Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outreach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
COSAC debates targeted letters to landowners; staff to seek county council guidance
Summary
County staff and COSAC members debated whether to send targeted mailings, broader gateway-area notices or postcards to inform landowners about open-space funding; staff will seek County Council guidance on scope and budget.
Members of the Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee on March 3 discussed staff plans to notify landowners in designated gateway areas about the county’s open-space/trail funding program and whether notices should be targeted or sent broadly.
Angie, the interim director of development services, told the committee that county legal counsel reviewed a draft mailing and advised against narrowly targeting individual properties for equity reasons. “His recommendation was ... it should target all of the possible landowners in those kind of gateway areas, not just specific properties,” Angie said, adding that counsel suggested pairing any mailing with a workshop or open house so landowners have a forum for questions.
Committee members weighed options for scope and cost. Staff said an initial list for a single gateway area would be “several dozen” landowners; expanding the boundary to include smaller parcels could increase that to roughly 100–250 recipients depending on the polygon used. Committee members suggested postcards with a QR code linking to more detailed materials to reduce per-mailing cost and public confusion.
Next steps: staff said they will propose the outreach approach and an associated budget to the County Council for direction and potential funding. Committee members suggested that staff could present the proposal and make themselves available at a council meeting or allocate time on a future COSAC agenda to field questions from landowners.
Project updates: staff provided a brief status report on other projects in the open-space program. Staff said they had not yet seen funds recorded for some projects and that certain external funding sources were temporarily on hold; however, some project categories (for example, high-tunnel and small equipment funding from a different pool) were still proceeding. Specific projects named in past meetings (examples provided in discussion: Furman, Harris) were described as still pending and on hold until funding or administrative steps are resolved.
Why it matters: committee members said proactive outreach could allow the county to engage willing landowners before development occurs in gateway corridors and preserve high-priority parcels; legal counsel’s equity concern means the county must balance targeted marketing with even-handed notice.
