Members of the Cache County Council engaged in heated discussion at their regular meeting on Aug. 9 over who would pick up the tab for their decision to add a $20 million open space bond issue to the November ballot.
CACHE COUNTY – In the Cache County government, civility is apparently a thing of the past – at least as far as discourse between the county council members and the county’s clerk/auditor.
The topic at the regular meeting of the County Council on Aug. 9 was the seemingly routine one of information packets to be mailed to county voters prior to the upcoming midterm election.
Clerk/Auditor Jess Bradfield appeared requesting funds for the information packet to be mailed to county voters as required by state law after the council members voted to approve an open space bond issue to be placed on the November ballot.
“Under state law, the council’s $20 million open space bond issue – as well as the reauthorization of the county Recreation, Arts, Parks and Zoos Tax – each require that an information pamphlet be sent to every voting household to ensure transparency,” Bradfield explained.
“The council never allocated a budget to provide information to voters (on the bond issue), so my office compiled a list of available options to follow state law, as well as an initial cost estimate.”
Bradfield presented two options and estimated cost figures for the council to decide on.
What he got back was not a decision, but the proverbial “third degree.”
Council member Nolan P. Gunnell asked if the ad hoc Open Space Committee couldn’t pay for that mailing as part of their promised educational effort on the bond issue. Bradfield replied that the law was clear that the governing body of the county must pay for the mailing.
Council member David L. Erickson and council vice chair Paul R. Borup wondered if the information packets for the bond issue and RAPZ Tax reauthorization couldn’t be combined.
Bradfield acknowledged that was a possibility, but ideally he said those should be separate mailings to avoid confusing voters.
Moreover, he noted, council member Gina Worthen had already struck the funding for the mailing of the RAPZ reauthorization out of his budget at the council’s last meeting.
Then Borup suggested that the bond issue information could be mailed with the ballots in November. Without having researched that issue, County Attorney John Luthy doubted the legality of that suggestion.
That could be too easily interpreted as the county attempting to influence the outcome of the election, Luthy said.
In fact, Utah Code 11-14-201 specifies that the required voter information packet to be mailed “ … at least 15 days, but not earlier than 45 days, prior to the bond election to each household containing a registered voter.”
When Borup said that he had not received the cost estimate for the mailing prior to the meeting and would need more time to consider it, Bradfield replied: “We don’t have more time, Paul.”
“Budget issues like this are extremely time sensitive,” according to Bradfield, “especially since we are in the middle of a federal election year.
“There is also a paper shortage and adding more print documents and mailings requires appropriate vendor notification, legal review and design.
“My office had completed the initial cost estimates only moments before the meeting,” Bradfield added. “The Department Reports section of the (county council’s) agenda is where items are presented and discussed with the council prior to being presented as an action item.”
County Events Center manager Bart Esplin and County Sheriff Chad Jensen had appeared before the council on Tuesday to discuss budgetary issues and were greeted with welcoming civility. But any discussion of money issues from Bradfield is like waving a red flag.
For the first time, Bradfield openly challenged Borup, asking why he was so hostile toward the clerk’s office.
“I have received a number of staff complaints about hostile treatment from specific council members,” Bradfield said after the Aug. 9 meeting. “Real or perceived issues that could otherwise be easily and professionally resolved with a phone call or email are used to create unnecessary public hostilities.”
The options presented to the council by Bradfield were for a mailer sent to each of 40,000 county households, with a price tag of $50,000; and a postcard with a 25 percent return rate requesting information on the bond issue for an estimated cost of $54,100.
“Those are not final figures,” Bradfield explained, “but they were meant to get the issue in front of the council as quickly as possible since they did not allocate funding when they approved the bond issue.
“The law is very clear that when the council approves a bond, they must cover the costs.”
The discussion of the voter information packets will likely resume at the council’s next meeting on Aug. 23.