Cache County Council Ordinance and Policy Review Committee Meeting – 06-12-2026

One quick one quick clarification

of two things.

I

don't know. Have you gone through this? As you can see, I got an email at about 10:00 at night.

Sounds good. I'm go ahead and start talking while I just take off. K.

I just realized I did not place out the microphones, and they're not turned on. So if you're next one, turn them on. But

ta da.

Yeah. The one that says push on it? Yeah. He's gonna lose, I think. I don't care, Mark. Of course.

Yours is running.

Nope. This is not running, but I feel like I can speak. Now it's for sitting. The main one. Yeah. The main one. Yeah. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The main one. The recorder is on.

Okay. One, two. Okay. So

Thank you.

So, Andrew, what you're doing is just kinda keeping track of score of what changes from the last draft. Yep. To be fair, mister Murray did say,

these are the two substantive changes that Logan made and that the committee really ought to at least discuss these. So that's the only direction that I really received. I was able to go through the edits a little bit and see what other mentions, and there was one other that I thought should be brought up. But

if we wanna go through this, I don't know if I'd yeah. I think we I think we ought to go through what you've put together, and then we'll talk about anything additional I'll have to wrap up

George. In just a minute.

Okay. So Logan's first request is that one of the county council members that serves on the sponsor board must be a Logan resident. Rich?

Now let me let me just say that was discussed with me. We have seven county council members. Three of them reside in Logan. I don't see any reason why that poses any particular issue. Loading up the

Trying to

the board with non Logan resident doesn't make a lot of sense. But even then, it's not particularly burdensome because while we're measuring council members, that's again the mayor and one appointment. That's three two. But we also get we get three county elected officials in addition to our county council members. So let's see. Where is that in here? Sponsor board. That's why you need the draft that I'm looking at, but it says two Cache County elected officials appointed by the Cache County Executive. So the county will have three council people and two elected officials. I could be one of those. I could appoint myself and Matt or I could appoint Bryson and Matt to be on the sponsor board, and then I could take a seat on the, on the airport authority board, which I think is probably the structure I would would choose to have so that I'm involved in that, or or we could change it around if the executive were more interested in being on the sponsor board and taking Matt, the finance guy, and putting him on that board. Matt and I or Bryson or or whatever we decided. But in terms of of spending too much time worrying about Logan's request that we not load it up with people outside, look, I just didn't think it was meaningful. Mhmm. Do do any of you?

You say my only qualm with it would be would you would essentially be forcing one of the three to have to serve on the board regardless of if they wanted to or not. But there are three, so I don't know exactly what the odds of that happening are. So I don't see too big of an issue with it from my perspective.

I don't think it'd be that big of an issue. No. And if Yeah. And one of them If that if it just says mandatory, there is one. But At least Yeah. At least one. I think I think overall, I think there it's not gonna be a see that because then it becomes they're trying to, like, a power play. And I I go, no. Let's just run the airport. Like, it needs to run for the whole county. No matter no matter what entity is is that there. Yeah. I I really

mean, the airport authority board and the whole operation, the thing I do have a concern about is we're financially responsible for it. I wanna maintain absolute control of that sponsor board. I I'm not too concerned about the fact that we have at least one out of our three being a Logan resident because that's that's less than their proportion on their county council now. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't have any major issue to it, especially if that's something that Logan City is insisting that be a key component.

Correct. Yeah. I So the section we're talking about is the page Page six. Bryson, you live in Logan City, don't you?

I now live in Smithfield. I just bought a home.

Okay. You're in Smithfield. Yeah. So see, we don't really pay much attention to where so does that color your decisions about the airport authority? No. I don't do it so. Yeah. Yeah.

And then so lastly, Yeah. And that kind of a you can't and that's the failure. You're right. When you read about all the, you know, the study that was done and the failure was people that made it political. Yeah. And it it becomes non functional. I mean, just can't function if it is political and you just can't get that into Yeah. You know, the airport out there. You just it'll just fail. Well said. Yeah. Dave.

So well said, Dave. I was gonna say I agree with the executive that as long as the sponsor for Ultimate Insurance in control of the county, since the county is going to be the one on the financial hook here, I think

I think it's fine as is. Yeah. Yep. I I like the other change which lowers the threshold to get rid of somebody if we don't like them on the airport or airport authority board, the a majority. What that really means is that Cache County, irrespective of what the city does, can remove somebody from the airport authority board. Since it's our money, I think we ought to have that kind of control. And and the number two come from that?

Yes. I believe so. Pardon me? I believe so.

Oh, is this their request? Or Well, it may have come from them. But when they gave me number one, I gave them number two. No. I which I I told them that I wanted if you want one from Logan, that's okay. But I'm gonna make it clear that we have the county has enough oomph to remove someone despite the county council member from Logan City. That that was my point. K. K.

I would also with that, I agree with the executive. My only concern would be if you want to make sure that there's continuity, this might, I guess, work a little bit against that. But if someone needs to be removed from the airport forward, I would imagine it would probably be more of a unanimous decision anyway. So Yeah. I

Yeah. The rule being defined is good. Yeah.

In my knowledge of the county, we've never had a situation where Logan City leaned on its its council members to do something. In some ways, I think they should sometimes. I think the failure to fix this taxation situation with the fire board, it's kind of hard to understand why Logan City didn't activate and say, hey, this isn't fair. But without this second change, if if you had a council member who felt like they were completely responsive to Logan And you had the mayor, only one, you'd have three out of the seven. And so I do want a majority Yeah. That if we can remove someone. So like I said, I've never seen a situation where the Logan councilman was under thrall to do whatever the mayor in Logan wanted, but it could happen.

Additional thoughts on that, Andrew, from what you anticipated or planned to share?

On that one, no. If you look on the back page, there's a a third question.

Andrew, have you got a copy of this? Would would you just look at the format? I think it's unworkable to to make this a a replacement document. I think the thing needs to be restated. Matt would and Bryson, take a look at how it's it's worded like. Look at just the technical way it's expressed where where they kinda do a running scorecard of the original section stays. The original section is amended. The original section stays. The original section is amended. And it it just becomes in order to know what you can and can't do, you gotta put both documents. And I think I I I think it's fine for us to read this because it tells us what they're changing. But I think in the end, we'd like a document that's restated so we have a single document.

I agree.

Yeah. I think that'd be the result of today's discussion is answer these three questions, feel you know, get a sense if we feel like we're headed in the right direction for what we want to hopefully come to our next meeting with the final draft.

Yeah. Does that match what you're saying? That's what I'm saying. Now all it does is call it red line. Yeah. The color red line Yeah. Where you say, hey. This is taken out. And and this is actually a red line itself. Right. Which part? You know? The red line is confusing. With the original stated in yeah. Every estate Same problem we had with what we got on the fire board. Yeah. We're getting it, though. They got We're getting it. Their their red line told us what they changed, but if they just eliminated something, they didn't tell us that. Yeah. Has attorneys has our attorneys looked at this thing? This is coming from our attorneys. Yes. Oh, well.

So I I This should have been redlined. This should have been they did they not hit that little script button?

I was gonna say, I think this was just printed in black and white. That's all. Yeah. But Well, we'll

So so

so in terms of the substance, there there's quite a bit in here in terms of what the division of responsibility the sponsor board has some oversight, but most of the actual operation of the airport devolves down to the airport authority board. Matt, have you looked through the financial the way that's set up?

No. I have not taken a particular notice. Let's

this is this is going to be a final draft when they're done with it. So I think you could take this and see what I'd like OP and C,

have everybody gone through this. That's one actually, let's have let's have the attorney send us let's send us the colored ones or whatever it may be. Something to say, this is what's taken out. This is where we're at it. And, you know, something a little more flowable. And and then all of us go through it, come back on the next OMP to to be able to move it on. Okay.

Yeah. And I think that's that's the right direction to go with a plan to have a, let's get this document set ready for, hopefully, the final recommendation recommendation from this body on to the council, the full county council. But before we move on to that, we need to answer the third question here. What what what they're actually doing here

is they're kinda keeping a scorecard, and this is the last set of changes from the previous change so that we're not looking at all the changes. Right. But this does a good job of showing you the the last two changes made.

Yep. Oh, yes. For the third question, that was a from one of the comments I saw from Craig Carlson was, specifically, should the airport authority board submit reports to the sponsor board quarterly? Because the sponsor board is already required to me annually to receive reports. But with the provisions the way they're written in my unlicensed attorney opinion, I I think it's fine as is, but I don't know what your thoughts are. Required to submit as things are in right now, they're required to support a report quarterly to the sponsor board, but the sponsor board is only required to meet annually. So probably be taking place mostly in written reports otherwise. Mhmm. Let let me

say the the kind of report I think we're we're talking about are financial reports. That's what I was thinking. And I I like the situation in which our auditor is not limited to quarterly reports. That is, he gets reports as often as he needs them, but not less than quarterly. That's how I would like it worded. So that if Matt is concerned about something request reports weekly or monthly or whatever. I I sometimes when you think you're improving your situation by saying, did it manually, quarterly No. Not less than quarterly. And, frankly, I think what what I would like is since we're the ones that are putting up the money and under control that essentially, it's it's open to Matt. And so that essentially says the sponsor board can get whatever financial reports it wants whenever it wants them.

So basically, a minimum quarterly and annually, but also upon request.

Yeah. Any and all reporting upon any Any specific

request that they there may be a certain area to say, this isn't looking right. Well, there Do we know which page the reporting is addressed on in this ZISP draft?

I believe it's under the section of

Thank you. Because I agree with what's being said. It's minimum of quarterly with the flexibility to be what what's the sponsor or maybe it's tenth. Matt is

It's under you know, with you get you guys expertise out in the business world net quote. Because see Correct. I guess we need to compare this more into the business world than the government world. Mhmm. And so in the business world, with you guys experience quarterly, is that

Yeah. That that keep on on top of everything, or is it too much for what you're saying? It's not too much. Okay. It's certainly not too much. Monthly is is the standard I'm familiar with. I I like I like really what George said. Yeah. At least quarterly. Yeah. But whenever And if the issue arises, then more is needed. I think that's

Yep. I like that a lot. I just wanted to see how it was stated here specifically.

It doesn't.

In my business, I tend to maybe not want an audit frequent with my wife on certain things. So hey.

That's fine. Quarterly is plenty. Quarterly. Yeah. We Yeah. And we may find that it is. In most cases, quarterly is fine here too. Where the airport authority board

feels like they're running it. That somebody isn't constantly in the back seat Yeah. Critiquing them. But at the same time, it's our money. Yeah.

And especially at from the beginning, we'll wanna we'll wanna make sure that things are transitioning well. And Yeah. It may require a little more hands on that first step for that. They're out there today,

asphalting and and the big contract that's that's underway. It it possible there's gonna be overruns or they're possible that there's underused so they'll extend some of their work. I you know, I'm getting a report on that. I've gone out and watched it, and so I'm familiar with the contract. I think oversight commensurate with risk is what we want. Mhmm. And and that's Matt's role. So but let's just make sure that the sponsor board has I'd I'd like to see reports quarterly, at least quarterly.

Yeah. So it might just be taking that section eight on page 10 and just add a minimum shall submit to the sponsor board a quarterly report at minimum or something like that with an update upon request

from the auditor or or from the sponsor board. It does. It shall meet at least quarterly Yes. And more frequently necessary.

Okay. You're talking.

Okay. I can get those get the input into Dane. Okay. I don't know if there's anything else that the executive would like to bring out what you said there. Or anything else about this agreement that needs to be discussed. So

Yeah. Are you Go ahead. I look at these agreements, and you and sometimes in the government sector, they are so restrictive that it suppresses professionalism. And the air so I look at the airport as something that we want we don't want we wanna hire the right people that wanna come in there that have vision rather than, oh, we can only do so much each time because, you know, there's there's all these council people, whatever these are, you know, that are that are saying they're looking at it only as a government tax payer fundamentally, which we don't want that to be. We wanna be self sufficient. We want that thing to thrive by itself, and we don't want to be the thing that

suppresses. Sure. So

Yep. I think that the getting the right people in there with some with the vision on where it can head. And to be honest with you, there's a lot of places out there. I think I think the hoteliers and all that stuff there, I think that area will explode if we get that airport functioning and functioning more friendly and open. Yep.

So I I will Andrew and I will convey this back to our legal team, try and get a final copy and get it to you Great. Reasonably before the next meeting. Okay. Great. When do we have our next OP and C?

Set for July 17. Thank you. Yep. When is it? July 17. So we would probably need to meet before then or just send it straight to the county council.

I would really like to meet before our next county council meeting, which I think is the twenty third Correct. And have this so that we could present it in our June 23 meeting.

And next Friday is a holiday for the rest of the world. I think county's observing it this coming Monday. Right? The county council changed it. So It changed that's right. We did change it, so it matches with

the actual Juneteenth, so we'd have to slide it up to Thursday.

Yeah. Yeah. And I know that mister Murray gets back from his trip on Monday. So The fifteenth. Yeah. I believe so. K.

So vacation. What about vacation? And vacation. Nice. So I I mean, the eighteenth, I think I can make work. What what about we could also do about Monday. That would be '15 be the Twenty second. Twenty second.

You held it early in the morning, but We'd have to get it

updated and noticed soon enough to have it be a part of the council meeting the next day. So we're up against the open public meetings act restrictions if we push it to Monday. Well,

yes. Four hour notice. Right? Yes.

Yeah. So, I mean, we can we can do it, but it means all hands on deck and only this for that day, basically. Right?

Dane is out of town this week. I think he's back next week.

Yeah. Wednesday, we have the brag meeting over in, you know, through the canyon, but we could do it that morning.

That would do it. Yeah. I just I've had Not sure how quickly Oh, but I yeah. But there's so little that we need to do here.

It does does Thursday the eighteenth work?

At what time? I mean, at 09:00. I have a a meeting outside of the county at eight. If we could start at nine, I'd be fine. Can

work. Yeah. I'm I'm good there. That's fine. Okay.

K. Then let's set that up, Andrew.

Just to know, I won't be there. I have Okay. I am I'm out of town that that week, so just send me the recording, Andrew.

K. Would you would you just make arrangement, Janine? It should be kind of it it should be fairly short. Yeah. Yeah. I think it should be. That'd be good. K. So we'll we'll just have this be the only item on that agenda. Yeah. That'd be good.

Please.

Unless there's some other thing that's just super quick as well. But I think to plan on this is the item agenda for that meeting, and then, yeah, we'll go from there. K. Great. Thank you for the discussion, and this is a good thing coming forward. I I'm excited we're making progress. So k. We can look at additional pending items under initial proposals if we have someone prepared to talk about item three, the anchor location and electronic meeting procedure. Assuming, Andrew, you've got that

keyed up. It was sent out in the email. It was something that had been discussed in committee last year that kind of petered out and died. But

isn't this just like like a slam dunk kind of thing? Yes. I said it. I feel like it's pretty straightforward. Like you said in the state legislature come in, says, this is what you gotta do. We can see. There was one modification from previous policy.

Okay. But

I I business, I'll fall. Bryce, this is your Yeah. This is your baby. This is mine. Congratulations. Thanks.

Happy. So, technically, the county council already follows this with one exception. It is, by state law, a the presiding officer of a county legislative body can make formal writing determination saying that, an in person meeting of the county council would present a substantial health or safety risk at the anchor location, and then, therefore, the county council could meet electronically. Other than that, the rules are already set in resolution, but the standard has been to collect all of the county council's rules and put them in county code. And currently, the two are separate. So this would just be up making that one update and putting it all in county code. Moving it updating it and moving it from resolution to to actual Yep. Under chapter 2.12.

It's shaped a lot like my electrical

wiring guy. Yeah.

For his for his yeah. It's the the flowchart is actually pretty robust looking, but it's really

pretty simple. Yeah. I think it has the right questions. Yeah. Yeah.

Hey.

Send it on? Now what are we getting? This is gonna be a resolution that we It'd be an ordinance. Yeah. We yep. So recommendation we'd we'd be

our our deliverable is a recommendation to the council either for acceptance or reject.

Reject. So we gotta get that written up with the ten thousand warehouse. I was gonna say

that should be pretty easy.

K. Right. You know, I would recommend that you write it up and you attach this in the illustration

Sure. Of it as well so that it's I'll include it in my presentation to everyone. It's actually kind of like

that's you put this together? Yes. You ever thought about going and working up at GIS?

Yeah.

Well So any additional thoughts from the body? I'd look for a motion then on recommendation or one way or the other, I think, to the council.

The council will attach with it, and we'll

I was gonna say the written up version was sent out to you all, but beyond that Yeah. So we we have the the written version in the email. So Let's just put it on the twenty third doc docket if we can.

Is that a motion? Yeah. Move move to send it off. K. And I'll second that. Any further discussion from the group? No. K. Hearing none, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Alright. We have a favorable recommendation to the full council. Yes. Alright. Andrew, are you prepared for any of the other items today? Yes. Actually, I have a question

regarding the appointments policy. So we maybe had discussed up to a certain point what we might wanna do, but we ran into, how do I say it, a roadblock or two. And I we thought it would be best to come back to the committee and ask one question and that would give enough direction for us to resolve a few problems. So that is not the right document. Whoops. Here we are.

What's that cost for background checks? What does the night cost?

Several. $30. $30. Yeah. But but I guess, Patty, can you? There's the screen question,

but, there's an additional one to it. But the yeah. The first question is, whenever this policy is put in place, should it apply to only internal county appointments or should it also apply to external ones? My suggestion is that it includes all of them. That would then change things a little bit. That's something that me and Amy kinda came to roadblock on of we should ask the committee. So Dave, Mark?

Andrew, I think I asked this question before, but let me ask it again. Sometimes our appointments are somewhat directed. For example, in the fire board, it says we're going to appoint the mayor of Providence to the fire board. I don't think there's any reason for me to do any kind of background checks on the mayor of Providence. Do you? As for, like, the categories of, like, elected officials specifically?

It's

a good question.

I I I just say, what would I do if I found that he had

He wouldn't he wouldn't be mayor.

Well, if he is mayor I know that if they found something Well, I mean, if if he has a pending criminal action, we probably wouldn't appoint a person who had a pending board. But if it's a mayor and it says the mayor is on this board, for example, COG, I mean, I I so I I think we should have a waiver for people who are elected officials. I mean, running a background check on on 19 mayors,

I feel all of that. We k. Who are who are we trying to protect? If it's if it is a functioning is it, you know, is it Cache County

Corporation we're trying to protect? Or Yeah. I think I think what we're afraid of is a is a an interloper will get on one of our committees, and and it's the person that had pending

criminal charges or something. I was wondering about elected elected officials. They're they're really vetted by the people. Yeah. Right. And I don't I don't know whether we have I don't know. I I I worry if there's kind of a fine line. If we start diving into background checks on elected officials, we're going are we going past the people?

Yeah. Right. I think that that's consistent with what you were saying, and that's my thoughts too. On ourselves.

Yeah. So No. That's that's exactly what I'm wondering if elected officials

Well, even think about how the hiring process is here.

Everyone has a background check. Except for the elected officials. Right.

So that's pretty consistent.

Fair. Yep.

And I don't know about paradise. I'm bitter.

Well, I I think we should have an exception. Yeah. A blanket.

And then stay consistent with what our policy is right there. Yeah.

I feel like that's good instruction as well. Yep. Does that

address the question, or do we need to Doesn't say that address is part of it. K. But specifically, like, for example, when the county council makes appointments to the cemetery district boards, all seven of them or whatever the number is, should we be checking those appointments, or should we be checking only ones that affect Cache County Corporation? I think out of an abundance of safety, I would recommend that you do it for all appointments, but but that's just my thought. We got

what, we got 60 or 70 people who serve on cemetery boards.

And background checks cost money.

Right? Yeah. You know what I mean? About $30 a a case.

I mean but say we just change the terms then.

If you do the background check, change change the terms to ten years. Yeah. Right. Or until then. Are you required to have, like, a filing fee of, like, $30 and that just covers our background check? You're paying over a dollar.

I I think cemetery board Especially, like, for cemetery boards. Need to do a background check, guys. I

I part of part of the reason that in yeah. In that continuing that example of the cemetery board, we you know, when you post it, but the we vet the cemetery board stronger than we do some of the other committees. Right? I mean, it's Sometimes. It's already a pretty intense review for something that is volunteer driven already and

that it's gonna come from their peers. I mean, it's gonna be You said to be fair, I think some of the cemetery district boards do set some level of compensation for themselves. I know it's not high, but

But they're also required every year to fill out a conflict of interest form. Like, that could be I'm not I'm not it's not a criminal background check, but if they have some background,

the public knows. We we could put a may on it. Yeah. That we may for cemetery boards. I mean, the the typical situation on a cemetery board is I've got some some guy who served for twenty years. He needs to be reappointed.

Yeah. And Yeah. And you're glad, you know, with what we have. And they are all they're all special districts. Right? Yeah. Yes. And so they to me, they kinda fall under a different they're really they're the county is we do the appointing, but they're independent.

Yeah. They're not reporting to us any any financials. They're not doing anything. We we do the appointing, but it's really Which is not coming to the council. Correct. I whatever rules they have with the state,

you know,

under special districts, that's what they have to be followed. I think under the way with this is set up, Andrew. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I have a set of appointments to a cemetery board, I make the appointment subject to advice and consent of the county council. Right?

Generally, yes. But for cemetery districts, it's actually just the county council. It Okay. But yes. So that's my problem. Just because they applied for it. We just all the names we collected here in the brochure.

We're just happy we get them. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm not involved. Yeah. So if you want to get biographical information with respect to this person,

You're responsible. Right. I'm not dealing with even with the drainage districts, all of them. I'm not with the all of I think they just we do the appointments, but I think I think they then should all be under whatever the special districts Yeah. Bylaws. Whatever they do, that's their Yeah. I don't think we need to put the thumbprint on.

I think How many planning it I mean, certainly, the appointments that I bring to the county council that I'm making that I want your device and consent, I'd like a little bio and a background check. The ones that you may looking at? Without my involvement, I think I let you decide what you wanna do with those.

Well, that and then requiring a background check. We we just need people to serve in those capacities, and probably less people are even gonna know to apply if they have to do a background check. Even even if there's nothing Exactly. That's just another hurdle that they have to do, and They just want to serve. I think we're gonna eliminate those Right. All special districts

and all special just district appointments and elected officials.

And just for context, is that I don't know if you've pulled together a number of well, it's this many total that we'd be looking at that would be subject to a background check if we didn't make those exceptions, then we make that exception. Does it cut it by a third half? Do you have any idea? And part of the reason I'm asking that is because we have the opportunity as, you know, with the advice and consent part of that is for us to bring up any concern any of the members are aware of. And part of that, we ought to be checking with the public that we represent before we make appointments if there's any questions. So, I mean, it's I think the process of advice and consent is fairly robust in itself, but I totally support the background check being a part of some of these appointments for sure. So do you have any idea how many Yeah. I think if you take would still be left for background check if we if we make those exceptions?

Off the top of my head, maybe 30 a year, maybe.

But So if we take out special districts, we take out elected officials, but I think that health fair river health department

is still something that you're having with any call.

I still COSAC. I I think COSAC, which is a I think they ought it because they're quite a hands on there, and they're planning zoning all those. But anyway, the the American two fifty committees, though, That's another volunteer. You know, special committees that are, like, put together for Like ad hoc. Eight eight months and you're done. Yeah. Do we need background checks on those? I don't.

I know. An ad hoc committee, if we can define it that way and that becomes an exception that we can list that way. There may be special long term committees that you would consider if they if they

write it up with the suggestion that it not be special district, that we not run them on elected officials, and then have Andrew make up a list of the ones we do do it for. And then subject to later council decision, you could add or subtract things from the list.

Yeah. I'd That work out? I I would kinda like to in support of that, I would like to see the list of these ones. These appointments would not need a background check under this language. These would. And then Yeah. And then we can review that again in this body, and then make recommendations. If Bryson, for example, forms an advisory committee,

I think Bryson doesn't need to have us running background checks on his people. I do think that the committees that I appoint that have I and and that you're involved with, by and large, should have some of those background We don't have any private citizen. Fair River. Yeah. Health Department. On the road advisory committee, we don't have any citizens on that, do we?

No. That's all employees in the council. Yep. Things like that. Yeah. K.

You can limit it to committees, boards, commissions established by ordinance, rule, or resolution. Otherwise, these internal committees, you know, with the Rhodes Advisory Committee wouldn't be subject to that.

So I think you'll mention that category. That's right. Something like that for in the in the language, that sounds good.

I'd I'd like to see that one get passed and and implemented. Move on. We did that one on the twenty third too.

I would still need to work with Amy on that. There's still some questions that we need to answer, but this should give us good direction. So I'm not sure if we'll be ready by the twenty third.

K. If it's if it's at all possible to get it to be in our special meeting next week

I will try my best. That would be great. I make no promises.

K. If we can get it in there, we'll we'll make the best effort to get it there.

Make a

promise. See, I'll I'll see this.

Let's let's talk about the next one. I think Matt and I had a good discussion about this one.

Yeah. Okay. Right? Number five on the property acquisition management and disposal. K.

Let me just take what I understand our rules are. Real real property requires council approval.

Disposal and acquisition.

Right. There there is a a little nuance there that I would like a clarification on. When when cities annex land that has a county Road through it. Sometimes I need to deed the road from the county to the city, which is what I want to do concurrent with their annexation. Is there a reason I need to bring that to the county council?

I only there is. I think only by information on that. Right? I believe that because we are involved in that annexation anyway. The information piece that then comes to the council. Sure. So Well, the only thing that the council is when it's a peninsula or an island. Yeah. That's it. All other ones are just administrative. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It it that will all be part of the annexation application.

So that that's just a given. That is fine. That should be current state. Yeah. Yep. We have ones

that are out there that have not been done. So I'm authorized to do that, but you want me to inform you when I do it.

So what you're saying, the annexations occurred, but the road did not? Yeah. I know. I and I I there's a couple of them that I just So they're just really is nuisances. Oh, man. That's an underst and the the reason they're the big nuisances is that those cities are still look. It's counties take care of your road, And it only serves their little city. And the other problem is that then they turn around and say, well, we want you to maintain that your road to our standards. And we go, no, it's a county.

That the the Providence Millville didn't happen that way. No. But There was a little thing on 8th West in Nibley that that was Yeah. That I resolved that way. But Yeah. It it it's an information only in that

category. Just yeah. I think that would be annexation has occurred, then I would we would just bring it up probably in executive session that you are we are actually digging this land to, you know, to, you know, and it just that was just being executive session. After the fact. That makes sense. Yeah. After the fact is okay. Well, I heard you told in the in the scenario Dave described where say, hey. This is what we found. We're gonna have executive session. We go executive session It it is the disposal of county property that should have been done in the Let let me just say in the annexation process anyway. It isn't

that clear. Sometimes it is a deeded piece of land, but many times it's it's a dedicated roadway. Mhmm. And, when it's a dedicated roadway, and it's in our name,

there we we don't have we don't have ownership. Yeah. Technically, we don't have title of the lease. Right of way. We have a county right of way, and if that right of way And if I vacate it,

it goes back to the owners on either side of the road. It doesn't become a city street. I don't I don't own the land.

So that we are then transferring. The only thing that we are then transferring We're giving out by a right of way. Is the right of way to that city, and that's it. Yeah. But we're not even transferring it because we don't have title. We have Yeah. On the We're just vacating the right away, and then it's up to them to Yeah. On the 8th West work with the landowner to become a dedicated West thing.

It was it was 8th West in Logan City. And so they annexed the land, but they annexed the land and and we have a road that's that's still a county road there, but we don't have title to it. I maybe just leave it alone, and I'll bring it in and let you tell you what the story is each time. That's actually

and that's just I think it's information, and then we

then, you know, the the approval is is I will be reporting on the Old Sardine Road shortly.

The Old Sardine Road. That's the high one? The old

it'll loop before they did the Oh, Oh, there's actually a couple of them. Yeah. This is the old, old So it goes right to your private property. Go mostly through church property. Yeah. Yeah. We did address a section of that a couple years ago, but I think there's more to this to look at. I know what you're saying. I'll just leave it as it is. No. That's On the on the other part of it though is there's a there's a bunch of things in the current situation that requires a county executive to manage some personal property. And Matt and I have talked about that, and I think it's better for Matt to be the one. But I'd like to put a dollar limit on it. So if it's something that's above a certain dollar amount, then the two of us would review it. It's almost always a budgetary issue. That's why I think it it

And and all of that stuff is is just you just set the policy and then we just follow the the policy, whatever that dollar amount is. We put that in and we're Yeah. What Simple as that. Dollar amount, what do you What do you think the dollar amount should be?

I'm gonna go to Matt. What do you Occasionally, we're gonna be, you know, surplusing a a vehicle. Yeah. And I don't net I don't know that that that needs any particular special purview. $3,040,000

dollars? It's a surplus of used truck or used Yeah. The only difference would be if it's above a certain number. Matt and I do it together rather than alone. Anytime somebody wants to do that with me, I have to pull out the budget and see how it affects their budget. So essentially, I can't really effectively manage that without Matt's participation. And what we're saying is it's his participation more important than mine. So I think 40,000 sounds fine.

Is there a difference between title and just regular channel properties?

Okay. Not at the moment. But that could be differentiated in code. Now

now that doesn't mean the the if it's if it's 50,000, I think it should be Matt and I together. I I don't want to be disposing of property without Matt's involvement. So Yeah. But I'm I shouldn't use me. I think the county executive and the auditors should be involved with it over the dollar amount, not that it's just the county executive. And and frankly, it should be set up so that either one of us can trigger, so that either one of us can trigger a review of a particular matter if we think it's of concern. But the default, I think, under 40,000 ought to be the auditor. K.

Yeah. Who who would be putting together that language? And Andrew. You'll put that together and bring that to our Currently. Next meeting? So

our county attorney's office put together quite a lengthy policy, that the committee never really acted on. And I have been going through it and simplifying a lot of it, And I don't know if I can get it to you by this next special meeting. Don't worry about that. I don't think I'll yeah. That's okay. That is nice. But I'm working on it. Okay.

So, yeah, just put those these details in as we've discussed in I turned right in that. I think I've seen part of that. I remember basically, even a lot of the smaller items and things like that, basically, it's just if you have just kind of a scope and sequence of the pro of the process, that's really all you need in that stuff. That isn't something you have to deal with with, hey. We got ten ten desks and all that kind of no. Yeah. Here is the policy. Here's the process, and that's it. You know, what

what process is is sometimes problematic is in disposal. It's one department To the other. Want to transfer it to another department. And that's where Matt's involvement is critical. But that and you know what? I think that's

terrific that we utilize things like that rather than and there's too many too many other businesses and places like that that they they dispose of it out one door, then they go buy brand new in the other door. Mhmm. And there's light to everything, Even the bluebird.

Wow. There's

there's the There's the Per meeting jam. But there's still wonderful life to them.

Yeah. Bob, Chairman, I have a commitment in Hiram to be there for their South Fire Committee at 10:00. Sure. So if I could be excused in about five minutes, if there's anything more that you need my input on.

I so, yeah, I would just like to know where we stand on number six, the code enforcement officer power amendments.

That is a good question. I know it has been suggested about moving the code enforcement potentially under the sheriff, but I've been doing my own research into seeing what other places do specifically, and I think that could work. My suggestion would be we'd probably have to enact a new title of code, and then, this goes beyond policy. But if we did establish a specific section for that in the sheriff's office, would probably have to have some one time cost in setting things up and building systems, but, ultimately, I think that is best route. But I'm willing to have anyone challenge me on that. I think we need to have chat

here. Yes. Sure. Right. With that discussion because I think it's

I just wanna make sure it was moving because we talked about it. And then and some of the some of the situation had shifted a bit from when we started to

I I can talk to him about it and get his So

we'll keep it on there as item for discussion and probably in our regular scheduled meeting. Any of this so we can simplify. Yes. Yeah. I think that's huge. Yep. K. And then we have a recommendation of adding a new an item that's currently not listed here under the, like, under the items on hold. There's another policy suggestion coming forward. So we'll we'll get that information in front of everyone for the the next regular meeting. Yeah. As far as for today's meeting, I think that covers what we need to. If anyone else has any ideas that I think and

and Andrew's working on that and I've been working on is a fencing policy. Yep. We just and it's it's pretty I think the more cut and dry that we can and keep that at is just just to protect

a lot of the,

you know, the the people and these people that are trying to cost or grazers and stuff that are up in the mountains and and have them to There's there's certainly that is a very simple policy that we just blanketed out. I think we can get through that pretty soon. There's there's definitely situations where it needs to be one form of fence in or out versus the other. Yeah. Just That it captures your to do one of that. To me and everything. So that's, I think, that's a good thing to get on the books. So k.

Great. Thank you. K. Nothing else, we stand adjourned.

Thank you. I'll go to that if it goes mine.

What if you got that? Do you know? Maybe it's the same.