02 14 2023 COUNCIL MEETING

There. We'd like to welcome you to Cache County Council meeting here on Valentine's Day, and, well, we wish you all a happy Valentine's Day. Doesn't look like we've got a a deep audience to tonight so far, but maybe they'll all come in at once. So let's go ahead and we'll start with our opening by council member Nolan Gunnell.

I just like to say a few words on this Valentine's Day. I'm surprised we're not packed. I mean, what else could people do on a night free than come listen to us? But I have a lot of respect for the men and women who in this country serve in the military and the armed forces and who protect our freedom. And there's a quote that I have here. It says, those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. That was by Thomas Paine. And I thought that's, very important. We have the freedom because of those men and women who have done so much to sacrifice for our lives, and and I appreciate them. And I just want to hopefully, we can give them some love on this Valentine's Day for all of those who serve and sacrifice and including the families. And so much gratitude to them. And with that, I'll give my opening remarks continuing right now in the form of a prayer. Father in heaven, we come before thee. You stay and give thanks for this country which we live in. Father, we recognize those men and women who have sacrificed so much before that we have reaped their sacrifices and and benefit from that and the freedom and peace which we enjoy. For those countries worldwide who are suffering from war and natural disasters that they may be blessed and helped out in some manner. We're grateful for this freedom and the constitution we have in This United States and we're grateful to serve and help in some manner in this part of the country here in Cache County. We pray that we may administer and do those things according to the constitution and and serve well, and we give thanks for all that we have and we enjoy. And this I say and ask in the name of thy son, Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Now if you stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. To your stream.

Thank you, councilman Gunnell. We appreciate that. Next on the agenda or on the agenda would be that we review an approval of the amended agenda that we should have there in our packet. I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve the agenda amended. Is there a second? Second. Moved and seconded that we approve the agenda, amended agenda. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimous. How about the minutes? Have we been able to read the minutes and any corrections, deletions, changes? Otherwise, we'll be happy to Move to approve the minutes. Second. Move and seconded to approve the minutes. 01/24/2023. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. I abstain. I wasn't here. One one abstaining. Any opposed? Okay. They are passed. Unanimous. Is there any report from a county executive? I believe he's out of town right now, but I don't see the deputy executive here. So we'll bypass him. We may give him a chance. We may not from here after. Let's go right to Bart Esplin under item of special interest, and he's running there. That's pretty good.

Well, you heard my instructions from chairman Erickson. I I promise to be quick. So, first, I'd I'd like to I'm here tonight to give you an update on, something that Al and I spoke of several months ago, and that's an update on the generator that we was trying to get some FEMA funding for. So let me preface this. Two weeks ago, we was facing minus 20 degrees temperatures throughout the valley, and there was a power outage on the West Side Of Logan, which knocked out power at the event center and and many areas throughout the the West Side. At the time, we had a CMPO meeting going at the event center. Some of you were probably in attendance at that meeting. Could it could have been critical. Temperature started to drop rapidly inside the event center and with no idea how long that was gonna last. Some an emergency like that potentially could cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage if that power outage were to continue long term, freezing pipes and, you know, the damage that that could cause. So the event center is considered a backup for many different things, such as the jail, temporary warming center, emergency shelter, also a reunification center for the Cache County School District. Yet in an emergency, we had no power. So the update on the FEMA grant is we have been determined not eligible by FEMA because we don't meet the cost benefit threshold for the project. So what that means, bottom line, is at some point, we're gonna be asking this body for funding if that is the direction that we feel we need to go, which I obviously feel that it is. So that's an update. Are there any questions that I can answer? What are we looking at, Converse? So six months ago, you approved a 25% match, which was going to be a $125,000 I think 500,000 is way more than what it will actually cost, but we don't know. What I fairgrounds?

Or is that

center, or is that for all of that in that fairgrounds? Or That would just run the event center, but it would run it in its entirety, the complete building. Many generators, backup generators will just run certain circuits. This would run the entire facility.

K.

Other questions?

What how much was the grant that you were asking for?

So the total project cost was anticipated to be roughly 500,000. That was factoring in some extras because FEMA moved slow and, you know, construction costs have been rising rapidly over the last couple years. So I I suspect we're in the $3.50 range.

K. And that was denied? Yeah. Is that k.

Yep.

K. K. Well, then will you do a little bit of research? And when we have the next budget opening, could you present that to us at that point and we can that we can work with it at that point. Would that be okay? That he brings that? Okay. K. I will do that. And then we'll I I I know Bart and I, we've also we've talked at other times that that I think it's critical to have that center operational at all times because of other things that might happen. If it needs to be an emergency shelter or anything like that, I think it's critical to make sure we provide it as such. But if you'll get that information put together, engineering and things like that, we initially as we go, and then we'll go from there. Hey. Very good. One question though. Yes. When we had emergency

activation last year in case of a natural disaster, we all met down at the jail, and there was talk that if something happened that we may use the event center as a backup. So would that bring any qualification for money from an emergency standpoint or anything?

You know, we listed all all of those items on our application for that FEMA grant. Okay. And and their view of that was the frequency was just not often enough to to warrant that grant. We just don't have enough disasters is what you're telling us. I'm glad we don't. Thank you. And I'm glad we don't. We'll take that. So k. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Do I say sheriff Jensen yet? Not yet. Not yet. Let's quickly, let's go back to executive. Do we have report anything from there? Thank you. I have nothing to report to me. Okay. Just wanna make sure you Thank you. You're you're covered down there. So let's go ahead, and we can actually we should be able to set the public hearing, shouldn't we? We could at least set that one even though it's not 05:30. We can at least set that one, and that just takes a a motion.

As it's only listed as an estimate, you can. K. So

let's go ahead and I'll entertain a motion to set that public hearing for ordinance twenty twenty three zero seven. So moved. Any is there a second? I'll second. Moved and second, we set the public hearing for March 28, ordinance twenty twenty three dash o seven for vacate and County Road right away along 8200 South Street, a portion thereof. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes, that is then set. We'll we have a couple other public hearings coming up in about twenty minutes, so let's go ahead and boy, we're flying. This is good. You guys are gonna be eating valentines here shortly, we hope. Some of these have to occur. We have to have the open or the the public hearing before we can move on any of these others. Let's go ahead and twenty twenty three zero two, amendments to title 17.

Wait with you. Just a moment.

For the hot air storage rezone? Yeah. We're on ten a, aren't we? Ten a. We are on ten a. Twenty twenty three zero two, which is amendments to title 17. Would you like to share some Sure would. Okay. If not, we'll go ahead and start asking questions.

Okay. So revisiting this item, this is an applicant's request to amend the code that, has gone through a review by staff, the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has recommended unanimous approval for the amendments that you see here. And, I will share some contextual graphics, but this request came into focus as a 20 acre parcel, upon dedicating right of way for an anticipated subdivision. It would have just, then dedicated enough acreage to dip below 20 acres and thereby not qualify to subdivide into two lots, one unit per 10 acres. And so the request was to consider amendment that the density, as you see defined here under 17 o seven zero four o general definitions, to remove the area and rights of way for roads from that definition so that that's not factored into the density calculation. And so a property with 20 acres or just above 20 acres dedicating right of way would not necessarily find themselves only to no longer able to subdivide into two lots. And then for consistency between this definition of density, note the term here that I'm highlighting that says nondevelopable and clarity in developable acreage, just to remove reference to, areas dedicated to the public such as parks and public right of way to avoid any confusion that, developable acreage or, would not be considered the rights of way are not not confused with that density calculation. So just a little bit of contextual information here. Planning commission was interested to the planning commission was interested to explore what is the difference in homes and calculation in acreage. And so we looked at kind of a conceptual diagram showing, quite a large area. This represents three ten acres. And if under the current code, where we deduct the right of way, if all of this was in fact on the left public right of way, then, the net acreage would be 290 net acres. You divide that by 10 as the base zone in the a 10 context and you'd end up with 29 homes. By comparison, if there was no right of way deducted in the density calculation and that 310 gross acres divided by 10, was a gross calculation, then you'd have 39 homes and so over quite a large acreage area, we're looking at only difference of a couple of homes. Here's a r u five context and by showing you this graphic, I'm not suggesting that the u five. But this is, nonetheless, a representation of what the difference might be between the current net acreage calculation on the left. So again, deducting the right of way acreage would reduce the developable acreage from three ten gross acres down to two eighty five, resulting in 57 homes at that RU five density of one unit per five acres compared to a gross density of, gross calculation of 62 homes. So again, not too much of a difference. And then, here's a possible cluster, hypothetically, a cluster bonus context that if folks were to take advantage of the cluster subdivision and, reserve areas for preservation and ag remainder lots, that there again might be a very similar yield in homes or lots between the current net density calculation and the, gross calculation. So that's just a little context, noting that most of the subdivisions that we do see create private roads and that does not require right of way dedication. Typically, the right of way dedication that we see in subdivisions is to widen the existing right of way to the current road requirements standards. So I hope that's helpful context and happy to engage in discussion and answer any questions if I could. Any questions?

I do. Go ahead.

Tim, I sat through the planning and zoning on this and heard that. And in the last week, I have probably received more calls on density and ADUs than I can take a stick at. Okay. So I'm proposing and and two other points here. I think in the context that was sent out to the council, it was talking that there was 15 feet that we that the citizen would give to the road. It's actually up to 33 or even more. Matt Phillips will back me up on the some of these numbers. So that takes a wider approach of what the citizen has to give of ground. So I'm fine with that in eight ten, but I'd really like to suggest that the council and the planning and zoning have a workshop and we sit and look at the effects of R U 2 and R U 5. I've had two communities reach out to me and say that they are concerned as because we've tried to keep the R U Twos within a mile of a municipality. And so as we talk about this density and we homes and what we're talking about on ADU has the scope or potential to change what that road does inside of that subdivision, and some of the municipalities are concerned about that. K. So my proposal is is I'm fine with a 10 on this density because it has very little impact to the acreage, but we get to r u twos and r u fives. Not only do we impact the density, but we also impact the adjacent communities who are going to have to deal with that subdivision if it's in their annexation path. So I appreciate what the planning and zoning has done. They've thought about this, but I would suggest we think a little bit more and delve and and actually run some numbers, have met with us as we talk about that and you, and we go over that. That's my concerns.

Alright. I think that makes sense, Noah. I think it does impact communities if they're near annexation areas and if we ignore roadways and the density calculation, it includes issues.

Questions? Comments? I was under the impression that it was going to be just two for a 10. Okay. And that was the original I didn't know that Well, I I I was worried that it would go down and affect the RU two and RU five because that really opens up some parameters. Okay.

Yeah. That was, initial concept explored with the planning commission was just to be applicable to a 10, and then Mhmm. Started to draw some of these diagrams in response to questions, and and they recommended the a 10 and or excuse me, r u five, r u two. Would it be council's direction to

proceed with an amendment applicable only to a 10? And then or At some point, I don't see the impacts as bad on a 10 as I do it on RU u two and r u five. So from my standpoint, I'm ruling to support the planning and zoning on a 10. And I was like chair that I thought it really was just a 10, but as I read into r u two and r u five come in there. And I want and and and I and some of the guys said, hey. I'd be there tonight, but you you've got me choosing between political and spousal, and they didn't wanna fight with the spousal on Valentine's Day to be here to voice some of their concerns. So That that's helpful to understand.

And I could provide some language between now and a little later in the meeting for you to look at. That'd be great. Specific day to Rest between now and when? Just maybe a little later in the meeting when you take that. Later in the meeting to bring this back up

that that you'd make it very specific for a ten. Correct. Would you share? Yes. Go ahead.

Dirk Anderson as acting right now as interim director of development services, Personally, I I think it it might be kind of obvious, but the average when he showed if you could go to the RU 5, the average lot size with this in RU 5 is only, so to say, 4.6 acres. And I know I'm just one citizen, but that's a having point four of an acre less in an RU 5, it's a much bigger percentage of, you know, each of those lots. And so a 10, it's obviously much less. But I just wanted to point that out, that the 4.6 average lot size, if you do allow it in RU five, that seems like a bigger chunk. A bigger, larger percentage, obviously, when you have to take that that and and when you don't count it as developable acreage, it allows those lots to get small maybe maybe more smaller than we would want in an RU five. Right? But in the in the a 10 zone, it is average lot size is 9.35, and that's just a smaller, you know, it's they're they're closer to 10, so to say. So the the a lot of the guidance I get as director of development services is that any administrative decisions that I have to make, it should still maintain the same residential nature of that zoning area. And so I think that in the a 10, it just kind of still maintains the a 10 feel. And so that, I just wanted to share that. So thanks. So may I have a question? Are you in agreement or all that said A 10, it makes a lot more sense with without a whole lot more study. Right. Like, if the council wanted to extend it and have it apply to the lower size zones, you could always do that at a later time. And that's what I'm suggesting is we'd have a workshop. I agree with that. Really get into it. Certainly. I agree with that myself. So I worry there's I think there's other

other things that I believe we're gonna be talking about tonight could dramatically Change. Change that RU five or, you know, RU five and RU two that, which we'll bring up here later, I'm sure. But, you know, just by a little bit of change, dramatically changes. So we'll be talking about that here in a few minutes. But any other questions that you'd have, mister Watkins, on this? Okay. Thank you. Let's go ahead and well, let's see. If you don't mind, we're gonna actually go back to sheriff Jensen, because I know he can talk fast. And for six b and c on capital expenses and then some sell some camera some cameras or something.

Yeah. Great. Thank you.

I'm sorry I was late. I was thought I was on time, but you guys were talking fast because you wanna go in for your Valentine's date, so I get it. Don't you? What's that? You do too. We got your back, Kevin. I actually followed forgot it was Valentine's Day till about 03:30, so I'm in as much trouble as anybody else here. Anyway, thank you for just giving me a a few minutes today. I don't have any really, like, big gee whiz things. No new fun program or anything to talk about. Just some things that are coming up that, I think with the conversation we had in the budget committee the other day and Cameron kind of outlining how all this ARPA money is and what the needs are for. And now that there's an application process for it, I thought that was I think it's exceptional because I think I was really confused at how all that worked out initially and what pools were worth what. But also the budget committee meeting, we talked about long term plans and long term goals and long term planning and capital projects, which I'm a huge fan of, being able to plan those things out long term and see what, we can do with those kind of things. But with that is, some things I was gonna put into the budget, and I think I've talked to, some of you about, and I don't know if these few things fit into what this ARPA money can or can't be used for. But if I could just I'll just run those past the council, just so you understand what it is it coming from because I'll do the application process through the budget, committee. So I'll go through those, There's another piece and I just wanna this is more because I don't want there to anybody think they're smoke and mirrors with, how some other things are working. Cache County is part of LETPA, which is the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Committee, which is a makeup of all the law enforcement agencies North of Davis County. There's a lot there's a fire LETPA is just a law enforcement piece of that. There's a fire group that's part of that. There's a HAZMAT group that's part of that. But what it is is it's it's federal funds that come to the state for public safety type issues, and then the state pushes it out to regions to spend the money accordingly to what the committee decides what the region's needs are at the time. So LATPA, they're still working on 2,019 projects. L LATPA group has authorized, the spending those funds to tune about a 150,000 to buy, portable pole cameras in event of large scale events or different kind of things for public safety issues. The problem with the LATPA and really, at least in the law enforcement, Rod could probably speak more to the fire side of things, But to be able to accept the money from the feds, every agency had a I can't even say it. Obtaining a cybersecurity certification. That's the only way an agency can accept funds from the Federal government, and if you don't have the certification. Certification. We got our certification for Cache County in 2019, and most other agencies didn't. So with this 150,000 through the L. A. T. P. A. Committee, they wanna buy these cameras, but we're the only agencies that can accept the grant money. So what we are hoping and want the council's approval to do before we do anything, that's goofy is to have that 150,000 come into the Cache County's budget, purchase the pole cameras, one of them which will stay in Cache County. The other ones will go to other counties, in our region. They're all of them are can be used by any agency who request them. So there's no outlay of county funds, but there's gotta be a way that the the LATPA committee can accept the federal funds so the products can be purchased. Does that make Mhmm. Sense? So that we're just looking for an approval from the council that the 150 is gonna come in, but it's gonna be buying things and the actual things we're buying other than one product is gonna be shipped out to the region to another part of the Northern region in Utah.

I think we can get a you know, we can actually go for, like, an agreement with that, but then it would officially go through the budget hearing in March. Right? Correct.

Yep. So Yeah. They they, the committee since it's 2019, they just need to spend the money before the March. That's why I bring this to the council today, so when the budget opening comes that everybody has an understanding of what the 150 is actually supposed to be used for.

Is there anyone here that would feel like that he not pursue this? No. No. K. K. Thank you. So and then we'll look forward to it. And I guess that first county council meeting in March, I believe, isn't it?

I'm not sure that I think so. Correct. I don't know. Mark, thank you. K. The other things I were going to bring up as it deals with the ARPA funds, more locally kind of things, is, we've been working pretty hard and the council's been fantastic over the last five or six years. We've built money into the budget to excuse me. We've built money into the budget to start doing maintenance more maintenance type things on the Sheriff's Complex rather than just fixing a big problem when things explode and blow up. And we've been pretty successful at that. There's some things that either need to be built into budget, which I'm happy to build into the budget over the next few years as as funds are available, or if this ARPA money can can work for some of it, that would be fantastic too. You guys just not made me have papers. That would be awesome. So the first thing that is a kind of a big deal is I'm back to rooftop units again. So basically, what the sheriff's office has is there's probably a dozen different air conditioners or more on top of the gel complex that kind of house that kind of feed into individual sales. But what all those rooftop units feed into was one main unit that's on top of the building. It's been there for twenty, forty years, and we've spent thousands replacing that rooftop unit. Right now, it needs we went the entire summer last year in most of the facility with no air conditioning because the rooftop unit's gone. It is really can't be repaired anymore, and it keeps needing pumps and different circuits, which we're gonna have to get fixed this year with or without the budget money or the ARPA money because we can't go all summer in the jail without air conditioning again. That unit's about $287,000 to buy that unit. I mean, I will certainly be happy to work it through the budget process, but if that if that's one of the qualifying things in either one of the pools for the ARPA money, it was kind of a one time expense and one time bought and and done, I guess, until, we need to hopefully, don't wait twenty four years to keep fixing the same old stuff. But that's one that the budget committee will see is for the rooftop unit for the jail. The other piece of it too, and this is a big one as well, is the gel security system with all the doors now. We don't really have keys anymore. Everything is opened by automatic locks and airlocks and our security systems. They're all twenty four years old, and we've replaced a lot of it. We've upgraded the operating system when it's when we can, but we're just at the point now there's not really a lot of upgrades that can be done. And even if we can do the upgrades, the hardware is not matching the IT part of things anymore. So to upgrade the entire GEL system, we can do that in pieces, which would be about 70,000 a year for the next five years until we get the entire system replaced out or to do it all at once. If it if, again, if it does meet anywhere in these ARPA funds, that's about a $270,000 fix to upgrade the locking system and security systems inside the facility. So and I I'll do the application process for that. I'm just not exactly sure even with the process is what what those two pools of money mean and what they can be used for and what they can't be used for. But, I think other people have a lot better understanding that than I've got.

And, Barbara, do you like to share what we're gonna propose? Go ahead. Okay. It was we're looking at, possibly even the next meeting, having a workshop provided by Cameron that he present the ARPA budget and and then instruct and help us understand what those monies are available for. K. And so that'll help all of us. And that'll be a a workshop probably before the county council meeting. Yeah. That that will be awesome. Like I said, I'm happy to do it either way,

whether we have to run up through the budget and figure out that. But I was on the budget workshop before with that ARPA money, and I think at the time, the board that was involved was looking more so at, like, one time projects. Yeah. I don't know. What I don't wanna do is take away with my plans or my projects, take away from what's already been assigned out to somebody else or another department or another project.

And that's exactly what we need to know. Yeah. Yep. We need we need to know where that budget is, what's going there, and so we can get on top of we've had requests from several of the council members on that. If my projects can work into that, that's great, but I don't wanna take away from what somebody has already

planned for from months ago when we started this conversation. Brand new projects or anything cool. I'll give you the ten second version of the animal shelter,

two weeks. I was just thinking Just kidding. I I was there the other day.

It's, I turned the last bit of a paperwork in the day. I think we should have our at least our temporary occupancy permit from the city by the end of the week. There's still a couple little things that the contractor, needs to come back and do, But they won't they won't affect the getting our temporary permit to, get the facility open. So once I have the permit in hand, we'll work on some dates to get open, get some training done with the staff. Still wanna have the open houses and stuff. It's just been kinda hard to plan to do those open houses and let people come see us, like, two more weeks. Two more months. Two more weeks. I promise two more weeks. I think now we're the point. We'll have a date. We'll have a permit in hand, and we can do a lot better planning for the next month on how we're gonna open it and how we're gonna showcase it and show it off and love to have all the council be there and be part of that as well. So not two more weeks. Thank you. K. That's all. I really, I'm just more of a heads up for everybody. Appreciate that.

It's a little bit past 05:30. Let's go ahead and I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing for 202304 Hot Iron Storage Rezone. So moved. Is there a second? We have been seconded that we open that public hearing. Mister Watkins, could you just share a little enlightenment there for us, and then we'll have those who would like to speak before or for it or against it or whatever needs to speak in the public hearing, we'll allow them to do so.

Alright. For your consideration is a rezone request just located to the south and west of Smithfield. You see located here on our GIS mapping, the municipal area of Smithfield. And the subject parcel is this parcel here, where you see existing storage units on a portion of the 8.77 acre parcel. And this is, located about 501 West 4600 North. There was a time when the a 10 zoning allowed for conditional use permit for storage units. And so this is a remnant of that code, which is no longer in the books. And so the request is, in fact, to rezone the entire parcel to from a 10 agricultural, to I industrial to allow for expansion of self storage units. And I will turn on a layer that was part of the key consideration as the Planning Commission reviewed this, And it is the future land use planning. You see this brighter color, fuchsia color represents Smithfield City's future land use planning for light industrial. However, they are not, at this time, prepared to expand services in this area and that would be applicant driven and, that would, require partnership in terms of extending services to service future City growth in this area. And having coordinated that with the City and received that feedback, there was not opposition from Smithfield City. And upon review and recognizing that 4600 North requires only minor improvements for this use, the planning commission recommended to the council for to consider approval of this rezone request.

Okay. Anyone, that would like to speak in behalf of this for Ghents? Go ahead and come up here. I don't mean to speak. I'm here for this our project. Well, if you'd like to come up and speak, you can come up here. You could, grab the mic well, I'm gonna grab the microphone, but you could speak at the microphone. Just tell us your name and hearing okay. Go ahead and just say your name before, would you, so that we can have it on record and my name is Marvin F. I'm one of the members of the Hot Iron Storage, and, yeah, we just got a bunch of clients call and wanted to expand it, so we're gonna meet our clients' needs. We like to expand the surgeiness there, and I think it's pretty much been explained very well. So thank you. Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

So moved.

Second. Moved and seconded. We close the public hearing. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? K. Unanimous. So we'll go ahead and close that public hearing. Let's go ahead and go to public hearing ordinance twenty twenty three zero five, comprehensive general planned amendment. Tim, you wanna share any information on that? Please do not read the whole thing to us.

Glad you clarified that. Alright. What I'd like to do is just share, maybe a brief recap from our review of this a few weeks ago, as well as share, maybe some clarifications, perhaps where there's maybe been some, misunderstanding as well as some details that I think could use some refinement and potential revision in terms of this this final draft. So we've talked about, the effort to engage as many people as possible. There was outreach to the entire community and the little flyer that you see here was sent, in particular to property owners in the County unincorporated area, owning five acres or more. This is the best summary graphic that, we were able to generalize in terms of where the feedback was coming from. There was a question about this, raised in the last discussion or hearing. And so this graphic provides a little more perspective in terms of where the feedback is coming from relative to the population. So what you're looking at in the black text is the percentage of participants, of those approximate thousand participants. The region from where that feedback came from relative to the percentage of population. And so the green areas represent where that percentage exceeded the participation exceeded the percentage of population. Red areas where there was a lower percentage of participation than the percentage population. So that's at least some additional insight and perspective that might be helpful. And we've talked about how the general plan is the primary document for the land use policies and recommendations, whereas the regional collaboration plan, sets up the framework for continuing discussion with municipalities about coordinating growth, trying to make good decisions, informed decisions. And then the urban and rural area assessment and cost of services planning scenarios provide information and perspective for ongoing regional collaboration. The regional collaboration plan and the cost of services planning assessment are not necessarily the policies of the general plan, but they are information for review and ongoing discussion. The draft future land use map is in the County Unincorporated Valley area, predominantly recommends an A-ten zone as the base property right. There are some areas of existing unincorporated locations such as Benson, Petersburg, Avon that are designated as potential places for services. Maybe civic, maybe rural type commercial uses. But doesn't necessarily suggest that there be higher density there, but those types of conversations could continue as to how they'd like to define those communities in the future. The hatched areas represent anticipated growth areas adjacent to miss municipalities, where the county and those municipalities could explore land use compatibility, explore what appropriate standards might be in place, and the county continue to understand the timing and the the land use goals for growth and development of those communities and to, continue to coordinate those together. I would like to provide an important clarification. This is, a statement in the plan that I did a little fact checking and found that it's not true. That the nineteen ninety one state enabling act mandated consistency. That is true, but it's been it's no longer in the state code.

That was on page six. Page six. Yes. I I have I've got that one up right now. Have that one ready. Thank you. I was I was actually loaded for bear, but go ahead. Well, let's

I, I accept that that should not be in our general plan and, that a potential refinement could be to state it is an advisory policy document that provides guidance for potential county code amendments, but there is not a state requirement that there be consistency between the land use ordinance and the general plan. So we'll recommend taking that out. One minor edit that might be considered is that a regional collaboration plan could be listed first in this list of of companion documents, as the cost of services plan and the urban they provide additional information to support countywide regional collaboration planning efforts. And that's the the text that could be, updated there in the lower right. And this is just a recap of how to interpret the goals and policies of the plan, that they are limited to the extent that they are feasible and appropriate for the county to carry them out, and to the extent legally permitted by federal and state law. And, the policies do not indicate an irreversible commitment of the county funds or staff resources. Rather, such policies and measures reflect a level of county consideration when financially feasible and appropriate. And, I think, in reviewing the policy statements, there are many words such as explore, continue to study, and there are recommendations of providing guidance, but, do not necessarily dictate or attempt to dictate a certain direction. And similarly, these types of graphics that are shown in the implementation section of the plan are just ideas to further explore, such as, A 10 development with the, what happens if rezoning occurs to two and five acre rezonings compared to, incentivizing a cluster development pattern. These ideas can be further studied, but they are not mandated in the plan or attempted to be mandated, and more flexible cluster development that might involve adjacent property owners. And how to coordinate these new ideas with the nearby communities is recommended for further study and exploration. And that's somewhat mentioned here that the General Plan's vision and goals can be fortified and realized through the creation of additional plans, studies, and programs. Examples of these potential efforts are provided in the implementation section. And again, these are listed as examples of potential efforts. And under regulatory tools that, regulatory tools can be evaluated and applied when relevant and applicable, and there's examples to consider. So I just wanted to emphasize the potential nature of these recommendations and that, they may be deemed desirable in the future with future study or, some variation that we hadn't anticipated in the general plan. So I believe those are most of the the updates that I would highlight to you, and, happy to entertain any any questions or comments at this time. Okay. Let's

we'll open it up for public comment. Public hearing here, we'll open that up. Go ahead and anyone that would like to speak about this? If you'd come up here, state your name and let us have it. Careful what you say. Yeah. I know.

My name is Janelle Seeley. I'm a resident of Providence. I admittedly have not read the entire general plan, so I'll just state that ahead of time because that's a it's an arduous task, so I know it's lots lots of pages, and you guys put a lot of effort on that. My question about the general plan is how does the regional collaboration plan integrate with the cities within the county? I just want the vision for the county to be something that supports Mhmm. The taxpayers, not just of the county, but the taxpayers within the city. Because, you know, we the amount of property tax that goes to the county versus, a city is equivalent. So do the services that are provided from the county reflect that? So going forward, I would hope that the county, would take more of a support role for cities than maybe it has done in the past. And I know and I'm just here speaking as as a citizen. I serve on the city council for Providence. But in that capacity, it we updated our general plan that hadn't been done for quite some time like you guys are doing. And sometimes it takes a big pivot and a shift from what's historically been done to what might be the best plan going forward. I would help you consider that perspective. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else that would like to speak? Motion to close the public hearing? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Moving second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Okay. Would you like is there any questions anyone would like to share or ask of mister Watkins? I have a question.

Tim, thanks for your work on that. I was contacted this week by two municipalities. The red line that you struck out, I think, will answer some questions that some of the municipalities were hitting me with. They're appreciative of the general plan, but they didn't want it to be the driving factor of all ordinances down the road because they have again, this is the municipality saying, okay. If you do an r u two, but you cluster, that may not mesh with what the feeling of the municipality is having. So if you could send me that redlined out so I can talk and get that to the municipalities that may help me answer of those on the south end of the county that I've been talking with.

Certainly. What I'll do is update the presentation as, with all these red lines, and we put it back on the back on the show

and put it in the same shared folder that they're linked to. Because they they too said they wanted to be here tonight, but somehow missus overrode what Elizabeth was doing. So I don't understand that because I'm here. Yes. You do. Yeah.

And How do you know it's I did have a conversation with a community member that that raised a question. And I I think in part, some of the graphics in the presentation may have indicated that it may be not been fully understood in terms of the intent of the graphics. So for example, here an open space driven development, but if the concern is that the location of that development is located next to a municipality rather than further away from the municipality, that needs to be carefully considered. Yeah. Where where does the clustering occur, and how how intense, and

how can it be supported? What they were talking about as far as septic, sewer, whatever else is working on there, how they derive that plan for it. Indeed. So I'm I love the plan. I'm glad it's there, but I did want it be the thing that set the tone for ordinances in the county. And and, obviously, that comes from the council, but it can be there. But that redlining striking out helps those municipalities that contacted me, and I think that will be something good I can take back to them. Wonderful.

And could I respond to the Oh, yeah. You bet. Question and comment. And really appreciate your interest in, the holistic approach throughout the county. And, there is a unique model here in Cache County of a county wide planning office that was established in 1992 at the request of partner municipalities wanting to coordinate growth together and understand regional impacts or decisions made in one community, how that might impact another community, looking at everything from housing to economic development to connectivity, transit, open space, trails. All of these are are of great interest to communities. And so the countywide planning office and in fact, we are, interviewing soon to fill that position. Recent focus of the county wide planner was focused on, helping this plan get through the public engagement process, looking at the feedback, which as we saw in this earlier map, came from around the valley, folks in the municipalities as well as in the county and incorporated area. And upon adoption and completion of this plan, the countywide planner will be able to spend more time exploring, land use studies, policies, goals that might be shared by some and, service, as well as the GIS mapping that, is updated regularly that includes the city land uses and coordinate planning decisions and, context. So the countywide planning program is referred to, in part, regional collaboration. That's what countywide planning does is support those conversations between communities and the county does not want to pretend to, want to plan for their municipalities, but to support and assist and, coordinate. And in fact, last I believe it was May, we visited, the communities in four different locations, different parts of the valley and asked questions about priorities for land use topics to study. Water use definitely came up as an important topic. Housing, trails was of great interest, and, learning more about the GIS services that are available. So we look forward to continuing that service and, stepping it up, following the adoption of this general plan.

Any other comments? Go ahead. Just a question. And,

I emailed the beginning of this question to Tim earlier this week, and we did have some dialogue, but I did have an additional follow-up Please. We hadn't been able to resolve. So my question was about, you know, well, let me preface with anytime we're talking about planning and county wide planning and looking at how we we would be, looking to the future for what development would take place in the county that is adjacent to existing municipalities. And then there is a supporting map or overlay that goes with it. I've found in the past that sometimes the annexation boundary agreements between municipalities may not always be remembered by the current councils that are in place back when the document like that was adopted twenty years ago. And so, that was the purpose for my question, Tim. But, what I was asking is when laying out plans and in any intent for planning in the general plan, were the existing annexation boundary agreements that are on the books factored in. And the answer Tim's answer was was effective and I believe correct, but I think it might have also been a little incomplete. And so that's why I'm asking now. Sure. That kind of puts you on the spot, but the maps do show that the future geographic area for municipalities that was considered and documented. But then the note where you said, but some communities annexation policy plan areas overlap with another community. The annexation boundary agreements address just that concern. So my question to you is, is there possible that we can link in the general plan and any county planning or community planning maps, the actual annexation boundary agreement documents that one city and another have made between each other. We can sit down and talk about it, but is that a possibility? Because five years from now, nobody that was on any of the city councils that passed an annexation boundary agreement will be there, and it'll be up to anybody looking at documents that may or may not be the county's documents for guidance. And if we don't have those annexation boundary agreements, we're going to potentially trigger disputes because one city's zoning would appeal to the property owner more so than another, potentially. And so they're gonna want those agreements to be honored in certain cases where current councils may not have any clue what the landowner's talking about.

Thank you. Great question. I'll be the first to admit that I'm more familiar with the declared areas and the mapping of those and recognize that there is some overlap. I'm less familiar with actual agreements as to how to address those between communities. So, but absolutely in terms of publishing this general plan, there would be a printed version as well as a story map version. And a story map is a kind of a zoom in, zoom out map with pictures and call out boxes and and very interactive. And that's the definitely type of environment where links to such resources can always be updated.

And And so the reason for asking that question in relation to this agenda item is simply, if we adopt this now and we don't yet haven't yet identified all those annexation boundary agreements, can we add that later just as a, you know, another layer on the map, if you will? Or does would that have to come and be reapproved as part of the general plan?

I'll share my opinion, and there may be others that that have a similar or different opinion. My sense is anything that reflects the current status of planning could be linked to. We could also do a story map for regional collaboration that becomes a resource for the municipalities to, kind of see the regional context of of, different topics and studies. And especially in that more, living, breathing regional collaboration document could absolutely continually update that document with links and resources.

Can I input something here? Yeah. I attended two communities on my South End who were talking about their annexation boundary and their plans, but they state, okay. This is only a plan because access to water changes their annexation plan and where they're going so that they really can't solidify this is where we're gonna annex until they know what water resources are gonna drive them from that standpoint. So to me, that would mean that should be flexible in there from the county. I see what councilman Herrod is talking about, but we also have to get the municipality

latitude for adjustment on their annexation plan. Yeah. So the annexation boundary agreement is is a a agreement that two two or more municipalities would enter into to basically establish which community has the first right of refusal when the annexation is requested. And so, yeah, the autonomy and everything is all factored into that process and that the legal ease of that document. There's only two that I'm aware of in in the county, but I don't claim to be know that that's all that's out there. But I I know that there's a very significant agreement between Hyde Park, Smithfield, North Logan, and Logan. And that one the the map here suggests different boundaries in the future.

What I think could be done is something I I recall in a previous municipality is that, it was suggested in plan language, and this could be just the addition of one one sentence stating that, the future land use map may be updated without amendment to reflect the current municipal boundaries or updating of municipal boundaries annexation areas such that there is wouldn't necessarily have to be an amendment every time a municipality makes a change, but to be aware of that change context.

So we can move forward, we can adopt this, and then you and I can we can dig into it, find out what the annexation boundary agreements are that are out there, link them in later, make everybody aware, but it's not a another public hearing and another approval triggered by that. By that. My opinions wouldn't have to be and looked to any other I just wanna make sure I understood that clearly. It would may or may not change my vote. Mister chair, may I make Yeah. Please do. Quick comment.

In addition, for the council's benefit, I think definitely not more important than the official documents that are adopted as the general plan, but very important would be just that you all keep your link to the folder that has all those general plan documents in it, and we would make sure to include maybe a document that just says this really isn't officially part of the general plan, but here are all the links to, the local, you know, plans and then that way you all have, like, really easy access to them as well. So that folder is just a good

I found that annexations between two cities, you there's always that sandwich point. Mhmm. And one says it's ours, but then all of a sudden the landowner says, you know what? No. I'm going this way. They have

that right. They do. With an annexation boundary agreement, though, there are conditions where if one municipality is not as favorable to the developer or the landowner as the other, they can work it out and and And then under agreement. And then if there's The value of it, just as an example, if you've seen the boundary between North Logan and Hyde Park and how that is a jigsaw puzzle, and the purpose of the annexation boundary agreement is to just say, you know, just kinda draw a line. It's not a hard, fast, 100%, but the idea is in considering the convenience of being able to provide water or other services, or, you know, the flow of the sewer line would make it so that this part this land that's in the county currently can't be serviced by Smithfield, but could be hide by Hyde Park, but it's right up against the boundary of Smithfield, as an example. So those things are taken into consideration beforehand so that when an annexation when the landowner says, hey. I wanna look at doing something different with my land in the future. There are some of those things already laid out to say, okay. Here's the considerations you may want to be aware of upfront.

May I make a suggestion? Could you make these changes that we've talked about tonight, the red lines and everything? And and in two weeks, they have everything that point. Would that or did what do you feel? Do you feel like we need to move on tonight or just you wanna make the changes and then I'd like to show those municipalities that change k. So that they had a a voice on them. K. And then in two weeks, it won't be a public hearing. It'll just be a matter of we'll bring it up, and then we can finalize it and go from there. Thank you. K. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let's go with let's see. There's our two public hearings. Ordinance twenty twenty three zero six.

Good evening.

This is a

revisiting of the county the cash open space advisory committee. The last time we spoke, you expressed some concerns about the evaluation standards of the committee and wanted to make sure that it was explicit that final authority rests with the county council for those evaluation standards. That change has been made in section seven, two seventy six seven c, the County Council retains final approval authority on evaluation standards and their application by the COSAC in the selection process. Also, there are some questions about, if we were sure that the County Executive is the appointing authority. And I just wanted to direct your attention to title 17, chapter 53 part three. Section three seventeen part one. Where it states that the appointment of a person to fill a position on a board, committee, or similar body whose membership is appointed by the County shall be by the County Executive with the advice and consent of the County legislative body. This particular statute does not make a distinction for whether or not it's an advisory body, or otherwise. So that change was also reflected in this, ordinance. If there are any questions, this is the ordinance that I have.

I have one. Yes. Just clarification that it because it didn't really make sense to me. In, 76 dash four under a, it says that four of the voting members will be appointed by the county executive with the advice and consent of the county council. But then it the next sentence starts and says three voting members will be selected from the general public, but it doesn't clarify those will also be selected by the county executive? That's correct. Okay. You just might wanna add that because when I read that, I thought it just says three members will be selected from the general public, but it doesn't really say how they'd be selected or by who. And so that to me, that was a little confusing. If you might just add that in also by the county executive, just those words so that it's clear. Sure. We can make that change. That was that was the only thing that I saw that was

just for clarification. So if if the council wanted to pass the ordinance and include in your, deliberation with that change, then I can make that change and we can, get it updated before final entry.

Your very first sentence in that two seventy six dash four shall be composed of seven voting members, two nonvoting ex officio members appointed by the county council. Seven voting members and two appointed by the council.

That's right. So now we're gonna go to

I thought you just said the appoint appointments would come from the executive. That's right. We'll have to make that change. Yeah. K. I'm sorry. I was thinking No. I I've got you. Other questions?

So just for clarification, just for me, so we're going to take out four of the voting members who will be appointed by the county executive. We're gonna leave that in there. Yeah. Just add in where on the very next sentence where it says three voting members will be selected the general public, and it's just an enclosed sentence. That they just need to add clarification that those will also be appointed by the county executive.

Correct. And that first sentence will also be changed, striking the appointed by the county council.

Gonna appoint anybody.

Well, now now you're talking they're appointed by the county council or by the executive and then they are

ratified at the county council. That's correct. They're with the advice and consent of the council. That's what, you know, that's critical. That's the requirement under state code and that's what we'll be following. Okay.

Yeah. I just wanted it to be very clear.

Thank you. So,

Okay. Other questions on that?

So do you do we wanna vote on this tonight and just say with that, with those changes or do you wanna wait until the changes come? No. We can add those changes and we can pass it with those changes. I'd I'd be comfortable doing that. Would you like to make that motion then? Sure. I would move that we approve ordinance twenty twenty three dash o six with the amendments to paragraph two dash seven six dash four in section a that we discussed.

Fair enough? Is there a second? That works. Remind for the minutes, could you just restate what those changes are so that they can further along this? Yes. The changes are in the first sentence.

The second clause appointed by County Council will be struck. Are you are you writing it down? Okay. No. It's it's on the agenda. And then in the sentence, three voting members will be selected from the general public. The clause will be added also appointed by the county executive with the advice and consent of the county council. That's all. Okay. Thank you.

Was there a second? I'll second. Moved and seconded that we approve ordinance twenty twenty three dash six with, the amended changes in paragraph two dash 76 dash four. Is there any discussion? I have one discussion. I think the reason that it was originally drafted like this was that in the in the voting process and when it was as it was taken out to the public, That was a concern by the public and it was shared to the public that they would be appointed by the county council. And so this is a change to what was actually shared to the public in that process to get this voted for. So that might raise some dander on things, but we gotta also, I guess, go by code. Dang it. Anyway, and the reason that code code always gets us every time, guys, on everything. So but we gotta go by that. So if there's no more discussion, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Nay. Nay. So we're talking four to three. So k. Thank you very much. It does pass. Let's go ahead and go to initial proposals for consideration of of the hot ordinance twenty twenty three zero four, hot iron storage rezone. Any discussions there that

Mister chairman, I would waive the rules and make a motion to approve ordinance twenty twenty three dash zero four hot iron storage rezone.

I'll second that. Moved and seconded that we waive the rules or and pass ordinance twenty twenty three dash o o four hot iron storage rezone. Any discussion? Hearing none, proceed to vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Let's go to ordinance twenty twenty three zero five, updating the general plan. We've actually probably agreed to push that to next meeting. Next meeting. So that one will go ahead. Let's go to resolution twenty twenty three dash o three. This is a new one. We don't have to make a motion to move that to the next meeting, do we? It'll actually just stay on it until the next meeting, but which will carry to it, so on that, as we're moving that general plan, when you make those changes, could you make sure that that gets in the packet? Absolutely. So we don't have to go back to previous meetings to find it. Yes. Just the new general plan. So thank you. Thank you. Send it to Micah.

Just about. So I gotta pull up that resolution. Thanks for your patience. Kinda jumping from one item to the other here. I'd like to put the resolution up on the screen. Here we go. Okay. It's ready. Here we go. Okay. This, resolution comes to you, and, I wish it was coming to you a month ago, and I'll take responsibility for this coming to you in, really, the last hour possible. This is a state required amendment to the 2022 amendment required for the moderate income housing plan, which counties above 5,000 in population are required to apply. And the update should include an implementation plan, as well as reference to the new state strategies that are listed, and they list a dozen or so of these strategies, as well as an implementation plan or language of how to implement these strategies. And so this is an attempt to, bring to you a polished product that, really exhibits much of what the county is already doing, in terms of addressing moderate income housing. But, a resolution that could update the twenty nineteen existing County plan excuse me, moderate income housing plan but then provide the strategies as well as implementation goals. And these would be measurable goals that could then be provided in a 2022 State required update, as well as subsequent annual updates. And so, this was somewhat of a challenging exercise and required some coordination with, amongst staff and Chairman Erickson, as well as the State coordinator, for the moderate income housing reporting. But we do, as Cache County, have on our books an accessory apartment or accessory dwelling unit, and we are working with the Planning Commission. I believe we'd like to work joint Planning Commission Council to explore amendments to this ordinance. But a state required update to this ordinance is that, there cannot be a a size limit to an internal accessory dwelling unit. And so that's a needed update to our our code, and we're just stating that that's in the works and suggested that the anticipated time frame for updating the ordinance could be June 2023. And then, that the County would track the number of ADU zoning clearance permits and building permits on an annual basis and report those as part of the required housing report to the State. I mentioned previously, for the general plan that the County has a unique program of countywide planning and that, in fact, Regional Collaboration Plan is in our code. In Title II, that the Planning and Zoning Division provides countywide planning services to coordinate with other local governments. And so, highlighting this as a service to assist regionally in exploring how to implement, where appropriate, higher density or new moderate income residential development in commercial or mixed use zones near major transit investment corridors. Acknowledging that in the County, we do not provide those urban services, but we do provide Countywide planning support to lend to communities in terms of technical planning assistance through regional collaboration, and that can involve the Cache Valley Transit District and other partners, as well as the municipalities, as well as stakeholders. So that is strategy G, to amend land use regulations to allow for higher density near major transit investment corridors. And one example that is provided in in by way of reporting and and, the plan update is, Cache County have the opportunity to work with Hyde Park City. And this is referenced under strategy f, which is very similar. It just states, exploring moderate income residential development in commercial and mixed use zones. It's just with less emphasis on transit. But in late twenty twenty one and into 2022, Countywide planning supported Hyde Park City with a Town Center study and that was referenced as part of the General Plan update process, the public hearings, or rather the initial public open houses. And, that has influenced a corridor along the future Wolfpack Way that it will soon develop and that the general plan future land use map supports mixed use development in that area. And so Cache County would continue to meet with partner municipalities on at least an annual basis to identify priority areas to study and topics to study, including moderate income housing goals and strategies. And then, Cache County would also continue as an implementation strategy to provide the GIS mapping and update as general plans are updated by municipalities as rezones occur that the County would continue to provide that mapping resource such that it's regionally referenced and supporting the local governments. So that is a suggested resolution attachment that would, in effect, update the I'll just provide this cover of our moderate income housing plan And just, state on that plan that this was amended in 2023, by this resolution, refining and updating strategies for implementation as required by the state code and attached as an appendix. So be happy to respond to any comments, questions, and explore how this could be refined.

Go ahead.

So we're talking about ADUs, and we're trying to meet this moderate income plan. I had some people reach out to me also who had attended the League of Cities and Towns, and there had been talk about some other methods of meeting that. Have we, as a county, looked at other ways rather than ADUs? I get the feeling that an ADU, an a 10, RU two, RU five is gonna change the landscape of this county in a significant manner that I'm not believing we have done enough justification or study to.

Well, I can share that, we have relatively few ADUs applied for. Whether there are some ADUs that are not applied for and applied, without permits is another question that we we don't have an answer to. But less than 2% of our single family dwelling permits have been have included requests for an internal or attached accessory dwelling unit.

But at this time, any owner occupied house can rent out their basement or anything else. So we've got something in there, but ADU or in a detached ADU, to my feeling and from what I'm hearing from some of my constituents, is a landscape change that I don't think we've studied the ramifications strong enough yet.

Indeed, the detached accessory dwelling unit and and there's not a commitment here or expectation that we adopt or amend that ADU accessory apartment ordinance to include detached accessory dwelling units. But acknowledging that we do have accessory apartment in our code and is applied for rarely, I would say. And, the the state code requires that if it's an internal ADU, that there not be a size limit within the footprint of the primary dwelling and we currently have a thousand square foot limit.

So at least becoming compliant with state code. So are there do you know have you seen other counties? What other ways are meeting this moderate income level? Is are you saying ADUs is the only path down there, or is there other situations that can be considered?

Looked at, Box Elder County, for example, and they previously, for a number of years have had detached accessory dwelling units. And to become compliant with state code, they added the internal, state required accessory dwelling unit. And then they, have a policy that they would not they do not and will not charge impact fees related to to accessory dwelling units. So theirs was primarily focused on ADUs to meet those, part of the State strategies. The only other State strategies that I could see as applicable to Cache County were, related more to what's listed here as our countywide planning services. But I did not say most of the other strategies appear to be focused on the infrastructure that can support the higher density housing and the transit that's encouraged

mister chair Yeah. Go ahead. To help with this? What you're being asked to adopt tonight, however, is our fulfillment of this year's commitment. This requirement from the state requires us to actually update it every year, and so even just with us looking at it, like with you considering the code and the planning commission having send it to you and that kind of thing, helps us fulfill our plan for this year. And if at the end of that discussion with workshops and such, the county council is like, we don't think that that what is it, e? That that one is, yeah, that one's e. We don't like that one. We'd rather take we'd rather take, a a different one of the, suggested, what are they called, strategies that they list on their website instead. So that could be part of the workshops this year as well as saying, going over this moderate income housing requirement from the state and giving the council all all of the options.

Well, I think there needs to be in I hate to use the word in-depth, but this is just hitting the council at this time. And to me, there are ramifications that I haven't even considered. I mean, I called and talked to some people about for instance, in the county right now, if you do subdivision and you build a road, a private road, and you go above five houses, you've gotta meet Cache County code on those road. So if I'm sitting with four houses on that road right now and each of those or two of those build an accessory dwelling unit or a dwelling unit, I've impacted the ADT, the travel on that road to the point that we haven't considered. We also had the discussion in planning and zoning as we're talking about these ADUs. We don't have the answer from the Utah Water Resource if whether it needs to be a separate water right or what goes on there. There was confusion. There was two different answers. Yep. So I'm just saying, as a council and what I've seen and what I've heard from others, let's put the brakes on and think about this for a bit before we just say, well, yeah, that's what we do and meet the stake thing. Because if we do this, it's hard to unwind.

I understand. And I understand the the real time conversation that that that's underway and that the challenges, but at least the effort to to collect that information and look at it comprehensively is is very key. I I would point out that this draft language suggests that the, that there is not a commitment to the detached accessory dwelling units and that, if a time frame of June 2023 is too tight, that that could be moved later, sometime later this year. And if in reporting it is not resolved or amended this year, then the report would reflect as much and state that more time is needed, more study is underway.

Well, if you do the ADUs, and we need to understand the impact on our roads, we need to understand the impact of current subdivisions and what they've done roadways. I just I'm we're looking from way up in outer space down here, and we haven't got into the details enough to say really what's going. And I just think that we really need to sit back and study this, whether it's a workshop, whether we keep going. There's just some things here that I have some high questions. And as I've reached out, talked to other people and others, and, again, two municipalities are saying this affects their environment as when they consider annexing somebody in who has an apartment there that yet maybe in that zoning part of their community is not part of their zoning. So they're saying to me, this has ramifications for the communities and a bunch of different things that they would like to have some say and talk about as well. So that's my point. I mean, there's six other council members here who have an opinion, but I'm just saying, let's pause and think about this for a bit.

Sure. And, it's my understanding that at a minimum, the county is required to have internal accessory dwelling units, as state code recently amends and and requires of the county.

K. So given that, then we should work from what that requirement is to build out so that we understand that both as a planning commission, as a council, and also the community, our citizens, and their municipalities as to how that's gonna be affected.

K. I've got a couple just kind of backing up a little ways. K. You mentioned that this has to be done annually, and the reason that this is even turned in is because there is some monies tied to it that helps us in transportation and and these corridors, all these basically, without this be it in there, we don't get the money. Right? Without doing this.

We're not allowed.

Could I respond to that? Give you a Let me go let me go one further because it'll probably stimulate another question. Yeah. And so every year, I have never and I've been on the council how long for a lot well, too many years, I guess. But but I've never seen one of these ever come through a county council for approval, but we then send it in. And apparently, we're we're dealing right now with the twenty twenty threes, which was supposed to be sent in. It was sent in, but it was rejected, and we're having to redo some things. But I know in discussions that we had, it was said that there was county council approval on the one that was sent in, and I've never seen it. And I'm I'm a little disheartened that it was said that way because there was not county council approval of the previous document, which we haven't even seen. But, we've never seen one, but it's hard to say, yes, that we've approved it when we never even saw it, and never did approve it. But it was, I guess, rejected, and now we're having to redo it, and then our time frame to redo it is very short now.

Yeah. That that is a concern. I I guess my quick response is please. Yes.

The count the state code says that the director of UDOT is not allowed to award any monies from the TIF, and then there's a couple of other things within the TIF in the in in the next coming fiscal year. I'm not sure if we really confirmed with our contact at the state, but for the state, that would be starting 07/01/2023, going through 07/01/2024. There there is an understanding, though, however, that those that money those monies are applied for, and I'm not sure if we have applied for any of those anyway. And And so it it's not you know, we you're right. We wouldn't be able to do it. Now Jeff actually Jeff Gilbert has mentioned to us that this year is actually an interesting year because UDOT doesn't always open up that those applications, but they are doing that this spring and summer. So so we we do apologize. Tim apologizes. I apologize again as interim director over there that we got that email and then Tim we were just buried and didn't we it was not intentional. We

yeah. With all that and But but even the original was sent in.

Yeah. I'm wondering if it was just planning commission that saw it. It was Lauren that did would have done the presentation. She would have come before you if it was done here.

And so that's k. Setting that aside, now we're to this point. Yeah. And I understand that if we pass this resolution tonight, that then we've still got to go through and make sure we do then we do the ordinances, but they can actually be a little bit different even than this. So we could address these concerns that, chairperson Gunnell has and and others may have that we can still change that that ordinance doesn't have to be perfectly according to this resolution. Right? That's correct. It'll make them happy though at the state. That's what I'm saying is that yeah. In the conference call that we had the other morning, I wanted to ask some questions, but I thought I better not. Because when you're dealing with the state, fewer questions the better. So

May I ask if we do pass this, how hard is it unto to unwind? I would rather be informed before I say yes to anything, and I just feel like I'm uninformed as this goes right now. Yes.

Well, it was shared with us that if there's a change in course, then that's part of the report to say here's why there's a change in course compared to what we

had planned in our implementation strategy. We haven't even gotten much participation or input from our ADU or what's going on, and I just feel like that would be something I would like to hear before I go ahead and say here's my vote, and I haven't listened to the constituents much on that. Well, tonight's if I understand Tim

and mister chair, tonight's vote on the resolution would actually commit the council to look at it and get that participation back from us. Committed as a pig is in a

butcher shop because it's here. So

Yeah. But not necessarily committing the council to or the county to direction

on where you're going with those. Well, it's it's we're looking as a the power of a resolution versus the power of an ordinance. You know, apparently, resolution, what we're looking at here is gives us the direction to start putting the ordinance together. And so help the resolution is not as bind is not 100% binding we can. And if we do change from those, then a follow-up addendum letter or something will be sent to the state, and hopefully, they would approve that with it. Right?

Correct. But nowhere in this resolution are we talking any other way of meeting this housing thing, such as other ideas talking outside of their meetings? Apparently, it does. She said it was fine.

K.

So this meets our state requirement if we pass it tonight, and then we can

massage it and keep working on it? We we would file a report by Thursday to meet that extended deadline for reporting. One point of clarification is annually, required is a report. Amending the moderate income housing plan is not required annually, but it's an option that we always have to amend that plan.

Other comments, questions? Any thoughts, motions?

I'll move to approve resolution twenty twenty three dash o three.

There's a second. I'll second. Moved and seconded that we approve resolution twenty twenty three dash o three. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll proceed to vote. All those in favor have approving.

So this is the initial consideration, so we need

to waive the rules. Move to suspend the rules. I will suspend the rules. Thank you. I accept the amendment and still second. Moved and seconded that we suspend the rules and pass resolution twenty twenty three dash o three. Is there any comments? Any discussion? Hearing none, proceed to vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. Nay. And I will vote in favor with a strong direction as to really look at it. So motion passes six to one. Let's go ahead real quick down to any Now I noticed January 2022 building permits. Mike, did you have anything special on that one? That's just basically the list of what we have. Mister chair? Yes. I apologize for interrupting.

We have our language ready for you to consider

on Yes. On the

amendments to title 17, general definitions, density, and developable acreage.

To specifically say, if you got that, you could put that up real quick. Thank you. I don't mean to rush you too much, but it is Valentine's Day. At least, can we use that for an excuse at least once?

K. Mister chair, can I explain the difference between this and what you saw earlier tonight, please? Yeah. Excellent. Do you know more than him?

Okay. Go ahead.

A little bit of a question. In the, in in the language involved in your packet, immediately under density, after the parentheses near the end where it says wetlands, open water, steep slopes, in the language earlier tonight, it just had slashed out and the area in rights of way for roads. But since that will now apply still to a five a r u five r u two, we just left that language as it is currently in code and added in a 10 zones, the area and rights of wafer roads shall not be subtracted. Similarly, down below, it it was the similar change where the proposal tonight, if it were to apply to all zones, would have slashed out

and areas dedicated to the public such as parks and public rights of way.

This language actually leaves the language as it is currently in code

and adds in a 10 zones, areas dedicated to the public such as parks and public rights of way shall not be excluded.

And though it was by text, we had Dane look at it and make sure that he felt it would be appropriate. So this would effectually do just a 10 zones for the

cast disposal. Sensitive areas, if you would, please. Are you saying they are considered or not considered?

The only thing this would affect is right of way. For the roads? Yes. K. Thank you. And those discussions will be coming. K.

That helps me to be clarified. This does not

pull R U 2, R U 5 out at all, does it? Or any of the other zones? It

because the previously like, currently, as code is written, rights of way have to be excluded from developable acreage. But so now what we do is it's Specifically just a 10. Yes. A ten's. It it doesn't count towards their developable acreage or against, depending on how you look at it. So

I'm gonna look to the middle of the room. Do I have a thumbs up? Okay. Because I think he was representing the one of the clients, I believe. So okay.

Does that satisfying? So if I can clarify to mister You bet, please. So this is only applying we saw multiple graphs and or or illustrations with different zones. Mixing all of those, we're now just going back to the original zone in question of eight ten and and saying that their right of way is not going to be affected by the total acreage. Right? Okay. Exactly. Thank you. But I used to gut feeling

that I think there's more to come. Yeah. So but as far as that one right now, that would suffice. And I think I I'm in favor of that myself. So any other I'd entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to reapprove.

It's ten a. It's 10 a.

23 Dash 02 in this final presentation, having it apply only to a 10 zoning.

I'll second that. We'll second. We that one there, this is not a new this is not the we don't have to waive the rules on this one. We already talked about it before. Right? Right. Dain? Yes. So go ahead and pass ordinance twenty twenty three zero two as with the amended changes specifically to ATAM. Is there any been moved in, seconded. Is there any discussion? Hearing none to vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye.

Okay.

Okay. So it's a six to one. I voted in favor. Let's go ahead and down on other business before we have our executive session. Yes.

Building permits,

I did not apologize. They were not open in the circle. I can't believe it. K. And that's usually an information only. This tells you what has actually been happening within the county. Mhmm. Maybe we could probably get January, September, February or, you know, on the next meeting. That'd be great. Any of these workshops, conference, anyone attending the u dot region one workshop? How about UAC building? Is it UAC building conference?

I'm not planning. I will not be able to attend that one. Okay.

Carl will not. We have Barbara, Stephanie, and Catherine.

I'm still undecided. It's things have been really crazy at work for the last two weeks. So when

things calm down, I'll know, but I can't commit at this point. I'm on the same path. I'll give it consideration, but no commitment.

Do we have an agenda yet for the fifth? Like, do we know how late it goes on the fifth? Correct.

UAC management conference. Put me I'll be attending that one. Put me down for attending that one. It gets me out of something else and that's really nice. So I won't tell you guys what but any others additions deletions on that one? K NACO, that's the WIR conference that they've added that will be in Saint George. That's that Western Regional. Put me down for that one to go. Explain that one a little bit more, please. I would love to have all of those acronyms just are killers. I swear they are. That one is specifically western what does the I stand for again? In Something region. It's yeah. Something region. But Western Interstate Region. Interstate. Interstate Region. That's where only people within that area of NACo, they come there for they have other regions of NACo that they are also meeting for things. Specific issues that they often talk are there are the rural aspects the of our areas within the re in the West here. They talk a lot about, open lands, federal lands, all those things and how to address those. It is here where they started in in the ideas came that we would get that research center from those support monies that were coming, that's where that came from,

the WIR conference there. So other states will be coming to St. George? Yes.

All all those that are in the Western Region. Yes. It's it's I'm here. I've not been to it yet, but I hear it's really a good welcome to any of us. Oh, yeah. Anybody.

Planning on it, but again, can't commit tonight. Yeah.

Okay. So we got Carl, Sandy, Mark, Barbara, Dave. Maybe. Maybe. Put a question mark. Nolan?

TBD. You

know what? We we had a discussion at the legislature this week, and because I had a question, like, is it really of value to the county for us to go to some of these things? Like, what are we bringing back to the county for the cost? And it was suggested that there's a lot of voting that happens at these on not so much policy, but on what we support and what we don't support, and that gets taken to the federal government. Like, NACO does support this or not. And if we aren't having a voice at the table, then, you know, maybe there's other regions who have different values or different ideals that that gets, the majority votes. And so that it's important for us to be there to to represent what we believe in and what we want to have happen in that body. So

They are very expensive, though. Yeah. And that's That's a that's a cost we have we have to decide whether we'll bear or not. So yep. I totally agree. K. Other than that, let's go quick. Council and member reports. Carl, could you

The only thing I have I will report at this time at least is that I met with the clerk's office. One of my goals is some redistricting in between in the Logan Districts, and we've come up with a plan that we think will work, but we need to get together with Sandy and Barbara in those two districts and and make sure that it's

compatible with what what your thinking is. Is this one of those district that actually goes clear to Cove? Yeah. I mean, it it leap frogs over other there are other districts to get to Cove. Where that came from, I am just flabbergasted. What did you have the GPS tied to some cat that ran or something?

It wasn't you? That was the state. Oh, you You would have liked our maps.

Okay. Okay. Appreciate that. Sandy?

I was able to meet go through a tour of the jail facility this week on Monday. Catherine and I did, and I did a ride along with the deputy for several hours yesterday, and that was very interesting, but it also gave me a really good idea of how they function and what kind of programs they have and equipment so that as we approve budget items, I feel like I'll I will be more informed about what they need. I'll submit on the fairgrounds advisory board, audit committee. I've been to a lot of meetings, and I'm just I don't have a lot to report, just that I'm learning, and there's a lot to learn.

Continually. Continually. Mark?

Some of the same meetings Sandy mentioned I've attended as well. So I'm not upset there. I've encouraged Sandy to take a ride along on a Friday night. No. Then you'll get some serious Monday afternoon. Exposure to the the real hands on, but I had a great event a couple weeks ago or I called it an event because it was a very eventful night, but ride along that was arranged. I appreciated your pulling out together, sheriff, And, just wanted to add just a compliment to the first responders and the public safety personnel that we have in Cache County is, I believe, top notch. None better. And I'm very grateful

part.

Jane. Nolan.

Two things. The cash waste consortium has continued meeting. We're nearing contract on that. I would like to propose that the company that is going to be doing as it appears now, but we'll wait till a contract on that waste to come and meet with the council and present so that the council is well informed of how that's gonna be doing because that affects most of us here. Put that out. And then also given on what our agenda's been tonight, I would like to have us focus on maybe a workshop with the planning and zoning so that we can deal with all of these things that are coming with this and and get some information from development services as well

Just I cannot believe the amount of people that are employed there, and it was impressive, and we have amazing staff.

I felt like we have very professional staff, and and it was really great experience. So that's all I needed. And many of them over and over praised sheriff Jensen. I'll just tell you that, that we heard that from multiple people how grateful they were that you are their leader and that we're so lucky in Cache County to have you. So we heard that a lot. Yep.

Terrific. I'm glad they let you two out. I also I actually went on a tour of another jail facility, but I They let you out? They barely well, this was the animal facility that you talked about. So I didn't quite qualify, but I was close. Anyway, but I went down there and I was as as you were going to report, I was gonna have your back on that, but things are very, very close down there. It's I talked with the director. There's been just a few little, you know, hiccups and some slow ups and welcome to COVID and all those issues of shipping and delivery and and everything, but it's it's been quite a process, a learning process that we didn't wanna learn right. But it's it's just all but there. They've staffed up ready to go, and they're just the details, computer. It it's a neat thing that they've done, and and it'll be neat when we open that up that everyone can see that. So and I appreciate them. Just I knocked on the door and they came and and they didn't shoot me off that fast. So but, okay. At this point, I'll entertain a motion to go ahead and go into executive session for and if you go ahead and read those two things there.

I'll move that we move into executive session for Utah code 52 dash four two zero five discussion of pending a reasonably immigrant imminent litigation, and Utah code 52 dash four code six

one e discussion of the sale of real property. I'll second that. It would have been seconded that we go into executive session for those following codes and reasons. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. You can wait if you'd like.