Cache County Council Regular Meeting – 01-27-2026

Okay.

Well, thanks again. I do appreciate that. Okay. Well, we have arrived at the appointed picture. How do I have to do that? Nolan, I'm not gonna be gentle. I don't know. Brace yourself now. Okay. We've arrived at our appointed hour. We will have an opening by council member Nolan Gunnell.

I will make a few comments. There's some crazy things going on in the world and in our United States. And I would petition you all to have thoughts and civility as you do anything with people and also prayers. I think prayer is a very important part of our society. And with that, I would like to make my opening comments in the form of a prayer. Our father in heaven, we come before thee at this time as we give thanks for this nation and the freedom which we enjoy. And we are thankful for those men and women who have provided this freedom and see that it happens daily for us now and in the present and in the past and in the future. We pray for civility. And we are thankful for those men and women who have provided this freedom and see that it happens daily for us now and in the present and in the past and in the future. We pray for civility. And we pray for past and in the future. We pray for stability. But as we deal with one another, we may do so in a kind manner. May we be kind to one another. We pray for the unrest and the things that are going on in this nation that our leaders may be able to step forward and to provide. Our leaders may be able to step forward and to provide actions and things that will lessen the severity of things as we go forth and that we may be civil in our dialogues. We pray that it's a nice Amen. Just stand with me for 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.

Okay. Thank you, Nolan. This evening, we'd like to acknowledge the absence of our chair, Sandy Goodlander. She is traveling, and we have our newest member of council that is joining us this evening. We have Joanne Bennett. So welcome. Thank you very much. You'll get a hang of it. Any questions, just raise your hand. We'll totally help you along. So let's go ahead, and I'll accept a motion for the this evening's agenda. So moved. Second. K. Any discussion on the agenda? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and vote. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. It's unanimous. The minutes of one '13 twenty twenty six, I'll accept a motion.

Move to approve the minutes of 01/03/2026. Second.

Any discussion? K. The minutes of 01:13 twenty twenty six, we'll vote. Go ahead and all those in favor, say aye. Aye. And that's unanimous. Thank you. Now we will turn to the executive for his any items that he may have.

This is the time when I provide for some information involving appointments. We have a whole list of committees. I think there's 26 or 27, going through them, trying to determine whether I make the appointments or the council does. Looking at the terms and all. It's a little bit of a jumble. We've asked for Andrew's help, and Janine and Andrew working on getting that list. Eventually, we intend to place the list with the county clerk and help have his help periodically. But at this point, I'm not ready to make any recommendations for appointment. Though I acknowledge that many of the appointments expire on December 25, and we'll just continue with those individual and start dealing with those one group at a time.

Okay. Thank you. Moving on, we have, the next item, request for municipal development access to county roadways. Matt Phillips will address us for, that item.

Matt Phillips, public works director, council. Well, I stood here back in July for about the same project. So for some that weren't here, I just wanted to go over a little bit of the background of the county code and kind of the request that's before the council tonight. Next slide. In in the county code in the county road manual, it says, any municipal development accessing county roadways. No municipal development shall be permitted to access a county roadway without the express written approval from the Cache County Council. So as part of our development, anytime a county development wants to access a city road, we require some kind of notification and approval from that city and vice versa. If a city is doing a development and they wanna access a county road, we we require the county council to approve that development. So as part of the guidance for the council, in that policy of the county, it says it's the policy of the Cache County that no service shall be provided to municipal developments from the county roadway unless extreme circumstances provide no alternate and annexation or acceptance of ownership of the roadway by the municipality is not possible. So that kind of gives us a framework of what we're looking for. In this case, this road that the access is made by Blaine Hamlin. He's in the audience of Heritage Land Development. His proposal is to access for a new 41 lot subdivision. And the access he's requesting is in the city of River Heights on what we consider Highway 238. So next slide. For Highway 238, it starts in Nibley, goes through Millville, goes through Providence, and is highlighted on the screen up here in pink and continues into Logan. That's the that's the County Road. Not a lot of history on that, but that was the UDOT trade jurisdiction with 10th West. And the county ended up taking some jurisdiction of that in order to facilitate a trade of 10th West here in Logan. I have highlighted the 40, the proposed subdivision. Currently, there's no access to that. This would be a new access to the County Road. Next one. A little just kind of a zoom in of where that blue would be the proposed development. And you see the county road there. Last time we came,

what we were really looking for was some better feedback from River Heights as to why they can't take the road.

River Heights as to why they can't take the road. It's already annexed in. It's already in the city. So there's some of that policy that we have doesn't really fit into what we're looking for. Since July, we didn't we haven't really got any hard feedback from the City of River Heights. I know I have attempted to set up some meetings with them and have those discussions as I think there's a little bit more discussion that needs to be had about the jurisdiction of that road, and is it is it in the best interest of the county to continue to maintain that road. However, back in October, there was a letter that came from the city attorney of River Heights to the development company. And in that letter, they state, which I believe might be in your packet, but it states River Heights has acknowledged the county's ownership of 600 East and accordingly has no current plans to alter that arrangement. So while not direct communication with the county, they have expressed that they don't they don't have any interest in taking that road. And so we're kind of back to that square one. Last time, if I'm not mistaken, the Council kind of gave us direction to go try to work this out with the City, get a little more firm communication from them. But that has been six months, and so the developer has requested, once again, to petition the council for access to the County Road. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

I have a question. A couple of them, actually. I've been asked by some citizens about this. I mean, we're trying to make growth in the cities where it's reasonable. This seems to be that. This will be in River Heights. They're gonna benefit from these homes being in there, but yet we're gonna be looking at the road and maintenance on there. Do you have any idea of what we're looking? I mean, we're still plowing it for snow and everything. Is that correct? Yes. We still do all the maintenance for that. I know there's been

there isn't a maintenance agreement. So sometimes there's not an exact of what the county's doing, what the cities are doing. Sometimes signs, there's school zones. So there's a little bit of multi jurisdictional going around there, but the main service we provide to this road is winter maintenance, to be the plowing.

Do you see much negative impact from 41 homes accessing this road? Because it's still traveled pretty heavily. Right? It is.

I I think the the nature of this situation is is that using this road generates property taxes for River Heights, and we're maintaining it in River Heights. I know what the history of this state to finish 10th West that we would take responsibility for this road. But it didn't say we'd do it forever. And I don't like putting the individual to to try and develop this road between us and River Heights City, but there's no reason we should be doing this. We're not getting any it's not a road we should maintain, and as we put more and more development on the road, there's less and less incentive for River Heights to pay anything for a road that we're operating for the benefit of River Heights. There's gonna be, what, 75 or 80 homes in this area using this road, which generates a significant amount of property tax and revenue to River Heights, which we will not receive, but we'll be maintaining the road. So I I think permission should be given, but I think our permission should be conditioned upon making River Heights take over that portion of the road.

So so normally, we'll bring back a resolution that's voted on. Again, this was on on the agenda for discussion items. So kind of looking for direction. I'm happy to go prepare something. Happy to try to get more information from the city of River Heights.

I'm happy to provide more information on the back history of the road. I think it would be helpful if the council expressed their opinion about this matter so we can send it to River Heights with a council.

Agreed. My opinion is is we're holding a private land owner up for somebody not working and willing. I think it we also hold River Heights that this is crazy that they're benefiting and we're maintaining maintenance and everything else, but it's also crazy that landowner cannot proceed with what in true faith and good faith they've acted in buying and doing everything else. Doing everything else. So that's the problem. So is the recommendation that once the development is finished that they take it over, or what are we looking at for time? They should take it over before. Yeah. Then afterwards, they're just out. It doesn't have a lot. They got everything they wanted. Well, in meanwhile, all that construction and everything's gone on that road.

Is there only one ingress egress into that property? Are they gonna be using the drive or the other drive that's up there to the north?

There's there's only one ingress egress from the county road. Directly. The other one would come through the church's parking lot that you see just south and to the edge there. That's a church homes on one ingress egress? To get access through the church parking lot for their secondary emergency access.

What?

Isn't it? For 41 homes, we don't we don't allow that in the county. We don't access. I actually I concur with I feel like there's no way I could vote to approve this until River Heights takes ownership of the road. It's their road through their city. It's Parade Route. It's whatever it may be. That's their responsibility. And that's how it ought to be. So

Is there a River Heights Road next to this that we could pile up our snows? We plow the snows?

I I think the development probably would have went to a River Heights Road that's under their jurisdiction, but they they have no access to get to those. I don't know if they could go to Providence through one of those, but they're kinda landlocked with development around them and

Is that Providence to the east? The pink. The pink is?

So has anybody in River Heights said reasoning why we're not moving? I mean, I have seen many communications between the developer and River Heights, and that it just seems like there's stalling going on.

I would say that's part of that's probably fair, Nolan.

We should grant permission, but River Heights should also take the road. So

what what are we advocating for? Can we say permission given that River Heights takes the road? I mean, but that doesn't do any good because they gotta have the road. Yeah. Yeah. So the road? I

mean but that doesn't do any good because they gotta have the road. Yeah. And I'm happy to prepare something to that effect, Nolan, if you guys would like to bring it up. We should let them know the council wants this to happen. I mean, we encourage development in city We can't I I can't stand behind saying we have given them any sort of permission to move forward

if we're insisting it's not our road. Yeah. It's too bad to develop. If it's not our road, we don't have any position to take of approval.

So I can speak up there, I I think if that's the direction the council wants to go, you'd have to relinquish the county's right to that road. And then under state code, it would revert to the municipality

that it is in. And that way, River Heights would have to take ownership under state code rather than the county being responsible for that. So I think that's something that council I like that manner. And I think that's the best way to do this, and then River Heights is in control of their own future and all of that. That's that's their

that's their neighborhood. They're getting the road impact fees. I mean, they're getting and it's if it's our road, that makes no sense.

So next time, put forth a resolution where we would vote on relinquishing that road. Is that the concern? The direction to staff? So I don't wanna put words in the attorneys

in what he said, but I do believe that the state code does say that if the county wants jurisdiction of that, it has mutual agreement. So if the county decided that they didn't wanna have any jurisdiction of that and they did a resolution as such, he's right. That jurisdiction would would go back to River Heights, and I don't know I don't even know if that can be contested.

But that's something else we could look at. Another part of the road, the portion of the road that's in Millville, our road has been torn to pieces Yeah. And with the promise that Millville would fix this road. And if not fixed, then it's a mess. Has got to have work substantial work done on it. So I'd I'd like to relinquish not only the portions in River Heights, but the province in Newellville. We go deeper.

So how do we the the question at hand is how do we not hold this developer hostage for this stretch of road that we have greater issue with? Because they've been trying to develop this, and and again, it's not wholly their fault because we have issue with a long stretch of road that continues into Millville. Yeah. They're kinda caught in the crossfire.

I like Dean's message that we relinquish and we go deeper. I mean, we got Providence. We got Millville. We got the whole thing. How how far can we go on relinquishing that? And they have to take it. And and if we feel it's not the county's road or shouldn't be the county's road responsibility,

we're not the ones holding up the developer. River Heights should be taking it on and should have from the beginning. It it it is a little deeper than that. What what actually happened on this is

is the state. This was the state road. The state said, we won't put money in to finish 10th West Right. Unless we get out of this road that's between these cities. So in order to get the money for 10th West, we agreed fifteen, twenty years ago, Mark, that we would take responsibility for this road. We've been doing that for fifteen or twenty year, but we didn't agree that we would do it forever. Now, there is development all the way along the road. The cities have have done this, and it's it's it's a burden to us to to maintain this is the the worst example of us maintaining a road for the benefit of cities. We don't do it anywhere else. And and I I agree that I don't like holding the developer hostage, but for now, I think we could at least say, we're not gonna get into this deeper and put more traffic on this road and not have any revenue to cover this cost.

If that's the case, we should probably take action sooner than later, because then we will be the ones delaying it if we don't relinquish the road soon. Mhmm. Yeah. I I think if you

you know, I'd said, we direct our attorney to proceed with the city before the relinquishment is final that they give permission to use the road, and we would allow that. We get out of the business of stopping the developer at all.

Seems fair to me. Yep. I like that. You want that in the form of a motion? No. That'll work. Yeah.

Then I would move that we start that process

to relinquish the responsibilities of that road in those in those municipalities.

I'll second the motion.

K. We have a motion and a and a second. Cross. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Yes. We have enough direction that you understand the the motion? Yes. I I I will work with Matt and we'll get the process done. Okay. We'll go ahead and vote on the motion on floor. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. And it was unanimous.

K. Thanks, Matt.

Thanks, Dane, for the insight. Thanks. That helps.

Okay. Moving on, we have the Behavioral Health Integration Plan, and Jordan Mathis has returned.

Jordan Mathis, director of the Bear River Health Department. I won't rehash everything we went over last time, but we talked about moving forward with an integration plan. One of the things that was presented in that last presentation was the fact that it came at a, ongoing cost of about $250,000 for the three counties that are part. The question came back, what is Cache County's ongoing requirement? So bay based off of population, 68.9% of that 250,000, which means it's $172,250 that'll be ongoing each year, moving forward starting in 2027. So not this year, but we would be looking at how we would fill that void.

What was that number again? January?

01/2250, Making Box Elder County's portions 74,500 and Rich County's 3,250.

So Not much.

I still say we judge Rich County in the summer. So Yeah. Then we get more money.

They do have a lot of second homes. You work that out with Rich County, and I'll be happy to do it.

I have a question about those funds. And and maybe I don't know if anybody would be able to answer this, but we had had a discussion with the executive in the auditor's office about revisiting the levy that we have on the the property tax for the health department. Yeah. We're we're going to through that up so that all of the money that we provide to the health department come through the levy. Well, this is for the behavioral health integration plan. Could that be could that amount be through that levy, or does it have to be coming from, like, our general No. No. Front end. This

is actually this is actually to fill if you remember, the reason we have this two fifty is because we've been supplementing public health administration costs, and we will no longer have those those contracts to draw down and and pull administration costs from. So these will be directly for public health. But I believe the executive's plan was to look at not only the public health, but all the county match dollars for Medicaid and everything like that. Because we will be administering those and putting that all under the levy so that it's fixed moving forward.

This could be included into that because it will be in the public health

levy. Even if if it was it's not I'm just saying it's not part of the match or anything. Gotcha. Okay. Okay. It Thank you. These dollars will not actually be going towards the public health integration. They'll be going to make up the void that was left because of the exit of Yes. Those contracts.

Thank you. So was this, you know, our responsibility

as being the mental health authority or responsibility

of Bear River Health? Bear River Health. Both. So it would no. It'd be under the response these this burden right here is under the responsibility of 26 a, which is the local health department act. And every county has to either have a health department or be part of a health department. Mhmm. So that's the administration cost that you'd be bearing for the health department.

Thank you. And we do have some time, at least half the year to Yeah. To work this through. Yep.

Start collecting our aluminum cans now.

Did you go to the other counties yet, or is that Oh, great. Coming soon? So I did go to Box Elder County, and they

we took their numbers after you asked for it. I said, well, that's probably good to take. And we took the numbers to them, and they voted in favor of it. Rich County only meets once a month, and we're on next week with Rich County. K.

Well, I would move that we approve this and, and move forward with this proposal and to start working it out in our next budget openings.

I'll second that. K. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? K. All those in favor say aye. No. K. Thank you, Jordan. Thanks for coming back.

I appreciate that. Take the rest of the night off.

No. Stick here with us. Have fun.

Okay. Let's move on to the next item to schedule public hearings. I'll accept a motion to schedule the the three public hearings.

I will make a motion that we set a public hearing February 10, 05:30, for ordinance twenty twenty six dash o four, Mountain Manor Springs, two rezone. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash o five, amendment to Cache County code regarding frontage and access regulations. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash o six, amendment to Cache County Code regarding subdivision and subdivision amendment standards. Second.

K. Thank you. We have a motion. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. It's unanimous. Thank you. Thanks. I'm gonna say it's close enough to 05:30 to go ahead and move on with our public hearings that we have scheduled for this evening. We have various. We'll go ahead and start with the cemetery maintenance district vacancies. Should we do each if it maintenance district at I have a presentation for Oh, okay. Thanks. We'll go ahead. Andrew will educate us.

Good evening, council. So one of the responsibilities that you hold in appointments in terms of special service districts is that of all the boards for several different cemetery maintenance districts. A lot of them have staggered terms. A lot of them don't. That being said, a good number of them had their terms expire on 12/31/2025. Right now, those who had their terms expired continue to serve as is until they have a replacement. So there's not any immediate need for replacement, but it needs it ought to be done rather soon. So there are several different vacancies as you can see from the seven diff seven different cemetery maintenance districts. That being said, a notice was sent out for a notice of vacancy was sent out for thirty days. Responses were received. I made several phone calls, sent out dozens of letters. And so at the end of this process, there is only one that did not receive enough applicants to fill all the spots, but we'll we'll figure that one out with, the quarter cemetery maintenance district. But beyond that, the rest of them have received a sufficient amount of applications for all of their vacancies. If you guys will see the, form that was handed out to you, it's purple at the top. So that is a list of all of the respondents to each of their respective districts. As we move through the public hearing portion and hear each applicant as listed, if you want to indicate which one you have a preference of, there's only two that have more applicants than spots to fill. So if you want to give that back to me at the very end, I can have an idea of what names to prepare for when the next county council meeting occurs. Unless you guys would like to try and just appoint tonight, but I would recommend against it. I recommend waiting till the February 10 meeting. Okay. That being said, I would advise that you move through each of these maintenance districts with each of the

listed applicants and then go from there. Okay. Thank you, Andrew. Yes, ma'am. I have a question. How many people are on each district? Is that they all the same or, like So it depends. The number here. Some are I saw the number, but how many Some have three.

Others have five. For example, Avon has five, where So that's all of them being put back in? Yes. But with with those where the entire board is up for reappointment, the resolution I've written as is, you guys are more than welcome to amend it. The way I've written it is it separates out each individual into a four year or a two year term. That way, they're truly staggered. It's a or it's a requirement of state law that they'd be approximately half be up for reappointment every two years.

Okay. Any further questions for Andrew?

Can I be honest? I don't know a lot of these people, so how do we sit and vote on these unless Well, we're gonna have our our public hearing now. Public hearing is more And many of them may be here. So most of them are gonna tell us why they love this job. Right? Why they want this awesome job. Can I ask them where they see themselves? He didn't he didn't he say did he say four year term or forty?

Yeah.

We we could really take care of this for a while tonight.

But I will add the the work that these people do is very important.

Give you more years on this earth. Okay? So what you're saying, whether they're above ground or below ground, they have to serve. Right? So they're the right oversee the cemetery, tell you're part of it. Yes. And even after.

But, yes, as Dave was pointing out, a lot of these people have served on these boards for quite a number of years. The work is very important, so

have at it. Thank you, Andrew.

So just as housekeeping goes, we'll go ahead and have a public hearing for each cemetery district and and give everybody a chance for each district to for those that are are here to speak concerning each district. So we'll start with the Avon Cemetery maintenance oh, by motion. We can no. Okay. We can go ahead and start with the Avon Cemetery maintenance district. If anybody's here to speak to the Avon Cemetery maintenance district, you can come and direct us, state your name and where you live, and speak to us here at

It looks like we have together at the same time. You take turns. You're welcome to take turns. We have five applicants and five vacancies. Yes. So you guys can fight over four or two years.

I will note that a good number of people reached out and said that they had other obligations tonight. Could not make it. Okay. Thanks, Andrew. Yes, ma'am. My name is Michelle Watkins. I I have served for the past three years as

the Avon Cemetery treasurer, and I'm happy to continue in that capacity. I have learned the job now the last three years, so

that's all I have to say. Thank you for your service. Does anybody have any questions for Michelle while she's here? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your service.

I'm Kirsten Knowles, and I have served as a well, various positions since probably 2018. I currently am the clerk of the Avon Cemetery, and it's kind of my favorite place in Avon as weird as that is. So I'd also like to continue to serve.

Thank you. Thank you again for your service.

I'm Jim Atkinson. I live in Avon. I lived there for eight and a half years. And, many of I'm not on the I'm actually I just heard that this was an opening. There was an opening. It doesn't sound like there is, but I'd like to be considered. I have many relatives that are buried in the cemetery, and it's a family tradition that my great grandmother actually chose the place for the cemetery in Avon. My grandmother was raised in Avon and, anyway, I wasn't planning on ending up there, but that's where I live now. So I've been there for eight and a half years, but I'd like to be considered.

Thank you.

Questions? Okay.

Anyone else to speak to the Avon Cemetery Maintenance District?

Do we wanna close the public hearing on each one of those or just go ahead and move one through? Maybe one at the end. Maybe one at the end. We'll move on to the Cornish Cemetery maintenance district.

Council executive, Dale Buxton, one of the members now. We have three, and it looks like we're gonna have to do a better job of arm twisting to get the other one to fill that slot. So that's, but I'm happy to continue. We've got some good things happening, we think. So I know that Kyle Pitcher is also on that list. He would be more than willing to continue. I think if you wanna stagger the terms, Andrew, we can you can flip a coin to see who gets the long term and not forty years.

So thank you. Thank you. Any questions? That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. K. Anyone else to speak to Cornish?

That one.

That's it. K. Moving on to the Hyde Park Cemetery Maintenance District.

I'm Brian Ball from Hyde Park. Been a resident my whole life, about six generations, related to most of the cemetery. I've been on the cemetery board as the president for at least twenty years. I'm not even sure how much longer. Somewhere between there and twenty five. But I wanna continue. We've got a good board and good little town. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Cody Johnson, and I'm a lifelong resident of Hyde Park also. And I've been on the board for six or seven years, and we've done a lot of good things at the cemetery. So look forward to having more come.

Thank you. Thanks for your service. Okay. Anyone else that would like to speak to the Hyde Park Cemetery maintenance district? K. We'll continue. The Millville Nibley Cemetery maintenance district.

My name's Randy Feazer. I've been living in Nibley over forty years. In the past, I served on the board for six years. And I wasn't available for the last couple of years, but I want to make myself available now. But, there's one thing I do want to say, I think, even though Jim Jensen isn't here tonight, I think it's imperative that Jim gets back on there again. He's got thirty years on the board right now, and he's got more stuff in his mind than what's recorded in the years on the board right now, and he's got more stuff in his mind than what's recorded in the notes and the and everything else. He needs to be in there, and I would also suggest that Danny Eames also gets put back on again. He's done an excellent job for the last couple of years. There's one slot open yet. I don't know who else has put in, but I like I said, I'm willing to to serve again if possible.

Thanks, Randy. Thank you.

Good evening. I'm Dan Aimes from the the Nibley. I've been on the board for the last four years, and it's actually in this crazy world that we live in. The cemetery is one of my favorite places, and we like to keep it clean, keep it green, and and we just it's just a it's it's just a special place for me. I'd like to be reconsidered or considered to to stay on there of, with Jim and get some new mem get a new member of your choice and keep going because there's I know now more people in the cemetery than I know in Nibley or Melville. I know where they live there. Yeah. So thank you. Thanks, Dan.

I'm not quite as old as Dan, so I still know more people above ground than below ground, but, that's good, Dan. My name is Jim Christiansen. I have lived in Millville for about thirty five years or South of Millville out by the Coyote Farm. I don't know what a cemetery board does, but I'm anxious to serve and I would love to serve. I've owned several businesses around town currently on the Costa Vida's here and just anxious to be more involved if I can. Hope you'll consider me. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Kim Ashcroft, and I'm not nearly as old as these guys. But I've been in Millville for about thirty years, and I've been asked by the board to serve for many years. And I never had the time before. But I just recently retired about a year and a half ago. And now I have the time, and I just think I can fulfill the needs and and what goes on with the cemetery. But, you know, honestly, there isn't a bad choice here, to be honest with you, with any of these guys. Anybody that is willing to put their name out there and volunteer for a service that is not committed, I take my hat off to anybody that's willing to do that. And I ran for mayor for Melville and stuff like that, and I lost for, like, 34 votes or so. But you know what?

Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak to the Millville Nibley Cemetery Maintenance District? K. Newton Cemetery Maintenance District. Seeing no one, we'll go from Newton Newton Newton to Paradise. Anybody here who'd like to speak to the paradise? K. No one will Richmond? No one from Richmond. I'll accept a a motion to to close

this portion this public hearing. No. We'll close the public hearing. Second.

K. All those in favor, say aye. No. Aye. Thank you. That was unanimous. Thank you for everyone that is willing to serve. We really appreciate how many people have have put their names in to to do this. I spoke to some that are interested in serving in in Nibley Millville Cemetery Maintenance District, and they said they put it really well. They said, we'd like to keep it beautiful, maintain it, and bury our our loved ones with dignity. And I thought that that was a really good mission for what they do. So thank you again for those that are willing to serve. We'll move on to the next public hearing that we have scheduled, and that is for ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero one, and that's the Dutson rezone. And we will have thank you. Love, Steve.

Good evening. Brian Abbott, interim director of development services. Brian. Sorry. So first item tonight, Dutson rezone. As you can see, it's located just North of Newton on the road to Newton Dam, currently used for agricultural purposes. A brief overview. The rezone request is to rezone 15 acres from agricultural a 10 to rural, r u two. It's located, just under a half mile north of the Newton boundary. The max potential of seven lots in the RU two zone. The nearest rural to RU two zone is approximately seven miles southeast of the subject property in Birch Hollow Rezone. That's just west It's not located within a future annexation area of municipality. The Newton Town is opposed to the rezone and two other public comments opposed to the rezone were received. As you can see, the surrounding area around it is all a 10. My paper's here. Sorry about that. Planning commission recommendation. We had a public hearing 12/04/2025. Planning commission recommended denial of the rezone to the county council on a six to zero vote. Any questions on that?

Yeah. If you could please just explain their reasoning as why they wanted to deny it?

Yes. They felt like that they wanted to keep the A 10 A 10 and this was kind of too far away from the city in the middle of agriculture to go ahead and approve it.

Okay. Any questions from staff? Open public hearing. We can come back to them. Okay. Just go ahead and open the public hearing. Anyone who's here to speak for to the Dutson rezone, Go ahead and, please state your name and where you live.

Paul Dutson, the owner of that land. They messed up. They put down that I want seven homes. It was actually only supposed to be three. And so I just want to rezone it, keep it as agile culture, but I wanna build on a quarter, and then my brother builds on a quarter of it. And so to keep it that way, we had to change it a bit. And there's land all up and down that's not in Newton City that is for sale, But that's by the Griffin family is selling some. There's other lots up there for sale that's been there for over a probably a year for sale, and they're trying to do the same thing, put homes they're selling their lots for like half acre lots to an acre lot. So pretty much this And so the farmer who farms my land, I've already told him he can still farm it. I'm just going to take a little piece of it so it can still stay in farm land and all that. And I'm good friends with him. His name's Kelly Griffin. So kind of why they denied it because it said that it had seven homes. I didn't have my markers correctly where the land is. Needed needed to clean that up, and so I've done that and stuff and got the surveyors out there. And so Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Can he put this on the computer thing to show that?

What I had in mind, what I was going to do? You have to consider the application that we have that's come through the Planning and Zoning Commission. So Okay. That's what's before us this evening. Okay.

Well, thanks for your time. I have a question. Oh, yes. Joanne? Could you, apply later, another time with the correct information?

Is that an option you have? Yes. I can. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Colin just told me to just finish it out. K. Said if they don't approve it, then we can just go to the next whatever zone, whatever it is. Okay. And that's for, like, five homes. So Gotcha. Either one of them. Thank you. Thanks.

Any other comment for the Dutson rezone? Motion to close?

I make a motion to close public hearing. Second.

K. All those in favor say aye? Aye. Thank you. Moving on to ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero two, amendment to the Cache County code to update RU two, RU five zone standards. Ryan Abbott. Thank you. Thank you.

So this is ordinance amendment 17 o eight dot zero three zero. Some background on this, the County Council and Planning Commission held two workshops October 30 and November 17 in 2025 regarding the subdivision moratorium and proposed ordinance changes. One item of discussion was to establish a distance based restriction on rezone applications relative to municipal boundaries. Higher density zones are more likely to be approved if adjacent to or within a close proximity to a city boundary. So right now, this is our current ordinance. It allows for densities of one lot for every two acres of net developable acreage. And this is the current ordinance over a rural five zone. It allows for densities of one lot for every five acres of net developable acreage. Some of the issues with this is under the current code, the purpose statement for RU two and RU five zones does not provide adequate direction for evaluation of of rezone requests to higher density residential zone. There's some potential for inconsistent recommendations and approvals of rezone applications and makes it difficult for staff to provide clear guidance to property owners looking to rezone. So we would like to include more specific criteria for higher density rezones, specifically adding a measurable distance restriction. The nearest property line for a rezone request to the RU two zone must be within a quarter mile linear distance from the border of a municipality. The nearest property line for a rezone request to the RU five zone must be within a half mile linear distance from border of the municipality. What we hope this could would fix, it would allow some flexibility for rezones that would result in smaller subdivisions. A rezone request may be submitted when the subject properties are not within the required distance. Only if the maximum number of lots that could be subdivided with the approved rezone is three or less. The potential lot limitation applies equally to RU 2 and RU five zones. Density calculations parcels in RU two and RU five zones are based on the net developable acreage, not the gross acreage. Here we have the same ordinance we looked at previously but now we've added some additional language number four. It says for properties to submit a rezone request for the RU two zone, the nearest property line of the parcels under consideration must be within one quarter mile linear distance from the borders of the municipality. However, an applicant may submit a rezone request if the parcels are not within the required distance, only if the maximum number of lots that could be subdivided in the parcel is three or less. And this, basically the same language for the RU five only instead of the quarter mile, it's a half a mile, the distance there. This went to Planning Commission 12/04/2025. Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment to the county council on a vote of six in favor and zero against.

K. Thank you. Yeah. Go ahead and open the public hearing for the amendment to Cache County Code to update RU two, RU five zone standards.

We have to close the public hearing.

Second.

K. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. K. Moving on. We're ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero three, amendment to Cache County code to allow for canal setback exemption and increasing lot coverage in the commercial zone.

Yeah. Thank you. So some background on this. During a recent planning commission meeting, staff was asked to review the current development standards or commercial lot coverage and the required setback from the top of an irrigation canal to any fence or structure. Specifically, the request was to bring back suggested code changes to increase the allowable lot coverage in commercial zones and to provide an exemption for the required setback from a canal. As it is right now, down towards the bottom, you can see maximum lot coverage and in a commercial zone, that's 50%. A lot parcel coverage includes the percentage of the area of a lot or parcel which is occupied by all buildings, other impervious surfaces, or other covered structures. In 2023, ordinance number twenty twenty three-twenty six was approved to increase the lot coverage in the industrial zone 50% to 80%. This change helped facilitate the flour mill project just outside of Richmond. The planning commission felt the maximum lot coverage between commercial and industrial zone should be more closely aligned. So here's our proposed change. If you look to the, commercial Zone C, maximum lot coverage would increase to 70%. Planning commission recommended the approval of this and recommendation was based on lot coverage in other jurisdictions as well as how they envisioned future commercial development in unincorporated areas. They kind of wanted a distinction between industrial and commercial and just a bit of a more of a buffer on commercial than industrial to help keep kind of the feel of being out in the county. So here is the proposed change. Or no, excuse me, that's it for that one. Mhmm. Sorry. So I'll now move on to the setback from irrigation canals. As it is now, we're 16 and a half feet from a, top of a recognized irrigation canal bank to any structure or fence. It's the same in any zone regard no matter what. What we'd like to do, the concern Planning Commission had with this required 16 and a half foot setback was that the code did not provide an exemption even if the canal company approved it. Approved it. The origins of the 16 and a half foot setback in chapter 17 are not known, but it is larger than the required 10 foot setback in chapter eight, titled Access to Property and Setbacks. Chapter eight dot 28 addresses weed control and require and requires a minimum setback of 10 feet from an irrigation canal to allow the public works vegetation department access for maintenance and noxious weed control. Here's the new change that we proposed. It's similar to what we just saw but there is little footnote seven on, and the planning commission recommended maintaining the 16 and a half foot required setback but allowing an exception and that exemption reads, an exemption to the setback may be allowed if the board or other entity governing the recognized irrigation canal agrees to the reduced setback and provides written approval. This written approval must then be turned in by the applicant to the development service department at the time of the zoning clearance application. Planning commission heard this on 12/04/2025 after a public hearing on the combined 17 dot 10 ordinance amendment. The planning commission voted six in favor and zero against, amending approval to the county council to amend the code, allowing for canal setback exemption and increasing the lot coverage in the commercial zone.

Thank you. Anything else? I just had a question about how what the process is like. So if, someone applies, they get approved for the commercial zone, and how long do they have to have before their building has to or their buildings have to be 70% coverage, and what's the penalty if they're not meeting that requirement?

Oh, they don't have to meet that requirement. It's now instead of only being able to use 50% of their lot and covering it with asphalt, cement, buildings, or coverings, now they can use up to 70%. Up to. Okay. Yeah. That's the maximum. There's there's no minimum that they could The other way of saying it is we're requiring 30%

open space. Okay. Yeah.

Perfect. Thanks. Anything else? K.

Thank you. K. We public hearing is now open for ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero three, amendment to the Cache County Code to allow for canal setback exemption and increasing lot coverage in the commercial zone.

Chris Chambers, Smithfield. I come in and applied for a commercial rezone. I went to the county. They told me I'm putting some storage sheds up. I got approved for the the commercial, and then I I didn't know that the 50% coverage. And so I went back and Nate Dog's talking to Nate Dog's, and he says, we're trying to get that changed to the same as commercial as 8020. He says, just keep moving forward. So I did. Well, I I move forward and then I've got the development. I mean, I've got my plans all done. I've got I've spent $25,000 in in all my stuff to get done. And with this seventythirty on my particular piece, I'm at 70 fivetwenty 5.

So

what do I do? I mean, do I I can't afford to go in and and change my engineering for for what little bit that is on my particular piece. And and I've already got my 30 foot setbacks and and so do I leave a piece of asphalt open and not put asphalt in front of my storage sheds to to meet that requirement or, you know, if it was an eightytwenty, I'm fine. But, it it I I feel like I'm I mean, I if I maintain it and I got my storm water taken care of and I mean, I I I put in storage units and some covered RV parking. And if if I went into commercial, if I could've go that fast, I wouldn't have to cover my RV parking. It's allowed in in in in industrial, but not commercial. But I wanted to cover ours carved covered RV parking, so I went with commercial. So I recommend we we do the eighty twenty. It's the same, I mean, most cities are eighty twenty or ninety ten. They're the same commercial and industrial the same in in most cities. So and when I guess what I had a problem with when I come to planning the zoning is they just they give no reasoning. They just said it needs to be different. It needs to be different. And I I have a hard time with that. So that's what I have to say. Thank you.

Any other comment?

Move to close the public hearing.

I'll second. Second.

K. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. K. Thank you. That ends the public hearing portion of our meeting this evening. We'll move on to the initial proposals for consideration of action, starting with the ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero one, the Dutson rezone.

So go ahead and open that up for discussion. Yeah. So I read the notes on it, and I just I mean, we have to treat the application as it is, and Mhmm. There was a lot there were a lot of reasons the planning commission denied it. One was that it didn't meet the RE two standards. It wasn't consistent with the general plan, and the nearest RE two was more than seven miles away. Yeah. So and the letters that we received were against it. So from my perspective, it'd be hard to justify approving this one.

Looks like he's been advised to go ahead and and reapply with, the right application to be more in line with what he wants to do with this parcel as well. So I think the sooner we deny it, the sooner the reapplication

process can start. So I would move that we suspend the rules and deny ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero one, the Dutzen rezone.

I'll second. K. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Yeah. This would also

any change though, if he comes back, he still probably has a zoning change in order to even get the three lots, probably. So this what we're talking about, these other r u two, r u five standards will also apply as we talk about that too. So that might have some impact, but but I agree with what you're doing right now.

You can't because it's a five page or loss.

Yeah. And we'll just probably direct you to work with staff on on getting your questions answered. Yeah. Thanks. K. K. All all those in favor for denying ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero one that debts and rezone, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Moving on, we will, move to ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero two, amendment to Cache County code to update RU two, RU five zone standards. I think there's a lot more that we can discuss on this. This there's a lot to digest with this. We've been working on this for some time, but I think there's a lot to digest. So if there is no motion to do anything today, we just go ahead and continue it. I I think we're heading in the right direction. Mhmm. I think it's I think that,

you know, those when you're making those finite definitions in that, I think that it'll be very self explanatory, and there will be less arbitrary, capricious kind of decisions that'll be made if we have, hey, here's the line. And I think you're gonna be better off to down the road. So but I'm I'm willing also to to digest it for the next couple weeks and talk about it again. So I think primarily driven by infrastructure.

Right? Yeah.

I don't like to put emotion before.

I I remember very vivid that, you know, the r u two r u five and how they came about and how that's evolved. And and I remember it was just kind of a just kinda put together for the little corner of the pivots in agriculture land that they could still, you know, and do a cluster. I don't know. That's kind of that's I remember talking about that and how that came about, but but it has really blossomed since. So I think we're we're we're hitting the right track by narrowing it up like that.

Did did they talk about where the quarter mile and a half mile distances came from? Yep. How those were determined?

Yes. We talked about a lot of it. It was even our discussion when we that came up in our discussions. I'm trying to remember

the previous the previous thing, the only thing was was kind of a guideline that our u twos would be near a municipality. To find near, and that's what we put a burden on the staff to say, what is near? Okay. And so, taking that burden and drawing it down and trying to keep our cost of providing municipal services as far as road, snow removal, everything else, and everything from the county, this is where planning commission came to. It was talked to quite a bit, and also council was involved in their own workshops. And that's how we came to it, if that helps. Yeah. Thanks.

I

had a question on it. So if we are I mean, if we're gonna continue to workshop it, I can ask these questions to staff later and get get it clarified. Remove a vote then. I have a couple of things I'd like to specifically ask.

Our next meeting would be discussion. February 10. Yes, ma'am. So we'd have two full weeks to to work some of these questions out depending on what what the preference of the council is.

Yeah. If no one's willing to hold his horses, I think. Hold his horses, I think. I think the planning commission has done a good job. I don't want to I mean, I'll go ahead and make the motion. I make a motion. We approve ordinance twenty twenty six dash o two. You guys can decide where to go from there. But I've sat through many meetings on this, and is not an easy one to answer. And so the planning commission has tried and tried to go through those things and listened, and so that's where I'm coming from. That is my motion. Okay. Great. Motion on the table. I'd support that and second it. And second.

K. So any further discussion, Mark? Yeah. So if

so the ordinance as written reads

I need to suspend the rules on that, so my apologies. Excuse me? I didn't suspend the rules.

And you want to suspend the rules? Okay. So the motion is to suspend the rules. Does your second still stand? Yeah. Oh, yes. Okay. So second still stands. Mark. Okay. Thank you.

So we're we're talking about defining the quarter mile or half mile. And and I'm I'm totally on board with moving forward with something that we're looking at. But, the way the ordinance is written, it says, under considerate the the parcel under consideration must be within one quarter mile linear distance from the borders of a municipality. The question that that brings to mind is, what if this parcel is closer to a different municipality currently than it would be in the future annexation boundaries that have been discussed between cities? And therefore, it would be not closer, or it would be within a municipality, but not the municipality it would be annexed into if annexed.

Well, and as if any subdivision, the planning and zoning or the department sends out notices to the communities of which it's next to or going to be involved in their annexation process, and that community has at that time the right to send in a letter. Right. Understood.

But do we wanna leave the code up to that to say that it would be a municipality, not the I'm I'm looking for respect in our code to the annexation boundary agreements that exist is really where I'm going with them.

I think they apply anyway. Because there's annexation is not the question here. You know? Agreed.

But it it would mean that, you know, a parcel is closer to the city that's not going to have it annexed in eventually. Meaning, there are instances where development's not going to bring property other development develop properties closer to from from the future city that this development could be. I just wonder if that has been taken into consideration at all by PNC in in that being left as a near a municipality, not, the municipality that would be the future neighbor of this problem to subdivision. That it's it is very much in the weeds. It's very granular. I get that. But that that is part of my question with it. I I don't think it's a stop all if just to ease the concerns that I'm hearing. Also also I'm not saying that I would vote no to this because of that. I just wanna make sure we covered everything we ought to be looking at in the planning. So

I had a question too. It does say must, which is I know we this might be an attorney question between a must and a shall and a may. If it's a must, does that mean the council cannot approve it if it's not within a quarter mile, or is that still our prerogative to approve it even if it doesn't meet that standard?

So a must is gonna be treated the same as shall.

Okay. So that takes away some discretion.

Do we wanna make it a May, or we are we confident on the must?

Well, if you go to the, what the legislatures a.

So if that helps. We wouldn't be gaining much if you put May. I think we're back we're back in the same because we're beholden to the state standard is out. We're just I'm hearing. Yeah. We'll yeah. I think we'd have just a lot more great decisions all the time.

Yeah. But just to make sure I understand you correctly, Keegan. What you're saying is if this if a sub if a proposal was a quarter mile plus one foot That's what I'm getting at. He would not be able to say yes.

Yeah. The way it's written now.

And we'd face that if we put three quarters of a mile, five miles, or anything. Yeah. The the challenges are all real. But that's our job is to look at them.

I think that the Planning and Zoning Commission, I agree with no one has worked very hard in trying to encourage and incentivize development in the municipalities, right, because that's what we want. I just don't know if this is exactly I don't know. We can always change it later. But

My opinion is that we need to trust the planning and zoning because they have put in more than what we have or can put in even.

We have some good people on planning and zoning. Great. Yeah. Better than many things.

Mhmm. Oh, no question here, but I don't think, you know, we should discount our prerogative and responsibility to do our own homework as well.

And that prerogative comes up in a vote. Yep.

K. So we have a motion. Is there any further discussion? Any questions or further discussion? Yes. Any any further discussion? Okay. To suspend the rules and to pass ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero two. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Then it passes. Ordinance moving on. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero three. Amendment to the Cache County Code to allow for canal setbacks exemption increasing lot coverage in the commercial zone.

Can I ask for maybe Matt and Brian to give us some ideas of what mister Chambers addressed and what we're looking at here? I mean, how do we mitigate this or help or what we're looking at here? He talked about rather than going to asphalt, going to gravel, but how much asphalt Am I correct?

Well, yeah. And and and Mike also is is your only design on your commercial and your industrial and what you can do there anyways. So you already live in there.

The only thing I would say is when you come when you question somebody, you did question Nathan, and he's a good person, but those questions ought to come back to our development services office rather than a commissioner.

Well, and I and I and that's possibly true. I just was and talk to me, sir. And I appreciate you reaching out. So I mean, when I when I went to I guess, when I was county to get the commercial, I I asked them what to do, and they

Can we summarize what he said or invite him up here so the public knows what's going on?

To summarize, he put in a he put in an application when it was a different percentage. He found out the percentage was changing, that the commission was listening to it. The commission vetted it very deeply. Mister Sands is here who could vouch that. And so he is wondering how that happens if we pass it, because that puts him in 5% out of that.

During his public comment, he asked a question that I'd like to come back to, which was why is there a difference between industrial and commercial?

Yeah.

They just wanted that distinction between the two zones. Like, if you go to the flour melon, out by Pepperidge, that's eighty twenty. And a lot of people don't love how that looks.

Part of that discussion came down to is that's their it's a great thing for the agriculture. It's a great thing for the county. But what we're seeing is is a lot of trucks going into the flour mill don't have a parking or access to get into there, and it's intruding into traffic. And so that was some of the concerns that I recall as the commissioners voted it or talked about it. And there were sites from them in the commission, so it just happened to vote that way as to how they got to there. Because I understand why industrial would be less restrictive. I wouldn't expect a lot of open space in an industrial zone. Well, then the other thing you look at is how many commercial zones and how many industrial zones do we have or put out in the outlying county and then ask our fire department to keep up to all of that stuff too. So Sure. So Matt's coming up to give us some more ideas. So

Matt Phillips, Public Works Director. I know that when this was 5050, the word in the code talks about pervious versus impervious surface. So from an engineering standpoint, we had these developments that were counting their roofs, they were counting some of their asphalt, but the gravel was considered not part of that calculation. So they were having tracking. They were having more mud problems and all that. So they were putting in gravel as opposed to pavement to try to keep their lot coverage from exceeding that 50%. Didn't change the number of buildings, didn't change anything. And so that's one of the things that we've got back from engineering is engineering is gonna treat asphalt runoff from a stormwater perspective, from all those things, pretty much the same way we're gonna treat asphalt. So from a storm water standpoint, impervious, impervious is a very fine line. So Mark mentioned, we're trying to keep open space or landscaping or something. So to change that from a 50 to a 70 or even an 80, from what actually is getting built there, basically what you're allowing these, which are the majority of our commercial and those are store sheds, you're allowing them to have a little cleaner facility to be able to pave that area in between their storage sheds versus having to leave it as gravel, which creates dust, which creates other hazards, runoff, erosion. So that's the engineering perspective. From a planning, I can't speak to, hey, do we want a little buffer? Do we want to keep some trees and landscaping? But from just that erosion perspective and what we're counting, is it impervious versus pervious? It all came down to what you classify gravel as. And at some point, that was left into the interpretation of the direct curve. So

k. I'm gonna ask a question to legal. Since mister Chambers has application in and everything else, is there a way to grandfather him even though we passed this based on what the planning commission did? Because 5% I mean, if we go out there, I don't know that I could come up with 75 versus 80 on the 5% thing. So how do you can you get give us any guidance here? I I

I I can't think of a way to grandfather him at this point because at at the time he applied, it was actually less.

It

was fifty fifty. He doesn't he has plans. If it was something that was preexisting and our our zoning changed, then it would be a More restrictive. Preexisting use. But where it's not even completed yet and it was I mean, we're under a more restrictive ordinance at this point. I just don't think there's any way to to do that Yeah. Going back to John Gordon. And he put that in words that I liked and wanted to hear. So

I just didn't wanna say it myself. You're being like an attorney asking the question you already know the answer to. No. I don't.

I'm just looking for all avenues. I understand what Mr. Chambers gone through, but I understand what the planning commission went through too. Sure. I mean

But I'd I'd like to know I'd like to get a feel of the debate from 80 to 70.

Well, there was a debate. You have seven commissioners. I think there were six there tonight that voted. Very much a debate between them as to why the difference and they felt in the discussion was, for instance, industrial zone of the flour mill and the concern about parking and access in there. But the flour mill brought them to the point of, okay, how we go. Matt got up and talked about the gravel versus the asphalt and what we're looking at there. And so you have six members who were there and six members who had ideas, and it came down to about it. It's just that. There were some who would have said, okay, I can see it being the same as Industrial. But as it came out and they voted, it came out that they wanted the commercial and industrial to be a little bit different.

Chris, am I hitting everything on point here? Yeah. What's what's the point in having two different zones if they're the same? If they're the same. Exactly. Trying to make some distinctions.

Oh, they're They really dug into it to say, just like Chris said, if you're gonna have two zones.

Why not? Yeah. Well, and there there are some things allowed in industrial that's not allowed in commercial. The zone is more about the application and what's used, not Yeah. The space. Certain use. Yeah. But for example, the both. Mhmm.

So wouldn't that be the solution then is to advise them to rezone to industrial, mister Chambers?

Well, now you get a question because most of our this is a storage shed place. Right? Storage or parking part. We I think they're all commercial that we have sown right now. Because industrial brings in a different type of area rather than what a than a storage unit is. Which is to Mark's point of there's more distinguishing factors than just the

the just the eighty twenty or seventy thirty, which ergo, if they were both the same exactly in that regard, they would still be different in others. So that's not the primary characteristic that differentiates them.

Favor of an industrial zone in that area. Right. Right. That would be really tough Right. With what could be allowed. Allowed. Because then Yeah. That you will set it up. Potential future.

Exactly. I I personally feel like accomplishing the feel of it being open or different is maybe better accomplished through the setbacks requirements rather than the percent of open space requirement. I've always had an issue with that, you know, going back to before on the county council. But I I would rather that we manage that, if you will, as an organization via the setback rather than the percentage. Because every parcel is gonna be shaped different and gonna lend itself differently to the application of open space any way, then also compounded by the type of use that's applied. So I think there's a better outcome for the open space feel accomplished by the setback rather

than the open space percentage. Well, and if we don't have any requirements of what has to be in that open space, like, were you asking that they put any type of again, we go back to gravel or to

Yeah. It's more just saying not something that's Yeah. Not letting water through

Not asking they plant grass or they put trees or they do something. Yeah. If the restriction is arbitrary and it's like you have to have dirt clods there instead of it, and it's like, are we really accomplishing what we're what we set out to do?

If our intent is we wanted to have a a landscape I should say that in this or or or I don't know. I'm just saying, then we should say that.

Agreed.

Curtis guy, I ain't gonna go for something. Yeah.

Well, I don't think we have to make a motion. So

Can we separate the two out, or is it all just one? Can we move on the

canal set or the I think the sales guys are back. About it for a couple weeks. Let's kinda ask some questions for a couple weeks, and

then come this the decision at the next meeting. Yeah. I just wanna send an email that says what's the compelling reason between the seventy thirty and the eighty twenty. And if it's just to differentiate, that's insufficient for me. So but I bet there's more to it.

Yep. And I would also like to see if because I'm I don't think there's any I haven't heard any dispute or conflict. I have none with the proposed canal setback. I'd like to see those separate line items in the future so that they're one's not delayed or impacted by the other. But I don't know that we can take action on separating them the way it's listed. If we can, then maybe we do.

I know on the canal setback, this is that's kind of also a pretty solid number. And in reality, the right away, you know, maybe on the other side of the canal, the, you know And it's not set back on both sides of the canal. Yeah. It's that's what it would be, set back on both sides. And I just I find that kind of interesting because the use point may be completely on the other side. And so you've got a 10 well, that's why I say it went it went back with a 10 feet where they could still get in there and maintain it for weeds and stuff. But Yeah. Now you might increase that to another six and a half feet of weeds. You know? So

Yeah. There's I I I think the important part about that is that it's signed off on by the irrigation. Irrigation yeah. There are the ones too. Segments Yeah. Of canal I'm very familiar with where it would be perfectly fine. Most of it would be. But there are other segments where based on the structure that's there or the contour of the landscape, the 16 and a half feet has to be upheld. Otherwise, you can't get in there. So I mean, it it or it becomes a other challenge. So Mhmm. I I like the ordinance as as it is. I I just don't know if we can split it. I mean, if we can, I would I'd make the motion to approve the canal setbacks and hold off on the Can we amend it to But I don't know if we can do that because it's not a list of Maybe Andrew knows? Is that Can we amend it? Parliamentarian

slash transparency question you can answer?

Just make a decision.

I'm also willing to just give it a little bit more time,

talk about it for a couple weeks, then we'd come in decision less. So when you're ready, I Well, I understand what you're saying, but

you're going back. You're asking it seems to me you're going back and saying defend your decision commission because it's a voted No. I'm just saying us take the two weeks. K. I think they've I think they've vetted it. They have really vetted it. I sat in the meeting and listened to them vetted it like crazy. So I just don't know what what difference is gonna happen in two weeks. Like, again, I think do we wanna have some type of design standards?

That would come later. Right? Like, if if they vetted it and they stand behind it, I'm fine with them saying 70% because it's commercial, and industrial is gonna be 80%. Like, that's fine. If we wanna come with design standards, that comes later. Right?

Well, I don't know if we get into that. I said if we want to. Right? If that's something that we wanna do, that comes later. I To that point, that's why I like the setbacks being the way to manage open space because those are hard and fast. Mhmm. Either 30 feet or 35 feet, and there's no flexibility there or question, 30 feet is 30 feet. But with the percentage, then it becomes, really, we're gonna leave you're gonna require me to keep this quarter of an acre as barren weed hazard or something else I gotta maintain, etcetera. So I like to set back to your point. But I think that's that's gotta be codified, but we could change that later.

Mhmm. I don't know if two if I need two weeks.

Well, there's there's a saying in the farm world, but I'm not gonna say it. So

yeah. So executive, were you gonna say something? Yeah. I was just gonna make a general comment. We have to enforce these codes, and there is some discretion involved in that because we probably have at any given point 2,000 or 3,000 code violations out there. I'm serious. They're No. Yeah. You take all these technical requirements, and people who are caught, like this gentleman is, in a slightly different percentage, and he's this far along, enforcement list. And just to be honest with you, we have to exercise some discretion here. And and it kind of mosaic law, every precise thing. You talk about somebody's not within a quarter mile of a of a city, but they're a quarter mile and two feet. Come on. You know, let let's let's understand that there is a little bit of give and take here. And you may say, no. I want everything enforced precisely the way that is. But I do have some discretion over over which ones I choose to spend our county attorney time on, and I'm inclined to spend my time on those that are most important and not trying

Well and he is trying to get his application right now. That's the hard part is that getting the application, he has to show the open space and

and Right. So that And we're arguing about whether he had to put gravel

or asphalt on a little corner. Right. The best thing to do is also not to just we you put it basically in code. It is there so that you're not picking winners and losers. Yeah. You know, if it ever comes to that point. Right. Because, so that you don't so that discretion is

is a little more So that the instances where you have to apply a discretion are very, very limited.

That's the goal. And it is Yeah. And we should be willing to do that. I mean Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And and given that, I think we would be able to work with mister Chambers even if we pass this. And so I'm gonna state and put a motion out. On ordinance twenty twenty six dash o three, I recommend approval.

I suspend the rules. Sorry. Suspend the rules. We have a second.

I'll second.

We have a second from Joanne. Any further discussion?

I would really like to entertain the idea of moving them both to eighty twenty and then discussing setbacks at a later point. Same. That doesn't hold up the current issue in front of us, and we can more easily address the ability to be equitable with all citizens.

K. I guess we can go ahead and vote on it, though. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.

Any opposed? Nay. Aye. Nay.

Two opposed. So we have one, two, three, four to two. Motion prevails.

Can I just say I feel like the executive was emboldened because our auditor is not here right now?

Okay. Resolution twenty twenty six dash zero one. Jade next week. Appointments to the various Cache County Cemetery maintenance boards of trustees. If I may ask to have another two weeks on this, I I think that would be helpful for for for us that are making those decisions.

I would actually like to move on those that Yeah. Do we have to The ones that Can we separate some? There's some that aren't Challenge. Yeah. There was only there were only two that were Can we separate some out then? Yes. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. I prefer that too. I believe I would go ahead and accept the leave. 123. 1234. Avon. Right? We had 5 and 5? Yep. Yeah. If it's I would go ahead and move to accept those appointments.

This one here, do we have to suspend the rules on this one? This is a resolution, so we should Yeah. I think the proper parliamentary procedure, if you want to get down to it, would be to motion to amend to insert x y z names for any said district. You would say whoever has applied for the Avon Cemetery District is inserted in the resolution and then go by that. Well, do we have to suspend? At the very end, once you've made all amendments of the names, then yes. Wasn't there all Suspensions required. That's the motion. No. It's a resolution. It's a resolution. So no. Okay. No. Wasn't there also a component of which positions are

alternating? To move forward? Yes. So we'd have to take that into consideration as well if we move forward on it today. Right?

And do they want us to appoint their four and their two?

So given so state law says that it has to be assigned

Excuse me?

Has to be assigned via a

I think it says law or random method.

So And they can That's what I said there would be their bylaws and their meeting? They can. And this is not against anyone Just us? Yeah. This is not against anyone specific special service district, but I have never seen it ever reported back as to who drew what in years. So this way, it can be a direct assign, but it's up to you if that's what you want.

Well, I'm fine to assign go ahead and accept those, and then let them decide their court According to the according to the person and circumstances of Yeah. How long they're concerned. Yeah. With that, I'm I move to approve the Avon Cemetery maintenance district. Of the five applicants that have been that have applied. The we will accept two. Now let's wait. Should we wait on the Cornish one till we you twist the arm of the other one? Or

Should we get these two in place?

Okay. Then let's go ahead, and I would go ahead to approve Dale Buck's and Kyle Pitcher on the Cornish one. And the two in Hyde Park, I would go ahead and approve Brian Balls and Cody Johnson on them. And I think the Millville one, there's too many. Right? Yeah. And the Newton one, I think we're okay. Yeah. I would go ahead and accept all three from the Newton. And I think Paradise has this. Paradise is three. Yep. Paradise will accept the three from Paradise that have applied, and then we'll wait on the Richmond one. Yep. K?

Yep. Does that make sense? Yeah. Mhmm. Can I second that?

You may. Are you through? I didn't wanna interrupt it. But if you're done, I will second it. K. You're great. That's it. That I am. Yeah. Let's get moving on some of them. Appointing all of these cemetery districts

minus Millville, Nibley, and Richmond. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. K. Thank you. We'll Three. Do the appointments for the, the other two in our next meeting. Resolution 2026Dash022, Champion Land Co, LLC open space application. Is that Chris? Are you here? I'm here. Yeah. Oh, you're in the That's Chris, and that's Chris. We have two Chriss. Two Chriss. They're Chriss.

And so Angie put a brief presentation together, and I think Andrew's gonna pull up, regarding this application. Of course, the applicant and their representative are both here tonight if you have other questions. Chris Sands, Chairman of the COSAC. And we're pleased to bring another project for first round recommendation for approval to the county council. This one being the champ Champion Land Company LLC. Go ahead. Next slide. This involves three non contiguous parcels located slightly north and east of of Clarkston, West Of Trenton, and involves, 242 acres. This is some premium dry farmland in Cache County. We we have a lot of fantastic dry farmland, but a lot of high quality crops come off of these parcels and the surrounding parcels in this area, including wheat and safflower crops. The applicant wants to keep it in agricultural operation and is part of a multigenerational

farm. What in the flip was in that area to get Dirty Head Road and Stinky Crank Road?

That's awesome. It was oh, it is a long story. Yeah. I'll let Chris

answer that question, but Thanks. I can tell you it predated the the landfill out there. So It's so much easier when it's 7000 East. Yeah. Well, it's gotta be a story there. Okay. Next slide, please.

All roads lead to the landfill.

Just a reminder, this is where we're at, in the process for this application. So this is, has come to the County Council for review with a recommendation of approval from the COSAC. And if approved tonight, then it'll move into the second round and and we'll get more due diligence work from the applicant as well as from COSAC and and their, applicant's representative. Next slide please, Andrew. And so just a summary of the review factors in our process. These these are the total points for the different categories that, were established as part of the legislation and a total possible of a 100 points. Next slide, please. And then in terms of how it scored, how this project scored, ended up scoring a 40 out of a 100. And so as we've discussed before, not all projects well, it is unlikely we'll ever have a project that'll hit a 100. And even some of our most highly scored projects that we think highly of and that you have approved even through the second round are in the low seventies as far as scoring. So these particular parcels rate really high in terms of agriculture. Just as a comparison there, the Harris Farm project that was approved for funding had a score of 65, just as an example. Next slide please. So just each of the categories protect scenic vistas, 5.6 out of 15. It is a visible property, although it's not immediately highly traveled corridors, but it's a beautiful part of the valley, gently rising landscape that can be seen from very long distances away. The next slide please. And so it's not near a a Valley Gateway, so it got a low score of 4.4 out of 15, but it is it can be seen from, say for example, the Northern Gateway in in Cache County, North Of Richmond or or between Richmond and Smithfield. You if you look West, you're you're looking at this landscape. Next slide, please. The Maintain Agricultural course is where it scored the most. 11.2 out of 15. Again it's because it's dry farm it doesn't have, some of the prime farm designations you might see see on other agricultural lands that have that amenity. But it is highly productive, farmland and, grows some highly specialty crops. Next slide, please. Waterways, there aren't any, perennial or intermittent streams on the property, but there are a number of, swales through the property that would flow ephemerally or as a result of storm water or some snow melt. But they're not developed riparian areas, so this got a low score. Next slide is wildlife habitat. Kind Middle of the road. There is abundant wildlife out there. We saw a number of deer when we were out there looking at the property that were meandering across the property. There's some other wildlife that's commonly seen on the property listed there on the slide. So next slide, please. Public access. It's not really near identified public access locations or travel ways, that sort of thing, but you can see all of these parcels primarily from Highway 142, I think it is, that is nearby that connects between Clarkston and Trenton in Richmond. Next slide. Distinguishing factors, a 4.5 out of 10. The number of items were pointed out by COSAC members. The applicant was in the process, has applied for some of the additional funding and is also looking to apply for more. The property owner, though that's not really part of round one, they have expressed a large land owner contribution as part of the proposal. And so we'll see more about that in round two. And then this idea which is really important, we feel, is to get conservation going in this part of the county. This project is likely to spur other adjacent landowners to be interested in the program and so we can start multiplying the the lands in this part of the county that that are protected with conservation easements. So those are some of the distinguishing factors that folks pointed out. And then next slide, please. So, and, obviously, if the council agrees, with the approval, you can go ahead and click on that if you want. This just shows some drone footage that one of our members is helps us with on every single project. Justin, he's fantastic with being able to give you this kind of information that you can see how beautiful that part of the Cache County is. So, next steps would be if you recommend approval, the applicant will come in with the, round two application information, and then we'll, evaluate that and get down to brass tacks.

A couple questions, Chris. What does that work out, the 200,000 per acre?

No. That's about a thousand dollars per acre?

Less than 1,000. What is the market value of dry farm land like this in Cache Valley now? I couldn't speak to that. So so we're really talking a relatively minor amount compared to its market value to freeze this land. And if you talk about getting a bunch of it, it it really would protect quite a bit at at a at a very small percentage of its market value. So I I I just think that's something to keep in mind, what the market value is versus what you're protecting. Yeah.

And I was at the meeting, and would it be a fair characterization to say the the COSAC was ambivalent because of the low score, but optimistic because of the cost per acre, as well as the potential to have others involved. Absolutely. I thought those were key points

for the the unanimous decision. Yeah. Yeah.

I think it's a great deal. Yeah.

I think it's an area that actually kind of has a deep heritage to our to our valley. Yeah. You know, in that part of the dry farm country. The you know, the there's a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that's been given into keeping the ground that had some erosion and totally changing the, the contour of everything and and making it, just a wonderful productive place. It didn't happen overnight. And, it's from a lot there's a lot of those area farmers over there. They really care, about everything that's been put in by them and many generations back. So I think it speaks a lot more

than just the picture that you show. Yeah. Blood, sweat, and tears comes if you walk through the safflower crop. Yeah.

Yeah. Those those panoramic images show you how much the landowners care about their land up there and how well they are taking care of their land up there. When did you go out for a visit? It was less than a month ago.

Yeah. Still no snow out there. Yeah.

It was cold. It was very cold.

Beautiful. Well, thank you, Chris. Does anybody have any further questions for Chris or or Chris?

No. I just thanks for the update. I got a lot of questions. Oh, we have another question.

Yes. Yeah. Please please come to the It's Mike. I'd like to share

a couple of photographs of the Safran in the summer in July with him. Just passing again. Okay. Not over here. Okay. My name is Debbie Vanoy. I'm with Utah Agricultural Land Trust. And I just wanna mention, what we perceive as the value of the area aside from its cultural value. Grand Fondo and Little Red ride through Clarkston. So the, the public benefit is is great in this very serene, beautiful agricultural area. We also know that the deer come down from the mountain behind Clarkston and they forage off of the, the cut harvested crops in that area. So, you know, all agriculture benefits wildlife and this is one property that does as well. I had never smelled safflower in bloom and it is remarkably beautiful. This safflower is used for high end bird seed. It's not used for cooking oil. It's a black seed and it is sold worldwide. And this part of Utah is renowned for the, the safflower crop for wild bird seed. So just a couple of points I wanted to mention. We think it's a beautiful area. I had never been to Clarkston until we explored this property, and I've grown to love that area. Highway 142 takes you into Richmond, and it this but all of these properties can be seen from that location as they can from the Clarkston Cemetery. It's really a beautiful area.

I have a question for you. It it is strikingly beautiful. Is it possible without causing a problem

to have a trail somewhere in the area? I think that could be very interesting idea. The idea of flat land trails within our agricultural area,

especially in It would have to be located in an area where it doesn't interfere, but if if you could put a trail through there so that people could see this view, it would it would not only be beautiful, it would provide additional support for what we're trying to do with Absolutely. That would tremendously help our efforts in the valley.

The parking could be located in Clarkston and that trail could meander up to the cemetery area, with a view down to the to the safflower that's grown throughout the valley. It's not just on this property. Quite beautiful. And then whatever the the route might be for for a nice easy trail for families to enjoy on the weekends or retired folks during the week. It is a beautiful area. The landowner would feel comfortable with that.

Well, you know, that's the whole idea behind this project is to let, you know, not only a farmer but other

safflower on both sides of that trail.

Plant safflower on both sides of that trail. Yeah. It'll keep It'll keep That'll keep people right on the trail. I promise you. That'll keep it out for you. Even the dogs, it'll keep it Yeah.

We Chris, why don't I mean, that would also increase your score tremendously in terms of of how those things are are scored. I we're we really need to preserve some of these accesses. Non motorized. Absolutely non motorized, but making a walking trail through that land would be

better. And and you've got the community right there. You could park them right there in Clarkston. Yeah. You you have areas for that. And we believe that other ag landowners will come into this concept of protecting their land with conservation easements. As as landowners are successful and and the easements close, we expect more to come in and say we're interested. We'd like to give it we'd like to give this a try as well. I think question. Sure. Can some of that be converted to

to edible products

eventually or That's safflower?

Safflower. Yeah. Wheat. Grow wheat. Wheat?

Yeah. There's wheat. Very wheat.

So safflower can be used for cooking oil also, but the market is just a little bit stronger, quite a bit stronger with bird food. So

it's the same crop as cooking oil over the food.

Like like alfalfa, safflower is this is the premier state in The Union for safflower and for alfalfa, just because of the, the, the soil and the, the moisture levels and lack of moisture. The safflower just loves the Clarkstonarian, does very well in it. So

I just wonder how development around there would happen. It looks like there's no development for miles.

There's no water.

And so it's probably not really subject to a lot of development, is it? Say you didn't go with this. Well, I I would agree with you, but if you look at cash flow cash value over the last hundred years, space change quickly. So as of right now, no, there's not there's not development on that area. But

And I correct me if I'm not mistaken, but, yeah, development potential is something that COSAC takes into consideration.

And For sure. And I think it's that sentiment is reflected in in probably the the contribution that the county would be making. You know, it's gonna be much less on this property than it would be closer into some of the more urbanized areas. So

I've never been around there in my life, but I drove around there today. Oh, good. It is very beautiful. I actually have been there decades ago, but

Yeah. I rode my bike out there for the Cache Valley Century, and even even if the trail wasn't through the area, even if it was just on the shoulder of the road, like what we see in Garden City or something, that that would be sufficient to enjoy that. So I just wanna throw that out there too.

Yeah. If I can make a comment with that. So this parcel Do you mind just for those that are at home, they can hear if you come to the microphone? Thank you.

Say all the things you need to say. So much time you got.

Christian Rafton, owner, Champion Farms. So this parcel we're looking at right now, it's off about Highway 142, but there's about a two mile, we call it a fire lane. Right, Matt? Fire lane or fire road. Fire road. So it's not it's not paved or even graveled or anything. It's just a dirt road butt there. But there's that's the access that for cyclists and things that there's always people up in that area. That's that's the view. The end the road kinda ends right where we're we're standing right here, but that's that's the view from there. You can see all the Cache Valley from that area. So Can't send the bikes down Stinky Road? Stinky Road. Well, do you want me to tell you where that comes from? People used to holler dead cows out there years ago. They just drop them. Yeah. So not anymore though. Not anymore. The birds somehow in the barn. That's right. They go shoot the coyotes. Yeah. Yeah.

So Thank you. Yes.

Madam chair, I would move that we pass resolution twenty twenty six zero two Champion Land Company LLC open space application, first round. Allow it to go further. Second.

K. Any further discussion on the resolution? Seeing none, we'll vote. All those in favor, say aye. No. K. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming this evening, your presentation. Thanks, Chris. Thank you. K.

Moving on to By the way, that sounded like a challenge on your score that you kept saying. We we're not allowed to get a 100.

That's right. We're still looking for that perfect profit. Yeah. Spread the word. Tell your neighbors. We're working hard to spread the word. Yes. Thanks. Thank you.

Resolution 2026Dash03, appointments to the Cache County Fire Protection District Board of Trustees. Andrew, are you going to present on that? Yep. About who we're recommending?

Good evening again, council. So resolution twenty twenty six dash o 3 would be making two appointments to the fire to the Cache County Fire Protection District Board of Trustees. That's a mouthful. Since the mayors of Smithfield and Hiram that recently were replaced by two new mayors, mister Rudy of Smithfield and another miller in Hiram. There became two openings on the district board. So that being said, a public notice was circulated for thirty days. And if I recall correctly, only two names were returned, and those were of the two new mayors of those respective cities. So this resolution would be appointing them to the fire protection district board. And for some context, I I did check with Derek Davis from our attorney's office, and he said that given provisions of title 17 b of state code, it would be the county council that would be making this appointment via resolution since the the county council is still technically the appointing authority. Do you guys have any questions?

Questions for Andrew? K. Thank you.

Madam Chair, vice chair, call maybe the chair. Okay? I move to pass resolution twenty twenty six zero three, the appointments of, Aaron Rudy, mayor of Smithfield, and Steve Miller, mayor of Hiram, to fill those two spots on the Cache County Fire Protection District Board of Trustees. Thank you. Any second?

Second. Got lots of seconds. Give it to Joanne. Any any further discussion on those the names presented? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. K. It's unanimous. K. I think did we forget to put Nolan's name on there instead of mine?

Just kidding. Remember he showed up this time?

Yep. Come on early too, based on your threat. Showed up to defend himself.

Okay. Other business. We're gonna go ahead and and kind of we're we're still working on the council member committee and liaison assignment vacancies. It's kind of still a work in progress. Right?

Yep.

Yep. As of this morning, the engineering are now going to be coordinating on figuring out who points what, when, where, and that should help more with the committee assignment specifically.

K. So that's still work in progress. Thank you, Andrew. Thanks for your work on that. Do we let

Andrew know the

part of what interest we might have in And and we I think he does have that. I think he has that from our last meetings. K. But now we're just gonna submit that with the with the executive's office

on appointments. We we kinda got a some committees I appoint, some committees you appoint. Everything I appoint you to consent and Advice and consent. Consent on. Mhmm. I I think it would be helpful if Sandy were back, and we took a global look at we first of all, Joanne is gonna be replacing Barbara. And and I think we ought to take a look at where your sit

down and So there's Are there some that maybe could be combined or something or two? Or there's some do we really have you we looked at it. Are these committees, are there some that can actually be Just slim lined a little bit? You think? Okay. Keep that in mind too, I guess, as we're walking through it. Thank you.

We'll let you know about how far we get on that to see when we'll do the workshop on that. So that will be further communication for the council. Before December. Before December. Yeah. Yeah. Start with we don't have any other council business. It looks like we'll go to council member reports. Joanne, do you have anything to report?

I don't. Well, welcome. I just say thank you for all of you. You've been helpful in every every turn, so thank you.

Well, you survived your first meeting, and it wasn't even that long. Two hours. Well, maybe. Depends how long Keegan talks. Keegan.

Well, thank you for that introduction. Live up to it. I sent everyone an email with the amounts for the green mail. That's helpful. Thank you. Last meeting I recommended, we put COSAC in charge of that. And the rules with that are if we don't use it in how many years it goes back into the Libre Leroy It's not used. It's committed. So to clarify that, within five years. Five years, it goes back into Leroy Leroy? Libre Mikkelos? Leroy, Mikkelos. Leroy. I'll see if we can get that on the agenda for next meeting because I think we're all open to voting on that. Thank you. Took a tour of the warming center. Some of you got an email asking for funds. So, Jordan and Trevor came with me. And the reason they're asking for funding is they want to in order to to have sufficient coverage, they've spilled out of the area that they're in, and the the church has graciously offered upstairs, but they need staff at night to man that. I I obviously told her, you know, that might not be in the budget. But one thing that we did talk about after was they don't have a commercial kitchen, so all the meals are being provided by, USU Food Science. They're donating them, and then they heat them up in the microwave. As you can imagine, that creates a big queue because they can only do one at a time. We do have a commercial kitchen with, the senior center. Two blocks away. So that might be if we can't, donate money, we may be able to make an in kind donation by lending our resources in that regard. So I just wanted to float that out there as a possibility. And then one of us should probably do a day on the hill recap, but I think my time's up. So Yeah. I will leave that to someone else.

Thank you, Keegan.

No one. I don't have much unless we had a great discussion on the RU 2, RU 5, and the subdivision thing. I'm wondering if council would like to have a workshop with planning commission, and we really bet into this as we dig into it. Yeah. I think that'd be helpful.

We talked about in our meeting this morning, maybe February 10 would work 03:30 for that. We can make it with the count with planning and zoning commission.

We don't see. A lot of those have jobs that Yeah. See if they can make it So Or Ryan, can you reach out to planning zoning commissioners and see

If not, we'd have to do another knee evening. As I say, give them an an alternative. Yeah. Another evening that not right before a council meeting. Right.

Thank you. Just to add, we have a a person who will be joining the planning office on February 1. Isn't that right, Brian? On twenty third. Twenty third. And and she directed her title's gonna be county wide planner. So it would be a good chance to talk to her and and start thinking about our philosophy and how we wanna express it in the ordinance. Our discussion today in our in my conference room about proximity to cities and how we deal with that, lot of issues to discuss there. I think a workshop would be an ideal situation to start. I'd almost like to wait till she's here for her restart that.

Okay. Pharmacy if you like. Let her come and then

let her join us for that for that discussion. Okay. So maybe we'll postpone this until we get new staff.

Thanks, George. Planning and zoning, we're still missing one? Yes. No.

We're we're full. We got seven.

Who reprised Ryan? Yeah. We'll be full on twenty third. Yeah.

K.

We had our day on the hill last Wednesday. Last Wednesday? Wait. Keegan was there. Thank you, Keegan. Yep. Thanks for setting up appointment. Yes. Keegan, myself, Dave, Mark, we were joined by many of the other Alexis. We had Bryson and Tenille and Craig and Matt. Matt. Yeah. And so we were able to kinda divide and conquer as we met with our legislators. I felt like it was really productive as we reiterated some of our priorities that we had, and and, we're able to, get on, you know, right in the front of their minds being the DMV as one of our highest priorities. And thank you to Dave who went down the following day, to go and testify in their committee hearing to kind of share the impact that that that has had on us and how we, need that space. And and, so thanks again. Thank you to Dave for taking that time to go down there. And we'll kind of just keep our our eyes and our ears out for what how some of those other bills are moving along to see the need to go down again. Other than that, I don't know if there's anything else that that I need to share. Dave?

If you haven't signed up and participated in those Zoom calls with the different legislative committees, it's they're they're good. They really are. There's and they they love to hear some ideas and feedback, and it keeps you abreast of what's happening. And there's a lot going on, but I think the workability in this legislature is actually pretty strong as far as just kind of working through some things. I don't think they're I think right now, some of the egos have have mellowed a little bit, and I think, like I said, the workability actually strengthened right now. Mhmm. But it's only been a little over a week. Yeah. They tried to humble Casey with the wooey thing. Yeah. And I don't know if it worked.

Yeah. It did. It did. A little bit. Yeah.

So

that and then, you know, I think everything else, it's I was gonna also mention, oh, Friday mornings is the rural caucus. Down there, anyone that would like to go down to that holler, I'm happy to to have someone jump in and go get a free breakfast and and listen about all the rural issues throughout the whole state, us included. That's prob that's probably the best caucus down there that's held.

So, Dave, are you hearing anything about the property tax issues?

Yes.

There that's a hot issue. Do we need to be putting people down there to address that?

That is all yes, we are. There that's quite I know UAC, that is a very hot topic because we talk with that. We're keeping abreast with them, and that's we're not alone in that. Oh, I know. You know, major that's that's really our UAC representatives are really right on top of all of that stuff. You being represented

there. We were very adamant when we spoke with our legislators that to avoid a one size fits all kind of solution, that that will not fit for all. So You know, we Hopefully, they will. Do think there are problems with the truth in taxation

methodology that would I mean, if they would loosen it so it's it has some appreciation of inflation Mhmm. And growth in population constantly looking like we're increasing taxes where we're just holding even if there was a way to

I I think the bill I can't remember the bill number, But the one with the 5% Yeah. Max, that one there, it's gained a little momentum. I know they talked about some of that today. Senator McKay? His his 2%. Is. But it's gained a little momentum, but yet there's a lot of people that are also speaking kind of the same way down there saying, well, if you cap it at five, then every Every year, it's gonna be 5%. Entity will keep will then pass it at five just to try to keep up with some sort of inflationary. Yeah. And I And, that that there has been added some pushback to that. And so but that's still there's a lot of discussion going on in that. Yeah. The the situation

with 5% is is when we're looking at a cost of living of 3.2 Yeah. And a population increase of 3% a year, 5% doesn't cover my my base.

Right. We explained that the the ceiling would be the new floor. Yeah. We did request to and did discuss potentially, you know, not requiring a hearing if it was below or at inflation. Doesn't sound like there's an appetite for that. We did ask for maybe at least some coverage on a recommendation from the state, saying this is, you know, reasonable number, just like we have a federal cola. Seemed like there was a little bit of openness to that. But, yeah, our our our local reps are very aware of where we stand on it, and they've at least expressed to us in meetings that they're looking out for that interest.

So Kurt and I are willing to go down. Kurt knows almost everybody down there still. We're willing to go down, and if you can tell us that we can make a difference.

And it would be it would be good actually to get you down there and introduce you to a lot of those Yeah. The UAC players too and our lobbyists and and and members of that. That'd be Could you both pick which day you'd like to go? Thursdays would probably be the best days to go. Thursday.

Thursday. Because we have a meeting a UAC meeting down there. So maybe next Thursday, keep it open, and we could I can't do it this Thursday, but the following Thursday. Thursday, we could try to go down and facilitate a meeting with

Okay. K. That's it. That's all I got now. Thanks, Dave. Mark?

Just quick update, at least of the things going on. The one thing I'd share would be the, Cache County Library Board has met, last week and the week before, so two meetings. This year so far with several assignments for board members accepted or or made to work through the strategy that the board is is implementing to work through the, opportunity to find ways for funding and additional, ways to strengthen and bolster the presence and the, and operations thereof. You know, so fundraising ideas. We've had, several, I don't know, several, three staff members have been involved from the county in answering the questions about how fundraising works for the library board as a government entity, etcetera. So those issues of or questions have been answered, and the direction is now in place. So there'll be some things coming up from the library as to what the, you know, what their actions will be, and there'll be a time line probably shared at the next after our next board meeting that I'd be able to bring and share with this body. Accreditation is well underway, and there are some challenges there that we'll have to work through without a date in the next library board meeting, which will be the February.

Thanks, Mark. K. If there's no more business, we will stand adjourned. Thank you.

It's up to the chair.

I

don't think the vice chair is the actual chair either. Sport. But maybe if I had some sport.