Cache County Council Ordinance and Policy Review Committee Meeting – 08-14-2026

>> I think I know that we talked about moving it around and and you just mentioned that the reason for the move has changed, but we'll still have you go first. >> Um, and I I imagine that the the executive and public works might have something to say. I was asked to be here based on the memo. Um, I'm here and open to any questions. >> Oh, perfect. >> concerning the memo that may come come up. Um

>>

>> Matt Phillips, public works director. The county has been doing seasonal closures for a long time. And so this has came to our attention over the last few years that maybe the county hasn't been following the right process. So I think it just warrants all of us to look in, research the code. We've got the attorney's opinion. uh you know, make sure we're following the processes, make sure we're adequately protecting where we can't do snow removal, that we're protecting the roads, and then, you know, decide as a group how we want to move forward with some of our seasonal closures. You know, this is a lot of our mountain roads where they're gravel, they're they're not accessible for us to do snow removal. We have roads such as Short Divide that are just they're narrow, they're not safe. we can't adequately provide those services to them. And so we just need to make sure that we find out how legally and you know the sooner we can kind of keep this moving then the better off because we're in August so we got a a few months and if we need to have public hearings and we need to have ordinances and those things to address this that we need to need to keep that moving so that we're not here in December trying to enact seasonal closure. So,

>> thank you. Um,

so yeah, maybe I just open it to this group if there's any additional thoughts from the members. >> Yeah, I might I might bring Matt up here again, but um I read through it and it it looked like there were a few things that we need to update the county code to bring it into compliance with state code. I think one of those was a four-week notice to property owners um with property abuing the highway and then it looked like we needed to hold a public hearing um which is required annually. I think we have been doing that part. Um but I guess what I wanted to ask Matt is while we're updating this is there anything else in the code that you think we should consider? And then I had a question also regarding when they're not closed, like maybe yesterday for example, where there was a lot of rain where if someone uses it, it might tear up the road. If there are any guidelines or um ways to check if there's um a recommendation to avoid road >> I have some comments. You're finished, Keegan. >> Uh yep, I'm done. >> Yeah. I Matt did you have anything specific since Keegan's question was directed at you but I was also going to ask

for the executive to summarize his view of enforcement etc. So they're they're the same. >> Okay. >> Are we through with road closures or are we in still involving road closures? >> We're still talking Yeah. the seasonal road closure. >> Okay. I just as a drafting scheme, I do not like having a series of county ordinances that quote portions of the state ordinance and say, "We're going to do that because state law trumps county ordinances." When you start mimicking and putting rules in your county ordinance that mimic the state ordinance, every time the state ordinance is changed, we we become out of sync. There's no reason to do it. If it's stated that we have to do something in state law, I don't see any reason to repeat it. >> No, there's no reason to repeat it at all because the state law governs what the counties, >> right? So, for example, in this text, provide class B notice to abuing property owners. You're you're quoting the state law. Why are we putting that in a county ordinance? And have we proposed a county ordinance? Because I >> No, I haven't seen a proposal. So, I think this was just intended for discussion. >> I mean, we've given our legal opinion. I think the next step is just follow the state law. >> Yeah. But county code allows for seasonal restrictions on roadways. That's the kind of thing I'm saying. Why do we have that there? If >> I don't know when that was put into the county code. I don't know if that was prior to I don't >> I may even be responsible for it.

But but it it just encumbers everything we try and do >> to have this repetition. And then when you get this sort of thing and it you say, "Okay, county code allows you to do this." However, state code mandate more stringent requirements for the county. If we're going to try and change something on a county basis that's in the state law, >> there are some instances where we're allowed >> to do that, but not always. And frankly, that's fraught with legal risk that DNE can explain. I just think that so um just if I may I believe that the purpose for this item being on the agenda is to identify where in the current code we can make those improvements that you're suggesting. So I would I would look to that the next step after we finish our discussion today would be how do we refine the current code for in the county record for seasonal closures to reflect the improvements you're suggesting as well as anything specific that Cash County would need to add. That's I think that is the purpose. So I think we're all on the same page. Well, so this was this was circulated by the request to help clarify make sure we have been complying and if we do need to make an update to the code which at this moment unless there's more discussion that triggers the reason we wouldn't I believe the intent would be the next step we come to the next OMP meeting with a proposed uh draft for ordinance change. >> So, and then I think I agree with that, Mark, is because over the last couple years we've kind of had like maybe a soft closure versus a hard one because we've kind of been in limbo of is our county code legal versus, you know, what the attorneys have written there. Keegan, you you bring up a one of, hey, we have some type of a big rainstorm and we we have some type of one. I think that's kind of one of the things that public works is trying to balance with what the county code says that we can put those restrictions on versus the state code saying road closures and trying to make sure that we're not getting oursel so far down the road that any type of that we're not able to respond when we need to put some restrictions. That could be a fire restriction. That could be, you know, uh some other restriction as opposed to, hey, we had a landslide where we needed to really enact a full road closure, but allow trying to find that happy balance so that we can put restrictions on some of our roads, but we don't have to have two months of public hearings and landowner notices to so that we can adapt to, you know, weather, whatever it is. And, you know, we do a lot of road for closures and temporary construction. So we we have a lot of leeway there and these seasonal restrictions kind of fall in this area of you know do we could we make it is there a process that can make it so that we have some ability to and fire is one of them that I've been thinking of lately right if that we have some some issues and we need to restrict people from driving some of our roads for fire you know is that a restriction is that a road closure and do we need a public hearing and So >> yeah, >> I mean it's in the state code. It can be closed for emergencies for construction without going through this process. You just can't do a seasonal closure without or some type of long-term closure that's not related to public safety >> maintenance construction. >> Yeah. And to DNE's point, it may make more sense to look at policy than it does code for something like this. like if there's a rainstorm, our policy, for example, I was down near Kodak Chrome Basin and the road wasn't closed, but it had a you know scary skull and crossbones sign that like if this is wet and I still went down it and it became quickly apparent I would have been in a foot of mud if I kept going. But I was still within my legal right to use that road. But and maybe the term you use is soft closure, but there's there's probably some mechanism between fully closing it and leaving it open that maybe could guide the public on appropriate usage, >> which could be a policy thing. >> There there is that in the state code now. And when we try and reddraft it to say the same thing in our county code, then then we run this alignment issue with the state. I think you're right that that what we do probably should be categorized as a policy and the policy should be consistent with the state code. But to be honest with you, if if we have a problem, a case, a lawsuit that's filed against us and and you have the state code here and then we have something it it just >> we're actually making it we're making it more difficult to to do. If we follow the

the state code, Dane, I I think we we don't get ourselves into that mess. Now, the question is, Matt, is the state code, if you didn't have a county code, adequate for what you want to do? It is. I I think it's I think there it's a high it's a high bar to clear to have some to be able to handle something in a local jurisdiction to put restrictions on a road. So that that's that's the bottom line for me. But at the end of the day, this is about risk and maintenance, right? We don't we want to be able to alert the public that there's risk that hey these roads are not maintained and if you pass a certain point you you're there is no winter maintenance past this. The other one is just cost of the county. >> When we're talking about seasonal closure there's a difference between closure and restrictions. >> Yes. >> And and that line is is a little fuzzy. >> Correct. We've interpreted um restrictions as something less than closure. And the precise line there, if

>> Exactly. >> He already delegated that. >> Right. Right. But it's going to be Yes. It's going to happen. It's the main thing. If Eric, if you could get a draft of that done. >> Um I I think maybe a meeting if if you could carve I mean you've got lots of time available. I know

Next item, initial proposals is the wraps and restaurant policy. Restaurant. Okay. It's written wraps and restaurant policy. I think it's for wraps and restaurant tax policy and procedures revisions. >> It was a late night amendment to the agenda, so I apologize. I have some materials. >> Okay, >> turn it over to you, Andrew. >> Sure. Might be easier. >> Thank you. So, this item did get referred to this committee by the county council. There were some concerns about the uh specifics in the proposal that would essentially reformat the the whole process that we go about with our wraps and restaurant tax policy. Um the four main ones that I could gather from the council meeting was the specifics of how do I should probably begin with this. Something that had been previously expressed to me by council members on the wraps restaurant advisory board was that there essentially wasn't any mandatory mechanism that where one would forfeit funds if they didn't use all of them. So the first one uh there was a provision like that included except the the term that was included was clawback and Mr. Ericson pointed out that it should instead be forfeite, which makes sense given the whole wraps process where you essentially submit your expenses to then be um reimbursed. But anyway, the I'll go through the rest of them really quick and then we can open up to discussion. But second one was brought up by Mr. Gity about attribution of logo uh requirement about whether or not a funded program must visibly display or credit the the program itself. Third one was the overall discussion about outofcycle emergency applications and what that would entail. And the fourth one was brought up by the executive about the twothirds vote requirement. So >> I'd like to come on three and four. Um over to you Mr. Executive. there is there is uh requirements in our organizational thing that you give the county executive veto powers over appropriations and money. I think anytime you you shift to 2/3, you you have you can override a veto with 2/3. So, so that's always in place. But when you when you elevate 2/3 to a decision making involving financial matters, you're essentially taking the executive out of any role. Even when you override a veto, this is what happens. You pass an ordinance, it goes to me. Typically, Andrew has it up the next day and I sign it. But if I veto it, I have to provide a message and you have to have another hearing. The advantage of that process is that the public is notified that somebody in county government doesn't like it and particularly the person that has to administer your policies and then you have to have a public hearing where the public comes and is aware and can present their arguments to you. Frankly, most of the time in my experience over watching county government being a participant in it, most vetos are not overridden. They aren't because the executive has spotted something. Either that's happened or there's a public ground swell that appears at the public hearing and dissuades you from what you're doing. So I think the 2/3 is is fundamentally a mistake because you can override it. You don't have to put something in that you already have the power to do, but you're changing the process. So I don't want to get into whether that's a legal issue or not, Dane. But I just think it's a mistake in our form of government and I think it may be a legal issue. I don't know if it's necessarily it may be in Google. I don't know because you could always persuade someone not to veto and have a different a different vote on the um Yeah. But the process of having a public

>> Oh, okay. >> Yeah, >> I did the earlier one on the library. But anyway, doesn't matter who did what, but I think the point is uh that that was a an example of one that >> But but I I understand George's point putting it in creating a higher threshold for the council to pass something. That's what I see the legal issue is everything everything else the council does when we're talking about ordinances we're talking about budget amendments is by a simple majority that is that is what is require the council to pass something. So I I think that's where we run into issues because the the executive can still assert his power to veto but raising the threshold from a simple majority for the legislative body I think that is an issue. Yeah. >> And I think the the policy issue is still there for the that George is coming up. Do we want to to stray from that and send a message that I I I I just think that's raising the threshold just isn't a good idea because where does that stop when we start when we start doing that >> as um you know to to jump to the the bottom of the list is given that this is the fourth item listed here but just to share my perspective on it I agree I think we should not you know I believe the effort for or suggestion for the twothirds vote was just to raise the standard because we are in that context we were considering a midseason or offcycle >> approval and so requiring the twothirds would um signal that it was a very favorable or it met the criteria per the interpretation of the council that this should be something considered for a mid cycle review. However, I mean, so that I think that's the reason, but I personally I agree it whether it's simple majority or two-thirds majority, I don't know that um it, you know, if you've got four of the seven council members voting for it, I think that's suggests that it's that the the the need is there for it to at least be considered in an offcycle situation. and in support of what DNE and the executive are both saying. Um I don't see that the council should deviate from the the simple majority threshold for I mean you know in in the grand perspective the budget is far more impactful than the wraps tax and therefore the playing the you know the standard should be what what the budget requires rather than >> more so for one line item >> if a $160 million budget doesn't have that threshold in an allocation in rap should probably not be stricter >> but I think that suggestion came to us as from the right the motive the reason was the right thing and that's to say hey looking at these this applicant for an off cycle or an emergency funding from the wraps tax is unusual that meaning you know not a not a bad thing but it's just um could sidestep the process and give unfair advantage to someone proposing e situation where others didn't were not weighed in that context. So, um I think really for purposes of this body, unless someone feels strongly we should continue to consider the two/3s, I say we drop that as a point and just go to standard simple majority. >> I' I'd like to speak on C as well. And I think your comments are directed to C more than D really. Well, yeah. D4 is a is a response to three. Yes. >> Yeah. U just want to review how this this issue has has come and and frankly legislation is originated when you run into a problem. Um, the lyric contacted me about a problem they were having with the seating and that they had missed the wrap time period. They explained to me that

their seasons had a gap in it and that the gap if they didn't meet the get the repair done in the gap, it would take a full year before the gap would appear again and they would be operating with the seats in their current condition for their season. And I asked a couple of councilmen, is it possible to have a a midseason decision? And their answer is yes, we've done that before. We did it with respect to the what is the tractor barn, >> the American West. >> And I said, okay. And so then I encouraged the lyric to submit the request. That's what's caused us to look at this issue. I I think the concerns about doing things midseason are justified. I think having the council make the decision as to whether they clear the bar is the proper way to handle it. that is have the county council have to make the decision if they've cleared the bar. We don't make anyone else do that during the regular um session. We don't see it until it's approved by the wraps committee and it comes to it. So, it's under the council's authority to decide whether they want this submitted midterm. Then the question is should the council bind themselves to some wording that limits their authority to make that decision. I'm I'm hardpressed as to who you're trying to direct except yourselves. And I don't know why you want to restrict your decision making and put standards on yourself if you're the ones that are making the decision. Now, let me give you another side to this. The wraps committee met this year. They evaluated and weighed one against two, two against three, and they had a bundle of money. They didn't disperse all the money because they didn't feel like after weighing things that that there was there was more money that should be distributed than they had. Okay. My guess is had the theater submitted the proposal and within part of that they would have considered that it's against all the others but they may very well have used up some of their excess funds but we're sitting in a situation which excess funds are sitting there yeartoear and I'm just thinking why do we want to do that now the argument is Well, they might weigh it differently. The same committee that did the weighing is the one the proposal goes back to. I mean, you're not getting a new set of citizens to create a weighing scale. They were the ones that did the weighing five or 6 months earlier. If the council says, "Open the door to this one and this one, but not that one or that one." and you send it back to the same committee and they think given what we saw we would have weighed this this way. Why wouldn't you accept their judgment? Now the burden of this is the poor wrath committee have to do more work. I acknowledge that. But when you look at at the kinds of things that are in this queue, you're the ones that decide whether it's worthwhile to have it done or not. But loading this up with it's an emergency. It must be this or this. Who are you giving instructions to? Yourselves. >> Yep. >> Why? Why are you doing that? Why are you creating a limit on what you can do? If you think it is it emergency or is it reasonable, what's the standard you want to use to judge, you decide. My suggestion is don't don't constrict yourself in making a decision. You have a process. Honor the process >> and and frankly what you do with the lyric, >> it is the poster child for how this go. You can make a decision. You can have the university people and the lyric people come and explain to you why they need the seats. You can even um have them haul in a seat and look at the seat and see what the problem is. And if you decide after you hear from you don't want to send it to the committee and you don't want to bother convening, just say no. Now, should it be an every year thing? You know, if it helps the valley, if it helps the people we're trying to help, why not? What what what is it that you're trying to do? What what what is the purpose of this whole exercise to constrict? So, uh I appreciate you summarizing the situation. I feel like you've accurately described it. Um, I don't feel like I disagree with anything you've said. Maybe I shouldn't have loaded it so much when I turned it over to the rest of the group, but

>> well, thoughts on this matter. >> I guess I sort >> I'm never uncomfortable dissenting, but >> I guess

whatever is brought up. But I think that if you put a matter before this committee and it comes from the county council, my a fear that I would have in such a situation is that they would have a bias for action because well if something's before them then and there's funds available then really what what does the quality of truly matter? I mean if it meets like okay enough then say yes. But um specifically when it comes to the uh the criteria of when something is uh should be considered out of cycle or not. I do think that it really ought to be restricted to something that can't that absolutely cannot wait until the next year because if you go back to the whole point of if you isolated uh one or two projects themselves, it's anti-competitive compared to everyone who had to wait and uh for the process to come around. And I I don't think that that's fair personally. I mean, I think uh I think it really just boils down to that. But >> so I think to to that point I think that that's a is a fair point. I think weather changes, circumstances changes, political climate changes and and these projects are being evaluated at that time with those circumstances in the context of the other projects. Should we allow for exceptions? Sure. I think the legislative body should always have that right. Um, would I personally consider torn upholstery or uncomfortable seats an emergency? Maybe or maybe not. But I think the legislative body should have the opportunity to discuss whether that meets their threshold, right? Not beholden to any other code or factor, right? That's that's up to them. And then I think the mechanism to send it back is appropriate if it's determined to be expedient. If it's not, it's a non-starter in my opinion because >> sorry to add to that point. I think if you don't set any limits, I think what you then incentivize is well, we can just submit an application. If the county council turns it down anyway, then well, we tried and we can just wait until next year. incentivizes just this um shotgun spray approach of just let's just apply and see what happens. >> Yeah. And quite frankly, I don't want there to be six things on the agenda, you know, every week of like here's another exception here's like no, let's just have an application period. >> Yeah. >> So, I think there's some valid there's some validity to having a cycle. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you could set a policy that that the the bar is higher because the county council had to not determine that the project should be funded. Should be very careful saying we think the timing of this merits consideration. We do not express an opinion as to whether it should be funded or not, but the but the timing and you could set a policy that said we're going to do this once a year or we're or we're not even going to have a policy because once you stick a policy in then you're encouraging that behavior. >> Yeah, I'm hesitant. So I but the other thing I would would say is um our job is to get this wraps money to where it can do the most good. And I I just have to tell you the the whole process of getting anything done in this county and it is it isn't just the county, it's government generally. >> It just defeats your ability to be nimble and and to some extent manage money efficiently because the process takes so many steps that it just it it's it's uh I want to change an appropriation and so what you have is the departments building up uh request for money because the process of getting the money to buy next piece of equipment takes two and a half months. And if we can shorten some of those time period, give discretion more to your executive and and your officers to be a little bit more nimble, creating a a portal where we can access the wraps money. I'm not really interested in what other cities have done. I'm interested in the fact that we're carrying over reserves and frankly if we don't do this it may never get done. Um on that note, do we should would it be prudent to have the advisory committee make a recommendation to us on whether it's an emergency or not? Because I'd like there to maybe be a step prior to that. >> So yeah. So, um, yeah, maybe two points because I I can't miss the opportunity to say >> that the only thing more scary to me than a slow government is a fast one. >> So, um, yeah, I understand. Let's run certain parts more like a business, but we should never rush the decision of what we do with public's funds, but uh, Keegan, I >> you about fast. Well, can I just >> anyway class government is aligned government and that what that means is in the public's eyes that leads to perception of corruption. So let's be careful what we say. Um my point Keegan would be yes I I well matching what the executive said at least in my interpretation of it. If we as the council feel like the criteria that that the item before us matches the criteria that yes it the timing is important then it would go back through the process. So we're not asking them to say make the determination if it's >> you know it come it only goes through the process when that decision has been already made by the council. >> That's the way I was thinking this would flow. So, and in that process, it would be appropriate if the wraps committee looked at it and said, "We don't think this needed to be heard." Now, >> they could come back with that recommendation, but it would only go to them after the council says, "Yeah, this does appear to meet the need for a quote unquote emergency." So, um I what what I personally don't have before me is whether or not we need to make changes to the current code to be able to do these things or where where are we at with the next step if we were to say as this body is like yeah we want to to clear up the opportunity for an emergency or offcycle consideration that would be a code amendment. Amendment. >> Yes. Because right now, county code specifically only allows applications between its January and >> because deadlines are supposed to matter. >> Correct. >> Um and then uh subsequently the twothirds question that was that's not in code anywhere. That was just a suggestion. Correct. >> Yes. The two/3s majority was a suggestion just to have a high bar that something was actually important enough. But I understand the executive's concerns about the majority. So, so back to what I said earlier, I think number four, I I would propose that we no longer consider number four. That just be removed from the conversation. >> The two/3s be removed. >> 2/3. Correct. Majority >> that it's just a simple majority. >> I'd agree with that. >> Okay. So, do we need a vote on that removing it from the conversation or just take >> say you both have given me direction. And then for the off cycle consideration I based on the conversation I feel like we should come forward next meeting with some sort of proposal for code amendment. >> I does that put us past the timing of their window. >> Guys and you talk about time and can I make a suggestion >> again? you got a state law and you're putting something in addition that you're constricting what you want to do and how you do it. Um why don't you instead of messing around with a county ordinance have a policy that uh untimely applications will only be sent to the wraps committee on approval by the county council. Period. Don't don't do a whole section of code about this and that. just basically say that that's our policy because the state code does not prohibit you from having untimely applications, does it, Andrew? It it doesn't. It leaves up to the counties um to create an entity and govern rules to govern that entity and that's what we've done through our code. So our code will have to be amended. >> Okay. um because we've we've codified that time frame and that's the only time frame that's allowed by our our county code to allow those. So that's going to have to be changed if we're going to allow an out of cycle application

>> because we've we've prohibited that in our own code. >> Yeah. >> And so in order for us to take this action, it would be in violation of our own code. True or false? >> So we've created a code that requires us to do something different than state law. And now we're trying to figure out how to how to loosen it so we don't interfere with our own code. >> To be fair, I think that part of the actual tax itself and state code says that counties are free to define the actual process itself. >> That's what I heard

>> which we should define some kind of process. I think that's reasonable. But one thing I wanted to say is like in in the example of the >> Can I sorry you're the chair? No, thank you for asking, but yeah, please. >> Um, in the case of the the Lyric, um, did they send it back to the committee first? >> I think the answer is no. Right. They're just they're they're looking to approach the council directly. >> I I think it came by to the council by way of the executive office. Is that correct? So they asked me if if if there was a way to access Raps Buddy out of cycle and I told them you'd done it before. This is how you did it. Yep. >> And then that started, >> right? >> So that's how I'm engaged in And I I empathize with this the expediency, you know, just to take a 30-cond aside, it took, I think, three months for the CO-AC committee to send 200 people a letter with a $500 budget at my job. If I wanted 16,000 emails sent in an hour, I could get that done right now with a text message. So, I I I understand. So moving on though, what I what I don't understand is every all these other applications had to go through the wrapped committee. We appointed a committee, they evaluated it, and now we're saying even what we're about to do, it sounds like is if there's an out of cycle application, it goes directly to the council, which is already a problem for me. So if if we like this 2/3 thing because it has to meet a higher threshold, why aren't we sending out of cycle to the committee and then having a twothirds threshold from the committee and then saying, "Hey, the the the committee feels like there's twothirds of them that feel like this should be heard." Maybe a lot of them would get shut down before it even reaches the council, which is quite frankly what I'd rather see is there's some sort of high hurdle to meet before it even comes to us. I don't want to hear seven out of cycle applications because our code says if it's out of cycle, send it straight to the council. No, I don't want to do that because then it it creates the people seeking racks wraps money to lobby the council and it's a different process. So >> yeah, but but Keegan asking the wraps committee to convene a meeting to decide timeliness and then convene another meeting after the council looks at timeliness, >> right? Which is a feature, not a bug, because they say, "I don't want to meet again. Wait till the next application period." And I'm totally okay with that. I think if you just simply said if it if you want to try out and get a home run here, you got to go to the council first to change the procedure timeliness. That creates a bar. If the council is persuaded that it should be considered, convene your committee and let them decide. >> That that's what I would suggest you do. And I I think that's an appropriate thing to have happen. Are you going to see a bunch of people taking a run at you? Um, quickly decide that you're not going to make a practice of this. And one way to not make a practice of it is to publicly turn down the lyric because you weren't timely. You do that once the message is sent. But on the other hand, if if you let the lyric through, you've told the people that it is possible. So you you require the lyric to make a reasoning as to why this has to be in this cycle. But if you use the money, the money is just sitting in the bank now. It's not it's not fulfilling the purpose for which it was taxed. I think the precedence has already been set from last year with the American West Heritage Center being able to get money off cycle. >> I agree. >> And so that's why the lyric is probably saying, well, can we do that too? And you checked and it had been done before. >> So >> precedence is the scariest part of government >> in the absence of clearly defined code. Yeah. >> You opened the door when you did it with the tractor barn. >> Yep. >> Yep. Mark, if I can just say one thing that I did that came to my mind watching this last council meeting is I I do think there should be some type of prohibition on people submitting an application for something that was already denied by the wraps board. We had a city here who had applied, didn't meet criteria, didn't meet timelines, whatever that that was. And I think that there should be a prohibition that this has there has to be some type of >> new something that didn't exist at the time. Um that they that because you're going to have people like that that >> I I agree Dane but but let me just tell you you are right with what you perceive happened but that isn't what happened to Richmond. Richmond submitted two application simultaneously into the computer system. One came out. If you ask Alma, he looked at both. Both were submitted at the same time and one didn't come through the system. And it isn't a fault apparently of Richmond, but of the computer system. Now, put that in your matrix. How would you deal with that? Well, that's one that I I think that should have been fixed. >> Well, I don't I don't know what the the details, but those those facts I just think that should have been >> I I think the facts are these. At at four minutes after five on that on the night of the deadline, Elma took a screenshot of all of the applications that had been submitted through the system. And every application that was in that screenshot went to the committee. Now, why wasn't there other application? Because frankly, I don't think they hit the button. They they may say we hit the button, whatever, but for whatever reason, it it didn't clear that bar when we took a screenshot and it wasn't there. So, what's the lesson learned? If I'm a city, I'm probably going to submit a couple of days early and I'm going to ask for confirmation that you >> wait till I have four >> consequences sort of create that feedback loop. >> Yes. But but looking at the substance of the situation, that might be one that that you should take a look at because had it been in the queue, it probably would have been one considered for funding. >> Sure. Yeah. And that wouldn't be precluded by what Dne said because it hadn't been submitted. So, >> yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> I I'm sorry. I >> additional thoughts. >> Yes. Additional thoughts. >> Nothing to apologize for other than we have to be done by 10. >> Uh >> I have to leave it then. >> So this this entire thing is designed to create out of cycle possibility for an out of cycle application. >> Uh there's two sections here that actually prevent that. 3.82.07 that's page 15 of 30 A5. Notwithstanding any other applica applicable provision of this chapter, unsolicited, ad hoc, late or uncompleted external applications submitted outside the aforementioned deadline shall not be accepted or directly acted upon. So in one section you're saying, "Oh, we'd like to do out of out of cycle." And then you've got this section that says under no circumstances will we do out of cycle. and this system. I'm I'm curious to get Dne's opinion on this. I I think this provision prevails because it says notwithstanding any other provision. Well, I I think that the notwithstanding says this this does not control if there's another applicable provision that allows. That notwithstanding is it says anything that's um otherwise stated in here. Um that notwithstanding is um inclusionary of our exceptions, not exclusionary of those. So it does not conclude. >> As long as you're happy with it, then that's why I asked. >> Good point to bring up. So, um, as was mentioned earlier that if we were to push this to the next OMP meeting, that would mean we'd miss the horizon or the op the window for the, uh, the the subject matter of this request in the first place. So, um, I feel like that the circumstances of that request way ought to be have weight in this conversation. So, um, and I apologize for not being I should have made myself more aware prior to this meeting, but, uh, is is the condition of the seats at the Lyric a surprise to them? Was this damage occur after the deadline? How how did we get to the situation where they did not know they needed to ask for that in the original request? There's there's an application that describes the process, but I I think in the course of looking at all the upgrades of the lyric, they missed it. >> I actually I I de mirror I it appears to me that what happened after the and the reason they didn't submit is they didn't have matching funds. Subsequent to the deadline, a private donor came forward and said, "Hey, I've got $50,000. um I will I will participate in this in this organization if you can get the wraps funding. And I think the statute as written contemplates that as being a valid a valid exception. So I think it's on the strength of that $50,000 that's been profered >> which to provide context that's what happened with the American West Heritage Center is they found a match and I think >> I think the match in the lyrics case was cash valley bank. So there may be someone here that could shine more light on the context of that circumstance. >> I I I thank you for uh informing me of of the facts rather than having to operate on rumor. Um so I don't know what this body can do with that other than to say >> why don't why don't we just take the ordinance and finish it right now? What what would we have to change? We'd have to X out the 2/3 to take out paragraph 4, right? >> Yeah. >> Mhm.

>> I think Andrew had a comment, too. I don't >> Yeah, I was going to bring up the American West Heritage Center. I note that uh technically the funds have not been appropriated to essentially reimburse the the American West Heritage Center and technically that budget amendment cannot be made unless they go through the cycle of u getting essentially an advisory board review and then the county council votes yes. So, is this like the council giving them like a promise ring that when they do apply for it in the cycle that we'll allocate it? That's was kind of my understanding of what happened, not actually giving the money. Is that >> Yes. Okay. >> That also matches what I remember. >> That's not code terms, vernacular. Sorry. >> No, you said it accurately enough

though. >> So, >> high intent. >> Yeah. Yeah. Do we make a motion in this in this group? I I have a problem. I have a South Fire board meeting that starts at 10 and higher. >> And while this is important, that's even more important. Right. I would make a motion. >> Can you roll that up a little? >> So, sorry. I I just to stop it now so that we can do it correctly. Unfortunately, Mr. Executive, you are not able to make a motion, but you can suggest we make a motion. Just clarity of the minutes. >> You're right. I'm not a member of your voting board. >> Correct. >> I would >> suggest >> solicit a motion. >> There you go. >> That paragraph 4 be eliminated. I believe that it um number two is adequate to describe what we're doing. Let me Can you roll it down a little bit more? I don't have the text in front of me. >> 382. What page are you on? >> 22. >> 22 of the me. Is that good? >> Do you need the lights off so you can see that better? >> You prefer that? >> Yeah. I think if you just eliminate paragraph 4, the legislation works. >> Yeah. To me, the the I would agree with that. Do you see any additional context to a motion that needs to be added? >> It defaults to a majority if there isn't a defined uh so yeah no so um in the interest of time I'd like to make a motion that we strike item four from 3.82080 that removes the 2/3 vote requirement. I I think paragraph five also would need to be changed because it references paragraph four. >> Um >> okay. >> I mean I guess the a suggestion for the motion is remove any language from this that would um include the two/3 vote and make it consistent with the majority vote. And we re and recommend that that be passed to the council for consideration. Okay. So, I guess that motion wasn't officially made, so I can start again. >> Yeah. >> All right. Um, so, yeah. Um, make a motion that we strike four, five, or any other language that requires a twothirds vote, anything other than a majority vote um in this code. >> Okay. I I'll second that motion. >> Wait, so you're eliminating four and five? any language that mentions the two/3s majority. >> Okay. So I currently say a motion was made by Gary to eliminate number four from 3.2.08 referencing a twothirds vote. >> Yeah. So five includes that as well. So four and five and >> five part five in uh it's section 3.82080B. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I'll give you a second to get that typed in, Megan. >> I'm good. >> Okay. Yes. And so there is a second for that motion. Any additional discussion from all members of the body? Seeing none, call for the vote. All in favor? >> I. Okay. Let that that recommendation is passed. And so >> what about number one? >> Yes. So now do we in the interest of time let me ask this Mr. executive, do you have any uh do we need to take or have any discussion on any of the future items on the agenda? >> There's um I don't I don't have any concern about item five, six, and seven. on item eight. Um, I would suggest that be held until the new county attorney is in place rather than make those changes. Matt, we you and I had a discussion about changes to some dollar limits. Is is that in five or is that part of nine? >> Um, it's it's not part of nine. Um, it could be considered part of five. I I sort of considered a part of the the budget that we were going to put forward and and make those suggestions there. But we could we could let's let's say it's part of five. >> So So you know my feelings about that. >> Yeah. >> U and and you can present that discussion. >> Yes. I I join with what Matt will tell you about

the that policy five. He and I talked about it. We agree on what you should do with that. So, I'm comfortable leaving it that. >> Okay. >> That that may also affect number nine. Correct. >> Uh yes, I'd like to talk about number nine as well. >> Okay. And with respect to 10, I'm unaware of anything on our table to do with respect to 10 and think that it probably ought to be removed as an item on hold. Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll look at whether or not those that needs to continue as a held item. So, okay. Um All right. Thanks for for jumping ahead to those so that you can you can go ahead and leave. I think all that's left for us to talk about on the wraps tax question is um the I I would make a motion that we amend the language to state forfeite rather than return or clawback in the in in the code wherever it it references clawback or return. Um >> I would second that. >> Okay. All those in favor of that motion say I. >> I. And then as far as attributes or logo requirements, just for those present and for the recording, that is a discussion about um changing or or increasing the the code to require that a placard or some sort of posted recognition that wraps and restaurant tax funds were used in a project be uh be added. Um, I feel like any project that I am aware of in the last 20 years that had wraps funding, I believe I've recognized that there was a plaque. So, I think it's happening in most instances, but maybe there's a handful that it has not occurred in. And this would just simply the suggestion is to make it so that all must include acknowledgement of the citizens support for projects like those that receive wraps funding. Yeah, sad. >> Yeah, summarize it. Maybe just to add to it, I I would just treat this like a financial disclaimer, you know, and anytime there's financial advice, it you have to have a disclaimer. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Like >> that's what I'm talking about. It it can be at the very bottom. It can be somewhere on the website, but it just it has to be there. And I think we say encouraged. Um, and I'd like to say required to post that in anytime there it's referencing, you know, a promotional flyer, an email, a program. >> Okay. Um, >> I'm open to discussion about that. >> Um, just maybe a little bit more of the logistics for this. Um, I believe, you know, if I were to, if I were to be the one making a motion on this matter, I would be saying just update look for change changes in the code where uh we need to state that these um logo use, placards, acknowledgement of the program are required and just change it that which may just be one sentence. There may be a handful in there. I apologize. I don't know. But if a motion of that nature was made, would you have time to get that put together so that that could go to the council at our next meeting so that we can talk about wraps and restaurant tax policy all inclusive in that one conversation? or do we need to separate the ability or the direction to continue forward with a possible offseason approval and not let that be slowed down by making these changes. Andrew, >> this one is less expedient and just correct. >> That's a much better way of saying what I tried to say. >> Well, if you start getting down into it, there are plenty of things that are put into this policy that otherwise could just be separated out as a different conversation. So I would suggest for the expediency of time just to >> separate them. >> I would keep them together and if a member of the county council would like to amend or simply strike any of the out of cycle language um I think that would be appropriate. Um but with regards to your question about the motion I think I can. And specifically under there's a a section about acknowledgement once you receive the the grant award letter. Um, essentially you could put in language saying with the little disclaimer as you're talking about saying uh encouraged or required. >> Yeah. And and it it can be vague like it's not you have to have a logo that occupies 20% of your flyer or something like that. It's simply an acknowledgement or attribution >> and that can be interpreted different ways. >> Okay. >> If someone wants to squeeze it into very fine print at the bottom, I guess that's okay. >> Okay. and we if it's if we're finding people are trying to skirt it, then we can update it again. But I I don't imagine that's going to be the case. >> All right. So, just to clarify, you're saying you could get all of these suggestions to the county council or in the packet for the next county council meeting if we were to include them all. Okay, >> great. I feel like that makes it easier to just discuss as well with the council on the updates if we just keep it all together. So, >> a question that I know will disrupt the what we're talking about now, but um is there an appetite from you to look at sending it back to the committee before it goes to the council? Maybe not in this specific issue, but future applications. >> Um yes, for future applications, I feel like that ought to be the I would like to see it more clearly defined in code. So it's not left up to uh the emotional interpretation of the council or executive as to who goes through the off cycle process. It ought to just be clear that these are this is the bar. I would like to see that written down. >> I think that's how we do it with planning commission. If the project changes, we send it back to planning. If CO-AC if an open space thing, we send it back to CO-AC. So we don't let them bypass and go straight to the count. What you're suggesting is that we keep a line item for the wraps and restaurant tax on our next OM meeting. With that in mind, >> that is what I'm suggesting. >> I Andrew and I will include that. I think that makes sense. >> Thanks. >> Right. That being said, uh I would look for a motion to Oh, go ahead. >> Motion to Sorry.

Motion to do what? Not to adjourn. I've got >> correct. No, because I was Yeah. No, I was >> going to >> on the logo stuff >> seeking a motion on the uh change of language for the for Oh, we already did the forfeiture, excuse me. >> Um for the logo and attribution discussion. >> So, I I'll make a motion that we change the language from encouraged to required um to mention attribution for wraps funding when it's received for those projects. >> Great. Uh I will second that and then I have a point of discussion just to make clear for the record since you made the motion that includes um all that the utilization of the logo um etc. >> Yeah. Yeah. It could be text logo just some sort of attribution. >> Okay. Great. Um Yep. So we have a motion in a second. All in favor of the motion >> I. >> Thank you. That passes. Okay. So, Andrew, if you can pull that together for the the the written language, summarize what we've decided here for the council meeting, that would be fantastic. >> Sounds good. >> Uh, that addresses everything with rats and restaurant tax, correct? >> I believe so. >> Thank Thank you for your efforts on that, Andrew, and everyone for working through the discussion. >> All right. Um so uh next item is number five and I believe Mr. Funk that is the item you would like to speak about. Uh yeah, the executive had an idea. We were talking during the 2027 the preparation of the 2027 budget and um one item that has been a a challenge since I started here is a provision that the county council put into code several years ago after some of the financial irregularities that had been dealt with uh earlier. County Council had really locked down um department's ability to respond to changing needs and to shift money around and and county council said, "Look, if there's a if there's a need to shift money around that's less than $1,000, then the auditor can approve that." That that uh number has proven to be very challenging because virtually every request we get is more likely 20,000 already. >> And so if we're over that that thousand limit, then we got to convene appropriations and that's, you know, generally a three-month process and it really creates some slowdown there. So the executive had two thoughts. One, that we that we raise that $1,000 limit that can be authorized or changed by department head and the auditor working in conjunction. We changed that to $20,000. Now, I submit you on a $122 million budget, that's those are fairly nominal numbers. And in the 18 months that I've been here, I've never seen one that would be abusive. And again, I've got to sign off on it, too. So, I would I would profer that for your consideration. And then the second question that the executive had is um do we need to meet do we need to run something that's above $20,000 but under a certain amount through appropriations or should that just go straight to council for decision. So his suggestion was should anything under $100,000 just go straight to council for a suggestion or for a an up down an up down vote. Those were his two requests. >> Okay. Thank you. Um so and I appreciate in the executive's comments when he he expressed his support how you presented that that he also tied it to number nine which is a if those not looking at it that's purchasing policy. Um I would add to the first comment you know $20,000 yes it's a small percentage of our budget but it's also $20,000. So, um, and, uh, just for context, yeah, just looking at who's in the room, just for, you know, the institutional knowledge part of it, the two members of the council you have present here, I think were in favor of a higher threshold back when that $1,000 was imposed. >> So, you're talking to the right crowd on that matter. But the other member of the council who is not here that is a member of OP was the one who thought that was the appropriate amount for the executive to not have authority to move around. >> It's not the idea that has the authority to move. It's actually the auditor >> and and at the time it was the executive because that was prior to the shift. So, um, I'm saying all that just to remind us, those of us that have may have blacked out some of the last 5 years, that these are the outcomes to some of those actions. I totally am supportive of moving the threshold up from a thousand because that's basically just hamstringing the operation and I believe that would be in line with the current executive's interest in expediency. if I can speak to that. I I just finished a memo for the next budget opening um that I I sent to the auditor's office as we were sitting here um to move and it really is hamstring my office um and it's moving um $20,000 total between two budget line items to another line item. And it's for expert witnesses um because our the cost of that with the cases we have. We need more money in that that line. But having to go through appropriations is actually slowing down how our prosecution on criminal cases to get that money to start moving forward and getting the the evidence that we need on it, some expert reports. And so it does have a real impact on our ability to function as an office having to wait until September for the appropriations committee and then county council when our budget is not going up at all. was just saying we I'm just reallocating from two different lines. We're looking at where we're at through the year. We're not going to spend that money, but we definitely have a need in this other line. Um I I would I would support that and I I was here through all of that and I understand the concern, but I think we we maybe overcorrected a little bit. Um >> yeah and I so I I appreciate that and and agree with with the uh challenge that that creates you know I recognize that that is a valid challenge. Um so um but for sake of the conversation I and you know the recording I would like to say that um as we as we talk about considering moving it so that changing it so that $1,000 can more than $1,000 could be um repurposed within a department's budget. We're not authorizing additional funds be used in that bud in that department. And also it would not just be done at the whim of the department head. It would also have to go through and be uh something that the auditor would review with that department head and support. So it's not just a free will willy-nilly move of funds. Um so there is protocol in place is what I'm getting at. Um I feel like moving it that so so I not yet ready to take the motion on that matter. I'd like to talk about the second point. Um moving to discussing something where $20,000 up to $100,000 could be uh just passed through to the council rather than the appropriations. Is that accurately stating it? so that it can go straight to the council to be reviewed which is a which is an important part of the expediency we can do with government without causing alarm again because we have protocol in place to check with the auditor the department head those accountable for the funds are making that decision is my point so I think we're good and then it ultimately comes to the council but I would add that I would like to see there be something in way of if it's an actual purchase being made, you know, where we're we're engaging with the vendor that there be one additional layer of approval in that process before it would just go to the council. I I would I do feel like that's a valuable checks and balance to have. I don't know exactly where to place that to say who would have to look at it beside the department head and the auditor but >> let me >> if it could just be the executive then that makes sense to me. >> Yeah. >> And then it doesn't have to be a convening of the appropriations committee. It can just be a you you know the you the auditor and the department head walk over to the executive's office and have the conversation. He signs off of somewhere that's documented. I I I would feel okay with that. >> Um given the sense that $20,000 to $100,000 that's a lot of tax dollars. It >> is. >> Um regardless of the amount total percentage of the budget that it is, I think we owe that to the elector. So >> um >> do you feel that's workable to just insert the executive at that point? >> Yeah.