CACHE COUNTY COUNCIL WORKSHOP 10-10-2023
April 10, 2026complete
TL;DR
Cache County Council’s workshop centered on the proposed Logan City RDA/interlocal agreement for the mall redevelopment, with members scrutinizing the 20-year term, $1.8 million payout cap, traffic impacts, affordable housing, and how the project would hold up if the anchor retailer or project conditions changed. The council also reviewed the sheriff’s budget increases from higher jail contract rates and the county attorney’s budget request, including a proposed 24% attorney pay adjustment and a likely decision not to renew the subsidized Logan City prosecution contract.
Meeting Summary
- The council workshop focused heavily on a proposed Logan City RDA/interlocal agreement for the mall redevelopment area, including the term length, payout percentage, cap, and how the “south parcels” fit into the project area. Staff explained that the county’s payout is capped at $1.8 million and that the agreement does not include a certified-rate tax increase provision.
- Council members questioned the RDA structure, including the “haircut” step-down from 100% to 80%, the 180-day reconciliation period after the final payment, and how the agreement would behave if the project were damaged or the retailer left. Staff and the developer said payments are based on actual increment generated, so a disaster or vacancy would reduce or eliminate payouts until value returns.
- The developer said the project is tied to a national retailer anchor and that the city’s redevelopment agreement requires that retailer or a replacement tenant if something changes. He also said the project includes apartments, mixed uses, and insurance/rebuild obligations, and that the project would lose TIF revenue if required timelines are not met.
- Traffic impacts were discussed, and the developer said the project must implement recommendations from the traffic study and will also be reviewed by UDOT because Main Street is under state jurisdiction. Council members emphasized the need to make sure the project’s traffic plan is workable over time.
- Council members raised concerns about affordable housing and whether the 10% low-income component could be separated into a tax-exempt entity. The developer said the affordable units will be mixed throughout the apartment project, not carved out as a separate parcel or entity.
- The council discussed whether to shorten the RDA term from 20 years to 15 years, but one member said a net present value comparison showed only about a $212,000 difference, making the 20-year term acceptable. Several members said the project appears well-vetted and that the broader redevelopment and future tax growth justify moving forward.
- The sheriff presented his budget, explaining that overall revenues are up about $451,000 largely because jail housing and contract rates were renegotiated upward, including state jail rates and U.S. Marshals rates. He also said the office reorganized budgets to consolidate general office costs, IT, and admin items into clearer divisions, which makes the budget easier to manage even though some line items appear much larger.
- The sheriff said the impound facility is intended to be revenue-neutral, though it is still early and monthly revenue is uncertain. He also explained that the county ended its ICE detainee housing contract because federal requirements made the arrangement impractical and burdensome for the jail.
- The county attorney presented a budget request that includes increased professional services, training, software transition costs, and witness/expert expenses, and said the office needs more compensation flexibility to retain attorneys. Staff said attorney pay needs an overall 24% adjustment to stay competitive, which would cost about $330,000, and noted the county is struggling to recruit and retain prosecutors in a tight legal market.
- The county attorney also said he is leaning toward not renewing the Logan City prosecution contract because the work is heavily subsidized by the county and ties up staff that could be used on other caseloads. He said the office would rather use those resources for broader county needs than continue a contract that pays about $110,000 for work costing closer to $300,000.