Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Space Outreach topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cache County open‑space advisers map outreach strategy, favor larger contiguous parcels
Summary
The Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee agreed to refine parcel maps, pursue targeted outreach to owners of high‑priority properties and develop baseline funding categories to preserve key view‑sheds; staff and volunteers will produce mail lists, draft letters and GIS products for council review.
The Cache County Open Space Advisory Committee spent its meeting refining which parcels should be prioritized for open‑space preservation and how the county should reach landowners. Committee members agreed to focus outreach on larger, connected holdings near the highway that affect the visual ‘green’ seen from the highway and to prepare short, county‑branded letters inviting owners to apply for the program.
Committee member Speaker 2 outlined the committee’s current selection criteria: parcels in red on the committee’s maps meet the bond criteria of 10 acres or more and being within 1,000 feet of the highway. Speaker 3, a committee member, noted a shortcoming: “it is possible there are parcels immediately adjacent to the highway that are less than 10 acres that are still undeveloped that we would sort of… want to talk to” and recommended ways to capture those that could block views if subdivided.
Why it matters: members said preserving view‑sheds along the interstate and highway will protect the county’s agricultural character and long‑range scenic value. To that end, the committee debated lowering minimum parcel sizes or aggregating multiple parcels held by the same owner. Speaker 4 proposed a combined‑owner approach—counting the total acreage an individual owns across adjacent parcels—so that owners holding 20 or more acres could qualify even if individual parcels fall below the per‑parcel threshold.
Budgeting and compensation: the panel discussed using a tiered baseline compensation system rather than paying full market value for every property. Speaker 4 described a range of options—from offering a modest fixed payment to covering a percentage of assessed value—saying the committee could “offer 10% of the value or 5%” in some cases to give landowners a choice without exhausting the bond fund. Committee members emphasized the need to protect funds for high‑scoring projects while still having options for lower‑scoring but locally valuable properties.
Outreach mechanics and staff capacity: the committee agreed to produce a deduplicated mailing list (so landowners with multiple parcels receive a single letter) and to include a short letter with an attachment explaining the bond criteria and next steps. Eric (staff) volunteered to work with GIS to produce refined maps and address lists. Speaker 2 warned that if a single mailing produces many applications the office could be overwhelmed and recommended staged outreach, an informational meeting, and an online information page as alternatives.
Next steps and timeline: volunteers agreed to draft the short outreach letter and attach a one‑page summary of the bond language and scoring criteria for landowners. Eric will coordinate with GIS to finalize targeted mailing lists and maps before the committee’s next meeting; the group discussed reviewing the Silva parcel and potential site visits in the coming weeks.
The committee approved the agenda and minutes as revised during the session and adjourned after assigning mapping and outreach tasks for follow‑up.
