[1. Call to Order] [00:00:09] GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE IDAHO FALLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THIS 10TH OF JULY. I THINK IF WE DID A POLL IN THE ROOM, WE'D FIND THAT NONE OF US CAN FIGURE OUT HOW IT GOT TO BE THE 10TH OF JULY ALREADY. IT FEELS LIKE SUMMER IS FLYING BY, BUT WITH THAT SILLY STATEMENT, I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AND INVITE OUR CITY CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. THANK YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT BURTENSHAW HERE. COUNCILOR BRADFORD PRESENT. COUNCILOR. DINGMAN HERE. COUNCILOR. FREEMAN HERE, COUNCILOR. FRANCIS HERE. COUNCILOR. LARSON HERE. MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. OUR TRADITION IS TO START THE MEETING WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. AND TONIGHT, WE HAVE INVITED COUNCIL MEMBER DINGMAN TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE. IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED TO JOIN US, PLEASE STAND. PLEASE JOIN ME. 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 VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU'RE NEGLECTED TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE A QR CODE ON THE WALL, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO USE THAT TO BRING UP THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR TONIGHT. IT'S ALSO ONLINE. IF YOU GO TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE, YOU'LL FIND IT BY FOLLOWING ANYTHING RELATED TO THE COUNCIL. THE FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS WE HAVE, NUMBER THREE IS PUBLIC COMMENT. AS I LOOK AROUND THE ROOM, I SEE VERY FAMILIAR FACES, AND I'M THINKING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT THIS EVENING. AND SO IF I AM INCORRECT, INTERRUPT ME NOW. OKAY. AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'LL MOVE ON TO NUMBER FOUR ON THE [4. CONSENT AGENDA] AGENDA, WHICH IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA. I BELIEVE THERE ARE ONLY THREE ITEMS ON THAT TONIGHT. AND SO I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY CLERK TO READ THE CONTENT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA INTO THE RECORD. THESE, AS YOU'LL FIND, ARE VERY NON-CONTROVERSIAL KINDS OF ITEMS. AND WE'LL ASK CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT, WHO IS OUR LIAISON TO MUNICIPAL SERVICES, TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE NEED TO PASS THAT. HOWEVER, I WILL NOTE THAT I NEGLECTED TO ASK IF ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THAT AGENDA. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. THEN, CITY CLERK, WILL YOU READ THE AGENDA? YES, FROM THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR. WE HAVE AN APPOINTMENT OF KYLE PALMER TO SERVE ON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FROM IDAHO FALLS POWER. WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES FROM JUNE 4TH, 2025 AND FROM THE AIRPORT. WE ALSO HAVE MINUTES FROM JUNE 25TH, 2025. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE, ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED. SECOND, VERY GOOD CITY CLERK. WILL YOU CONDUCT THAT VOTE? BURTONSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS A. FREEMAN. YES. LARSEN. YES. [5.A.1) Contract Award - Haul and Spread Liquid Wastewater Biosolids] RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE ON TO SECTION FIVE OF THE AGENDA, WHICH IS OUR REGULAR AGENDA. AND WE HAVE COMING UP FIRST THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. OUR DIRECTOR, CHRIS FREDRICKSON, IS HERE. THE REQUEST IS FOR COUNCIL TO AWARD A CONTRACT. AND DIRECTOR WILL JUST ASK YOU TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT FOR EVERYONE. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AS I MENTIONED, WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A SERVICE CONTRACT. AND SO BACKGROUND ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IS THAT THE JUNE 5TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING, ALL BIDS SUBMITTED FOR PROJECT. I HAVE 25 20 HOUR HALT THE SPREAD OF BIOSOLIDS WASTE WERE REJECTED. STAFF SUBSEQUENTLY SOUGHT AND RECEIVED APPROVAL TO NEGOTIATE SERVICE TERMS ON THE OPEN MARKET. BUT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, STAFF REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH IRONHORSE TRUCKING AND ESTABLISHED SERVICE PROVIDER FOR THE CITY. OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. THE NEGOTIATED RATE FOR THIS WORK IS $1.95 PER GALLON MILE, TOTALING $243,750, AND THIS COST IS VERY COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE PAID OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. WORK IS SCHEDULED TO CONTINUE THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR UNTIL THE GROUND FREEZES, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, COUNCILOR FRANCIS. SO SINCE IT'S PER THOUSAND GALLON MILE, RIGHT? YEAH. IS THAT A DO NOT EXCEED NUMBER THEN. BECAUSE SO THAT IS THE WAY IT'S ESTABLISHED. THE OVERALL CONTRACT AMOUNT IS SET UP AS. SO IT IS DEPENDENT ON HOW MUCH HAULING THEY DO. YEAH. OKAY. JUST CURIOUS DID THE CONVERSATION WITH IRONHORSE REVEAL ANY GIVE US ANY INSIGHT AS TO WHY WE ORIGINALLY. OH NO. NEVER MIND. I'M ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION. I I'M FINE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, WELL, THEN I WILL TURN TO OUR LIAISONS TO [00:05:06] PUBLIC WORKS. THAT WOULD BE JIM FRANCIS AND KURT LARSON. DO YOU HAVE ANY. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE CONTRACT TO IRONHORSE TRUCKING LLC, FOR A TOTAL OF $243,750 AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, WE ARE READY FOR A VOTE. CITY CLERK, WILL YOU CONDUCT THAT? FRANCIS A FREEMAN. YES. DINGMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. BRADFORD A BURTONSHAW. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. [5.B.1) Professional Audit Services for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2025] OUR NEXT APARTMENT WITH A FEW ITEMS IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL. THREE ITEMS, TO BE EXACT, IS MUNICIPAL SERVICES. AND DIRECTOR PAM ALEXANDER IS HERE. AND THE VERY FIRST THING YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT. YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, FOR HAVING US THIS EVENING. IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS THE RENEWAL OF THE SECOND OF THREE YEARS IN A PROPOSAL FROM US, ADAMS, TO CONDUCT OUR COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL AUDIT. IT WILL BE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2025. AND I'M JUST GOING TO GO OVER SOME PARTICULARS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT IS $196,425. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S SECOND YEAR OF A THREE YEAR PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MOSS ADAMS. THE BASE PRICE IS $160,425, AND WITH THREE PROGRAMS, THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL 12,000 PER PROGRAM. AND THE PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY FOR OUR SINGLE AUDIT, WHICH COVERS THE COMPLETION OF THE SAFER GRANT, THE ARPA MONEY THAT THE CITY RECEIVED, THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE WITH GIFT. AND THEN THE FOURTH ONE IS OUR AIRPORT. SO THOSE FOUR ARE SINGLE. AUDITS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE SINGLE AUDITS IS IF YOU HAVE EXPENDITURES OF 750,000 OR MORE, AND THEN THERE MAY BE SOME ISSUE WITH CLOSING OUT SOME OF OUR FEDERAL MONIES THAT WE HAVE WITH SOME OF OUR GRANTS. SO THE POINT IS, IS THAT THAT THAT PROGRAM AUDIT IS FOR IS PART OF THE SINGLE AUDIT FOR GRANT MONIES. AND THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET REQUIRES THOSE SINGLE AUDITS TO BE DONE, BUT THEY CALL THEM PROGRAMS. SO I TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE FOUR. AND THEN ALSO THE TIMELINE IS IN THE COUNCIL MEMO. WE'RE GOING TO START THE AUDIT. THE AUDIT IS GOING TO BEGIN ON JANUARY 12TH OF 2026. IT WILL EXTEND THROUGH FIELDWORK OF JANUARY 30TH, 2026, WITH A COMPLETED AUDIT REPORT NO LATER THAN MARCH 31ST OF 2026. AND WE WILL ALSO INCLUDE A FEBRUARY STATUS UPDATE TO THE AUDIT AND HOW THINGS ARE GOING. SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE FOR THIS EVENING. WE'RE HOPING TO GET THIS APPROVED. I DO REALIZE IT'S FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2025, BUT WE WANT TO GET ON THEIR CALENDARS. WE WANT TO HAVE A SIGNED CONTRACT IN ORDER TO GET ON THEIR CALENDARS WITH THE AUDIT, AND SO WE CAN MOVE SWIFTLY THROUGH THE PROCESS. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE INCLUSION OF DATES, AND I THINK THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DEEPLY APPRECIATE HAVING THE AUDIT RESULTS BACK BEFORE WE KICK INTO HIGH GEAR FOR THE BUDGET. SO THAT MARCH 31ST DEADLINE, I THINK WILL BE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED BY BY ALL, IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE STAFF TO REALLY BE ON THEIR TOES AND THAT'S THAT'S TOUGH. AND SO THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING SOMETHING SO AMBITIOUS. QUESTIONS, COUNCILOR FRANCIS. YEAH I JUST HAVE A REMINDER BECAUSE I ALWAYS ASK THIS IS THAT FEBRUARY UPDATE INCLUDE THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY I DID NEGLECT THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. I DIDN'T NEGLECT TO SAY THAT WE WILL HAVE KEVIN BACK. KEVIN BACK WITH US. HE WAS OUR AUDIT MANAGER LAST YEAR AND HE IS GOING TO BE WORKING WITH US THIS UPCOMING YEAR. AND HE WILL BE MEETING WITH THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT AND ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH HIM. HE'S MORE THAN WELCOME TO MEET WITH YOU AS WELL, EITHER VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON WHEN HE'S ON SITE. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THEN WE'LL TURN TO THE LIAISONS KURT LARSON AND COUNCILOR BURTON, FOR MOTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE TO YOUR COLLEAGUES. OKAY, I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH BAKER TILLY LLP FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $196,425 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. ALL RIGHT, CITY CLERK, WE HAVE A MOTION THAT'S READY FOR A VOTE. WILL YOU CONDUCT IT, PLEASE? FREEMAN. YES, BRADFORD A BURTONSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS A LARSON. YES. MOTION [5.B.2) Donation of Harris Tait 9100 Handheld Radios to North Bannock Fire Department] CARRIES. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS A DONATION THAT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR, THIS IS FOR THE DONATION OF 20 [00:10:05] HARRIS TATE, 9100 HANDHELD RADIOS. THESE ARE RADIOS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS NO LONGER USING. AND OUR NEIGHBORS OVER AT NORTH BANNOCK DISTRICT COULD USE THEM. AND SO THE DEPUTY CHIEF BRADFORD AND CHIEF NELSON HAD ASKED IF WE COULD BRING THIS FORWARD THROUGH OUR SURPLUS POLICY THAT WE HAVE AT THE CITY. WE ARE ALLOWED THROUGH STATE STATUTE TO DONATE TO A GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS TO GO AHEAD AND DONATE THESE 20 HANDHELD RADIOS TO THE NORTH BANNOCK FIRE DISTRICT. OKAY, AT FIRST I WAS CONCERNED BECAUSE IT ALWAYS SEEMS FUNNY THAT WE DON'T EVER REALLY WANT OUR CITIZENS SUBSIDIZING OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT SHOULD BE TAXING THEMSELVES TO PAY FOR WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE. AND SO I THOUGHT, AND ORIGINALLY I WASN'T AWARE OF THE VALUE WHEN I FIRST ENCOUNTERED THIS, BECAUSE I ONLY ENCOUNTERED THE TITLE OF THE MEMO AND NOT THE WHOLE THING. SO ANYWAY, I CHECKED IN WITH THE CHIEF, AND THAT'S WHEN I LEARNED THEY'RE ONLY WORTH FIVE BUCKS EACH. AND THAT THAT HELPED ME TO NOT FEEL LIKE I HAD ANY WORRIES WITH RESPECT TO OUR TAXPAYERS. BUT IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO BE ABLE TO HELP AN AGENCY WHEN WE CAN, WHEN IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S A BIG PUSH. AND SO GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. COUNCILOR FREEMAN. I THINK THESE RADIOS ARE PROBABLY IN THE VICINITY OF 20 YEARS OLD. THEN HOW CAN THEY BE SO VALUABLE? I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT VERY I MEAN, TO THE, TO NORTH BANNOCK BECAUSE THEY CAN I THINK THEY CAN STILL GET BATTERIES AND STUFF FOR THEM. THEY CAN REPROGRAM THEM AND THEY DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A VOLUNTEER KIND OF A FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE MUCH MONEY. WE SWITCHED TO MOTOROLA RADIOS WHILE I WAS STILL AT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THAT'S BEEN 12 YEARS AGO. SO IT'S YOU KNOW, IT WAS THEY'RE PRETTY OLD RADIOS. SO I THINK I THINK THEY'VE JUST BEEN GATHERING DUST IN A CLOSET SOMEWHERE, AND IT'S GOOD TO GET RID OF THEM. GOOD. COUNCILOR FRANCIS, FOR THE PUBLIC. NO. WE'RE ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SYSTEM. SO THESE RADIOS ARE NOT FUNCTIONAL FOR US ANYWAY. EVEN IF WE COULD GET THAT RIGHT. SO THIS HELPS OUT. THOSE WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL NEWS. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, COUNCILOR? ALL RIGHT, THEN WE'LL STAND FOR A MOTION. COUNCILOR LARSON, I MOVE THAT COUNCIL, APPROVE THE DONATION OF 20 HARRIS HANDHELD RADIOS TO THE NORTH BANNOCK FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, VERY GOOD CITY CLERK. WE ARE READY FOR A VOTE. LARSON. YES, FRANCIS I. BURTONSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. [5.B.3) Purchase Sanitation Equipment for Public Works] BRADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT AN ADVANCED PURCHASE OF A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. SO THIS IS A REQUEST FROM OUR PUBLIC WORKS SANITATION DIVISION TO AUTHORIZE THE ADVANCE PURCHASE, IF YOU WILL. AN ADVANCE PURCHASE WOULD BE THE ISSUING OF A PURCHASE ORDER TO THE VENDOR. SO THIS IS FOR TWO ADDITIONS TO FLEE FOR SANITATION DIVISION DUE TO GROWTH. AND WE WERE ABLE TO FIND A VENDOR THAT MEETS THE SPECIFICATION IS WITH PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY. AND THEY'RE ACTUALLY A VENDOR UNDERNEATH THE SOURCE CONTROL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING CONTRACT. NOW AGAIN, PROPERTY PURCHASING CONTRACTS IS EXACTLY WHAT WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE. THEY'RE COOPERATIVE PURCHASES. THERE IS A CONTRACT OUT THERE WITH PETERBILT. IT'S LISTED HERE 060920. AND WE WANT THE WE'RE REQUESTING THE AUTHORIZATION TO GO AHEAD AND ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE EQUIPMENT, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS IT'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST 15 MONTHS. SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE AMBULANCES, WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WE WANT TO GET IN THE QUEUE. AND IF WE CAN GET IN THE MANUFACTURING QUEUE, WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A WAIT, BUT PROBABLY NOT AS LONG AS A WAIT. IF WE IF WE CAN DO THIS NOW AND GO AHEAD AND GET THE AUTHORIZATION TO GO AHEAD AND ORDER THOSE, AND THEN WE WILL LIKELY SEE THEM ABOUT 15 MONTHS LATER. AND THE TOTAL OF BOTH ITEMS IS $645,194. ALL RIGHT. SO A PURCHASE ORDER, JUST TO CLARIFY, IS NOT A IT'S A COMMITMENT TO PAY, BUT IT'S NOT A PAYMENT. SO WE ARE STILL ABLE TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN THE PROPER FISCAL YEAR. YES, MA'AM. THAT'S CORRECT OKAY. CONCERNS. COUNCILOR RADFORD I WAS JUST INTERESTED IN WHETHER WE'RE I KNOW WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT PREVIOUSLY THERE JUST WASN'T ENOUGH ADVANCEMENT. BUT THERE'S SOME INTEREST IN ELECTRIC SANITATION SO THAT THIS THE SOUND WILL BE QUITE A BIT LESS. AND SO I WAS JUST I WAS WONDERING WHERE WE'RE AT ON THAT IF IT'S STILL NOT AN INDUSTRY. I'M NOT THE EXPERT ON HEAVY EQUIPMENT, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT A COUPLE OF OUR GARAGE STAFF HAVE. BUT ALSO, DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY CONSIDERED HEAVY EQUIPMENT. NO, I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. [00:15:01] ONE, AS WE LOOK AT THAT, I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE TESTED THIS TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, WE FOUND THAT IN COLD WEATHER CLIMATES, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO ACTUALLY HAVE A FULL CHARGE TO COMPLETE A DAY'S WORTH OF WORK OR AN EIGHT HOUR SERVICE DAY. SO THAT IS CHANGING. THE BATTERY TECHNOLOGY CONTINUES TO IMPROVE, BUT I KNOW IT SEEMS LIKE EVEN IN THE TREASURE VALLEY, SOME OF THE TRUCKS THAT WERE PURCHASED FOR THAT AREA, THE WEATHER WAS TOO COLD FOR THEM TO OPERATE A FULL DAY, AND WE HAVE A MUCH COLDER CLIMATE THAN THEY DO, SO IT'S SOMETHING WE KEEP OUR EYE ON. WE'LL JUST HAVE TO GIVE THAT TO THE INL TO CONTINUE THE RESEARCH. THAT'S RIGHT. THEY HAVE A GREAT BATTERY SCIENCE. I THINK AT ONE POINT THEY SAID THAT HYDROGEN WAS A BETTER FIT FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT THAN ELECTRIC. BUT I ALSO WOULD EXPECT THAT SOME OF THOSE SUBSIDIES AND GRANTS, THAT FEDERAL GRANTS THAT WERE AVAILABLE FOR THOSE KINDS OF PURCHASES, OR THOSE BROAD PROGRAMS MAY BE DIMINISHED AT THIS POINT. AND SO IT MAY BE HARDER TO AFFORD THEM. YEAH, I THINK NOT ONLY THAT, I BELIEVE A LOT OF THE EQUIPMENT THAT WAS COMING, ESPECIALLY THE BUSSING THAT WAS BEING PURCHASED FOR OUT OF CHINA. SO THAT'S GOING TO MORE DIFFICULT AS WELL. SO THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR? FOR EITHER DIRECTOR PAM OR FOR CHRIS? I THINK IN THE PAPERWORK I SAW THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY BEING PURCHASED THROUGH A LOCAL DEALER. IS THAT ACCURATE? I THINK IT'S THROUGH JACKSON. PETERBILT. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. EXCELLENT. GLAD TO SEE THAT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? I GUESS WE'LL TURN TO YOU THEN. COUNCILOR LARSON, FOR THOSE FOR THE MOTION, I MOVE THE COUNCIL, AUTHORIZE THE ADVANCE PURCHASE OF ONE ROLL OFF TRUCK AND ONE AUTOMATED SIDE LOADER FROM PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY, FOR A TOTAL OF $645,194 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES US TO PART C. WE HAVE THIS IS OUR FINAL YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DO THE VOTE. THANK YOU. CITY CLERK. WILL YOU CONDUCT THE VOTE ON THAT LAST MOTION? DINGMAN. YES. BRADFORD I. LARSON. YES. BURTONSHAW. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. NO. JUST MAKE SOME THINGS UP. AS IF MY FORGETFULNESS WEREN'T ENOUGH. OKAY. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL LET YOU DEFEND THAT REASONING TO THE PUBLIC. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE [5.C.1) Quasi-judicial Public Hearing-Rezone from HC, Highway Commercial to LC, Limited Commercial, Zoning Ordinance and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for approximately 1.73 acres for a Portion of Lot 17, Block 4, Westland Heights Addition, Division No. 3.] NEXT ITEM. AND THAT IS OUR FOURTH DEPARTMENT, THIRD DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS WITH US TONIGHT. THE LAST DEPARTMENT. AND THAT WOULD BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE FIRST ITEM BEFORE US IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. IT INVOLVES REZONING. AND IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE WE DO NOT HAVE THE APPLICANT REPRESENTED OR THE OWNER. AND SO IT'S I THINK THAT MAY BE OWING TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT TERRIBLY CONTROVERSIAL IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AND SO PERHAPS IT JUST FEELS LIKE IT'S SELF-EXPLANATORY. WE'LL SEE. BUT COUNCIL MEMBERS, BEFORE WE BEFORE WE PROCEED, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM THE HEARING, AS IT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER? OKAY, THEN WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE HEARING TO ORDER. OPEN THE HEARING, I SHOULD SAY, AND INVITE THEM, THE CITY CLERK, TO INCLUDE ALL TESTIMONY AND VISUAL AIDS, WRITTEN MATERIALS, ETC, INTO THE PERMANENT RECORD FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD OF THE HEARING. AND WITH THAT, GIVEN THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE, WE'LL TURN STRAIGHT TO THE STAFF REPORT AND WE'LL HEAR FROM DIRECTOR SANNER. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IT'S GOOD TO BE WITH YOU THIS EVENING. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY THAT THE REQUEST THIS EVENING FOR THIS LAND USE ITEM IS FOR A REZONE REQUEST FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER, FROM HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL TO LIMITED COMMERCIAL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SKYLINE AND BROADWAY. IT'S A PROPERTY THAT'S 1.73 ACRES. AS WAS STATED, THE THAT AREA. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY. THE PINK IS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS. TICKET. OH THANK YOU. SO THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS THE HATCHED MARK PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE PROPERTIES UP HERE THAT ARE IN RED THAT ARE LIMITED COMMERCIAL. HE DOES NOT OWN THE BLUE PROPERTY, NOR THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND EAST. THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY STANDS VACANT. THERE'S A LITTLE BUILDING HERE ON THE WESTERN PARCEL, AND AS WHEN WE DO REZONES, WE ALWAYS LOOK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE [00:20:02] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE AREA FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS COMPLETELY IN RED FOR MIXED USE CENTER AND CORRIDORS, WHICH THE REQUESTED REZONE DOES MATCH THAT THIS AREA IS ALSO BASICALLY SPLIT IN HALF BY THE CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT AND CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT APPROACH SURFACE FOR THE AIRPORT OVERLAY ON THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED AT ALL. AND THEN AS WAS SHOWN, THERE'S THE PROPERTY IS BASICALLY VACANT. AND WITH THIS LITTLE I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY SELL ON THERE. IT'S COMMERCIAL USE. BUT BUT IT'S A LITTLE TRAILER THERE ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN MANY THINGS OVER THE YEARS. YEAH. YEAH. AND THE REASONING FOR THE REZONE IS SINCE THE APPLICANT ISN'T HERE, AS WAS STATED, HE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY TELL US WHAT HE WAS PLANNING FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT HE'S WANTING THE ZONING THAT TO MATCH ON ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT HE OWNS. SO THERE WAS A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THAT WAS HELD BACK IN LATE APRIL, APRIL 23RD. THERE WERE THREE NEIGHBORS THAT ATTENDED THAT MEETING. THOSE THEY WERE NOT IN OBJECTION TO THE REZONE. THEY WERE MOSTLY INQUIRING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THERE WERE NO NEIGHBORS THAT SHOWED UP, AND IT WAS NOT VERY CONTROVERSIAL. THAT PLANNING COMMISSION SENT A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION TO YOU FOLKS. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I HAVE A QUESTION TO REPRESENT TWO OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THE MEETING TO VERIFY FOR THEM. I ASSUME THERE ARE ALREADY FIXED EASEMENTS FOR THOSE UTILITIES. CLEARLY IN ON THOSE PROPERTIES. YES, SIR. SO THEY'RE NOT AT RISK. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THEY WERE HEARD. YEAH THEY WERE HEARD. YEAH. APPRECIATE THAT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DIRECTOR AT THIS TIME. DO YOU AS A PROFESSIONAL FEEL THAT THERE'S ANY ANYTHING CONCERNING ABOUT HAVING THE REST OF THAT PROPERTY TO THE EAST AND THE WEST BE HIGHLY COMMERCIAL AND THEN MOVE THIS TO MORE OF A LIMITED USE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. NO, I DON'T I DON'T SEE I CAN GO BACK. NO. AND I BECAUSE YOU HAVE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL GOING UP THE WESTERN PORTION OF BROADWAY. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE A JUMP SKYLINE OVER HERE AND TO THE SOUTH. SO IN TERMS OF URBAN FORM, IT WOULD CONTINUE THE URBAN FORM OF SOUTHSIDE. AND THIS REALLY WE HAVE LIMITED COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. AND SO REALLY JUST MATCHES THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE REQUEST OF REASONS FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY PUT TIME INTO STUDYING WHAT THE LIMITATIONS ARE FOR LIMITED VERSUS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. I IMAGINE IT'S EVERYTHING OR THE, THE RED IS, EXCUSE ME, MORE LIMITED THAN THE LAVENDER BUT BUT EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE LAVENDER IS ALSO IN THE RED. YES. THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. WE'RE BEING SO TECHNICAL. NO, NO, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE. LIMITED COMMERCIAL REALLY. THE MAIN CHANGE THERE IS THE HOUSING COMPONENT OF THE OF THE OF THE RED OF LIMITED COMMERCIAL AND HIGHWAY. COMMERCIAL HAS A MORE INTENSE AUTO ORIENTED USE ON THE RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL SIDE. THAT'S REALLY THE BIG DIFFERENCE. BUT YET BOTH COULD POTENTIALLY DRAW A LOT OF CARS. EVEN HOUSING COULD. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. COUNCILOR FRANCIS, THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT REMINDS ME OF SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THIS ONE OF THE AREAS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. IT'S GOT THE POTENTIAL TO BE A WALKABLE AREA. AND ELSIE, IF I'M THINKING RIGHT, ALLOWS UP TO R3 A DEVELOPMENT. AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO, BUT THE POSSIBILITY IS THAT THIS COULD BECOME PART OF HELPING THIS BE A WALKABLE COMMERCIAL AREA. THAT'S CORRECT. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. SO THIS WAS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED BY THE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY WALKABLE CENTERS. THIS IS ONE OF THE NODES OR WALKABLE AREAS WAS THE SKYLINE BROADWAY. SO ELSIE DOES FIT THAT. I'LL JUST PUT THE CAVEAT TO THAT IS THAT LITTLE INSIDER INFORMATION. WE ARE LOOKING AT CODE AMENDMENTS FOR THOSE DIFFERENT NODES THAT THEY HAVE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THE MALL WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED, THE MALL AREA, SO IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE WALKABLE. SO YES, HOUSING, YOU WOULD WANT TO DENSIFY THE AREA TO MAKE IT MORE WALKABLE, TO MAKE COMMERCIAL CLOSE BY SO THAT YOU CAN EASILY GET TO YOUR GOODS AND SERVICES THEY YOU. YEAH. SO YOU ALSO WANT SOME WALKABLE PATHWAYS THAT CAN CUT INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD, RATHER THAN HAVING TO FOLLOW THE STREET TO GET INTO NEIGHBORHOOD. RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMEMBER, ARE WE READY TO FOR SOME MOTIONS FOR SOME ADDITIONAL OFFERING TESTIMONY? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE [00:25:05] THAT MOMENT THEN AND PROGRESS IN THE HEARING AND ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE TO TESTIFY. ALL RIGHT. SEEING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSAL, THEN I WILL TURN TO THE COUNCIL AND ASK IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK. THEY JUST OCCURRED TO YOU IN THE LAST 20S. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN I WILL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE HEARING, AND WE WILL THEN TURN IT TO YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR DELIBERATION, AND WE'LL GO TO OUR LIAISONS FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. FIRST, IF YOU HAVE ANY POINTS YOU WANT TO MAKE, JUST KIND OF REITERATE WHAT WHAT COUNCILMEMBER PERHAPS HAS SAID. I THINK THIS WAS THE ONE THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH, UTAH STATE IDENTIFIED AS KIND OF THEIR FIRST PICK, I THINK, IN WALKABLE AREAS, IT'S KIND OF NICE TO SEE THAT BLOSSOMING, THAT OKAY, THEN WE'LL COUNCILOR FREEMAN, I JUST THE COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT, THAT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PLACE FOR, FOR HOUSING. I YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE WALKABLE CENTER, BUT IT'S A IT'S A NICE TRANSITION TO INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND IT RATHER THAN HAVING COMMERCIAL OR, YOU KNOW, COMPLETE THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. SO I THINK THIS IS A NICE TRANSITION GOING, GOING THAT DIRECTION GOING NORTH. AND IT'S ALSO RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, THE SAME ZONE. SO. OKAY. WELL I, I LIKE SOME OF WELL LIKE COUNCILOR RADFORD WOULD KNOW AND COUNCILOR LARSEN THERE'S ALSO APARTMENT LIVING ACROSS THE STREET JUST A LITTLE MORE WEST THAT IS FAIRLY RECENT AND NEW TO THE AREA. AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE RUINED ANYBODY'S DAY. IT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A GOOD MOVE THERE. SO THIS WOULD LIKELY ATTRACT SOME OF THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AS WELL. SO IT'S LIKE LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA. SO WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT TO LIAISON. ARE YOU MAKING THE MOTION? OH, I THOUGHT WE WERE. YOU WERE GOING TO HIT A PITCH, A NO HITTER OR EXCUSE ME, A YOU CALL IT A NO. I PURPOSELY TRIED TO AVOID THAT. IF YOU WILL KNOW THE TRUTH, COUNCILOR RADFORD, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. REZONING APPROXIMATELY 1.73 ACRES FOR A PORTION OF LOT 17, BLOCK FOUR, WESTLAND HEIGHTS ADDITION, DIVISION NUMBER THREE FROM HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL TO LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUESTS THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY. SUMMARY. SECOND, THANK YOU, CITY CLERK. WILL YOU CONDUCT THE VOTE? DICKMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I RADFORD I BURTONSHAW. YES. LARSEN. YES. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. WE NEED TO READ THIS BY TITLE. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.723 ACRES, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION ONE OF THIS ORDINANCE, FROM HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL TO LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES THAT PIECE OF BUSINESS. AND I NEED TO DO THE REASON. OH THAT'S RIGHT WE DO. THANK YOU. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE REZONE FROM AC TO LC, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, THANK YOU SO MUCH, CITY CLERK. CAN YOU CONDUCT THE VOTE ON THE REASON STATEMENT? YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS A. FREEMAN. YES. LARSEN. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. ALL [5.C.2) Resolution approving the Eligibility Report for the Riverside Urban Renewal District] RIGHT. NOW WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE. AND SO AND WE HAVE DIRECTOR SANDER HERE TO INTRODUCE OUR GUEST PRESENTER WHO IS KNOWN TO EVERYONE. BUT I WANTED TO JUST POINT OUT COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME, EVEN AFTER EMAILING DIRECTOR SANDER TO SPOT THE WHERE'S WALDO TYPE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, AND FINALLY FOUND IT. YOU KNOW, RIVERWALK AND RIVERSIDE. THAT'S THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THESE TITLES. AND IT TOOK ME A WHILE. AND EMOTIONS TOO, FOR THAT MATTER. AND SO. OR THE BACKGROUND. SO IF YOU DIDN'T SPOT IT, YOU'RE NOT ALONE. AND IF YOU DID SPOT IT, GOOD FOR YOU. YOU'RE SHARPER THAN I WAS. SO WITH THAT DIRECTOR SANDER, I'LL LET YOU INTRODUCE THESE ITEMS AND MAYBE WE CAN JUST DO THEM IN SUCCESSION. SINCE THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR. YOU CAN INTRODUCE BOTH OF THEM. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. SO THE THREE ITEMS. I'M SWITCHING MY HAT TO THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. THESE THESE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE LEFT ON THE AGENDA ARE DEALING WITH RIVERWALK, RIVERSIDE AND RIVER COMMONS. SO ORIGINAL HERE. YES. WE YEAH. WANT TO GUESS WHERE THEY ARE. YEAH. ALL AROUND REALLY. IS ANYBODY EVER BEEN TO ATLANTA AND [00:30:06] COUNTED? HOW MANY STREETS HAVE THE NAME PEACH IN THEM? OH NO. IT'S MORE THAN WE HAVE RIVER I'LL JUST SAY THAT. SO THE FIRST TWO ITEMS SO MANY OF YOU KNOW BRAD KRAMER, HE'S FROM HE WAS IN MY PREVIOUS POSITION, BUT HE'S NOW WITH PERSPECTIVE PLANNING AND CONSULTING. AND HE HAS BEEN THE CONSULTANT ON THESE ITEMS FOR THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. SO THE FIRST TWO ARE IN REGARDS TO THE ELIGIBILITY REPORT FOR TWO POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DISTRICTS. AND THEN THE THIRD ITEM IS FOR THE RIVER COMMONS. AND SOME ADJUSTMENT TO THAT REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. SO WITH THAT, IF THERE AREN'T ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, BRAD'S REALLY MUCH SMARTER AT THIS STUFF THAN I AM SO HAPPY TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU. VERY GOOD. WELCOME, DIRECTOR. OR EXCUSE ME, FORMER DIRECTOR KRAMER. SORRY, WADE. OH, NO. WHY AREN'T YOU APOLOGIZING TO ME? JUST JOKING. THERE'S A BAD WAY TO INTRODUCE BRAD KRAMER. PERSPECTIVE. PLANNING. CONSULTING? YES. YOU STILL NEED MY ADDRESS, RIGHT? NOT FOR THIS. OKAY, GOOD. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE AND PRESENT THESE THREE ITEMS. FIRST TWO IS, AS WADE MENTIONED, OUR ELIGIBILITY REPORTS FOR RIVERSIDE AND RIVERWALK. AFTER WRITING THE REPORTS, I BASICALLY DREAM IN RIVER. AND BECAUSE I HAVE TO KEEP THEM APART SOMEHOW. SO AS A REMINDER, AS WE GO THROUGH THESE ELIGIBILITY REPORTS, REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS WHETHER OR NOT THE SITES MEET ONE OF THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE STATE STATUTE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR THE URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAM AND BECOME AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA, THERE'S NO OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT JUST BECAUSE IT'S ELIGIBLE. ALTHOUGH THE RESOLUTION IN THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONTINUATION OF THAT PROCESS CERTAINLY NOT OBLIGATED TO FINISH IT, WE'RE JUST DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY. SO JUST BY WAY OF ORIENTATION, THIS IS NEAR THE RIVER. IT'S GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF SUNNYSIDE, SOUTH OF WEST OF THE SNAKE RIVER AND EAST OF SNAKE RIVER PARKWAY. YOU CAN SEE IT OUTLINED HERE ON THIS FIRST SLIDE. SO JUST EAST OF THE SNAKE RIVER LANDING DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES. AND YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THESE IN THE LAST ITEM. BUT JUST FOR REFERENCE, WHAT YOU SEE IN THE KIND OF YELLOW AND PURPLE, THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE RIVER COMMONS DISTRICT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SNAKE RIVER. IN WHAT WILL BE PROPOSED LATER IS THE ANNEXATION OF WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PURPLE. IT'S A 40, 40 PLUS ACRES, AND THOSE 40 ACRES ARE INCLUDED. THE PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RIVERSIDE DISTRICT. SO THE PURPOSE OF SHARING ALL OF THAT IS I DID STUDY PART OF AN EXISTING DISTRICT THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS IN THIS NEW RIVERSIDE DISTRICT. PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT, AT THE ANNEXATION AND CONTINUATION AND ITS INCLUSION IN THIS NEW DISTRICT, IS THAT THE TIME FOR THE RIVER DISTRICT IS TO CLOSE AS FAST APPROACHING, AND THERE'S STILL LOTS OF WORK TO BE DONE, LOTS OF AREAS STILL TO BE REMEDIATED. AND SO THE IDEA WAS TO CAPTURE THOSE AREAS THAT MIGHT STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THEIR RENEWAL PROGRAM. SO JUST BY WAY OF, AGAIN, HISTORICAL AERIAL, YOU CAN SEE FROM 1975 THIS WAS A MIXTURE OF AGRICULTURAL AREAS AND ROCK AND GRAVEL EXTRACTION. AND IT'S AND I POINT THAT OUT PARTLY BECAUSE THAT GRAVEL EXTRACTION CREATES A FAIR AMOUNT OF THE ELIGIBILITY THAT EXISTS TODAY. AND SOME OF THE REMNANTS OF THAT ACTIVITY. SO BRIEFLY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS IS PART OF YOUR MIXED USE CORRIDORS AND MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THE MOST PART LC, WHICH YOU JUST HAD A DISCUSSION ON. SO I DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT. THERE IS SOME HCPS AS WELL AS SOME PARKS ZONE AND A VERY SMALL PORTION ON THE NORTH END OF CC OR CENTRAL COMMERCIAL. SO LET ME JUMP INTO THE CRITERIA IN CRITERION ONE, LOOKING FOR A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF DETERIORATING STRUCTURES OR DETERIORATION OF THE SITE. THERE'S REALLY BOTH IN THIS AREA. THERE ARE A LOT OF DETERIORATING STRUCTURES. THERE ARE A TERRIBLE HIGH NUMBER OF STRUCTURES IN GENERAL, BUT THERE ARE A FAIR NUMBER OF OUTBUILDINGS AND DETERIORATING HOUSES THERE. ON THE EAST SIDE ALONG MILLIGAN ROAD, MOST OF THE ELIGIBILITY REALLY DOES COME FROM THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING THAT CURRENTLY EXIST ALONG MILLIGAN ROAD. SO BESIDES THE STRUCTURES, THOUGH, SOME DETERIORATION OF THE SITE INCLUDES THE CONDITION OF MILLIGAN ROAD AS WELL AS THE, THE SITE ITSELF HAS STOPPED [00:35:01] PILES OF DEBRIS THAT YOU'LL HEAR ME SAY OVER AND OVER AS WE GO THROUGH THIS REPORT. THAT'S AGAIN LEFT OVER FROM GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND DUST ACCUMULATION OVER THE YEARS. CRITERION TWO FOR SOME REASON I DID NOT PUT THAT IT IS MET, BUT IT IS. THIS IS LOOKING FOR AGE OR OBSOLESCENCE. THESE BUILDINGS WERE AS OLD AS 1920, BUT ALSO NOT JUST THE AGE, BUT THE OBSOLESCENCE PIECE WAS ONE THAT ACTUALLY STOOD OUT IN THIS PARTICULAR STUDY IN TERMS OF ITS APPROPRIATENESS AND ITS LAYOUT FOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITH CONNECTIVITY THAT MAKE THIS AREA VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP TO THOSE IN OTHER SLIDES, BUT THIS CRITERIA IS MET. SO THREE, FOUR AND FIVE. THIS DOES DEAL WITH STREET LAYOUT AND CONNECTIVITY. THIS IS ONE OF THE PRIMARY ISSUES WITH THIS PARTICULAR AREA. AND THREE ITEM THREE DEALS WITH THE DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATELY ACT. NUMBER FOUR IS AN OUTMODED STREET PATTERN AND FIVE IS FIVE IS THE CORRELATION WITH OTHER STREETS IN IN THE AREA FIVE YOU KNOW, IT'S CLOSE TO SUNNYSIDE, IT'S CLOSE TO PANCARI, WHICH ARE BOTH ARTERIALS. THE PROBLEM IS, ACCESSING THE MILLIGAN ROAD IS A 1600 FOOT DEAD END WITH NO CONNECTION TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO THE NORTH. AS IT EXITS TOWARDS PANCARI. THERE'S NO EAST-WEST CONNECTION. THERE'S NO SOUTH CONNECTION. AND SO THOSE PATTERNS ARE OBSOLETE. THEY ARE INADEQUATE. THEY ARE DEFECTIVE. THIS MAP HERE PROBABLY GIVES YOU A BETTER INDICATOR OF WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLUE LINES, THOSE ARE EXISTING STREETS WITHIN THE AREA, THE BROADER AREA. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE ALONG THE RIVER MILLIGAN ROAD HAS NO CONNECTIONS. THOSE RED DASHED LINES REPRESENT POTENTIAL FUTURE CONNECTIONS. BUT NOT ONLY DO THEY NOT EXIST, THEY'RE ALSO VERY CHALLENGING TO BUILD BECAUSE ALL THREE OF THEM GO THROUGH EITHER THE STOCKPILED DEBRIS OR THE RAISED AREA WHERE THEY LIGHT THE FIREWORKS FROM OR ON THE SOUTH. YOU'RE GOING THROUGH ANOTHER ANOTHER CONTAMINATED AREA THAT'S SORT OF THAT DARKER BROWN. SO IT'S RIGHT ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY BASED ON SOME FULL STUDIES OF CUMULATIVE GARBAGE. SO IT'S A REALLY CHALLENGING AREA TO DEVELOP ON JUST TO GET THE STREETS CONNECTED. SO ALL THREE OF THOSE CRITERIA ARE MET. CRITERIA SIX AND NINE DEALS WITH FAULTY LAYOUT AND DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP. IN BOTH CASES, IT DID FIND THAT THESE ARE ALSO MET IN TERMS OF NUMBER SIX FAULTY LOT LAYOUT. AGAIN ON MILLIGAN ROAD, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN SORT OF CHOPPED UP AND DIVIDED. THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO STREETS, THEY'RE TOO SMALL FOR DEVELOPMENT. PERHAPS AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU CAN SEE SORT OF THIS REMNANT LOT, NOT MUCH HAPPENING AND NOT MUCH YOU COULD DO WITH IT. IT WILL REQUIRE SOME COMBINATION OF LOTS AND PLATTING IN TERMS OF DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP. MOST OF THE LAND IS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. HOWEVER, WHAT I LOOKED AT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF OWNERS, BUT HOW THE DIVERSITY AFFECTS THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP AND IN THIS CASE, THAT SAME PARCEL THAT I JUST SHOWED AS WELL AS THE ONE TO THE NORTH, THOSE ARE DIFFERENT OWNERS AND THEY THEY BREAK UP THE CONTINUITY OF THE DEVELOPABILITY OF THESE SITES. THEY BREAK UP THE ABILITY TO EASILY CONSTRUCT MILLIGAN ROW. SO IT'S NOT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF OWNERS, BUT THE DIVERSITY IS IN SUCH A PLACE AND WAY THAT MAKES DEVELOPMENT VERY CHALLENGING. SO I DID FIND THAT THAT WAS, AT LEAST ON THOSE NARROW SIDE. APPARENTLY THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING, WE'D MAKE A REQUEST THAT YOU SPEAK A BIT MORE LOUDLY INTO THE MIC, OR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING ON LIVE STREAM SAY IT'S A LITTLE TOO FAINT. I CAN DO THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO CRITERIA SEVEN TOPOGRAPHY AND SO UNSUITABLE TOPOGRAPHY. THERE IS A LOT OF ELEVATION CHANGE IN THIS AREA AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOS. HIGHS AND LOWS, VALLEYS. THERE'S ALSO SEVERAL AREAS THAT THE USGS SHOWS IS LOW SOIL STRENGTH. THERE'S SOME ROCK OUTCROP WITH VERY SHALLOW BASALT. SO THIS CRITERION WAS ALSO MET. LOOKING AT THIS MAP. THIS IS REALLY THIS IS THE USGS SURVEY AND YOU CANNOT SEE THOSE NUMBERS AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT. IF I COULD ZOOM IN, I CAN'T EVEN TELL YOU FROM MEMORY WHERE THOSE NUMBERS ARE. BUT THERE'S A ROCK OUTCROP IN THERE AS WELL. STRENGTH. JUST GIVING YOU AN IDEA OF THE DIVERSITY OF SOME OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OR THE SOIL STRUCTURES. SO THIS CRITERION IS ALSO MET. EIGHT AND 12 DEAL WITH INSANITARY CONDITIONS AND CONDITIONS WHICH ENDANGER LIFE AND PROPERTY. HERE AGAIN, BOTH OF THESE DEADLINES TO BE MET. NOW THERE'S NOTHING OBVIOUSLY OBSERVABLE IS INSANITARY. BUT AS I'VE MENTIONED, THERE ARE STOCKPILES OF DEBRIS AND GARBAGE ACROSS THE SITE. THERE ARE IN TERMS OF THE SAFETY, IF I GO BACK TO THE 1600 FOOT DEAD END, THAT IS A INCREDIBLE CHALLENGE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, BOTH FOR THE EMERGENCY SERVICES TO ENTER [00:40:04] OR FOR ANYBODY IN AN EMERGENCY TO EXIT. THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY IN AND OUT FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD. AS YOU DRIVE ALONG MILLIGAN ROAD. THERE'S ALSO SOME VERY NARROW DISTANCES BETWEEN THE GRAVEL ROAD AND THE RIVERBANK. AND AS YOU GET TO THE VERY END OF THAT 1600 FOOT DEAD END, THE ELEVATION OF THE ROAD ACTUALLY DROPS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE WATER LEVEL, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THAT UPPER LEFT PHOTO THERE. BUT IT'S NOT SNOWY ANYMORE. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN I TOOK THE PHOTOS. SO IT'S ON THE SUNNY SIDE. ALSO, THE UPPER RIGHT HAND PHOTO. YOU'RE MISSING SOME PRETTY CRITICAL CURB, GUTTER, AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES IN ORDER TO CONNECT ACROSS ACROSS SUNNYSIDE. AND SO IF YOU'RE A PEDESTRIAN, YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET ACROSS A VERY MAJOR HIGH SPEED ROADWAY. AND YOU ALSO DO HAVE A BIT OF A FIRE HAZARD WITH THE OVERGROWTH OF MATERIAL THAT IN THE SUMMER MONTHS GETS VERY DRY AND GET BACK TO LIMITED EMERGENCY ACCESS. SO 1011 I DID NOT REVIEW THAT DEALS WITH TAX DELINQUENCIES AND UNUSUAL CONDITIONS OF TITLE. I USUALLY DON'T REVIEW THOSE UNLESS THERE'S A KNOWN ISSUE, AND IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NOT. SO THOSE CRITERIA WERE NOT FOUND TO BE MET. AND THEN FINALLY CRITERIA 13, 14 AND 15 DEALS WITH HOW ARE THESE CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO GROW IN THE AREA TO GROW? AND IS THERE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? AND IN EACH CASE, THESE CRITERIA ARE ALL MET. THE AGAIN, THE LEFTOVERS FROM THE GRAVEL EXTRACTION AND THE STOCKPILING OF GARBAGE AND DEBRIS CREATED SOME REALLY EXPENSIVE REMEDIATION THAT HAS STALLED GROWTH IN THE AREA. THE ROCK, THE SOIL THAT THE EXPENSE OF BUILDING THE UTILITIES AND THE STREET NETWORKS HAVE ALL CONTRIBUTED TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. AND ONE OF THE KEY INDICATORS TO ME IS IF YOU THINK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ALONG A RIVER OR LAND ALONG A RIVER IS USUALLY PRIME REAL ESTATE, READY, READY TO DEVELOP AND PROVIDE SOME OF THE PREMIER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN A CITY. AND YET THIS REMAINS UNDEVELOPED, ALTHOUGH OTHER AREAS ALONG THE RIVER HAVE DEVELOPED VERY WELL. SO I FOUND THAT ALL THREE OF THESE CRITERIA WERE MET. THIS IS JUST A SUMMARY SLIDE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED TO REVIEW IT IN DEPTH, SO I'M GOING TO SKIP TO THE 2% LIMITATION REQUIREMENT. SO JUST AS A REMINDER, THE TOTAL BASE VALUE OF ALL URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS IN THE CITY CANNOT EXCEED 10% OF THE CITY'S OVERALL VALUE. IDAHO FALLS HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN WELL BELOW THAT STANDARD AND WOULD REMAIN SO EVEN IN THIS. THIS TABLE IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS IN YOUR REPORT WHEN I WROTE THAT REPORT. RIVERWALK WAS NOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. WILLOW CREEK HAD NOT BEEN. THE NUMBERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR THAT EITHER. SO I'VE ADDED THOSE IN HERE JUST TO SHOW THAT IT'S STILL WELL WITHIN THE 10% REQUIREMENT AT 1.46%. AND WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBERS QUESTIONS. COUNCILOR FRANCIS FIRST QUESTION HERITAGE PARK IS INCLUDED IN THIS IS THAT AM I LOOKING AT THE MAP CORRECTLY? I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT, YES. SO HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE PARK? DOES IT RESTRICT WHAT THE CITY DECIDES TO DO WITH THAT PARK? OR IS IT OR HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT ZONE? YEAH, THAT'S A THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THE ANSWER TO YOUR FIRST ONE IS A RESTRICT WHAT YOU CAN DO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. WHAT IT DOES DO IS IF IN A IN A VOTER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD COME NEXT. SO YOU CREATE A PLAN AND YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER, AND YOU AGREE ON HOW MUCH OF THE TAX INCREMENT VALUE FROM ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THIS AREA WOULD GO TO THEM FOR REIMBURSEMENT, AND HOW MUCH WILL BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE PUBLIC PROJECTS? SO ONE OF THE THINGS IT DOES DO FOR HERITAGE PARK IS LATER DOWN THE ROAD TOWARDS THE END OF THE DISTRICT, THERE MAY BE AVAILABLE FUNDS TO DO PUBLIC PROJECTS WITHIN THE PARK, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, PARKS AND REC CARRIES ON. I CAN DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO. OKAY, YEAH. AS A NONTAXABLE PROPERTY, IT REALLY DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISTRICT. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST INCLUDED IN THE BOUNDARIES FOR POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY. SO IT HAS NO IMPACT ON ON HOW MUCH MONEY THE DEVELOPER RECEIVES OVER TIME. RIGHT? RIGHT. I MEAN, OTHER THAN IF SOMEHOW IT CONTRIBUTES TO THEIR THEIR VALUE FOR PROPERTY BEING NEAR A PARK. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO, IT CONTRIBUTES NOTHING BENEFITS THE. TAXPAYER BECAUSE THAT LOSS WILL BE ON THE LIFE OF THE DISTRICT. SO I, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT WE DO KNOW, RIGHT PRETTY CLEARLY THAT PROPERTY VALUES INCREASE IMMENSELY NEAR PARKS PARTICULARLY. THIS WAS KIND OF A UNIQUE PARK BEING ON THE SNAKE RIVER AND SOME OF THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THIS PARK. SO I [00:45:02] THINK I THINK IT WILL HELP INCREASE VALUE AND THE VALUATION OF WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BRING TO THE CITY IS VERY, VERY INTERESTING. AND I THINK FOR THOSE OF US WHO'VE SAT ON COUNCIL LONG ENOUGH TO SEE SOME OF THE END OF THESE DISTRICTS AND SEE WHAT THE NEW REVENUES ARE THAT COME FROM WHERE THEY START, THE DEVELOPMENT IS CRITICAL FOR US TO HAVE GROWTH AND TO HAVE MORE TAX ROLL PAIN PROPERTIES THAT WOULD NOT EXIST IN THE CITY. SO. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT FIRST I MIGHT ASK, IS IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION AND THEN RE INCLUSION IN A NEW DISTRICT, IS THAT MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE FINAL ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, OR BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE COMPOSED OF OR PART OF A NEW DISTRICT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK NOW? SO THE WAY THAT I AM READING THE AGENDA HERE, AND NONE OF THESE ITEMS, BY THE WAY, ARE QUASI JUDICIAL MATTERS. SO IT ISN'T THAT YOU CAN TAKE SOMETHING YOU LEARN DURING THIS AGENDA ITEM AND USE IT TO MAKE A DECISION ON YOUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM. YOU DO HAVE IT NOTICED THAT YOU WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT, SO I THINK IT'S FAIRLY BROAD RAIN HERE TO GET THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS IN THE ORDER THAT WOULD HELP COUNCIL MAKE THE DECISION. THANK YOU. THEN I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GO AHEAD AND ASK. AND THAT IS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE. AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR WADE I JUST DON'T KNOW. BUT IS THE SO WE DON'T JUST LET THE CLOCK RUN OUT ON THE ORIGINAL RIVER COMMENTS AND THEN CREATE A NEW DISTRICT AFTER THAT. BECAUSE WHY? WELL, IT IS AN OPTION THAT YOU COULD DO. YOU CAN DO SUCCESSIVE DISTRICTS WITHOUT ANY TIME IN BETWEEN, AS LONG AS THEY'RE STILL ELIGIBILITY. YEAH. YOU CAN'T REOPEN THE EXACT SAME BOUNDARY. OKAY. THE REASON THAT THERE'S SOME ACCELERATED TIMELINE HERE IS JUST IN RESPONSE TO UPCOMING POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT IN ORDER TO IF YOU WAIT UNTIL IT EXPIRES, YOU HAVE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT THEN WOULDN'T BE CAPTURED IN THE IN THE NEW DISTRICT. AND SO TO THE EXTENT YOU CAN GET THIS CREATED NOW, WHILE PARCELS ARE STILL VACANT AND HAVE A VERY LOW BASE VALUE, THEN THEY CAN CAPTURE OVER THE FULL 20 YEARS INSTEAD OF ONLY THE NEXT 4 TO 5. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHEN YOU CHANGE AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT, I THOUGHT SIMPLY WHEN YOU CHANGE, THEN YOU RESET THE BASE. BUT MAYBE IT'S WHEN YOU GROW IT VERSUS WHEN YOU DE-ANNEX YOU DON'T RESET THE BASE, RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, FOR RIVER COMMONS, THERE ARE STILL SOME CONSIDERATIONS AND I MIGHT ADD MEGAN'S ON THE LINE, MIGHT DEFER. SHE'S THE EXPERT ON THAT ONE. BUT THERE ARE THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES TO WITH AS TO WHEN THE PLAN WAS CREATED. SO PLANS THAT WERE CREATED PRE 2016 HAVE SOME DIFFERENT RULES THAT POST 2016. THIS IS A PRE 2016 PLAN OKAY. AND THIS ONE THAT'S BEING CREATED NOW WITH THIS STUDY OR WOULD BE CREATED WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE NEWEST RULES. BUT WE FEEL LIKE IT'S FAIRLY INTACT FOR WHAT'S THE WHAT. THE NEED MAY BE OKAY. AND SO MAYBE THAT ANSWERS IT. BUT MEGAN DID YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON ANYTHING. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE. NO, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THE PRE 2016 AND POST 2016 DISTINCTIONS ARE CRITICAL FOR DETERMINATION OF THE BASE RESET. A PRE 16 PLAN MAY BE AMENDED WITHOUT RISK OF A BASE RESET AND THAT LANGUAGE IS FOUND IN. 50 2903 SUBSECTION FOUR. THAT BEING SAID, THE LANGUAGE THAT APPLIES TO 20 POST 2016 PLANS SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT AN AMENDMENT TO DE-ANNEX IS NOT A PLAN MODIFICATION THAT WOULD TRIGGER A RESET OF THE BASE. SO UNDER EITHER SCENARIO, A ANNEXATION IS FINE. THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. AND I'M BRAD FOR ANSWERING THAT. COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILOR FRANCIS I THINK I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. AND THEY'RE RELATED BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE TO ASK FIRST. BUT WHAT WOULD BE IDEALLY THE TIME FRAME FOR WHEN THIS WOULD COME BACK TO US FOR FORMAL APPROVAL OF THE PLAN? BECAUSE THIS IS THE ELIGIBILITY STUDY, CORRECT? YEAH. IDEALLY THIS WOULD BE CREATED BEFORE THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR. SO THAT MEANS THE DNS PROPERTY WOULDN'T JUST SIT FOR A YEAR AND THEN BE ANNEXED INTO THIS. IT WOULD BE COORDINATED. AND I'M THINKING RIGHT. YEAH. I MEAN, THERE WOULD BE SOME GAP BECAUSE IF YOU [00:50:03] PROCEED TONIGHT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THAT ORDINANCE, IT WILL BE ANNEXED AS OF TONIGHT. SO WHAT HAPPENS? DOES THAT PROPERTY THEN FOR ONE YEAR GET TAXED AT FULL VALUE WITHOUT THE TAX? NO, ACTUALLY. SO THE WAY, THE WAY THE STATUTE WORKS IS IF YOU CREATE IT, THIS IS WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET IT DONE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR IS IT'S RETROACTIVE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR IN WHICH IT'S CREATED. SO THERE'S REALLY NO OVERLAP IN TERMS OF ITS INCLUSION IN A DISTRICT. IT'S THERE WILL BE A GAP IN. I CAN'T THINK OF THE RIGHT WAY TO DESCRIBE IT, BUT YES, THERE WILL BE A GAP FROM NOW UNTIL YOU CREATE IT. BUT AS LONG AS BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, IT'S RETROACTIVE ANYWAYS. OKAY, BECAUSE I WAS THINKING IT'S GOING TO SIT AS KIND OF A NO MAN'S LAND FOR A WHILE, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, RIGHT ON THE IDEAL TIME FRAME. CORRECT? OKAY. AND SO SORRY, THAT TRIGGERED ANOTHER QUESTION. SO THAT MEANS THAT RIVER COMMONS THEN WILL BE TAKING IN OBVIOUSLY LESS VALUE, BUT IT'LL BE LESS VALUE FOR THIS ENTIRE YEAR. NOT TO JULY WHATEVER OR YEAH, THERE WILL BE SOME. AND WHAT WE'LL SEE IN THE LAST ITEM IS WHAT THOSE NUMBERS REALLY LOOK LIKE. IT'S NOT VERY MUCH. OKAY, I'LL WAIT THEN UNTIL THEN TO THINK ABOUT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE EVERYONE WITH AMATEUR QUESTIONS. ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO COVER BEFORE WE CLOSE? NO, IT'S NOT A HEARING. IT'S JUST A PRESENTATION. SO WE'LL TAKE A VOTE AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT PRESENTATION. IS THERE ANY DELIBERATION THAT YOU WISH TO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS? ANY COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH EACH OTHER BEFORE WE ASK FOR A VOTE, A MOTION? ALL RIGHT. THEN THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS. I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ELIGIBILITY REPORT FOR THE RIVERSIDE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE READY THEN TO VOTE ON THAT RESOLUTION. FREEMAN. YES. BRADFORD I. LARSON. YES. DINGMAN. YES. BURTENSHAW. YES. FRANCIS. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. WELL. HOW EXCITING. ALL RIGHT. DIRECTOR KRAMER OR EXCUSE ME, MR. KRAMER, CONSULTANT KRAMER, WE INVITE YOU BACK UP, OKAY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JUST HOLD ON JUST A SECOND. OKAY. SORRY. YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. GO FOR IT. THERE WE GO. OKAY, SO SECOND ITEM IS ELIGIBILITY [5.C.3) Resolution approving the Eligibility Report for the Riverwalk Urban Renewal District] REPORT FOR THE RIVER PROPOSED RIVERWALK DISTRICT. IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION I'VE ALREADY GIVEN YOU. AND JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO THE SLIDES JUST TO ORIENT YOU ON WHERE THIS IS LOCATED. THIS IS A PART OF TAYLOR CROSSING DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS THIS MAP IS ACTUALLY ORIENTED A LITTLE BIT OFF. YOU CAN SEE THE THREE. THIS IS REALLY THE THREE DEVELOPABLE SITES WITHIN TAYLOR CROSSING. YOU CAN SEE THE EAGLE ROUNDABOUT HERE IN THE LOWER PART OF THAT SLIDE. SLIDE THREE IS JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT BETWEEN THE ROUNDABOUT AND CULVERS. SLIDE TWO IS AT THE END OF MILLIGAN ROAD, AT THE END OF THAT CUL DE SAC AT THE SOUTH END. AND THEN SITE NUMBER ONE IS ALONG RIVERWALK DRIVE, JUST NORTH OF WHERE THE TAYLOR CROSSING OFFICES ARE. I'LL EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY THERE'S JUST THREE SITES AND NOT A MORE INCLUSIVE AREA, PARTLY BECAUSE IT'S SO DEVELOPED, IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO CAPTURE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED AND PRODUCING TAX VALUE. BUT ALSO IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS A DESIRE BY THE BOARD, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD, TO KEEP THIS TO SITES THAT WERE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO SEE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS OR SO. AND SO IN CONVERSATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, ALTHOUGH THEY DO OWN THE LAND THAT'S CLOSER TO THE RIVER, THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE TO INCLUDE THOSE AT THIS TIME, PARTLY BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO CAPTURE AS MUCH OF THAT 20 YEARS AS POSSIBLE. SO THESE ARE THE ONLY THREE SITES THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO SEE DEVELOPMENT IN THE REPORT. THAT'S IN THE PACKET, YOU WOULD FIND SOME CONCEPTS OF WHAT ARE ANTICIPATED FOR THESE THREE SITES ON PAGES TEN AND 11. SITE ONE IS FOR A HOTEL AND THEN THEY USE YET TO BE DETERMINED. SITE TWO IS CURRENTLY BEING LOOKED AT FOR AN OFFICE BUILDIN, AND STEP THREE. TO BE HONEST, I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN, BUT THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT JUST IN CONCEPT OUT THERE. SO AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE AREA IN THE YEAR 2000, THIS WAS ROUGHLY WHEN RIGHT ABOUT WHEN THE TAYLOR CROSSING WAS ADDED TO THE OLD SNAKE RIVER DISTRICT. AND YOU CAN SEE THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST TODAY FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE, STORAGE AND REALLY UNDERUTILIZED PART OF IT, PART OF THE CITY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AGAINST MIXED USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS AND ZONING. FOR THE MOST PART, THESE SITES ARE THE CC COMMERCIAL WITH SOME ZONE [00:55:06] THERE ON SITE THREE. SO WALKING THROUGH THE CRITERION, UNLIKE THE LAST ONE, MOST OF THE CRITERIA ARE NOT MET IN THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT. BUT AS A REMINDER, THE STATUTE ONLY REQUIRES THAT ONE BE MET IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE IN TERMS OF SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF DETERIORATING STRUCTURES, THERE ARE NONE, SO THAT WAS EASY AND DETERIORATION OF THE SITE. THIS IS A FAIRLY NEW AREA. THE ONLY DETERIORATION I NOTED WERE REALLY SOME IN THE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK AROUND THE ROUNDABOUT, BUT NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO MAKE THIS A PLANNING. SO THIS IS NOT MEANT. CRITERION TWO VERY SIMILAR WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT AGE OR OBSOLESCENCE. THERE WERE NO STRUCTURES TO EVALUATE. SO THERE ARE NO AGE ISSUES. AND THE SITE IS PLATTED AND READY FOR DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE'S NO OBSOLESCENCE THERE. SO CRITERION TWO IS NOT MET. THREE AND FOUR, AGAIN, DEALING WITH STREET LAYOUTS, OUTMODED STREET PATTERN. THESE ARE NEW ROADS. THEY CONNECT WELL. THERE'S GOOD CONNECTIVITY WITH OTHER ARTERIALS. SO THESE ARE NOT MET. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IN CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND PUBLIC WORKS AND PLANNING STAFF, THERE IS A DESIRE BY THE CITY ENGINEER TO HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE BROADER AREA. THIS MAY BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT MAY NOT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A SMALL AREA. BUT THERE IS A RECOGNITION THAT ALTHOUGH THESE CONDITIONS ARE NOT MET, BUT THERE IS A NEED, AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AREA. CRITERION FIVE I SORT OF ALREADY TOUCHED ON THIS AS CORRELATION, BUT ANY NEED FOR CORRELATION WITH OTHER STREETS WITHIN THE AREA. I ACTUALLY DID FIND THIS ONE WAS MET NOT BECAUSE OF THE ROADS, BUT BECAUSE OF SOME KEY MISSING PIECES OF PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THESE PHOTOS YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT, THIS IS A PATHWAY THAT RUNS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CANAL, WHICH IS MISSING. IT WOULD PICK BACK UP AGAIN AT NEAR SPRINGHILL SUITES HOTEL. AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE YOU SEE ALONG UTAH AVENUE. THERE'S A MISSING SIDEWALK THERE THAT WOULD BE PRETTY CRITICAL FOR PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY. THERE IS THAT NEED FOR CORRELATION. THIS IS A VERY WELL WALKED AND BIKED AREA. AND SO THOSE MISSING PIECES ARE PRETTY IMPORTANT TO GET PEOPLE TO THE REST OF THE RIVERWALK AND OTHER SERVICES IN THE AREA. SO CRITERION FIVE IS THAT BECAUSE THE PEDESTRIAN PIECES, CRITERION SIX AND NINE DEAL WITH FAULTY LOT LAYOUT, DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP, THESE ARE NOT MET. THESE ARE PLOTTED LOTS. THEY ARE ALL OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY AND DEVELOPER. EITHER THESE ARE MET. CRITERION SEVEN IS THE PRIMARY PIECE OF ELIGIBILITY AND THAT'S UNSUITABLE TOPOGRAPHY. THIS HAS TO DEAL IN WITH SHALLOW BASALT. BASED ON A GEOTECHNICAL STUDY THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER. AT LEAST ON SITE ONE, THERE IS ROCK THAT IS AS SHALLOW AS TWO FEET IN THE GROUND, AND THAT'S UP NEAR THE STREET. AND THEN AS YOU WALK THE SITE, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF EXPOSED ROCK AS WELL. SO EVERY SITE WHEN I WHEN I WAS WORKING DIRECTLY FOR IPRA, ANYTIME WE WERE DEALING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR THE BLASTING ROCK. THIS IS A VERY COMMON ISSUE IN THIS AREA. IT REMAINS THERE TODAY. AND SO CRITERION SEVEN IS MEANT. SO JUST LOOKING AGAIN JUST MAPPING WHERE THOSE AREAS ARE IN PINK ARE WHAT THE USGS SHOWS AND WHAT THEY CALL PILATUS. PILATUS ROCK OUTCROP, ALTHOUGH THE SITE THREE IS NOT WITHIN THAT PINK AREA. AGAIN, THE SITES AROUND IT HAVE ROCK. IT'S EXPECTED THAT ROCK WILL BE THERE. SO THE CRITERION IS MET EIGHT AND 12. EXCUSE ME. DEALING WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS AND CONDITIONS WITH WITH ENDANGER LIFE OR PROPERTY. NUMBER EIGHT IS MET BECAUSE OF THE PIT THAT IS ON SITE THREE. YOU CAN SEE THE PHOTOS HERE. VIEW OF THE PIT ON THE SOUTH SIDE AGAIN SHOWING YOU THE ROCK AS WELL. BUT ON THE NORTH, IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY, YOU'LL SEE TIRE TRACKS AND FOOT TRAFFIC THAT GOES NEAR THAT PIT AND IT'S EXPOSED AND THERE'S NO NO BARRIER TO KEEP VEHICLE OR PERSON FROM FALLING INTO THAT PIT. SO THAT IS A CONDITION THAT NEEDS TO BE REMEDIATED. NUMBER 12, HOWEVER, LOOKS AT THINGS MORE LIKE FIRE HAZARDS, FLOODING HAZARDS. ALTHOUGH THERE IS A CANAL, ALTHOUGH IT IS NEAR THE RIVER, THERE WASN'T ANY INFORMATION I COULD FIND THAT INDICATED THAT THERE IS A PROMINENT DANGER OF FLOODING. SO NUMBER 12 IS NOT THAT. AGAIN, NUMBER TEN AND 11 WERE NOT EVALUATED FOR TAX. OR TITLE ISSUES. SO THOSE ARE NOT MET. AND THEN 13, 14 AND 15 CRITERIA 13 LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMPARES OR ARRESTS SOUND GROWTH OF THE CITY. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS MET. THE AREA IN GENERAL HAS DEVELOPED REALLY WELL, BOTH WITHIN TAYLOR CROSSING AND AROUND TAYLOR CROSSING. THERE'S NO INDICATOR THAT THIS IS STALLED GROWTH OF THE CITY OR THE AREA, BUT 14 AND 15, THE CONDITIONS OF THE [01:00:05] SHALLOW BASALT CERTAINLY HAVE SLOWED GROWTH AND CREATED ECONOMIC UNDER USE AND DISUSE IN THE AREA, SO 14 AND 15 ARE MET BECAUSE OF THE COST OF DEVELOPING THAT SHALLOW ROCK. THE BLASTING JUST MAKES IT VERY EXPENSIVE, COST PROHIBITIVE TO DEVELOP. SO AS A SUMMARY, THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT ARE MET ARE SEVEN, EIGHT, 14, 15 AND THEN THREE AND FOUR AS WELL. EXCUSE ME, JUST FOR EXCUSE ME, I HAVE A TYPO. THREE AND FOUR ARE NOT FIVE. ISN'T THAT DEALING WITH CONNECTIVITY THERE? THE PATHWAYS THESE ARE THE SAME NUMBERS FROM THE LAST SLIDE. SO WELL WITHIN THE 10% LIMIT 1.46%. AND WITH THAT THAT'S ALL THE AREA IS ELIGIBLE. I SHOULD MAKE THAT STATEMENT AS A FINDING. AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. BUT THAT WAS A QUICK COUNCIL MEMBERS. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? I HAVE A COUPLE. IN ANY OF YOUR ANALYSIS OF WALKABILITY, AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PEDESTRIAN USE, DID ANY OF THAT THAT INCLUDE. ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE DESIRABILITY OF PATHS ALONG THE CANAL, OR IS THAT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT BALLGAME? IT DID. THAT'S. YEAH. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE IF I CAN, THERE'S A PATH THAT COMES ALONG THE CANAL AND ENDS RIGHT AT THE NORTH END OF THE OR THE EAST END OF THIS PARKING LOT. AND SO WHAT A MAJOR GAP IS FROM HERE UP TO THAT INTERSECTION. SO THAT IS CERTAINLY PART OF THE EVALUATION. OKAY. THANKS. I ONLY SKIMMED THIS AND I APOLOGIZE. IT SHOWS I KNOW. THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS IS THERE MAYBE THIS IS NOT YOUR QUESTION IN TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY, BUT BUT THE OBVIOUSLY THE CANAL DOES NOT BELONG TO THE TO THE OWNERS. AND DOES THAT AT ALL. DO THEIR CONCERNS OR DESIRES OR WISHES OR INPUT. IS IT AT ALL FACTORED INTO ANY OF THE ELIGIBILITY CONCERNS, OR WE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE LAND? AND THE CANAL IS SORT OF UNIQUE AS AN EASEMENT TYPE OF THING, RIGHT? IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY, BUT SAY IT DOESN'T REALLY CONTRIBUTE TO ELIGIBILITY UNLESS YOU WANT TO FACTOR IT INTO THE DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT PREVENTS OR HINDERS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. WHERE IT WAS JUST THE CANAL PATH, I DIDN'T SEE THAT AS A BARRIER TO PRODUCING TAX GENERATING DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CONSIDERED A DIVERSITY OF OWNERSHIP ISSUE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER HOW THEY INTERACT. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, THEN WE'LL TURN IT TO I WILL TURN IT TO YOU FOR ANY DEBATE YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE. OR ARE WE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO MOTION? ALL RIGHT, COUNCILOR LARSON, IT'S YOURS. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL, APPROVE THE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ELIGIBILITY REPORT FOR THE RIVERWALK URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. ALL RIGHT, CITY CLERK. WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION OR FOR A VOTE. BURTONSHAW. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. AND SO I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S DIRECTOR SANDER OR MR. KRAMER WHO WOULD BE COMING FORWARD NEXT, BUT WE ARE READY, [5.C.4) Legislative Hearing for Consideration of an Ordinance approving First Amendment to the River Commons Urban Renewal District] I THINK, TO TAKE ON THE LAST ITEM. AND SO. HAPPY TO HAVE WHOEVER COME FORWARD AND TALK TO US ABOUT RIVER COMMONS. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE ONE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT. DO YOU WANT TO SWITCH THEM IF WE COULD. OKAY. YEAH. I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST HOLDING IT IN CASE YOU NEEDED IT. YEAH. I THINK AFTER I LOOKED AT THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE, I THINK IT'D BE OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. IF, IF MEGAN ONLINE WOULD LIKE TO START THIS ONE INSTEAD OF ME, I HAVE A SMALLER PORTION OF THIS ONE, BUT WE DIDN'T COORDINATE AHEAD OF TIME. ALL RIGHT. SO. MISS CONRAD, WELL, FOR A MINUTE, I FORGOT YOUR LAST NAME, BUT WE'LL INVITE YOU TO WEIGH IN AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO GO FIRST OR SECOND. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE BRAD'S ALMOST READY TO TAKE A SEAT, SO MAYBE HE'S ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING TO GO FIRST. WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS, I WILL CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO KICK THIS DISCUSSION OFF. SO WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RIVER COMMONS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN. AND AS WE KNOW, THE AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT OF A PRE 2016 PLAN. AND THE INTENT IS TO DE-ANNEX ESSENTIALLY TWO DISCRETE AREAS THAT ARE REFERRED TO THROUGHOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AS PARCEL A AND PARCEL B. IT'S TOTALS ABOUT, I THINK 40 ACRES. ACTUALLY, IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT. IT'S A [01:05:11] PARCEL A IS ABOUT 12.5 ACRES. PARCEL B IS ABOUT 40 ACRES. A PLAN AMENDMENT GOES AND TRAVELS THE SAME PATH AS AN ORIGINAL PLAN. AND SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THERE ISN'T AN ELIGIBILITY STUDY REQUIRED BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING THOSE PARCELS OUT AND NOT INCLUDING THEM. BUT OTHERWISE THE PUBLIC STEPS ARE THE SAME. THESE ARE CONSIDERED SHORT FORM AMENDMENTS IN WHICH WE GO INTO THE PLAN, AND WE ONLY AMEND THE SECTIONS OF THE PLAN THAT ARE TRULY IMPACTED AS A RESULT OF PULLING PARCELS OUT OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AREA. AND SO THE GREATEST CHANGES TO THE PLAN FOCUS ON THE MAP AND THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA THAT'S COMING OUT. AND THEN WHAT GRAD WILL STAND TO TALK ABOUT IS THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT PROVIDES AN ANALYSIS AS TO THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PULLING THESE SPECIFIC AREAS OUT OF THE EXISTING PROJECT AREA. THIS TYPE OF AN AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALTER THE END TERMINATION DATE OF THIS PLAN, SO IT WILL CONTINUE ON DOWN THE PATH OF ITS DURATION. THERE'S NO EXTENSION THERE OTHER THAN THAT. AGAIN, IT'S A FAIRLY SHORT FORM DOCUMENT YOU HAVE IN THERE. YOU CAN SEE THE SURVEYED MAPS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS. AND WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THIS FIRST AMENDMENT NARRATIVE. ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, COUNCILOR FRANCIS HAS A QUESTION. MISS CONRAD, I THERE'S A REFERENCE IN HERE TO SOMETHING ABOUT A PROMISSORY NOTE THAT SOMEBODY OWES SOMETHING TO ANOTHER PERSON. I MEAN, ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER DOES WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE DE-ANNEXATION? SO THAT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, THAT LIKELY REFERS TO INFORMATION THAT IS CONTAINED IN MR. KRAMER'S REPOR. AND THE REFERENCE TO THE PROMISSORY NOTES ARE THERE ARE EXISTING FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE EXISTING RIVER COMMONS AREA PURSUANT TO WORK THAT WAS DONE TO INSTALL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NOW THE RIVER COMMONS DISTRICT IS REIMBURSING FOR THOSE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS OVER THE LIFE OF THE DISTRICT. SO THERE ARE SOME OF THESE OUTSTANDING NOTES OR OBLIGATIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT PURSUANT TO EXISTING CONTRACTS. SO THAT'S WHAT THAT REFERS TO. AND AS PART OF THE ECONOMIC EFFECT OF PULLING THESE PARCELS OUT, YOU'RE REDUCING YOUR REVENUE STREAM AND POTENTIALLY YOUR ABILITY TO REPAY ON THESE OBLIGATIONS. SO THAT'S THE ANALYSIS THAT MR. KRAMER WILL GO THROUGH. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISS CONRAD. I JUST WANT WITH YOUR HELP, I WANT TO PINPOINT SOMETHING. IT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE'VE MADE SARCASTIC JOKES ABOUT OR COMMENTS ABOUT OVER THE YEARS, ABOUT HOW THE LEGISLATURE EVERY YEAR WANTS TO DO SOMETHING TO IMPACT, I.E, RESTRICT URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS. AND MANY YEARS BACK, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH YEAR I THINK IT WAS IN THE 20 TENS, THERE WAS A SUCCESSFUL CHANGE IN STATE LAW THAT RESTRICTED THE LENGTH OF TIME FOR AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. I THINK IT WENT FROM 26 YEARS TO 20. I THINK THAT WAS THE NUMBER. BUT AT THE TIME, ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE MADE WAS, HEY, LOOK, 20 YEARS ISN'T ENOUGH TIME TO WEATHER ECONOMIC DOWNTURNS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT'S NEEDED TO REALLY, TRULY HELP AN AREA TO DEVELOP THE LONGER TIME FRAME IS, IS BETTER. AND IT'S IN SOME CASES NECESSARY. BUT THE LAW PASSED BECAUSE THERE'S, I THINK, A FUNDAMENTAL SUSPICION AND MISUNDERSTANDING THAT'S UNFORTUNATE AMONG LEGISLATORS ABOUT HOW URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS CAN AND SHOULD OPERATE. BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, WE SEE THIS GOING ON WHERE IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS TO CREATE AN ENTIRELY NEW DISTRICT FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE ALREADY IN A DISTRICT AND TO RESET THE CLOCK, BECAUSE THE ADVANTAGES OF URBAN RENEWAL ARE SIGNIFICANT. AND RESETTING THE CLOCK IS HAPPENING. SO IN A WAY, WE'RE GOING TO GET 20 SOMETHING YEARS OUT OF THIS OR, EXCUSE ME, 30 SOMETHING YEARS OUT OF THIS, BUT ALL THAT IT REALLY DID WAS COST THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT THE TIME AND EFFORT AND ENERGY OF A NEW STUDY AND LOST TIME WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE TIME THAT COULD [01:10:01] BE SPENT ON SOMETHING ELSE. AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE LEGISLATORS WHO SOUGHT TO MAYBE DOWNSIZE OR THWART URBAN RENEWAL AND HAVE ENDED UP JUST COSTING THE PUBLIC MORE MONEY. THAT'S UNFORTUNATE, BECAUSE I'D RATHER JUST KEEP MOVING ON FULL STEAM AHEAD WITHOUT HAVING TO ENGAGE IN SOME OF THESE MANEUVERS. DE-ANNEXATION, ANNEXATION, CREATION, YOU KNOW, ETC. RESETTING CLOCKS, NOT RESETTING CLOCKS EVERY 16. IT'S SILLY. AND IN MY GOVERNING OPINION. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO, I GUESS, CLARIFY THAT. MISS MISS CONRAD, IS THERE ANYTHING I'VE SAID THAT'S THAT'S FACTUALLY INCORRECT? I KNOW I THREW IN A LOT OF OPINION, BUT WHAT YEAR WAS THAT CHANGE MADE? DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THAT IN YOUR HEAD? I DO THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS. SO THE DATE CHANGE WENT FROM 24 YEARS TO 20 YEARS, AND IT IS A PARTICULARLY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. AND I THINK RESPONDING TO A COMMENT EARLIER, WHEN THESE PARCELS GO INTO THE NEW DISTRICT, THEY WILL GO IN AT THE STEPPED UP BASE VALUE. SO THEY'LL GO IN AT THE CURRENT VALUE. SO IT IS A RESTART IN A WAY. BUT TO YOUR POINT, THESE THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS TAKE A LONG TIME. THANK YOU. I, I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT CITIES HAVE THE PATIENCE FOR LONG TERM PROJECTS. MANY OTHER POLITICAL ACTORS DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF PATIENCE, AND SO MAYBE THEY DON'T SEE THE VALUE HERE, BUT WE SURE DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCIL MEMBERS. ARE WE READY THEN TO PROCEED OR MISS CONRAD, ARE WE READY TO PROCEED TO MR. KRAMER'S INPUT, I YES. THANK YOU. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER ON MY END. THANK YOU. GREAT. MR. KRAMER, I'LL HEAR FROM YOU. THANK YOU FOR A POINT OF REFERENCE. IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE MORE THOROUGH REPORT AND DIVE INTO THE NUMBERS, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A SUMMARY. BUT IN YOUR PACKET IT STARTS ON PAGE 341 OF YOUR PACKET. IT'S A BIG PACKET. SO YOU CAN SEE SORT OF THE FULL ANALYSIS THERE IF YOU IF YOU'D LIKE. SO AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, MY PRIMARY GOAL IN THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY IS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ANNEXATION, WHETHER OR NOT THE ABILITY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO REPAY THE PROMISSORY NOTES. AND THERE ARE THREE IN THIS AREA, IF THAT'S NEGATIVELY AFFECTED, IMPACTED. SO I'M GOING TO BACK UP JUST A COUPLE OF SLIDES HERE. SO WHAT I LOOK AT IS WITH THE ANNEXATION WHAT HAPPENS TO THE REVENUES, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE EXPENSES AND WHAT HAPPENS TO THE OVERALL OVERALL CASH FLOW FOR THE REMAINING LIFE OF THE DISTRICT? NOW, THE TWO ADVANTAGES ARE THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH LIFE LEFT. THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 4 OR 5 YEARS, AND THE PROPERTY IS ALTHOUGH 90 ACRES, IT'S NOT A LOT OF REVENUE. IT'S NOT A LOT OF VALUE. IT'S NOT BEEN DEVELOPED YET. SO ONE THING JUST TO BE AWARE OF I MENTIONED THERE ARE THREE OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS AND PROMISSORY NOTES. ONLY ONE OF THEM IS AFFECTED BY THE ANNEXATION. AND I'M GOING TO JUMP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE AREA ALREADY. IF YOU LOOK IN SORT OF THE UPPER PART, UPPER PORTION OF THIS SLIDE, THE AREA THAT'S SORT OF IN TEAL, THAT'S THE ABANDONED RIVER PARCEL AND DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE PROMISSORY NOTE. IT'S NOT PART OF THE ANNEXATION, AND IT ONLY COLLECTS REVENUES FROM FROM THAT, THAT SPECIFIC PARCEL. SO NOTHING IS AFFECTED THERE. SAME WITH THE ONE THAT YOU SEE IN GREEN SNAKE RIVER LANDING DIVISION EIGHT THAT HAS ITS OWN PROMISSORY NOTE AND OPA, AND IT ONLY COLLECTS REVENUES FROM THAT BOUNDARY THERE. SO IT'S REALLY AFFECTED IS WHAT YOU SEE IN YELLOW AND PURPLE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE STUDY REALLY FOCUSES ON, IS DOES THE ANNEXATION OF WHAT YOU SEE IN PURPLE NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ABILITY TO REPAY THAT PROMISSORY NOTE? SO JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME OF THE NUMBERS FOR THAT AREA, THE ORIGINAL PLAN ANTICIPATED THERE WOULD BE ABOUT $10.5 MILLION WORTH OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED. AND THEN THE NOTE THAT WAS EXECUTED, THAT FIRST PROMISSORY NOTE WAS FOR $8.8 MILLION, WITH AN INTEREST RATE OF 6.25%. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY IMPORTANT TO BE AWARE OF. SO IN THAT OPA, THE DEVELOPER RECEIVES 75% OF THE TAX INCREMENT REVENUES. THE OTHER 25% COVERS ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND BUILDS A RESERVE FOR FUTURE PUBLIC PROJECTS. THE CURRENT BALANCE OF THAT $8.8 MILLION NOTE IS $8.1 MILLION. THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST RATE, BUT OVER THE COURSE OF FROM 2009 TO TODAY, ROUGHLY $9.8 MILLION HAS BEEN PAID TOWARDS THAT PROMISSORY NOTE. SO IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE PAID OFF COMPLETELY REGARDLESS OF THE ANNEXATION. AND I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE. SO THE OTHER THE OTHER NUMBERS [01:15:02] THERE, YOU JUST SEE ARE HOW THE OTHER AGREEMENTS AND PROMISSORY NOTES ARE SET UP. AGAIN, THEY ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THIS ANNEXATION. THESE ARE JUST THIS IS JUST A LIST OF THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT I WALKED THROUGH. I'M BUILDING KIND OF THE MODEL THAT PROJECTS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO REVENUES AND EXPENSES. I'M NOT GOING TO WALK THROUGH ALL OF THEM, JUST MAYBE QUICKLY TO JUST SAY, DO ASSUME SOME VALUATION INCREASE. I DO ASSUME A 1% INCREASE IN THE LEVY. AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT WERE JUST FINISHED THAT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL INCREMENT REVENUE SIDE AS THEY'VE JUST OPENED. SO THEY'LL HIT THE TAX ROLLS TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, THE DISTRICT. SO LOOKING AT REVENUES, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE KEY SLIDE TO SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE REVENUES. AND I TRIED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE ANNEXATION AND WITHOUT. SO IF THE IF, IF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ANNEXED OVER THE REST OF THE LIFE OF THIS DISTRICT, THERE WOULD BE ROUGHLY 4.5 OR $4.6 MILLION IN REVENUE GENERATED TOWARDS THE HISTORY WITH THE ANNEXATION, AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF VALUE, THE REVENUE WILL DROP BY ABOUT $21,000 OVER THE COURSE OF FIVE YEARS. IT'S ROUGHLY $5,000 A YEAR OVER THE NEXT, OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. SO NOT A LOT OF REVENUE. AND THERE AGAIN, SO THE EXPENSES ALSO DON'T CHANGE MUCH. IN FACT, THEY CHANGE LESS BECAUSE 75% OF THOSE DOLLARS WILL GO TOWARDS. THE PROMISSORY NOTE PAYMENTS, 25% AGAIN GOING TOWARDS ADMINISTRATION AND POTENTIAL PROJECTS. AND SO IF I JUST SKIP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT TO CASH FLOW WITHOUT THE ANNEXATION, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO LOOK AT IS. NOT ONLY HOW IS THE OPA AFFECTED, BUT HOW ARE THE POTENTIAL PUBLIC PROJECTS AFFECTED. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT BALANCE THERE. AT THE AT THE END OF THE DISTRICT. THE 888,000, IF I GO TO THE CASH FLOW FOR THE ANNEXATION, IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF $5,000 OVERALL THAT'S LOST TOWARDS SOME OF THAT OTHER SPENDING. SO NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IS REALLY THE STATEMENT TO MAKE. ROUGHLY $21,000 IN LOST REVENUE AND ROUGHLY $5,000 LESS TOWARDS POTENTIAL PROJECTS AND IN THE DISTRICT. SO I KNOW IT'S A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE FULL REPORT THAN THAT, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE STATEMENT I WOULD MAKE IS RIGHT HERE ON THE SLIDE. THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OVERALL CASH FLOW. VERY COOL. COUNSELOR FRANCIS AND THEN COUNCILOR LARSEN, IS THAT BECAUSE THESE ARE AREAS THAT WERE DEBRIS DUMPS, SOMETHING THAT THE LAND ITSELF DOESN'T HAVE TREMENDOUS VALUE, PARTICULARLY CORRECT? OKAY. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NOTE THAT STARTED OUT ABOUT 8.8 WAS DOWN TO 8.1 AND WOULDN'T PROBABLY GET PAID OFF ANYWAY. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE, BUT THERE'S TWO WAYS THE NOTE GOES AWAY ONE, IT GETS PAID OFF, OR TWO THE DISTRICT EXPIRES, AND WHATEVER IS LEFT ON THE NOTE AT THE EXPIRATION JUST GOES AWAY. SO THE TAX OBLIGATION AT THAT POINT CEASES TO EXIST. OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. I WILL NOTE THAT COUNCILOR LARSEN WAS A FORMER MEMBER OF THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT BOARD. I'M NOT SURE IF I'M SAYING THE BOARD AND CURRENTLY COUNCILOR BURTENSHAW SITS ON THAT BOARD. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS OR INPUTS FROM ANYONE? OKAY, WELL THEN THE ACTION TONIGHT THEN COMPLETES THE DE-ANNEXATION AND RESHAPES THE DISTRICT, RIVER COMMONS DISTRICT AND FREES UP THE RIVERSIDE PROPERTY FOR POTENTIAL INCLUSION IN THE FUTURE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS EVERYONE'S INTENT, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE TO MOTION AND VOTE. UNLESS THERE ARE COMMENTS, I WOULD JUST SAY. JUST TO COMMENT ON WHAT YOU HAD SAID EARLIER. MAYOR, THIS IS ONE TOOL THAT WE HAVE, AND I THINK IT HAS BEEN USED SPECTACULARLY BY VOLUNTEERS. I THINK THAT I WAS DOWN THERE TODAY, I MEAN, JUST ALL THE TIME DOWN THERE ENJOYING THAT AREA. IT WAS GROWING UP AROUND HERE. IT WAS JUST A DUMP, LIKE I THINK LITERALLY ON ROCK. SO ANYWAY, I THINK THAT THIS IS A SPECTACULAR ADDITION. PUSH IT OUT TO SUNNYSIDE. KEEP IT GOING. I'M I'M REALLY, REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THIS MOVING FORWARD. THANK YOU. YEAH. KIND OF ALONG THAT SAME LINE I THINK KUDOS GO TO OUR OWN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEADERSHIP. THERE'S BEEN VERY CAREFUL ABOUT [01:20:05] HOW THEY USE THE TOOL SO AS TO STAY WELL WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES. AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS WELL OF THEM. I HAVE OFTEN SAID THAT IDAHO FALLS IS THE POSTER CHILD FOR DOING IT RIGHT, AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A THE BEST, CLEVEREST STATEMENT EVER. BUT WE DO IT RIGHT. AND YES, IT'S OWING TO LEADERSHIP AND SOME VISION. COUNCILOR RADFORD, I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT WE'RE REALLY FORTUNATE BECAUSE REDEVELOPMENT WORKS WHEN WE HAVE PARTNERS. AND I APPRECIATE ALL VENTURES AND WHAT THEY'VE CREATED HERE AS WELL. BUT I THINK THE OTHER THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT WHEN WE INVEST IN THESE, WE CREATE MORE VALUE TO CREATE MORE THINGS LIKE LIKE NORTHGATE MILE, THAT 25% THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, ONLY SO MUCH GOES TO ADMINISTRATION, THE REST GOES INTO A KITTY. SO THERE ARE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THINGS. AND THIS KIND OF MOVEMENT TOWARDS MICRO VERSIONS OF THIS, IT'S GOING TO ALLOW US TO REALLY KIND OF DEAL WITH DEGRADATION ON A SMALLER LEVEL AND THEN HELP US EMERGE IN THE CORE OF OUR CITY TO BE MORE LIKE THIS AS WELL. SO I THINK, I THINK OVERALL, WE'RE REALLY FORTUNATE TO HAVE THE PARTNERSHIP AND WE'RE REALLY FORTUNATE, FORTUNATE TO HAVE IF AND THEN WE'RE REALLY FORTUNATE THAT WE HAVE A FUTURE TO DO THIS ALL. SO IT'S FUNNY WHEN THINGS START TO WORK WELL, THERE IS A SNOWBALL EFFECT THAT MAKES THINGS JUST WORK BETTER AS WE GO FORWARD. IT'S KIND OF A SITUATION WHERE THE DISTRICTS NOW BECOME LIKE INFILL TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THEY BECOME SMALL AND WE JUST DO WHERE THERE'S A PROJECT OR A DISTRICT REALLY HELPS WITH INFILL. AND I WOULD ALSO SAY, I MEAN, THIS IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WE'LL SEE EVER DONE IN MY TEN YEARS ON THE COUNCIL. I MEAN, THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE AND SORRY, THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL AND REVENUE THAT WILL COME OUT OF THIS AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF VALUATION IN TERMS OF THE LEVY IS GOING TO BE OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND WILL HELP EVERYONE HAVE A BETTER EXPERIENCE IN THE COMMUNITY. RIGHT. WHEN YOU GROW THE PIE, EVERYBODY. WELL, ANYWAY, THE I WANT TO SAY THERE'S A SMALLER PIECE BUT A SMALLER PIECE OF THE TAX BURDEN. SO WE'LL SAY IT THAT WAY. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT AND ECHO, WHAT HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT PARTNERSHIP VENTURES HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE PARTNER IN THIS, IN NO SMALL PART DUE TO THE VISION AND STEWARDSHIP THAT HAS BEEN EXERCISED OVER THE PROPERTY AND THE STEWARDSHIP OVER THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PICKINESS ABOUT WHO AND HOW AND WHERE AND WHAT. THAT IS REALLY ADDED TO THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND I HOPE WE SEE JUST AS MUCH OF THAT GOING FORWARD AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN A SUCCESS STORY ALL THE WAY AROUND, ALL THE WAY AROUND. MAYOR, JUST ONE MORE POINT THAT I THINK WE, I THINK WE SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE IS THAT, WELL, VENTURES IS SEEN THIS WAY AROUND THE COUNTRY, TOO. IT'S NOT JUST IN IDAHO FALLS. SO WE'RE PRETTY FORTUNATE TO HAVE THEM HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE TO. OH, YES. POINT OF ORDER, A LEGISLATIVE HEARING. HAVE YOU INVITED THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN? I FORGOT TO OPEN THE HEARING. SO OKAY, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT IS OPEN A HEARING AND ORDER THAT ALL OF THE TESTIMONY THAT STARTED WITH THE FIRST COMMENTS, CONSIDERING THIS ITEM TO INCLUDE MISS CONRAD, MR. KRAMER AND ALL OF THE CONVERSATION THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE HAD, ALTHOUGH NO, NO, ACTUALLY NO. THEIR QUESTIONS AND WE WOULD HAVE CLOSED THE HEARING PRIOR TO THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WHEN THE DELIBERATIONS STARTED. AND SO I DO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE FOR MESSING UP THE ORDER THERE. BUT WHAT I'LL DO NOW IS OPEN THE HEARING, REOPEN IT, AND ASK IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO OFFER ANY TESTIMONY THAT WE CAN APPEND TO THE HEARING RECORD. ALL RIGHT. SEEING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THERE, THAT MAKES MY OVERSIGHT A LITTLE LESS TERRIBLE. AND WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING THAT WE REOPENED AND NOW MOVE ON THEN TO COUNCIL CAN FINAL CONSIDERATION, WHICH WOULD MAKE THE CHAIR ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OKAY, I MOVE THE COUNCIL, APPROVE THE ORDINANCE APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RIVER COMMONS URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETELY SEPARATE READINGS, AND REQUEST THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. SECOND, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CITY CLERK. WILL YOU CONDUCT A VOTE FOR US, PLEASE? BRADFORD I DINGMAN YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. BURTONSHAW. YES. MOTION CARRIES. VERY GOOD. CITY CLERK. WE NEED TO READ THIS TITLE INTO THE RECORD, PLEASE. [01:25:02] AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RIVER COMMONS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN, WHICH FIRST AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DE-ANNEX CERTAIN AREA FROM THE EXISTING RIVER COMMONS PROJECT AREA, WHICH FIRST AMENDMENT AMENDS A PLAN THAT INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION, FINANCING PROVISIONS AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY AND STATE OFFICIALS AND THE AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES. PROVIDING SEVERABILITY. APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE, PROVIDING FOR WAIVER OF THE READING RULES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE REACHED THE PART OF THE MEETING WHERE WE [6. Announcements] ARE JUST GOING TO QUERY THE COUNCIL AND SEE IF ANY OF YOU HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. YES. COUNCILOR FRANCIS, IT'S KIND OF AN ANNOUNCEMENT. I JUST WANT TO THANK. MR. CONRAD FOR HOW CLEAR THIS PRESENTATION IS. WERE IN THE IN THE PACKET AND THE NUMBER OF EXPLANATORY PICTURES I WOULD CALL IT REALLY HELP OUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS GOING ON. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND OTHERS ANY ANYBODY ELSE ANY COMMUNITY AWARENESS POINTS OR CONCERNS. MAYBE WE USE THE TERM RIVER LESS EXTENSION. WE HAVE HAD A LONG CONVERSATION IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES THAT WE WILL NOT HAVE ANOTHER RIVER COME UP FOR A LONG TIME, SO I HOPE WE CAN PUSH THAT FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. I WOULD ONLY POINT OUT THAT OUR NEXT MEETING IS NOT IN TWO WEEKS, BUT IN THREE WEEKS. AND THAT'S SIMPLY A CALENDARING, AN ARTIFACT OF CALENDARING. OWING TO THE FACT THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL BE, MANY OF THEM WILL BE OUT OF TOWN PARTICIPATING IN THE IDAHO IDAHO CONSUMER OWNED UTILITIES ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEMBER MEETING IN BOISE. AND THAT'S AN OBLIGATION THAT WE HAVE RELATED TO THE EDUCATION WE NEED FOR RUNNING IDAHO FALLS POWER. AND SO WE WILL MEET HERE IN THREE WEEKS ON THE WHAT WOULD THAT BE, 2830 FIRST AND LAST DAY OF THE MONTH. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE, EVERYONE. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.