:59] county council. So then the number would

[2:16:01] be nine in total, not just eight. So

[2:16:06] >> well, or more. I mean, what's wrong with

[2:16:09] 13 or 11 or 15 or

[2:16:11] >> the resolution that originally

[2:16:13] established the advisory committee

[2:16:15] itself specifically laid out the number

[2:16:17] of members? Um, so that would have to go

[2:16:20] back and amend that in a different

[2:16:21] resolution, but

[2:16:23] >> that's what I'd recommend that we make

[2:16:25] an amendment to it.

[2:16:26] >> I understand.

[2:16:32] » Sorry, I don't want to interrupt. Are

[2:16:34] you going to make a motion or

[2:16:35] >> Well, I don't know. Do I have to or can

[2:16:37] we say we want to amend it and then work

[2:16:39] on it for another time or what?

[2:16:42] >> That is up for the body to decide.

[2:16:45] >> So I I just want to clarify something.

[2:16:47] There was a previously passed resolution

[2:16:50] that set the number of members. And so

[2:16:52] there would need to be not this

[2:16:54] resolution appointing members. There

[2:16:57] would have to be a new resolution

[2:16:58] noticed up changing the number of

[2:17:00] members on the the board. So that you

[2:17:04] could vote against against appointing

[2:17:07] anyone or ask this be continued. There

[2:17:10] need to be a new resolution, not just an

[2:17:12] amendment brought to change the actual

[2:17:14] composition of the board as far as

[2:17:16] numbers

[2:17:18] >> on this board where it being even

[2:17:20] [clears throat] if the votes were all

[2:17:21] for it. It's just a recommendation. The

[2:17:23] council still has to settle and accept

[2:17:26] that or not accept it. So the importance

[2:17:28] of the number seems lower to me on this

[2:17:32] committee. Am I right?

[2:17:34] >> Yeah. I mean it's an advisory committee.

[2:17:36] >> So a tie is just no recommendation. It's

[2:17:40] still up to the council.

[2:17:41] >> They may not even take a vote. That

[2:17:42] might even be part of the process.

[2:17:46] >> I know one reason we um

[2:17:49] continued it was so that we could vet

[2:17:52] the the people on the committee. And I

[2:17:57] don't know, did any of you try to vet

[2:17:59] them?

[2:18:00] >> I tried, but uh I didn't get a hold of

[2:18:03] all of them. Not they didn't respond.

[2:18:05] >> So we

[2:18:06] >> So I would like a little more time.

[2:18:08] Personally,

[2:18:09] >> we So we heard from three I think who

[2:18:11] were here last time and I see

[2:18:14] >> two

[2:18:16] one new one and I think someone was here

[2:18:18] earlier and

[2:18:20] >> I he he's

[2:18:21] >> don't know if I can blame him for not

[2:18:22] sticking it out.

[2:18:23] >> Speak on his behalf. [laughter]

[2:18:26] So I guess that's a that's a

[2:18:28] [clears throat] a load for you to carry

[2:18:30] Matt.

[2:18:30] >> So I will say there is an opportunity to address at least

[2:18:35] you know one here making it four of the

[2:18:37] six

[2:18:42] but yeah I to answer your question I did

[2:18:45] have the opportunity to talk to a couple

[2:18:47] of them.

[2:18:49] >> Yeah.

[2:18:49] I move that we approve the um

[2:18:53] excuse me the resolution 2026-26

[2:18:56] with the names as listed.

[2:18:58] >> Second.

[2:19:00] >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded that

[2:19:02] we approve resolution 2026-26

[2:19:05] appointing members to the Cash County

[2:19:06] Council Regional Recreation Center

[2:19:09] Feasibility Study Committee. Is there

[2:19:11] any further discussion on that motion?

[2:19:14] >> Just who's going to be responsible for

[2:19:16] training us all to use that acronym? Um,

[2:19:20] it's up to not me.

[2:19:22] >> Okay. If there's no further discussion,

[2:19:24] those in favor say I.

[2:19:25] >> I. Any opposed?

[2:19:27] >> I. Nay.

[2:19:28] >> Okay.

[2:19:31] » And hopefully you'll have a chance to to

[2:19:34] that people will get back to you. I I

[2:19:35] know personally know these people and I

[2:19:38] think

[2:19:38] >> I don't personally know them and I

[2:19:40] contacted them but they haven't all got

[2:19:43] back to me.

[2:19:44] >> Okay. All right. the UAC annual

[2:19:47] convention in Provo. Has everyone given

[2:19:49] Andrew your travel plans for for that

[2:19:52] week?

[2:19:56] » Anybody who hasn't. Do you have what you

[2:19:57] need, Andrew?

[2:19:59] >> There's someone who is not responding

[2:20:00] yet, but I will not name those.

[2:20:02] >> Okay.

[2:20:04] >> Male, female.

[2:20:04] >> You're not going to throw anybody under

[2:20:06] the bus. That's very good of you.

[2:20:08] >> Well, it's not me,

[2:20:11] [laughter]

[2:20:13] >> Mark. Okay, [clears throat]

[2:20:14] >> I'm just narrowing it down for you.

[2:20:16] >> All those that have have [laughter]

[2:20:17] raiser.

[2:20:19] >> Okay, let's let's get home. Um let's go to council member reports. Um

[2:20:24] Joanne, do you want to start us out?

[2:20:25] >> I don't have anything.

[2:20:26] >> Okay, Keegan.

[2:20:27] >> Sorry, I know I'm standing between us

[2:20:29] and home, but I do have a few things.

[2:20:30] So, go ahead.

[2:20:31] >> If you'll bear with me.

[2:20:32] >> Nope, let us. So, um, KOSAC a while ago,

[2:20:35] um, I think you might remember when we

[2:20:37] presented the option of potentially

[2:20:39] combining the funds with the green belt

[2:20:41] roll back

[2:20:42] >> and we declined to do that and to keep

[2:20:44] them in two separate funds. So, there

[2:20:46] are situations in the meeting where they

[2:20:48] have applications that really make more

[2:20:51] sense as agricultural preservation that

[2:20:53] don't necessarily meet the criteria of

[2:20:56] the broader open spaces bond. for

[2:20:59] example, like public access. We may get

[2:21:02] a project that doesn't really have any

[2:21:03] of those factors, but it would be a good

[2:21:05] use of the green belt funds or or maybe

[2:21:08] more accurately more appropriate use of

[2:21:11] those funds. So, one of the things that

[2:21:13] came up in the meeting was COAC, the

[2:21:17] body asked me, do you want us when we

[2:21:20] make a recommendation to the council

[2:21:22] that we recommend the type of funds that

[2:21:26] we're we're saying ought to be used for

[2:21:28] this project? And I understand where

[2:21:30] they're coming from. Sort of like we

[2:21:31] talked about the difference between the

[2:21:33] wrapped tax and the restaurant tax. like

[2:21:35] I don't know if it makes sense to have a

[2:21:37] co-sac board and then like a a green

[2:21:40] belt board as as well. So, and it also I

[2:21:44] think it makes it more confusing to the

[2:21:45] applicant. Are you applying for open

[2:21:47] space? Are you applying for roll back?

[2:21:49] So, um, I guess my question for this

[2:21:53] group is, and you don't have to answer

[2:21:54] right now, but would would you

[2:21:56] appreciate if KOSAC made those

[2:21:58] recommendations on how the funds ought

[2:22:01] to be applied or do you want them to

[2:22:04] stay out of that?

[2:22:05] >> I'm trying to go back when we talked

[2:22:07] about this. It was agriculture was

[2:22:09] definitely included in the open space.

[2:22:12] >> Are we trying to boot them out of the

[2:22:13] whole Kosak project?

[2:22:15] >> So, no, not at all. It's a factor. So I

[2:22:17] think it's like a 15 point factor on

[2:22:19] that.

[2:22:20] >> So we've covered it because that was

[2:22:22] definitely a discussion in

[2:22:24] >> this council when that was brought

[2:22:25] forward is that agricultural meets open

[2:22:28] space which people are wanting.

[2:22:31] >> Totally true. Yeah.

[2:22:33] >> So Keegan

[2:22:33] >> maybe I'm not explaining

[2:22:35] >> could they come with just their

[2:22:36] recommendations and then this body

[2:22:37] determines the funding mechanism for it.

[2:22:39] So some of it could be roll back and

[2:22:41] some of it could be the bond and and

[2:22:42] then they just come with their

[2:22:43] recommendations and then and then the

[2:22:45] funding mechanism is part of discussion

[2:22:47] in in this forum. I don't know what does

[2:22:49] the council think of that. I just don't

[2:22:51] want it to evolve into a trails

[2:22:52] committee and you know and public active

[2:22:54] committee and

[2:22:55] >> I would I think

[2:22:58] >> I'm going to try to re to state it

[2:23:00] correct me if I'm misunderstanding it

[2:23:02] but what I think you're saying is

[2:23:05] someone applies Kosak reviews it like no

[2:23:08] this is roll back you're just saying can

[2:23:12] we authorize COAC to say

[2:23:16] in their recommendation that it's a

[2:23:18] recommendation for denial of a cosac

[2:23:20] step one or whatever and that they

[2:23:22] recommend they talk to us about roll

[2:23:24] back.

[2:23:25] >> Yeah. So maybe another way to state it

[2:23:26] is let's say a project comes forth and

[2:23:28] it score their scores out of a 100,

[2:23:30] right? They look at I think seven

[2:23:32] different factors and let's say it

[2:23:34] scores like a 21 overall on COAC. So

[2:23:38] they're like we would probably recommend

[2:23:39] this for denial because it doesn't

[2:23:41] really stack up against the other

[2:23:43] projects

[2:23:43] >> just because it's a based. No, just just

[2:23:47] because there's several factors that it

[2:23:49] might it might score 20 out of 20 on a

[2:23:52] but it might score a zero

[2:23:54] >> because it's a based it scores low

[2:23:56] because they did not allow public access

[2:23:58] in those things.

[2:24:00] >> It's a riparian areas and and if the

[2:24:03] wildlife and I mean it's it's one of the

[2:24:06] many factors. I don't know why it would

[2:24:07] score that low if it were a because it

[2:24:09] would most likely

[2:24:11] >> have a lot of other multiples. I think

[2:24:13] that that example

[2:24:14] >> we could get into the nuance now if you

[2:24:16] want example might just be a little

[2:24:17] >> I'm just trying to keep it high level

[2:24:19] because

[2:24:21] >> maybe even more broadly stated it might

[2:24:23] score low on KOAC relative to other

[2:24:26] projects but if it was just looked at

[2:24:28] from a

[2:24:29] >> green belt roll back it it might be a

[2:24:31] very appropriate use of those funds.

[2:24:34] Well, and I guess you know we voted not

[2:24:36] we voted to keep the two funds separate.

[2:24:37] So there has to be some mechanism that

[2:24:39] we would consider spending our roll back

[2:24:41] money, right?

[2:24:43] >> Yeah. And I think the public voted for a

[2:24:45] bond for a certain purpose with a

[2:24:47] certain understanding. And I think if we

[2:24:49] don't delineate what those are, then

[2:24:51] that those that water could get muddied

[2:24:53] and they'd say, I didn't really vote for

[2:24:55] the bond to to go towards this

[2:24:57] necessarily or at least I think there's

[2:24:59] another project that's a higher

[2:25:00] priority.

[2:25:02] But so then we would have to develop a

[2:25:04] type of screening process for that uh

[2:25:08] the the roll back.

[2:25:09] >> Well, we don't have to do that

[2:25:11] necessarily. All I'm saying is would it

[2:25:12] be appreciated if CO-AC made a

[2:25:15] recommendation on what funds we should

[2:25:17] use or do you just want them to present

[2:25:18] the score for COAC and leave the green

[2:25:21] belt side of it out of it? That that's

[2:25:23] really the heart of my question. But the

[2:25:25] part I'm trying to understand here is

[2:25:28] when they go to CO-Ass, we're using some

[2:25:30] agricultural entities to support and go

[2:25:33] with that funding. And if we're saying

[2:25:36] it's not agricultural or that it's not a

[2:25:38] cosack, where does lead where does that

[2:25:40] leave the applicant if he's looking for

[2:25:42] NRSC funds or barely land bare river

[2:25:46] land trust who you call land trust all

[2:25:49] >> of those all agricultural based and

[2:25:52] they're involved in the open space and I

[2:25:54] thought it's been a good marriage.

[2:25:57] >> Yeah. And so, uh, I'm not I'm not

[2:26:00] attacking, but I'm just saying we

[2:26:03] separate the agricultural app. And now,

[2:26:05] does he get the help or they get the

[2:26:07] help of matching with those others if

[2:26:09] we've got the green belt?

[2:26:11] >> We need to look at that. How do we

[2:26:13] anticipate being able to make decisions

[2:26:15] about using that green belt fund, the

[2:26:17] green belt fund, because we we know we

[2:26:19] have it and we have to use it within if

[2:26:21] we don't use it within five years of

[2:26:23] when it's um put into that account, then

[2:26:26] it goes automatically to the state like

[2:26:28] we want to have an avenue to use that fund.

[2:26:32] >> I don't I don't know what that is.

[2:26:33] >> And I do have those amounts. I had uh

[2:26:36] our treasur prepare those if you'd like

[2:26:38] >> score higher and then it would then

[2:26:40] those funds could actually then

[2:26:43] be used for that.

[2:26:46] [clears throat]

[2:26:47] >> Yeah. I feel like examples of applying

[2:26:51] it and in a situation where you're

[2:26:52] running into that particular question

[2:26:54] would be helpful for me at least.

[2:26:56] >> Y

[2:26:57] >> yeah and maybe that's

[2:26:58] >> in this council members reports

[2:27:00] discussion.

[2:27:01] >> Yeah. So I I can give you a specific

[2:27:03] example where upon um an applicant

[2:27:07] they originally presented their land

[2:27:10] that was on frontage road and then they came back and and so when it was

[2:27:16] voted on when it was scored by Kosak

[2:27:18] they thought yes this has public benefit

[2:27:19] because it's on a frontage road people

[2:27:21] are going to see it. If it's preserved

[2:27:22] as a that's great that's part of Kosak.

[2:27:26] And then the proponent said, "Well,

[2:27:27] actually, I want to have my family

[2:27:29] build, you know, six lots and they're

[2:27:31] going to put them along the frontage."

[2:27:33] So now the frontage is potent

[2:27:35] potentially blocked. So the public

[2:27:37] benefit, one could argue, is lessened.

[2:27:39] However, because it's preserving a, it's

[2:27:41] still a great use and the state wants to

[2:27:44] preserve a, but it doesn't have the same

[2:27:47] it's not meeting the same standard as

[2:27:49] CO-Ass,

[2:27:51] the the the scoring mechanism. So the

[2:27:54] question was, do we take it back and

[2:27:55] rescore it? And if it scores low, maybe

[2:27:58] we don't recommend it to the council

[2:28:00] because relative to other projects, it's

[2:28:02] very low. But for green belt money, this

[2:28:07] could make a lot of sense. So should we

[2:28:09] bring it to the council and say, "We

[2:28:11] recommend you use these funds, or do you

[2:28:13] want us to just stay in our lane and

[2:28:15] just score CO-AC projects and move on?"

[2:28:18] Does that make sense?

[2:28:21] >> I I think what is suggesting here makes

[2:28:24] a lot of sense if we're interested in

[2:28:27] preserving agricultural uses and there

[2:28:31] is a difference between preserving

[2:28:33] agricultural uses and Kosac standards

[2:28:38] and I think we ought to recognize that

[2:28:40] and I think our Kosak committee is

[2:28:44] perfectly attuned to make that

[2:28:46] distinction because I think we want to

[2:28:49] preserve agriculture with those green

[2:28:51] belt monies.

[2:28:53] So, I think I think we ought to have

[2:28:56] them give you advice on it.

[2:29:00] >> I agree. Like, what other what other

[2:29:02] avenue are we going to set up to

[2:29:04] consider using that green belt money

[2:29:05] within the 5-year period that we have to

[2:29:08] that we're restricted? Is there any

[2:29:10] other way that makes sense?

[2:29:11] >> But it should augment

[2:29:13] >> the COAC monies, too, though.

[2:29:15] >> Yeah. Y

[2:29:16] >> we shouldn't just like boot them out of

[2:29:17] CO-AC just because it's straight A.

[2:29:19] >> No, no, no. I'm not.

[2:29:20] >> No, talking about booting anyone out. It

[2:29:23] just

[2:29:23] >> because I I voted for that. I did not

[2:29:25] vote for that for trails.

[2:29:27] >> Yeah,

[2:29:27] >> I voted for it because of the ad con.

[2:29:30] >> Right. But some people did vote for it

[2:29:31] for trails and that's why it's a

[2:29:33] component in the scoring.

[2:29:36] >> Okay. Any what else, Keegan?

[2:29:39] >> Okay. Sorry, guys. I still got a couple

[2:29:41] more. So, airport board, we heard about

[2:29:43] the sponsor board. I won't go into that,

[2:29:45] but that's forthcoming.

[2:29:47] Um,

[2:29:50] I wanted to talk a little bit about

[2:29:52] taxes if I could. Um, just to frame the

[2:29:57] context of our upcoming discussions and

[2:29:59] budgets. Um, the Cash County School

[2:30:01] Board recently approved a 37.1

[2:30:05] tax increase.

[2:30:07] Um, they went six years without an

[2:30:09] increase. If I did the math correctly,

[2:30:12] compounding interest, that would have

[2:30:14] been about a 4 point or a 5.4. four

[2:30:17] increase every year that would have had

[2:30:19] the same result. And they they did

[2:30:22] apologize for delaying it that long. But

[2:30:24] that's something we ought to consider is

[2:30:27] incremental increases where they're

[2:30:28] appropriate rather than trying to wait

[2:30:32] for one big one. I do understand the

[2:30:34] pressure there. Um Logan City, for those

[2:30:37] of us that serve on that side, they're

[2:30:39] considering a 23% increase. Their truth

[2:30:42] and taxation meeting was tonight.

[2:30:44] >> School district or this Logan City,

[2:30:46] >> the city. Um, and that would essentially

[2:30:48] replace what we've eliminated from the

[2:30:51] fire um, their portion of the fire

[2:30:54] district. So,

[2:30:55] >> exactly $1.3 million. Yeah,

[2:30:57] >> I I I wish I didn't have to talk about

[2:31:00] this, but um this is kind of a serious

[2:31:03] subject, but I don't know if you saw,

[2:31:05] but a man who also commented our truth

[2:31:08] in taxation last year, uh he threatened

[2:31:11] to kill everyone on the council, and he

[2:31:13] was arrested for for terrorism. Uh

[2:31:17] what's troubling about this is um

[2:31:20] >> it was the council. I thought it was

[2:31:22] just our officers, not the council.

[2:31:24] >> The school board. It was the school

[2:31:26] board. school board,

[2:31:27] >> the school board

[2:31:27] >> for the 37% increase.

[2:31:30] >> But what what was troubling to me is I

[2:31:32] know I know the advice is never read the

[2:31:34] comments, but I read the comments and I

[2:31:36] just want to share some of them.

[2:31:38] >> So you you did the bad advice and now

[2:31:40] you're going to share it with us.

[2:31:42] >> Well, [laughter]

[2:31:43] thanks.

[2:31:44] >> Okay.

[2:31:45] >> I think it's important to know

[2:31:48] >> I think it's also important not to throw

[2:31:49] fuel on a fire. So

[2:31:52] >> I I don't know if I'd I don't know if

[2:31:54] I'd stir a whole bunch of things up.

[2:31:56] aware. Okay.

[2:31:57] >> Yeah, I

[2:31:58] >> I did read the comments.

[2:32:00] >> I I read the comments, too, but I I

[2:32:02] wouldn't bring them out in public

[2:32:03] because that's

[2:32:05] >> Yeah,

[2:32:05] >> I just don't think that that's

[2:32:06] appropriate here to throw fuel on a

[2:32:08] fire. So,

[2:32:09] >> okay. Well, let me just statement my

[2:32:11] intention was not to do that, but um

[2:32:14] >> to raise awareness.

[2:32:15] >> I'll just say that

[2:32:18] we're one of the top five lowest

[2:32:19] counties in the state for taxes. We're

[2:32:22] one of the top three states in the

[2:32:24] nation for the lowest taxes.

[2:32:27] Many of us voted to forego a raise last

[2:32:29] year. Um some people have had their

[2:32:33] taxes lowered in the last three years

[2:32:35] and um I I've never heard a thank you

[2:32:39] for that. So,

[2:32:41] um I think suffice it to say we're

[2:32:44] trying and um and if you look around

[2:32:47] there's a lot of pressure from other

[2:32:49] entities to raise taxes and and we're

[2:32:51] doing our best to uh keep those

[2:32:53] reasonable. So, that's something I'm

[2:32:56] going to take into consideration

[2:32:58] um when it comes time to vote on those

[2:33:01] things.

[2:33:04] >> Okay. Any any other one?

[2:33:08] >> Nope.

[2:33:09] Thanks, Kegan.

[2:33:11] >> No one.

[2:33:13] >> Um, I think everything that I wanted to

[2:33:15] touch on with the fire is uh been

[2:33:19] addressed with the executives um uh his

[2:33:23] review earlier. So, I think that's it.

[2:33:26] >> Okay, Dave.

[2:33:27] >> Yeah,

[2:33:29] >> I just we have OM coming up on Friday

[2:33:32] and um I'm assuming Sandy, you want to

[2:33:35] talk a little bit about the fair board

[2:33:36] meeting? Not. No, you go ahead.

[2:33:38] >> Um, just there was a fair board meeting

[2:33:40] last week and most of it was review of,

[2:33:43] you know, are we ready to go? The

[2:33:46] executive brought up some great points.

[2:33:47] If you want his summary, that would be,

[2:33:50] you know, I directed to talk to the

[2:33:51] executive, but he uh ran the meeting

[2:33:53] well. Um, and I just want to say thank

[2:33:57] you to those present who pulled off the

[2:34:00] things at the fair. I know that the

[2:34:01] executive recognized the roads crew, but

[2:34:04] the sheriff also had a big hand in his

[2:34:05] department in making that event go well.

[2:34:09] And I know Logan PD and I'm sure our

[2:34:12] county fire obviously emergency response

[2:34:15] was heavily engaged. And it's a huge

[2:34:18] celebration to steal the words that Dave

[2:34:19] usually uses to accurately represent the

[2:34:22] situation. I think fair was an amazing

[2:34:24] thing. Uh, and there was one major

[2:34:28] injury, but the young man, I think, will

[2:34:31] uh live a productive life, but he might

[2:34:32] not get back on a horse again,

[2:34:33] unfortunately.

[2:34:36] >> But it was a good

[2:34:38] >> I, you know, I'm grateful that we were

[2:34:40] all able to be together that night on

[2:34:42] Friday night at the fair. I think that

[2:34:43] was nice. Um, I saw some people that I

[2:34:46] knew waving at me. There were, I heard

[2:34:48] some make a comment that they heard

[2:34:50] people saying, "Who are who are these

[2:34:51] people?" So, I guess we're not as famous

[2:34:54] as we as famous as we think we are, but

[2:34:58] >> I think we tried. So, um, did you want

[2:35:00] to say something?

[2:35:01] >> Yeah, I I missed one thing that I

[2:35:03] thought I probably should have brought

[2:35:04] up with you, if you'll indulge me. Um,

[2:35:08] our

[2:35:10] uh DMV contract has an 18month

[2:35:14] termination clause. Um,

[2:35:17] and so if we want to terminate their use

[2:35:20] of our facility, I have to give them 18

[2:35:23] months notice. Um,

[2:35:27] I've gone through this with Dne and and

[2:35:31] I have authority to do that, but I'm

[2:35:34] advising you of that to see if any of

[2:35:36] you object to my giving him that notice

[2:35:39] forth with.

[2:35:40] >> Nope. No.

[2:35:41] >> No.

[2:35:42] Let me just say this, and this is

[2:35:44] somewhat responsive to Keegan's concern.

[2:35:48] >> We're looking at how to harden the

[2:35:51] administrative building, and moving DMV

[2:35:54] out or to a different location would

[2:35:58] allow to significantly reduce the

[2:36:01] traffic in the building that that we

[2:36:03] don't have any control over. So we we

[2:36:06] may not only

[2:36:09] look forward to them being out of the

[2:36:11] building, we're looking at reorganizing

[2:36:13] the building where different functions

[2:36:16] are and how one enters the building

[2:36:18] because we we have had threats uh with

[2:36:22] respect to life safety in the building.

[2:36:26] >> So we're trying to address that.

[2:36:28] >> Okay. Thank you. Anybody have any

[2:36:30] objection or want to talk about this DMV

[2:36:33] termination letter?

[2:36:35] >> Where they are to go? It's been talked

[2:36:37] about though. I believe that's underway.

[2:36:39] >> Yes,

[2:36:39] >> that's I think that's important to know.

[2:36:41] >> Yeah.

[2:36:42] >> I just wanted to say goodbye.

[2:36:44] >> Yeah,

[2:36:45] >> there is a plan.

[2:36:45] >> It won't be a surprise to them because

[2:36:47] they're looking.

[2:36:48] >> No, I just wanted to finish my report by

[2:36:50] saying that I was able to go Saturday

[2:36:51] morning to the fair for the junior

[2:36:53] livestock sale and [clears throat] it it

[2:36:55] was the first time I had been to that

[2:36:56] and I was so thrilled. It was really an

[2:36:59] amazing thing to see the community come

[2:37:00] together and support those kids and bid

[2:37:03] on their animals and help them to get

[2:37:05] the money that they need. And um it was

[2:37:08] and there was a century award that we

[2:37:10] gave out to a a farm. It was Jensen

[2:37:14] Hansen

[2:37:15] >> that that had been there for hundred

[2:37:16] years. And um I just think it was a

[2:37:19] really good way a cap to the celebration

[2:37:21] that the fair is and and the biggest

[2:37:23] part is our a culture. And so I thought

[2:37:25] that was good. Um I've been in a couple

[2:37:28] of meetings with the uh health

[2:37:30] department lately, the board of health

[2:37:32] and just so you I know that we all are

[2:37:34] aware that we signed an interlocal where

[2:37:37] the substance abuse now is connected to

[2:37:40] bear river behavioral health. There was

[2:37:41] a lot of changes and they decided to go

[2:37:44] with capitation instead of a fee for

[2:37:46] service. The bottom line is there will

[2:37:49] probably be a higher amount expected

[2:37:52] from us to match the Medicaid match

[2:37:54] because there going to be more Medicaid

[2:37:56] dollars coming. And we met today to talk

[2:37:58] about to you know beghavioral health

[2:38:00] making sure that they are offering more

[2:38:03] services with some of that um increase

[2:38:07] in revenue. So I as we go through the budget and I know you're right in

[2:38:12] the middle of that. Hopefully you've

[2:38:14] been talking to Jordan and we can get

[2:38:16] those numbers and I know Matt that you

[2:38:18] had talked about getting that with them

[2:38:20] and

[2:38:20] >> I sent him an email.

[2:38:21] >> Okay.

[2:38:23] >> Yeah. Hopefully we can get those numbers

[2:38:25] as soon as possible because it's going

[2:38:26] to make a difference to our budget.

[2:38:28] >> We may be able to get some budget

[2:38:30] material before our next meeting, but

[2:38:35] >> we don't have a tenative budget, but we

[2:38:37] have a preliminary budget at this point.

[2:38:40] >> Okay. Yeah. and we the sooner the

[2:38:43] better. If we have papers in front of us

[2:38:45] that we can actually look at, it's going

[2:38:47] to make a big difference to the process

[2:38:48] that we have to go through um pretty

[2:38:51] quickly here. So, that's the last thing

[2:38:53] I had. Does anyone have anything else

[2:38:54] they want to say before we go home?

[2:38:57] Take a me a motion to adjurnn.

[2:38:59] >> So, move second. moved and seconded. We

[2:39:01] journ

[2:39:06] this and invite you to come to the

[2:39:09] tribute

[2:39:11] end of

[2:39:13] >> your input and assistance.

[2:39:15] Unfortunately, I think there was a

[2:39:16] little bit

[2:39:20] on Friday, Saturday.

[2:39:23] >> I am so sorry.

[2:39:26] >> I understand.

[2:39:28] One of the reasons government moved so

[2:39:30] slowly.

[2:39:33] » Well, yes.

[2:39:36] And part of the thing that we were

[2:39:37] talking about was this whole emergency

[2:39:41] concept.

[2:39:43] >> You create your own emergency. That

[2:39:45] doesn't doesn't all of a sudden mean

[2:39:49] special,

[2:39:50] >> you know, accommodations because of the

[2:39:53] one that we had in my discussion and for

[2:39:57] which I had several.

[2:39:59] One of his big concerns

[2:40:02] >> was what he got us

[2:40:05] >> because all of Emily

[2:40:09] to our

[2:40:11] >> it was there weekly. [laughter]

[2:40:14] >> I think we waved.

[2:40:16] >> Yeah. But no good for you.

[2:40:18] >> Thank you so much.

[2:40:19] >> It didn't submit and the other one did.

[2:40:22] And so he was saying yeah I have asked

[2:40:25] for upgrades

[2:40:28] but

[2:40:29] >> and haven't gotten it.

[2:40:31] >> That was one of the things I was here

[2:40:32] for to say give Elma some software that

[2:40:35] works. I mean there is submitt software

[2:40:38] that is easy to use and provides

[2:40:40] feedback on a regular basis.

[2:40:43] >> You have to know there's a bigger story.

[2:40:45] Oh yeah.

[2:40:48] >> Our department

[2:40:53] » which is driving us all.

[2:40:55] >> Yeah. Alma kind of expressed some of

[2:40:57] that. And that's why I was kind of

[2:40:59] hoping well if I come as a as a user and

[2:41:02] say give Alma some support here people

[2:41:06] that may be able to help me. There's a

[2:41:09] whole system throughout the county.

[2:41:16] » So they're saying if you change one

[2:41:17] thing, you got to change it all.

[2:41:19] >> And what what's actually going on is

[2:41:22] everybody who actually

[2:41:26] >> has their copy of Excel and Microsoft

[2:41:30] uses it and then converts it to sheets.

[2:41:34] >> Yeah. But this this portal that we open

[2:41:40] >> since the advisor meeting anyway

[2:41:43] >> I don't see why you don't try and meet

[2:41:46] those criteria and submit it

[2:41:48] >> and that was the thing we don't know

[2:41:49] what the criteria is. So that's what

[2:41:51] Alma says why don't you come to this

[2:41:53] meeting he was the one that suggested I

[2:41:56] come to a meeting have the discussion

[2:41:58] with the council and and they'll give

[2:42:01] you the feedback you need.

[2:42:06] I Alma gave me a description of what

[2:42:08] happened.

[2:42:10] >> Okay.

[2:42:12] >> Somehow I got in the middle of the Lyric

[2:42:15] meeting these seats and and so I've been

[2:42:18] trying to be honest with the lyric about

[2:42:21] the problem because they're not in the

[2:42:23] time machine. They have a a season and

[2:42:26] they're trying to put the seats in

[2:42:28] between the seasons. understandable.

[2:42:31] >> So,

[2:42:32] >> which doesn't mean that they couldn't

[2:42:33] have submitted the request

[2:42:35] >> on time. I mean, the work that we were

[2:42:37] doing is months away, but we still

[2:42:41] when we were supposed to.

[2:42:42] >> They were doing the remodeling and they

[2:42:44] really didn't focus on the problem with

[2:42:46] the seats until they got remodeling done

[2:42:49] to sit

[2:42:50] >> and so they created their emergency.

[2:42:52] Well, however, however you want to say

[2:42:54] it, what I would suggest is I'll get the

[2:42:59] criteria.

[2:43:00] >> Uhhuh.

Cache County Council Regular Meeting – 08-11-2026

Transcript