Sep 18, 2025 Redevelopment Agency

[ Call To Order]

[00:00:07]

MEETING OF THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2025.

[1. ACTION ITEM: Modifications, Additions, Changes to the Agenda]

[2. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Minutes: August 28, 2025]

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES.

[3. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Expenditures and Finance Report]

THEY THEY HAVE HAD SOME A FEW HICCUPS. THEY'RE WANTING TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE UPON THIS PLAN BEING REVIEWED, SO THAT THEY CAN START SELLING SOME OF THE LOTS ON IT. AND. YES, THE SHORT ANSWER IS THEY ARE CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. AND THEY DO HAVE ONE PROSPECTIVE TENANT FOR ONE OF THE PROPERTIES, BUT THEY'RE WAITING FOR THIS TO FINISH UP. AND BRAD CAN PROBABLY ADDRESS MORE OF THAT WITH THE ELIGIBILITY REPORT. OKAY, BRAD, ARE WE TAKING A BREATH? CAN YOU? OKAY, LET'S GET GOING ON ITEM FOUR ON

[4. ACTION ITEM: Consider Resolution No. 2025-11 Approving the Narrows Eligibility Report for the proposed Narrows Urban Renewal District]

AND AS FAR AS THE PRESENTATION, I KNOW YOU HAVE A LONG AGENDA. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I CAN GO THROUGH ALL OF THE SLIDES OR JUST COVER THE HIGHLIGHTS IF WHATEVER YOU PREFER, BUT I KNOW THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH ME A COUPLE OF TIMES TO KEEP TRACK OF STATUS.

THEY'RE ANXIOUS TO MOVE FORWARD AND CONTINUE WORK ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO. WE'LL BE CLOSE TO MY PRESENTATION ONCE I APOLOGIZE. OKAY, SINCE YOU'VE SEEN SO MANY OF THESE ELIGIBILITY REPORTS RECENTLY, I HAD NOT ACTUALLY PLANNED TO GO THROUGH IN GREAT DETAIL AND DO THE NORMAL INTRODUCTION. I THINK YOU KNOW WELL ENOUGH HOW THESE WORK THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE AREA IS ELIGIBLE. AND SO I'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH THESE A LITTLE QUICKER THAN I NORMALLY WOULD. BUT THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE SHOWS YOU THE STUDY AREA, WHICH IS REALLY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 20, A LITTLE BIT TO THE SOUTH, AS WELL, TO THE EAST OF THE SNAKE RIVER, WEST OF FREMONT AVENUE, AND CAPTURING PART OF THE US 20 RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU CAN SEE FREEMAN PARK THERE TO THE NORTH AS WELL TO ORIENT YOU A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS THE ENTIRE STUDY AREA, FOR THE MOST PART IS URBAN CORE, WHICH IS MORE OF A HIGH DENSITY, WALKABLE AREA THAT INCLUDES A MIX OF USES. THERE'S ALSO A PORTION THAT'S PARKS AND OPEN SPACE TO CAPTURE THE RIVERWALK THERE ALONG THE SNAKE RIVER. IN

[00:05:04]

THE LC ZONE, WHICH IS A MIXED USE ZONE, AS WELL AS THE R-2 TO THE NORTH. SO YOU HAVE A VARIETY OF RESIDENTIAL USES NORTH OF PINE STREET AND TO THE SOUTH, AND A VARIETY OF HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL. SO AS WE GET INTO THE CRITERIA AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT 15 STATUTORY, 15 CRITERIA LISTED IN THE STATE AND THE STATE STATUTE TO MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM ARE MET IN TERMS OF THE DETERIORATING, DETERIORATING STRUCTURES OR SITE. I FOUND THAT THIS CRITERION WAS NOT MET. ALTHOUGH YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOS THERE IS SOME DETERIORATION STARTING ON THE PATHWAYS. THE ONE ON THE UPPER LEFT IS THE EXISTING GREENBELT OR RIVERWALK PATHWAY. THE ONE ON THE UPPER RIGHT IS ACTUALLY AN OLD PATHWAY THAT'S NO LONGER UTILIZED. BACK WHEN THERE WAS MAYBE SOME BEGINNINGS OF DEVELOPMENT THERE ON THE WHAT WAS CALLED THE NARROWS SITE. BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE BOTTOM PHOTO, THE STREETS ARE NEW, THEY'RE IN GOOD CONDITION. AND THE STRUCTURES LIKEWISE, THE ONES THAT DO EXIST ARE NEWER AND IN GOOD CONDITION. SO THERE AGAIN THE CRITERIA TWO VERY SIMILAR. THERE'S NOT A LOT THAT'S DETERIORATING. THAT'S THAT'S OLDER. THAT'S IN BAD CONDITION. YOU DO SEE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. YOU DO SEE GOOD CONDITIONS OF THE PATHWAYS AND THE ROADS FOR THE MOST PART. CRITERIA THREE AND FOUR. WE'RE LOOKING AT EFFECTIVE AND ADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT AS WELL AS AN OUTMODED STREET PATTERN. I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN THESE IN REVERSE ORDER.

THE REASON I DIDN'T FIND THAT THERE'S AN OUTMODED STREET PATTERN IS THE STREET PATTERN THAT DID EXIST, AND THAT DOES EXIST STILL IN THE GENERAL AREA IS THE TRADITIONAL GRID. AND THAT'S WHERE WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE IN AN URBAN CORE AREA, THAT'S THAT WHAT THIS WAS INTENDED TO BE, WHAT IT'S PLANNED TO BE. THE REASON, THOUGH, THAT I SO I DID NOT FIND THAT THERE WAS AN OUTMODED STREET PATTERN. A GRID PATTERN MAKES SENSE FOR THE AREA, BUT IT'S DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE BECAUSE PARTICULARLY ON THE NARROW SITE, THAT GRID PATTERN IS LARGELY BEEN VACATED OVER THE YEARS, AS OWNERS HAVE CHANGED, DIFFERENT THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN THAT PROPERTY. SO WHAT YOU SEE TO THE SOUTH THERE WHERE YOU SEE THE PARCEL LINE AND THE RIGHT OF WAY LINES THAT DID EXIST, NONE OF THAT IS RIGHT OF WAY ANYMORE. AND SO THERE IS A LACK OF ACCESS TO THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND INADEQUATE FLOW FOR TRAFFIC TO MAKE ITS WAY AROUND THE SITE. SO THERE IS A DEFECTIVE OR INADEQUATE STREET LAYOUT BECAUSE OF THOSE VACATIONS. SO SIMILARLY, CRITERION FIVE, WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT STREET PATTERNS, LOOKING AT HOW THIS CONNECTS WITH THE REST OF THE AREA. THE YELLOW IS ROUGHLY WHERE THE STUDY AREA IS ON THIS MAP. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S THERE'S PRETTY GOOD NORTH SOUTH ACCESS AND THERE'S DECENT ACCESS TO THE EAST THROUGH SCIENCE CENTER, WHICH CONNECTS OVER TO LINCOLN ROAD. THE REASON I PUT THAT THIS CRITERION IS MET HAS TO DO WITH US 20 AND GRANDVIEW. IT'S REALLY THE ONLY IMMEDIATE CONNECTION TO THE WEST. AND WITH THE I-15 US 20 PROJECT, IT'S THIS, YOU KNOW, VERY LIKELY THAT THIS CONNECTION WILL CHANGE IN SOME WAY, WHETHER IT GETS RELOCATED ACROSS THIS SITE, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT A DEVELOPABLE ANYWAYS, OR WHETHER THAT GETS RELOCATED FURTHER NORTH. THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS RIGHT OF WAY? AND SO THERE WILL BE A NEED FOR CONTINUED DISCUSSION ABOUT CORRELATION TO OTHER AREAS OF THE MUNICIPALITY. AND AGAIN, THERE'S JUST NOT A THERE'S NOT GREAT WESTERN CONNECTION ANYWAY. SO CRITERION FIVE WAS MET. I ALSO LIKE TO LOOK AT BIKE PED CONNECTION, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE IN AN AREA THAT INCLUDES THE RIVERWALK. SO THIS IS A PHOTO LOOKING AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PATHWAY SYSTEM THAT GOES ALONG THE OLD NARROWS SITE. THIS WAS TAKEN OBVIOUSLY BEFORE THE FLOATING BRIDGE WAS PUT IN.

DURING A COUPLE OF MONTHS, THREE, 3 TO 4 MONTHS OF THE YEAR. THERE IS A FLOATING BRIDGE THAT CONNECTS WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN THIS PHOTO UNDERNEATH JOHN'S BRIDGE OVER TO THE GREENBELT PATHWAY. WHEN THAT BRIDGE IS NOT IN PLACE, BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS HAVE TO USE A PATHWAY THAT CROSSES THE EXIT RAMP FROM US 20 AND THE ENTRANCE RAMP FROM US 20, WHICH DURING PEAK HOURS IS NOT A SAFE CONDITION. SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE AS A USER AND SO THERE IS A NEED FOR CORRELATION BETTER CONNECTIVITY OF THE BIKE PED SIDE AS WELL. CRITERION SIX AND NINE HAVE TO DO WITH LOT LAYOUTS AND OWNERSHIP. CRITERIA SIX IS MET. AS I MENTIONED, THAT'S EVEN THE FAULTY LAYOUT. AND I HAD MENTIONED THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF VACATIONS OF RIGHTS, OF WAY SPLITS OF OWNERSHIP. AND SO YOU LOOK AT ALL THESE LITTLE LOTS AS YOU

[00:10:03]

THAT NARROW PHOTO ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. THAT IS A DRAINAGE PIPE FROM US 20 THAT'S DUMPING THE DRAINAGE WATER. YOU CAN SEE SOME DISCOLORATION OF THE ROCK. AND THEN THAT FLOWS DOWN INTO THE RIVER. NOW, UNDER TODAY'S STANDARDS, THAT'S NOT AN ACCEPTABLE DRAINAGE PRACTICE. I DON'T HAVE A STUDY THAT SHOWS THAT THAT IS INSANITARY, BUT JUST KNOWING THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD LIKELY BE ACCEPTED BY THE EPA UNDER TODAY'S STANDARDS. I DID INCLUDE THAT IN THE POTENTIALLY INSANITARY CONDITIONS. NUMBER 12 I DID NOT FIND WAS MET.

THAT'S TYPICALLY LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS AT RISK FOR FLOODING OR FIRE CONDITIONS, ALTHOUGH THIS IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE RIVER. THE 100 YEAR FLOOD EVENT OCCURRED IN 1996. AT THAT TIME, THE CITY FLEW THE THE FLOOD, THE HIGH WATER MARK, MAPPED IT AND THEN BUILT THE PATHWAY ALONG IT. SO WE KNOW WHERE THAT HIGH WATER MARK IS. THE DEVELOPABLE SITES ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT LINE. THERE IS A CHANGE TO THE MAP THAT'S OCCURRING THAT THE FLOOD MAP THAT I SHOULD SAY THAT WOULD PUT THE THE NORTHERN DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY NORTH OF THE HIGH END WITHIN A SLIGHTLY ELEVATED RISK OF FLOODING, BUT NOT TO THE EXTENT THAT I FOUND THE CRITERIA 12 THAT IN TERMS OF 11, TEN AND 11, DEALING WITH TAX DELINQUENCIES AND TITLE ISSUES, I DON'T TYPICALLY REVIEW THESE, SO I DID NOT REVIEW THEM HERE, KNOWING THAT THE OWNER HAD ALREADY PURCHASED ALL OF THE PROPERTY. SO THESE WERE NOT REVIEWED, COULD BE FOUND TO BE MET. AND SO FINALLY 13, 14 AND 15 ARE DEALING WITH WHETHER OR NOT THIS SITE ARRESTS THE SOUND GROWTH OF THE MUNICIPALITY, WHETHER IT RETARDS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA AND WHETHER THERE'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR DISUSE. SO NUMBER 13, I DID NOT FIND THIS MEANT THERE IS GROWTH HAPPENING AROUND THE SITE. AND SO IT'S KIND OF IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA TO FIND THAT IT'S HARMING THE GROWTH IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. HOWEVER, ON THE SITE ITSELF, WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, GROWTH HAS CERTAINLY BEEN SLOWED AND IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF THOSE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, IN PARTICULAR THE ROCK AND THE OWNERSHIP ISSUES, WHICH AGAIN, HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP. BUT THERE'S ECONOMIC DISUSE, AND THAT ROCK DOES MAKE THIS AREA VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP.

SO IN SUMMARY, THERE ARE SEVEN OF THE 15 CRITERIA THAT ARE MET. SO THE AREA IS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. IF THE IF THE BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL AGREED TO CONTINUE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. AND SO FINALLY, I WOULD JUST LOOK AT THE 10% LIMITATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BASE VALUES OF ALL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY DON'T EXCEED 10% OF THE CITY'S TOTAL VALUE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE AT THE BOTTOM THAT EVEN WITH THIS STUDY AREA, THE TOTAL BASE VALUES ADD UP TO ABOUT 1.5%. SO STILL A LONG WAYS FROM THAT THRESHOLD, IT

[00:15:06]

YEAH, YEAH, IT'S NUMBER FOUR. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IN YOUR PACKETS. RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025 DASH 11 BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, ALSO KNOWN AS IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. ACCEPTING THAT CERTAIN REPORT ON ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY, REFERRED TO AS THE NARROWS AREA, AS AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AND REVENUE ALLOCATION AREA, AND JUSTIFICATION FOR DESIGNATING THE AREA AS APPROPRIATE FOR AN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY TECHNICAL CHANGES TO THE REPORT. AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIRMAN OR ADMINISTRATOR TO TRANSMIT THE REPORT AND THIS RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS REQUESTING ITS CONSIDERATION FOR DESIGNATION OF AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA AND SEEKING FURTHER DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. MEGAN. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2025 DASH 11? I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 2025 DASH 11. SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, BRAD, FOR PULLING THAT TOGETHER IS A WELL EXCELLENT REPORT. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[Items 5 & 6]

AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE BY THORNTON OLIVER KELLER, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS, ON SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSED NEW URBAN RENEWAL REVENUE ALLOCATION AREA. AND SO WE WERE AUTHORIZED TO WORK WITH THEM ON ESTABLISHING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. AND TO GO ALONG WITH THAT, THE TASK ORDER TO KICK OFF A CONSULTANT TO START PREPARATION OF THE ELIGIBILITY REPORT. I THINK AS WE DUG INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT, WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CONTRACTING WITH THE PROPER PARTIES FOR THE MOU. AND SINCE TOCK WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, WE JUST

[00:20:07]

AND SO ACTUALLY, I THINK WE HAD HOPED THAT WE WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND AVAILABLE AND READY FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS ITEM, BUT WE ARE STILL WORKING ON GATHERING THAT INFORMATION. AND UNLESS MR. SANDER HAS AN UPDATE, I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO MOVE THESE THIS ACTION ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND I THINK SIX PERHAPS TO THE OCTOBER AGENDA. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. I'M STILL WAITING TO HEAR BACK. I HAD REACHED OUT AGAIN TO TOCK EARLIER THIS THIS WEEK JUST TO GET THAT INFORMATION. I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED WORD BACK FROM THEM FOR THE NAME OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, SO I CAN'T. WE JUST SEE THE NAME OF THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE GIS? I MEAN, I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT AT ONE POINT WHO THE OWNERS WERE.

IS THAT ALL THAT'S PREVENTING THIS HERE? IT SEEMS LIKE WE COULD APPROVE THIS WITH THE WITH THAT OWNER. I MEAN, WITH THAT NAMING THAT OWNER JUST TO KEEP THINGS GOING. BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THE OWNER IS ON BOARD. THEY'LL EITHER SIGN IT OR THEY WON'T SIGN IT. IT'S WHETHER WE WANT TO OFFER THIS TO THEM AS A CONTRACT. I IT COULD BE THAT THEY WANT AMENDMENTS TO IT. IT WILL HAVE TO BE THE OWNER THAT WILL HAVE TO SIGN. THAT'S CORRECT. AND IT IS. IT IS CURRENTLY UNDER SALE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE CURRENT OWNER WOULD AGREE TO TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE MOU. THAT'S WHERE I WOULD. I'M A LITTLE CAUTIOUS IS ALL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SINCE THERE. YEAH THAT'S FINE. THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT HERE. SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR LEVEL OF INTEREST IS. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S DO THAT THEN. WE'LL WE'LL WELL WE NEED LET'S TAKE THEM BECAUSE IT'S AN ACTION ITEM. WE'LL JUST MOTION TO TABLE. YEAH. SOUNDS GOOD. IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEMS FIVE AND SIX I WOULD MOVE THAT. WE TABLE ACTION ITEMS FIVE AND SIX. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND. AND WE WOULD HAVE TO TABLE TO A DATE CERTAIN AS WELL. YEAH. IT WILL BE TO THE TO THE TO THE OCTOBER, OCTOBER TO THE OCTOBER MEETING. YES THAT WOULD BE OKAY.

OKAY. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO TABLE FIVE AND SIX TO THE OCTOBER MEETING WITH A SECOND, SECOND. AND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. HI. HI. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THAT MOTION PASSES

[7. ACTION ITEM: Riverside RAA Boundary Discussion ]

SURE. I'D BE HAPPY TO. I ASSUME THIS WOULD SORT OF BE A TAG TEAM BETWEEN YOU AND I AND MEGAN. SO YEAH, I AS I WAS WORKING ON THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY PIECE, THE, THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES WERE HIGH ENOUGH THAT THERE BY THE END OF THE DISTRICT, IF YOU READ THROUGH THE REPORT, THERE WERE ANTICIPATED 23 TO $27 MILLION THAT COULD GO TOWARDS OTHER PROJECTS. AND AS I MET WITH THE CITY STAFF, WE HAD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WITH PARKS AND REC AND PUBLIC WORKS. THERE'S A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT COULD CERTAINLY EAT UP THOSE FUNDS, BUT THEY THERE'S PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR ALL OF THEM WITHIN THESE BOUNDARIES. AND SO ONE OPTION, OF COURSE, IS JUST TO SAY, WELL, WE'LL JUST RETURN THOSE FUNDS TO THE TAXING ENTITIES. THAT'S THAT'S CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE. BUT IT JUST WAS ENOUGH THAT I FELT IT WOULD BE WORTH RAISING THE QUESTION TO POTENTIALLY EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES. AND JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, THIS WILL WORK FOR ME. THERE WE GO. IT WOULD BE TO AT LEAST COME UP EVENT CENTER, DRIVE OVER TO PIONEER, AND THEN CAPTURE THESE UNDEVELOPED AREAS.

[00:25:10]

ANOTHER OPTION IS THAT YOU COULD GO AHEAD AND FINISH THE DISTRICT AS IS BY THE END OF THE YEAR, AND POTENTIALLY ANNEX A VERY SMALL PORTION LATER ON THAT THAT OPTION SEEMS FAIRLY INFEASIBLE TO CAPTURE VERY MUCH. LAND IS USEFUL, BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. SO. I AT LEAST JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE QUESTION FOR THE BOARD TO DISCUSS. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN DO ON MY OWN. I'M JUST A CONSULTANT. BUT WITH THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY AVAILABLE. THAT YOU WANT TO AT LEAST CONSIDER, AND YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT VENTURES, WHAT DID THEY WHAT WAS THEIR POSITION ON THAT QUESTION? YES. GOOD. THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME THAT I HAVE TALKED WITH THEM A COUPLE OF TIMES. THEY ARE INTERESTED IN IN PAUSING, MOSTLY FOR THE SAKE OF CAPTURING PIONEER ROAD, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT THEY HAVE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY THERE IN WIDENING THAT ROAD IN THE FUTURE. SO IF THERE'S FUNDS AVAILABLE, THEN THAT'S VERY HELPFUL TO THEM. HOW DOES. CAPTURING WHAT SEEMS TO BE A FAIRLY LARGE CHUNK OF LAND FACTOR INTO A BUILD OUT WITHIN 20 YEARS? INTERESTING QUESTION THAT I HAVEN'T EXPLORED DEEPLY. SOME OF THAT AND I MIGHT HAVE TO TURN AND TAG IN A WAY, BUT SOME OF THAT LAND HAS SEEN A SITE PLAN FOR IS AT THE RANCH. I ALWAYS FORGET THE NAME OF THAT COMPLEX. YEAH. THERE AREN'T. YEAH, THERE THERE AREN'T ANY ACTIVE PROJECTS RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF INTEREST, ESPECIALLY UP BY THE MOUNTAIN AMERICA EVENT CENTER, POTENTIALLY FOR SOME CONSTRUCTION UP THERE FOR SOME TYPE OF REC CENTER OR OTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT NONE OF IT HAS BEEN SOLIDIFIED IN AN APPLE. AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY. AND THE RESERVE IS THE RESERVE. THE RESERVE HAS HAS A FINAL PLAT THAT JUST KIND OF KEEPS GETTING. YEAH, COME BACK TO ME. I MEAN, I'M JUST FROM THE PNC NOTES THAT DON'T THEY JUST KEEP TRYING TO LIKE EXTEND THE FINAL PLAT. YES. THEY. YEAH. YEAH THEY'RE THAT'S WHY I SAID THEY'RE THEY'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THAT ON THE RESERVE. I, I FORESEE IT'LL BE FINALIZED OUT BUT AS OF NOW IT'S JUST BEEN REVISED AND REVISED. YEAH. MAYBE A LITTLE BIT. BACK TO YOUR QUESTION TOO, IS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I THOUGHT IT'D BE WORTH TALKING ABOUT ADDING IT ON TO THIS ONE INSTEAD OF A DIFFERENT ONE LATER IS BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF INCREMENT THAT'S EXPECTED TO BE GENERATED BETWEEN WHAT'S HAPPENING ON SUNNYSIDE AND ALONG THE RIVER. IT'S IT'S IT'S PRETTY HIGH REVENUE GENERATING. AND I DON'T THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT SAME AMOUNT OF DENSITY AND INTENSE DEVELOPMENT AND VALUABLE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS OTHER PORTION. SO I JUST DON'T THINK YOU'LL HAVE THE SAME CASH FLOW. SO IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE FACED WITH THIS QUESTION OF EITHER DO WE PAUSE THIS, WHICH MEANS THAT IT WOULD NOT GET APPROVED BY THE END OF THE YEAR, SO IT WOULDN'T BE GOING FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2026? OR DO WE GO FORWARD WITH IT, COUNTING ON AN AMENDMENT PROCEDURE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD TO AMEND TO ADD AREA TO THE TO THE PLAN? I MEAN, THAT THE THING IS WE COULD, YOU KNOW, AND I AND THE OTHER. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT QUESTION, MEGAN. TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE IF WE GO FORWARD AND COUNT ON AMENDING AND ANNEXING LATER. HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE USE OF THE FUNDS AND AND THE AREA? YEAH. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. COMMISSIONER. SO THIS WOULD BE A 2016 PLAN. SO YOU

[00:30:01]

THAT'S GOOD. MEGAN, WITH THAT INFORMATION, WHAT I GUESS THE RISK WOULD BE THAT SOMEHOW THE WHOLE STATUTORY SCHEME WOULD CHANGE IN 2026. SPRING. SPRING IN IDAHO IS THE MOST DANGEROUS TIME OF THE YEAR. WHAT IS THERE? IS THAT IS THAT THE RISK THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME COULD CHANGE IN EARLY 2026? YEAH. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, I THINK IN IN HOW WE TALK ABOUT RISK, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY IF A PLAN IS STOOD UP BY THE END OF A CALENDAR YEAR, YOU GET A RETROACTIVE DATE TO JANUARY 1ST OF THE YEAR OF CREATION. SO SOMETIMES WHAT WE HAVE SEEN MORE RECENTLY IS TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE URBAN RENEWAL LAWS DURING THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WE HAVE SEEN EMERGENCY CLAUSES THAT WILL EITHER MAKE THOSE GO. THOSE AMENDMENTS RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 1ST OR AT A MINIMUM UPON THE SIGNATURE BY THE GOVERNOR. IT SEEMS LIKE FOR THESE TYPES OF BILLS, WE DON'T OFTEN SEE THE JUST THE TYPICAL EFFECTIVE DATE OF LEGISLATION. AS OF JULY 1ST, 2026. YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE GROSS GENERALIZATIONS, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE THE POTENTIAL RISK IS THAT WE GET THIS FAR IN THE PROCESS. WE DON'T GET IT DONE UNTIL MARCH. BUT THEN THERE'S SOME LEGISLATION THAT COMES UP THAT THAT COULD UNDERMINE THE WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE TO STAND UP THE DISTRICT. I THINK, AS MR. KRAMER INDICATED, THE OTHER CONSIDERATION AND HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IS THE TIMING OF ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED NEW DISTRICT. WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STILL SATISFYING THIS, BUT FOR TEST AND AND THAT, YOU KNOW, DELAYING TOO LONG DOESN'T SOMEHOW UNDERMINE THE PROJECT AREA. BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE REALLY THINGS ARE, ARE ARE PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT, I THINK, AS MR. KRAMER INDICATED, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THE EXISTING RIVERSIDE PROJECT AREA INCLUDES COUNTY PARCELS. AND SO AS WE TRACK THIS PROJECT FORWARD, IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING AS IT IS TO TRY AND GET THIS ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS. BY DECEMBER 31ST.

[00:35:03]

WHAT THAT MOU REALLY DOESN'T COVER THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO I THINK IT'S JUST ANOTHER DISCUSSION POINT AS WE MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. SO I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT THIS PROJECT DOWN HERE ON SUNNYSIDE COULD GENERATE ENOUGH FUNDS TO GET 15 TO $20 MILLION THAT COULD BE USED FOR MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE A RECREATIONAL FACILITY UP THERE ACROSS FROM THE THE EVENT CENTER. BUT WOULD WE DO THAT ANYWAY? THAT'S A VERY OPTIMISTIC PROJECTION. THAT'S AN OPTIMISTIC PROJECTION. WOULD WE DO THAT AND DO WE WANT TO DELAY THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING THAT? AS AS I HEARD IT THOUGH, IT MADE IT SOUND LIKE WE COULDN'T JUST GO UP THAT ROAD. AND I MEAN THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED. BUT WE COULD ADD PARCELS THERE. YES. RIGHT. RIGHT NOW AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL AREA, WE COULD, BUT THEN DON'T. BUT THEN WE HAVE THE ADDITIONAL COST OF PIONEER.

ROAD. I MEAN THEN THAT IT'S LIKE, OH YOU HAVE. YEAH. RIGHT. LIKE YOU LIKE YOU'RE, YOU'RE GAINING MORE AREA, BUT NOW YOU HAVE MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT AREA. SO YOU CAN'T SAY, OH, THERE'S 20 OR $30 MILLION LEFT, YOU'RE GOING TO EAT AWAY AT, RIGHT.

YOU'RE GOING TO EAT AWAY AT THAT FINANCIALLY, BECAUSE NOW YOU INCREASE THE AREA. BUT THAT BUT AT THE SAME TIME IN PIONEER ROAD NEEDS TO BE DONE TOO. AND THE DEVELOPMENT THERE MIGHT NOT BE ENOUGH TO SUPPORT PIONEER. PIONEER ROAD DONE. BUT PIONEER ROAD IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHOLE AREA. SO, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THESE PLUSES AND MINUSES, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T HAVE SOME INPUT FROM BALL. WHAT DO THEY WANT TO DO? I MEAN THEY THERE'S SOME, YOU KNOW, A GAMBLE TO BE TAKEN HERE ON WHAT WE DO WITH THIS. WE EXPAND THE BOUNDARIES OR NOT AND ALL THE THINGS WE JUST NOW DISCUSSED. I MEAN, DOESN'T BALL HAVE A SHOULDN'T THEY BE MAKING SOME KIND OF PRESENTATION OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO? THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. AND BRAD HAD SOME COMMUNICATIONS WITH THEM. AS YOU MAY KNOW, BALL VENTURES HAS UNDERGONE SOME CHANGES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. AND SO THAT'S ALSO A QUESTION. IT APPEARS THAT THE FUNDAMENTAL DYNAMICS OF OF HAVING A DEVELOPMENT ON SUNNYSIDE ROAD SEEM TO STILL BE THERE, BUT THE MANAGEMENT OF BALL VENTURES HAS CHANGED.

ATARI IS IS LEFT. BALL VENTURES IS NOW WITH GARY VOIGT. AND THERE'S BEEN OTHER CHANGES. SO WE ARE OPERATING. YOU'RE RIGHT ON POINT. I WANT DIRECTION FROM THEM, I GUESS I THAT'S A GOOD THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. I MEAN, WHY HAVE WE GOT TO PUT ON OUR ACCELERATOR IF THEY'RE NOT HERE TO TELL US TO TO HURRY. AND IN WHICH DIRECTION? YEAH. WAS EVER. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. I GOT THAT TO MAKE IT, TO MAKE A DECISION WITHOUT A DEVELOPER'S INPUT AND APPROVAL IS. NOT WISE. NO. OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY'S ON BOARD WITH THAT. SO IS THERE.

WHAT CAN WE WHAT SHOULD WE DO WITH 20 2514. WE WANT TO TABLE IT UNTIL NEXT MONTH. WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, OUTREACH TO BALL AND SAY, HERE'S WHERE WE ARE. HERE'S A BRIEF SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. AND WE NEED WE NEED YOUR INPUT BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON IT OKAY. SO MOTION TO TABLE ITEM EIGHT UNTIL OCTOBER MEETING. MR. CHAIR I

[00:40:09]

[00:45:03]

JUST A SECOND. WE HAD A QUESTION. SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO CHECK THESE OFF MY LIST IN MY HEAD, BUT WE ALL WE ARE. THE ONLY COMMUNICATION WE'VE HAD BACK FROM THE DEVELOPER IS THAT WHATEVER WE'RE DOING, MAKE SURE IT'S DONE BY SPRING OF 26. ALMOST, IF YOU MAKE ANY CHANGES.

YES, BUT I FOUND THE EMAIL WHERE I JUST I ASKED HOW DID IT. SO I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH WITH HANNAH BARNEY THAT SHE WAS GOING TO TALK WITH HER DEVELOPMENT TEAM ABOUT HOW THEY FELT ABOUT PAUSING. AND THE ONLY RESPONSE THAT CAME BACK ON THAT QUESTION WAS, WE ARE GOOD WITH AMENDING THE BOUNDARY. SO THAT'S ALL I KNOW IN CONVERSATION. THAT'S ALL I KNOW IN WRITING AND CONVERSATION, SHE HAS SAID, IF YOU'RE GOING TO PAUSE AND START OVER, THEN YES, IT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY SPRING. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS PRIMARILY BEING DRIVEN BY THIS GROUP AS OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPER REQUEST. YES, I WAS THE ONE THAT INITIALLY POSED THE QUESTION TO TO THIS, TO THE CITY AND NOW TO THIS GROUP AND TO VOLUNTEERS. SO YEAH, IT WASN'T THE DEVELOPER SAYING, HEY, WAIT A SECOND, WHY DON'T YOU STOP AND LET'S I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT I AS I'M GOING THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE PROBLEMS, IT'S IN THE DISTRICT OF THE CITY TO DO THAT NOW. YES. YEAH. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. COMMISSIONER. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S THE THE DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE IS. YES. THEY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE BY SPRING. I MEAN, DO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM ON THAT? I WOULD SAY YES.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THEM. I THINK THE THIRD APPROACH, WHICH IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, IS IF YOU ESTABLISH THE DISTRICT AS IS, IT'S A DISTRICT.

AND SO TO ADD AREA, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE AMENDMENT PROCESS, WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT, WHAT YOU WOULD BE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE RIVERSIDE DISTRICT, AND YOU WOULD BE LIMITED IN THAT YOU COULD ONLY TAKE IN ABOUT 21 ACRES OF LAND. SO THAT IS WITHOUT A BASE RESET, THOUGH. I MEAN, IF YOU WERE WILLING TO HAVE A BASE RESET IN THE FIRST YEAR BEFORE ANY PROPERTY VALUE HAD BEEN ADDED, THEN YOU COULD DO IT. THAT'S TRUE. YEAH, THAT WAS MY ULTIMATE QUESTION IS IF THEY DIDN'T DIG ANYTHING AND BUILD ANYTHING, THAT THERE WOULD BE THAT RESET BECAUSE I MEAN, ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD IS GOING TO BE HARD TO GET IT BUILT AND UP AND ON THE TAX ROLLS BY THE END OF 2026, I WILL SAY, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS, THERE'S SOME WEIRD RULES ON THE TIMING AS TO WHEN THAT BASE RESET COMES INTO PLAY. AND IT ACTUALLY COULD RESET IT INADVERTENTLY TO JANUARY 1ST, 2027. WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT SPECIFICALLY. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, IT IS AN OPTION. YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER DIDN'T COME TO THIS MEETING. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY BEING HERE. I REALLY DON'T LIKE THAT OPTION VERY WELL. WE CAN CAN I ADD WE COULD JUST CREATE AN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT IN THE FUTURE FOR THIS AREA. IT'S IT'S LARGE. YEAH.

IT'S JUST WE COULDN'T MOVE THE IF WE HAD FUNDS FROM THIS AREA, WE COULDN'T MOVE IT INTO THAT NEW AREA. AND BRAD. EXCUSE ME, BRAD, YOU MENTIONED YOUR LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF A SEPARATE DISTRICT UP THERE. YEAH, YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S AS STRONG AS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPMENTS. ANY SITE DEVELOPMENT. SO DO YOU FORGE AHEAD WITH THE DISTRICT AS IS? WE HAVE, BUT WE NEED. SOME. YES. THAT'S IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK FROM ALL THE IF WE WANT TO GET SOMETHING DONE. WE WE NEED SOME FEEDBACK AT ALL.

ARE WE GOING TO BE HEADING DOWN THE PATH OF JUST THIS. AND THEN THEY SAY, NO, NO, WE DO WANT TO ADD MORE AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE TOO LATE TO GET IT DONE FOR THEIR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY WERE HERE, RIGHT? WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION THAT I'M JUST TRYING

[00:50:08]

THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR ME IS, ARE THEY DO THEY WANT THIS? AND WE'RE THROWING THE THE COG IN THE WHEEL? IT SEEMS LIKE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE IT THAT THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THIS DISTRICT. AND THIS DISTRICT GETS US THE PATH ALONG THE, THE RIVER. IT GETS US SUNNYSIDE DEVELOPED. IT'S US, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE RIVERFRONT DEVELOPED. AND SO WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED QUITE A BIT BY THIS EXTENSION, THE ROAD EXTENSION AND THE ROAD BUILT ALONG THE RIVER GETS THE ROAD AND THE PATH BUILT ALONG THE RIVER EXTENDS THE THE CONNECTS THE ROADS ALONG THE RIVER. SO IT GETS US ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'VE WANTED. IT'S JUST THAT IT FORECLOSES SOME OPTIONS IN SOME WAYS. BUT THERE MAY BE WAYS TO GET BACK TO THAT WITH THE BASE RESET OR SOMETHING ELSE DOWN THE ROAD. I ALSO THINK I DON'T KNOW WHAT SUPPORT THERE WOULD BE TO. IT'S JUST VERY SPECULATIVE TO BE. I AGREE, IT'S VERY SPECULATIVE. EVEN IF WE DID, IF IT BUILT OUT IN FIVE YEARS AND YOU HAD $20 MILLION COMING OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS, WHAT WOULD YOU SPEND THAT ON A REC BUILDING THAT BALL VENTURES PROBABLY WANTS? IT WOULD HELP THE WHOLE AREA, BUT IT WOULD BE A PUBLIC FACILITY AND IT WOULDN'T GENERATE ANY TAX REVENUE. AND IS THAT SOMETHING WE WOULD DO? I IT'S JUST YOU'RE SPECULATIVE ABOUT WHETHER YOU'D EVEN DO THAT. AND WHETHER THIS WOULD BE THE LOCATION. I MEAN, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU JUST LOCK SOMETHING IN THAT. OKAY. AND IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT EVEN THOUGH THE LIKE, THAT OTHER PARCEL MIGHT NOT BE AS STRONG IF WE MAKE A SECOND DISTRICT THERE LATER, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD SUPPORT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO PIONEER DRIVE THAT ARE GOING TO BE NEEDED. WE'VE DONE THINGS LIKE WE'VE DONE MORE WITH LESS IN TERMS OF AREA AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED AND THINGS LIKE THAT. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT. IF IT WAS APARTMENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT PROBABLY WOULD SUPPORT PIONEER ROAD DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULDN'T IF IT WAS NONTAXABLE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S A GOOD POINT. OKAY. SO WE WANT TO CONSIDER THIS THEN GO FORWARD WITH IT. WE CAN STILL CONSIDER AS WE GO. IF WE APPROVE IT IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE CITY. I GUESS THERE'S STILL SOME WAY WE COULD PULL BACK AT SOME POINT AND PULL IT BACK FROM THE CITY AND REDO THE ELIGIBILITY. SO IT'S NOT ULTIMATE JUMP OFF THE CLIFF, BUT IT IS. IT IS MOVING FORWARD.

SO DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD THEN? VOTE FOR IT AS IS UNTIL BALL WHAT WE'VE DONE SAY, HEY, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BETTER GET ON THE BALL AND LET US KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO DO. I, I DO THINK WE NEED THAT DEVELOPER INPUT. SO I, I DON'T WITH YOU WE PUSH IT FORWARD AND THEN IF THEY NEED IF THEY WANT TO PULL BACK, THERE IS A TIME CANNOT DELAY WHAT WE'VE GOT TO NOT GOT READY TO GO. I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL. OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND TELL US ABOUT THIS URBAN RENEWAL PLAN AND WE'LL CONSIDER WHETHER TO APPROVE IT. WE FINISHED. THAT'S ITEM SEVEN. WE'RE NOW GOING TO ITEM EIGHT.

WELL WE HAVE TO TAKE THE ACTION. THE DISCUSSION. SO NUMBER EIGHT WE CAN MOVE ON TO JUST CONSIDER

[8. ACTION ITEM: Consider Resolution No. 2025-14 Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for the Riverside Urban Renewal Project ]

[00:55:06]

MOST OF THEM ARE SATISFIED BY SECTION 301 AND ATTACHMENT FIVE. ATTACHMENT FIVE IS THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY. THIS IS A 20 YEAR PLAN AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 800. SO IF ESTABLISHED THIS YEAR IT WOULD END 2045. WE WOULD GET REVENUES IN 2046. NOW, BRAD, I'LL JUMP INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT ON THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY. BUT WITH THE LAW CHANGE, FIRE DISTRICTS AND AMBULANCE DISTRICTS NOW HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE TO CONSENT TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES BECAUSE OF THE THE TIMING AND TO BE CONSERVATIVE AND THE NUMBERS, THOSE LEVIES ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO GENERATE ANY REVENUE FOR THE DISTRICT. AND IN FACT, I THINK THE FIRE DISTRICT PROBABLY GOES AWAY UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE THE CITY. ANYWAY, THOSE ARE OUT THOUGH. I THINK BRAD ALREADY KIND OF SHOWED YOU THE THE 10% TEST. WE'RE WELL WITHIN THAT. AND WITH THAT I WILL UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO BRAD. OKAY. BRAD. I'LL CUT 14 SLIDES DOWN TO FOUR. WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE AREA. LET'S JUST START HERE. THE WAY I REVIEWED THIS, IT WAS YOU TALK A LITTLE ABOUT. SORRY I'LL GET IN THE MIC THERE. I BROKE THIS DOWN INTO TWO AREAS. THE SNAKE RIVER LANDING AREA, WHICH IS EAST OF PIONEER ROAD, THE DEALERSHIP AREA WEST OF PIONEER ROAD.

TOTAL ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT JUST SHY OF 600 MILLION IN SNAKE RIVER, LANDING AROUND 4 MILLION FOR THE ONE REMAINING LOT AND THE DEALERSHIP AREA. AND THEN THE PROJECT COSTS ROUGHLY 33 MILLION FOR SNAKE RIVER LANDING, ROUGHLY 500,000 FOR THE DEALERSHIP AREA, WHICH IS BASICALLY JUST A PATHWAY BRIDGE. AND THEN AGAIN, POTENTIAL CITY AGENCY PROJECTS, THAT NUMBER SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY LOWER. IT'S A SLIGHT FAIL TO ADJUST. SO MORE LIKE 27 MILLION.

I DID WANT TO SHOW THIS SLIDE JUST BRIEFLY BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS WHY I DID TWO REVENUE MODELS SINCE 2019 2020 BETWEEN COVID AND HOUSE BILL 389, WHICH LIMITED HOW MUCH BUDGETS CAN GROW, LEVY RATES AND CITY VALUATIONS HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO PREDICT WHAT THE REVENUE MODEL IS. SO I DID TWO ONE. THAT'S THE TYPICAL ONE I DO, WHICH IS VALUATION INCREASING 2% PER YEAR, LEVIES DECREASING 1% PER YEAR, AND THEN A MORE MODERATE MODEL AS WELL. THAT'S 5% VALUATION INCREASE PER YEAR AND A 2% LEVY DROP PER YEAR. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS HAPPENING PRE COVID. BUT I THINK PROVIDING THAT RANGE WAS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE HELPFUL. SO I'M GOING TO SKIP ALL OF THIS AND JUMP TO THE TWO CASHFLOW PROJECTIONS. THIS IS WITH THE THE CONSERVATIVE REVENUE WHAT THE CASH FLOW LOOKS LIKE. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO DIFFERENT OPA'S, THE OPA TWO,

[01:00:02]

SO IN BOTH REVENUE SCENARIOS, THE PROJECT IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE. AND THAT'S REALLY THE MAIN POINT. AND THEN THE PLAN WILL HAVE THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT THE DEVELOPERS TALKED ABOUT AND THAT I TALKED ABOUT WITH THE CITY CITY DEPARTMENTS AS WELL. ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER ASSUMPTION HERE THAT WAS NEW THAT I INCLUDED HERE WAS THAT THE THE 10% CAPTURED BY THE AGENCY FOR ADMINISTRATION AND CAPPED AT $200,000. I HAVEN'T CAPPED IT BEFORE OTHER THAN WHEN JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION WAS CREATED. THERE WAS A CAP THERE, AND THAT'S JUST REFLECTIVE OF, YOU KNOW, AS I LOOK THROUGH OTHER DISTRICTS, WHAT THE WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE, CAPPING THAT AROUND $200,000. IT SEEMED TO BE REASONABLE. BUT SO HERE AGAIN, BOTH OPA'S WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT SUFFICIENT FUNDING INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER TO TO FULFILL THOSE OBLIGATIONS AND THAT THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT EXCESS FUNDS, POTENTIALLY AT THE END OF THE DISTRICTS FOR OTHER PROJECTS. THAT WASN'T A LOT OF INFORMATION, BUT I THINK I COULD ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO BASICALLY THE STREET INFRASTRUCTURE, INFRASTRUCTURE THEY NEED TO SUPPORT THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS RELATIVELY LIMITED, WHICH BUT THEY'RE PUTTING A LOT ON. I MEAN, A LOT OF IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT. WHITEWATER DRIVE, SUNNYSIDE IS ALREADY BUILT. SO THEY THERE'S NOT AS MANY COSTS. CORRECT. YEAH. RIVERSIDE IS REALLY THE MAIN COST BECAUSE IT'S UNDEVELOPED. IT'S NEAR THE RIVER. THERE'S AMENITIES THAT NEED TO GO WITH IT. AND THEN THERE'S SITE REMEDIATION. HAD SOME SIGNIFICANT COSTS AS WELL.

BUT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE RIVERSIDE DISTRICT? ALL RIGHT. MEGAN, DO YOU WANT TO READ 20, 25, 15 OR 14 BY TITLE? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU RESOLUTION 2025 DASH 14 BY THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RECOMMENDING AND ADOPTING THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE RIVERSIDE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, WHICH PLAN INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION FINANCING PROVISIONS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE SECRETARY OF THE AGENCY TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGES.

AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIR VICE CHAIR ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION PROVIDING FOR THIS RESOLUTION TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND IN ADDITION, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE PROBABLY ARE SHOULD YOU PROCEED AND TAKE ACTION ON THIS. HOPEFULLY, THE ACTION WOULD ALSO BE TO AUTHORIZE TECHNICAL CHANGES AND THE INSERTION OF ALL ATTACHMENTS AS WELL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 20 2515? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 20 2515 WITH AN ADDITIONAL. PROVISIONS THAT MEGAN MENTIONED? SHE SAID AUTHORIZED TECHNICAL CHANGES AND ATTACH ALL ATTACHMENTS. AND WHAT WAS THE INSERT ALL ATTACHMENTS AND INSERT ALL ADDITIONS? OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T FOLLOW THAT. YEAH, I'D MAKE THAT MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND NEED TO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. DID WE NEED A ROLL CALL ON THAT? I DON'T BELIEVE WE DO. DID WE MAKE IT. SORRY. WE DON'T NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE, DO WE, MEGAN? NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ABOUT THAT, BUT NO, NOBODY'S ONLINE. THE VOTING WAS UNANIMOUS IN FAVOR. ALL RIGHT,

[9. ACTION ITEM: Consider Resolution No. 2025-15 Approving the Urban Renewal Plan for Riverwalk Urban Renewal Project ]

[01:05:05]

SO HERE AGAIN I'M GOING TO SHORTEN THIS SHOW YOU THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE. THIS IS A VERY SMALL DISTRICT AS YOU KNOW ONLY THREE SITES. TOTAL INVESTMENT ANTICIPATED AROUND $40 MILLION. TOTAL REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS OR ELIGIBLE PROJECTS IS AROUND $4.2 MILLION, MOSTLY FOR ROCK BLASTING INFILL, BUT ALSO FOR POWERFUL RELOCATION, A SIDEWALK ON UTAH AND A CANAL PATHWAY. I JUST COVERED THIS THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE WITH LEVEES AND VALUATION TRENDS. I'M GOING TO SKIP AHEAD TO THE CASH FLOW BECAUSE THERE WAS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE I HAD TO MAKE THAT YOU NEED TO BE AWARE OF. WHEN I USED THE TYPICAL 75% PAYBACK TO AN OPA, THIS PROJECT WAS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE. WHAT I BELIEVE THIS WILL REQUIRE IS AT LEAST AN 80% PAYBACK OF TIF REVENUES TO THE BOARDS, THE OPA, AND POTENTIALLY IT MAY POTENTIALLY NEED TO BE MORE THAN THAT OR TOWARDS THE END OF THE DISTRICT. CONSIDERATION OF AN OPTION TO REALLOCATE ACCRUED FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNTS BACK TOWARDS PAYMENT OF THE OPA. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WITH THE CONSERVATIVE CASH FLOW PROJECTION, THIS OPA WOULD NOT BE PAID OFF UNTIL THE VERY FINAL YEAR OF REVENUES RECEIVED, WHICH IS 2046. THAT'S WITH AN 80% PAYBACK. AND EVEN WITH THE MORE MODERATE CASH FLOW MODEL, THIS DOESN'T GET PAID BACK UNTIL 2045. AND SO THIS ONE, THIS ONE IS VERY TIGHT. THE HOTEL. AND AGAIN, HOPEFULLY THE HOTEL GETS DONE QUICKER THAN I'D ANTICIPATED AND HITS THE TAX ROLLS A YEAR EARLIER. BUT I'D RATHER BE ON THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE. SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND THIS, THIS PROJECT IS FEASIBLE, ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, BUT WITH SOME DIFFERENCES FROM WHAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH SOME OTHER DISTRICTS. NOW JACKSON WILL MENTION MAYBE SOME PAYBACK AND YOU KNOW IT HAS STRUGGLED. YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT NEXT MONTH. THERE WILL NOT BE MUCH FOR OTHER PROJECTS AT THE END OF THE DISTRICT, ALTHOUGH THERE'S NOT MUCH TO DO. THE BOUNDARIES ARE SO TIGHT. THERE REALLY WEREN'T ANY IDENTIFIABLE CITY PROJECTS OTHER THAN MAYBE A TRAFFIC STUDY, AND SO THAT MAY BE OKAY, BUT IT IS FEASIBLE WITH THOSE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. SO ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE TO ANSWER. ALL RIGHT. I MEAN ONE COMMENT ON THAT I MEAN THEY ALSO COULD YOU COULD WE COULD ALSO LIMIT THE THE PAYMENTS TOWARD BLASTING AND FILM. AND THEY GOT $4 MILLION IN BLASTING TO FILL, WHICH I MEAN IT'S PRETTY SMALL LOTS. I MEAN, ANOTHER WAY WE COULD DO THAT INSTEAD OF GOING TO 80% IS LIMITING THAT TO 3 MILLION OR SURE, SOMETHING AND LET THE DEVELOPER DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. OKAY. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ON RIVERWALK. IF WE LIMIT THE BLASTING REIMBURSEMENT, WE IS THERE. WE HAVE TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANNING. THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE DOING HERE. WE'D MAKE THAT MODIFICATION HERE. IF WE LIMIT THE BLASTING, IT MIGHT. I MEAN CHICKEN AND THE EGG. THEY MIGHT NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. IF YOU LIMIT THE BLASTING. BUT IF THEY DON'T SPEND THE FULL AMOUNT ON THE BLASTING, THEY HAVE, I MEAN, WE GET RECEIPTS FOR FOR ALL OF THAT. DO YOU HAVE A IS THERE A RECORD I MEAN, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING 80%. WHAT IS THE CONFIDENCE LEVEL ON THIS. YEAH, I THINK THIS IS UNUSUAL. IF THERE WERE SOME LESSONS LEARNED FROM PREVIOUS DISTRICTS CAPPING IT AT THIS POINT. LOOKS LIKE WAS DONE WITH JACKSONVILLE JUNCTION CAN CREATE SOME CHALLENGES LATER ON. SO THE IDEA OF PERHAPS MOVING FORWARD WITHOUT THE CAP UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN THE RECEIPTS AND MAYBE HAVE TO CORRECT ME ON THIS. BUT WHEN YOU DEVELOP THE OPA. THAT'S ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO LIMIT OR NOT LIMIT THE FUNDS. BUT IF YOU IF I, IF I, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR ACCOMMODATION, IT WOULD BE TO CONSIDER NOT PUTTING A CAP AT THIS STAGE ON THOSE FUNDS. AND MR. CHAIR COMMISSIONERS BRAD, YOU BRING UP A GREAT POINT. IT'S JUST A GOOD REMINDER.

[01:10:06]

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, HAVING THESE IN THE PLAN IS TO REALLY SET SOME EXPECTATIONS AND GUIDELINES AS PART OF A REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO, BUT ISN'T INTENDED TO, YOU KNOW, BE A FULL STOP CAP. I HOPE THAT HELPS. OKAY. YEAH. IT'S JUST WE'VE HELD THE LINE ON 75%. AND IF WE START CHANGING IT, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO WANT A DIFFERENT NUMBER. AND THE 75% HAS ENABLED US TO SAVE MONEY TO DO PROJECTS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. IT HAS. IT'S WORKED OUT A LOT OF TIMES. SO I'M NOT VERY EXCITED ABOUT CHANGING THAT. BUT THAT'S FOR EVERYONE TO DECIDE. AND IF WE PUT IT IN THIS, THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO WANT IT, YOU KNOW, OR PARTICIPATION. SO THAT DOESN'T HELP AS MUCH. IF WE SAY IT'S WE NEED THIS TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE, THEN WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO DO THIS. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN GO BACK ON THAT. YEAH. WELL, IT ALSO FEELS LIKE IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE. YEAH. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LIKE LIKE THERE IS A REASON YOU DO THE FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY STUDY AND THEN IF I MEAN MY I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT LIMITING. I MEAN, I WAS THE ONE WHO LIMITED JACKSON HOLE. AND I STILL FEEL LIKE WE SPENT TOO MUCH MONEY. I MEAN, THIS ONE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR $4 MILLION TO REMOVE BASALT ON A RELATIVELY SMALL PIECE. IF THAT HOTEL NEEDS, YOU KNOW, IF THEY IF THEY CAN'T DO A 3 MILLION, THEN LET'S FIND ANOTHER PROJECT. I MEAN, I JUST THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY FOR BLASTING ANYWAY. SO I'M NOT YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF MY. MY APPROACH TO IT. WHAT PROBLEM WAS THERE IN ESTABLISHING A LIMIT ON JACKSON HOLE JUNCTION OTHER THAN THEY WANT MORE MONEY LATER ON? WHAT WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? I'M ASSUMING THAT'S THE QUESTION FOR ME. YEAH. YEAH I THINK WELL, AND AGAIN, THIS WILL BE AN AGENDA ITEM NEXT MONTH, BUT. THERE WERE A LOT OF I MEAN THE COSTS WERE HIGHER THAN EXPECTED. I THINK THAT WAS YEAH, IT'S JUST A COMBINATION OF LIMITING THE FUNDS AND LIMITING THE YEARS. YEAH. HAS IT BEEN A CHALLENGING FOR THAT TO BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE IF THAT'S REALLY THE THAT'S THE RISK YOU TAKE AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD DECIDED TO DO. BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE FACE TOWARDS THE END IS IF IT'S NOT AS FEASIBLE AS ANTICIPATED ORIGINALLY, THEN YOU START GETTING THE REQUEST TO MODIFY LATER DOWN THE ROAD. BUT MAYBE THAT'S MAYBE IT'S NOT, BUT IT'S GENERATED ONE CURRENTLY. AM I HEARING THAT NEXT MONTH WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GET A REQUEST TO MODIFY. YES OKAY.

THAT WAS A SHORTER ONE. IT WAS A SHORTER ONE. OKAY. I'LL HAVE ALL KINDS OF DETAILS ON THAT FROM NOW. ARE WE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT. BUT I JUST I'M NOT VERY EXCITED ABOUT STARTING OUT WITH A PLAN THAT WE ALREADY THINK ISN'T FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AT THE ESTIMATES THAT THEY HAVE, AND THEY'RE NOT HERE. AGAIN, WE'RE GRUMBLING ABOUT DEVELOPERS NOT BEING HERE. SO IF IT'S NOT WORTH THEIR TIME, I'M NOT SURE IT'S WORTH MY TIME. SO I'M A LITTLE GRUMBLING ABOUT THAT. SORRY, DIRECTORS. WORST CASE. SO THIS IS CLOSE TO BEING FEASIBLE UNFEASIBLE I GUESS CLOSE TO BEING UNFEASIBLE COMES IN RIGHT AT THE END. RIGHT. AND SO WE OVERPAY OR WE PAY THE MAX ON LAVA BLASTING, AND THEN WE JUST END UP WITH A KIND OF A NET ZERO FINISH. RIGHT. OR, OR THEY DON'T GET ANY ALL THE MONEY THEY THAT THE OPA AGREES TO. THIS IS PRESUMING NO ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, WHICH WE HAVEN'T HAD IN FOREVER AND WE'RE DUE FOR. YEAH. SO YOU'RE THINKING, HOLD THE LINE ON OUR 75% AND CAP THE BLASTING AMOUNT OF 3 MILLION TO MAKE THE MAINTAIN THE FEASIBILITY NUMBER. AND THEN IF THE PROJECT IS ABLE

[01:15:01]

YEAH. SO I DO THINK THAT THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE. AND SO I WOULD JUST HOLD THE LINE THAT 75. I AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO TABLE 20 2515 FOR TILL OCTOBER AND LET THE DEVELOPER COME UP WITH SOME OTHER NUMBERS THAT FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY IT'S AT 75% LEVEL.

IS THAT THE MOTION. YEAH. BUT HOW DO WE STOP I MEAN HERE'S A QUESTION. HOW DO WE STOP THEM FROM COMING BACK AND SAYING, OH, WELL, THIS IS NOW A $8 MILLION BUILDING ON THIS LOT? I MEAN, WHAT IS THE TRUE FEASIBILITY OF LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THAT GAME. BUT THEY COULD CHANGE THE VALUATIONS OF THE PROPERTIES. CORRECT. SAY, OH, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT A $3 MILLION BUILDING ON IT. I'M GOING TO PUT $8 MILLION BUILDING ON IT. NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S A 75% UTILITY. BUT THAT'S ALL OF THESE MAY FAIL AS THEY GO ALONG AND THEY MAY NOT GET FULL REPAYMENT, WHICH IS IT'S ONLY WHICH THEY ONLY GET FULL REPAYMENT FROM THE TIF. SO IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, THAT'S THEY'RE DOING THAT AT THEIR RISK. BUT WE'RE NOT HEDGING THEM THEIR RISK IN ADVANCE. YES. SO, SO SO THEN I'M SAYING JUST AS WHATEVER COMES BACK, IT HAS TO BE AT 75%. RIGHT. AND THEN THEY CAN AND THEN IF THE RISK IS BACK ON THEM AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE A 5% CUT ON THEIR RISK, THAT RIGHT. THE RIGHT WAY TO THINK OF THAT. OKAY. SO IS THAT A MOTION TO TABLE. ACTION ACTION ITEM NINE UNTIL OCTOBER TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO MODIFY THE PROPOSAL TO HIT FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF 75%. AND OR ADDITIONAL COST

[01:20:03]

YEAH. SO MOVES MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. ALRIGHT. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MEGAN, IF IT'S OKAY, I'M GOING TO SKIP THE RYE AND LEGISLATIVE UPDATE. WAY PAST THE TIME. OUR NEXT MEETING

[11. Next Meeting: October 16, 2025]