[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.