Cache County Council Regular Meeting – 03-24-2026

Yeah. You can start. Should start with that? Yeah. He can

I don't think it's a surprise?

Should start with that. Win win. Alright. I'm gonna start. K. We wanna welcome everyone to our oh, maybe we'll wait till Joanne sits down. We're gonna wait just a minute, I guess. I'll wait for Okay. Hey. Alright. Now I will go ahead and officially start our county council meeting. Thank you to all of you for being here. I have to do this. K. We'll go ahead and begin our meeting with an opening by council member Dave Erickson.

I'd like to do my opening in the form of a prayer. Father in heaven, we're indeed grateful to be here. We're grateful for each. It's wonderful, wonderful valley that we're able to and with such freedoms to enjoy. And so, and discuss these. To talk with each other and to come to good grateful for the surroundings that we enjoy as far as And far as and as far as and as far as they will also be protected. That they'll be blessed. They'll recognize these blessings. Our thoughts, and be able to share those thoughts openly. And then, they for everything. We thank the for Yeah. The And this we humbly ask and do in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. And if you'd stand, we'd we pledge allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag

of The United States Of America

and to the Republic for which it stands,

one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you, Dave. Appreciate that. K. It's time to review and approve the agenda.

Madam chair, I'd like to move that we approve the agenda with the following changes. I'd like to strike item six a. Strike item six a. You've been informed that Barbara Tidwell does not feel well and won't be able to attend. And, also, we, like to add, this under 12. We'd like to add between items twelve and thirteen in executive session per Utah code fifty two four two zero five one d, strategy sessions to discuss the purchase exchange or lease of real property or to discuss a proposed development agreement, project proposal, or financing proposal. K. Second.

K. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the the agenda with the aforementioned amendments. Is there any further discussion? Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The review and approval of the minutes, I have been informed that in the minutes from last week under item number six, or it was from the March 10 meeting, the word interim county attorney was used, and it should that word interim should be struck. It was county attorney. And so I'd like to make that change if someone wants to make a motion on the minutes. If someone has any other things with the minutes.

Then move to approve with the amended item that was just suggested.

Second. K. So we've been seconded that we approve the minutes of March 10 with the aforementioned striking of the word interim in item number six. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I will abstain. You were not here. Okay. Thank you. Hey. It's time for the report from our county executive.

I don't have any appointments to recommend this evening, but I would like to let you know that there's a couple of things happening you should be aware of. We have a fire board meeting this Thursday, and I anticipate that we're gonna present some alternatives to the fire board. And I'm going to pass out one of those alternatives to you. There's three or four other alternatives. And and so that's happening there. I also met with council person, Garrity, and we're working on coming up with some recommendations for the, airport authority board, rearrangement that do with the airport. We're also talking with Logan City about the future of Willow Park and what's happening in that. I probably need to meet with at least some of the members of the council and kind of outline some of the negotiation that's going on there, probably an executive session, if needed there. I've interacted in the last week with the owners of Bridal Path up at Sherwood Hills, and we're engaged in a dispute over what constitutes public access up there, and we're working on that. Just a variety of things that need substantial attention. We've been very busy the last couple of weeks.

K. Thank you for that report. Does anyone have any questions for the executive? K. Thank you. Alright. We'll move on to item six b, the Connect Public Transit Report. Sean Bushman.

I wasn't sure if he got it on time. Sorry. I wasn't sure if I sent it

on time. Will you please state your name for the record? Sean Bushman,

and I'm the county representative on the Connect board of directors. So there's just six slides here. I just wanted to give an update. I try to do this every year at least once. And, yeah, if we could. Thanks. Just a highlight of of some of the things that happened this last year. We moved into a new facility. It's on about 30th North 300 West by the roller coaster company. We've added some frequency to our major county routes. Route 12 goes south towards Hiram and back, and Route 15 goes up towards Richmond and back. And you'll see that data on that in a minute. We it ended up being really difficult, but we ended up providing bus service to the fallen officers' funerals in August. And then we disposed of our previous facility, and then we we got our budget passed. So just a a nice normal year for CVT for Connect. This is a snapshot from our website, and this was taken yesterday afternoon about 5PM. It now says how many, the utilization, so how many people are getting on the bus, every what is it? It updates every minute or so, and so that's 6,400 at that point. And then that gives some demographics of bus utilization. By the way, I have, Todd Buehler, our general manager here with us. So if you ask some questions when I'm done that that get into the weeds more than I can answer, he's here. Yeah. I'd I'd encourage you all to go on the website and you can see kind of what's happening. This is some data. I am a scientist. I love data. This is utilization of the number of riders that get on the bus for route 12 over the last year or in, and over 2024. We made some changes in 2025 that, adjusted the, bus to, to run a little bit more efficiently, more timely. And you can see the red bars, they all of a sudden jump as of August, quite a bit for December. And and we're seeing the buses a lot more full on these county routes. And that goes to Hiram through Providence, Nibley, along the highway. Same thing happened for the North. You can see aft after August, the utilization really jumps. We're seeing this across our routes. In fact, you can jump to the next one. These are the numbers of riders we've had in the last year. It's a little small, sorry, but the first two are what we call the loop. They're what you'll see circulating around the the town of Logan from Walmart to campus to Walmart, either in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. And there are always people waiting at the bus stops now for those. They're highly utilized. All of the others, of course, they're ranked in this, but the number of riders has increased steadily in the last three years. So oh, yeah. Yeah. I was just showing highlighting that.

Sean, just before you move on from that, is it so 258,000 people rode the green line. Is that what you're saying? In 2025? Yes. K. And and but you don't know how many of those are unique riders. Correct? There's probably no way to check that. What do you mean by unique? Correct? Like, there's only a 140,000

people in Cache County. Like Uh-uh. Yes. Yes. I see what you mean. Returning. Yes. Yeah. Returns. No. There's no way for us to tell Yeah. The account on board. K. One interesting thing though, we we used to before we had the loop, almost every route had a transfer. We would ride into Logan, transfer and ride somewhere else. So it's almost like we took the number of riders and divided by two and that was really the number of riders. The loop got rid of that for a large part. So only a few of the routes still have a lot of transfers. So our our ridership has increased more than the numbers show us. Well, okay. More than we would think. So alright. This is where I wanted to kind of go at the end. We're starting something right now. It's a federally mandated we'll call it a short range transit plan, but we're coordinated with the CMPO this time around. And, it includes a lot of data collection, including some surveys for users and non users. And I'd like to encourage you all as as you see some, notifications for surveys. We are especially going to reach out to stakeholders including the council to fill those out. Let us know your feelings and priorities. We'll look at ridership data. We're going to do an analysis of distal hubs. Right now, everybody goes right into Logan and then all the buses go in and then go right back out in a wagon wheel. That's getting more difficult to keep timely. So we're thinking, you know, of hubs. How would it work if we had smaller hubs north and south? Creative transit options in areas. We've been we've implemented something called the pool in Providence and River Heights, which is an on demand service. But instead of going to houses it'll go to a bus stop. That keeps it kind of from not getting out of control, but the bus only runs if there's a request for a rider. And so, it's improved our efficiency and it's been quite a neat way to expand into areas where there's a need for service but it's not reached the level of a fixed draft. So, we're looking at more of that if there's other areas where that might benefit. And then, you know, as as the valley grows we have more high density areas. And so we're going to look at prioritization methods for future adjustments. So please, as you see, and I'll reach out to you as well, as you see requests for information and surveys, please take them. We appreciate while we rely on your your input. So but that's all I have. Do you have questions as far as any all things connect?

Anybody? I have a question, please. You highlighted Route 12 and Route 15. Uh-huh. Did maybe I didn't catch it. Where did Route 15 service? That goes up to Richmond and back. Okay. So one was South and one was North. Okay. Thank you.

And I I probably could have included the maps on this as a slide. I'll do that in the future. I remember a while ago, there was a vote on running the buses 15 every fifteen minutes during peak times. Is that has there been further discussion on that? And if it was implemented, would it go to a vote because it would cost more?

How how does that work? It's a good question. We and and as the board, we've discussed at times, in the past whether some routes or all routes should increase frequency at certain times of the day, you know, peak hours. The Logan routes

are out and back every half hour. So you're thinking at doubling the buses so that they're every fifteen minutes I just I I remember that was Yeah. I think it was in 2010 or something that was on the ballot. And every now and then, I hear that that desire brought up because you've probably done surveys, but it seems like time is the biggest deterrent from riding the bus. So I didn't know if that was Yeah. Okay. Yes. Or that where that discussion was.

The loop was partially designed to to take care of that. It covers 60% of the destinations people want, and we've increased the frequency to about every 15 minutes. Okay. That that seems to be But there is a balancing act that that many of our discussions in planning have to work with, and that's writers versus coverage. Yeah. Always balancing act. Yep.

Yeah. Thanks.

Anybody else?

I just

mentioned of appreciation or just recognizing. I get the privilege of working across the street from your facility there in North Logan. And man, it's always busy there. You got a lot of activity going on there. It looks like a well run,

smooth flowing operation there, and good job. Thank you. It's really, kudos for our general manager and the staff there. They they do a great job. And we meet and exceed all the metrics we've ever been put up against in the FTA. K. Thank you. Thank you.

K. Diana.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. So we, collectively, the auditor's office and the treasurer's office, come before you this evening to request your authorization to correct a tax increment distribution error involving the redevelopment agency of Northglobe Logan City's North Gateway project area. Tax agreement is strictly defined by the project area budget, which is approved by the taxing entity committee. This was in the packet that was shared with you last week and also in the Google Drive. I hope you were able to all get to that. If the funds are distributed beyond what is authorized in that tech budget, then they must be recovered and reallocated. In March '24, the county had distributed a tax increment for the twenty twenty three year. However, in March, I identified a discrepancy in the reported project term. The agency had reported a twelve year term to the county for years, And then I noticed they have to now report to the government office of economic development at the state level, and I noticed it had changed to a thirteen year term. This this particular project area started in 2006, well before my time. So seeing that discrepancy, then I under you know, went an investigation and found that neither of these matched the legally authorized eleven year term, which was what the project area plan and the budget we approved for at the tech level, which is which is a taxing entity committee. Taxing entity committee means there's someone from the county. There's someone from North Logan. There's someone from Cache County School District. There's somebody from the state school board. There's somebody from the Hyde Park Cemetery District. There's somebody from the Cache Mosquito Abatement District. So there so all entities are represented. And in the law, any vote that they take is binding on all entities. So our records that we discovered within Tamara's paperwork clearly showed that the taxing entity committee had unanimously approved an eleven year term for the project plan and the project budget. So under Utah law, as I said, that vote is binding. And the tax increment may only be distributed, and this is under the treasurer's statute, 50 nine-two-thirteen 65, I believe, can only be distributed within that authorized period. So any distribution beyond that term exceeds our statutory authority. So after consulting with the Utah State Tax Commission last year, we were advised to claw back the overpayment made for that twelfth year and to recognize that the project area had already terminated. So I requested documentation from North Logan to verify any potential amendments or extensions that may have differed, but none have been provided as of today. Meanwhile, all of our county records, including committee minutes, project budgets, North Logan Agency resolutions, North Logan city ordinances, all consistently confirm the eleven year term. So based on this, the county has determined that the the $150,615.75 distributed for that twelfth year was an overpayment and constitutes an administrative error. This correction is not punitive. It does not create any new obligations. It simply ensures compliance with Utah law and it restores the proper allocation of the funds among the affected taxing entities. This is strictly a reallocation of previously distributed funds. We recommend implementing this correction during the final distribution for the twenty twenty five year, which McAllister says is due by March 31. And at that time, the funds would be reallocated as follows. Cache County School District, dollars 104,814. Cash County, dollars 22,078. North Logan City, dollars 21,030. Hyde Park Cemetery, dollars $18.88. And the Cash Mosquito Abatement District $107.

807? Is that what you said? $8.00 7.

Accordingly, we respectfully request your approval to proceed with the administration administrative correction in fulfillment of our statutory responsibilities. Thank you for this consideration.

K. Does anyone have questions for Diana?

Yes. I've met with the North Logan mayor. Initially, they contested this, And I don't disagree with the conclusion that you've come to, Diana, but the minutes are are somewhat murky in the initial discussion about what the term would be. They used terms like, it's it's going to be we're gonna make the first distribution, and then it's gonna go on for eleven years. But in the end, when you finally get to the point where they're making a decision, it's it's clearly eleven years. I think that North Logan now accepts that it's eleven years. In discussing it with North Logan, North Logan has asked to postpone this so that they board would give up their their share of this. And I don't see a reason why we can't allow them to try that. The meeting that the mayor of North Logan is scheduled is later this week. There wasn't an intervening meeting when we asked to postpone this. So I don't see a reason why we can't postpone it or hold it in suspense until she goes through that process of discussing it with the school board. Irrespective of whether the school board gives up their twelfth year, we would have to make the same decision with respect to our interest in this. So question because I think he's The mayor had asked me whether we were going to make a decision tonight. I did not know this was gonna be on the agenda tonight, and I I told her that I didn't think we would make a decision that we would allow her the time period. Should be able to have that meeting and have knowledge of it before the March 31 as to what happens.

I spoke with North Logan's mayor today, and so she was aware that we were gonna talk about it tonight. I I talked to her about that. And the the time frame that we're under is that our treasurer's office is statutorily required to write a check to North Logan on March 31. So I, so that's why it needs to be done tonight. Whatever we decide, it has to be taken care of tonight. We can put some of that in a suspended account until they if if the school district comes forth with a written document that said they would give up theirs, the school district, from what I understand, was under the impression that it was a twelve year CRA as well, and so they were not expecting more money. If they if we get that documentation from them, then that changes things, in before March 31. And so we have to make a decision tonight regarding this money. Some of it, we could we could put into a suspended account. But but like the county's portion, we need to decide tonight. Are we willing to give that up or not? I don't know that we can speak for the cemetery or the mosquito district abatement. So there's several things to to moving parts to this to this situation. And, Keegan, you had a question for Diana. Oh, well, it it was about the deadline. Okay. And it sounds like you answered it, which is Yeah. We have to write a check to them as of March 31, but we can withhold. We could we could withhold something in suspension and then pay it, and we could authorize payment on our April 14 meeting if we decided to do that till it's all cleared up. Or we can just we can make a different decision tonight. It depends on what everyone wants to do. We need to have a discussion and decide.

My my suggestion to you is is I think it's clear that that it's eleven years. I think Diana's research, supports that. However, we made the mistake of distributing the money in our records. When you look at them, I I have to confess some of the records were confusing to me until I got all of the records and laid them end to end because there was a lengthy discussion about it being a twelve year term. And then it went back and forth in the meeting. At the end of the meeting, they said eleven. So but Well it's clarified because there's a financial report attached to it that clearly shows eleven years. But apparently, for ten years, the reports go in saying it's twelve. Everybody's making it twelve. If the school board wants to give up their money, I don't think we we need to be too concerned about it. But I got a report from Mayor Peterson that they would do that. I just said it needs to be in writing. It needs to be the school board. It isn't sufficient to just have a telephone call on it. And then we have the same decision to make.

So if I could respond to that? Yes. So in the beginning, they the tech committee was considering a ten, eleven, a twelve, and a fifteen year scenario. This particular gateway project, which is the North Gateway, which is right around February where it joins North Logan, had been designated as a blighted area back in on on 09/01/2005. By law, they had one year before they had to adopt a plan. And so when the beginning in those minutes in the eleventh, they're saying, well, we have to move forward with something. We can amend it later. So then the agency did a resolution. The city did a ordinance. They adopted the twelve year plan, 08/17/2006. August 28, the tech came back and said, well, we're gonna we amend it, and we, they voted unanimously to accept the eleven year. But, like, there were a number of different scenarios out there, and I and I have to be clear, these aren't county records that stated the twelfth year. These were agency reports that were sent to the county on an annual basis. And I didn't get into these creation documents till I had to terminate that area.

So that's what There's the the eleven years is signed by the city, Diana. By the city and by the agency. Right. So Yes. They're not disputing that. I don't think they know they understand that.

I I've got one question. It might have to do with the if if we pass this authorization and then does that still give freedom to hold to be able to hold that money into account while this other process happens?

I can I can I can hold that money? K. It's a little gray for the fact that the final distribution Right. We're also dealing with the previous year. Yep. The other one's there. And If we hold, I think we're we're more correct in holding because

Yeah. And and I I think this you know, these monies that some of these organizations, I mean, 1,889 or 80 To the cemetery, it's a big difference to them when they only have a 20,000. A lot of money. Yeah. You know? And even the abatement programs, the mosquito abatement of the 800, so that's a lot of money to to those To a small budget. Yeah. Right. To a small budget. And so, therefore, I would move that we go ahead and pass this this request for authorization to correct the tax increment distribution error and and then go ahead and fulfill the process in holding things until if other things work out, then we can come back and make the changes if we have to. Did we have a request on how long we were gonna hold that in suspense? Till April 14 at the long.

I I I think that the only monies that we don't pass through are I mean, one up chunk goes to North Logan City. So that doesn't make any difference on that one. But unless North Logan brings us the statement from these two cemetery districts, it's going. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I think that's the way we decide. It's absent something in writing. But I say I'd I'd say two weeks.

I I thought we were just talking about the school district. This needs to be this is actually we've got to go ahead with this

at least the the paper process by March 31. Right? Yeah. Because I That has to be approved by the state tax commission. Yeah. There's more than just 10 in checks.

Okay. But if we if we pass this re this authorization, then we can at least keep that going and go to the tax commission and still work things out if if something else comes back to us. Right?

I can always distribute money back to you. K. K.

In in your motion, can you clarify

if he's holding it for the school district or for the cemetery district? Because I I think he holds everything except what's owed to North Logan because that's not in dispute anyway. That way, if if we held that back, then we'd give it to them. Right? Is that the motion?

Yes. To hold everything that goes to North Logan? It is. My motion is to support this request for the authorization to correct tax increment distribution as as established right here. And then Holding and as far as holding, I guess and then holding what monies need to be held

to make everyone whole. I think I think what they're also asking for is they're asking for a time frame.

We don't need Like, he's on that time frame. That's what I'm saying. What what why

what does he need? You want do you want me to add April 14?

Well, it's been the fifteenth, so it's been Okay. We meet again on the fourteenth. So we can clarify that. Is that okay?

Yeah. That's my entire motion there. K.

Do I have a second on that or any further discussion? I'll second it. K. I have a motion and a second. Does anyone else want to have further discussion about that before we vote? Is everyone clear what we're doing and why?

Can we restate it and

just to to be sure? I Yes. Okay. We're gonna we're gonna we're gonna pass this mem we're gonna support this memorandum that this is the correct Mhmm. But with the idea that some of these entities thought it was twelve years and may not ask for that money. And so we will have that cleared up by April 15. And then and then hold the monies

until they notify that they don't lost their money. Yep. And that would go to

Diana. Diana. April 15. Yep. Okay. And so we will put this on our agenda on the April 14, and we'll we'll have a clarity

that night. We'll decide for sure where it goes. So so we're not the the amount is still the 150,000.

I I would say we don't withhold the $22,078 that would have been paid on March 31. That should still be paid to North Logan because there's no reason to hold their money.

Right. So I just wanted to clarify that was the motion that we're voting on. So does this

meet the state tax commissions rules? Clear till April 14?

K. And then I I have one follow-up question is if you could come back on April 14 and just give us a status Yeah. As to where we are. Just to be really clear on the fourteenth agenda. And that'll be all the items. The itemized. Excuse me.

Yes. I have a motion and a second. Joanne?

Do we need to amend the stated 150,000 to down to the 128

or what? That's what I was getting. Yeah. Yes. Thank you, Keith. That probably

support. I think that's what you're saying. Clarifies it so that that's no confusion in the minutes.

K. So do we need to we need to subtract one we need to subtract twenty two thousand and seventy eight from

one just say less the North Logan allocation

that may be simpler. So I accept that. K. Friendly amendment from you, Mark. I appreciate how friendly you are. That's all good.

K. Do we need to second the Yes. Concept? Well, I'll I'll I'll second Okay. Mark's amended motion. Mark made an amended motion. Keegan seconded. I guess from the minutes, we need to clarify who's making all of our motions. So I'll try and do better at that. K. So I have a motion that we're gonna accept this. Craig's gonna hold the payment until except for the North Logan section. And by April 14, at our next meeting, we will make a final decision determination on that depending on the information we've been given from the other taxing entities. And, also, that will include the 22,000

that goes to Cache County. And I think Mark's about to give us a total.

Oh, I I don't have the 20,000 whatever. So Okay. I I was doing a different North Logan's was 21,030.

21 29 and 51¢. Yeah. The presentation was rounded. Sorry. Okay. That's okay. 1029, and 51.

K.

Alright. I have a motion several motions and seconds that we do the things that we have discussed and and clarify this on the April 14. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. That was confusing, but I think we've come to the right.

Very convoluted.

Thank you for Yes. And thank you for your work, Diana. We appreciate you. We appreciate everything you do. I don't think you're going too far away either. Yeah. Oh, you know what? It's 05:30. We're gonna go ahead and do our public hearings before we get to the board of equalization. Are you okay with that? Are you okay if we do public hearings before we get to board of equalization? You you are the boss. K. I'm gonna we're close enough to 05:30. I think we need to do our public hearings. K. So in on eight a, I need somebody to make a motion to set those public hearings.

Move to set the pub following public hearings to April '30. That's ordinance twenty twenty six dash 14, debts and two rezone. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash fifteen, forty acre industrial rezone. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash 17. Amendment for the Cache County code title sixteen and seventeen to reflect Utah code recodification. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash 18, amending the Cash County consolidated fee schedule to amend fee assessments related to nine one one services. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash 19, amending the Cash County consolidated fee schedule to amend fee assessments related to county fire and EMS service. And finally, resolution twenty twenty six dash 10, a resolution opening and amending the Cache County 2026 budget second amendment.

Second. K. It's been moved repeat it?

It's been moved and seconded that we set the public hearings for the ordinances that were mentioned, the ordinances and the resolution. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We're good there. Okay. So we need to hold the public hearing for ordinance twenty twenty six dash 16, amendment to the Cash County code regarding wastewater systems and source water protection zones. Brian?

Brian Abbott, development services. Tonight, we have an ordinance amendment for water and sewage requirements. I'll go to the next one. So, in the county, we have water protection zones and Cache County code addresses zones one and two with regards to septic systems. Our current code right now as it reads in three b, no proposed septic system shall be permitted within a zone one or two. This brings up a lot of issues. Being overly restrictive does not provide exceptions for repairing or replacing old septic systems, and it negates identifying the Bear River Health Department as the county's experts in evaluating sewer systems. So to kinda get this ball rolling, we had a really good, what I would call a good collaborative effort from several interested parties. Here at Cache County, we had to help with the from the executive's office, our county council. We had some city mayors, the Bear River Health Department was instrumental, and then we had a few private experts in the field to kinda come together to to find out what was wrong and how we could fix it. So with this proposed code amendment, we hope that it would allow property owners with existing septic systems in a zone two to repair, alter or replace a system so long as it meets or exceeds current standards with the approval of a variance from the Bear River Health Department. Also, new proposed on-site wastewater systems may be allowed in a zone 2 so long as no part of the absorption area component of the system is located in Zone 2. And that we continue to identify the Bear River Health Department as the expert in identifying the absorption absorption component of I think you've all had a chance to read those. I don't know that I need to. Wastewater systems. So new systems as we just said, as long we can have a new system in that zone as long as the component for a new on-site wastewater system alternative or conventional shall be permitted as defined by the Bear River Health Department. They'll be the expert in deciding where that absorption area is and making sure it's outside of that protection zone. Existing systems for repair. The owner of an existing on-site wastewater system that is located within that source too and working with the Bear River Health Department to make any needed repairs to the system to ensure it functions properly and does not create any new risk to the environment or the public health. Existing systems can also be altered or completely replaced. So any any existing system in the protection two zone may request a variance through the Bear River Health Department for any proposed alteration or replacement. And then an existing system, if it does get altered or replaced, it shall result in a system with equal or greater protection of the public health and environment as required by meeting the minimum standards and intent of Utah Administrative Rule three seventeen dash four. That's a state code, the Utah Administrative Rule, that specifically talks about on-site wastewater, systems. With the written approval of a variance from the Bear River Health Department, it must be included as part of a zoning clearance application. This was brought before the planning commission on 03/04/2026, and and they recommended approval to the county council six to zero. Any questions on that?

I was just gonna ask about how do they determine zone two

The distance or what? Yeah. It is. So I I should have spent more time talking about that. Zone one is a 100 foot radius surrounding the wellhead or spring collection area, and zone two is an area within a two hundred and fifty day groundwater travel time.

250 groundwater travel. Is that what you said? Yeah. It's just filtered

down.

It'll be interesting at some point to show a map of the county and show what's where's even a small portion of the county and show

to get a visual of where those zones are. Yeah. Yeah. Some of us have seen them, but I think it would be helpful too at some point. Typically, how big is a two hundred and fifty day ground water travel time? Or does that just depend on the soils that exist in the area? Lot that goes into it. I we should have had a picture up in Cove, which kind of started this all.

It's probably three quarters of a mile, potentially.

K. What kinds of soils are in cove?

What kinds of soils are in cove?

It is a combination

of Is it very rocky?

It's clay. Oh, it plays up there which

which That makes it more time. Yes. Percolation takes longer. Okay. It

does kinda I think that's a wonderful question about, you know, really those specific zones, where those soils are and how the makeup and what really determined and when they were established as a zone. Yeah. A

lot of them, the one in particular in Cove, was established after a lot of houses were already there. Right. Right.

As well as and that that's what kind of leads to my biggest question here, and I've been I've brought this set before, and I think it needs to be shared with the public, is that I'm I'm a am a little worried that that some of these zones have been created after ownership between a lot of properties have occurred. And now all of a sudden, we've limited them on what they can do with that property because of a zone two was put on. And they may not be able to cross over other people's properties to get out of the zone discharge waste. Yeah. And so in some reality, there is a decrease in value to that property that has occurred by, you know, a decrease in value has occurred by, you know Being in the greater public good, I guess. And to me, that's in some ways, that to me, that's something ought to be a takings that ought to be mitigated

Yeah. Somehow. Before we go too far in our discussion, it's public hearing. Yeah. We need to have a public hearing on this, then we can discuss it later too. K. Thanks, Brian. Yeah. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to speak to this ordinance? Mister Mathis?

Jordan Mathis, director of the Bear River Health Department. We ended up becoming the the applicant or the Yeah. The applicant for this this change. Originally, the the the cove issue brought it up. But through community discussion, we decided that we were the best applicant and really narrowed down the change of the ordinance from a broader use in those zones to really looking at very specific uses. Making sure that if we have a failed on-site wastewater system in that zone, that we're we're able to actively work with that property owner to fix that. And then the other is is kind of the middle ground of what if somebody who has a home in one of those zones wants to expand that home. Are there ways that we can work with them to expand that system while still offering the same amount of protection that's already there that's been grandfathered in. So, this ordinance does those two things and we're very supportive of it. In fact, the Board of Health voted on the variance. Is that two weeks ago, Sandy? Voted to approve the variance process that would go into effect if this ordinance were to take effect. So we have everything on our end to make sure that we can do that from a health department standpoint and feel like it's it's a good move and and I think we do have to have a broader discussion on on how we address potential other development in these areas. But we need to make sure we're including the municipalities who operate these water systems in those discussions as we move forward.

So k. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Jordan? K. Thank you. Is there anyone else here from the public that would like to speak to this ordinance? K. So we close public hearing. I move to close the public hearing. Second. It's been moved and seconded that we close public hearing. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? K. Diana, then we'll go back to the board of equalization number seven on our agenda.

Do we have a motion? Yep. Move to go into board of equalization.

Second. It's been moved and seconded that we go into board of equalization. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

K. Alright. So we have the second batch of our exclusive use exemption applications before the council. I'd like to start we have 20 tonight. I'd like to start with the 11 charitable. All are previous except for we have the Pregnancy Resource Center of Cache Valley. It's in the old library just east of the Tabernacle. It seemed that it was in good order. Comes with a recommendation for approval as do the rest. And then there was another interesting change on CAPSA. They had a name change into two LLCs, which they own entirely. So that's within the application. Everything is in order. We've seen all the legal documents that show that they own it entirely. So as I say, all the charitable come with a recommendation for approval.

K. Does anyone have any questions for Diana, or does someone want So how often do these things come up for approval? It's an annual it's an annual application

for these charitable educational and religious applications. Seems like it comes up pretty often. Well, we did. We're we're in season right now. So it's like last week, I think we did 35 of them. So all the earlycomers, they are required to have their application into our the county by March 1. And then, of course, we have to review everything as it's coming in, and then it usually takes us a few counsel, you know, sessions to get through all 69 or 70 of them is what we have. So and then there's a few that even have on-site site hearings if you're interested in that. We can

Sometimes they evaluate them if they do partial. So if they're using part of the building for charity, then they'll they have to figure out the Yeah. The percentage. Percentage of property taxes. Or some of the medical, they rent a lot of it. Like, if you think of our largest medical, you know, like,

a huge portion of that is rented to, private practitioners or it's vacant land. So we have to do exclusive use to determine, you know, the percentage on every parcel that they are

submitting an application for. Does that answer your question? Yeah. It does. Thanks. Okay. Thank you for that. Anybody have further questions for Diana? I'll take a motion on this. I'll move to approve these 11 charitable organizations for tax exemption. Second. It's been moved by Keegan, seconded by Mark, that we approve the charitable don't tax exemptions that have been presented to us. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? K.

And then moving on to the charitable housing, we have five of them. So these are are large buildings that serve the underprivileged, low income, elderly in some instances. Some are disability and low income. They are low income, seniors, enlistments, elderly, and handicapped. So they all come with the recommendation for approval. We do have one new one, which is the Riverpark Senior Housing. Their business model is very similar to Aspen Court that came to us, which means they owned it. They developed it and then transferred managing ownership to neighborhood nonprofit so that they would qualify under the five zero one c three rules. That, again, as I say, is the Riverpark Senior Housing. They all meet the letter of the law, so therefore come with the recommendation for approval.

Okay. Does anybody have any questions about those for Diana? You say they transferred at the neighborhood nonprofit?

Exactly. It's the same thing. It's the same business model they used when they transferred to Aspen Court. It was like I think they had to wait fifteen years within the statute, and then if they transferred it to a nonprofit, then they qualified. A lot of these used to be under I think it was it's called the LITEC low income taxing, and it would go to the assessor, and they would value it lower. And it seems like it's shifting onto our exemption rolls. But the law evolves, and we just roll with that.

Yeah. K. I'd take a motion on the charitable housing.

I move to approve the tax exemption for the charitable low income housing.

I'll second that. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the charitable or tax exemptions that have been set before us. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Last of all, education.

There's two. We should have, yeah, one educational A what? Yeah. They've come before us. Two.

I would move to approve the educational. Yeah. They've I don't think there's any glitch. Been around for a long time. Yeah. Bear with a head bear with a head start.

All previous applicants all in good order. Recommendation

for approval. I move to approve the religious the tax exemption for the religious applications. Second that.

And then you'll pass that off to Bryson and I don't have any religious ones here, Diana. I have charity. I have housing, and I have the education. I don't have any religious ones unless they're in this big pile of charity ones. We should vote on the motion on the Yes. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we accept the religious charitable exemptions that have been proposed to us. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Is that it?

Move to exit the board of equalization.

Second. Hey. It's been moved and seconded that we exit the board of equalization. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Thank you. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. I will finish signing those later, Diana. I didn't get to all of them. Okay. Next on our agenda is initial proposals for consideration of action. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash 16. Brian, this one's you.

The public hearing. Yeah.

We just had the public hearing on Yes. This is the one we just had the public hearing on. So this is the time for us to make those discussions and to ask Brian any questions that we might have. Does anyone want to I I think it's a really good start, a really good

Did this go through OMP?

It's not. It's this is the one that is for the development services. Like, it's the it's regarding the wastewater. It's the wastewater one we just talked about with Jordan. Does it go through OOP? I don't know. No. I don't think so. It went to the planning commission. It went to the planning commission. It didn't go to OOP. Yeah. Just P and D. I think it's a good step. I move to suspend the rules and pass ordinance twenty twenty six dash 16,

amendment on Cache County code regarding wastewater systems and source water protections on us.

I'm sorry. Oh, okay. I seconded

Sorry. Got it. Moved by Dave, seconded by Catherine that we suspend the rules and pass ordinance twenty twenty six dash 16. Is there further discussion? Does anyone have questions or wanna talk about that further before we take a vote? I just I just know that the process was very thorough. It was kind of actually

a neat breath of fresh air at how everyone was put their $10 in. Yeah. Gave it to you in the in the pot. We're So you did great. It was serious. It it was a it was a neat process. It really was. Network

upgrade. So were they gonna provide a map or drawings or anything sometime? I'm happy to send one if you're interested in that. I I would be. Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of those zones around our county. Lots. You probably can't do all. There are quite a few. Most actually, most of the city's

water sources are not in their own cities. They are in a lot of the county Properties. Properties and that that they have. And so these protection zones do reflect unincorporated areas. So

Thank you for those that did the work on this and Mhmm. The data. Thank you.

K. We have a motion and a second. Those in favor of suspending the rules and passing ordinance twenty twenty six dash 16. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? K. Let's go to resolution twenty twenty six dash 11, Matt Phillips.

Matt Phillips, public works director. Council, I appreciate you guys putting this on the agenda for short notice. Just a little bit of background. The coder allows the council to put on seasonal restrictions for the county roads for damage, erosion, just health and safety. Just for some background, there's 19 or 18 roads that the county closes seasonally. We have two major dates of when those usually reopen. One of those is April 15, the other one is May 15. In 2022, we were here at about the same time asking for the council to put out a notice that those restrictions were gonna stay longer than that because we had five feet of snow. So our restrictions are based on historical information, historical knowledge, when we usually get our snowfall, and those types of things. You guys are all aware this winter has been unusually warm. We haven't got very much snowfall and so. In conjunction with the road department, we have gone out. We've looked at a lot of these roads that are seasonally closed and we feel like that they're in a good enough condition. Condition. We've looked at some of the long range forecasts. And so we reached out to Dave. So thank you, Dave, for working with Sandy and Andrew to get this on. We believe that that these roads could be opened, especially the ones that are due to open April 15. There is a few that are generally later higher elevations that still have snow. So as one of those examples is South Canyon. South Canyon still has snow on that one. And so there's still a few roads that you you can't you still can't traverse. But these Lower Valley roads, we feel like that they could be open and it's not really going to impact those roads. It's not gonna impact safety, health. And Germany's guys can still, you know, maintain that. Even if we do get a little bit of bad weather, which it looks like there's gonna be some rain in April, we don't feel like that's gonna be significant rain or snowfall to to create any public health and safety issues. So, proposed resolution. I don't have any issues with it. It still allows us to keep some of those closures. And so just so you guys are aware, there will still be some of those higher mountain roads that will be closed.

K. So you're comfortable with the the wording in this? Okay. That's where I'm It basically just gives you authorization to open them up Yes. With your discretion. How do people learn about which roads are open?

This we have a place on our website that we'll post that we keep these seasonal restrictions on our public works page. So once once they're open, that's switched. I don't know, Keegan, how many people are aware of that, but we do keep a list of the seasonal closures. This isn't gonna open any of the forest service roads. This is just gonna open anything that's under county jurisdiction. So

So that is in it leads into my question. For example, the Millville face, that some of that access is restricted because of the habitat the wildlife habitat. Is this Does this gonna will the access still be restricted due to that? Or So

you bring up a good question because we feel like there's a lot of these lower ones, Catherine. That's one that we before we would open that gate, we would just verify with them and and try to coordinate with their dates. So that'd be coordinated with DWR? Yes. If they if if we open ours because of road stuff, but they still trespass onto their land, they could still get a ticket because our road, they could probably travel on. But if they're trespassing on and off into the D D into DWR property where they have that restriction, they would still get a ticket. Okay. We're gonna coordinate with that one. We need to coordinate with Weber County on South Canyon. We've coordinated with Box Elder. So this allows us to not have to wait due to the next meeting that the council would meet at, which would be April 13. So that, you know, we have spring break. We have some of these upper other opportunities. So we feel that the way the way it's written, that still gives us some judgment to open and close some of them. But generally, we have 12 that we think that we could open up. Interesting. Short Divide, Long Divide, High Creek, Smithfield, Dry Canyon. Some of those lower ones, they're they're dry and in good conditions.

K. We have any other questions for Matt. K. I would accept a motion for this one. I would,

you know, with Matt's work and and, with the conditions as such, I move to approve resolution twenty twenty six Dash11. Mhmm. A resolution authorizing the seasonal reopening of unincorporated county roads as listed.

Would you suspend the rules to do that? It's a resolution. It's a resolution. Oh, it's a resolution. I asked. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. I know that we approved resolution twenty twenty six dash eleven. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

K. Thank you, Matt. Thanks, Terry. Terry. And, some will probably be waiting at the gate in the morning. I know. But, we'll give you, hopefully, a couple days. Right?

I'm happy we could do this and get people out in the mountains. K. 10 a, Brian. This is ordinance twenty twenty six dash zero nine, the Wellsville Safe storage rezone.

We'd gone over this last meeting. Do you have any additional questions? I know you had asked for maps. We got those sent out. Hopefully, that helped. It did. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to try and answer those. If not, I think it's just it'll be time to make a decision on it.

K. Does anybody want to open that discussion?

Maybe I'll just comment. I don't know if anyone else could find it, but there was a comment made last time that there was a zone approved similarly distance. And

I looked and I couldn't find anything since It's on Highway 30. It's on Highway 30 on the road towards Tremont. Okay. It's on that highway.

Do you know when it was approved? Is it in the last five years? 2022

would be my guess. Okay. Yeah. Alright. It's within the last five years.

K. I just Well, I don't know if this is appropriate time, but, you know, when I'm coming through the valley, I don't notice the green space. I noticed the great big buildings from the USU, And I don't even know if those are totally utilized to you because it seems like there's not very much livestock in those.

Yeah. I think that seasonal. I'm not exactly sure how they run that those buildings. When my son was in the agriculture

program Seemed like they were always pretty busy. But, anyway, that's what I noticed coming through the canyon. I don't notice the green space, so I don't think this storage is gonna interfere that much with the green space. That's my personal opinion. K.

I I have a question. I wasn't here for the last one, so I'm sorry. I missed out on some of the conversation. But there's comment that Wellsville has this is part of their future annexation declaration that they have said that they're fine with this. But being so close to Wellsville, why isn't it annex into Wellsville?

They didn't say. They just said they don't have a problem with this. And they wrote a letter as well and commented last time in public their Scott Wells was here. I think the language they used specifically is they didn't oppose it.

K. K. Anybody else want to chime in?

I did get some more insight on why this was brought as a industrial and not a commercial. And the reason that I heard was so there could be RV parking potentially as an option. But there's potentially some willingness to resubmit as a commercial if that was a hang up for people.

K.

Dave, Mark, you wanna say anything?

I know the area is I don't know. I just I I personally hate to just see that going up in such an an open ag area that has a lot of agriculture education in several different places, and then I'll the meat just doesn't quite fit get in that area. So And I noticed the planning commission felt the same way. So they recommended for denial also.

It was split. It was four to two. Four to two. Yeah. K. Yeah. I've wrestled with this one because to me, I I do not like the idea of putting in an industrial zone right there. I looked at the maps that that Brian sent us, and there are some commercial zones close, but there's close, but there's not industrial. They're they're quite a ways away for anything industrial. And I I feel like I would have a hard time approving it. I just have a hard time putting industrial right there in the middle of all that green space. And I I hadn't heard the thought that made and I wondered the same thing why why it wasn't asked to be commercial. That would be a little more palatable to me, but I I'm still torn. I think that I just think that there's a lot of different it's a complex situation. So I would accept the motion if someone wants to make if somebody feels comfortable making a motion, we need to make an make a decision tonight on this.

The applicants are here. We could ask if they may.

Yeah. The the applicants are here. I know you are. Are is there interest in re reapplying as a commercial? We could. Wanna have him come up? Yeah. Would you come to the microphone, please?

Travis Baldwin. We could it it fits our purpose either, commercial or industrial. The only thing that the industrial did, like you said, was it adds RV parking, which we don't actually plan on that. But we we didn't know which one to to go with. So like I said, we can go. We just have to go back through all the process again. So commercial does work. Industrial does work. We're not gonna change our plans whether it's commercial or industrial. It's just gonna be the the same.

I just think there's a lot less allowed there the things that are allowed in industrial are a lot more hard for me to swallow than And and we understand that.

Like you said, Wellsville City, I think, in their master plan will eventually take over in that area. They got a commercial right over there, and they may rezone that once they incorporate. I don't know. But, again, it's it's gonna be the same no matter what, and it really doesn't take away any of our plans.

K. Thank you. Well, it sounds like

that it's more likely to pass with this body if it was commercial. How hard is it to change?

We just have to go through planning and zoning again. And, actually, we'd probably get a yes from planning and zoning. When you said it's a four two vote, you guys some of you know what happened in planning and zoning, but someone should have dismissed himself or accused himself from voting, and they're the ones saying nay. We had most everyone else on board. We had three members saying yes until someone spoke up because they own the property on Highway 30, out there. So there's a lot of the the things that shouldn't have been done at that meeting. So and we figured it doesn't matter. You guys are the ones to decide, so that's why we just kept going to you guys.

And all we can discuss tonight is what's in front of us. Right. K. Thank you, Travis. We appreciate that. K. I would accept a motion unless anyone has any further questions or discussion.

I'd make a motion that we accept planning and zoning's recommendation and deny the rezone per the reasons of concern, always for me, over the industrial what is available in an industrial zone versus commercial, which is also the stated reason in the PNZ summary.

K. Do I have a second? I'll second. K. It's been moved and seconded that we deny resolution twenty twenty six dash 11. That's not true. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash o nine, the Willesville Safe Storage Rezone. Any further discussion? Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Me. Nay. K. So there was one nay. Okay. Hope to see you back. K.

We

we can't we can't discuss that until there's a proposal in front of us. You're welcome to reach out to us individually. Yes. About that. Yep. K. Thank you. Alright. Ordinance twenty twenty six dash 12 enacting the retire the requirement of online publication of county council legislation. Andrew.

Good evening, council. During the last meeting, in an effort to make sure that everyone else's documents were uploaded to your personal, packets, I had inadvertently not included the proposed amendment that I am suggesting that you pass to this ordinance, but so I apologize. Council member Buse, you were not here for the last meeting. So for that reason, we're gonna run through the whole entire thing again. But don't worry. But don't worry. It'll be pretty quick and painless. In short, ordinance twenty twenty six dash 12 requires that the county publish all final legislative acts to the county council online. It's pretty common practice throughout The United States. I I think that specifically assigning it in county code is a rather I think it will be pertinent to do that. At the moment, we don't have an official online location. Sure. There are previous media packets and other secondary sources, but there's no one primary source to pull from. In ordinance twenty twenty six dash 12, it mandates that there be a central location online for all the all the council legislative acts. It requires all legislation be available online within thirty days of filing consideration. It requires an online public slash master global tracking table of all voting results, and it designates the county clerk's office as the entity responsible for the publication and maintenance. County clerk's office already collects all final ordinances and resolutions, so it it's kind of a a no brainer on that one. Here's an example of a what a public legislation index would look like. This is from Logan City Council. This list of their ordinances. As for the master global voting table, here's an example from Washington City, down south. So all that being said, I would suggest to you all, and this amendment is in your pack this time, I promise. The amendment itself eliminates the requirement for a global voting record table, and it just mandates that every ordinance and resolution I forgive that error. Every ordinance resolution or other piece legislation published online, it contained its own dedicated data, including the final action, the date of the vote, those who voted against and for it, signatures of veto. Instead of having a master global voting table, it would just require that each have something like this. Specifically, the reason for this is it resolves the difficulty for manually maintaining a standalone record for over a thousand piece of legislation. It removes redundant requirements by shifting the format focus on individual documents already containing the votes, and it increases the odds that those who are viewing the legislation themselves might actually see the context of what the council has passed instead of just a title and a bunch of numbers. All that being said, like I said, this is a an example of what would be required under the amendment. So there are some possible actions for the ordinance that's laid before you. You can pass it as is. You can amend and pass the ordinance. You can return the ordinance to the ordinance and policy review committee, or you can reject it outright. As your senior policy adviser, as it said in my job description, I would advise you all to go with option number two. You guys have any questions?

Is there a cost associated with building this online?

Bryson, you're already working with the I'm already working on it with IT. Yep. This So it's internally. Yeah. Okay. Yep. Nope. This is already happening. This would just be making sure that this is somewhere in code saying this is your responsibility, mister Clark.

Okay. Will this be will we be able to go back on old? Yes.

We promise.

Because I see Historical? Yeah. I think we're still digging the grid. Year and you'll find that. So they'll they're we're gonna pull back everything. So what what we're doing is our current index that we have now internally, we're just gonna mirror it.

Hear it onto the website.

So the ones that was passed when in Brigham's days, they'll be there.

They're there. Okay.

Cool. So why aren't you recommending number one?

Because number one would require that separate large table that could have errors in it. This way, with the amendment, it just makes sure that each document already has its own record. That works

good.

K. I would accept a motion on that.

I move that we accept number two, amend the and pass the ordinance twenty twenty six dash 12.

K. I will second that. It's been moved by Joanne and seconded by Dave Erickson. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? K.

Clear enough on what we're amending. I what I was gonna say before we didn't have an opportunity for discussion, but do we need to be more explicit? The amendments is in blue. Yep. Oh, it is displayed in your media packet and online. Okay. So so it was implied that it is as amended. As amended. As amended. Yes.

K. K. Thank you. Thank you.

That would be ironic if this one had was vague in the record.

Oh, it was hot. I thought anybody would touch anything. K. Does anybody did everybody get a chance to vote on that? Okay. Thank you, Andrew. K. Resolution 2026Dash04.

Get some good exercise tonight.

I know. Brian, we're glad you're here.

Again, this was the Nibley annexation request we discussed at the last meeting. I can go over it again or if you got the chance to go through it. I did go talk to Nibley City yesterday about this. Just ask them kind of their thoughts and and what they would like. They were kinda neutral. If if the county agrees to it, they're happy. If the county disagrees, they'll they'll they'll they'll move on. They're not concerned about the unincorporated peninsula at all. They would agree with the county if we did for that with that. I know we've talked a lot about development outside the county, how we would like cities to take it. Nibley is willing to take this. And then if we say no, I kinda

what are we saying? But And just clarity, when you say will Nibley is willing to take this, you mean that they would take on the ownership of the road?

Yeah. Maintenance. They're taking the whole road. Ownership of the road. And the what they'll hook into their water and sewer system. Okay. The whole road. Yeah. The whole both sides of the road. Not the piece.

The That little strip.

All of it. Right.

Not the yellow part. All of the road. All of the road. All of the road. Yeah. The yellow piece is not the road. On the side of the road. Right.

Do they yeah. Yeah. Okay. Do they do down through that Peninsula area? They are even gonna take, Again, that's that's that's the road all the way through. All the way through. Okay. That's that's that's huge.

Can we ask George if he has anything to add? Yeah. I think he Yeah.

We met with them this afternoon. Protection zone. The Nibley sewer is in the roadway. The individual just don't want to annex it at this point. So I I think we're not in a position where there's gonna be any development on that land without it getting annexed to one of the two cities. So I don't like peninsulas, but I think we can live with this one because it's going to solve the problem by itself. The issue about the road has been resolved, and that was our primary concern if we would get a half a road. But this is now solved. So I would recommend the council approve the annexation or not object, I guess, is the way we would say it. Yeah.

I I feel this go ahead. Yeah. Okay.

This is located in Nibley source water protection area. So I don't we don't want to have septic systems. We don't want to have wells. It makes sense to me that it should go with Nibley where it can have sewer and and water provided by a municipality.

So, yeah, I think we should not as well. That's what I was gonna say. We've been having so many discussions about how do we handle all the sewers sewer systems and septic tanks. And this, to me, I think it's a I think it's a good

Well, doesn't didn't I read that the the water system is privately owned

by the residents that already live there? Some of it is. But that but I don't know if that's An adjacent an adjacent lot has

Private. Uh-huh. A spring that they right? An adjacent lot has one. But the Nibley City has the sewer and water coming down Hollow Road.

I did have one other questions. There's a that's still gonna be county, Could could we just give it to someone?

Who calls it now? I mean, I doubt Nivly lifts up their clouds and

Yeah.

I was gonna say, okay. Lift up their cloud and say, nope. Forget the border. Yeah. Anyway,

I was just I was kinda curious as to and I didn't find the where Hiram and Nibali are on Hollow Road, where are they coming together? Is this as far as Nibbler is going?

Hiram starts at the bottom of the hill. You drive that. I I can't show it on a map. It goes down

the hill that it goes to Blacksmith for? Yeah. Yeah.

And so there's gonna be a gap because there's some development in the county there.

But what are what are Hiram and Nibley's plans of annexation? Where is the boundary on that Hollow Road?

Okay. Yeah.

Okay. I think that that road then you know, I hope they fight over it.

Do do we have some writing somewhere that that Nibali's taking care of the road?

It's gonna be Anyway, we all we all understand the issues and that's what needs to be done in the Lance is That's the only question I had is how far I realized, kinda curious as to how far that was gonna go up and whether they wanted more.

So what's the zoning on that piece?

Right now it's has r two that or so it's a it's like estates. I it's got some name there, but Hollow Road is all two acre.

So is there a developer that's planning to build how many places?

Well, it's they're two acre lots, I think. That's between them and Nibbly. That'll be Nibbly's. Yeah. They've got We'll let Nibbly decide that. Something is state. With that, I'm happy to, I guess that would be approved resolution twenty twenty six zero four.

Second.

K. It's been moved and seconded that we approve resolution twenty twenty six dash zero four, providing consent for the annexation that has been presented to us. Is there any further discussion? K. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? K. Alright. 10 d. We've been there before. It's not in our packet. Is it in our packet?

Oh, refresh. I just uploaded the current document. I didn't realize I made an error. I'm sorry.

K. We have discussed this before.

Which one was that? O six?

10 d. Rem removal of certain class b road segments. If you refresh your iPads, you'll be able to see it. I like that. Okay. Refreshed. I think we're all pretty familiar with this. Does someone want to make a motion?

Place. Where does it stand? Doesn't doesn't you have an update for us. Right? Yeah. Well, yeah, I was gonna because wasn't that wasn't that why three cities, and we're still having discussions with them.

It it isn't there is a complexity here because of our agreement to take the road and manage it. I've received an opinion from our legal counsel that we have the right to disengage. I got that opinion. I'm I'm giving it to the cities. I I think it's probably gonna be another meeting or two before we can decide whether the cities are gonna accept that or whether it's we're just gonna go ahead and do it. In the meantime, I'm expecting to receive a letter from the mayor of River Heights, asking us to approve the access in River Heights with that one subdivision so that that can get done.

K. So we do part without all?

Pardon me? Can we do just part of it without all of it?

Like, part of the road, you mean? Yeah. Part of the Yep. The lane. We we can approve we can approve 202606.

Mhmm. I kinda think I think they're gonna come to an agreement regardless. I kinda think that

I don't know. George, as you're making negotiations, would you rather we keep it as just a continued motion that Yeah. But continued item that we're not making?

Or I think I would just leave it in where it is. It's pending. But our I I think we're coming to the end of trying to work this out.

We're trying to do it amicably, and then we if it's not going to, we just pass the motion. Is that

Yeah. Well, I I think at the end of the day, we pass the same motion anyway. But that means Yeah. I don't know if we're just trying to do it for relationship sake. No. There there are some legitimate issues involving this roadway.

We agreed to take the roadway and maintain it. It's not just a situation where you have a garden ride, but this issue is and as Dane has opined, we we didn't say we would take it forever. And we've done this for twenty years. The city's response is the road is in in bad condition. And there's a dispute about how bad the condition is. And they're talking about, well, would you be willing to do this work before you give it back to us? And so we're discussing that.

Does that have to do with the sewers that do in Millville? That that gives me enough incentive to pass this thing. Pardon me? That gives me enough incentive to pass it and let them be determined let them determine their destiny in their cities. Did did were they informed in these discussions that the council would potentially be voting on it tonight and that it's at a hot deadline? No. I I don't think they were informed that you're considering voting on it tonight.

Though Matt, you and I were in the discussion with him together, and Matt can give you a fuller report that

He looks like he'd be delighted to.

Jeremy's entertaining by the whole thing. That's Jeremy.

Same. It's up to you, I think. It's not up to me. If you wanna invite Matt up, I mean. So just Oh, I'd love to have Matt discussing it. Yeah. Maybe while Matt wait makes his way up here. But Yeah. Matt, would you come talk

to us as a formal invitation? If if there really is a dispute about the condition of the road

Yeah. I wasn't aware of that. That prior to tonight. Me either.

So they made they made the condition of the road. And if we're talking the Millville portion where it's been

cut across for a sewer project, that's not necessarily a maintenance thing.

Where Where would you like me to start?

Are there any parts of the road that we have not maintained properly?

The county has done very little to low maintenance on those roads for some time. There isn't necessarily a very formal agreement of what maintenance we should be doing and what maintenance we there just isn't an agreement there. So Jerm you you're you're looking at Jermaine, he's laughing because some of the depending upon, you know, leadership of what we maintain, what we don't maintain. You know, Millville's come through and done a lot of work on that road. There's crosswalks. There's there's a it doesn't function like our standard county roads. Hence, that's why we're approaching the cities, and we think that it functions better as a city road that can be maintained locally with curb, gutters, sidewalk, crossing guards, all these bike lanes, all these things that we don't really deal with on a daily basis. So George is correct. There is some debate between the cities of what maintenance level. They do feel like the county has neglected the road to a point to where we need to put some money back into that to bring it to a certain and we have not come to terms on what that condition may be. So

k. Yeah. I hadn't heard that before. Because I my thought was just let's just give it to them, and they can work out all the details themselves. But

That's still my thought. But

So I support George and his negotiations for this road. I don't know that we're ever gonna come to where what what we see is adequate maintenance level and what Providence and the rest of the city life sees adequate maintenance level. I don't know if we're ever gonna see exactly, but I'm hoping that we can come to some type of an agreement and be able to keep those relationships with those cities.

Yeah. Yeah. I wanna maintain the relationship. Yes. I don't wanna be too this. Yeah.

So this isn't a motion, but more of a recommendation as I think they should know when we're voting on it just out of a courtesy, and we should work out the condition that we give it to them. And if if it is in poor shape, I think that could potentially be in poor taste just to

I I do think they're very aware that the council is considering these roads and that the the county attorney has drafted a resolution to such to give it back to them. They they're aware of that.

And as far as giving River Heights the go ahead on that development, we can't do that without some something in front of us. Like, we can't just say, yeah. Go ahead. We what? The River Heights. We can't say it's a we can't give our approval for them to do a development onto that road

without something in front of us. We can't just say Well, the the mayor is supposed to write a letter to me saying that they Okay. They do not object to us allowing that. And I think that's sufficient that we can get that individual that's trapped by this thing Yeah. Going ahead.

I agree. And we would bring something back so that we've stayed consistent with our previous resolutions where the council approves that access on. K. So

k. Does anyone want to make a motion, or we is anyone are we okay with continuing that again? Can we set a hard deadline, though, or at least talk amongst ourselves? I don't know how we can. I mean, I thought tonight was a hard deadline. I just thought so if there's still things going on that we were not aware of, I guess it's hard to say what that you could you could do one if you'd like. You could propose that. I guess it's not a motion, but Yeah. You know? Andrew. Thank you for just a minute. What's not meant? Drag it out more than a month. It's going to say, you can amend the resolution to say an effective date, say, April 30 unless other action is taken by the county council by x state. How do you guys feel about that? Do you wanna pass it with that amendment that we've got? Is that what

That gives you can put effective date on

on their item. I guess, I don't know

between the the county executive and Matt, however it was. I don't know what the road in addition to item. We don't need any more incentives from you to get rid of the road. We're trying to get rid of the road. We're trying to do it in a way in which we don't cause more difficulty with the three cities involved. Leaving it pending, I think, is the best choice, and we will try and make progress on it. We we actually had our first meeting with all three cities, what, a week ago, Matt? They are unrealistic with respect to to what they're asking us to do with respect to the road. And once you go look at the road, the road isn't that far different from their other city roads. If we can solve this problem by doing some makeup maintenance on the road, that would be a choice. But redoing the entire road is is not a possibility, I don't think. And that seemed to be what they expect us to do, and I don't think that's something we'll recommend to you.

So do you have another meeting scheduled with those three, or is it just kinda open?

We will be scheduling another meeting. I went and looked at the road after we listened to them complain about it. I went and looked at it. So I'm better informed to deal with their claims about the road, and I think Matt and I have both looked at it. And I think we can put together a package that we can say we'll do this and let's see if they'll accept that. So there will be a meeting and there will be a report. If you if you just leave it pending, we'll have another report for you in the next meeting.

K.

Is everyone okay with that? Bundle of things that are in this kind of a category where we're working on them.

K. Does anyone is everyone okay with that, or does someone wanna make a motion?

If you're okay with pending, we'll just keep it pending. I I am interested in exploring the idea of maybe passing this tonight, but with condition of the Of a deadline? Takes effect, which would really just be section five being restated.

I

mean, reality is it could be till after our next meeting just like we did with the North Logan money thing. But

I

I I agree with Mark, that I would like I am not willing to to go ahead and do this and give an effective date, and then we go take the responsibility of passing this other development within the proof of backdoor access is through a church property and then out through the front property and all these kind of things. I I just think that that's that's those cities. They need to determine that. And even on these roads, you know, if if we start jumping between the cities and one city says, well, we want that city to have as good a road as this city. That's between the cities. That's their I think that's their business that we shouldn't really be jumping in between. So

My opinion is I I think we have the opportunity for some goodwill brokering between the cities that have had a hard time having the conversations. And so I think we can take advantage of that as leaders in the county. We can take the lead on that. Does it really matter if it's another three weeks? We know we're gonna abandon the road. Like, that's a given. Right? We know what the ultimate outcome will be. I don't see there's a real problem in in waiting to see if we can have some finesse in trying to do that. I think the only the only

downside is just this developer that's been waiting forever for their thing is There's I just don't want caught in the middle. We don't need for three weeks. And we've been doing that for a month. Yeah. I just I mean, the speed of government isn't known for it, you know, necessarily expediting things, but I don't know that I wanna contribute to the delay as it Andrew. Relates to that.

I have had the developer reach out to me subsequently since the last meeting. They are expecting some sort of action soon, though that's not necessarily that doesn't obligate you to do anything. But I will say they are following up and they are watching closely.

Yeah. They've been waiting over a year, haven't they? Yeah. We're not beholden to them, but I think, you know, we

k. So right there. Again, does someone wanna make a motion? Do we want to just continue the continue it till next time? I know you guys feel like you'd like to pass it with a deadline.

We're meeting again on the April 14. Fourteenth and then again on the twenty first, I think, because we changed it. Yeah. So where we have a meeting the week after, we could put it there. That gives us almost exactly a month.

And I apologize for bringing it up, but then I I just haven't read it from that context, the rest of the document. Is there anywhere else my concern is with making a motion. Is is there anywhere else that we would need to make a similar adjustment in order to be able to not have it take effect on the twenty first if something better, everyone agrees is better, is agreed upon. That's my hesitation making the motion to what I suggested. K. If there's any I mean, anyone is feels they're more familiar with the document, I'm happy to continue to discuss this so that we can I I really feel like we need to set a more firm deadline because we've been saying this is on the agenda? We're gonna ask the next time. The executive has done great work here, and negotiations are always not time sensitive, but situation relevant. So I don't think you've done a bad job. I'm not saying that anyway, but I would like to see this thing done sooner than later. Is there a time urgency, Mark? Well, back to, again, to the developer who's been held in limbo, you know, outside our control for over a year And what I'm saying that is something I do want to be cognizant about. River Heights

sends a letter saying they asked us to do this with respect to this developer. Why don't we do that? So that person is not caught in this delay.

And and I think there are extenuating circumstances to that that I would probably be okay with, but I really hate to set a precedent to allowing a development on a county road where someone could come back and say, well, you allowed it in River Heights. It's

to that point, I think it is more than just a letter. It would I mean, in order for us to make that approval, you would have to basically be as similar to our as if the development was in our own process. Right? I I would want that clarity before making that decision.

Yeah. I'm not I I guess we'd look at Andrew and and Dane to give us if if we if we did that, if we continue this for now, but we want to do something to approve that development, development, what legal document would we need to pass on the April 14 meeting? Like, what do we need in front of us? Not just a letter from River Heights, but a resolution of some kind or I don't know exactly. But can you guys maybe work on that? To approve the development

from

I'm trying to remember the name of the Just the road on River Heights. What would it be? We're accepting the fact that the access for that development would be on the County County Road, which that is That's the whole reason we're talking about it is because the code says,

don't do that. Yeah. Yeah. And that's what brought this up in the first place and how it evolved into an into annexing the road is because we thought, why should we make the decision to give them access? Why not? Why don't they just take the road over? Yeah. So then we're kind of going back to where we were before.

Yeah. We basically just required and they were willing, but it acquired Nibley when they annexed that property. They take the whole road. Yep. And all of a sudden, we go approve a subdivision on a county road that we're not saying you're gonna take the whole road. Chunk right there. But even though we're not telling them that you're, you know, whatever heights you're going to take the whole road, whatever it may be. I that's why I say, hey, just clean-cut, do it, and let them let them kind of develop what they need to in between, and they decide what how good a road they want, how bad a road they want, whatever they live with, what they can afford. You know, I I don't think that's really I think that's something that they themselves in those city limits should

should be in charge of their own destiny on that road. Well, and they collect the tax money for the development. Yeah. I think that's if if I may, that's the premise of why you're saying that. Okay. So

There's another thought, Andrew.

I'm sorry. Alternative to amending the resolution as is or proceeding with an ordinance to approve the development or not the development itself but The road access? Exactly. Yes. An alternative might be to respectfully request the executive and his team finish negotiations by x y z date. No. That's not binding in in a count in a sense of passing resolution. I think that just makes everyone aware of a collective timeline. But

I I was kinda feeling the same way that we let the cities know we are probably gonna pass this on April 14. There's a really good chance it's just gonna get passed. So do your do your best and get this figured out. Even if even if they decide even if they decide that the county will do some sort of maintenance that hasn't had a chance to be done yet, I think that could still be a part of the part of the negotiations or part of the contract, but we can still make a decision to give the roads back to the city. And that would take care of River Heights and their development if we did that by the fourteenth. I don't know if this that if we if we do something like I'm I'm not saying to pass something specific tonight, George, but to to recommend that you communicate to those cities that we are very, very interested in passing this on April 14 and whatever negotiations need to be done. Whatever negotiations need to be done. The work doesn't have to be done, but the negotiations need to be completed. Yeah. It's

been conveyed to them. Okay. It's already been conveyed to them. I I'm not sure I understand what your concern is with respect to this subdivision on this road. What is our actual concern on the It goes against our policy. It goes against our code. So and your policy very well. Most of the time, we're talking about land in the unincorporated area, and you can't put a subdivision on a county road. This county road has no unincorporated land on it anymore. It has city land on both sides. If the city comes in and says, we do not object to your giving access to this subdivision on this road, and we agree, if at some future date you give us the road, we have no objection to your giving access. Doesn't that solve our real problem? It's there's no reason to make this request a burden on trying to get rid of this road. If the city says fine, why would we object?

We just have to do it in a manner that that meets all of our codes and our policies. Like, that's all I'm saying is it it needs to be it can't just be an arbitrary decision because that sets a precedent that, you know, if it if there's extenuating circumstances, we'll do something outside of our code. Well And that's all I'm saying is if we're gonna do it, this would be the cleanest way is to just give them the road and let them do what they want to with that development. If we decide we're gonna continue the negotiations on the road past the fourteenth and we need to do something for the development, it needs to be done by Dane and Andrew in a way that we can This have it be What you're doing though is is you're not recognizing that

this road itself is an exception. We don't have any roads in any cities except this piece of road. When we took the road over, no one would have suggested that we apply county planning and zoning ordinances to this road. It would it would have made no sense at all for us to take a road that ran through Logan, River Heights, Millville, and Providence, and say we're gonna administer this with our county ordinances of planning and zoning.

I I agree. It makes sense. I just we just need to have it done in a way that that is legal. That's all I'm saying is that I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the reasoning for the policy, but I usually policy comes about

from some reason. So is it because trucks passing back and forth a 100 times ruins the road that we have to go maintain? Is it because one time a hundred years ago, someone got hurt and it was a liability for the county? Like, there's things I don't know that I I don't feel informed enough to know why that policy even exists.

And there there's also county road standards, and then there are the city road standards, and number of vehicles and all that. I have it it needs to be to the standard of basically city traffic, city use, you know, all of what they would then put advise by their ordinances for all city streets. And so Can I ask a question

of that? Please.

Because I I don't know where I don't know where that comes from. I I assume it's in the road's manual, not in the county code because I'm I'm familiar with the code sections that refer to the road I'm familiar

with the code sections that refer to the road manual, but I'm not familiar with the entire road's manual. That's why I walked up here. Matt Phillips, public works director. I did wanna clarify that there is by ordinance, the county road manual has been adopted as such that it basically use another ordinance of the county. And in that manual, it says that no access from city limits or a city development will be allowed on a county road unless it is approved by the county council. So that's hence that while the developer has come here asking for the county council's permission to for his development to access a county road. Okay. And I think all the things you guys are talking about is why that was put in the road manual. So we can discuss traffic needs, you know, all these types of things. So if if this is is approved, then we'll need to come back and have some kind of a resolution where the the council actually approves that according to the the code that we see a resolution that you guys are accepting that. And it could be with a condition. It could be with other things. But I think that whoever put that in there realized all these types of things. Is the city why can't the city annex it? What does this traffic impact do to the county roads? Because there's different abilities for us to collect taxes, control traffic, traffic studies, wits, all these types of things, and it allowed kind of a break. And so I can't, Normally, I can approve accesses to the county road. In this case, when it comes from a city onto a county road, I cannot approve that without your approval. But we can't. It just says that we can make those determinations

by project. So I think to answer the question of what's the big deal, like Yeah. Yeah. That policy was written from the wisdom of the ancients, and we don't know why. And I'm not confident enough to override that.

The ancients? Is that what you're saying? No. That puts it in a different light, Nat, that that we're well within our our county

working with the town. It's it's not bound. K. Is is George mentioned a letter from the mayor that says he's in favor of it? That might be one thing you guys want, but there'll still have to be an action on the council to approve that access. K. And I'm happy to I think I'm willing to do that. Okay. Yes.

As we talk about connectivity between those municipalities, this is the besides the highway, this is one of the only roads that we actually have. It would be really good if we could get the best possible outcome. Yeah. Yeah. And if that takes three weeks, that takes three weeks. If it takes a month, it takes a month just because we're trying we know we're gonna get rid of the Yeah. But I would really like to say, let's try to have the best connectivity as we can on that road. I agree. We we know what the outcome's gonna be, but let's try

To me, it seems like and I was reading through the thing again with the idea of, okay, what if we put a takes effect upon date. And now maybe with that context, it stands out more clearly to me that probably the objection of this would be that we aren't stating in here when the financial responsibility would kick in. And we've already budgeted for maintenance, the maintenance on this road, the the road funds from the state are already allocated. We're not saying that we're gonna stop tomorrow and not maintain the road. And where the cities have not had a chance to put it in their budget yet, they're gonna be hung up high and dry. We're not If that is the hang up, then I would love for them to say that rather than, oh, the road hasn't been maintained well enough, you know. That I just don't buy that as the objection. No. And it So I I am interested in understanding really what's prevailing here that's their objection. Because if they have this road, the they, the cities, then they get the funding come next cycle with road funds from the state. They can apply for cog grants. They they're become, as Dave has said multiple times, in control of their own destiny on this road. And they can get a much better road than what the county would choose to do with as the connectivity you're talking about. Maybe they need somebody to remind them of those things. So I don't want to be the barrier for them moving in that direction either.

And I I just think it's more clear with what Matt said to us and what's up on the board that we that it that we can give a a recommendation for that development from River Heights, and that's gonna be no problem. I just didn't know how it would work legally. So I I think I'm okay with just letting it stay pending and bringing something from River Heights for the next meeting. But again, I think it needs to be a resolution, in a form of a resolution.

I I think we should do that so that person is not caught in the table. I agree. And I think the next step for us is Matt and I and the road department, Jeremy, are gonna go look at the road, decide what we're willing to do before we turn it over and make an offer to them. They reject the offer. Maybe that's just where we'll leave it and give it back to them as is. But k. There is a legitimate argument that there are some problems with the road, and it has had, deferred maintenance. It has also had substantial destruction of it by one of the cities that agreed to fix the road, and you can spend an enormous amount of money on what is it? Four miles of road? I mean

Can can I ask just one question? When when were or when are the class b road funds disseminated to us.

Matt.

Sorry to wake. This is exciting.

I know. Contest with Brian to see if you can get more steps. I was hoping Matt might willingly come up here for this one, but I think we received four disbursements throughout the year. Okay. Quarterly. Quarterly. Quarterly. Okay.

Is there even what we've received on this road, what is there anything that's being held for maintenance for this year on that road

that That is really the way it works. We get so much Right. Dollars per mile. Okay. I'm just kinda curious as to whether

basically, what would we would be allotted for this segment, turn it over to the cities with it and be done. Which we do we would anyway. One of the arguments

that is in present in the negotiations is we haven't spent the money that we've gotten from the state taking care of this road. That's one of the arguments.

It doesn't you can spend that in a very short distance.

Yes. What we get. So I understand that. Thank you. So I guess put pin in my comments, and I'll be quiet on this one. But if there's four disbursements throughout the year, then I think we have the time as such that the new map of those four miles is known sooner rather than later.

K. Back to this meeting. Does it so we're not gonna does anyone wanna have a motion? I would accept a motion. Or if if we get no motion, it's a pending item.

K. K. I won't do a motion, but on the probably April 14, I will have a motion to pass this. K. He's got a new teacher here in New York. Motion.

K. And, hopefully, we'll have a resolution from River Heights City or for us to accept that development on that date. Okay. Other business, entity specific training for county council members. There is a link in there to get the auditor train the auditor the auditor's office training. Right, Matt? It's really

What what year was that supposed to be done?

Well, it's supposed to be on the end of the quarter. Every four years.

Which is which is Oh, wow. Next week. March 30. Interesting. Okay. Thanks.

What's Fruwad? So for those of you technically who haven't completed a four year term, you you technically have to do this. But I'm in compliance. Be best if if everyone did. Okay.

Let's

I have to sign an audit statement, and we have scored everything that we fulfilled it except this one requirement.

Yeah. K.

K. Will everybody get on that right away because we wanna get a higher ranking from our audit. To be done, it's just a video. You just need to watch a video,

and it's It's tests. What, a half hour or forty five minutes of There are tests. They do. You're listening. Yeah. There are tests. You have to pass them at a 100%.

Yeah. There's, like, seven tests.

I will say that council members have already completed it, and I will be bugging the rest of you to complete it as soon as possible. Did did I, Joanne?

It was me. I get the prize. Yeah. Joanne got the first. I did I did not join at work today.

You've got the second. Three parts. May make sure this gets Where's the word verbiage for going into this? It's my job to hurt the cats. Okay.

But either And by the way, Matt, thank you so much on that. I really loved your descriptive format Yes. That you did for the budget that we're looking at and everything. I so I tell you that that's really, really good. So k. We're gonna excuse council member

Beause, and we I need to have a motion for that.

I move then that we go into executive session

for the purpose of strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or release of real property or to discuss a proposed development agreement, project proposal, or financial proposals.

Second. Moved and seconded that we go into executive session for the reasons stated. Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. K. Let's do it.