Cache County Council Regular Meeting –04-21-2026

05:00. I guess do we wait for George? He stepped out.

He's okay. He can

catch up. Okay. Alright. We're gonna go ahead and get started. It's 05:00. Thank you all for being here. This meeting is officially open. That thing. And we will go ahead and start with an opening by council member, Catherine Buse. K. Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you for that reminder. This year being our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of our birth date of our nation, I think it's good that we spend as much time as we can learning about our founders. K. The next thing on our agenda or on our agenda is the approval of the agenda. Does someone want to make a motion about that? So moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the agenda. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any approved? Any opposed? K. How about the minutes from the April 14 council meeting? Did anybody change? K. I I voted nay on, I think it was number 15. The one about the, the rez the rezone. Yeah. Yep. I remember. The 40 acre rezone. It was I I wasn't clear. So

Okay.

Alright. Does someone want to make a motion about those minutes, including that amendment? Move to approve those minutes with that change. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes from the April 14 meeting with the amendment that's been mentioned. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

I will abstain because I was gone last time. K.

Alright. Part of the county executive.

I appreciate the opportunity to kinda give a report on our activities for just the last week. We've been working on both the seniors' citizen center and the recreational to get those ready for a vote with respect to we're we're working on those. Some of you are involved in that. We've we've also worked a also worked a little bit more with with Providence and River Heights about the road situation. We're gonna go ahead with one item and get that cleared up tonight. Today, we had a team out on the Clarkton Road. Perhaps you spent all day out on the mountain with our surveyor surveying the roads. Do you have anything special to say to the council about that?

It went well. That's all. It was it was a good day. We got a lot done, and it it went well, George.

Thanks.

Continuing to meet with different cities, because most of the mayors want to have their councils involved. I've been meeting in the evenings. I've met with Mendon. I've met with Providence. I'm going out to see Lewiston tonight. Any would any of you are are bored at 07:30. We'll be Lewiston making a presentation to them. I'd just like to recognize that chief Brady George is continuing to supply excellent information. And, both of you that serve on the fire board, I'd encourage you to read the material that he's, circulating because it illustrates, some of the issues that we have. Had two or three meetings with mayors here in my office, and we're continuing to go out and talk to them. And then we'll be talking about the airport a little later. Any questions about any of those activities?

Did you say recreational when you said the senior center? Mhmm. Yes. Give me more insight on that.

There was there have been a a set of meetings trying to decide how many recreational centers should be involved, whether it should be one, two, or three. Had a meeting midweek. Sandy and not sure. Let's see. Was anyone else participating in that? I don't think so. Would it be to decide what to put to the voters? That was the basic issue in the meeting. And I think the conclusion of the meeting was that we would recommend that it not necessarily recommend that they fund the center, but recommend that the voting be for three centers and that they be layered. That is, they wouldn't all occur at the same time, but that we would approve all three, but bond for them one at a time. Is that accurate, Sandy? So we're discussing that. No recommendation is ready to make to you tonight. And, again, we're talking about what to put to the voters, not making a recommendation as to what their vote should be.

Because isn't the South End doing some kind of work on their own as well? But they were there at that meeting. Were they? Yeah. They're

if they they are ready to move forward on their own if the county doesn't do something. But if But if but if we could do it all together, it would make more sense. And that was the discussion in that meeting. Like, do we, let them move off on their own? Mark Anderson was there, the mayor of Logan. Nibley Smithfield was was put there and put there, recreation director. It was a I thought it was a good meeting. And there's a lot of a lot of those cities that are really committed to providing recreation. If the voters of this county don't want to vote for what it would cost to do it on a countywide basis, then I think they're ready to move forward on their own. So we'll we'll just see what the proposal the the the proposal that we paid for, the wraps we authorized the wraps tax to pay for the study. They're coming to the to a conclusion with that, and that was what the meeting was.

And that includes senior center No. The senior center was this and they were different. In the same report.

They well, that was a different meeting. K.

Yeah, the senior center has its own. Do everything in the same meeting. You have to have a different meeting. I understand. I'm just saying you said you said the rec and the senior center. So so now we're asking for clarification on the senior center discussion.

Yeah. Different meetings. Lots of meetings. Meetings for different topics. There is no connection between the recreation center and the senior center.

What is the discussion about the senior center?

Similar to the recreational center, it is what should be put to the voters to vote on? And that was the discussion today.

They have a study that was done that also they've come up with recommendations for size and cost and, something that they would be willing to take to the voters. Basically, the building they have is completely inadequate and unsafe. Who is they in all of these? Okay. The senior center got a grant, got a CIB grant to have a study done to Right. To come up with a study of what they would recommend. That that recommendation would come to the council to say, do we approve putting that on the on the ballot for November? But they're they're even a lot closer than the recreation center. The senior center has some, specific numbers. And when I say they, I mean, the the scene the director of the senior center and VCBO who's doing their study. So they're not they're not sending it to the voters? No. They would they would make a recommendation to us. Same with the recreation.

It's gotta come through us. Yes. Okay. We would approve what Everything be it feels like it's being taken out of the council's hand. It's not. Decision. So in that, I'm gonna say, I don't think that can be. No. Nope. It would anything that goes on the ballot would have to come through us,

but they would need a specific proposal that we could vote on to say yes. Ollie would agree to put that on the ballot.

Both mostly the discussion about the senior center today was how to cite it on its current location and whether that ought to be a part of the proposal, Dave. Or is there a discussion double taxation with that too? No. We we have not had any discussions about feasibility or double taxation on that yet. K. I am I want to facilitate what council members want to look at. It's not my place not to follow through with what they want me to look at. But I'm not I'm not expressing support in the sense of I want the citizen to vote for this. But if if the council wants to put it for a vote, I'm determined that we accurately tell people what it's going to cost. We address enough material about where it's going to go, what the operating costs are so that we get a legitimate answer from the electorate. That that's my goal. That's And and, frankly, I think I also have a role once all of that's finalized, and we do the best job we can of submitting it. I I intend to express an opinion as to whether I think it's a good idea or not. But I don't think that should govern my effort to get it to a point where it's that that's how I'm playing this day. The fact that I'm working on this does not indicate that I'm at this point. Yeah. I was just I just wanna I was kinda curious. We keep saying day, and I wanna know who they was.

So thank you. Been a long time since we, as a council, have talked about it. Yes. Yeah. The the last time I remember discussing the rec center is they presented sort of three different options with the one, the two, or three, and we are deliberating on that. So I I was surprised to hear that it's we're considering three. They keep Since we're on the topic, I would just say, I do think it would be difficult to put to voters sort of you get three or you vote no. I I think if we're just since we're on the subject, I would say, let's handle one at a time. I just I've seen with any kind of initiative that goes on a ballot, it tends to work better that way when people can understand and focus on one thing at a time. Yeah. Where there's three three proposals,

let the three be presented. We can come with one of them being preferred.

But yeah. I agree with you. That'd be a group discussion. We've discussed this issue for forty five minutes or an hour. Yeah. There is Move on. Whether it was best to do only one. And if it's one, where would you put it? And what would the reaction be at the areas where it wasn't located? And then what would happen if it was two, which nest kind of ends up being not in Logan. What would the reaction be to that? What would be three? So that is the very topic. And, frankly, when it comes to you, you'll have a recommendation from the steering committee, but you'll get to have that same discussion all over again. I look forward to hearing it again.

Okay.

Well, no sorry. Say it again with sincerity.

No. And I will next time they have a steering committee the steering committee has mostly been made up of recreation directors in the different cities. And, I'll let you guys know when the next steering committee is, if you wanna listen in. Or Yeah. It's been very interesting to be a part of those discussions. So

Can we get things like that on the group? County council calendar? There's just so many to keep track of and I'd love to make it to some No. It is also it can't be there unless we're It doesn't matter. We can still have it on the calendar. Yeah. Yeah. If you send it to me in advance, then yes.

K. When I hear about the next one, I will send it to you.

Oh, yes. So that okay. So you're saying once we know about it Once you know of any event you would like on the calendar. Normally, a set as a meeting, you will put it on the calendar. We don't all have to say this is the one we want on the calendar. They will all end up on the calendar.

Thank you. Even your birthday.

That is not a public meeting. Hey.

Was there anything else?

No. No. That's enough.

Okay. I have some special interest. Let's go to our fraud risk assessment. Not fun. You're on. There he is.

Annually, the, State of Utah asked that we can, that we, that all counties, cities, and special districts undergo a fraud risk assessment. In accordance with that guidance from the state auditor's office, we have undergone that assessment. I've reviewed it with the executive. We did take a pause to give the council a chance chance to receive the training that that that you needed. And now that you have done that and all fulfilled that training, we present that assessment to you this evening for your assessment and ratification, I would note that we we scored the highest possible level

for internal controls. And do you need us to vote to accept this? Or is that the is that the verbiage of the vote? Yes. Do we accept this? Do we accept the fraud risk assessment that has been

Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to take a few minutes in the meeting tonight. So a few years ago, you'll remember for those of you that have been on the council for a bit that, the June 10 Freedom Holiday was passed as a county holiday that would be the county offices would be closed. And we were following the state of Utah, holiday schedule, which was a little wonky in my opinion. And if any of you have read it, it's really hard to determine exactly what that day is. Right, Andrew? In this past legislative session, in HB three zero nine, the Juneteenth Observation Amendment was passed. And the state of Utah will now be observing Juneteenth National Freedom Day on the actual day of June 19. If it happens to fall on a Saturday, it would be observed on Friday. If it falls on a Sunday, it would be observed on the the next Monday. And so I am recommending that we make that adjustment to our holiday schedule. One of the biggest reasons with that is there has been a lot of confusion with our employees and how they're scheduling their own personal vacations, and they try to do it around those holiday weekends. And last year, we did have some confusion and people were were upset by how we observed versus how the federal was being observed. And then also, we did have, a mix up with the the banking holiday being federal versus ours being the state. And so although the the state of Utah will not be making this change until 2027, I'm recommending that we make the change this year in 2026 so that we observe it on June 19, the actual day.

Any questions? I have a question. So is the state still gonna do it on June 15 like they had originally said? In 2026, yes. Do it on June 15. So is that gonna mess up any of the functionality of the county if we do it on that Friday? I don't believe so. Okay. That was my question.

So I have a question. When when's the federal? How did they do it? It's just they observe the actual day. Right. So what we do like the federal. Like the federal. Yes.

K. Any other questions for Amy? Someone wanna make a motion?

Second.

Been moved and seconded that we accept the amended Cache County office holiday schedule that we have been presented. Any discussion? Those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

K. Thank you. Thanks, Amy.

K. The discussion of the county airport governance. George, did you wanna start that discussion? Yes. I would like to do that. I can Yeah. Can I make an effort to see that you all got

these pages out of this report that we received about a year and a half ago? And the upshot of the report is a series of some 30 recommendations that were made. And I don't know a lot about airports, but I can follow someone's recommendations. So frankly, that's what I'm trying to do is just work through those recommendations one by one, and they they may be adjusted a little bit for our circumstances, but that's what we're working on. The first recommendation was that we consolidate ownership. We have effectively accomplished that, but we're still working. The withdrawal agreement needs to be adjusted slightly because there's some things we're gonna talk about today. I spent an hour or so yesterday afternoon with Logan City, their attorney, Kirk, and Jeannie Simmons who served on the airport authority, kind of going over this report. And the discussion we're having tonight was kind of the discussion I had yesterday with Logan about how they would fit in with this. The first the recommendation number two is an enterprise fund be established. I'm gonna pass out to you. And I've I've got these materials from Matt Funk, and Matt may may help us a little bit to understand them. I circled the numbers I wanna talk about because there's a lot of numbers, and I I don't want to to belabor the point. But what this is is the budget that we've run the airport on, in 2025. So when you look at the first page, this is the revenues that have come into the airport. If you look at it, the first thing in in year to date actual, and that's the same as the total because the year is completed, was the money we received from Utah State. That was 204,000. The next 100,000 is Logan's contribution to the airport. Then interest earned, $32,000 because we have a fund balance, and the interest is separated to this fund. We we take the interest that Matt and Craig earn on our cash and put it back in this fund. So that's where interest come from. Gas tax refund, landing fees, fuel flow storage fees, fire department stand by, and some miscellaneous revenue. So we we brought in about $81,000 of that kind of revenue. Then we had airport land lease. You know, we we lease the land at the airport. Everybody pays annually for their hangar sites. So that money is here. That's a $197,000 in 2000. So and then our our $100,000 contribution, if you add that up, the income into this fund was $882,000.

682,

isn't it? Or it means that $6.82. $6.82. Yeah. I misread The expenses are on the next page, and they detail the expenses that have been expended by the airport. We have full time employees. Janine, my assistant, 15% of her pay comes as a full time employee here. So we've apportioned that out. So so those are the expenses of running the airport. If you go to the third page, balance sheet for the airport. Airport. We have and this is actually just a cash side of the balance sheet. We have a million 42,000 in cash. We have liabilities as of the end of the year of a hundred and fifty nine. So when you work that out, we have 882,000 net in that fund. So when we talk about setting up an enterprise fund, we would oh, there's one other element to this. We have a capital project fund, and it has $22,000 in it. There's quite of that as we receive money for, different things. So when we talk about setting up an enterprise fund, it would simply be to turn over to the airport authority board management of this fund. I'm hopeful we're we we planned on putting our $100,000 into it this year. We won't have the 100,000 from Logan City this year. We do have, though, a sizable reserve balance. I'm hopeful that we can wean ourselves off the $100,000 from Cache County in the 2027 budget. So that's our goal, is to make this thing self sustaining. So when we talk about the second recommendation, just to establish an enterprise fund, We have really handled this as a budget item within Logan City, but it's kind of an enterprise fund. We would clearly make this an enterprise fund and under the control of the airport authority board if we move in that direction. So that's the second recommendation. I don't have any hesitation in making that recommendation to you that we do that. Part of that would be to have Dane help us take what we have now and make it a formal authority with with the enterprise fund. So there's some work that needs to be done there, and it would come to you for approval. The third recommendation is is actually got two parts in it. The first is that we reconstitute the airport authority, and it discusses a little bit as to who what kind of people should be on the Airport Authority Board. But I'd like also to direct your attention to the sidebar, which talks about a role for the sponsor, and that's the term that you use is sponsor. The person that owns the airport or the governmental entity under which it operates is referred to as the sponsor. So you kinda have to read these two sections together to understand how it works. Their suggestion for the airport authority is that it not include elected official, that it be people that are focused on running the airport as their primary public duty. So that you don't have the the push and pull of elected politics in the airport authority. So you'd be looking for people who have the operating an airport. And this would be much like a board of directors in a in a corporation. You know, I think that's the example you used. Yep. And, you know, if you read through this, they recommend if you look at the the criteria, vital that the men would be selected for their commitment to the work of the airport. And, essentially, if you get an elected official, they have 20 duties, and the airport just one of them. They're saying, don't do that. Get somebody whose primary public function is the airport. And I've spent a little time talking to John Kerr about this. We picked up some names of kinds of people who we think would be helpful. They have a range of experience. We're not prepared to throw names out, and we would want to publicly request names and have you help us choose who would be Ahmed Airport Authority Board. That's one of the functions of the sponsor is is to choose who serves. Now that doesn't mean that the airport authority can't recommend, but that's kind of how it's set up. They the second requirement is don't put elected politicians on the board. Third is they shouldn't be representatives of cities or specific constituencies, and that no more than 50% should be customers or pilot based at the airport and bent that you should have term limits. Okay. So that's that's what they suggest with the authority board. Our authority board doesn't look at all like that. It's completely different than that now. But let's talk a little bit about the what they call the sidebar, supervising the new airport for I'm just gonna read a couple of sentences there. There is a concern that a new autonomous airport authority might violate the public trust with exuberant corruption or an aptitude. This is a reasonable concern. Now I'm gonna skip down to the next paragraph. Instead of retaining the airport as part of a government agency, a better plan is to subject the proposed enterprise to various checks and balances, assure the achievement of goal, and prevent the misuse of public resources. There are six constraints. First, the airport authority should be required to report back to the sponsor and the public at least once a year. In talking with the people involved, everyone feels like it ought to be at least quarterly to begin with until the sponsor is satisfied with its control over the board. They would present detailed plans, vision, budgets, and so forth to the sponsors. The planning sessions would involve the sponsors, so the sponsor is is clearly involved in an intensive way in setting up what the goals of the Air Port Authority Board are. Just to clarify, the sponsor is the county, the council. Yeah. I and I'm I'm gonna tweet that just a little bit because what I'd like to do is move the two representatives of Logan City over and have them help us with the sponsor duties. That that meets the requirement that Logan placed upon us when they gave up ownership. And I don't see a problem with that, but I'd I'd like to talk about that in just a minute. All those meetings, both the authority board and the sponsor would be public meetings. Nothing's gonna be done in private. Annual financial audit. We have looked at other airports that are operated by cities and counties. In most of those cases, the city auditor, the city treasurer runs the books, but you still get an audit done by auditor that does it for the county. But the idea is to make absolutely sure that there's no funny business going on with the money. There's a lot of money. A million dollars moves through the books, so it had to be tracked. It it even suggested that we change the accounting system. It it is what it said in here. A question. I'd ask that. I don't know whether we should change the accounting system. Something specifically business oriented. Yeah. Yeah. I I agree with that. I do too. There's some cumbersome things in the way that that we handle money that we ought not to burden the business with. I agree. That's an area where I would want mister Funk's advice and, frankly, oversight. Mister Funk is perfectly capable of of running something other than government. In fact, he might enjoy the opportunity to run something like a business operation. But I think continuing to have some to have some involvement that way makes sense. It may be that the airport authority should pay the county for some of that service. I really would like to separate this. So it's paying for what it gets, and we make it a self funding make it a self funding operation. For the surviving sponsor would retain a vote on any long term indebtedness. Retain a vote on any long term indebtedness. That is, if if they wanna borrow money, they've gotta come back to the sponsor because we're gonna be pledging our assets that we own for that. So that's an example. And if we're not happy with the airport authority board, we appoint different ones or remove them. We would have a removal authority there. So so that's how I envision the council operating. And I would suggest that all seven members of the council be involved as a sponsor, that we make that a part of your meetings. Tau Not that they would have a veto on anything. They would have two votes against the seven that the council has, which is what we kind of said we would give them at the part of the authority board.

So at this current time, their their removal their their removal of Logan City from the interlocal agreement at the airport is in in work. It's a work in process. It's not it it'll be official June 30. Right?

It's been signed. We're we we've had to go back and tinker with it. This requires some more tinkering with it. K. But I I didn't want to proceed with that until I laid this My meeting with Logan City was favorable yesterday. They liked this. They thought it was a good idea. They agreed with these recommendations. They did want to preserve a toll hold in what happens out there.

K. I before we get to that, I have a question about the p and l that we were given. Yes. There, what about the grants that the airport gets? I don't show that in their income. Like, they I know they received grants. Not just from the only income it shows is Utah State, Logan City, and Cache County. And I know they received large grants from the government from the federal government. Nah. Like, are are those separate from this? And maybe they didn't get them in the year of 2025 specifically. But

They do receive a lot of grants, but they're particular grants because they are often for capital improvements. And in this particular case, they don't show up on this fund. They show up on the Airport Capital Fund. And there is about $300,000 of grant, receivables that we're getting ready to book, but We haven't finished the grant, application process yet, so we haven't booked those.

But it would be booked. It would all Yes. At least come through that. K. Because that would have to be offset with their expenditures. Like, that's

Yeah. Alright. Keegan, what's your thoughts?

Yeah. I I think following the recommendations from doctor Jones is wise, and and the way that George has suggested laying it out, I think, makes sense. I've I've I'm more of a visual person, so I put together an org chart of what this might look like. I think some of you have seen that. But I I do agree on the premise that we should probably have expertise on that board of directors, and they should probably have the ability to operate as a sovereign or as close to sovereign entity as as we can get. In that org chart, some of the positions that were discussed would be potentially someone with civil engineering expertise, someone with business and marketing experience in aviation specifically, maybe someone that's a legal export expert as it relates to aviation or aeronautics. So I think, talking about the positions on the board makes sense before, I think, we discussed the names. So if I was advocating for a next step, I would say we should probably and I don't know if today's the day to do it, but I think it would be wise to discuss the nature of the positions that would be on that board. And I also agree on the premise that it makes sense to have your what we're calling a board of directors or the airport authority board and then this sponsor group or, what I would probably deem as an oversight committee that receives the prospectus, they can evaluate. And whether that's, just Logan and Cash, I think it could be wise to involve on that oversight committee, potentially pilots or those with business interests or someone that's maybe would have a conflict of interest voting directly as a board of directors, but someone who would have an opinion on how they're impacted by the decisions of the board. I think another position that could be valuable on that board of directors is someone who's looking out for the economic interests of Cache County, whether that's, our economic development director, Sean Milner, or someone else. As it states in the recommendations, I don't know if you guys got this far, but the the this oversight committee shouldn't just be focusing on PNL. I I can't remember how it's worded, but, basically, the total economic impact of the airport on the county. So, I think Georgia's heading, absolutely in the right direction. But I think as as appointments are considered, we should discuss the positions and put that into policy because we are policymakers, and that's our prerogative.

So I have a couple of things. The the deal that was the contract that was signed already was never brought to the council, and I know you're redoing it now so so that that's a that's a step that we need to make sure is in the right process. And then another in in the Uniform Airports Act, Utah code 72 dash 10 dash two zero one, the council is the architect of the airport's legal and fiscal operations. The decision to delegate operational authority to a board or a commission is a high level policy act and would have to be accomplished through a council approved ordinance. So as you I I think you're heading in the right direction. I'm not saying you're not. The process though is to put together the recommendation and then the council would have to have a specific ordinance written that says we are going to give this authority to this airport board. Yeah. It's gonna be made up like this. Here's what our oversight is gonna be, and and do it in that us talking about it today is not the official okay for Of course. Things to happen. Okay. We're just I'm just gonna make just wanna be clear that that that's the process and the procedure.

What I mean, there's two or three ways we could do this. We could make the airport a department of the county. To some extent, it it looks a little bit like that now. What what I wanted from the council was a going basically, get Dane And I, I do think what Keegan said, And I I do think what Keegan said is is critical, is that we get a board that's capable of running this thing and has the range of skills that are necessary. And then we supervise them closely to see that they meet our goals and they meet our mission. We we do not intend to let go of con ultimate control. I joked with Logan City that we have an authority board, and then we have an ultimate authority board. And the sponsor, in some ways, I mean, it it's our responsibility that this thing runs right. And we're turning it over to a group of people that we intend to both trust and verify that they accomplished the goals we set. It but we we have really good people who work for virtually nothing for the county like our, planning and zoning. This is a major appointment for someone. Someone who agrees to serve on this board is, a serious amount of time. And this is gonna be a business to which they devote their skills. And we're going to try and get people who will do it for a nominal payment. We don't expect to pay out a serious amount of money. But they need to attend state conventions of aviators. They technologies. There's just a whole range of things that need to be done here. And it's it's it's a major appointment. It's if we can find the right kind of people, I think we'll be very successful. If we pick somebody who's only gonna spend a come to the meetings and decide what to do at the meetings, it's just not gonna work.

I agree, and I don't have any desire to be in charge of the airport. None of us have that skill. So I think this is but I but I do know that we have a statutory responsibility to oversee and that's I think that's the way to do it. Let the people that know what they're doing make those decisions about how the airport should run. And if we could make it an enterprise fund where it would at least save us some money of the in money that we put into it eventually, I think that would be the ultimate goal.

Yeah. I mean, there's there's a lot of exciting things on the horizon, and, you know, there's just talk about the Olympics, and there's talk about having, electric aircraft that can go to Salt Lake, and you could book like you could an Uber. I mean, these are these are exciting things, and I think if we do it right, we'll be able to apply for the grants that could be available to us. And if we have a board that looks and acts professionally, I think that increases the the likelihood that we'll receive funding for those type of projects. We're on the threshold

of a whole number of we have hangar applications now that will increase the footage of our hangars by about, what, 50%? I think that's what we're looking at over the next two years. We have major corporations. They're building they're building hangars. We have some governmental interest in this. Utah State's operations are expanding. Lots of things are happening. With your permission, and assuming Dane doesn't have anything else to do, I'd like to get him going on it. Understanding that you need to look at the details, we need to give you periodic report. We can't build this structure. We lot

of

Activity. Activity. Yeah.

And so they they their grants, not only do you have to agree that we will use these grant funds the way that the feds say we have to. But, also, it gives the the federal government authority over the airport operations and how you run those, and those are that's included in those 39 assurances. And then there's a whole bunch of opinions to their administrative process of what is allowable and what's not allowable. So that's what I'm gonna have to take into account as I I draft this is are we applying

Utah law properly, and, also, are we doing this in a way that's not going to put our federal

So there there's a whole bunch of those grants that we've gotten. And it's and, basically, no airport ever gets out from under the federal grant requirements because you're always getting new federal grants. And so that that's something we do have to take into account. I know State Board Airport just dealt with this on some some issues as they were trying to make changes. And then so I I think we need to understand that this is gonna be a process and make sure we're applying all those federal requirements as well.

And so along the lines of what you started out saying just a minute ago, Sandy, that we'd requested in the last OMP meeting on Friday that we hold another OMP meeting this Friday to discuss this very topic. And so that, I think, is in line with the right suggestion that we ask department heads and specifically the attorney's office to look into these things now is three days enough time. Do do I guess the question just in consideration of that meeting, will we have something to talk about? I feel like there is, but I don't wanna I don't wanna obligate you beyond. Against those those federal grants and services because I think if

if there's anything we're thinking of doing that might rub against those that kinda guide where we're going next. So I I think at least putting those up on the screen and talking about it might be

useful to that OMP meeting. Perfect. So yeah. I mean, unless there was objection, I will go full speed ahead with that OMP meeting, and that's where we'll come up with the the framework to support what's being suggested here, I think.

One of the things we this isn't the path that other people haven't gone down before. Yeah. Where Danny will be able to get Let's hope let's hope he picks the right templates of things. There are some variations that I'll just say we're running short in our civil department in the county attorney's office. This is new territory. I'm not familiar with the territory. Dane, I mean, this is new stuff to all of us. Actually, I think none of us have really dug into this area. So we'll move as fast as we can, but prudently and carefully.

In the meantime, though, George, I know that there I've been made aware of a an issue with the board voted to impose some impact fees on new hangars that they're building, and it very likely was not done correctly. Has that like, until we get all this set up, that that needs to be addressed, I think. We're familiar with the issue, and

and and we will talk through that issue. But it it's one of a 100 that are out there. I've I've just got a a whole pile of them having to do with the airport and what we can and can't do. We've got a request for use of some of the land, and and we're just trying to deal with it as much as we can. That that's one we will put on hold until we have answers on that. No one has to do anything immediate on

that. K. I just wanna make sure that was configured because until we get it all set up correctly and that's addressed

Yeah. I mean by the title board. I really think, to some extent, we wanna put off what we can for the airport authority board to take a look at how they want to man these things instead of jump into how we want to do it without I agree. Getting it done correctly. I think the term impact fee is a is a it's a loaded term that has all kinds of legal elements to it. Once you call it that, you almost define that you violated the law. So if there is a fee, which is is charged to a hanger because they access a built taxi It doesn't necessarily mean to be called an impact. It could be an infrastructure charge. It could be a lease. It could be a bunch of different things. But the fact of the matter is we do need to make it self supporting. And we're we have to start imposing the kinds of fees on users that will make it self supporting. That's that's one of the things that has to happen as we go forward with it. We we cannot fund the airport out of our chamber. We can for a period of time, but it's designed to be self supporting. And and there will be fees.

Okay. Alright. Let's get to our public hearings that we're a few minutes late. Does somebody want to make a motion about setting the public hearings that we and wait a minute. Does anyone have anything else they wanted to mention or finish that discussion? I didn't I didn't clarify that, and I'm sorry. Is everyone okay if we move on?

So, mate, without approving anything specific, I I assume you are in agreement with following through with recommendation two and three as laid out in the Joneses report. We we can't take a vote on that, but I think if anybody has any objections, they can contact you. I'm not really asking you to vote on anything. I'm just saying that there's quite a bit of discussion of how this is organized. Are you in favor of proceeding down that roadway?

Meaning, we're gonna start drafting it and and so forth. Maybe it would be helpful to understand the alternative, which is to The alternative is to make it a county department where we oversee it and Yep. Or keep the board as it is structured now, which I don't think is would be wise. That's the kind of stuff I think we would be looking for in the ordinance and policy committee meeting is

are those suggestions of how to implement those items to increase.

Alright.

Matt Phillips, Public Works Director.

I'm here to introduce updating our franchise agreement with Rocky Mountain Power. So our current franchise agreement with Rocky Mountain Power expires later this month, and that's typically has been a ten year term. So it's due to be updated. What the ordinance that we have drafted that you guys should have in your packet is almost identical to the one that we enacted ten years ago. I've gone through it with the attorneys. I've sat down with Rocky Mountain Power. We've looked into other cities to make sure that ours is very similar to theirs, and our relationship with them is good. It's been working well for us. It's this franchise agreement kind of sets the rules for how we play together, what kind of rights they have, you know, after they put their utility in our public right away. And, again, most of these are where they're putting their power poles or their underground utilities in our county right aways. So if we come out and we do a project and there's poles in the right of way and they need to move them, it sets out the standards for that. It sets out their standards for contacting us for construction. It sets out the standards for subdivision approvals and all those things. So happy to answer any questions. I don't have any issues with it. I think it's been a good franchise for us and would recommend approval.

I I just and I just wanna clarify because this is something that I discovered we were talking about some of the other broadband companies. A franchise agreement is not exclusive. That doesn't mean Rocky Mountain Power is the only ones that have the right to it's just laid like you said, lays out what their responsibility is, what ours is, and we are allowing them to use our right of way that other people use it as well. There's a possibility.

Right? Yes. And multiple utility companies might use that. Rocky Mountain Power is the biggest one that we deal with in the county. Not everyone in the county has, you know, gas service. Not everyone has Internet service. We don't have power with or water, sewer, those types of things. So but pretty much everyone in the county has power. So this is the one that we deal with most often. So

Is that the current appropriate name of the company?

I think that's the way that they've done business, Dave. That's how it was presented to us when we got

the draft that was very similar from that. Affiliate of Pacific Court for any of that, you know? Not that I'm aware of. There was a bunch of changes trying to happen with all that. I just wonder if that's what they if that's what's being presented by them, that they are Rocky Mountain Power. That is correct.

Does that involve any private land at all? This agreement does not involve any private land. No. This is just working within the county right of ways.

Any other questions for Matt? Okay. I would take a motion to waive the rules and pass this if somebody wants to.

Waive the rules and motion that we approve ordinance twenty twenty six adopting the, franchise agreement with Rocky Mount Power.

Second. K. It's been moved and seconded that we approve ordinance twenty twenty six dash 22. Any further discussion? Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you, council. Okay.

Alright. The next one, ordinance twenty twenty six dash twenty four. Are you gonna present that to us, Andrew? Or Joanne, put your leg to, or

You can. Okay. Sounds good. One second. Request by an a council member. Yep. One second. There we are.

Good evening, council. This ordinance brought before you, if I can remember ordinance twenty twenty six dash 24, amendments to the county council procedure for public comment input. The proposal before you today is an amendment to the county council procedure under title 2.12 of Cache County Code, specifically section 200, which governs the meeting procedure for general meetings of the council. This proposal specifically would include a general public comment portion such that it follows the the following provisions. It would say that the purpose of the the purpose of public comment portions in regular meetings is to allow for any interested member of the public to give input into, to county count to the county council regarding any matter that the comments are addressed to the county council and are germane to the operation, business, or interest of the county or of the county council such that the matter is not already scheduled for a dedicated public hearing or is listed as being scheduled for a dedicated public hearing. Essentially, what that means is there would be an opportunity between let's see here. Trying to remember the exact order it would be under. After the approval of the minutes. Yep. It would be after the approval of the minutes. There would then be a general public comment portion, and anyone could come up here subject to some reasonable limitations. Someone would be able to come up here and address anything that is related to county business or related to the county council such that it's not already being scheduled for a public hearing or such that it is hasn't already been scheduled for a public hearing, one of those two. But it does state that at the beginning of the public comment portion, the chairperson shall publicly state the rules of the conduct for the public comment portion, including any reasonable time limits, the necessity of submitting materials in writing with sufficient copies for all council members and the clerk, and such other reasonable rules as may be reasonably necessary for the proper and expeditious conduct of the public comment portion meeting. That part essentially authorizes the chair to announce that there is a public comment portion and to impose those certain procedural requirements just to keep the orderly operation of of the meeting. That's the proposal.

Thanks, Ed. Yes, ma'am. K. Discussions.

I'd move that we approve this amendment to the ordinance twenty twenty six twenty four to the county council procedure for public comment input and give it a try for six months and then reevaluate it to see if it's working or not working.

K.

It is initial.

It requires suspending the rules, I think. Yes. Yeah. Was that stated in the motion? No. But I'll add that

to suspend the rules and then move that.

K. So I have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second for the sake of discussion. If I could go into that discussion now. Yeah. That's the same time. In o and p, ordinance and policy, we, it was discussed, and it it was recommended for denial, two to one. I was I spoke in favor of it, recognizing that I do think that this could have the tendency to cover things that are off topic, that are related to federal policy, things that aren't pertinent to the council. I do think if it's given rigid structure, for example, there's fifteen minutes total of public comment time with no more than two minutes per person. I think it could be manageable. If we look at the crowd now, I don't know that we'll be overwhelmed by comments. So that probably, majority of the time is within reason. I do think it gives people the opportunity to address the council. I think it's a reminder that the the building and the microphone and the time belongs to the public, and we serve them. I know that's that can be made manifest in a lot of ways, but that's one of them. And I also think putting forth comments in the public domain can is healthy for debate, and I think it prevents people from going to their dark corners to discuss topics in an echo chamber where they're not feeling heard. So those are some of my reasons for it.

Any further comments?

And if I might add on that. I like what's going on now because we're all in a district. Normally, who I get calls from are from my district. And so that if I need to, I can call Matt. I can call any of those people on that subject from my district. And is that I'm focusing on my district from those calls. And, yes, I do get quite a bit of those calls. Quite a bit. And emails. So, I like the way it's working right now. I mean, because then I focus on my district.

K. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Well, I have a comment.

As a citizen, when I tried to discuss things with the council, I got nowhere. And so if this was available at that time, I would have been able to bring up the issues I was interested in. And, you know, I emailed the council and got no response whatsoever. So just as a citizen, I think this is a way that, if we can be available to them, and it it looks good. And I think we'd have better participation in the county too.

K. Any further discussion? Okay. I have a motion and a second. Those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Those opposed?

Nay.

Did you get that, Bryson? K. The next is resolution twenty twenty six dash 13, providing approval for county roadway access the Creekside Estates development. You should all have a resolution in the packet. This this has to do with the development in River Heights where we're still in negotiations with the road. In the meantime, this remains a county road. Our code states that we can't grant access to a to a county road, but I think in this instance, while fees are still so ongoing that it's okay if we pass this. I would like to hear some discussion about that, though. I don't know. Matt, did you do you have anything you would like to to guide us on this? If you don't if you don't, I don't wanna pressure

you. I I don't know that Matt understands what what you can put in there, which is the condition.

Okay.

Do we have a presentation on this? Well, let let's let Andrew

Andrew.

So David might have been a long time. I know. Just so we're all on the same page, this is resolution twenty twenty six dash 13. This is not dash o six. O six and thirteen are are two different ones. So So this one specifically is just to grant to grant providing approval for county roadway access for the Creekside Estates development. And, Sandy, you did state that correctly that generally the county forbids this type of access, but the county roads manual provides an exception. And under section 5.6 b, the county roadway manual says no municipal development shall be permitted to access a county roadway without the express written approval of the Cache County Council. And it further states, it is the policy of Cache County that no service shall be provided to municipal developments from county roadways unless extreme circumstances provide no alternative and annexation or acceptance of ownership of the roadway by the municipality is not possible. And given that the situation is what it is, I think that this situation that this definitely qualifies as an exigent situation for approval. This specifically would be giving the approval. If you look in your packets, there's a a map that specifically shows where the access would be and granted and where it would not. And, madam chair, after our discussion with the executive yesterday, the following language was added. I'll scroll to it. So section two reads, road access is hereby granted, per section five point six five point six b of the Cache County Roadway Manual design and construction standards for the Creekside Estates residential development, as detailed in the attached exhibit a in River Heights, Utah by Heritage Property Solutions LLC on the Road Of 600 East in River Heights, Utah. With the this is the addition language subject to completion approval of all necessary engineering details and require improvements within the county right of way in coordination with River Heights City to ensure compliance with applicable city standards as determined by the Cache County Executive or their authorized designee. Are there any issues with that language?

I have a question. Yes. Didn't we talk before that only this one entrance to here, or is has this been changed since then? So to be fair, I think that there is one main entrance, and then there's an emergency exit as Through a church parking lot. Was it not? Is that Yeah. That's that's something I have a question on. Yeah. Right there. I do too. Yeah. It was approved by the River Heights City Council, and they're planning the zoning commission. What does the church have to say about this? We have 52 homes on one ingress egress. Yeah. We're fighting that. That's where it is. So But it but is it our

purview to say anything about the developments within their city? I don't I don't know what our

Well, we are because we're saying we're we're gonna accept it, and then we're gonna put the conditions that they have to do everything Riverside says, but we're gonna enforce it. So to answer your question, this just suggests we do. K.

So where where are we at with the ceding the road?

I mean I think that's still in negotiations, isn't it? I think the negotiation is what to what extent we repair the road before you've come in.

To solve this problem with this developer. So this this is an effort to do just that. But we we don't want to just blanket say you can hook onto one of our roads. You have to define the sidewalk. You have to do a bunch of things. Matt's got a list of things that need to be done here, and we're gonna take the list and see if we can get approval from the developer in River Heights City that those things are gonna be done. If we can't, we'll come back. But we we can't just give say yes. That isn't enough. We have to get into it. And Matt's got a whole list of things that need to be addressed before this we can let this go ahead. So Yeah. It it says I'm supposed to do it. But to be honest with you, I'm gonna ask Matt what needs to be done and follow his directions on this one. Delegation. But that gets this person out of the middle of the problem between us and these three city, which is what we're trying to do. I think that's what you asked me to do.

And I'm happy that that we're working on this, but I still have a question on one ingress or egress. Mister Murray, can you give us an I mean, yes. This sits in River Heights, but we're dealing with something of this nature in the county right now of a second egress. So where does that put us in standing

by approving this and not approving the other? Or where we sit on there? Well, I I think it we're in a little bit different position because that is a county development. And that's approve the development. And if you're saying that's a difference, then I'm okay with that. I I see that as a big difference because we're not approving the development. And if we see it's their development, we're just saying you can connect your development to our road. If we city still has a problem with the ingress egress River River Heights. Sorry. River Heights still has a problem with with the development that it doesn't meet their standards for a subdivision ingress egress, then the subdivision still can't build. This is just saying you can connect to our road. It's it's not saying we approve that your subdivision only has one ingress egress. For 78 homes. Yeah. That I mean, there's I I won't say that actually.

I'll tell you, if we if we just give the road to River Heights Yeah. Maddie, your job's done. I guess I said this is something And we're and all of this in between and all this back end is worth What is I'm sorry. You just that's River Heights business in River Heights standing lane. Let me do it the way down here. Yes. Matt, would you address that, please?

Or Will you restate the question if there was one over there, Keegan?

It wasn't my question, but I guess I I would like to give you the opportunity to to talk about your concerns, endorsement, indifference towards this decision.

First, I'd like to say that the developer has been nothing but great to work with. Blaine has has been very patient with this. But I would say that from public works and our standpoint is we're really approving River Heights to to access our road. Because as soon as the developer's gone, that is a River Heights That's right. That's a River Heights Road. So I I feel bad for the situation we have, but I I feel like we're not the only ones that have have held him hostage. And also that River Heights has some of that to blame for not coming to council and and working with the council on a resolution to attach their city road. Because once the development is done, that that's a River Heights City Road. And the develop it's not the developer's road at that point. So this is a little different than a driveway when you're when you're granting that. But there is a lot. We need to make sure that we have the right maintenance agreements in place, where the signs, the sidewalks the county doesn't have this type of development. When we do subdivision developments, we don't have, you know, streets that lead to schools and crosswalks and, you know, a lot of these types of things that are just not part of our daily basis. They're more appropriate for the city. They will as part of this development, they will have to go in and put sewer and water in our roads. So that'll be a whole another, you know, permits and developments and repairing our roads and all those things to facilitate the infrastructure

to, you know, bring water and sewer to this development as well. So So if everybody's talking about maintenance on it, and yet we're gonna have tear up on it, isn't maintenance moot at this point until construction is done. And plus, I'd like to hear chief Brady's opinion on

we're giving one access to 78 homes. What's the fire gonna say down the road? Oh, geez. So onto that, Nolan, I think it was correct is that we're approving an access to our road from the city. And as far as the development and the city code, whether they have the 30 access, because all this is in River Heights City, we don't have anything to do with approving lot size, access, those types of things. The church gate is a breakaway, so that if there is an emergency, someone wants to drive through it, it's probably not gonna be very hard. So it's just gonna have a small little chain

how the developer was able to work that with the church. How do you know what's at the church parking lot? What's going on one night when there's an emergency? Before we go too far on this, I don't even feel like this is the scope of our purview is deciding if the development's appropriate.

Yeah. Really not. The the ingress, egress is not our purview. We have no say, although,

clearly, it's not a good idea. I would say that I would say that in the county's purview, though, is that this number of homes is gonna add traffic to our roads Yes. Which Yeah. Means, you know, the level of service, more traffic, more maintenance requirements, more all those types of things that this development's going to bring to a road that the county currently does all that maintenance on. Can I ask for an update on any kind of an agreement

to what extent we will need to, update that road before behind me? Pass the resolution that we passed that gives the road to the cities? Are we That's so stupid. I would I would default that to George. Yeah. Where are we are we close to having an agreement? Are we

We're gonna do certain things on the road, then we're gonna recommend that you disengage from the road. You there there's a scheduled chip and seal and some other things. We like to see an agreement before we just recommend we let go of it. But there are some things we need to do to the right, and we're trying to work that out. One city at a time is what we're trying to deal with. Soon as we can get rid of this road, we will. We do have an issue with a contractual relationship with this road that's that's atypical of other situations. No. Our attorney's been interfacing with the city manager's providence about that. About that.

He's assured us that we're within our rights to give the road. Yeah. That is Got it. So so the only hang up is we haven't decided to do it. Yeah. True or false? That's, I think, our question. Yep. Yeah. I don't know that I

hurry up and do whatever we have to do to give the road to River Heights and let them decide about their access. I don't know. I wanted to I wanted to take care of this developer.

I recommend that you not do that. This this is a pretty simple thing to agree to an access, and then put it on River Heights to take it take what they want there, and then let them hook to the road so they're out of the middle of this. That's my suggestion to you. I'm tired of dealing with this matter. I will do whatever the council tells me to do. But my suggestion to you is let us get this developer out of the middle of it. Let us finish the road. The road is toward the end of its cycle. It needs a chip and seal. We probably are obligated to do some work on the road before we give it back to them. Once we give it back to them, we're not going to touch it again. Do we know how soon they're going to be tearing up the road? Do we just chipped and sealed?

Do we know how soon they're going to tear up the road if we chip and seal if they got to come in with water and sewer? I mean I think we're scheduled for a chip and seal this fall.

Nolan, I'm sure the developer will be excited to get that sewer and water in as soon as he gets the approvals to move forward with this. So I know that that would be coming fairly quick. I think it's designed. It's ready to go. So

if that would happen So this would happen before we do our chip and seal. For sure. Okay. That helps me understand the maintenance thing.

Okay. So this bypassing this resolution, we are saying that that our executive will work with them and make sure that they are have agreed to all the things that we need before you allow that access. But we are okay with that access. Yes. Alright. Can I get a motion on that? Oh, it's yeah. It's a resolution, so you don't have to suspend the rules.

I have talked with a bunch of people on this, and even though this is not in my district, so I feel bad for the developer. If this is a way to help the developer and get the squeeze out, then I am gonna go ahead and recommend resolution 2026Dash13 be approved.

Second. K. It's been moved and seconded that we approve resolution twenty twenty six dash 13. Is there any further discussion from the council?

So can we should we include anything about and then we will terminate this we will turn over the ownership of this road in a certain time. And we can do that and say, we will come and do the chip and seal. I mean, all those things can be arranged just like we're arranging this. And so it's it's yet to be made clear to me what our objection is to just turning this road over Well, it it it City Street over. From what I gather,

the the other cities are ready to receive it when it's in an acceptable condition, and it's up to us to put it in that acceptable condition.

There's a dis treatment key about what acceptable condition is. Yeah. And we may or may not be able to settle that. And I'm I'm not disposed to give them the veto right over condition. The issue is and it's a good reminder to the county council. You, your predecessors did this. They took responsibility for this road. That's why you have a problem. We're trying to limit our responsibility, but it's a previous council that did this with no time limit. It

was a set of verbiage. We wrote a thank you note to them after the meeting. Who is their leader? Other councils to change it. No. It doesn't. It doesn't address

that. It just doesn't say that. We think we have a legal right to terminate it, but it does not say it can be terminated.

The general law says it can be terminated, but the agreement does not. And that's why It doesn't specify. I guess, if I can speak to Mark, I don't know if we're necessarily in a this is not a legal issue. It's more a political issue. Yeah. That we're Yeah. Yeah. It feels more political than legal, but we're calling it a legal issue.

Yeah. Yeah. I think And I I don't think there's a huge urgency. Now now that we know about the issue, it seems like it's been on our plate for a while. But as far as when we give up the the rights to that road, if we can clear up this issue tonight, I think that the rest of it will get to us. I don't know. Going back to the point that

as a county, we're trying to limit the expansion of homes and subdivisions in the

city. So that's why I'm saying, let's get it in there. Well, I I do feel for the developer who's just been caught in government red tape for the last eight months, and it's really not fair to them. And we do have our public works director that isn't opposed to it, and it feels like it can the access is manageable.

I appreciate Matt's earlier comments that but we are not the entity that put them in this position.

True. Exactly right. K. So again, I have a motion and a second that we approve resolution twenty twenty six dash 13. Is there any further discussion before we take a vote? K. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Those opposed?

Nay. Nay. K.

That passes five to two. Is that correct? Yep.

K.

Okay. Let's do, other business. The NIMS training for senior officials. That was that's April 25. This is Saturday. The day of the state convention. When Will last talked about this, he recognized that there we probably won't be able to make that, but we need to be aware of it. And there will be some things online that we can look at. It's it's it has to do with incident training for specific incidents. And the UAC Legislative Conference Conference, it looks like we're down to four of us going. So we will carry on and and represent the county.

Party hard while you're down there so you have a reputation.

K. There's a list of parades that are coming up. Andrew, do you is it soon enough that you need to know who's yes. We need to know who's gonna be in the Smithfield Health Days parade because we don't have another meeting between now and then. So if you plan to be in that meeting in that parade in Smithfield, please let Andrew know. Or just raise your hand. I will be there. What's required? Nothing. You don't have to do. Do we have to walk? There will be a truck. Some conveyance that if you'd rather ride in a truck, that should be available too. And I am working with the logo shop to work on getting some logos put on a shirt that we could all order so we can wear shirts that match. And then while Catherine and I were there, they showed us some two fifty logo stuff that they're doing, and we thought it might be nice to just have a white t shirt with the America two two fifty logo on it, and it just says Cash County on the sleeve that maybe anyone in the county could order if they want one. Once he makes a mock up, then it's just you don't have to pay for the setup fee. It's just ordering the shirts. And so we may try and do something like that to just see who in the county wants to have those shirts that match, let's say, Cache County for the fourth of July parades. Catherine, do you wanna talk about your ideas for the fourth of July parade?

Ah. Who gets to the right notes? Press is gone, us. Well,

listen to the story. Idea.

I wanted to mom's an elephant. Oh. I heard

The thing is we also got the Lewiston parade is not on there. Oh, when is this? Lewiston's on the July 4. July 4. It's

yeah. Same time.

the two fifty county committee doing an entry? They will have an entry. Why are we not just doing that with them? Because we are the county, and they are just there. Well, they are doing it on our behalf. I'm saying we can combine efforts. We could. I'll I'll call them and see what they have planned. I think I'm they're passing out declarations. That's right. Yeah. They've made the freezing data. I'm just suggesting why are we duplicating efforts. Why don't we collaborate?

K. That's a good idea. Mhmm. Because as Nolan said, we have a party reputation and we don't want that muddied. Right? Of course. Yeah.

It's true. K. Council member reports. Let's start with you, Mark. Do you wanna give us any updates?

The o and p met last Friday. Some of the items were already mentioned. And we're we're going to meet again on Friday to talk about the the airport structure. That's all I've been a part of as far as department stuff since last meeting.

Last week. K. Yeah. It was just a week ago. Dave?

Same OMP. And then tomorrow night, they have a big discussion at the Capitol on agriculture's future Really? That is occurring. I'll be going down to that. I got an invite to that. So that'll be interesting.

Catherine? I don't have anything. Nolan?

I'm hoping to keep the discussion alive on the size of subdivisions and some water stuff.

Yeah. We need some input on that. Yep. We had that meeting. We need to follow through.

And so I've talked with Skyler Buck. There was a community meeting here a little while ago that got together that voiced opposition to, for instance, there's a 20 lot subdivision going up by me. And one person applied for a water right for like 15 acre feet just to irrigate. Confused as to why that was something that could go through. Here we are talking about water and this was going to be 15 acre feet just to irrigate somebody's lawn and garden from well water. No. That was some, residents out there who got together. And so there is a hearing coming up, with the water board versus the complainants. I'll get you a date on that because I think that would be interesting to hear what's going on there. So I still think I mean, I hear from citizens all the time who are having

concerns on a lot of

and road and growth and everything. So I just hope we can see where we're sitting there.

Okay.

Keegan? Yeah. We already talked about the airport in 0 And P, but I'll add on behalf of the trails committee. The bike to work week is May. So it's a fun event, and it's getting to bike more than one day. Yeah. You have to bike more than one day. But it's good to act to get out there and see what the infrastructure is like and where the gaps are.

K. Joanne? Well, I went to the Cache Valley Visitors Bureau. They have things every week. They're getting ready for the summer citizens to come, and there's a lot of free things. One was the the Utah symphonies coming to the event center out with the fairgrounds. We're gonna have an outdoor concert. It's gonna be really good. I went to a preparedness with Will Lusk. What's that group? It's the emergency

the EOC, Emergency

Operations Center. Yeah. Well, I went there. It wasn't the the official air earthquake training, but it was a preparedness training. It was very interesting. I picked up a lot of paperwork and guidelines for earthquakes.

K. Well, that's it. K. Well, I just I know that several of us were at the that emergency operations center last last week when we talked about what our responsibilities would be during an earthquake or any other emergency here in Cache Valley. Monday, we had our criminal justice coordinating council meeting here. We're doing some some good things trying to the state mandates that we have this as a county, that we have this committee, but it's it we have a lot of judges and the law enforcement and parole and the health department that all come, and we're trying to make a difference in the the process for people who get out of incarceration or go through the the system that we can give them the support that they need so that they don't re Offend. Offend. That's where so we can cut down on the recidivism rate here in the county. And so that's the goal, and there's some really good people in those discussions. It's great. We did have the Friday, there was the steering committee meeting on the rec center. There's it's just hard. It's another one of those things where there's a lot of cities and communities that have special interests that they want the rec center done their way. I there George was able to kind of pull some things together, like, okay. What could we literally put on the ballot? And so that'll be, I think they're trying to prepare that to put on the Same for the senior center. The senior center, they have a design they have a building design that'll meet all the needs. The design they do that they put together, they are recommending to put it on the exact site where it is. Just put it in the front and put the parking in the rear. George and Kurt maybe sits, you know, once parking in the rear. George and Kurt maybe sits you know, once we have it if we get the amount of money approved by the voters, then maybe there's a better site for that. That's something we could all talk about and look at. And so I think there's a very good possibility that on this November ballot, we're gonna be asking citizens to approve bonds for recreation and the senior center. I don't know what the possibilities are. That's gonna be a big ask. No. We're not asking them to approve bonds. Yes. We are. We're gonna we're gonna have bond language to say this is what it's gonna cost. This is the design. This is why we need it, and this is what it's gonna cost. There will be bond language on the ballot. And that's that's the goal. So be prepared for some of that. And then and I will let you guys all know when the next steering committee meeting is on the recreation center if you're interested in just hearing the discussions.

I think so. So

anyway. Well, the the goal is to make sure that every contingency is included so that voters know what they're voting for exactly. It's gonna cost this much money, not a vague idea of kind of how much. They're gonna know this is the this is what it would cost. So as we're talking about that, if this is going on on the ballot,

are we gonna have some understanding? I mean, we don't know what's gonna affect, outlying county citizens as fire is fire. I mean, we've seen George's prediction on that, but

I would like to make sure our citizens are informed about all things coming their way. Yes. Because they don't have a choice on that. No. They won't. But at least at least they will. This is a and any of that bond language would have to be approved by the council before it even goes on the ballot. So maybe, you know, we'll have to look at all those aspects before we make that decision. Yeah. We should probably lean on the the,

folks doing the feasibility study too to to provide a visual representation of what people will

get? They have on the senior center, they do have they have a drawing. They have the the thing laid out. That's great. K. And then Catherine and I went to the logo shop to look at shirts, and we're gonna try and get something put together here right away so that you can all see, and we'll be asking you for sizes of what size you want. We're looking at a button up with short sleeves for parades with our council logo with our seven stars on it on the on the shirt. And, I just think it would look nice if we were all if we all looked like a cohesive unit, then we'd go to a parade. So we'll see what everyone we'll get the cost on it and see what everyone thinks. And that's all I have. So does anyone have anything else before we adjourn? We'll see you all in the sum of you in Saint George next week. And with that, I'll take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye.

Thank you for everything you do, George. You're a very busy person.