Cache County Council Ordinance and Policy Review Committee Meeting – 05-15-2026

Ready. Yes. Oh, we good. Alright. Oh, now it'll be a party. It is gonna be a party. See you, Alright. Hey. Welcome everyone to the Cache County Ordinance and Policy Committee meeting for May 15. First item of business is to review and well, usually, we approve the agenda first. Right? It's not listed here, though. Yeah. We'll approve the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. And I'll second that. K. All in favor? Aye. Alright. We have an agenda. Now first item listed on the printed agenda is to review and discuss and possibly approve the minutes from our last meeting on April 24. So moved. And I'll second those. K. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? No. Aye. Alright. We have approved minutes. And the next item is discussion. This will be, again, the main discussion of our meeting, but to talk about the arrange the interlocal agreement for the Logan Cash Airport. We ran or Andrew was provided a printout summary of changes. I would be looking to Dane and or the executive's office to kinda continue to lead this. Is

this prepared with that? Yes. Mister Murray is out for the day, and I believe George is also out for the day. Right.

Move to adjourn.

I think it I think it dies for lack of second, although we appreciate the sentiment. As far as I recall from the county council meeting on Tuesday night, it was mentioned that at that time, the city Logan City's attorney had not yet had a chance to provide their feedback, regarding the discussion we had last week on the airport items. And so that's the reason why we canceled Wednesday's special o and p meeting.

The Their attorneys didn't get back. Right? Correct. Yeah. We just hadn't received that feedback

from them. I mean, it was a short window. So but we were we were pushing for that. Didn't have it, so we canceled that meeting. We were it was mentioned that we would have something to talk about today. So we can go over the summaries, Andrew, if you wanna cover that. Before we get to that, can we just ask if Craig over it? Logan Oh, sure. Have a chance to review it? Do we have any idea if Logan City has responded?

Dane and Craig are getting together.

I don't know exactly what they discussed.

Because if the answer is no on Craig, then I think we're still in a similar position. Right. I agree. Yeah. So if we don't know if that

feedback has come, these this is just a summary then from our discussion, Andrew, of last week.

Yes. This is just a comparison. So with the sheet that was passed out, the first bullet point specifies what the previous version was and then everything afterwards talks about what is included in the new amended version. So k. Does anyone have any questions or specific concerns? I mean, from what I understand, I always have to say this, I'm not an attorney, but with some of the more substantive things such as, you know, or delineation and composition, I think that can still be up for discussion since nothing is specifically set in stone, but whatever the committee wants to come back to and rediscuss, I think that's also on the table as well.

I think we just gotta wait till the Yep. The the attorneys talk.

Agreed. I I did have a question procedurally. So the legislative body, I. E. The Logan City Council, would need to approve this interlocal agreement as well? Okay. I did I just wanted to clarify that because on the signatures, I did see there were four, and it had our clerk, their clerk,

our executive, their mayor, but it still does require legislative approval. Yes. And it would also require a sign off of both the city attorney and the county attorney as well. Got it.

So, yeah. I guess we should probably bring Logan City Council, into this at some point. So

I I think that mister Carlson,

intends to Okay. Discuss that with Lumen City, their council. Because I'd hate to get that far, have them see it for the first time, and then start this conversation all over again.

I understand. Right. Yeah.

Yeah. I missed some of this conversation and don't hear all that well when you were talking to each other. So this is the most recent from us to them or from them to us?

This is just the most recent version we have. Mister Carlson and Logan City are still reviewing it, I believe. Though I can't.

I can't. The street is 6. Our changes then, our proposal to them? Yes. And I assume everybody's read this and we got this. Is this where we wanna be?

That's the question.

I think it looked really, really good except we were wanting the attorneys to say, hey. This is doable. Make sure there's some of those things that doable. Yeah. I I I feel like it's The twenty year thing, I'm I'm glad we're we scaled that way back. I'd even like to even scale it back from 10, to be honest with you. Like, it seemed to move just a little bit faster to our court and and open some things up a little bit faster in the air at the airport authority himself. You know? But but things like that, I think we're just waiting to

the two attorneys talk again. We I feel like it's safe to say that this what what is presented, what is now in the hands of Logan City for review is something that we are

majority nearly, you know, there. We feel like we're 90% there kinda thing. That was really my question. Yeah. So this is our version to them, technically. If they accept it as is, then we probably probably are there.

Yeah. This is based off the consensus of the last meeting we had. Perfect. I think they were, like,

I can't remember. There were two things that were I'd have to go back and I don't even have that stuff with me, but there were two things that I thought we had questions. They were kinda pertinent to everything that they were gonna get in. Yeah. One of them, if I if I if I'm thinking of the same ones

utilities because the previous one said they're just gonna cut us off and we said, well, oh, cut us off. Charge us for it. And that's fixed. And then I think the other one we're wanting clarification on was just a more detailed outline of the contracting requirements. And I

saw that at the The administrative things that we cover if they can do anything. Should we pull this on any of them? Really,

let's get there taken care of. So What's the anticipated effective date?

There's June 1 or sorry. June or July? I thought it was July. I thought it was yeah. Sorry. June 31. Through June 30. Yeah.

June 30.

June 30. July 1. July 1. I think July 1. So we yeah. We're So at that point we're hitting the home stretch and then we gotta have this done in time for that. At that point, they'll be their own entity and they'll no longer be relying on the county for budget, employees, insurance, any of that? That's that's what I'm looking for. I I think That's the administrative contracting that we're talking about. We gotta figure that out. I think that Yeah. They

yes, but no. I think it's still gonna take several months to phase you know, to work everything through because it it'll take quite a bit. There's a lot of media and management decisions on things like you just mentioned that I think it's gonna take months for them to hey. Can we take care of that at least for a little while longer till they get on their feet on everything? So Yeah. Okay. I did run some reports on,

employee costs as well as insurance premiums and different things that we so I do have that available. I brought copies if you guys are interested, but if that's not something that you need, maybe I need to get with the airport authority board and with the executive and Verify that to me. They they will be employees of the authority board. Right? Mhmm. Yes. Responsibility. I think they will be

Right.

Okay. There was a question about funding. I don't think this gets us out of continuing to fund if there's if there's a shortfall because the idea is to get them running well so they take care of themselves, but nobody believes that that's necessarily gonna happen within a year.

Yeah. Best thing to keep Cache County from putting more thumb pressure on them, don't ask us don't ask us for money. Run it run it, you know. We we can generate it. Let it let it be successful because otherwise, as soon as you come back to a county legislative body saying, hey. We want more money. Okay. Let's look at this. What's going on? Yeah. You know? We we could refer them to Utah State for some funding too. The old and the old

control. Yeah. Yeah. I just want to clarify that there's a provision in here that relieves us of covering shortfalls of providing some

As the sponsor, we are obligated to keep it solvent. Right? Make sure it works. And that's why we're reviewing annual budgets and Yeah. Agreement. Is that same what you were gonna say? Okay. Sorry. So as far as having that data, Amy, I think maybe we wait until we have Logan City's response just to see if that if we are ready for that part of the discussion. Okay. If that's okay. Thanks for putting that together. Yeah. No problem.

Just to make you aware of some dates that are coming up, our insurance policy does renew on July 1. Okay. So we would be renewing everything with the airport as is right now, unless I'm told otherwise. Okay. And then our benefit year does start January 1, so that might be a good time as a cutoff for employees for them to have their own, what, employ benefits and packages and different things. That way, I'd be happy to help them put that together.

Great. Okay.

Pardon me? When was the insurance deadline? July 1. July 1. And that's yeah. That's for property liability, auto bill.

And and we would need to look into that, and that's part of what the attorneys are reviewing. But whether those types of things must be addressed in the interlocal agreement, which is what we're currently talking about versus some other, for lack of another word, bylaws or something associated with the airport authority. So but definitely the right things to have on our radar. So Thank you. Thank you.

I have one question for the clerks. Would you still be set up to be able to help them through on a contract basis?

If we have an interlocal agreement with them for snow removal, we could have any other up just interlocal agreement that we need

to keep. And and and they they're paid. Right? Yeah. Right. We do any their paying is basically the hourly rate of our So we're all set up if we have to still on those growing pains until they get independent themselves. So k.

Any other additional input on the airport authority discussion? K. We'll we'll wait for Give me some time. Some feedback from the attorney's office and and when they get something back from Logan, and then we will if needed, we'll schedule another special OMP meeting, but timing may work out that it ends up just being our regular OMP meeting where we see that. So we'll we'll keep you updated. So next item on the agenda is it's pending item and hopefully someone's prepared to speak on it, but we have a possible discussion on the code enforcement officers powers modification.

Thank

you. I did see this in the email too.

Thanks.

Okay. So this is an item that had been continued for from previous meetings, but, after taking into the suggestions of mister Reeder, this code enforcement amendment has been amended just a little bit. Specifically under paragraph c, there was a some other additions, but those were specialized enforcement areas such as weed control, which is already something that's already being performed by a specialized part of of the county or at least, specifically dealt with otherwise. But, so that had been adjusted. But in particular, the parts that mister Reeder had, voiced his opposition to, such as the addition of administrative search warrants. He said that he didn't believe that that was exactly necessary to be included in this proposal. There was another discussion on tax lien authority, which mister Webb and I had a good conversation on. That is something that still could be pursued, if properly legally modified. But specifically just for this proposal, there is, on the last page, a specific addition just for enhanced collection remedies. And the paper that I passed out talked about the Utah recovery program. It's something that I believe the Utah Association of Counties has contracted for, and is authorized by the state to do. Essentially, if someone has a lot of unpaid code enforcement fines and fees, then I believe once all of the proper legal procedures or standards are met, then someone can then go to the Utah recovery program and say, this person owes x y z amount of dollars, and then that amount of money is specifically up to a certain point taken out of someone's state tax returns. So this gives code enforcement a little bit more of a little bit more teeth to its enforcement, which has been the goal all along. But does anyone have any questions on any part of this?

Yeah. Open it up to the body. Yeah. I feel like that specifically is a good step. The next logical step in

yes.

Yep. Correct.

I believe this would require a separate contract, with to have this enforced. I don't think just enacting this code would do that, but just wanted to put that out there too. I believe the Utah Association of Counties so that they would be able to essentially provide the service for this.

I think the part that I'm seeing for the first time is the fee schedule for this, which seems reasonable, but it's probably something we should all look at.

K. So who who is going to who you're in charge. You're responsible. Who's who's the boots on the ground person?

That would be submitting this to? Who would go and,

you know, say, hey. Here's your fine. Here's your deliver and, you know, enforce the code in in all the land use, whatever it may be.

Right now, we have Steve Reeder. Right? Of the very old. Long. Mister Reeder has He's he's he's headed out. Yep. This is probably some place where we could have Brian and the sheriff talk a little bit about what what we've been considering.

Sure. Now if you want Okay. Now if you wanna wait.

Well, I think I think before we talk about how to handle the arrangement with the URRP, we would need to know we'd need to know how we're gonna get to that point. So, yeah, I feel like that's appropriate to talk about now.

I want the list in the front anyway.

I just like Matt smiling that he doesn't have to go.

I would do the same for him. So, yeah. Steve will be he's sending his letter of recognition, and he'll be done at the end of this month. We've do we wanna talk about I can share all of the things we've discussed if you'd like to hear it all the along. Okay.

Number one, are we going to replace him to do that to do what he's has been doing? Because I don't think we backed him very good on some things.

That's probably fair. At least

I've seen I've seen reports in that, and I just don't think we've backed in. Yeah. Back that position, I should say, like we should have. Yeah. And give him the autonomy to do some things. So Yeah. I agree.

Enforcement is difficult. It's sensitive. It involves elected officials that get calls at all hours of the night to say do this or don't do this, and that gets sent down the line. And so, yeah, it's it's hard. It's a fine line. We have discussed several options. One, replacing that position. Two is kind of a halftime position between the building department and the enforcement so they can help with the building inspections, plan reviews, permitting, and also do enforcement. Steve's done his very best to stay busy, but some weeks, I don't know that it requires forty hours. So if we could share that job with another department, I think that would be smart. Also, we've had preliminary discussions about involving the sheriff's department more with that. We've talked to our permit tech in our office. She would be more than happy to take over the reports that Steve has done and then work hand in hand with the sheriff's department if if they would be willing to be the boots on the ground like you just mentioned.

So the free the the complaints would be fielded through your office. Correct. Okay. But and that's what's happening now. Yep. Because you have the expertise to know what the violation Yeah. She would write up the letter stating what codes they vile

are in violation of. We would come up with the the dates and times when that's delivered and when the fines could start. And then, like I say, we would work with the enforcement division at the sheriff's department is what we've discussed. I know we haven't talked about it together, but those are our preliminary thoughts for now. And The sheriff's office, we've had very little discussion with the sheriff. And in the time being for when Steve leaves before we get that, then between Claire and I, we will take continue on doing what Steve was doing.

But that portion that that portion of going to the sheriff's office to do does not necessarily have to be in here. It's just this here says that you're it's still under you to take care of. Yep. Now whether you go to They would be kind of our, like, designee, so that would still fall under this code that we're reviewing right now. So anyway and so those talks are all being I think it's good. It's just but the the biggest thing is, send someone out to take care of something, we need to have their

back. I agree.

And we don't pick and choose. If we're not gonna enforce it, we shouldn't pass the code in the first place. Yep. Is the cases, I guess, for lack of a better term that he has, are they all complaint based or is it any self initiated A 100% of them are complaint based.

That's how we've been working it. I think if we see it self initiated work is Yeah. I I something, then, like, hey. That's a I think if if we see a violation, we shouldn't wait for a complaint.

Yeah. CUP should be reviewed regularly for compliance.

And I think that's where this would fit. I think that I think the makeup of the other forty hours if it were just complaint

driven and not it not Proactive. Proactive. Yeah.

I've always wondered about, you know, on things like that when when we put a CEP together and all that stuff, you know, how often are we go out there to really check the site to say, hey, you know

Not often.

Is is the drawing that they sent through is is is it really the drawing that they sent through? Sure. You know?

Yeah. We can do a better job on that. But maybe I don't know. Maybe that's something.

But I I I understand that this just it's not a a fun thing, but it's a but but then there's some big projects that's you know, sometimes we and looking at that spreadsheet, I sit there and go, boy, we spent a lot of time on, you know, out their shed was built six feet too close to the the line or something, you know. And and or the to me, a lot of these little things and then there's some major things that we've kind of just say, oh, don't worry about those. I'm going There seems to be a

some fairness on Part of some of

the the Yeah. You know. Yeah. Some fairness on it. Every complaint probably ought to have the same Yeah. Say, if it's not in compliance, it's not in compliance.

Andrew, yeah. Go ahead. I don't wanna open this can of words, but I'm just trying to clarify something. I know that miss remember the sheriff's department there is at least one code enforcement officer, if I recall correctly. I can't remember his name specific off the top of my head, but Yeah. He's part time and it's

strictly just for Hireup City. Okay. That's what I was wondering. Perfect. Oh, just Hirem City then. Yeah. Contracted it. All that things should be worked out. Yeah. K. So let's let's let that evolve. I wanna ask you something, though. I I think that I wanna make sure that the complaints about construction versus a code violation are different. We've got we have boots on the ground already with our with our inspection department on construction. Mhmm. So some of those things you were talking about are already covered. Yeah.

Yeah. These are mainly we're mainly talking about planning and zoning violations. I do think we could use our building department a little bit more to help with all of the violations and enforcement. They're driving every road in the county throughout the week, so I would like to use them more if they see things to help us out. So and and we've included, some of the building code enforcement into this code. So even when we do have an enforcement officer, they have a little bit more codes that they can use as far as issuing violations.

So, I guess I'd encourage keep encouraging, get let this evolve, you know. But I don't I guess we really don't need to have that association between you and the sheriff's department in this document. Yeah. That will only help us all. Okay. That's what I that's what I wanted to make sure. Yeah. But I would encourage that to evolve to because I think it does make a difference when someone's out there as a Cache County shirt versus, I guess, a badge at a 45.

I don't know. I take you I take you a little more serious than me, probably. Well, no. I think there's a some official

you know, there is some they're saying, hey, you know, this is this this is a code violation. And I think people probably and I'm not strong arming them. I'm just saying that that, you know, we do hold all these violations at a at a level that that in fairness to everybody, it does affect a lot of people.

Yeah.

We You probably ought to know if there's at least one that we're afraid of enforce that the sheriff probably needs to help us with anyway. And that's what I'm in paradise where the people are armed and frightening.

Yeah. They're good people, though. Great.

There's yeah. I mean, it's just that half of the room. It's right. It's Monday. Like, we can I I don't know if this is the place, but we've been having some pretty good luck with the workforce? People actually work with us and come into compliance, and people have even paid some fines. So we're my little victories. Yeah.

Well, we've been talking about it in these public meetings about enforcement and, and stepping up as a, as an organization to support the enforcement officer and the development services, etcetera. I'm surprised to see mister Reeder go at this moment, but

it really has joys. He actually likes the job in the county. It kinda has more to do with

other things and not the job itself. Yeah. Can I ask Andrew a question? Abs absolutely. You you draft this this proposal here. Do you agree that the enforcement arm is independent from this? Well, the enforcement arm In other words, yes, we have to enforce. It gives us that tool. But how much how we put it together isn't affected by this.

Specifically with the as it's written now, know that it doesn't affect that, but I do still think that there probably ought to be some sort of clearly defined process. I know that I don't think this is any one person's fault by any means, but I know that one of the biggest struggles of code enforcement is somehow making sure that our attorney's office and those who are doing the actual code enforcement are on the same page and for our attorneys to have enough capacity to be able to enforce those. So what I'm trying to say is I think there still needs to be something defined where how things are reported to our attorney's office and how things are checked up on both sides. But as the proposals written right now, no, it doesn't affect that. Has it gotten better? Or or I don't know. We still you don't think so. He's gonna say, I don't know the answer to that in all honesty. I right now, I think it's because we're

we are strapped on just power manpower to do everything. Resources. That's right. Rather, resources are just, you know, are are quite limited. Yeah. I don't think If we had a couple of those attorneys back, I think we could catch up on some things and, you know, we have there's a lot going on. A lot of the plate's full on several different things and and a lot of requirement to I just don't know whether we got the, you know, the the resources to The civil we don't have enough

manpower and civil society.

Exactly.

Yeah. We would like their opinion on a lot of what we do. I think it's important. We don't wanna make a bigger mess.

So

just to summarize, we don't need that change anything in the proposed draft in order to implement this. It just needs to be a decision of whether that's the way we're going to go about imposing fines and enforcing fines.

Is that accurate? Okay. However, I would also still like an attorney to give Yeah.

If we need to plug it in Yeah. The ordinance site. Yeah. I mean, I feel like it it wouldn't be a bad thing to have it in the code to say this is the method of enforcement. But Yeah. If you're looking for a not to move forward to the next step, I would say, yeah. I'm gonna I'm gonna give it a a thumbs up thumbs up dependent upon review and just what you Yeah. Mentioned to add. I think we can bring it back to the next meeting in June. Is that enough time? Yes. Brian, you said you can cover things if Steve is out before we have that officially in place. And then, I I mean, it sounds like we're not gonna we're still move forward with filling that position at some point. Somehow. Something shakes out of this, so we we change that direction. But for the time being, we have the ability to continue to offer code enforcement. So Correct. K. Any further discussion on this matter?

Only if Brian wants to sing. He's got a good voice.

Go. You're welcome to anytime. Alright. Appreciate you. K. So the next section on the agenda is items for discussion and immediately we jump to items on hold. If there I'll just say if there's any specific input someone has about any of those. What do we got? Seven items?

I don't have a lot other than maybe a teaser of what to expect. Okay. There's two that I'm particularly interested in, which is number five, the background check. So just as a reminder, that's if someone's on planning and zoning, if someone's on COSAC, then we just implement a standard background check policy for appointments to those boards. So I don't have more to say about that right now. And then That that should be a pretty simple addition.

It should be. Yeah. So we could

And then I'm interested in number seven as well. That's something I talked to Andrew about we've been looking at, and that is just have a check when our attorney's office is updating their own policy that it just is reviewed by a third party, which would be could be another municipality. So for example, like Craig Carlson in Logan City would review the policy just so there's no conflict of interest on implementing those. So I guess those are just a little teaser of those two anyway. Okay.

That's all I have to say about those. Yeah. And there's only there's still one item that that I've talked with Andrew about this, and is our fencing ordinance due to we're we're starting back up up there in the hills and everything.

Yeah. That's

we're the beekeeper outfit. You know what? I'm I'm still getting quite a few calls wanting some teeth in. They're wanting some teeth in to have something passed where we have a fence in, fence out in certain areas established. There's a lot of a lot of a landowner disputes that's starting you know, that can really cost a lot of people a lot of money and dead animals, whatever it may be. And we just need to have the the fencing policy pretty dang simple. Okay. So Andrew

will be bringing that. We'll add that as an item under He's the next OMP discussion.

Okay. Great. Do not make it like box elder change, please. Oh, my god. Mark. Yes.

On on that that sort of thing, I got a call from representative Snyder yesterday. He said he said we have a to check about some bird in the South end of the valley to get building permits. Bird? A bird. Some sort of a study. He said, we have to do the study about this certain certain this bird. And so we called the state and said, so called the department of wildlife resources. He said, what what is this? And they said, it's not ours. It's it's Cache County Ordinance. Go look into that for me.

An endangered bird we have to make sure is protected? Or I don't know exactly what you're talking about, but we there are wildlife studies on some developments

that maybe that's Yeah. It's probably Yeah. It's probably something. That are required. Yeah. He said, well, there's just Wet wetlands area is probably specific.

That's yeah. I'd go to wetlands or if it if you have to review for the particular grouse, if it's present, you have to probably determine whether or not that animal is living there. Fall.

Yeah. If we have that ordinance, we can't repeat it.

Some of the big problems feeding ducks.

That's illegal now. Yeah. But it's a violation of oh, we did.

Sorry about that. Okay.

I would One thing that Yeah. Andrew, go ahead. On. With the ordinance or at least the proposal about treatment facilities and and rebuild

rehabilitation. Yep. Number six.

Yes. Specifically, I have been we've talked to Angie a little bit about that in development services. So I might be having an update by the next meeting. I'm not sure if we'll have something that will be written in substantive, though. It just adds up. K.

I've I have heard other counties have they have passed things like you know, everyone keeps saying that federal law, federal law, all these kind of different things coming down, but they they go ahead and they pass them. And and federal law just kinda that that excuse goes out the door. So

I believe they're specifically relying on the

relying on the Fair Housing Act, but I think the way that it would be written would be exempt from that. So but I can talk to the attorneys about that. K. I we just we just need

you know, we're talking it is a huge headache for our enforcement, you know, our law enforcement. It is just and it compounds when it's a a group homes in certain areas.

We discussed this yesterday with the attorney. We had some concerns, and we he was gonna read over that and email us back, so we should have some for you.

We get more applications for more that wanna

come. Are we?

Mhmm. We just had one. The neighbors filed a seal, lost that bill. They were gonna file file again at first district court and finding who decided to go through with it. They just got

That was the Renaissance. Estancia. Estancia, Renaissance Ranch theme. One of those groups. And you that they're a big outfit. Yeah. They nationwide. They they're boy, they know how to run the money. So but they get that again, that's a perfect example of a subdivision of homes. And all of a sudden, because it's a nicer subdivision or bigger homes, someone sells the big home that has, oh, hey. We got 10 rooms in this. Now let's do it a group housing. It does affect everybody in that subdivision major. And I I think there's even some and I don't know how we do this, but there's some people who get those homes then they have they increase the size of their homes like that, and then they turn them into a revolving well, they're where they they go and adopt kids or take care of They're halfway now. They have not just no. These are Like a foster home? Foster home. They don't they all of a sudden you see it's kind of a revolving door foster home kind of things. It be group home? Yeah. It becomes quite a I mean, it's a turnstile. There's a couple in time of the group home. Yeah. That they're just because they have a bigger home, this is how they feel it. And you you wonder they they say that they do it all out of heart, but boy, they sure love the money. Mhmm. You know? So it's I don't know if that can maybe something in this process, maybe that can be addressed a little bit. I don't wanna push them out of it, but there's it seems to be a financial thing more than it is a help of people.

It's definitely a business. Yeah. And and there's a place for them where they need to be in the right place, not in the middle of somebody's call to sacramy.

Yep. Thanks for following up on that. I keep appreciate that.

K. Any anything else from anyone in the body? K. With that, we have plenty to keep working on, and so we'll everybody will get going and keep going. So with that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. Second. Okay. Second. Any opposition? Hearing no opposition, we're adjourned.

You need to run a meeting. Technically, I don't know we have to do this. Yeah. That's it. That was my French roll request.

Just push stop, Megan?