[Call to Order and Roll Call]
          [00:00:18]
          WE DO HAVE. THERE. OH. HE'S HERE. MARGARET. COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE HAVE TWO OF OUR MEMBERS WHO ARE GONE FOR TRAVEL. FOR APPA. THE POWER AMERICAN, WHATEVER THAT IS. I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY AND EXPLAIN IT, BUT THEY ARE ABSENT. AND SO WE NEED TO HAVE A ROLL CALL TO ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM BEFORE WE START OUR MEETING. BUT KNOWING THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN AND BRADFORD ARE BOTH ON THAT TRAVEL FOR POWER. THANK YOU. MAYOR. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS HERE. COUNSELOR. DINGMAN HERE. COUNSELOR. LARSON HERE. COUNSELOR. LEE HERE. 
          [City Council, Mayor]
MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM, OKAY. WE ARE. WE'RE STARTING PRETTY CLOSE TO ON TIME. BUT WE DO WANT TO BEGIN WITH THE DISCUSSION ON THE CITYWIDE UPDATES, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS. 
          THESE ARE COMING FROM COUNCIL ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE BEEN RUNNING INTO IN LIAISONS OR QUESTIONS OR THINGS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE BROUGHT FORWARD AS AN AGENDA ITEM. AND WE WILL BEGIN WITH COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS TO MY LEFT. LET ME PASS FOR A MINUTE. I'LL COME BACK AT THE END. OKAY. OKAY. I'M GOOD FOR NOW. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK I HAVE ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. MAYOR, WE ALL GOT IT OUT LAST TIME. HEY. I'M OKAY ON THE CORNER ONE. SO WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD AN ORDINANCE TO BAN THE SALE OF KRATOM THAT WE'LL DISCUSS IN A WORK SESSION ON MARCH 9TH. AND SO JUST IF YOU'VE GOT QUESTIONS. ASSISTANT CHIEF GALBRAITH WILL BE ATTENDING AND BE COVERING ANY QUESTIONS. BUT IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE ANSWERED REGARDING THAT, JUST GIVING US A LITTLE TIME THERE. THAT'S ALL FOR ME, MAYOR. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. OKAY. SO THEN ALSO, WE HAVE STILL WORKING ON THE ALCOHOL ORDINANCE ADJUSTMENTS AND THE PIECE THAT WILL BE COMING TO US ALSO ON MARCH 9TH IS REQUIRED CERTIFICATION FOR SERVERS. I THINK WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO IDENTIFYING HOW TO DO THAT. AND IT'S ONE OF THE WAYS TO PREVENT OVERPOURING. SO THAT WILL COME AGAIN FROM DEPUTY CHIEF GALBRAITH, ALONG WITH SERGEANT NORMAN, WHO'S THE POLICE OFFICER INVOLVED WITH IT. 
          AND I COMPLIMENT THE CITY CLERK FOR HER INPUT ON THAT, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HER THOUGHTS ARE HELPING US FLESH OUT EXACTLY HOW TO WRITE THAT. SO IT'S EFFECTIVE. BUT THAT'S A BIG ONE COMING TO US. AND THE I MEAN, WE HAVE TO BE HONEST, A BIT OF A COMMUNITY PROBLEM WITH OVERPOURING. AND THIS IS ONE THING THAT WE CAN DO TO TRY TO HELP ALLEVIATE THAT PROBLEM. SO WE'RE NOT ALWAYS ENFORCEMENT. IT'S PROACTIVE PEOPLE. THAT WOULD BE THE BIG ONE. IS THIS A TIME TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP FROM YES AIC. YES. PERFECT. SO AS YOU CONFIGURE, THIS IS THE TIME PERIOD WHEN A LOT OF BILLS COME FORWARD IN THE AIC BOARD TAKES A STANCE ON MANY OF THEM THAT ARE RELATED TO CITIES. WE HAVE SOME, AS YOU KNOW, THAT THE ATTEMPT TO MAKE TO REMOVE THE NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE THAT SEVERAL CITIES HAVE THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THE HOUSE, AND WE ARE AS OF FRIDAY, IT'S STILL IN THE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND NOT COMING OUT. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN THERE'LL BE A HEARING, BUT AND THAT MAY CHANGE. THE OTHER ONE THAT I THINK IS PROBABLY. NOT YET GOING ANYWHERE, BUT COULD GO SOMEWHERE IS AN ISSUE ON ANNEXATION AND THE CITY TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT MIGHT IF A SEPTIC SYSTEM WENT OFF. AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING BY THE REPRESENTATIVE HE HEART IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING VERY DIRECTLY RELATED TO IDAHO FALLS. AND. WE DO NOT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO HOOK UP TO THE CITY SYSTEM WHEN THEY'RE ANNEXED, AS LONG AS THEIR SEPTIC SYSTEM IS STILL WORKING, IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO IT'S IT'S HARD TO FIGURE EXACTLY WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. AND. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, 
          [00:05:07]
IT'S A IT'S A STATE RULE ABOUT THEIR ANNEXING IF THEY'RE SEPTIC. SO THAT ISN'T EVEN OUR CITY NOT DETERMINED THAT YOUR SEPTIC SYSTEM IS FAILING. THAT'S DETERMINED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. SO IT'S HARD TO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT. AND I THINK THE OTHER BIGGEST ONE THAT'S UP THAT I'D LIKE US TO TALK ABOUT SOMETIME VERY SOON IS AIC WILL NOT TAKE A STANCE ON THE CITY'S BEING ABLE TO JOIN THE STATE INSURANCE POOL. THEY WON'T TAKE A STANCE ON THAT. THERE'S TOO MUCH TENSION OF WHO BENEFITS AND WHO DOESN'T. AND IT VARIES. IT'S NOT A BIG CITY VERSUS SMALL CITY ISSUE. IT'S AN ISSUE OF SOME CITIES WOULD BENEFIT IN, SOME PROBABLY WOULDN'T. SO THEIR VOTE DID NOT COME OUT WITH ENOUGH OF A MAJORITY TO TAKE A STANCE. SO THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO DEVELOP A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, FROM THE COUNCIL, FROM BOTH TO THE LEGISLATURE, SUPPORTING THE IDEA THAT CITIES BE ALLOWED TO OPT IN ON THE INSURANCE? AND I DON'T I MEAN, I THINK WE PROBABLY COULDN'T MAKE A DECISION TODAY, BUT I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND WE DO. SO IT'S JUST TO LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN? YEAH. OPT IN. IT'S JUST AN OPTION THAT THEY CAN TAKE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO, BUT IT WOULD BE AN OPT IN. AND IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE LAST PRESENTATION WE HAD FROM HR THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BENEFIT IDAHO FALLS SUBSTANTIALLY TAXPAYER MONEY. AND SO SINCE AIC IS NOT GOING TO TAKE A POSITION ON IT, I THINK WE SHOULD PUSH IT. I HAVE SOME INFORMATION TO ADD TO THAT. I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR MONTHS. NOT ONLY WAS AIC GOING TO TAKE A POSITION, THEY WERE GOING TO LEAVE THE CONVERSATION WHEN WE HAD OUR LEGISLATIVE UPDATE. THAT IS WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD. THEY WERE GOING TO LEAD THE CONVERSATION. WE TALKED ABOUT WHO COULD BRING IT FORWARD. POCATELLO HAD TRIED TO BRING IT FORWARD LAST YEAR BUT GOT SHUT DOWN. ROD FURNACE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN TAKING IT FORWARD FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. SO, I MEAN, AT ONE POINT ROD WAS TAKING THE BACK SEAT TO AIC, WHO WAS GOING TO LEAD THE CHARGE ON IT. SO NOW FOR AIC TO NOT ONLY NOT BE LEADING THE CHARGE, BUT TAKE A BACK SEAT, THEY COMPLETELY DO. WE KNOW WHY? THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT BECAUSE IT WON'T BENEFIT. ALL CITIES CAN'T TAKE A STANCE. THERE WAS A VOTE. IT WAS AN EMAIL VOTE, AND 65% OF THE BOARD VOTED TO TAKE A STANCE. BUT THEY APPARENTLY AND I DIDN'T KNOW THIS UNTIL THIS MORNING. THEY HAVE SOME POLICY THAT IT ISN'T 75% SUPPORT. THEY WON'T TAKE A POSITION. SO IT IS A BIT FRUSTRATING BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT BENEFIT TO THE TAXPAYERS OF IDAHO OVERALL, THERE'S A HUGE BENEFIT THERE. SO DO THEY KNOW FROM THEIR STUDIES THEN WHICH CITIES WOULD BENEFIT AND WHICH IT WOULDN'T? THEY DO. AND CAN THEY SHARE THAT? AND CAN WE DO A COMBINED LETTER WITH SOME OF THESE OTHER COUNTIES? I COULD GET YOU A COPY OF A YEAR AGO. YEAH. 
          SLIGHTLY MORE. CHEETO DID A SPREADSHEET FROM POCATELLO BECAUSE HE WAS ON THE COUNCIL AND A REPRESENTATIVE. SO HE PUT THIS TOGETHER AND IT SHOWED WHAT CITIES WOULD BENEFIT AND WHAT WOULD, BECAUSE NOT EVERY CITY WOULD OPT IN. THERE IS A BIT OF A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE'S A SMALLER INSURANCE COMPANY THAT INSURES SOME CITIES THAT THEY'RE WORRIED WILL HAVE TO RAISE ITS FEES BECAUSE THEY WOULD LOSE SOME OF THEIR CUSTOMERS. I THINK IT READ AT FIRST IT WAS. WORRISOME TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEN THEY DID IT, BUT THEY'VE SEEN IT HAS BORNE OUT TO BE POSITIVE, TO BE PART OF THAT LARGER GROUP. SO SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE ALLOWED, CITIES AREN'T ALLOWED. WE HAVE DIFFERENT RULES WHEN IT COMES TO SELF-INSURANCE THAN THE COUNTIES DO. I WAS I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED TO HEAR THAT THEY TOOK THAT POSITION. NOT ONLY ARE THEY NOT LEADING IT, BUT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO STAY NEUTRAL. SO I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LETTER THAT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE IS THAT IT WAS CAN WE CAN WE DO A LETTER THAT COMES FROM COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR? WELL, WE PROBABLY WOULD NEED TO HAVE THAT. DIRECTION TO STAFF. YEAH. SO AGENDA ITEM FOR WORK SESSION AND GENERAL STAFF I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE ONE OR THIS HAS TO HAPPEN FAST. SOMETIMES I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK 
          [00:10:06]
AT WHAT MAYOR CASPER HAS DONE, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE DONE LETTERS. WE HAVE DONE QUICKER. 
          YEAH. I MEAN, AND WE'VE ALREADY WE'VE ALREADY SPOKEN ABOUT IT AS COUNCIL MANY TIMES THAT WE WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN EXPLORING THAT OPTION. SO NOW I THINK THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REMAIN NEUTRAL. OKAY. AND HONESTLY, I DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE TOTALLY NEUTRAL UNTIL FRIDAY. NOBODY DID BECAUSE THE BILL ISN'T ACTUALLY I KEEP GETTING IT. EVERY FRIDAY. I ASK, WHAT ABOUT THIS OPT IN BILL? AND THE ANSWER I GET IS REPRESENTATIVE CHEATHAM IS WORKING ON THE WORDING. OKAY, THAT WAS THREE TIMES IN A ROW. SO I ASKED ONE MORE TIME. HE SAID, WELL, WE DECIDED WE'RE NOT TAKING A POSITION. YEAH, YEAH, OKAY. I'M NOT FRUSTRATED. 
          NO, I CAN'T TELL YOU AND I CAN GET TOGETHER LATER. OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THE. THE QUICK AND EASY ONES ON WE ARE GOING TO HAVE. AS COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS SAID, ALCOHOL SERVING. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT FLOCK CAMERAS. THE CONVERSATION ABOUT KRATOM. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE POLICY COME BACK. SO I'M GLAD THAT DIRECTOR HOLMES CAME IN THE CLOSING OF THE CEMETERIES FOR MEMORIAL DAY. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT COME BACK YET, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT RATHER THAN HAVE IT AT A WORK SESSION, WE JUST THOUGHT BRING IT BACK ON A THURSDAY NIGHT. AND NOW THAT YOU'VE HAD TIME TO GET THE INPUT FROM THE FUNERAL HOMES AND THE MORTICIAN CREMATORIUMS, YOU KNOW, THE FEEDBACK THAT YOU WERE GOING TO GET, IF WE CAN, WE'LL JUST GET THAT TO COME BACK FOR A THURSDAY NIGHT ITEM. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THIS THURSDAY, BUT IT'LL COME SOON SO THAT THERE'S ENOUGH PREP TIME FOR MEMORIAL DAY. PERFECT. OKAY. AND OKAY. 
          [Municipal Services]
WITH THAT, WE HAVE MUNICIPAL SERVICES IS GOING TO BRING US FORWARD WITH OUR ANNUAL AUDIT. 
          AND IT'S JUST AN UPDATE. THIS IS NOT THE FULL AUDIT REPORT. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. YEAH. WE WE WERE ASKED EVERY FEBRUARY ISH TO COME IN AND GIVE AN UPDATE ON HOW OUR AUDITS DOING. WE NORMALLY HAVE OUR AUDIT PRESENTATION IN EARLY APRIL, AND STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY ON GETTING EVERYTHING READY TO GO. THE BIG THING THAT WE HAVE IS CLOSING OUT THE FISCAL YEAR, AND SO SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT LONGER WITH SOME OF THE DEPARTMENTS CLOSING OUT ALL THEIR INVOICES AND MAKING EVERYTHING IS CLOSED NO LATER THAN THE FIRST PART OF OCTOBER. BECAUSE OUR FISCAL YEAR ENDS SEPTEMBER 30TH OF EVERY YEAR. 
          AND SO THIS AUDIT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY ENDS SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2025. 
          I'VE GOT NEXT TO ME OUR ASSISTANT FINANCE MANAGER, BROOKS. SHE IS A CPA AND SHE WORKS HAND IN HAND WITH OUR CITY TREASURER, MARK HAGEDORN, WHO IS ALSO A CPA. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE OUR BAKER TILLY, MANAGER AND DIRECTOR FOR YOU. SOMEBODY SOME OF YOU WILL THINK WILL NOTICE THESE FAMILIAR. HIS NAME IS KEVIN AND HE IS GOING TO GIVE US A BRIEF UPDATE AS WELL AS ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. AND WITH THAT, KEVIN, YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF REALLY QUICKLY. YEAH. HI EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KEVIN MILLER. I'M A DIRECTOR WITH BAKER TILLY AND RESPONSIBLE, AS PAM SAID, TO BE THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR FOR THE CITY'S NINE 3025 FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT. REALLY? HERE TO GIVE A PROGRESS REPORT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN DECEMBER, I ISSUED A LETTER KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THE PLAN FOR THIS YEAR'S AUDIT. THE TIMING OF THAT, THE TIMING REMAINS INTACT. PLAN TO ISSUE OUR AUDIT REPORTS BY THE END OF MARCH. AND THEN, AS PAM SAID, I BELIEVE EARLY APRIL IS WHEN THE BOARD MEETING, WHEN CITY COUNCIL WOULD HEAR MY REPORT ON THOSE FINAL ISSUE REPORTS. AND WITH THAT, I'LL GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT'S TAKING PLACE SO FAR. SO REALLY, OUR AUDIT WORK STARTED IN JANUARY. WE WERE ON SITE AT THE CITY FOR TWO WEEKS, THE WEEKS OF JANUARY 5TH AND 19TH. I GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH A COUPLE OF YOU, BUT REALLY HERE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE FOR THE ENTIRE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY. TO DATE, EVERYONE CITY STAFF, CITY OFFICIALS, EVERYONE HAS BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH. SO ALL THE QUESTIONS WE'VE ASKED FOR, THE DOCUMENTS WE'VE ASKED TO SEE IN DOING OUR DETAILED TESTING HAVE BEEN PROVIDED IN A TIMELY MANNER, AND EVERYONE ON OUR TEAM HAS BEEN VERY PLEASED WITH THE TIMELINESS AND RESPONSE THAT CITY OFFICIALS 
          [00:15:03]
HAVE PROVIDED. SO CERTAINLY NO CONCERNS THERE IN TERMS OF THE AUDIT WORK WE'VE CONDUCTED SO FAR. REALLY, WE STARTED OUT BY LOOKING AT THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CITY'S INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER YOUR KEY FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, AND THEN ONCE WE GOT A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, DID SOME OF THAT TESTING, WE TURNED OUR ATTENTION TO TESTING. YOUR YEAR END FINANCIAL STATEMENT BALANCES REALLY OVER THE MATERIAL ACCOUNT BALANCES. AND THAT'S WHERE WE DO SOME DETAILED TESTING, SOME ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES WHERE WE HAVE EXPECTATIONS ON WHAT AN ACCOUNT SHOULD LOOK LIKE. AND THEN WE SEE IF THE ACTUAL ACCOUNT MEETS THOSE EXPECTATIONS. THAT'S REALLY HOW WE TEST YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. A COUPLE OTHER AREAS THAT WE TEST. ONE IS WITH THE AIRPORT. SO YOU HAVE A PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE AUDIT. WE'VE BEEN DOING WORK THERE. AND THEN ALSO BECAUSE YOU RECEIVE MORE THAN $1 MILLION IN FEDERAL AWARDS, AND YOUR EXPENSES FOR THE YEAR WERE MORE THAN EXCESS OF $1 MILLION. WE DO WHAT IS CALLED A SINGLE LOT, AND THE SCOPE OF THAT THIS YEAR IS TO TEST TWO OF YOUR FEDERAL AWARD PROGRAMS. THE FIRST IS THE STATE LOCAL RECOVERY FUND MONEY, OR THE ARPA DOLLARS THAT WAS TESTED LAST YEAR. WE NEEDED TO TEST IT AGAIN THIS YEAR DUE TO THE SIZE OF THAT PROGRAM. AND THEN ANOTHER IS A NEW PROGRAM THAT HASN'T BEEN TESTED RECENTLY, AND THAT'S THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM. SO BASED ON ALL OF THAT AUDIT, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT, THE PASSENGER FACILITY FACILITY CHARGE PROGRAM AND THE SINGLE AUDIT HAVE ONE FINDING TO SHARE WITH YOU. AT THIS POINT, I'LL GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL THERE. THAT'S WITH THE SINGLE EYE. AND WE IDENTIFIED THAT FOR BOTH PROGRAMS. THERE WAS A FINDING OVER PROCUREMENT. SO HOW YOU CONTRACT WITH VENDORS THAT ARE FEDERALLY FUNDED WITH THOSE PROGRAMS, THERE'S REALLY TWO COMPONENTS TO THAT FINDING. THE FIRST IS WHEN YOU CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR FOR MORE THAN $25,000, THERE SHOULD BE SOME SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THAT CONTRACT ABOUT THE VENDOR NOT BEING SUSPENDED OR DEBARRED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE SAMPLED SEVEN CONTRACTS ACROSS THOSE TWO PROGRAMS, AND WE SAW THREE INSTANCES WHERE THE CONTRACT DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ABOUT THE VENDOR BEING SUSPENDED OR DEBARRED. NOW, I CAN LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT WAS ONLY WITH THE ARPA PROGRAM. THE CONTRACTS WE SAW FOR THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM HAD ALL OF OUR LANGUAGE IN THERE. THE SECOND COMPONENT TO THE FINDING IS THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE CHECKING TO SEE IF A VENDOR IS ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUSPENDED OR DEBARRED LIST, AND YOU WOULD DO THAT BY GOING ON TO A WEBSITE THAT'S CALLED SAM.GOV. AND THEY HAVE A LISTING OF ALL THE SUSPENDED AND DEBARRED CONTRACTORS. SO WE SAW FIVE INSTANCES. AND THAT WAS THE CASE ACROSS BOTH PROGRAMS WHERE THAT CHECK HAD NOT BEEN DONE. NOW WE SUBSEQUENTLY DID THAT CHECK OURSELVES, AND WE COULD SEE THAT NONE OF THE VENDORS WERE ON THAT LIST. SO THERE'S NO COMPLIANCE ISSUE TO REPORT. WHAT THIS IS, IS A INTERNAL CONTROL ISSUE. AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY OVER INTERNAL CONTROLS FOR PROCUREMENT. SO REALLY OVERALL THE TESTING WE'VE DONE THIS IS THE ONE FINDING WE HAVE TO SHARE WITH YOU. I LOOK BACK TO YOUR AUDIT FROM TWO YEARS AGO FOR THE FY 23 AUDIT. YOU HAD SIX FINDINGS THAT YEAR. AND THEN IN FY 24 AUDIT YOU HAD ONE FINDINGS. SO WHILE WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT DONE WITH AUDIT, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF DETAILED TESTING. IT'S REALLY IN THE REVIEW STAGE TO DATE. 
          AND SO FAR YOU HAVE ONE FINDING WHICH WAS ON PAR WITH LAST YEAR. I WILL LET YOU KNOW. A BIG PIECE YET TO GO IS TO REVIEW YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. AND CITY MANAGEMENT IS ON PACE TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE COMPLETE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TOMORROW. SO THAT REVIEW IS GOING TO GET UNDERWAY HERE SOON. SO I THINK OVERALL A GOOD REPORT. YOU HAVE THE ONE FINDING AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE ARE TO DATE WITH THE. WITH THAT I'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCIL 
          [00:20:01]
MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS. I GO AHEAD. WELL MY QUESTION IS IS I DO REMEMBER THERE BEING SIMILAR FINDINGS ABOUT NOT LOOKING FOR THESE CONTRACTORS IN A PRIOR FINDING. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS THAN THE. PROCEDURES THAT WE PUT IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CHECKING FOR THOSE CONTRACTORS PRIOR? IS THIS SOMETHING SEPARATE, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT WE FIXED AND THEN HAVE REVERTED BACK TO MAYBE OLD HABITS? I CAN TALK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. THAT WAS A FINDING TWO YEARS PRIOR OF THAT CHECKING THE SUSPENDED, THIS EXACT FINDING, RIGHT? YES. ON DIFFERENT AUDIT PROGRAMS. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS ON ARPA. SO PART OF THAT IS EDUCATING DEPARTMENTS ON THE PROCESS BECAUSE GRANTS THEY ALL HAVE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL GRANTS, HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT FOR THE CHECKING OF THE SUSPENDED AND THE BARRED LISTING. AND THE POINT WHEN WE'VE BEEN CHECKING IT IS ALSO NOT GREAT. WE'VE BEEN CHECKING IT ONCE IT COMES THROUGH OUR SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHAT IT HAS ALREADY PROBABLY GONE TO. COUNCIL ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE BID OPENING IMPACT AWARDING PROCESS, AND WE'VE ALREADY SIGNED THE CONTRACT. SO WE WANT TO GET INTO THAT PROCESS A LOT EARLIER. ESSENTIALLY, ONCE WE'RE READY TO OFFER OR LOOK AT THE BIDS, LET'S CHECK IT THEN. 
          SO WE'RE NOT EVEN TRYING TO OFFER IT TO SOMEBODY THAT SHOULDN'T GET THE OFFER TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH THAT. THERE'S VERY FEW THAT ARE ON THAT LIST THAT WE HAVE EVER CONTRACTED WITH, BUT IF AT ALL. BUT WE WANT CATCH THAT VERY EARLY. AND THAT TAKES A LOT OF COORDINATION, BECAUSE UNLESS EVERYONE KNOWS, THEY MIGHT MISS THAT. AND ONE OF THE WAYS WE TALKED ABOUT BRIDGING THAT GAP IS AS WE REVIEW THE WORKFLOW WITH OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF WE IN THE FINANCE AREA, IF WE IDENTIFY A PARTICULAR CONTRACT THAT CITES FEDERAL FUNDS WITHIN THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, THAT'S A TRIGGER FOR US, AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US, QUITE FRANKLY, TO CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT AND SAY, HEY, CAN YOU ATTACH THE DEMONSTRATION THAT YOU CHECKED THIS CONTRACTOR ON THE LIST OF DEBARRED OR SUSPENDED CONTRACTORS? AND SO THAT'S A WAY THAT WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT. AS AS MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DON'T GENERALLY SEE THE CONTRACTS UNTIL A REQUISITION IS OPENED IN THE SYSTEM. SO IT COULD BE THAT A DEPARTMENT COMES TO COUNCIL WITH A COUNCIL REQUEST FOR A CONTRACT. AND THEN OUR TEAM OVER IN THE PROCUREMENT AREA DOESN'T SEE IT UNTIL THE REQUISITION IS SUBMITTED. SO THAT'S WHERE THE TIMING IS A LITTLE BIT OFF. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IS TALKING WITH STAFF, AND THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU ARE CHECKING. DON'T JUST GO OUT AND CHECK. YOU NEED TO DO A SCREENSHOT AND ATTACH THAT TO THE FILE, THE PROCUREMENT FILE. 
          I THINK THAT'LL REALLY HELP TOO, BECAUSE THE KEY IN THIS IS BEING ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE, NOT JUST SAY YOU DID IT, BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WAS CHECKED AND THERE WAS A VERIFICATION. 
          AND THE WAY YOU CAN DO THAT IS BY SCREENSHOTTING IT AND PUT IT IN THE FILE. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TO BRIDGE THE GAP A LITTLE BIT ON THE TIMING OF THESE PARTICULAR FINDINGS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THESE CONTRACTS. DO YOU SEE THIS AS BEING AT THE AT THE DIRECTOR LEVEL BEFORE THEY SUBMIT THEIR MEMO? RIGHT. THAT THEY THAT THEY HAVE LOOKED OVER ALL OF THEIR CONTRACTS, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD RARELY SEE? AND IT REALLY IS A MUNICIPAL SERVICES. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE FOR ME, IT GETS A LITTLE FUZZY. IDEALLY IT DEPENDS ON WHO SUBMITS THE CONTRACT. IF MUNICIPAL SERVICES IS SUBMITTING A CONTRACT TO A VENDOR, THEN YES, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE. BUT THERE ARE DEPARTMENTS THAT SUBMIT THEIR OWN CONTRACT AWARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER TYPES OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THAT MUNICIPAL SERVICES DOESN'T SEE UNTIL IT COMES THROUGH THE COUNCIL WORKFLOW PROCESS, THROUGH OUR LEGISLATOR SYSTEM. SO THAT'S WHY I MADE THE COMMENT THAT IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT. THE COMMENT I'M SORRY, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR KEVIN. ARE THESE DEBARMENT RESEARCH REQUIRED FOR ALL FEDERAL CONTRACTS OR JUST ONES OVER 25,000? YEAH, I BELIEVE $25,000 IS THE SCOPE. I THINK IT WOULD BE A BEST PRACTICE TO ALWAYS DO A QUICK CHECK ON SAM.GOV. THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY EASY TO DO, BUT AS FAR AS THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE, IT'S 25,000. YEAH. AND NOT EVERY CONTRACT IS GOING TO COME TO COUNCIL. SO THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENTS SO THAT ANYTIME WE'RE PROCURING AND WE HAVE A GRANT IN PLACE, WE'RE GOING TO FRONT AND WORK WITH THE WORK AS A TEAM TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE THE MORE EYES ON IT, THE BETTER, THE MORE OFTEN WE'LL CATCH THAT STUFF. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE IF THE MEMO COMES TO COUNCIL THAT THERE'S A STATEMENT VERIFIED SO THAT WHEN WE'RE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPROVING A CONTRACT, WE KNOW, LIKE WE SAY, CONTRACTS REVIEWED BY LEGAL DEPARTMENT, REVIEWED BY FINANCE OR WHATEVER, THIS WOULD JUST BE A HOW WOULD WE HOW WOULD WE 
          [00:25:04]
KNOW WHEN WE VOTE IN THE COUNCIL THAT THIS PROCESS HAS HAPPENED? WELL, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE COULD DO BOTH. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CONTRACT DOCUMENT IS WHAT COUNCIL APPROVES. SO IDEALLY IT WOULD BE GOOD TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE CHECK AT THE TIME THE COUNCIL MEMO IS SUBMITTED INTO THE SYSTEM. FOR THOSE THAT ARE OVER 25,000, MORE THAN 75,000 MORE THAN THE DIRECTOR'S AUTHORIZATION. THAT WAY, IT'S PART OF THE ACTUAL PUBLIC RECORD THAT THE DEPARTMENT, WHETHER IT BE MUNICIPAL SERVICES OR ANOTHER DEPARTMENT, DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY DID CHECK IT. AND THAT WHOLE DOCUMENT AS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO OF THE MEMO THAT COMES FORWARD. 
          OKAY. AND I THINK WE'RE JUST GOING TO WORK THROUGH THIS BECAUSE I CAN SEE THERE'S LOTS OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN 25 AND 75 THAT NEVER HIT COUNCIL. I MEAN, THAT'S THE BULK OF WHAT WHAT THIS IS. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE YOU KNOW, IT'S AN ALWAYS CHECK OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY BRING THESE CONTRACTS FORWARD, WHAT THEIR FUNDING IS. WE JUST GOT TO BE BETTER ON THAT ONE. SO WE'LL WORK ON THAT INTERNALLY. BUT IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT WAS AT LEAST ONE BIG CONTRACT THAT DIDN'T GET CHECKED. OKAY, KEVIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I JUST DIDN'T WANT COUNCIL TO BE SURPRISED IN APRIL. SO THANK YOU. YEAH YEAH FOR SURE. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO THE PROGRESS REPORT ON THE AUDIT AND LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING YOU AND SEEING YOU AGAIN ANYTIME. THANK YOU. TALK TO YOU LATER. OKAY. THANK YOU. BYE. OKAY. COUNCIL, OUR NEXT 
          [Municipal Services, Legal, Mayor's Office, CDS]
ITEM FOR DISCUSSION IS WITH OBVIOUSLY MUNICIPAL SERVICES, LEGAL, THE MAYOR'S OFFICE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AS WE DISCUSS THE IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE, THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS MET PRIOR. I SEE VIC, ARE YOU THE SPOKESMAN FOR TJ IS ON HIS WAY. OKAY, SO HE'S THE SPOKESMAN. OKAY, I GUESS WE WILL TURN THE TIME TO DIRECTOR ALEXANDER AND WAIT FOR TJ TO ARRIVE. OKAY. WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. IF I COULD HAVE. EMILY. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TODAY. AND THEN THE OTHER THING, IF I COULD GIVE YOU A REAL QUICK UPDATE, AND I'VE ACTUALLY GOT OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR HERE THAT WE CAN SPEND SOME TIME WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR OUR CHAIR TO COME TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE UPDATE. SO WE HAVE AN UPDATE TO THE PARKS CAPITAL PLAN, AND IF I MAY HAVE DIRECTOR PJ HOLM COME UP AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THAT HAPPENED AND WHY IT HAPPENED AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO IF YOU DON'T MIND AND I WILL LET YOU TALK. OKAY. THANK YOU. PAM. YEAH. SO ONE, ONE CHANGE THAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THE LAST TIME THE STUDY CAME TO COUNCIL WAS THE SWAP OUT OF ONE OF THE USE OF OUR INDOOR RECREATION CENTER FUNDS. SO AS WE KNOW, THE NEW UPDATED STUDY HAS REMOVED NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AS WELL AS INDOOR RECREATION CENTER FEES FROM THE PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. 
          BUT WE DO HAVE THOSE FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT HAVE BEEN ACCUMULATING, AND WE STILL HAVE PLANS TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS. AND AT THE TIME THAT THE THAT WE HAD FIRST SUBMITTED OUR LAST CIP FOR THE STUDY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS AND HAS BEEN IN OUR IN OUR REQUEST PILE OF OR OUR LIST OF OF REQUESTS FOR THE AQUATIC FACILITY IS SOME KIND OF A FUN FEATURE FOR THAT FACILITY. SO IN A SLIDE IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS. 
          OVER THERE WE HAD LOOKED AT THE MONEY THAT HAD BEEN HAS BEEN COLLECTED, AND WHAT THE BEST USE OF THAT WAS FOR AND WITHOUT HAVING A COMMUNITY CENTER, MAYBE ON THE DOCKET AT THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THOSE FUNDS, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD A PROJECT THAT WAS VIABLE, TO BE ABLE TO BE USED IN THE TIME FRAME THAT THOSE NEEDED TO BE USED IN. SO WE LOOKED AT A SLIDE OVER AT THE AQUATIC CENTER AS WE'VE STARTED LOOKING AT A FEW MORE FACILITIES. AND THAT FUNDING THAT THAT HAS BEEN EARMARKED FOR INDOOR REC CENTERS IN OUR IMPACT FEES, WE'VE REALLY LOOKED AT A FEW MORE NEEDS AND AND A FEW THINGS. ONE OF THOSE NEEDS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE SEE THAT HAS CONTINUED TO POP UP AND IS KIND OF RAISED UP IN A PRIORITY, IS A SECOND SHEET OF ICE. THIS IS ANOTHER SOMETHING THAT WAS PART OF THE OFFICE PARK MASTER PLAN FROM 2016, AND SOMETHING THAT THAT IS DEFINITELY NEEDED AS OUR 
          [00:30:06]
COMMUNITY CONTINUES TO GROW AND AS WE HAVE MORE FOLKS MOVING IN, WE HAVE MORE OF A NEED FOR FACILITIES FOR COMPETITIVE AND RECREATIONAL SPORTS. AND SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY GROUPS IN IN OUR COMMUNITY AT THIS POINT. AND THERE'S JUST A GROWTH THAT IS HAPPENING BETWEEN THE SPUD KINGS BEING AS POPULAR AS THEY'VE BEEN TO UTAH, MAMMOTH COMING ON BOARD DOWN IN UTAH, HOCKEY AND ICE SPORTS IN GENERAL HAVE REALLY BEEN GROWING IN THE NEED AND JUST GROWING PARTICIPATION. SO IN THE PLAN BEFORE IT WAS FULLY SUBMITTED AND THROUGH AS THE AS WE'RE WORKING ON GETTING THINGS APPROVED AND AND WORKED THROUGH ON THAT PLAN, WE DECIDED TO PULL THAT SLIDE OUT AND PUT IN A SECOND SHEET OF ICE FOR USE OF THAT FUNDING. RIGHT NOW, THERE'S LITTLE SHY OF OF $1 MILLION, I BELIEVE, IN THAT INDOOR RECREATION FUND. A NEW SHEET OF ICE WILL PROBABLY BE, I WOULD SAY, IN THE 2 TO $3 MILLION RANGE. IS IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE WHERE WE'RE LOOKING. CITY OF REXBURG. THERE WAS A SHEET OF ICE THAT JUST GOT BUILT UP THERE FOR THE FULL FACILITY. IT WAS ABOUT 5 MILLION, BUT THAT WAS TO START FROM SCRATCH, WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE THE FACILITY IN OFFICE PARK TO DO AN ADDITION UTILIZING SOME OF THE COMPRESSION SYSTEMS, SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE ZAMBONI AND SOME OF THE SPACE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT WE WON'T NEED LOCKER ROOMS AND ADDITIONAL SPACE, REALLY JUST A SHEET OF ICE. AND SO THAT HAS BEEN UPDATED IN OUR CIP. AND WE'RE EXCITED THAT HOPEFULLY TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE SOME PARKS IMPACT FEES TO HELP US JUMPSTART THAT PROJECT IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PIECE FOR ME? YES. SO DO WE HAVE TO MOVE A SOFTBALL FIELD TO DO THAT? WE DO TWO OF THEM OR, WELL, ONE REALLY FOR THAT FACILITY. BUT THE OFFICE PARK MASTER PLAN DOES HAVE FOR FUTURE GROWTH TO BE ABLE TO TAKE OUT CRANOR AND CHAPPELL FIELDS AND, AND MOVE THOSE TO ANOTHER FACILITY THAT OPENS UP SPACE FOR NOT ONLY THE SECOND SHEET OF ICE, BUT AS WELL AS PARKING WITHIN OFFICE FOR THE ICE SHEET AND FOR THE ZOO. SO THIS WOULD REALLY HELP THE ENTIRE PARK FLOW A LOT BETTER AND OPERATE A LOT SMOOTHER AND SAFER FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND SO PART OF OUR OUR FIRST PROJECT THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO UTILIZE OUR COMMUNITY PARK FEES WITHIN CAPITAL, WITHIN THE IMPACT FEES, IS TO DEVELOP SANDY DOWNS INTO A SPORTS COMPLEX. AND SO OUT AT SANDY DOWNS. WE DO INTEND TO PUT IN A COUPLE OF CLOVERS OR OR AT LEAST PROBABLY 4 TO 6 FIELDS MINIMALLY FOR SOFTBALL, BASEBALL. AND SO THOSE FIELDS WOULD BE THE THEY ARE DEFINITELY IN NEED TO BE BUILT OUT OF SANDY DOWNS BEFORE WE TAKE THOSE OUT OF PLAY. AND SO IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE SOMETHING THAT AS WE BUILD OUT SANDY DOWNS, WE'LL HOPEFULLY HAVE THAT TIMED CORRECTLY TO BE ABLE TO THEN REMOVE THOSE FROM USE AND BUILD OUT THAT SECOND SHEET, PROBABLY IN IN A FEW YEARS HERE. SO I MY QUESTION THEN IS JUST TO GET THE PROCESS CORRECT. THE IMPACT FEES WE HAVE, THE ORDINANCE, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GOES TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL AS PART OF THE IMPACT FEE. SO WITH THIS NEW CIP, THIS PLAN IS FOR SURE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND MOVE THROUGH THE CIP PROCESS. SO THERE'S OTHER CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE LATER TODAY. BUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, THIS WILL COME BACK TO OUR PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL IN THE CIP TO BE ADOPTED, BECAUSE IT'S THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AND CIP PLAN THAT THEN GETS PUT INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO I JUST IT WILL DEPEND ON BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE IT'S ALREADY BEEN BEFORE. IF IT CHANGES, IT'S CHANGED. I MEAN THIS HAS CHANGED. YEAH. IT'S CHANGED. THAT'S THE QUESTION. THIS IS A MATERIAL ENOUGH CHANGE. WE'VE GONE FROM A AQUATIC CENTER SLIDE TO A SHEET OF ICE AT AN OFFICE PARK. AND MAYOR BURTENSHAW, IF I MAY CLARIFY THAT, THAT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WE SPOKE WITH OUR CONSULTANT ABOUT IT. 
          AND THE KEY IS SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. IF WE ARE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF HUNDRED DOLLARS OR A COUPLE THOUSAND DOLLARS, THAT'S REALLY NOT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF 
          [00:35:03]
SIGNIFICANCE, BUT SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE AND CHANGING CATEGORIES AND CHANGING IT DOES, IN FACT CHANGE THE TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE OF THE PARKS CAPITAL GROUP PLAN, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE IT WAS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH FOR IT TO GO BACK TO THE FUNDING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND INCORPORATION INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION, WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. THIS IN AND OF ITSELF IS GOING TO JUMP START THAT PROCESS GOING BACK THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THANK YOU, DIRECTOR HOME. 
          THANK YOU. YOU BET. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU COUNCIL OKAY. THANK YOU. SO SO I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CHAIR OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO APPROACH THE TABLE. THIS IS TJ TJ NELSON. AND HE'S GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THE THOUGHTS AND COMMENTS FROM THE IMPACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY CLERK. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU SO MUCH EMILY, FOR PULLING UP THE SLIDE AND DOING SOME BASIC INTRODUCTIONS. WE HAD JUST TO GO OVER REAL QUICKLY. OUR LAST MEETING WAS FEBRUARY 10TH, WHERE WE WENT OVER THE DATA REQUESTED BY THE COMMITTEE, WHICH INCLUDED THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE DATA FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. AND THANK YOU TO DIRECTOR SANDER AND HIS TEAM FOR PULLING THAT TOGETHER FOR US. WE WERE ALSO ASKED TO PROVIDE A LIST OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVED IMPACT FEE WAIVERS, WHICH I BELIEVE I MENTIONED AT OUR LAST WORK SESSION, BUT WE HAVE A TOTAL OF THREE THAT I MENTIONED THE TAIL WATER DEVELOPMENT, WHITE FEATHER APARTMENTS, THAT'S THE SAME DEVELOPER, WASATCH DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ORCHARD PARK SENIOR LIVING. AND FINALLY THE THIRD WAS THOMAS DEVELOPMENT WAS AN EIGHT UNIT SENIOR HOUSING PROGRAM THAT'S OVER ON HOOPS AVENUE. SO WE DID CONFIRM THAT WITH OUR IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND WITH THAT, THERE WAS A REVIEW OF THE TABLE. AND IF I MAY, I'M GOING TO HAVE OUR CHAIR GO OVER HIS THOUGHTS. I'M GOING TO HAND YOU OUT EACH A HARD COPY AS WELL AS HE'S TALKING. OKAY. WELL, WE LIKE I SAID, WE HAD OUR MEETING ON THE IMPACT FEES. THE INFORMATION THAT WE GOT FROM DIRECTOR SANDER WAS REALLY, ACTUALLY HELPFUL BECAUSE WE COULD TAKE THE AVERAGE NUMBERS WITH THE BASEMENT FINISHED, WITHOUT THE BASEMENT FINISHED, AND WE COULD KIND OF RUN THROUGH THE CALCULATION TABLE ON THAT. JUST AS A CLARIFICATION, SINCE WE, WE WE HAD THAT LAST MEETING. WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. I WAS ABLE TO SEND OUT AN EMAIL TO ALL OF THE OTHER MEMBERS ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND RICHARD STEWART AND NICK TERRY WERE THE TWO THAT GOT BACK TO ME ON THAT. 
          BUT I DIDN'T HEAR BACK FROM TWO OF THE OTHER MEMBERS. JEFF WANTED TO LOOK AT IT MORE IN DETAIL, AND JULIA NEVER HEARD BACK FROM. SO THIS IS JUST CLARIFICATION ON ON HOW THAT ALL WORKED OUT. I THINK THE CONSENSUS AS FAR AS OUR WHEN WE WERE TALKING THROUGH THIS, I MEAN, I STILL THINK THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS, IS A STICKING POINT FOR US, RIGHT? AS FAR AS THE IMPACT FEES AND THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON THE COMMUNITY TO CALCULATE THAT IN. AND IT ALSO MAKES A HUGE CHANGE ON, ON THE ACTUAL FEES THAT ARE CHARGED AT THE TIME THAT A PERSON PULLS A PERMIT WITH, INCLUDING THAT CALCULATION. AND I JUST USE THE AVERAGE NUMBERS OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT I PROVIDED BY WAIT TO SEE WHAT ACTUALLY IT WOULD DO TO THOSE THAT FEE SCHEDULE. AND ON THE NOTES ON THE BOTTOM, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT INCREASES THE FEE SCHEDULE BASED ON ADDING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THERE'S ALSO BEEN TALK THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SOLD THAT THE LARGER HOUSES NECESSARILY HAVE THE PROPORTIONAL THE PROPORTIONAL IMPACT ON THE CITY SERVICES. BECAUSE OF THE AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSES IN IDAHO FALLS AND WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, THERE'S THE THE SMALLER HOUSES HAVE A, YOU KNOW, THE STUDY THAT THEY USED TO DO, THE, THE THE SCHEDULE BASED ON SIZE AND THE PERSON PER HOUSEHOLD WAS DONE, I THINK IN 2022 OR 23, I DON'T REMEMBER. BUT ANYWAY, THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK AND DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER THAT THAT ACTUALLY IS AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THOSE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CALCULATE FOR THE FEES TO THE CITY. WE ALSO HAD CONVERSATION ABOUT, OBVIOUSLY, WHAT'S 
          [00:40:04]
INCLUDED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, HOW IS IT FIGURED? WHO FIGURES IT? WHAT'S THE DEFINITION? SO SOME OF THAT WAS ALL TALKED ABOUT. BUT YEAH, OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S KIND OF I MEAN THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. AND IF I COULD ADD CHAIR, JUST AN INQUIRY. WHEN WE WENT OVER THE AFFORDABLE IMPACT FEE WAIVERS, I BELIEVE THE CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMITTEE AT OUR FEBRUARY 10TH MEETING WAS TO GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE, WAS THE CONSENSUS THAT THERE WASN'T A FORMAL VOTE TAKEN, BUT THERE WAS SOME CONSENSUS FROM THE GROUP TO GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THOSE IN THE ORDINANCE. IS THAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS WELL? I DON'T I MEAN, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS JUST FOR ONE. WE WANTED TO KNOW HOW IT WORKED, KIND OF HOW THE PROCESS COMES TOGETHER. THERE WAS THREE, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS THREE PROJECTS, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED LAST TIME I WAS HERE THAT ON AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAIVER REQUEST, IF THE CITY HAS TO COME UP WITH THE FUNDS TO TO MAKE THAT WHOLE AND THEY DO SO THAT THAT WAS JUST A CLARIFICATION. WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK THROUGH IT TOO MUCH. THE THE MAIN POINT WAS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN SOME CREATIVE IDEAS IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THEY'RE DOING. AND OUR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS, WELL, WE ONLY HAD THREE IN THE LAST, WHATEVER, THREE AND A HALF, FOUR YEARS, WHICH WHICH ISN'T A TON OTHER THAN TAKE IT OUT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN STILL SAY NO TO A REQUEST THAT COMES IN. BUT IF SOMEONE DOES COME IN WITH AN APPLICATION THAT YOU KNOW IS GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND IT DOES MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHETHER IT'S WORKFORCE HOUSING OR FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS OR WHATEVER, TO HAVE THAT OPTION ON THE TABLE. IF THE CITY HAS FUNDS OR IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING COMES, COMES AVAILABLE THAT THEY COULD SAY, YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD PROJECT, YOU KNOW, LET'S HELP OUT THAT THAT WAS THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. OH, SO THE OTHER THE OTHER STICKING POINT FOR THE THE VEHICLE IS THE POLICE VEHICLES. I MEAN, I'LL TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW, I THINK ALL MOST OF THE MOST OF THE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE QUESTION THAT THE POLICE VEHICLES ARE GOING TO HAVE A TEN YEAR LIFESPAN AND THAT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE TRACKED THROUGHOUT THAT PURPOSE BECAUSE THEY SAY THEIR POLICE CRUISERS, THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, AN AMBULANCE OR A FIRE TRUCK OR SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD SEE HAVE A TEN YEAR LIFESPAN. THE POLICE VEHICLES ARE ON A LEASE PROGRAM, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW HOW THAT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. RIGHT. AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL I MEAN, 1.1 MILLION, I THINK IS WHAT IT WAS OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER COMES DOWN TO, IT STILL HAS AN EFFECT. AND THAT THAT'S BEEN THAT'S BEEN A PRETTY CONSISTENT STICKING POINT FROM THE COMMITTEE FROM THE GET GO. JAKE. THANK YOU. YEAH. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR TJ OR ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS? NICK TERRY. AND THEN I NOTICED MR. STEWART JUST WALKED IN THE THE DOOR. AND IF I COULD CLARIFY REAL QUICKLY FOR CITY ATTORNEY, OUR CHAIR, TJ NELSON, SENT OUT SEPARATE EMAILS. IT WASN'T A GROUP EMAIL. IT WASN'T GROUP CONSENSUS. IT WAS JUST MORE OF A HEY, WHEN WE LAST MET, THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. IT DID INCLUDE A TABLE WITH SOME ADDITIONAL NOTES THAT OUR CHAIR WAS ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER, BUT IT WAS NOT. AN LIKE AN UNNOTICED CEREAL MINI. IT DIDN'T QUALIFY AS THAT. I DO HAVE ALL OF THE EMAILS I WAS COPIED ON, AND I CAN VALIDATE THAT THERE WAS NOT ANY. WHAT DO YOU CALL UNPUBLISHED OR UNPUBLISHED HEARING UNNOTICED PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO JUST TO CONFIRM THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER SO DID THE COMMITTEE. SEEMS LIKE PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. LIKE HOW DO WE KNOW TEN YEARS FROM NOW THEY'RE STILL KEEPING DID YOU STILL DISCUSS THAT OR DO YOU FIGURE THAT'S UNDER CONTROL AT THE LAST MEETING WE DID I MEAN, WE HAD IN THE PAST HAD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, OKAY, LET'S SAY SOMEONE PUTS IN A REQUEST FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES THESE OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENTS SOMETIMES WILL COME IN, APPLY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND THEN THEY SELL THE PROJECT. RIGHT. AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A WAY TO TRACK WHETHER IT'S A DEED RESTRICTION OR SOMETHING THAT THAT KEEPS THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND IT CAN'T FLIP IN FIVE YEARS OR WHATEVER IT IS. 
          SO THAT REMAINS A CONCERN. IT DOES REMAIN A CONCERN. YEAH. OKAY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE 
          [00:45:01]
SHARED WITH THE COMMITTEE, AS FAR AS WHAT THE PROCESS WAS, IS, IF YOU RECALL, A COUPLE YEARS AGO, WE ACTUALLY PREPARED AN APPLICATION THAT THE DEVELOPERS REQUIRED TO FILL OUT AND COMPLETE THAT DOES VALIDATE THAT REQUIREMENT. THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THE ORDINANCE TO HOLD THAT PROPERTY IN CURRENT STATUS FOR, I BELIEVE IT'S A 20 YEAR TERM IN THE ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT THAT IMPROVES, I THINK OUR OUR INTERNAL CONTROL PROCESSES AND BEING ABLE TO AT LEAST BEING ABLE TO SOLIDIFY THAT, THAT WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS ARE OF THE DEVELOPER, IF THEY WANT TO REQUEST A WAIVER IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THEIR HUD APPLICATION, THAT THEY WILL SUBMIT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. OKAY. AND I GUESS GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. YEAH. 
          SO IF I'M HEARING YOU RIGHT, THE COMMITTEE IS SUGGESTING THAT MAYBE SQUARE FOOTAGE CAN'T BE WORKED OUT EQUITABLY, AND THE SUGGESTION WOULD BE CLOSER, EVEN THOUGH NOT PERFECT, WOULD BE BY DOOR BUILDING. WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT IS THAT WE KIND OF WENT BACK TO, I MEAN, WE KIND OF DID TALK THROUGH THAT, RIGHT? THE ORIGINAL THING WAS SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS, LET'S SEE WHAT IT DOES TO THE FEE SCHEDULE. AND WHEN YOU. BUT BUT THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT CHANGES THE FEE SCHEDULE A TON. RIGHT. AND THERE IS AN AFFORDABILITY ISSUE THAT THERE'S MORE HOUSES BEING BUILT WITH UNFINISHED BASEMENTS. RIGHT. AND THE THE COUNCIL'S DECISION WAS, WELL, HOW DO THEY COLLECT THE, THE FEES ON THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT WHEN THEY GO TO GET IT AT THE TIME? AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS TO THAT, BUT WE ARE IT JUST DRASTICALLY CHANGES WHAT THE FEE SCHEDULE LOOKS LIKE. BASED ON THE NUMBERS WE GOT FROM TISCHLER BICE IN THE SCHEDULE. RIGHT, YOU TAKE A 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE WITH AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT. THAT'S THAT'S CALCULATED AT 3000 SQUARE FOOT. IT PUTS THEM IN A WHOLE NOTHER CLASS OF OF HIGHER FEES. RIGHT. WHICH I DON'T LIKE, BUT. AND IF I COULD CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT OF A CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE LAST PROBABLY YEAR AND A HALF WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES IS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE GOAL, OR THE THOUGHT WAS AT THE TIME THAT IT MIGHT PERHAPS SIMPLIFY THE FEE SCHEDULE BY NOT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE AND MULTIFAMILY. AND SO THAT THAT WAS WHAT WE STARTED OFF WITH JUST TALKING ABOUT. IS THERE A WAY THAT PERHAPS WE CAN SIMPLIFY THINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE, SIMPLIFY THINGS FOR THE DEVELOPERS. BUT BUT AS OUR CHAIR HAS MENTIONED, THAT AS WE STARTED LOOKING THROUGH THE THE NUMBERS STARTED GETTING CALCULATED. AND THEN WITH THE CONVERSATION WE HAD WITH THE UNFINISHED BASEMENTS, THAT CLEARLY, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE TABLE, DOES HAVE WHAT AN UNANTICIPATED IMPACT THAT WE WEREN'T ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATING. WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS AND THE DEFINITION. SO IF WE DO GO BACK TO A PER DOOR, WE'LL HAVE TO REALLY TIGHTEN DOWN SOME OF THOSE DESCRIPTIONS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE AS PART OF THE IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE. AND I DON'T KNOW, DIRECTOR SANDER, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO WHAT I JUST SAID? DOING GOOD. ALL RIGHT. GOT THOSE DEFINITIONS READY JUST IN YOUR CONVERSATIONS AND LOOKING AT THIS, HAVE WE ARE THERE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THESE SAME PROBLEMS? AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE COME UP WITH SOME INNOVATIVE CONCEPT OR WAY OF LOOKING AT IT, OR AS FAR AS THE IMPACT FEES GO? YEAH, THE IMPACT FEES. AND I GUESS FIRST I'D LOOK AT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE THING, YOU KNOW, THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT. SO, SO THE, THE ONE OF THE MAIN DIFFERENCES IS, IS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE, THE STATE AND THE BOISE MERIDIAN, THEY DON'T DO A LOT OF BASEMENTS. RIGHT. IT'S A DIFFERENT MARKET. LIKE I KNOW A LOT OF BUILDERS UP THERE. I TALK TO THEM. YEAH. SO SO IT'S IT'S A DIFFERENT MARKET UP THERE. EVEN IN TWIN FALLS THEY DON'T DO A TON OF BASEMENTS HERE IS YOU KNOW, BASEMENTS ARE A HUGE THING AND THEY'RE A HUGE SELLING POINT AND THEY'RE CHEAPER TO FINISH YOUR YOUR BASEMENT. AND PEOPLE CAN BUILD SOME EQUITY IN AS THEY DO IT. 
          SO AS FAR AS I THINK COLLIN SAID, THERE'S TWO THERE'S TWO PLACES RIGHT NOW IN IDAHO THAT THAT GO OFF OF FINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS. BUT BOTH OF THOSE PLACES ARE PLACES WHERE PREDOMINANTLY THEY DON'T HAVE BASEMENTS, RIGHT. SO IT'S PRETTY EASY. IT'S ABOVE GROUND. 
          IT'S USUALLY ALL FINISHED. THERE'S NOT MUCH DEBATE IN THAT. ANY ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT A PRO RATA ON THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT. I'M JUST I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT'S MY IDEA. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO SPITBALL AND SAY, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE SOME VALUE. AND TO THINK 
          [00:50:05]
THAT PEOPLE DON'T UTILIZE IT AS LIVING SPACE IS A LITTLE NAIVE. THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN IS, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S A WAY TO BUILD EQUITY. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT A LID ON ON THAT CREATIVITY AND THAT ABILITY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND A, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE, I GUESS. YEAH, THERE'S SOME VALUE IN A FINISHED AND AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT AS FAR AS IT'S SPACE THAT YOU CAN USE. RIGHT. BUT IS IT IS THERE MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE, ARE ASSOCIATED WITH UNFINISHED BASEMENT THAT ARE CAUSING A STRESS ON CITY SERVICES OR MORE CITY SERVICES? I GUESS THAT'S THE REALLY THE REAL DEBATE, BECAUSE THE CALCULATIONS ARE LAID OUT BY SIZE OF HOUSE IN RELATION TO NUMBER OF PEOPLE. RIGHT? AND SO EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT THAT INCREASES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE SIZE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY CORRELATE WITH MORE PEOPLE IN THAT HOUSE. I GUESS THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD ON THAT IS WHAT IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE. AND THEN WHEN YOU DO IT LIKE THAT, IT'S REALLY IT'S A PROPORTIONALLY WEIGHED SUPER HEAVY ON, ON LARGER HOUSES. 
          RIGHT. WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT THE MARKET AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW, THE PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THOSE, THOSE BIGGER HOUSES AREN'T NECESSARILY PUTTING MORE OF A BURDEN ON CITY SERVICES. AND THAT'S MY OPINION FROM WHAT I SEE AS A BUILDER. SO THERE'S THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND DISCUSSED. AND IS THAT REALLY IS IT REALLY EQUITABLE TO DO IT THAT WAY, OR IS IT MORE FAIR TO GO BY PER DOOR WHERE IT'S IT IS WHAT IT IS. IT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRIED, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND. THE FEE SCHEDULE IS MORE IN LINE AND IT'S MORE PROPORTIONAL ACROSS THE BOARD FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. YOU KNOW, AND IF I COULD CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT IN THE IMPACT STUDY, OUR CONSULTANT USES CENSUS CENSUS DATA. AND SO THERE'S SOME CENSUS DATA OUT THERE THAT CORRELATES, YOU KNOW, LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE OR BASEMENTS WITH MORE PEOPLE. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THAT IN OUR PARTICULAR STUDY, THAT IS THE METRIC THAT'S BEING USED TO TO CALCULATE THAT. NOT TO SAY THAT WHAT CHAIR SAID SAID WASN'T CORRECT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IS IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY TODAY, IS USING CENSUS DATA. SO TJ, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO STAY TO JUST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT COME UP, I'D LIKE TO KIND OF FRAME THIS CONVERSATION FOR COUNCIL. TODAY. WE ARE REALLY LOOKING TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON THE ORDINANCE. IF WE WANT TO SEE IT GO BACK AND AND LOOK AT THE DOOR STYLE. THE HOUSE STYLE DIRECTOR CENTER SAID THAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE READY TO GO. 
          THEY'RE TIGHT ON MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY, SO WE WOULD THE ORDINANCE WOULD NEED TO BE REWRITTEN TO REFLECT THAT. THE ORDINANCE WOULD NEED TO BE REWRITTEN TO INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THEN ONE THAT HAS COME FORWARD, ACTUALLY, THAT THAT IS ONE THAT I WOULD PROPOSE, AND IT'S JUST OPEN FOR CONVERSATION, IS THAT WE HAVE EXPLICITLY REMOVED OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, WHEREAS IF WE STAY SILENT ON THEM, THEN THE OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, AND I DO HAVE A LIST OF THOSE LIKE THE SCHOOL CEI, BOTH DISTRICT 9193, THE LIBRARY DISTRICT, THE FIRE DISTRICTS, THEY WOULD NOT ANY OF THE TAXING DISTRICTS WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES. 
          THEY WOULD STILL NEED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THEIR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. I MEAN, THEY WOULD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY WOULD SAVE MONEY BY NOT PAYING IMPACT FEES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, NOW THEY MIGHT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS INTERSECTION OR THAT INTERSECTION THAT WOULD NOT BE REFUNDABLE TO THEM. BUT I DO FEEL LIKE THE CONVERSATION JUST STARTS FEELING LIKE, OH, ARE YOU DOUBLE DIPPING? SO IT'S JUST A POINT OF CONVERSATION. 
          SO WE HAVE THREE POTENTIAL ORDINANCE CHANGES. UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO ADD ORDINANCE. AND THEN WE ON OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SIDE, WE KNOW WE'VE ALREADY CHANGED THE PARKS AND REC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. PLAN. AND THEN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT POLICE CARS. 
          SO WE'D BE LOOKING AT ORDINANCE CHANGES REGARDLESS. ACTUALLY IT'S NOT. REGARDLESS, WE CAN MOVE IT FORWARD AS IT STANDS, BUT WE KNOW THAT THE CIP IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK ANYWAY THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. I FEEL LIKE NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT. WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT 
          [00:55:02]
THE APRIL MEETING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO HEAR THE TO HAVE THE HEARING. SO THIS IS NOW A CONVERSATION OPEN TO COUNCIL. AND. GIVE A GIVE A DIRECTION TO STAFF. I CAN START. 
          YES, PLEASE. I'M JUST GOING TO START WITH ONE. I THINK BASED ON A LOT OF THINGS I'VE HEARD, I'M PREPARED TO DROP THE POLICE CARS. SAME. CAN I, CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION YOU TALKED ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, BOISE IN THOSE AREAS, AND I KNOW BASEMENTS ARE PRETTY MUCH NONEXISTENT IN THOSE COMMUNITIES. SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING. JUST A SECOND, COULD WE HAVE COULD WE HAVE THEM COME FORWARD JUST JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT A GOOD RECORD BECAUSE WE'RE RECORDING THIS? YEAH. SO MY ONLY QUESTION IS, DO YOU KNOW IF IF BOISE OR MERIDIAN OR WHATEVER DO THEY CHARGE. DO THEY DO WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IN TERMS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE? DO THEY HAVE THAT OR DO THEY JUST HAVE A PER DOOR KIND OF THING? DO YOU HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE ON THAT? WELL, I CAN FIND THAT OUT FOR YOU BECAUSE BECAUSE AT THE STATE LEVEL WE TRACK WHAT'S GOING ON JUST AS FAR AS THE IMPACT FEES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S EACH CITY IS DIFFERENT. SO YOU HAVE MERIDIAN AND YOU HAVE STAR BOISE AND YOU HAVE KUNA AND YOU HAVE ALL THESE AND THEY ALL ARE CALCULATED A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO EVEN WITHIN THE BOISE METRO, EACH CITY CALCULATES THEM A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. SO I DON'T KNOW 100%. COUNCIL MEMBER LARSON I CAN ANSWER SOME OF THAT FOR YOU. YES. THANK YOU I APPRECIATE IT. 
          SO BOISE'S IS CALCULATED. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BY CLIMATE CONTROL SQUARE FOOTAGE NAMPA'S PER UNIT. TWIN FALLS PER UNIT. SO THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, A SINGLE FAMILY AND THEN A MULTIFAMILY. AND SO SO A SINGLE FAMILY DOESN'T MATTER. SQUARE FOOTAGE PER UNIT. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. IT'S JUST A FLAT FEE. CORRECT. AND SOME OF THEM ARE DOING WHAT YOU SAY HVAC BASICALLY. YEAH. WHICH IS KIND OF THIS IDEA OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE CLIMATE CONTROLLED SQUARE FOOTAGE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S A SQUARE FOOTAGE ISSUE. YEAH. OKAY. AND WHEN I TALK TO COLLIN, HE SAID THAT MOST OF THE ONES WHO ARE DOING SQUARE FOOTAGE ARE ACTUALLY MORE IN THE RESORT AREAS OF BOISE IS AN OUTLIER, BUT SOME OF THEM ARE. HALEY VALLEY ISH. I'M NOT. 
          DON'T QUOTE ME ON THOSE EXACT MCCALL MCCALL'S IN THEIR PROCESS RIGHT NOW. AND THEY'RE THEY'RE LOOKING AT A BY SQUARE FOOTAGE METHODOLOGY AS THE LAND PRICES GO UP. HOUSES. SO I'M ALSO GOOD WITH THE TAXING DISTRICTS BEING. EXEMPTED FROM THE IMPACT BEING WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. SO REMAIN SILENT ON THAT ISSUE. NO, NOT REMAIN SILENT. RIGHT. IF YOU REMAIN SILENT ON THE ISSUE, THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. SO WE BUT WE YOU HAVE TO EXPLICITLY INCLUDE THEM IN THE ORDINANCE IN ORDER FOR THEM TO PAY. SO THE REMAIN SILENT REMAINS SILENT ON. THAT IS MY IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE. OKAY. I SUPPORT THEM AS WELL. AND HERE'S ONE REASON WE OFTEN GET THESE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. HOW CAN YOU HELP THE SCHOOLS WITH FACILITIES? THIS IS ONE SMALL STEP. MY LAST POINT IS I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHICH IS MORE EQUITABLE, THE UNIT IDEA OR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT I WOULD BE VERY RELUCTANT TO GO FOR SQUARE FOOTAGE AND EXCUSE BASEMENTS AND OR UNFINISHED SECOND STORIES. I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT CAN BE EQUITABLE. AND I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE POINTS OF THE IMPACT FEES IS TO KEEP IT TO ONE TIME PAYMENT. THIS IS IT. SO IF I, IN MY IMAGINATION, BUILD A HOUSE WITH TWO STORIES AND A BASEMENT, AND I ONLY FINISHED THE FIRST FLOOR BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I CAN AFFORD, I GOT AN UNFINISHED UPSTAIRS, UNFINISHED BASEMENT. I MIGHT BE YEARS PAYING MORE FEES. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE DESIGNED TO BE. THE REGULATION OF IT ALL. YEAH, JUST ONE FEE. HOWEVER WE DO IT, THAT'S MY GOAL. YOU PAY IT WHEN YOU BUILD IT OR WHEN YOU PULL YOUR PERMIT, AND THAT'S IT. 
          OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO ASK FOR CLARITY ON THAT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WOULD KEEP IT AT SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT JUST THE FULL SQUARE FOOTAGE? ARE YOU SAYING YOU WOULD DO IT BY DOOR BECAUSE SQUARE FOOTAGE MAKES YOU UNCOMFORTABLE? I'M TRYING TO COME AROUND TO HOW I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS DECISION. BASELINE FOR ME IS WHATEVER WE DO IN ONE FEE, OKAY? AND YOU DON'T PAY WHEN YOU START TO FINISH YOUR BASEMENT, YOU DON'T COME AND PAY AGAIN. YOU PAID IT AT THE BEGINNING AND IT'S DONE. AND I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN UNFINISHED UPSTAIRS AND AN 
          [01:00:02]
UNFINISHED BASEMENT. THEIR UNFINISHED PART OF YOUR STRUCTURE. THEY'RE LIVABLE SPACE. PERIOD. SO IF IT'S SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR ME, IT HAS TO BE THE WHOLE THE WHOLE PRODUCT. BUT I'M NOT STUCK ON THAT. IF OTHER PEOPLE THINK, OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT BE BETTER JUST TO GO TO THE UNIT IDEA, I'M OKAY AS LONG AS IT'S ONE FEE, THAT'S MY GROUND FLOOR. 
          HOW DOES THAT CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BETTER? I HAVE A QUESTION. TISCHLER BISE. DOES THEIR NUMBERS, DO THEY COME UP WITH AN IMPACT OF GROWTH COST IN THESE VARIOUS CATEGORIES AND THEN BACK INTO HOW WE FUND THAT? DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? YES. SO THEY START OUT WITH SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO COVER. SO HOW DO WE COVER THAT. SO IF THAT'S IF THAT'S ACCURATE BASED ON THAT, IF WE GO WITH THE PER DOOR, THAT'S GOING TO RAISE THE COST ON THE LOWER SMALLER HOMES NOTICEABLY. WELL NO NO IT'S PER DOOR. THERE WOULDN'T BE IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHAT SIZE OF THE HOUSE I UNDERSTAND. BUT THE POINT BEING IS RIGHT NOW I THINK HOUSES PAY MORE. SO IF WE MAKE THAT A FLAT LINE, IT'S LIKE A LIKE A FIXED OR A LEVEL TAX, RIGHT? THE PRICE THAT THOSE 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOMES ARE GOING TO PAY IRRESPECTIVE OF BASE MONTHS, ETC. THAT'S GOING TO GO UP BECAUSE YOU'RE YOU'RE BRINGING DOWN THE AMOUNT THAT'S PAID BY THE 5000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. WELL, THE WAY THAT THEY DID IT WAS BASED ON PEOPLE PER DOOR. AND SO IT WAS LIKE THERE WERE I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT WAS LIKE 2.3 PEOPLE PER DOOR IN A MULTIFAMILY AND 2.6 PEOPLE PER DOOR IS SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY HAS THE 2020 MEMORY BETTER THAN MINE. BUT IT WAS BASED ON PEOPLE, AND SO IT WASN'T AS SIGNIFICANT AS THE DIFFERENCE AS THE RATIO BETWEEN MAYBE A 1500 HOUSE AND A 6000 HOUSE. I MEAN, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF FOUR TIMES, BUT THE PEOPLE WERE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. AND SO MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY WERE MORE COMPRESSED. YEAH, BUT BUT SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY. 
          SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT'S A SQUARE FOOT 5000. BUT IT WAS 2000, RIGHT. YEAH. BUT AGAIN IT'S GOING TO BE UNIFORM ACROSS THAT WHOLE SIZE. AND TO MY MIND IT'S GOING TO PUSH. 
          WELL IT WAS BASED ON THOSE SMALLER HOMES UP IN PRICE. I MEAN IT WAS BASED ON CENSUS DATA. SO THEY IT WAS LIKE WELL THIS IS HOW MANY PEOPLE WHICH IS THE IMPACT IS PEOPLE, NOT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF HOUSE. SO BUT BUT ARE WE BUT ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT 0.4 DIFFERENT PEOPLE. RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YEAH. THAT'S SO POINT FOUR OF ONE HUMAN. I'M JUST NOT SURE. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW THE OLD IMPACT FEE. RIGHT, RIGHT. 
          YEAH. AND WE HAVE TEN DIFFERENT LEVELS HERE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. I THINK I FIND THAT A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING TO COMPREHEND REALISTICALLY THAT. THAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OF THE IMPACT THE COMMUNITY AT HOME THAT'S GOT 1700 SQUARE FEET VERSUS 2008. WHAT NUMBERS ARE YOU LOOKING AT THERE? I'M JUST I'M JUST I'M JUST LOOKING. THERE'S TEN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEAH. DIVIDE IT UP HERE. YEAH I'M DEFINITELY LEANING TOWARD PURSUING A PER DOOR CONVERSATION. I'M TRYING TO FIND SOMEONE THAT IN THE STATE OF IDAHO THAT'S AS COMPLICATED AS OURS IS. AND I CAN'T FIND ONE, SO I'M NOT SURE. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ANYBODY'S FAULT, NECESSARILY. I WAS LOOKING TO SEE ONE OF THINGS I WAS RESEARCHING WAS WHO DID THE IMPACT STUDIES FOR EACH ONE OF THESE ENTITIES TO SEE IF THERE WAS SOME, MAYBE A CONSISTENT METHODOLOGY. BUT TWIN FALLS IS DOING PER UNIT, AND BOISE, AGAIN IS DOING CLIMATE CONTROLLED SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THE IMPACT THESE STUDIES ARE PRODUCED BY THE SAME ENTITY. SO IT'S NOT AND AND YOU KNOW THERE'S SEVERAL CITIES WITHIN THESE STUDIES HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AS WELL. I MEAN THIS IS THERE'S SEVERAL THIS IS ON THEIR COUNCIL AGENDAS. AND THEY'RE CONSIDERING 2026. SO. BUT YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A CITY LIKE NAMPA. NAMPA IS IS PER UNIT AS WELL. IS THERE A MIDDLE GROUND KIND OF. TWO CATEGORIES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES UNDER 1300 FEET ONE FEE OVER 1500 FEET IS ANOTHER FEE. YOU'RE COUNTING BY DOOR. BUT YOU'RE SO GETTING TWO CATEGORIES. SO ARE YOU SAYING DO IT BY DOOR? BUT BUT DO IT. 
          BIFURCATE IT. SO YOU'VE GOT ZERO TO SOME NUMBER 1500 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND THEN INCLUDE ALL THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. YES. SO OKAY. AND THEN EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT IS, IS A 
          [01:05:03]
IS A SEPARATE FEE. AND THEN KIND OF TRYING TO ACCOUNT FOR YOU MIGHT HAVE A SMALLER FAMILY IN THE SMALLER HOUSE, BUT THERE'S A BREAK POINT. AND I LIKE THAT BECAUSE I'M STILL CONVINCED THAT IF WE GO ON A PER DOOR BASIS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT AND WE'VE GOT A BOGEY TO TO HIT, IT'S GOING TO RAISE THE PRICE ON THOSE SMALLER HOMES. I DON'T SEE ANY WAY IT'S NOT GOING TO. RIGHT. AND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HELPS US MITIGATE THAT, THAT IMPACT AND WHAT KIND OF ACCOUNT FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN A HOUSE THAT'S ON A SLAB? YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY. LESS EXPENSIVE. NOT JUST IN THE FEE, BUT LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD WITHOUT OVER COMPLICATING IT. AND I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SIMPLIFYING THIS WOULD BE A REAL PLUS. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR COLIN, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY HE DID SAY LIKE, THIS IS IT IS SCIENTIFIC TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, RIGHT? LIKE HE IS USING CENSUS DATA AND SAYING THAT UNDER A THOUSAND THERE ARE 0.99 PEOPLE AND IN 5000 OR MORE THERE ARE 3.78 PEOPLE. OKAY. SO SO WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO HAVE A BASELINE OF DATA FROM SOMEWHERE AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE MIGHT BE TAKING A LOSS, SO TO SPEAK. RIGHT. THE THAT THE FEES MAY NOT ACTUALLY COVER THE IMPACT. IF WE IF WE MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT LESS SCIENTIFIC, SHALL WE SAY. SO IT REALLY DOES VARY BY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THERE'S SOMETHING PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY. 
          WELL OKAY. SO LET'S SAY 2500 TO 3000. THIS WAS IN THE ORIGINAL IMPACT FEE STUDY. THAT WAS 2.76 PEOPLE. OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO ADD ONE MORE PERSON BY DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE OKAY. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DOUBLE THE PEOPLE. I MEAN THAT IS THE CENSUS. SO THAT'S WE HAVE TO START WITH A BASELINE OF SCIENCE. AND IF WE USE IF WE USE PER, HOW OFTEN DO WE HAVE TO UPDATE THAT DATA. EVERY FIVE YEARS. WE HAVE TO REDO THE STUDY. SO WE DO THAT. IT'S ALREADY BUILT IN. SO WE WOULD JUST UPDATE IT AT THE FIVE YEAR INCREMENTS. SO SOMEWHERE WE HAVE TO EITHER START WITH WHAT WE CAN MEASURE WHICH IS YEAH SQUARE FOOTAGE OR CENSUS JUST RIGHT OFF THE CUFF WITHOUT HAVING TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT. I KIND OF LIKE THAT IDEA OF MAYBE DOING IT PER DOOR AND PUTTING SOME BREAK POINT IN IT TO ALLOW FOR, I GUESS THE OTHER THING YOU COULD DO IS YOU COULD MAKE HALF A DOZEN CATEGORIES AND DO IT BY NUMBER OF PEOPLE BEHIND THE DOOR. HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? HOW WOULD YOU HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? WELL, JUST USING THE DATA THAT YOU'VE GOT THERE, JUST SAYING THAT THE TYPICAL HOUSE OF 1000FT■S HAS THIS MANY PEOPLE, BUT WHAT IF THE DIFFERENCE IS 0.4? I'M WITH, YOU KNOW. YEAH. IS THAT IS THAT WORTH. NO, I DON'T THINK IT IS. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING TWO CATEGORIES I THINK HAS HAS SOME MERIT. I WISH WE COULD LET'S PASS. WE CAN PASS THAT AROUND. THIS IS THIS SHOWS THE BREAKDOWN. THERE'S 123456789, TEN CATEGORIES OF HOW MANY PEOPLE LIVE IN A HOUSE. AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET BETWEEN ONE PERSON TWO, THREE AND A HALF, THREE AND THREE QUARTERS PEOPLE. 
          IT'S KIND OF NOT ENOUGH FOR ME TO LIKE, REALLY TRY AND MAKE IT MORE COMPLICATED AS MAYOR. IF I COULD, IF I COULD CLARIFY, THAT DOCUMENT IS ACTUALLY A DRAFT FROM THE 2025 STUDY IS A DRAFT, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE MY 2021. SO THAT IS THE NUMBERS ARE MOST RECENT. YEAH, THOSE ARE BUT THE NUMBERS ARE VERY THE NUMBERS ARE VERY SIMILAR BECAUSE THE NEXUS IS IF THIS HASN'T ALREADY BEEN STATED, THE NEXUS IS IS WHAT IS THE IMPACT BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A HOME. SO IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER HOME THE IDEA THROUGH CENSUS IS APPROXIMATELY 0.99, WHICH IS REALLY ONE PERSON LIVES IN A HOME THAT MIGHT BE LESS THAN 1000FT■!S. AND THEN AS THE SQUAE FEET INCREASES, THERE IS AN IMPACT THROUGH THE METHODOLOGY OF IMPACT FEES THAT THE MORE PEOPLE YOU HAVE IN THE HOME, IN THEORY, THE MORE IMPACT YOU HAVE TO THE SERVICE AREA. SO THOSE ARE THAT'S THE NEXUS PIECE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE METHODOLOGY WE USE CENSUS DATA, AND I BELIEVE THE CENSUS IS UPDATED EVERY 20 YEARS. BUT THOSE NUMBERS THERE ARE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT, IF NOT EXACT TO WHAT IT WAS IN THE 2021 STUDY. YEAH, I'LL FIND THAT. WELL, SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LET THIS SIT FOR A MINUTE, LET THAT PERCOLATE. AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS IN OUR ORIGINAL IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. IT WAS 
          [01:10:06]
TAKEN OUT AS A AT ONE POINT. IT WAS ACTUALLY BELIEVED TO BE A CONCESSION TO THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, I THINK. BUT NOW IT SEEMS LIKE AS TIME HAS MOVED ON AND IT'S MORE OF A SITUATION WHERE, OH, LOOK, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT BEING WE'RE NOT BEING RAMPAGED RAMRODDED BY AFFORDABLE HOUSING LEFT AND RIGHT. AND IT IS A LOCATION TO HELP WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE ONLY TOOLS WE HAVE IN THE CITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHETHER OR NOT TO LEAVE IT IN AND TRY AND TRACK IT, IT'S GOING TO. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER GO BACK INTO THE ORDINANCE OR REMAIN OUT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND MAY I JUST MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION? JUST AS A REMINDER FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAIVERS, WE NEED TO COME UP WITH ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH THE FUNDS THAT ARE AWARDED BY CITY COUNCIL, IF YOU SO CHOOSE TO. SO ANYWHERE, IF YOU DECIDE YOU'RE GOING TO DO A PERCENTAGE OR A FLAT THAT THAT DOLLAR THAT YOU HAVE AUTHORIZED TO GO TOWARDS THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT WOULD NEED TO COME OUT OF THE CITY'S BUDGET AND NOT IMPACT FEES. SO BASICALLY PAYS BACK THE IMPACT FEE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED WITH THAT WAIVER. BUT THE ORDINANCE DID SAY, ACCORDING TO COUNCIL'S BUDGET OF THAT YEAR. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DETERMINE A DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THE ORDINANCE. YES. DJ, CAN YOU COME BACK TO THE MIC AND WE CAN. 
          HAVE SOME FOLLOW UP? MAY I ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION? THIS IS OUR RESIDENT EXPERT IN THE ROOM HERE. DO YOU DO YOU ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE AFFORDABLE. 
          HOME WAIVER FOR. YEAH. YEAH. DO YOU THINK THAT DO YOU THINK IT'S INCENTIVIZING OR. I MEAN WOULD INCENTIVIZE BUILDERS TO BUILD A PRODUCT LIKE THIS? I THINK IT WOULD HELP, YOU KNOW, BUT I DON'T. THERE THERE'S SOME PLACES IN NORTH IDAHO THAT ARE DOING SOME WORKFORCE HOUSING. 
          SOME FIRST TIME IN I CAN SEND YOU THE INFORMATION ON. BUT ANYWAY, THEY'VE KIND OF DONE SOME OUTSIDE OF THE BOX THINKING WHERE THEY CAN GET IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING. RIGHT. 
          BUT THERE'S VERY STRICT RESTRICTIONS ON QUALIFICATIONS. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LIMIT OF WHAT THE APPRECIATION VALUE IS ON IT. SO YOU CAN'T STAY IN THERE. AND SO THERE'S I GUESS THERE'S STARTING NOW TO BECOME MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX TO GET PEOPLE INTO HOUSES VERSUS APARTMENTS. RIGHT. IN CERTAIN AREAS. I THINK THAT ANYTIME YOU CAN HELP, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF IT'S A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS, IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE ON QUALIFYING OR NOT QUALIFYING. SO I OUR AS A AS A COMMITTEE, OUR OUR CONCERN WAS JUST LIKE DO YOU WANT TO TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY AND NOT EVEN HAVE THAT OPTION? IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU GET SOMEONE, COME IN AND DEVELOPER COME IN AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE'RE GOING TO PUT, YOU KNOW, THESE TOWNHOMES IN. THIS IS OUR PLAN. AND IT MAKES SENSE AND IT'S GOOD. AND THE CITY CAN SAY, LISTEN, WE'LL YOU KNOW, GIVE YOU A 20% CREDIT FOR IMPACT FEES. AND IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. 
          I THINK THAT THAT'S BUT YEAH, I MEAN I MEAN, JUST WE'VE DONE THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT I JUST THINK WE ALL MIGHT AGREE WE HAVEN'T HAD ENOUGH APPLICANTS AND ENOUGH EXPERIENCE YET. SO AND I DON'T KNOW IF A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT. WELL, THAT'S ACTUALLY I MEAN, THE REASON WHY WE TOOK IT OUT WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE FINDING IT, AND THEN WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A BUDGET FOR IT. AND SO THEN PEOPLE WERE APPLYING FOR IT, AND THEN WE JUST TOLD THEM NO. AND THAT WASN'T REALLY SENDING THE MESSAGE THAT WE WANTED EITHER. RIGHT. BECAUSE IT FELT DISINGENUOUS, LIKE THEIR PROJECT WASN'T VALUABLE. BUT THE REALITY WAS, IS THAT, AS ALEXANDER SAID, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT POT OF MONEY AT THE TIME. SO I THINK THAT WAS A CONFUSION. YEAH, THAT WAS A CONFUSION, ANYWAY, OF WHERE THAT MONEY, LIKE WHEN YOU GIVE A WAIVER TO SAY THAT YOU HAD ON YOUR SIDE, BUT THAT WAS CONFUSING FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          BUT THAT'S THE THING IS, THAT'S THE THING WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, RIGHT, IS WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE AND WRITE THINGS IN A WAY THAT THE DEVELOPERS AND PUBLIC UNDERSTAND. SO WE WE APPRECIATE THAT THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WAS AWARE OF, THAT IT SEEMED CONFUSING. BUT HAVE WE WE'VE HAD ONE PROJECT SUBMIT FOR THAT WERE DETACHED. IS THAT RIGHT? I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE WE SO OUT OF THE THREE WE'VE HAD TWO THAT WERE FOCUSED ON SENIOR HOUSING. THAT'S ORCHARD PARK. IT'S A 55 PLEX, WHICH I THINK THEY'RE ATTACHED. AND THEN THE EIGHT UNIT SENIOR HOUSING THAT I BELIEVE THERE'S SOMEWHAT ATTACHED. I HAVEN'T GONE OUT AND LOOKED AT IT. I 
          [01:15:03]
MEAN, MAYBE DIRECTOR SANDER KNOWS, BUT AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE IT WAS LIKE AN APARTMENT TYPE AFFORDABLE HOUSING APARTMENT TYPE OF. AND IT WASN'T A SENIOR RELATED PROJECT. AND OUT OF THE THREE, THE ONE COMPANY THAT SUBMITTED THE THE 55 PLEX, THEY WERE OUR SECOND SUBMITTAL FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THEY HAD A REALLY STRONG APPLICATION. 
          THAT'S WHEN WE REQUIRED THE APPLICATION BE SUBMITTED. SO YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU T.J. OKAY. WELL, JUST TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, I'M OKAY KEEPING IT IN THERE. THE ONE KEEPING IT IN, PUTTING IT BACK IN BECAUSE IT'S IT'S NOT IN OUR ORDINANCE NOW. YEAH. AND THE ONE THING I DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT IS IF IT ENCOURAGES DEVELOPERS TO BUILD WHAT WE'LL BIG CITY PEOPLE THINK OF AS PROJECTS THAT BECOME ISOLATION OF CERTAIN ECONOMIC GROUPS. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA. I'D RATHER HAVE MIXED ZONES. AND AND SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WELL, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT. ONE OF THE THINGS KATHERINE MCCLURE BROUGHT FORWARD IS THE POSSIBILITY OF REQUIRING DEVELOPERS TO ESTABLISH AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY BUILDING IT AS PART OF THEIR PROJECT AND GETTING RECOVERY AND OTHER IF I'M REMEMBERING RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE NOD OF THE HEAD GETTING ON THE HOOK UP. NO MATTER HOW YOU DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EITHER RATEPAYERS OR TAXPAYERS ARE KICKING IN SOME MONEY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. I THINK WE HAVE TO FACE THAT FACT AND JUST DECIDE, IS THIS A SERVICE FOR THE CITY OR NOT? YEAH, I THINK WHEN I HEAR TJ SPEAKING, I'M GOING, OH, MAYBE THAT MAKES SENSE TO JUST LEAVE IT THERE, SET SOME PARAMETERS OF WHAT WE WOULD THINK OF. AND IF SOMEBODY BRINGS A REALLY GOOD PLAN FORWARD, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO DO IT. BUT WE NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH WE CAN SET ASIDE TO SUPPORT THAT, WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME FROM. IT'S ONE MORE OPTION. IF WE DON'T PUT IT IN THERE, THAT OPTION ISN'T THERE AT ALL. I ALWAYS TALK A LOT AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT I'M THINKING. ANYWAY. SOMEWHERE IN THERE I THINK IT GIVES US AN OPTION. SO WHY DON'T WE JUST GO AHEAD AND PUT IT BACK IN? AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT'S NOT OUT RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S JUST THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT. DID NO ORDINANCE WAS PASSED. IT'S CURRENTLY STILL IN OUR CODE. RIGHT. BUT YEAH, IN OUR NEW DRAFT. RIGHT. YEAH. IT'S NOT IN DRAFT YET. SO IT'S STILL IT'S THE ONE WE'VE HAD A HEARING OVER. IT'S OUT. BUT YEAH. 
          COUNCILMEMBER LEE, I GUESS TO ME ON THIS CONCEPT, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND AWARDED ESSENTIALLY A CERTAIN WAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND THEN FINANCED, AND A DEVELOPER HAS HAS GONE THROUGH THAT THAT PROCESS FOR TRUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. RIGHT. SO A TRUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS DEFINED BY THE STATE. RIGHT. THEN THOSE DEVELOPERS AND THOSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE MARKET RATES THAT ON THE RENTS THAT CAN BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE END USER ARE ALREADY SET. AND SO A REDUCTION OF A FEE TO A DEVELOPER WHERE THEIR MARKET RATES ARE ALREADY SET, IT DOESN'T HELP THE END USER TO ME. SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO HELP THE AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING, TO ME, I DON'T KNOW THAT A REDUCTION OF AN IMPACT FEE DOES ACCOMPLISHES THAT IN TERMS OF HELPING THE END USER. HERE'S WHAT YOU YOU GOT SOMETHING FOR ME? YEAH. GO AHEAD. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. NO, I, I DIDN'T KNOW THIS 3 OR 4 YEARS AGO, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT THE DEVELOPER WHO DID BLACKFEATHER TOLD US A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY FROM THE CITY GIVES HIM HUGE CLOUT IN HIS FEDERAL APPLICATION. THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY ALLOWS THEM TO BECOME, TO BECOME. THEN IT BECOMES AN AFFORDABLE PROJECT, SAYS A DEVELOPER. WELL, SAYS, ACTUALLY, WE WE DID VERIFY IT THROUGH OUR OWN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. YEAH, OUR GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR CAME BEFORE US. I MEAN, I KNOW YOU GET CERTAIN POINTS FOR EVERY LITTLE THING THAT YOU GO IN ON YOUR APPLICATION AND YOU MIGHT GET SOME POINTS ON YOUR APPLICATION. 
          YOU DO. AND AND HAVING THAT IN THERE, ARE THERE OTHER WAYS THAT A CITY CAN HELP BESIDES JUST ESSENTIALLY REDUCING THE COST TO A DEVELOPER? BECAUSE, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HELPS THE END USER. IT IT ONLY HELPS IN THE APPLICATION PROCESS. SO IT HELPS THE DEVELOPER GET HELPS THE DEVELOPER GET THE PROJECT. BUT THE MARKET RATES ARE STILL IT'S JUST A CARROT TO TRY TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH SOME PARAMETERS. YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S PARAMETERS TO WHAT THEY AND AND THAT'S THAT'S THE NEXT CONVERSATION THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IS WHAT THAT ACTUALLY IS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION 
          [01:20:04]
OF, IS THIS ACTUALLY DRUMMING UP THE KIND OF DEVELOPER THAT WE WANT TO SEE HERE? BECAUSE, YEAH, WE CAN SAY 10%, 30%. THAT'S ARBITRARY TO THE HOW COUNCIL WANTS TO PURSUE IT. IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET A FEEL FOR HOW MUCH MONEY IT TAKES? IS THAT IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TO TO ALL WE WANT TO DO IS JUST BARELY GET THAT OVER THE LINE. RIGHT? JUST JUST NUDGE IT RIGHT. AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S BEEN ENOUGH TO NUDGE ANYBODY OTHER THAN IT JUST, WELL, IF I FILL OUT THIS APPLICATION AND I GET THIS COUPON CODE, WELL, YOU KNOW, I SAVED SOME MONEY, AND THAT'S GREAT FOR ME, RIGHT? BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY, THOUGH. AND THAT'S THE QUESTION. I'M TRYING TO FIND THE PEOPLE THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY DO THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF HOUSING. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE ARE REACHING THAT PERSON. I THINK THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWAY, BUT THIS JUST HAPPENS TO BE A CHERRY ON TOP, AND THAT'S A CRITICAL POINT. I MEAN, WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH IT'S CERTAINLY NOT GETTING US DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH IS WHAT WE, WE'RE HOPING FOR. I MEAN, YEAH, IF THE DEAL WOULD GET DONE WITHOUT US, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO BE PUTTING MONEY IN. IT DOESN'T SAY HOW THE COIN IS. WE OFTEN KIND OF LAMENT THE FACT THAT AS A CITY, THERE ISN'T. WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY LEVERS TO PULL TO HELP AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SO TRYING TO FIND THAT MAGIC BALANCE BETWEEN ALL THAT, I MEAN, I LEARNED WHEN I WAS ON AGENCY THAT, YOU KNOW, IF A DEAL WILL GET DONE WITHOUT US, WE DON'T NEED TO BE INVOLVED. AND, WELL, I GUESS PART OF MY POINT IS, PHILOSOPHICALLY, THIS IS NOT THE KIND OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING I SUPPORT. BIG COMPLEXES OF PEOPLE WITH THE SAME LOWER LEVEL INCOME LIVING ALL IN THE SAME PLACE. I PREFER MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE YOU DON'T EVEN NOTICE, AND I THINK THAT MAYBE THIS MCCLURE'S AT LEAST EXPLORING THE IDEA OF WAIVING SOME HOOKUP FEES IN ORDER FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SAY I WILL PUT X NUMBER OF LOWER INCOME BUILDINGS, AFFORDABLE BUILDINGS IN MY DEVELOPMENT, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY HAVE 10% OR SOME NUMBER, RIGHT? BUT THEY WOULD GET THEY COULD GET SEVERAL THOUSAND. IN WAIVED HOOKUP FEES IN RETURN FOR THAT AND STILL REQUIRED A CONTRACT. BUT WHEN WHEN A CITY OR A COMMUNITY ISOLATES ITS POVERTY, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT BUILDING A COMMUNITY. THAT GETS MY SIMPLE WAY TO PUT IT. 
          AND I THINK COUNCILOR RADFORD HAS SPOKEN ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF OF MIXED NEIGHBORHOODS BEING MORE VIBRANT AND LESS OF THIS. OH, THAT'S THAT PART OF TOWN. WE DON'T GO THERE. THAT'S WHAT I SAW IN CLEVELAND. I KNOW ALL ABOUT IT. I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT. HERE. WE HAVE A WE HAVE A CITY THAT HAS A CHANCE TO PREVENT THAT. SO FRANCIS LIVED IN ONE PART OF CLEVELAND, AND I LIVED IN THE PART OF CLEVELAND THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. AS A POOR STUDENT. I LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I AND YOU AND IT IT IT'S TRUE. I MEAN, WE LIVED IT. JUST A SIDEBAR. 
          ANOTHER THING WITH WITH WITH HOOKUP FEES. WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN IMPACT FEE. I MEAN, WELL, THERE'S A I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A COST TO IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO MATCH IT. DOLLAR DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON ABOUT IT. YEAH, I AGREE, YEAH. I'D HAVE TO BUY THAT IN MY BUDGET. BUT IF WE IF WE PUT IT IN THERE, IT IT IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T FORCE OUR HAND. BUT IT ALSO COULD LEAVE OPTIONS OPEN TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. YOU HAVE TO WRITE IT IN A CERTAIN WAY THAT IT'S POSSIBLE. THAT KEEPS OUR OPTIONS OPEN WITHOUT COMMITTING TO ANYTHING. IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, THEN I SUPPORT GOING BACK AND TAKING IT OUT OF. 
          BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW. IF WE CAN'T SAY RIGHT NOW, WE CAN'T SAY RIGHT NOW. NOBODY, NONE OF US CAN SAY RIGHT NOW WHAT KIND OF FUNDING WE HAVE FOR THIS. SO TO YOUR POINT, CAN WE CAN WE PUT IT IN A WAY THAT GIVES US THE OPTION BUT NOT THE REQUIREMENT? YEAH. AND IT ALWAYS SORT OF GAVE US LIKE AN OPTION AS IN YOU HAD TO APPLY. YOU HAD TO BE. BUT THAT'S STILL A PROCESS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH. RIGHT. SO WHEN IF HAPPENING WAS, IS THAT WE WERE HAVING TO PROCESS AN APPLICATION AND WE HAD THE MONEY FOR AND I STILL HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCESSES JUST TO SAY NO. AND WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THAT. SO BECAUSE IT WAS IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THE PROGRAM EXISTED, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. SO THERE'S A LOT OF STAFF TIME AND DEVELOPER TIME THAT WE, WE DON'T WANT. SO LET'S LEAVE IT OUT, MR. MCCLURE, TO COME UP WITH SOME OPTIONS FOR US. I THINK WE'RE CLOSE TO BEING READY TO CREATE A DIFFERENT 
          [01:25:01]
VISION OF HOW TO APPROACH THE PROBLEM. HOPEFULLY, THIS CONVERSATION PROVIDED SOME INSIGHT. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION, I DON'T KNOW. I SUPPORT THAT. OKAY, SO THIS IS WHAT I'VE HEARD. SO FAR. I'VE HEARD TWO PEOPLE SAY, TAKE THE POLICE VEHICLES OUT AND WE THE POOL THING IS A MOOT POINT. SO WE'VE GOT A CHANGE TO THE CIP. WE'VE GOT WHAT I THINK ONLY COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS AND I SPOKE TO. I MEAN, IF I'M GOING TO THROW MYSELF IN THERE, I'M ALSO TAKING THE POLICE CARS OUT. I WOULD REMOVE I WOULD STAY SILENT AS TO THE OTHER. TAXING DISTRICTS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE I WAS ABOUT READY TO SAY MY PASSWORD OUT LOUD. IT STARTS WITH A B. YEAH, THE THIS IS THE FULL LIST I ASKED. OUR ATTORNEY FOR IT, BONNEVILLE COUNTY, WHICH WE KNOW THEY CAN PROCESS THEIR OWN PERMIT SO THEY DON'T NEED US ANYWAY. 
          COLLEGE OF EASTERN IDAHO WOULD BE EXEMPT. SCHOOL DISTRICT 9193 BONNEVILLE COUNTY LIBRARY DISTRICT IF THEY WERE BUILDING SOMETHING IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, I THINK WE CAN SAFELY COUNT THEM OUT. BONNEVILLE FIRE DISTRICT NUMBER ONE, THE SUBDISTRICTS ONE THROUGH FIVE. 
          THE CEMETERY DISTRICTS. THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, AND THEN BONNEVILLE COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICE. THOSE ARE THE. TAXED PROPERTY TAX BASED. GROUPS THAT WE WOULD BE SAYING WOULD NOT HAVE TO BUILD, WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES. TO ME, IT ONLY HELPS CA AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS. AND ACTUALLY IN SOME CASES CITY OF IDAHO FALLS BECAUSE WE DO PAY IMPACT FEES ON OUR OWN BUILDING, JUST NOT TO OUR OWN DEPARTMENTS. SO PARKS AND REC DOES PAY POLICE FIRE. SO IN THAT CASE, IT'S JUST LEAVE ALL OF THOSE PROPERTY TAXING DISTRICTS OUT. 
          THEN WE HAVE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THAT'S OUR LAST ONE TO TACKLE. SQUARE FOOTAGE VERSUS HOUSING TYPE. SO. I, I WROTE DOWN SOME NOTES ABOUT ABOUT YOU KNOW WHAT WE HAVE KIND OF BEEN DISCUSSING THE PER DOOR, BUT MAYBE PUTTING IT INTO TWO CATEGORIES. AND I GUESS PART OF WHAT I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT IS THERE A KIND OF A BREAK POINT IN THE POPULATION BEHIND A DOOR THAT MAKES SENSE, WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE? WELL, IT DOES. YOU KNOW, IT'S AROUND ONE FOR THE THOUSAND OR IT LOOKED LIKE IT, IT JUMPED AT 1500. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THAT'S A LITTLE LOWER THAN I'D LIKE TO PUT THE LINE. I'M INCLINED TO PUT THE LINE MORE AT LIKE 2000 OR SOMETHING, BUT OKAY, SO THE JUMP BETWEEN 1999 AND 2000 GOES FROM 2 TO 2.4, BUT BUT GOING FROM 1 TO 2 IS AROUND 1500 AND GO, WELL IT'S 1000 THEN 1000 TO 1500. THAT'S 1.5 PEOPLE. OH OKAY. AND THEN 1500 TO 2000 IS TWO PEOPLE. SO IT JUMPS UP 0.5 AGAIN. SO I'D LIKE TO INVESTIGATE THAT. 
          THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS IN TERMS OF ACTUAL DOLLARS, HOW MUCH DOES HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE GET FROM THE 5000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES WHEN THEY'RE BUILT COMPARED TO HOW MUCH WE MAKE, HOW MUCH WE TAKE IN FROM THE 2500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE IN A YEAR. MY POINT WE DON'T WE DON'T DO THAT RIGHT NOW AT ALL, BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY DOING IT BY THEIR DESIGNATION ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS MULTIFAMILY. THAT'S HOW WE'RE CURRENTLY. SO WE WOULDN'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE'RE TAKING IN. YEAH, BECAUSE WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A SQUARE FOOTAGE. THIS WOULD BE GOING FORWARD. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. THE JUMP. SO THE SECOND YOU GET TO 1500 SQUARE FEET NOW YOU START TO SEE SOME COMPRESSION. AND IT'S TWO. THEN 2.4 PEOPLE, THEN 2.7 PEOPLE. AND YOU DON'T SEE THAT CHANGE TO THREE UNTIL YOU GET TO 3000FT■!S. AND THEN FROM 3000 TO 5000FT■S, IT'S FROM 3 TO 3.7 AS YOU KIND OF WORK YOUR WAY UP. SO I WOULD SAY EITHER WE DO LIKE 2000 AND BELOW. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING TO SPLIT IT UP. OTHERWISE I AM SATISFIED. GOING 
          [01:30:01]
BACK TO THE UNIT CATEGORIES. SATISFIED. GOING BACK TO WHAT DOES THE PER UNIT SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS MULTI-FAMILY. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS. FOR WE STILL HAVE THE CATEGORY MULTIFAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THAT'S SOME SPLIT. SO PEOPLE. SO THE STARTER HOME HAS A LIKE WE'VE SEEN TINY HOMES START TO COME INTO THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT THE SAME BUILDING. AND AS A SOMEBODY RAISING A FAMILY IN A 2000 OR MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, I REMEMBER IF WE'RE BY MY CALCULATIONS, THAT CONCLUDES THE BASEMENT. SO IT WOULDN'T BE DIFFICULT TO GET TO 2000 SQUARE FOOT AND NOT HAVE A VERY BIG. 
          SO TWO CATEGORIES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEN THE MULTIFAMILY HOMES. WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE THAT CATEGORY. I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO THAT. WE CAN'T. WE JUST HAVE LIKE FOR SOME REASON, IT SEEMS LIKE I REMEMBER CALLING SAYING LIKE, WE CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE. WE CAN'T JUST ARBITRARILY, ARBITRARILY PICK THE WINNERS IN THE SAME WAY. WE CAN'T SAY LIKE, OH, INDUSTRIAL, WE THINK THEY'RE LESS, THEREFORE WE SHOULDN'T. LIKE WE HAVE TO PICK A METHODOLOGY. OKAY. AND THEN THAT IS OUR METHODOLOGY. THAT'S THE WE HAVE TO START WITH. 
          THAT'S WHAT I SAY. BUT CAN OUR METHODOLOGY THEN BE TIED TO NUMBER OF PEOPLE. IT'S EITHER TIED TO THE CENSUS OR TIED TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. OKAY. SO COULD WE COULD WE ACCOMPLISH THAT SAME THING BASED ON THE NUMBERS WE HAVE FOR POPULATION BEHIND A DOOR, AND DRAW THE LINE WITH NUMBERS BEHIND A DOOR, AND THEN ADJUST THAT EVERY FIVE YEARS? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT SOUNDS LIKE. YEAH. IF OUR CENSUS IS CHANGING. YEAH. YES. SO WE COULD ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH MORE OR LESS. AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THAT 2000. WELL, WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND I'M NOT REALLY TRYING TO BE, THIS IS WHEN I GET THAT LISA VOICE THAT IS MAYBE FIGHTING WITH BRYCE VOICE, BUT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS EXACTLY THAT YOU'RE TRYING. I'M JUST TRYING TO TO HELP LOWER INCOME, YOU KNOW, BE A LITTLE A LITTLE EASIER TO DO. I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE GET IN TROUBLE, BECAUSE IT'S LIKE SAYING WE'RE WE'RE GOING. THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEN WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T PICK THE WINNERS AND LOSERS, BECAUSE THEN EVERY BUILDER SAYS, WELL, I BUILD LUXURY HOMES, RIGHT? I MEAN, PRETTY SOON IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHO CAN AFFORD WHAT? I JUST DON'T THINK WE CAN GET INTO? WELL IT'S WELL AND YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS, IS HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THAT THE PERSON THAT LIVES IN THE LUXURY HOME UTILIZES MORE SERVICES OF POLICE AND FIRE AND STREETS AND CARS THAN THE PERSON THAT LIVES IN THE. YEAH, I MEAN, IT IT REALLY IS JUST THE CENSUS DATA. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE CENSUS DATA. SO OUR OPTIONS ARE EITHER. BUT CAN CAN WE AT LEAST DID I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THOUGH? I MEAN, IF WE WANTED TO ONLY HAVE TWO CATEGORIES, WE COULD PICK A NUMBER AT WHICH WE WERE GOING TO SAY LIKE ABOVE THIS NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE PER THE DATA THAT LIVE IN A HOME, THE THE RATE IS THIS AND BELOW IS IS WHAT. NO. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TEN LEVELS OF BIFURCATION. I THINK THEY HAVE TO BE BASED UPON THE BIFURCATION OF THE OF THE CENSUS DATA. THIS IS BY SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEAH, BUT THAT'S TEN. AND WE'VE ONLY GOT SO MANY THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE. AND DOES BOISE HAVE TEN. AND THEY'VE GOT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO YOU'RE SAYING ANYTHING ABOVE 3000 IS ONLY A CERTAIN. YES, WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. SORRY. YES THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WELL I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS THE OTHER, LIKE, WE COULD SAY THAT ANYTHING ABOVE 3500 IS GOING TO JUST BE THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT AND CREATE IT THAT WAY, BECAUSE WE ALREADY SAID 5000 OR MORE IS GOING TO BE 3.78, BECAUSE IT BECOMES MORE AND MORE COMPRESSED. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TEN. I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THEN IT BECOMES THREE POINT LIKE MAYBE IT'S 3.79 AND THEN 3.80, BECAUSE REALLY ABOVE 5000 YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TEN PEOPLE IN YOUR HOUSE. SO THEY GAVE THE FIRST TEN LEVELS THAT HAVE THE BIGGEST. IT'S IT'S NOT EXPONENTIAL BUT IT'S LOGARITHMIC. BUT THERE'S NOTHING TELLING US THAT WE HAVE TO GO WITH TEN CATEGORIES OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEAH. WE COULD HAVE TWO CATEGORIES OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. I THOUGHT WE JUST SAID 
          [01:35:07]
WE COULDN'T DO THAT. WELL, I DON'T THINK WE CAN GO. I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN HAVE TEN. WHAT ARE WE WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SAY? THE THE IMPACT IS OF A HOUSE THAT'S 15. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO ARBITRARILY SAY. THE IMPACT IS WE GO OVER 2000FT. YOU'RE STARTING TO HAVE CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD. PER THAT. THAT'S TRUE. IT GOES MORE THAN TWO, RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, NOW I KNOW THE QUESTION WE NEED TO ASK AND HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL RESEARCH I SUPPOSE. AND YEAH. 
          SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT WHEN YOU'RE MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE NOW, YOU'RE YOU'VE GOT CHILDREN IN YOUR HOUSE. WELL, THIS IS ALL ARBITRARY BECAUSE I CAN DEFINE MY FAMILY AS. YEAH, IT'S THERE IS NO WAY FOR PERFECTION. I FIGURED THAT OUT ABOUT THE LAST TIME WE HAD THE HEARINGS. YES. 
          WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET TO PERFECTION. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SAY, IF YOU'RE BUILDING A REALLY SMALL HOME AND YOU'RE A SINGLE PERSON OR YOU'RE A COUPLE OR WHATEVER, YOUR IMPACT IS LESS THAN WHEN YOU START BUILDING A FAMILY. AND SO LET'S MAKE A BREAKPOINT AND KEEP IT SIMPLE. THERE'S TWO CATEGORIES OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. EVERY EVERY SQUARE FOOT IN THE HOME COUNTS. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, THEN I WOULD JUST SAY, FINE, LET'S DO GO BACK TO DOORS. NUMBER OF DOORS, UNITS. IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE AN I MEAN, WE KEEP GETTING FORCED BACK INTO DOORS. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S A BAD PLAN, BUT IT JUST IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS. I GUESS, AGAIN, IF YOU'RE SAYING BOISE HAS BROKEN THIS OUT BASED ON CONDITIONED SPACE, I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT HOW MANY LEVELS THAT THEY BROKE IT OUT TO BY SQUARE FOOTAGE. LIKE, DO THEY HAVE IT THIS COMPLEX OR TRULY? ARE WE THE MOST COMPLEX? LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT. AND WHAT WAS IT THAT THAT. RESORT CITIES WERE, WERE TENDING TO UTILIZE? WHAT WAS THEIR SAME THING AS BOISE SQUARE FOOTAGE? YEAH, EXACTLY. LET'S HYPOTHETICALLY SUPPOSE WE COULD MAKE TWO CATEGORIES. DOES THAT ELIMINATE THIS WHOLE SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY CHART, BECAUSE YOU'RE EITHER BUILDING A PRODUCT THAT HAS X OR Y. SO WE'RE SAYING 2500 OR LESS HAS 2.44 PEOPLE AND FIVE. AND ANYTHING ABOVE 2500, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE MAXIMUM OF 3.78 PEOPLE. OKAY. SO IN BOISE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILOR LEE. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S HOW THEY WERE DOING IT. 
          SO BOISE AND ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT BOTH HAVE FEES THROUGH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND AN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. AND ALL THE THINGS THEY'RE REDOING THEIR ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW, JUST LIKE WE ARE, BECAUSE THEY DID THEIR LAST 2022 AS WELL. AND THIS IS TELLING ME THAT THAT THEY WERE JUST DOING IT PER UNIT. BOISE IS DOING PER UNIT. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT IS. 
          WHICH MAKES ME THINK THAT BOISE IS TOO. I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT POINT YET THOUGH, SO POTENTIALLY ONLY THIS BUILDING TO THIS. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR THAT STARTS IN 2026 IS NEW IMPACT FEES OF 5800 FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 2371 PER UNIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING, $7,350 PER 1000 SQUARE FOOT FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, AND $12,082 PER 1000FT■S OF SHOPPING CENTER SPACE. THIS IS UNDER THE SINGLE SERVICE AREA MODEL. FEES COLLECTED FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY CAN BE ALLOCATED COUNTYWIDE TO HELP FUND ELIGIBLE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. SO. SO I WAS ABLE TO FIND THE BOISE CITY IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE FOR BOISE CITY. IT HAS FIVE CATEGORIES GOES BY UNDER 700FT■S 701 TO 1400, 1401 TO 21, OH 1 TO 2800, AND THEN MORE THAN 2800. SO WE HAVE TWICE AS MANY FOUR CATEGORIES FIVE, FIVE. SO WHAT? WHAT ALLOWS THEM TO DO FIVE INSTEAD OF TEN? I THINK WE'VE ALWAYS PROBABLY HAD OPTIONS. YEAH I FOUND IT TO. 
          [01:40:04]
YEAH. THEY'RE SAYING THAT UNDER 700FT■S IS 0.93 PEOPLE, 714 HUNDRED IS 1.8 PEOPLE. SO THEY'RE TYING IT TO CENSUS DATA AS WELL, OR 1400 TO 2100 IS 2.7 PEOPLE, 2100 TO 2800 IS 3.7 PEOPLE, AND OVER 2800 IS 4.8 PEOPLE. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE, THEY'RE THEY'RE COMPRESSING THE CENSUS DATA. KIND OF LIKE WHAT I ■WAS SAYING. YEAH. AND THAT GETS YOU DOWN TO HALF THE CATEGORIES. SO I THINK THAT'S AS OF RIGHT NOW TIES IT BACK TO SOMETHING THAT THERE'S A LINK TO THAT, YOU KNOW. YEAH. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE THE CONCEPT PEOPLE. PEOPLE ARE THE PEOPLE ARE THE IMPACT. YEAH. IS IT, IS IT MORE LOGICAL TO HAVE MORE CATEGORIES? I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO SIMPLIFY IT, JUST THE TWO. BUT IS THERE A. DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE. AGAIN BASING IT ON POPULATION NOT SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT. WELL I GUESS THE ONLY THING THAT I KEEP COMING BACK TO IS IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO, THEN WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST USE MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY WHERE WE ACTUALLY ALREADY HAVE THAT CENSUS DATA OF TWO POINT? YOU KNOW, THERE'S HOW MANY LIVE IN A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSE. WHAT THAT NUMBER DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON WENT TO GET IT FOR ME. AND HOW MANY LIVE IN A SINGLE FAMILY WE HAVE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT BASELINE NUMBER. IF WE WANT TO INCREASE IT AND REALLY TRY AND FLUSH OUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY THE PEOPLE, THEN WE'RE WE'RE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SINGLE FAMILY ABOVE 2500FT■S REALLY INCREASE. WHICH IS, I THINK, WHAT THE HOMEBUILDERS ARE SAYING, DON'T DO THAT BECAUSE WE FINISHED BASEMENTS HERE. AND IT'S A IT'S IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ADDING PEOPLE. AND WE WOULD SEE THAT IN OUR CENSUS DATA BECAUSE IT WAS 2.6. AND I DON'T THINK IT EVER REACHED ABOVE THREE. BUT CHRIS FREDERICKSON WENT TO LOOK AT THAT FOR US. BUT TELL ME IF I'M THINKING WRONG, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERS IN OUR HEADS RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, I GUESS THE OTHER QUESTION IS, ARE WE TRYING TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE WHO ARE SINGLE, OR ARE WE TRYING TO BUILD AFFORDABLE, TRYING TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE KIDS? I MEAN, TO ME IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE AND THE IMPACT AND WHAT THE DATA ACTUALLY. AND THAT THAT GOES BACK TO A SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THREE CHILDREN, BUT NOT BIG INCOMES, TEND TO BUY SMALLER HOMES AND PUT THEM INTO, YOU KNOW. YEAH, HE DID. HE'LL GO WITH. BUT YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'RE GONNA LET'S WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS THINK ABOUT OH, DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON. I EMAILED THAT TO OKAY. IT WOULD BE NICE AS WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD AT CALENDARS, IT ISN'T CRITICAL, BUT THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GET SOMETHING ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING. THE COMMISSIONERS. I'M JUST GOING TO LOOK FOR THE METHODOLOGY. THIS IS THE OLD ONE. AND I'VE READ IT AND. I'M GOING TO WAIT BECAUSE I I'LL LOOK AT THAT IN JUST A MINUTE. WE CAN FINISH THIS DISCUSSION. I DO WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR PLANNING AND ZONING. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON COUNCIL WHILE WE KIND OF THINK THROUGH THAT AND THEN MAYBE GET A FEW NUMBERS. IF OUR PLANNING COMMISSION WOULDN'T MIND STANDING AND COMING TO THE TABLE, MAYBE BRING YOUR CHAIRS. THIS IS GOING TO BE A JOINT 
          [01:45:01]
MEETING, AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE TO STAND BACK IN THE GALLERY AND RAISE YOUR HANDS. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE YOU. CAN I BREAK THE FLOOR FOR JUST A MINUTE? JUST A QUICK BREAK. SURE. WHAT? YEAH. I'M SORRY. NO, WE. OH, THERE WE GO. WE'LL MAKE NOTE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAS JOINED US AT THE TABLE. OUR PLANNING COMMISSION NOT PLANNING ZONING. OUR PLANNING COMMISSION HAS JOINED US AT THE TABLE. AND THEIR CHAIRMAN, DIRECTOR FORREST EILER OR CHAIR. IS GOING TO ESTABLISH THE QUORUM. PERFECT. WELL, THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO BE HERE TO HELP REALLY 
          [01:50:01]
DISCUSS PUDS. AND WE'RE EXCITED TO TALK ABOUT IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO ESTABLISH THE A QUORUM FOR THE COMMISSION. SO I GUESS I'LL JUST TAKE ROLL CALL. SO I'LL JUST GO OFF OF MEMORY. 
          COMMISSIONER MEEHAN, PRESIDENT, COMMISSIONER SCOTT, PRESENT COMMISSIONER STORE HERE. AND COMMISSIONER SCALES HERE. PERFECT. ALL RIGHT. OH, AND, COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. MY PREDECESSOR HERE. PERFECT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY. BEFORE WE BEFORE WE START, IN SPECIFIC TO PUDS, I JUST WANTED A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO THANK THEM FOR WHAT THEY DO. YOU HAVE. WE ALL SIT IN THESE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND GET BLASTED. 
          WE WE WE RECOGNIZE WE RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU ARE DOING. AND SOMETIMES WHEN I READ THE COMMENTS, I DO READ LIKE, OH YES, I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M VOTING ON THIS AND COMMISSIONERS VOTE ON IT. AND THEN COUNCIL HAS THE FINAL SAY. AND AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES. BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW IMPORTANT YOUR DELIBERATION IS, THAT WHEN YOU SPEAK, WE ARE READING IT. 
          IT SAVES US FROM BEING IN A, YOU KNOW, THE SAME THING YOU GET WHEN YOU'RE IN THE COMMISSION MEETING. IT'S THE FIRST TIME YOU'RE HEARING TESTIMONY. WE HAVE THE LUXURY OF HAVING READ YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN THEIR COMMENTS, AND THEN THERE IT GOES BACK AND FORTH. AND IT IS A LUXURY FOR COUNCIL TO HAVE HAD YOU ASKED THE QUESTION AND THEN GET THE ANSWER FROM STAFF. WE READ THEM. IT IS VERY BENEFICIAL AND AND TO FEEL LIKE WE JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IT ISN'T JUST, OH, THE COUNCIL HAS TO SAY IT IS INCREDIBLY VALUABLE, THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT YOU PUT INTO IT, THE THOUGHTFUL QUESTIONS THAT YOU ASK. IT LEADS US TO MAYBE THE NEXT LEVEL OR JUST, OH, I'M SO GLAD SOMEONE THOUGHT OF THAT QUESTION. I WASN'T SURE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I WOULDN'T HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT. SO THAT'S JUST HEARTFELT FROM COUNCIL, HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND EFFORT, AND IT'S INCREDIBLY VALUABLE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, 
          [CDS]
THANK YOU. NOW OUR PRESENTATION TODAY. WE HAVE BEAR WITH US. WE OUR OUR INTENT IS THAT WE CAN ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT IT'S LESS OF A LECTURE KIND OF FORMAT. WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY LIMIT WHAT STAFF IS TELLING US. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS. MORE OF STAFF. WE'VE ALL SEEN PUDS, WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH PUDS, AND WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WE THINK PEOPLE LIKE OR DON'T LIKE ABOUT PUDS AND WHAT WE OWN PERSONALLY LIKE AND DON'T LIKE ABOUT PETS. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO TURN THE TIME OVER TO DIRECTOR SANDER, WHO IS GOING TO LEAD US THROUGH THE CONVERSATION. BUT EVERY POINT ALONG THE WAY IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK A QUESTION OR TO GIVE AN OPINION, WHATEVER, WHATEVER YOU WANT, JUST PLEASE HAVE THIS BE AN OPEN DISCUSSION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASK FOR PERMISSION FROM ME. PLEASE JUST HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION. THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION FOR BEING HERE. I KNOW THIS IS A SACRIFICE OF YOUR TIME AND WE DO APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU DO. I JUST ALSO WANTED TO RECOGNIZE WITH ME, ZACH JONES IS HERE WITH ME. OUR CITY ATTORNEY, CARRIE BUEHLER, OUR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND SCOTT GRIMMETT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ALSO HERE. I ALSO HAVE IN THE CROWD MY STAFF, DAVID PETERSON, CAITLIN LONG AND BRIAN STEVENS ARE ALL HERE WITH US. SO HOPEFULLY AMONGST ALL OF US, WE CAN AT LEAST ANSWER HALF THE QUESTIONS, RIGHT? SO I'M JUST JOKING. ALSO, AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION, AS THE MAYOR SAID, THIS IS AN OPEN DISCUSSION. WE VERY MUCH WANT QUESTIONS. WE KNOW THAT PLANNING, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR PUDS WERE WERE A TOPIC THAT HAVE BEEN VERY HEAVILY IN THE FRONT OF OUR CITIZENS MINDS AS OF RECENT. FURTHER WITH THAT, AS PART OF THE HANDOUT, I REALIZED THAT NOTHING IS MORE EXCITING THAN STATE STATUTE AND CITY CODE. BUT I DID PROVIDE A HANDOUT IN THE PACKET, AND THAT HAS ALL THE STATE STATUTES DEALING WITH PUDS AS WELL AS OUR CITY CODE 
          [01:55:01]
IN FRONT OF YOU. THERE ARE SOME MAPS. I WILL DISCUSS THOSE AT THE END. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, I WAS AFRAID THAT SOME OF THOSE MAY NOT HAVE SCANNED WELL AND GOT INTO OUR PRESENTATION. WELL, SO WITH THAT, WE'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO VERY, VERY BRIEFLY DISCUSS WHAT A PUD IS. THE WAY TO THINK OF PUD IS A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT. THINK OF IT REALLY IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WOULD THINK OF OF AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT I HAVE ON THERE. THE ZONING IS NEGOTIATED. I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD NECESSARILY USE THAT TERM. IT'S REALLY CUSTOM ZONING FOR A SPECIFIC SITE. THE DEVELOPER HAS THE FLEXIBILITY TO REQUEST A PUD AS PART OF THAT FLEXIBILITY, THOUGH WE AS A CITY HAVE MORE INPUT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. SO LIKE AN R-1 ZONE, WHEN THAT GOES, WHEN THAT IS BEING REQUESTED, THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY TIME WE SEE IT IS WHEN A REZONE COMES IN. WHEN A PUD COMES IN, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE MORE SAY IN IT. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, THE ELEVATIONS OF THE BUILDINGS WE DON'T HAVE SAY IN THAT IN THE R1 ZONE DISTRICT. 
          SO THINK OF IT THAT WAY ALSO THAT THEY'RE REVIEWED AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IT'S AN OVERLAY. SO THERE'S THE BASE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PUD OVERLAY ON TOP OF THAT. AND THAT CONDITIONAL USE ELEMENT ALLOWS YOU TO ADD CONDITIONS TO THE APPLICATION. NOW THE PARAMETERS IN WHICH THOSE ARE ADDED LEGAL WE'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT. 
          BUT AND YOU CAN ALSO IT'S WITHIN YOUR POWER TO APPROVE VARIATIONS FROM A CODE. AS PART OF THAT CUSTOM ZONING, THE DEVELOPER CAN REQUEST AN EXAMPLE A REDUCED SETBACK. THEY CAN THEY CAN REQUEST THAT IT'S UP TO THE PURVIEW OF THE LAND USE AUTHORITY. THEN TO STATE IF THAT IS A VALID REQUEST OR NOT. SO THINK OF IT THAT WAY. IT'S JUST CUSTOM ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY. THERE ARE SOME PROS AND CONS TO THIS. WE AS A CITY HAVE MORE INPUT THAN ON THE DEVELOPMENT, AND WE KNOW WHAT'S BEING DEVELOPED FOR THE PROPERTY. THIS ALSO HAS BEEN USED EXTENSIVELY. I'LL GO THROUGH SOME DATA AT THE END TO IN REGARDS TO INFILL. SO WE ARE ADDING TO THE TAX BASE WITH PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR REALLY DIFFICULT PROPERTY THAT HAS GROWN PAST THE CITY, HAS KIND OF GROWN PAST THOSE PROPERTIES, SO WE ARE GETTING INFILL FROM IT. WE ALSO ARE GETTING GUARANTEED AMENITIES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS. SO THINK ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF PARKS THAT WERE CONSTANT. THE CITY COUNCIL IS TALKING ABOUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT THOSE PARKS. PUDS GIVE US THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT THOSE IN RESPECTIVE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THE OTHER ELEMENT OF IT IS YOU CAN VIEW A DEVELOPMENT HOLISTICALLY WITH A PUD. THE CONS, HOWEVER, IS THEY'RE MORE COMPLICATED. THEY'RE MORE CONTENTIOUS PUBLIC HEARINGS. THEY'RE EXTREMELY COMPLICATED FOR STAFF TO REVIEW. THEY ACTUALLY DO TAKE MORE TIME FOR US TO REVIEW. AND THERE'S ALSO A PERCEPTION THAT PUDS CIRCUMVENT OUR ZONING CODE. 
          AGAIN, THINK OF THEM PURELY AS A SITE SPECIFIC CUSTOM ZONE FOR THAT PROPERTY, AND THAT WILL HELP YOU KIND OF GAUGE THAT A LITTLE BIT. YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? YES. GO AHEAD. GO BACK ONE. SO GUARANTEED AMENITIES FOR NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU MEAN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD OR YOU MEAN THE PUD RESIDENTS. SO IT WOULD THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. 
          PUDS REQUIRE AN HOA OR WHAT WE CALL UNIFIED CONTROL. WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT PRIMARILY FOR THE PUD. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF TIMES THEY GO ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO AN HOA HAS CONTROL OF THAT. AND WITH THAT THERE IS A RESTRICTIVE ELEMENT TO THAT. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY IN THAT REGARDS, BUT I JUST FALL BACK ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE HOA OR WHERE THAT PUB IS LOCATED. OKAY, SO ON THAT FOR ABOUT AMENITIES. SO AS YOU KNOW, IF IT'S UNDER TWO ACRES, IT REQUIRES IT TO EITHER BE REDEVELOPING OR PROVIDES A PUBLIC AMENITY OR BENEFIT. IN THAT CASE YOU CAN SAY, HEY, THIS THIS HAS TO BE PUBLIC. AND THAT'S WHY WE ALLOW IT UNDER TWO ACRES, RIGHT? OR BUT IF IT'S OVER TWO ACRES, ALL OUR CODE SAYS IS SOME OF THE AMENITIES. IT SAYS PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC. SO IT ALLOWS KIND OF ALLOWS, IT ALLOWS IT TO BE EITHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE IT TO TO BE PUBLIC WHEN IT'S OVER TWO ACRES. DOES THAT HELP. BUT IT'S NOT. I ALSO NOTICE OUR CODE. IT DOESN'T SAY. IT 
          [02:00:06]
DOESN'T SAY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FOR EACH AND EVERY MONTH. YEAH. OKAY. SO MAYOR BURCH ASKED ME TO TALK ABOUT THE TWO TOPICS. ONE OF THEM ABOUT YOUR ETHICAL DUTIES UNDER EX PARTE, EX PARTE RULES. AND THEN THE SECOND PART IS KIND OF THE SCOPE OF YOUR AUTHORITY FOR FASHIONING CONDITIONS FOR PUDS. SO EX PARTE AGAIN EX PARTE, ALL THAT MEANS IS YOU'RE TALKING WITH A PARTY. AND PARTY HERE WOULD MEAN EITHER THE APPLICANT. RIGHT. OR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD CITIZENS. RIGHT. IS THAT THOSE ARE THEY CAN BECOME EFFECTIVE AFFECTED PERSONS UNDER LUPA, AND THEN THEY CAN APPEAL A DECISION IF THEY ARE IN FACT AN AFFECTED PERSON. AND IT KIND OF THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND EX PARTE THE PROHIBITION. SO YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE EX PARTE CONTACT, RIGHT? OR IN GENERAL, THE BASIC IDEA BEHIND THAT IS FAIRNESS, RIGHT? I MEAN, SUPPOSE IT'S A LOT MORE STRICT FOR JUDGES, BUT IMAGINE YOU WERE A JUDGE AND SOMEBODY COMES UP TO YOU BEFORE THEY FILED FOR A DIVORCE CASE AND THEY SAY, HEY, I'M THINKING ABOUT PROPOSING THESE TERMS FOR CUSTODY. WHAT DO YOU THINK? AND THEN LATER FILES THOSE TERMS GOES IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE, YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER SIDE IS COMPLETELY CAUGHT OFF GUARD THAT THEY'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE JUDGE AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE THE OTHER SIDE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE UNDERSTANDABLY QUITE UPSET. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF THE BASIC REASON FOR BEHIND IT. THERE ARE TWO SOURCES OF AUTHORITY FOR EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. THE FIRST IS STATUTORY, AND I'VE GOT THE STATUTE UP THERE BASICALLY. AND THIS SAYS NO EX PARTE CONTACT. AND IT SAYS IN A CONTESTED CASE. SO ONCE THE THE WAY I READ THAT IS ONCE IT'S BEEN FILED, YOU NOW HAVE A CASE. RIGHT. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE PODS ARE CONTESTED QUITE OFTEN. AND SO ONCE THAT HAPPENS, YOU CAN'T COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY REGARDING ANY SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE IN THE PROCEEDING WITH ANY PARTY UNTIL YOU'VE HAD NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY HEARING. AND THAT'S THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAVE. 
          RIGHT. AND THEN JUST AS JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, THIS INCLUDES SITE VISITS, RIGHT? SO DON'T GO TO THE SITE UNLESS NOW IF CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO SAY, HEY, LET'S HAVE LET'S DO A NOTICE IN A PUBLIC HEARING, LET AN AS PART OF THAT, LET'S GO DO A SITE VISIT. ABSOLUTELY FINE. 
          BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE NOTICED. THAT WAY THE PUBLIC CAN COME AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT AND THE PARTY AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS CAN COME AND BE THERE PRESENT FOR THE SITE VISIT. SO WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC MEETINGS VIOLATION AND FOLLOW THIS. SO THAT'S THE STATUTORY. AND AGAIN THAT KICKS IN ONCE IT'S BEEN FILED. BUT AS AS MANY THINGS AS LAW, SOMETIMES THERE'S MULTIPLE LAWS THAT OR CONCEPTS THAT APPLY. SO IT'S ALSO A DUE PROCESS CONCERN BECAUSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO AS IN YOUR CAPACITY WHEN YOU'RE MAKING QUASI JUDICIAL DECISIONS. 
          AND HERE A PUD IS ONE OF THOSE QUASI JUDICIAL DECISIONS. YOU'RE ACTING AS A JUDGE AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KEEP YOUR DETERMINATION BASED SOLELY ON THE RECORD THAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU, WHETHER THAT'S THE RECORD PROVIDED TO YOU PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING OR THE TESTIMONY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ITSELF. AND AGAIN, THE BASIC IDEA IS FAIRNESS THAT THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN THERE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE THING. THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO SEE WHAT THE OTHER SIDE PRESENTED SO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT IT. THERE'S NO FEELING OF LIKE, HEY, WE TOOK SOMEBODY ASIDE AND TALKED WITH THEM BEFOREHAND. NOW YOU ARE NOT LIKE I INDICATED BEFORE, YOU'RE NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARD AS JUDGES, RIGHT? IF A JUDGE, YOU KNOW, THEY TALK TO ONE SIDE, THERE'D BE AN ETHICAL CONCERN. ONE OPINION I FOUND HAS NOTED THAT YOU ARE FREE TO TAKE PHONE CALLS, EVEN IN A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. NOW, JUST REMEMBER, THERE'S TWO DUTIES HERE. YOU'VE GOT THE DUE PROCESS AND THE STATUTORY. THE WAY I READ THIS, IS THIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT, OR THIS DUE PROCESS? DUTY APPLIES BEFORE THE STATUTORY DUTY KICKS IN. SO ONCE A CASE IS FILED, THE STATUTE SAYS DON'T TALK TO ANYBODY. BUT BEFORE THAT YOU CAN TALK TO THEM AND THAT'S FINE. BUT IF YOU DO HAVE AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION AND THIS AND AGAIN THERE WAS A, THERE WAS AN IDAHO SUPREME COURT CASE THAT I FOUND WHERE THEY ACTUALLY REVERSED THE DECISION. 
          AND IT WAS BASED ON PARTLY BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT COULD BE A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAD HAD WITH THE DEVELOPER. AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL SAID, YEAH, I TALKED WITH THE GUY BUT DIDN'T DISCLOSE WHEN THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAPPENED, AND IT DIDN'T SEEM TO MATTER TO THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT AND DID NOT DISCLOSE WHAT WAS SAID. RIGHT. 
          AND SO THAT FACTORED INTO HAVING THE DECISION REVERSED ON APPEAL. BUT IF YOU DO SO, IF YOU DO HAVE EX PARTY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO DISCLOSE WHO YOU SPOKE WITH AND GENERALLY WHAT THEY SAID. AGAIN, THIS PROVIDES THE 
          [02:05:06]
OPPOSING PARTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THAT. AND SO EVERYBODY'S ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. IT ALSO THE WAY THE COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THIS, THIS PROCESS ALSO WOULD CURE. 
          SO IF YOU DO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEBODY AFTER A CASE HAS BEEN FILED, WHICH WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE, THE STATUTORY DUTY, YOU CAN CURE IT THROUGH THIS PROCESS SO THAT YOU CAN DISCLOSE IT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING, AND YOU DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF. THERE WAS A CASE THAT I CAME ACROSS WHERE A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAD SPENT 20 HOURS NEGOTIATING WITH THE APPLICANT, AND HE RECUSED HIMSELF AT THE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT WAS THAT WAS PROPER. 
          BASICALLY, HE PROPERLY RECUSED HIMSELF BECAUSE HE WHEN YOU GET TO THE POINT WHERE YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS FOR 20 HOURS NEGOTIATING, YOU'VE KIND OF GET YOU DEVELOP A POSITION AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FAIRLY STATE THE SUBSTANCE OF ALL YOUR NEGOTIATIONS. SO SO IF YOU DO HAVE AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH SOMEBODY REGARDING A QUASI JUDICIAL OR A PUD, MAKE SURE YOU RECORD IT SO THAT AT THE HEARING YOU CAN DISCLOSE IT. RIGHT. SO YOU CAN SAY, I SPOKE WITH SO-AND-SO ON THIS DATE AND THIS IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME, RIGHT? AND SO AND SO YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT AND JUST DISCLOSE THAT AT THE BEGINNING. AND BUT IF YOU IF YOU FEEL THAT, HEY, I GOT SO MUCH INFORMATION, THEN I SHOULD RECUSE MYSELF, THEN YOU FEEL FREE TO DO THAT AS WELL. MY ONLY QUESTION, I THINK THE BEST PRACTICE, BECAUSE IF YOU REGULARLY ENGAGE IN EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, THE RISK IS YOU'RE GOING TO FORGET TO DISCLOSE. RIGHT? AND THEN MIDWAY THROUGH THE HEARING, THE APPLICANT OR A NEIGHBOR WILL SAY, HEY, REMEMBER YOU TOLD ME, YADA YADA, AND THEN YOU HAVE A PROBLEM OR POTENTIAL PROBLEM BECAUSE NOW THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN A COMMUNICATION AND IT WASN'T DISCLOSED AT THE BEGINNING. I'M GIVING THE OTHER PARTY AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT. 
          WE MAY HAVE TO WE WOULD TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT, BUT OR IT GOES UNDISCLOSED AND THEN LATER COMES OUT THAT, HEY, THERE WAS A CONVERSATION AND YOU JUST FORGOT ABOUT IT, RIGHT? IT CAN CAUSE ISSUES. SO THE BEST PRACTICE I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND IS IF SOMEBODY COMES UP TO YOU AND SAYS, HEY, I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT A PUD THAT I'M PLANNING TO FILE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, OR I DON'T LIKE THE PV THAT THE NEIGHBORS OR THAT THE APPLICANTS PROPOSE, JUST SAY, HEY, I JUST HAVE SOME DUTIES HERE. WE WANT TO BE FAIR TO EVERYBODY. PLEASE CONTACT CITY STAFF. THEY'D BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU. I WILL ALSO BE HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOU AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S FAIR. SO THAT'S WHAT I JUST RECOMMEND AS A BEST PRACTICE. ALTHOUGH AS INDICATED THAT THE ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION ON EX-PARTE DOESN'T START UNTIL THE CASE IS FILED. SO YOU COULD YOU COULD TALK TO SOMEBODY BEFOREHAND. BUT IF YOU DO, JUST MAKE SURE YOU KEEP TRACK OF IT. ANY QUESTIONS THERE. SO WE SHOULD NOT NOT ASK QUESTIONS OF DIRECTOR STANTON BEFORE THE IN OUR LIAISON MEETING BEFORE THE THURSDAY NIGHT HEARING. SO SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT TRICKY WITH STAFF. THEY'RE NOT A PARTY TO THE CASE. 
          RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT THE APPLICANT. BUT THE ISSUE IS IF YOU START GETTING FACTS FROM STAFF, RIGHT. YOU COULD TALK ABOUT POTENTIAL. LEGAL ISSUES. RIGHT. OR POTENTIAL LEGAL OPTIONS. BUT DON'T ASK ABOUT FACTS THAT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE YOU ON THE RECORD OR THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THIS IS ALSO AFTER IT'S BEEN FILED AND WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL AFTER IT'S BEEN FILED. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M TALKING HYPOTHETICALLY, IF SOMEBODY COMES UP, HEY, I'M THINKING ABOUT A PUD. SO THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION IS WHEN DOES YOUR STAFF TYPICALLY KNOW A PUD IS EMINENTLY GOING TO BE FILED? HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN TALKING WITH THE DEVELOPER BEFORE PUD APPLICATION IS FILED? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. TYPICALLY, YEAH. 
          TYPICALLY IT'S AROUND THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING IS WHEN WE KNOW AN APPLICATION IS COMING, WHICH IS USUALLY HOW LONG BEFORE A PUD FILE. IT CAN BE QUITE A WHILE BEFORE IT CAN BE MONTHS A YEAR A YEAR OR TWO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I COULD GO TO DIRECTOR SANDER AND HAVE HIM EXPLAIN CODE OR HOW IT'S APPLIED, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM, RIGHT? AS LONG AS WE DON'T TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC FACTS. RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT LEARNING FACTS ABOUT THE SPECIFICS. YOU'RE WELCOME TO GET INPUT ABOUT THE LAW. YEAH. TALK TO THE STANDARD. WHAT WHAT OPTIONS DO YOU YOU KNOW, AND YOU CAN ALWAYS SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, YOU KNOW MAYBE YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SAY, HEY, I WAS THINKING IF SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH THIS SORT OF ISSUE, COULD WE IMPOSE THIS SORT OF CONDITION? DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE FAIR? RIGHT. BUT IF WE START GETTING INTO LIKE, OKAY, THIS PARTICULAR PUD, WHAT ARE THE FACTS ABOUT IT? STAY AWAY FROM THAT. SO THESE OTHERWISE YOU'RE KIND OF GETTING IS YOU'RE GETTING FACTS THROUGH A DIFFERENT CHANNEL BASICALLY. AND THE, THE APPLICANT AND AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC NEED THE 
          [02:10:04]
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO REVISE ANY FACTS THAT COME UP OR AT LEAST ADDRESS. ONCE AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED. WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER PRACTICE? JUST SIMPLY SAY I CANNOT SPEAK ABOUT IT. ABSOLUTELY. AND BASED ON THE STATUTE? THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. ANYWAY, IT'S A MORASS. YOU END UP TRYING TO DISTINGUISH WHAT IS FACTS. YOU TRY TO END UP HAVING TO REMEMBER THOSE FACTS WHEN YOU LATER COME TO THE HEARING. I THINK THEIR PRACTICE WOULD BE JUST SIMPLY DON'T DO IT. I CAN'T BY LAW SPEAK WITH YOU. I HAVE TO HAVE A PLACE THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN A PUBLIC MEETING WHERE THERE'S A RECORD BEING KEPT, OTHERWISE YOU'RE JUST INVITING INTO YOUR YOUR INVITING TO CHALLENGE YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, DIRECTOR CENTER, ARE WE READY TO. I KNOW A LOT OF THIS. SORRY. I'LL TRY TO MOVE FORWARD. YEAH. 
          OH, OKAY. THE SECOND ONE WAS THE KIND OF. THE KEY IS THAT THE APPLICATION HAS TO BE FILED. 
          IF THERE'S NO APPLICATION FILED, AND THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT THAT YOU REFRAIN FROM THOSE CONVERSATIONS. BUT ONCE IT'S FILED, THEN AT THAT POINT, I THINK YOU'RE BETTER OFF TO STAY AWAY FROM IT. ALL RIGHT. SO AS FAR AS THE CONDITIONS, OUR OUR ORDINANCE BASICALLY SAYS WE FOLLOW THE CUKUP PROCESS, BUT THAT CITY COUNCIL CAN IMPOSE CONDITIONS BASED TO BASICALLY TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA OF OUR ORDINANCE. NOW OUR ORDINANCE IS VERY LONG. SO THE WAY I READ THAT IS THERE'S KIND OF TWO CONDITIONS FOR FOR TWO REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED CONDITION. 
          IT'S GOT TO SATISFY. THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THE WHAT YOU COULD DO RIGHT OR THE WHY BEHIND IT. 
          YOU'VE GOT TO SATISFY THESE ONE OF THESE CRITERIA. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT YOU ALSO HAVE TO BE AIMING AT. SO YOU'LL NOTE IN THE PUD ORDINANCE IT HAS A LOT OF CRITERIA RIGHT. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SUBSECTIONS. SO IF THERE WAS A CRITERIA IN THERE AND YOU'RE THINKING AM I CONCERNED ABOUT THE THE THE ADVERSE IMPACT THIS MIGHT HAVE ON OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND THAT CRITERIA? YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN SATISFIED. HERE'S WHAT I THINK YOU SHOULD DO AS A CONDITION TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA IN OUR ORDINANCE TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. OR, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD IF ONE OF THE CRITERIA HAS TO DO WITH THE EXACT LOCATION AND NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN ALSO SAY, OKAY, WE WANT TO IMPOSE A CONDITION. I DON'T THINK THIS CRITERIA IN OUR ORDINANCE HAS BEEN MET, BUT BUT YOU COULD DO THAT TO IF AS LONG AS IT'S DESIGNATED. BASICALLY IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS RUBRIC. RIGHT. 
          IT'S GOT TO DO ONE OF THESE THINGS AS WELL AS BE FOCUSED ON ONE OF THE CRITERIA IN OUR ORDINANCE. AND THERE ARE A LOT IN THERE. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY, BUT JUST KNOW THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TIE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A CONDITION AND ASK FOR CONDITION, IT'S GOT TO BE TIED TO OUR CRITERIA AS WELL AS GO THROUGH THE, THE, THE BASIC RUBRIC FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. AND THE REASON FOR FOCUSING ON THE CRITERIA IS YOU CAN'T JUST WILLY NILLY SAY, HEY, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE ALL THE HOUSES TO BE PINK AND IMPOSE THAT AS A CONDITION. IT HAS TO BE TIED TO. 
          HE HAS TO BE ABLE TO SHOW, OKAY, THE REASON WHY I WANT THIS CONDITION IS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO SATISFY OUR CRITERIA AND OUR STATUTE, AND IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO PREDICTABILITY. THE IDAHO STATUTES. BASICALLY SAY THAT, AND I SAY THAT WE PUT IT OUT THERE SO THAT PEOPLE MAY KNOW THE EXPRESS STANDARDS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REQUESTED PERMIT OR APPROVAL. 
          AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT IF WE DON'T ADDRESS EITHER COMPLIANCE OR NONCOMPLIANCE. SO IF YOU'RE APPROVING, YOU'RE ADDRESSING THE COMPLIANCE. AND IF YOU'RE DENYING, THEN YOU ADDRESS THE NONCOMPLIANCE, RIGHT? IF YOU DON'T DO THAT WITH WITH GOOD REASONS, IT'LL GET REVERSED ON APPEAL. SO YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO TIE IT TO OUR PUD CRITERIA, EITHER FOR WHEN YOU'RE GRANTING OR WHEN YOU'RE DENYING. OTHERWISE GET REVERSED ON APPEAL. YOU'RE SAYING THE APPROVAL OF THE PUD WILL BE REVERSED. IF IF IF YOU DON'T HAVE REASON. SO IF YOU APPROVE AND YOU DIDN'T DO YOU DIDN'T TIE SO YOUR REASON STATEMENT, IF YOU DIDN'T EXPLAIN YOUR REASONING FOR WHY IT COMPLIES, IT WOULD BE REVERSED. ON APPEAL. THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT WOULD SAY, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU APPLIED YOUR CRITERIA AND THEN SAY A NEIGHBOR APPEALS AND SAYS, HEY, THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR JOB AND THEIR FINDINGS OF FACT. GOTCHA. THEN THE NEIGHBOR COULD GET REVERSED. OR THE FLIP SIDE IS THERE'S A DENIAL OF PUD, AND THE APPLICANT SAYS THEY DIDN'T APPLY THEIR CRITERIA. 
          THEY THEY DENIED IT FOR REASONS OUTSIDE THE CRITERIA. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT. AND SO 
          [02:15:06]
IF THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT REASONS BASED ON OUR CRITERIA, IT WILL GET REVERSED. GOTCHA. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS TO THAT POINT? WE HAVE A COUPLE PROJECTS WE WERE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND THROUGH SOME CERTAIN NOT ALL THE ORDINANCE BUT GEMS THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT. BUT I DID WANT TO OPEN IT UP. ANY THOUGHTS ON ON ON WHERE WE'RE AT TO THIS POINT? ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE? SCOTT. YES. OKAY. SO LOOK AT THE PICTURE. IT REMINDS ME WE OFTEN SEE PICTURES WHEN IT COMES IN THE PACKET TO THE COUNCIL. THAT BECOMES PART OF THE RECORD. ARE THEY NOT ALLOWED TO EXCEED WHAT THEY SHOW IN THE PICTURE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT? WELL, IT COMES BACK TO THE IF THEY SAY THEY'RE DOING TWO STORY AND THEY CAN'T, CAN WE REQUIRE THEM? YOU HAVE TO STICK WITH TWO STORIES. SO THAT YOU MEAN THE SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING, COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS. SO IF THEY HAVE AN ELEVATION THAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED AND IT'S TWO STORIES, IS THAT WHAT'S APPROVED. THAT IS PART OF THE APPROVAL. SO WHEN WE APPROVE THAT THEY'RE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES. DO WE HAVE TO STATE THAT OR IS IT IMPLIED BY THE APPLICATION I WOULD LOOK TO LEGAL I WOULD ASSUME IT WAS IMPLIED, BUT I WOULD ASSUME IT WAS PART OF THE APPROVAL. AND THUS IT'S HOLDING. WE WOULD HOLD IT. IT'S A DIRECT ISSUE THAT IT IS A DIRECT. SO THE UNDERLYING ZONE WAS R2, WHICH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THREE WAS THAT IT WAS R3. YEAH. I THINK WHAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED R3 BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THREE STORIES WHEN THEY BROUGHT IT FORWARD AS A PUD. ALL OF THE PICTURES THAT THEY SHOWED WERE TWO STORIES HIGH AND WE WANTED TO. TO APPLY THE CONDITION THAT NOTHING COULD BE BUILT OVER TWO STORIES IF WE ACCEPTED THIS PUD, BUT THEN IT WAS LIKE, NO, YOU CAN'T APPLY THAT CONDITION BECAUSE IT GETS THE UNDERLYING CONDITION. BUT AS I HAVE UNDERSTOOD IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE COULD HAVE APPLIED THAT CONDITION TO HAVE LEFT IT AT ONLY TWO STORIES. WE CAN APPLY ELEVATION, AND I THINK THE SHORT ANSWER WOULD BE IS IF THEY SUBMIT FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A THREE STORY BUILDING, AND THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS SHOW TWO STORY, THEY WILL NOT RECEIVE A BUILDING. 
          THAT'S OKAY. WE DO HOLD THEM TO THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. NOW THEY'RE CONCEPTUAL. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW COLORS AND OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THAT'S A BUT FOR STORIES. WINDOWS, ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. YES WE WOULD. OH IT IS OKAY. DIDN'T I SEE IN ONE OF THE VISUALS YOU HAD THAT WE CAN STIPULATE HOW MANY STORIES. I MEAN THAT'S SOMETHING WITHIN THE PUD THAT WE CAN. SO IF THEY IF THEY STARTED THEY SAY, HEY, OUR APPLICATION IS FOR THREE STORIES. AND THEN YOU SAID, NO, YOU'VE GOT TO GO DOWN TO TWO. 
          AND YOU MADE THAT THE CONDITION THAT MIGHT PRESENT MORE PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU THEN YOU HAVE A POTENTIAL TAKINGS CLAIM. BUT IF YOU'RE JUST SAYING, OKAY, YOU PRESENTED THIS AS YOU ASKED FOR TWO STORIES, WE'LL GIVE YOU TWO STORIES AND THEN YOU'RE LIKE, THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M GOING. IF THEY PRESENT TO US THAT IT'S A TWO STORY AND THEN WE, I DON'T KNOW, CODIFY THAT, BUT WE SPECIFICALLY STATE THIS IS BEING APPROVED WITH NO GREATER THAN TWO STORIES. ARE WE PROBABLY ON SOUND FOOTING? WELL, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED FOR TWO. SO THAT'S ALL THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED FOR IS PUD WITH TWO STORIES. AND SO IF THEY'RE TRYING TO GO IN EXCESS OF THAT, LIKE MR. BIEGLER SAID, WE WOULD CATCH THAT. I THINK IT COMES BACK TO YOUR POINT, THOUGH, IS THEY'RE THEY'RE PROVIDING CONCEPTS THAT THEY'RE NOT TIED TO LEGALLY. THAT'S RIGHT. SO THEY ARE TIED TO THEM LEGALLY THROUGH THE PROCESS, EVEN ON THE PUD SITE PLAN ITSELF. SO EVEN IF THE ZONING WOULD ALLOW THREE STORIES, THEY CAN'T COME BACK INTO YOU AFTER A PUD HAS BEEN APPLIED WITH AN ELEVATION, A CONCEPT ELEVATION, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY NO. CORRECT PER. AND WHAT ARE YOU RELYING ON? I'M RELYING ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, AND THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS THAT WERE PART OF THAT APPROVAL PROCESS AS WELL. OKAY. I LIKE THAT THE SITE PLAN WILL ACTUALLY INDICATE. SO WE DO HAVE SOME PUDS WHO HAVE BOTH A THREE STORY STRUCTURE AND TWO STORY STRUCTURES IN THE SAME PUD. BUT THE SITE PLAN DRAWING AGAIN WILL INDICATE WHICH BUILDINGS ARE GOING WHERE. AND AS BUILDING PERMITS COME THROUGH, WE'RE ENSURING THAT THEY'RE MATCHING THE APPROVED PIPELINE. CAN WE REQUIRE THOSE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PUD TO BE CONSIDERED? WE REQUIRE ELEVATION AS PART OF THE APPLICATION ELEVATION, AND THEY CAN'T BE CHANGED ONCE THE PUD HAS BEEN APPROVED. AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO IN AND AMEND THE PUD, AND THEY'D HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN. SO THAT WOULD COME BACK TO US. IT DEPENDS A LITTLE BIT. THE PAD HAS TWO AMENDMENT PROCESS. ONE IS ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE IS BACK THROUGH. IF IT'S A LARGE CHANGE, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE SAME 
          [02:20:05]
APPROVAL PROCESS. IF IT'S A MINOR ADJUSTMENT AND THE CODE IS CLEAR AS TO WHAT IS THE MINOR VERSUS WHAT IS MAJOR, THEN IT WOULD JUST BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE. OKAY. OKAY, LET ME GO THROUGH THESE PROJECTS. WE'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY. ACTUALLY THESE ARE JUST SOME WHAT WE WERE THINKING ON THESE IS JUST THESE PROJECTS. WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW YOU A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL ABOUT THEM, WHERE THEY ARE. BUT WE WANTED TO TRY TO CAPTURE WE TOOK THESE THIS MORNING. YES. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GOING BACK AND DOING THIS BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF SITE PLANS. IT'S LIKE WE'VE SEEN THE SITE PLANS, WE'VE ALL APPROVED THE SITE PLANS. WE WANT TO SEE HOW THEY'RE TURNING OUT. AND THEY DID THIS MORNING RUN OUT. SO THANK YOU. IT'S TOTALLY FINE. WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE A FEW THINGS. SO SO FORGIVE. KERRY TOOK THE PICTURE, BUT I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT IT WAS ME. PHOTOGRAPHER. YEAH. SO WE WERE TRYING TO CAPTURE SOME OF THE STREETSCAPE, THE AMENITIES, THE TYPICAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. WE'RE TRYING TO CAPTURE THAT SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. DID IT MEET WHAT YOU WANTED AND WAS IT ACCORDING TO WHAT THE THE PUD ORDINANCE SAID? SO GO AHEAD, TAKE IT. IS THAT A DRIVE AISLE OR A PRIVATE STREET? IT'S ACTUALLY BOTH. WHAT IS A DRIVE AISLE? DO YOU MEAN A DRIVE AISLE? PER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S DEFINITION, YES. I DON'T KNOW. IT JUST KEEPS THAT WE ARE WE ARE GETTING THAT IS PART OF THE SLIDES. SO SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE DRIVE AISLE. 
          THE BASIC DEFINITION OF A DRIVE AISLE IS VEHICLE PASSAGEWAY BETWEEN PARKING STALLS TO GET TO A PARKING AREA THAT SERVICING A HIGH CAPACITY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT GOING TO THE MALL AS A BIG CASE, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE DRIVE AISLES AS YOU'RE SEARCHING FOR YOUR PARKING SPOT. OKAY. NOW IN THIS INSTANCE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S PARKING ON BOTH SIDES. YEAH. IT'S ALSO BEING USED AS THE PRIMARY PRIVATE ROAD IN A DRY VIAL STYLE. OKAY. SO IF YOU'VE GOT A IF YOU'VE GOT A, THERE ARE SOME LIKE THIS AROUND WHERE THE ACCESS TO THE GARAGES IS DOWN. WHAT I WOULD HAVE CALLED AN ALLEY. ALL RIGHT. BUT IT'S PAVED. IS THAT A DRIVE AISLE OR IS THAT A IT'S NOT A STREET, AT LEAST THE ONES I'M THINKING OF. THE ONES UP BY FREELAND PARK. YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A DRIVE OUT THAT'S GOING TO THE PARKING. AND JUST REMEMBER WHEN WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ACCESS TO THE BUILDING AND THE ABILITY TO GET AROUND THE STRUCTURE AND ACCESS TO THE FRONT DOOR. SO THIS ROAD MAY BE PLENTY SUFFICIENT TO SERVICE THIS WHOLE COMPLEX. HOWEVER, IF THERE WERE PARKING GARAGES IN THE BACK THAT WE NEED TO PUT OUT FIRES, IF THERE'S A CAR IN THERE OR WHATEVER, WE WOULD NEED ALSO ACCESS TO THOSE BUILDINGS AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO BY DEFINITION, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE DEFINE A PRIVATE STREET. WE DO NOT HAVE A DEFINITION OR A STANDARD FOR A PRIVATE STREET, FOR A DRIVE AISLE. WE DO. IT NEEDS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 24. IF IT'S GOING TO BE A FIRE ACCESS ROAD, THAT NEEDS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 26. AND THEN IF WE STARTED OUT ON STREET PARKING AND OTHER THINGS THAT THAT GET INTO THERE, WE GET WIDER AS WE GO, SORT OF. 
          BUT THERE'S NOT A THERE'S NOT A PRECISE DEFINITION. THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE THOUGH. AND IF YOU LOOK HERE, YOU SEE THESE CURB RETURNS. SO THIS IS A MORE RECENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHERE FIRE HAS FOR ANY SORT OF PRIVATE STREET THEY REQUIRED OR EVEN A PRIVATE DRIVE AISLE. AND AGAIN WE SORT OF USE THEM LOOSELY AS ONE THESE, THESE WIDER CURB RETURNS. SO IT HAS THE APPEARANCE OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE FOR A TYPICAL LOCAL STREET. THEIR ACCESS IN AND OUT IS MUCH SMOOTHER THAN IF IT WERE A VALLEY GUTTER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THAT HAS BECOME SORT OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR ANY PRIVATE STREETS. THE OTHER WAY THAT WE KNOW IT IS A PRIVATE STREET IS THAT IT'S IT'S NAMED THE BUILDINGS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE ADDRESSED OFF OF THAT ROAD, AND IT'S PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T HAVE PRIVATE STREETS OUTSIDE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. WE DO HAVE PRIVATE DRIVE AISLES, THOUGH, OUTSIDE OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENTS. SEE, YOU THOUGHT I WAS GIVING YOU SOMETHING, COUNCILMAN FRANCIS, BUT I TOOK IT AWAY AS SOON AS I GAVE IT. THIS OTHER ONE, TOO. WE DO ALSO. 
          I MEAN, THEY DO HAVE A PLAYGROUND. THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR AMENITIES. THIS IS A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. AND AND SO OUR PLAN, THE CURRENT PLANNED UNIT ONE SECOND, AS YOU LOOK AT THAT. PLAY STRUCTURE, IS THAT IN A RETENTION POND IS THAT IS LIKE WE YOU KNOW, WE 
          [02:25:05]
HEAR AND SEE THAT A LOT. IS IT IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IS IT LIKE, YEAH, THIS IS WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING OUT OF IT. IS THIS KIND OF A PLAY STRUCTURE? THIS IS THE AMENITY FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, OR DOES IT FEEL LIKE IT'S THE BACKYARD OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S UNIT? SO THIS ONE PARTICULAR IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN THAT WAS PROPOSED. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS THE STORM POND ON THIS SITE. THE AREA IS ACTUALLY RELATIVELY FLAT. OKAY. YOU DO WE HAVE A SITE PLANS? YEAH. AND WE WILL PULL THEM UP. THAT'S OKAY, THAT'S OKAY. I JUST THESE ARE THE KIND OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ALWAYS HAD. IT'S LIKE, HOW ARE THEY TURNING OUT? RIGHT. 
          WE WE DID APPROVE THEM. AND THEN HOW WE DID SPECIFICALLY TAKE SOME PICTURES OF ONES THAT ARE IN DETENTION PONDS. SO YOU CAN SEE. YEAH. SORRY. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION AS WE LOOK AT THIS ONE HERE. AND YOU HAVE A 25% RATIO OF COMMON SPACE, WHERE DOES THAT 25%. WHAT ARE YOU USING TO MAKE UP THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF THE PATIOS? OR IS IT JUST ONCE YOU HIT THE GRASS? WHAT WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR 25%? CAN WE KEEP YOU IN ANTICIPATION ON THAT? YES, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A SLIDE TO SHOW HOW WE CALCULATE. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO LINDEN TRAILS THIS IS WEST SIDE OF TOWN AS WELL. LINDEN TRAILS IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST PUD TO BE APPROVED UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2015. WE'VE MADE A FEW MODIFICATIONS TO AMENITIES AND OTHER THINGS, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THE PROCESS HAS LARGELY BEEN THE SAME FOR A LITTLE OVER A DECADE. WE THINK LINDEN TRAILS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE PURPOSE OF A PED. SO YOU HAVE HERE BOTH ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AS WELL AS YOU HAVE SOME FOUR PLEX TYPE ATTACHMENTS. SO BOTH TWIN HOMES AND ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY IS BASICALLY YOUR TYPICAL TOWNHOMES. THEY HAVE SEVERAL AMENITIES. THE OTHER THING AGAIN, IF WE GO TO FIRE THIS PARTICULAR PHOTO, THIS IS ACTUALLY A FIRE TURNAROUND. IT'S HARD TO SEE. BUT RIGHT HERE IS A SIGN THAT SAYS DON'T BLOCK THIS. AND THEN IT'S A PAVED HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND FOR FIRE. IF WE LOOK AT THE PLAN THAT'S RIGHT HERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, OTHERWISE, THIS TOP PICTURE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PRIVATE STREET. AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION, BUT IN THIS CASE THESE ARE EACH NAMED. THE BUILDINGS ARE ADDRESSED OFF OF THOSE STREETS. THEY'RE NOT BUILT TO OUR 60 FOOT WIDE TYPICAL LOCAL PUBLIC STREET STANDARD. YOU'RE AGAIN YOU'RE NOT SEEING PER SE SIDEWALKS ALONG THEM IN THIS ONE INTERNALLY. BUT EXTERNALLY YOU DO THE HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND. IF THAT WERE JUST NORMAL ZONING, NOT IN BEAUTY, THAT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE A THING, WOULD IT? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO FIRE. WE HAVE A FEW EXAMPLES. THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING ON THURSDAY. OKAY. WELL I'M JUST I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND LIKE WE'VE SEEN IT. THIS IS A PRO OF PUDS BECAUSE YOU'RE ABLE YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THESE BIG GIANT CUL DE SACS WASTING SPACE. YOU CAN HAVE A SOLUTION LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN SOME HAMMERHEADS IN SOME SUBDIVISIONS. IT'S BEEN A WAY TO ALLOW THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR DIVISIONING. IT GETS CHALLENGING SOMETIMES IN MEETING THE CODE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE THINK THEY'RE PERFORMING GREAT FOR US. YEAH. 
          AND WE REALLY LOOK AT IT FROM AN EXCESSIVE BACKING SITUATION. SO I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION FROM THE GROUP OF WHERE THESE ARE APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE I JUST LOOK AT IF WE'RE GOING TO BACK A TRUCK UP SO FAR, AND THAT'S WHEN WE USUALLY RUN OVER THE NEIGHBOR'S DOG OR FIREFIGHTERS A LOT, A LOT OF THOSE ACCIDENTS ARE BACKING. ONCE WE GO TO A CERTAIN DISTANCE WE NEED A TURNAROUND. AND THAT'S EITHER A CUL DE SAC OR OR OTHER VERSIONS OF THAT IS BASED ON A LADDER VERSUS A TANKER, OR DOES IT DEPEND ON YOUR EQUIPMENT? NO. WE'LL BASICALLY START AT THE REAR BUMPER AND BACK UP A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FEET. AND THEN IF WE'RE NOT TO THAT CORNER INTERSECTION, THEN WE'LL REQUIRE A TURNAROUND. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. THE LOWER LEFT HAND PICTURE WITH THE RED BOUNDARY TO THE RIGHT OF THAT. 
          DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THAT ZONE IS? THAT OUTSIDE THE RED. OUTSIDE THE RED IS R1 OKAY. 
          BECAUSE I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS. I KNOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I JUST WONDERED IF OKAY. AND AGAIN, THIS DEVELOPER CREATED PART OF THE PUD WITH R2 AND THE REST WAS R1. WE THINK IT'S ACTUALLY TURNED OUT REALLY NICE. THEY AS PART OF ONE OF THEIR AMENITIES, THERE'S A TEN FOOT PATHWAY THAT GOES THROUGH HERE ON THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. COULD YOU COME BACK TO THAT? YES. 
          WHAT DO WE NEED TO ASK IN COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THEY PUT A SIDEWALK IN? MOST PUDS TODAY? AGAIN, THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE DONE TEN YEARS AGO. MOST OF THEM WILL HAVE EITHER AN 
          [02:30:01]
INTERNAL TRAIL SYSTEM OR SOME SORT OF WALK ALONG THE PRIVATE STREETS, AT LEAST ON ONE SIDE. 
          YEAH, IT'S PRETTY RARE THAT WE DON'T SEE THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY THAT'S BECOME VERY IMPORTANT, BOTH TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL OVER THE YEARS. AND SO AS STAFF, THAT'S SOMETHING WE ADVISE THE DEVELOPER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT IF YOU DON'T SEE IT. BECAUSE I ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE WHEN I HEAR PRIVATE STREET, I'M THINKING YOU'RE PUTTING A SIDEWALK INTO BECAUSE I ASSOCIATE THAT. BUT IT'S CLEARLY NOT HERE. RIGHT. AND CURRENT PUDS, THE ONES WE'RE SEEING NOW, A LOT OF TIMES IT DEPENDS ON THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING. SOMETIMES THIS PRIVATE STREETS ARE ACTING AS THE REAR ALLEY AND THEY'RE REAR LOADED PRODUCTS. THE FRONT DOOR IS FACING A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. 
          AND SO THAT PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM IS MAYBE NOT NEXT TO THE ACCESS, THE VEHICLE ACCESS. IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS WOULD BE. DID I DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT THEY DON'T YOU DON'T REALLY REQUIRE IT ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET, WE'VE SEEN THAT SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE. WE'VE SEEN IT BOTH SIDES AS WELL. BUT IF SOMEBODY CAME TO YOU WITH ONE THAT WAS JUST ON ONE SIDE, THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE A THROW THEM INTO THE WEEDS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE TWO OF THEM. SOMETIMES IT DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS, SOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE PRETTY SMALL IN NUMBER, WALKING DOWN THE PAVEMENT IS PROBABLY JUST AS SAFE AS WALKING ON A SIDEWALK. AND IF THERE ARE TRADE OFFS FOR OTHER THINGS, THEN MAYBE THAT MAKES SOME SENSE. BUT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THOSE THOSE TRADE OFFS, RIGHT, WITH THE PUD. YEAH. AND I GUESS MY CONCERN IS DRIVE AISLES OR WHERE PEOPLE ARE PARKED LIKE THAT AND YOU'RE ASKING PEOPLE TO WALK IN THE STREET BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A SIDEWALK, YOU'RE ASKING FOR BACKING UP PROBLEMS. THAT'S SURE. YEAH, SURE. DEFINITELY ONE OF THE CONS FOR SURE. BUT BUT TO JUST FROM EARLIER CONVERSATION IF THIS LET'S JUST SAY IF THIS WERE TO COME UP TODAY AND WE SAW THE RENDERINGS THAT SHOWED THIS, COUNCILMAN FRANCIS COULD POINT TO A VARIETY OF THINGS TO SAY, I DON'T WANT TO APPROVE THIS BECAUSE OF X, Y, AND Z OF THESE OTHER CONDITIONS THAT WERE ALREADY LAID OUT THERE. AS LONG AS IT'S. YEAH, AS LONG AS IT'S TARGETING ONE OF THE CRITERIA. YEAH. BASED ON THESE CRITERIA, WHICH THERE WOULD BE SEVERAL PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY IS ONE OF THE CRITERIA IN THE PUD. SO IT WOULD BE VERY SIMPLE TO SORT OF POINT TO THAT. WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE THAT IN ONE OF THE OTHERS. AND I DO APPRECIATE MR. PEELER'S COMMENTS ABOUT PLANNING, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAVE MADE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY IMPORTANT, IS LISTENING TO THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND THEN AS THE DEVELOPER COMES IN, IT'S LIKE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS PASSED THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CONNECTIVITY. SO WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT BOOTS ON THE GROUND. YEAH, RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING AT THE VERY BEGINNING TO BE VERY UPFRONT LISTENING TO WHAT WHAT WE ARE SAYING WITHIN OUR RESPECTIVE BODIES. SORRY, I'M GOING TO I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT TOO. WITH PUDS OR DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL, THERE IS A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS STAFF HAS BEFOREHAND, AND WE VERY MUCH LAY OUT THE SECTIONS OF CODE EVEN BEFORE PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING, EVEN TO THE EXTENT OF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL PASS. SO WE WE ARE PRETTY UPFRONT WITH THEM FROM THE BEGINNING. SO JUST TO INTERJECT ON THAT, ADDRESSING WALKABILITY AND THE LACK OF SIDEWALK HERE, I THINK YOU SAID THERE IS A PATH THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT. CAN YOU MAYBE SHOW ON THE MAP WHERE THAT'S WELL, NEXT SLIDE, LET ME KNOW. SO THIS IS THE TEN FOOT PATH. IT'S ACTUALLY OUT ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK OKAY. AND IF I GO BACK ONE, THAT TEN FOOT PATH ACTUALLY GOES THROUGH THE SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DETACHED PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. CONNECTS ALL THE WAY UP TO BROADWAY STREET, WHICH THEN CONNECTS OUT TO SOCCER COMPLEX. AND THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN CONNECT OUT TO THE PATHWAY NOW ON PAM, CARRIE AND CONNECT ALL THE WAY TO THE RIVER. I MEAN, YOU REALLY CAN ARE WELL CONNECTED FROM A PEDESTRIAN STANDPOINT, FROM THE RIVER TO THE SOCCER COMPLEX AND FROM A JUST BEST PRACTICES STANDPOINT FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT AWAY FROM DRIVEWAYS AND PARKING STALLS. RIGHT. AND IT CUTS INTO THE CURB, BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T HAVE AS MANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR CARS TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE, RIGHT? YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE CONFLICTING POINTS. WE'VE HAD SOME PAST PRODUCTS THAT DO HAVE THE SIDEWALKS IN PLACE. HOWEVER, THEIR DRIVEWAY PAD IS IS 14FT PER SE, RIGHT. AND SO YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT VEHICLES ARE GOING TO BE PURCHASED AND BROUGHT TO THOSE HOMES. AND SO SOME OF THE ONES WE DRIVE BY THE SIDEWALKS THERE, BUT THEN THERE'S A SUBURBAN PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY AND IT'S HANGING OUT INTO THE STREET. SO PEOPLE ARE CONTINUOUSLY WALKING. SO AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THE DRIVE, WE DON'T HAVE A MINIMUM DRIVEWAY STANDARD, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE LEARNED OVER THE 
          [02:35:03]
YEARS, IS WE WOULD ALMOST RATHER HAVE THREE FEET OR LESS. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE 20FT TO PARK A CAR. SO WE'RE REALLY OUR STANDARD PARKING SPACE IS 20FT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN 20FT FOR THE DRIVEWAY OR SOMETHING LESS THAN THREE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IF YOU GET SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN, THEY'RE GOING TO FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO PARK IN SOME WAY. THAT'S GOING TO BLOCK THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. AND SO THAT'S TYPICAL CONVERSATIONS WE'RE HAVING WITH DEVELOPERS AND ALL THESE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS. WE GET PRETTY AGGRESSIVE IN SIGNAGE FOR NO PARKING. RIGHT. SO WE HAVE THE MINIMUM 26FT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PARK PARALLEL ON THE ROAD, YOU ADD AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN FEET OR BOTH SIDES AN ADDITIONAL 14. BUT IF IT'S UNDER THAT THEN A LOT OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS WE WILL REQUIRE, LIKE THE RED CURVE PAINTING AND SIGNS THAT SEEM APPROPRIATE FOR THE HAZARD AREAS THAT WILL BE PARKED IN. BUT THAT'S A BIG DEVELOPMENT TO SIGN THAT WAY, IF YOU LOOKED AT THEM IN THE TRAILS. YEAH. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO. OKAY. HERE'S ANOTHER REASON. WE KIND OF LIKE LINDEN TRAILS. SO THIS IS A SECOND AMENITY. THEY'VE GOT SEVERAL. THIS IS A TOT LOT. SO IT'S A SMALLER VERSION OF A PLAYGROUND. THEY HAVE A COUPLE OF THOSE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S ACTUALLY ADJACENT AND PART OF THIS STORM POND. BUT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE HIGHER GROUND. AND SO THEN YOU HAVE THE STORM POND ADJACENT TO IT. AS WE WERE OUT THERE TODAY, KIDS ARE UTILIZING THE PATHWAY BUILT ON PANCARI AND UTILIZING THE POND FOR SLEDDING AND OTHER THINGS. I IMAGINE THERE MIGHT BE AN EASTER EGG ROLL OR SOMETHING IN THE SPRING. SO I MEAN, IT'S A GOOD, VERSATILE SPACE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT USABLE COMMON SPACE, THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE WOULD THINK IT SHOULD BE. COACHMAN IS ALSO ON THE WEST SIDE. THIS IS NORTH OF BROADWAY. THIS PROPERTY WAS A AN INFILL PIECE I THINK WAS AN ICE SKATING RINK. 
          AT SOME POINT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT MORE ICE TODAY. SORRY, WE TOOK THIS ONE AWAY. BUT HERE YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC STREETSCAPE. SO AGAIN, WE WE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED AS STAFF FOR THE DEVELOPER TO MOVE THESE BUILDINGS AND ORIENT THEM TOWARDS THE STREET SO IT WOULD CREATE THAT PUBLIC STREETSCAPE THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT THOUGH. THEN YOU GET INTO MORE OF THIS DRIVE AISLE SCENARIO, AND THEN THIS IS SORT OF THE THE PARKING. AND WE WOULD AGREE THAT THE UNITS IN THE BACK ARE PROBABLY LESS ATTRACTIVE THAN THE UNITS IN THE FRONT, BUT AGAIN, THE PROPERTIES ONLY SO WIDE AND THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH PUBLIC STREET. IF YOU WERE TO BRING A PUBLIC STREET THROUGH HERE AGAIN, YOU WOULD NOT GET THOSE SECOND UNITS. AND SO THAT YOU KNOW WHY? WHY DO THEY CHOOSE A PUD? PARTLY IT IS IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT ADDITIONAL UNITS WITH THE RIGHT STREET AND THE SMALLER STANDARDS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE UPPER LEFT PHOTO, YOU'LL SEE THE OLDER DUSTPAN APPROACH WHERE YOU'RE GOING UP THROUGH A DRIVEWAY. WHEN WE TRY TO GO, WE TRY TO GET EVERYWHERE REASONABLY FAST. AND WHEN WE'RE GOING TO UNPROTECTED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHERE PEOPLE SLEEP, MEANING THEY DON'T HAVE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS IN THEM. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE JUST WANT THAT SMOOTH ROAD TO ROAD SURFACE WITH THE 30 FOOT TURN RADIUS, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO SLOW DOWN, HIT THE GUTTER AND GO UP A DRIVEWAY APPROACH. SO ON ALL OF THE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOMES THAT ARE NON SPRINKLERED THE ONE WE SHOWED YOU BEFORE WITH THE 30 FOOT TURN RADIUS, STREET TO STREET LEVEL IS WHAT WE'RE CALLING THEM. THEY ALSO PUT IN A PLAYGROUND DOWN HERE, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY TUCKED HERE IN THIS NORTHWEST CORNER. WE THINK I WELL I THOUGHT IT WAS RATHER FINE AS WE WENT OUT THERE. IT WAS A GOOD QUALITY. YOU CAN SEE THE KIDS ARE USING IT. WE'VE GOT CHALK ON THE SIDEWALK OUT FRONT. I THINK IF I WERE LIVING THERE AND HAD SMALLER CHILDREN, THIS IS A WAY FROM THE STREET. IT'S, YOU KNOW, TUCKED AWAY WHERE YOU COULD HAVE SOME PRIVATE SPACE. SATURN PARK TOWNHOMES. SO THIS IS ANOTHER ONE GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO COACHMAN HERE THOUGH I JUST WOULD POINT OUT THEY DID NOT TURN THESE UNITS TOWARDS THE STREET. SO THIS IS YOUR STREETSCAPE OVER HERE. SO KIND OF SIMILAR SCENARIO. WE HAD SATURN WHICH IS A PUBLIC ROAD ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE. BUT AND WE DID HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION WITH THIS DEVELOPER. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE THOUGH, THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO TURN THE STREET TOWARD THE UNITS TOWARD THE STREET. BUT THIS IS ALSO AN EXAMPLE OF MAYBE A COTTAGE COURT, WHICH WE TALK ABOUT WITH MISSING MIDDLE, WHERE THEY'RE FACING MORE OF A COURTYARD THAN THEY ARE NOT. HOWEVER, THE COURTYARD IS PRETTY SMALL, PRETTY MINIMAL. I MEAN, IF THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IF 
          [02:40:05]
WE WANTED TO CREATE SOME COURTYARD STANDARDS, YOU COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YEAH. 
          TO MAKE THIS BETTER. THAT'S PRETTY SNUG. IT'S PRETTY SNUG. I WILL TELL YOU. THIS IS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE. I'VE HELPED THEM MOVE IN AND OUT, AND I'VE REPEATEDLY ASKED THEM, HOW DO YOU LIKE LIVING HERE? THEY LIKE IT. THEY LIKE IT A LOT. IT'S ALLOWED THEM TO LIVE ON THE WEST SIDE, WHERE SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO FIND UNITS AVAILABLE ON THE WEST SIDE, AND IT MEETS THEIR NEED. IT DOES HAVE A PLAYGROUND, ALTHOUGH SUNKEN IN THE STORM POND SUNKEN GARDEN. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR ONE OF THESE EXAMPLES JUST FOR YOU. 
          THANK YOU. I THINK THE KIDS ACTUALLY FIND THE SUNKEN PLAYGROUND KIND OF COOL. I THINK IF YOUR PARENTS OR IF YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE TRYING TO PUSH A STROLLER DOWN IN THERE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING FOR SURE. WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE SLOPES AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE SLOPES ERODE AWAY AND THAT SORT OF THING. IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY HOLDING UP. OKAY. AS FAR AS WHAT WAS APPROVED ON THE SITE PLAN, DO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM SLOPE THAT WE APPROVE IN A PUD? WE DON'T. SO HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHAT'S TOO STEEP AND WHAT DETENTION? WELL, FOR FOR USABLE SPACE, THERE IS SOME BEST PRACTICES FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, BUT THERE'S NOT A STANDARD IN THE PED ITSELF AS FAR AS WHAT THOSE MINIMUM SLOPES SHOULD BE CARRY. WHAT'S ACROSS THE STREET THERE, OR TO HAVE A DRIFT BOAT. THIS IS HIGH DRIFT BOAT OVER HERE. SO FROM A RESIDENT STANDPOINT, WAS LIVING IN THIS COMPLEX. I'D PROBABLY RATHER HAVE THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE FACE ANOTHER HOME THAN THAT, AND SOMETHING THAT'S NOT AS RESIDENTIAL. SO IT'S NOT AS NICE TO DRIVE BY, BUT PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING THERE, IT'S LIKE, WHAT? WHAT IS NICE ABOUT DRIVING BY IS THEY AT LEAST PLANTED THE TREES. AND THERE IS NOW THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK THAT THEN CONNECTS INTO EACH INDIVIDUAL THING. AND SOME MIGHT LIKE THE COZINESS OF THE NEIGHBORLY FEEL OF THEM FACING TOGETHER LIKE THAT. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE PROTECTED FROM THE WIND AND THE SUN AND IT'S TRUE. YEAH. SO I MEAN, AGAIN, I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL PEOPLE. I MEAN, SPECIFICALLY TRY TO INTERVIEW THEM. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT LIVING HERE? AND THEY REALLY ENJOYED IT. SO I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD A LOT OF DIFFERENT HOUSING FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIFFERENT WANTS AND NEEDS. 
          AND IN LARGE MEASURE, I THINK WE'RE DOING THAT. CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THAT PICTURE? I KNOW, LIKE FOR OUR MULTI-FAMILY, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE WE HAVE TO HAVE A TRASH ENCLOSURES THAT WOULD COVER THOSE TWO DUMPSTERS. DO WE NOT HAVE THAT IN PUD TYPE ORDINANCES OR IS THAT DO THIS WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THAT REQUIREMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          YEAH THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE LEARNED AS WELL. GOOD EYE ON THAT QUESTION. AS WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THESE, I JUST COULDN'T TELL IF SOME OF THESE WERE THE UNITS WERE SEPARATELY PLATTED OR THEY'RE JUST MAYBE ONE BIGGER LOT AND THEY'RE ALL JUST RENTALS OR TOWNHOMES. 
          CORRECT. I PULLED UP THE GIS ON THE BOTTOM MAP, BUT WE CAN PULL UP EACH INDIVIDUAL SITE PLAN IF YOU WANT, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE TOWNHOMES, WHETHER THEY'RE TOWNHOMES OR WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS WHEN THEY'RE TOWNHOMES, YOU CAN'T EXPLICITLY TELL IF THEY'RE ALL OWNED BY ONE COMPANY AS RENTALS, AND THEY'RE JUST ON ONE LOT VERSUS INDIVIDUALLY. SO YES, SOME OF THESE DO HAVE COMMON GROUND AND SOME OF THEM ARE PLATTED INDIVIDUALLY, RIGHT? YEAH, ALL OF THEM. IN FACT, LINDA CHARLES HAS PLOTTED INDIVIDUALLY. COACHMAN ANDERSON. IS THIS ONE INDIVIDUALLY? BUT THEY'RE INDIVIDUALLY. OKAY. THE INTERESTING THING, THOUGH, AS I TALKED WITH PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, IS MOST OF THE MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY INVESTORS, BY BUILDING, BY BUILDING. YEAH, THAT DOES TEND TO HAPPEN, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE CONDOS AND DO HAVE THE ABILITY FOR INDIVIDUALS TO I THINK I REMEMBER SEEING THESE LIKE GET SOLD FOR AT A TIME BASICALLY. RIGHT. YEAH YEAH YEAH. THE NEXT SECTION WE HAVE IS IN REGARDS TO CODE. SO THESE ARE JUST I DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PUD ORDINANCE. THESE ARE JUST REALLY WAVE TOPS. SO I'LL GO THROUGH THESE RELATIVELY QUICKLY. SO YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE CODE SECTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP AND BEEN QUESTIONED, SOME OF THEM BY CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. THE FIRST ONE I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THE DENSITY THAT'S ALLOWED PER THE PUD. YOU'LL FIND THIS IN THE PUD ORDINANCE. THIS IS THE PUD ORDINANCE. THIS IS STANDARD ZONING RIGHT HERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THE TWO COMPARISONS. REALLY JUST LOOK AT THE HIGHLIGHTED ONES. OUR ORDINANCE DOES PUT A CAP ON THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY. SO THIS IS A DWELLING UNIT PER ACRE THAT IT DOES PUT A CAP ON THEM. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT MOST OF THOSE CAPS ARE REALLY ABOUT A TWO UNIT DIFFERENCE. SO I KNOW THIS WAS THIS WAS ASKED RECENTLY OF A COUPLE OF THE PUDS THAT WENT THROUGH. WE WE DO KEEP THEM TO THIS. HOWEVER, WE ALSO HAVE FOUND IN SOME CASES THEY DON'T GET ANYWHERE NEAR THIS, THIS DENSITY. SO BUT THE PUD, I JUST POINT THIS OUT TO SHOW THE PUD DOES ALLOW FOR A GREATER. THEY 
          [02:45:04]
CAN REQUEST THAT OR OUR ORDINANCE. CAN WE GO BACK THOUGH. SORRY. OH YEAH. OH SORRY SORRY. IS IT EVER I KNOW RPP IS TRADITIONALLY DESIGNED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. 
          ARE YOU EVER ALLOWED OR WE EVER ALLOWING OR GETTING REQUESTS FOR ATTACHED UNITS, SAY A TWIN HOME IN A RE OR RP TYPE THING WHERE YOU CAN HAVE HIGHER DENSITY SO THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN THOSE RE AND OUR ZONES, THE UNDERLYING ZONE. SO EVEN THOUGH THE CODE SAYS TRADITIONALLY I WAS JUST LOOKING IT UP TRADITIONALLY SINGLE FAMILY THE PUD DOES NOT ALLOW THAT. JUST YOU CAN HAVE A PUD THAT IS ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY. THE CODE RP RESIDENTIAL PARK ZONE PROVIDES RESIDENTIAL ZONE REPRESENTATIVE AND AN AUTOMOBILE ORIENTED SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT PATTERN CHARACTERIZED BY LARGE LOTS. 
          PRINCIPAL USE PERMITTED IN THE ZONE SHALL BE SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS. RV AND RP DO NOT ALLOW ATTACHED DWELLINGS, SO EVEN A TWIN HOME WOULD NOT BE ATTACHED. EVEN WITH A HIGHER DENSITY CORRECT. THE DENSITY WON'T ALLOW US TO CHANGE THE USE, AND WE CAN'T MAKE VARIANCES TO THE USES. THE OTHER THING THAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT HERE, THOUGH, IS WE OFTEN SAY THAT THEY GET A DENSITY BONUS IN A PUD, BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE. IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN THOSE HIGHLIGHTED ONES IN THE RGP, R1 AND TN, WE RARELY SEE WE'VE HAD MAYBE 1 OR 2 PUDS OVER TEN YEARS IN R1 ZONE. MOST PUDS ARE IN YOUR R2 AND ABOVE, AND THE DENSITY IS THE EXACT SAME WHETHER IT'S PUD OR NOT A PUD. SO THAT IS NOT A REASON THAT THEY'RE CHOOSING THE PUD. THEY'RE CHOOSING IT FOR OTHER REASONS, WHETHER THAT BE PRIVATE STREETS OR SOME OTHER REASON THAT IT'S NOT DENSITY. NO QUESTION. THAT WAS MY MISPERCEPTION. AND THAT'S WHAT BIG REASON WHY I WANTED THIS IS I FELT LIKE, OH, THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR A LESS SETBACK OR LESS OF SOMETHING SO THAT THEY CAN GET MORE. AND, WELL, IT DOES ALLOW THEM TO GET MORE, BUT NOT PER THE DENSE, NOT FROM A TRUE DENSIFICATION CODE. RIGHT? THE THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE PLAN. I MEAN, THEY'RE THEY MAY NEED BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING A MORE NARROW ROAD. 
          RIGHT, RIGHT. IT ALLOWS THEM TO FIT MORE UNITS, BUT NOT MORE THAN WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY. 
          RIGHT. CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE. YES. YEAH. AND THEN ESPECIALLY AFTER POINT OUT. YEAH. IT COMES UP AS THAT DISCUSSION. AND SO THAT IS THE WELL AND THEN ESPECIALLY AFTER THEY HAVE TO PUT IN AMENITIES, WHAT ESPECIALLY IF IT'S AN R-1 ZONE WHICH DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY AMENITIES. YEAH. NOW THAT'S LESS THEY'RE ABLE TO PUT IN. SO THAT WAS MY MISS PERCEPTION. THE NEXT PART WAS WAS SETBACKS AND AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE. THERE'S NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE. JUST THAT THE YOU CAN USE THESE SETBACKS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES CONTIGUOUS OR ACROSS THE STREET CAN CONSTITUTE THE MINIMUM SETBACK. ALSO, INTERNAL SETBACKS CAN BE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE PUD. SO WHEN A DEVELOPER ASKS FOR IT, THEY CAN EITHER LOOK AROUND THE PROPERTIES AND SAY WE WANT IT TO MATCH THE R-2 SETBACKS OR THE R1 SETBACKS, RIGHT? THEY CAN ALSO ASK FOR THIS MAKES SENSE FOR THE PV. THIS IS THE SETBACK THAT WE'VE REQUESTED. 
          SO THEN THAT'S UP TO THE PURVIEW OF WHAT IS THAT STANDARD IN WHICH THEY'RE ASKING. SO THAT IS WHERE YOU SEE A LITTLE VARIATION. WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE LAST I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY PUDS, BUT THIS IS TYPICALLY ASKED FREQUENTLY IS TO REDUCE SETBACK FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER. SO THAT DOES ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT. SO YOU APPROVE YOU TO REVIEW THAT AND SEE IF THAT MEETS OUR CODE. AND THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE PUSHBACKS I SEE. AND YOU KNOW, AND YOU SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT A TWO STORY HOUSE IN THERE. BUT THEIR POINT IS THAT ONE TWO STORY HOUSE PUTS THREE WINDOWS LOOKING DOWN IN THEIR BACKYARD WHEN YOU GET THIS IS MORE APARTMENTS, BUT IT COULD BE A PUD TOO. ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'VE GOT 5 OR 6 WINDOWS LOOKING DOWN THEIR BACKYARD. AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD SAY TO THE DEVELOPER, JUSTIFY YOUR ACTS, YOUR ASK. IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT, JUSTIFY IT AND LET THEM JUSTIFY IT. 
          YEAH, YEAH. THEN THERE'S COMMON SPACE I JUST PUT IN HERE. WHAT IT DOES INCLUDE SOMETHING TO NOTE THAT COMMON SPACE CAN INCLUDE WATER. I THINK WITH THAT ONE THAT REQUESTED WATER FOR ITS COMMON SPACE. BUT THIS GOES TO WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. 
          IT CAN BE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. AND THEN WE GIVE THE VARIOUS COMMON SPACES HERE. IT DOES HAVE TO CALL THAT OUT, WHETHER IT'S PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, IS THAT HAVE TO BE CALLED OUT IN THE APP THAT WE WOULD SEE. YES, YES, YEAH, IT ALWAYS DOES. AND THEN IT DOES HAVE TO BE USABLE. SO 
          [02:50:06]
WE DO EXCLUDE PARKING AREAS, COMMUNAL FACILITIES OR NON RECREATIONAL AREAS OF NON-RECREATIONAL NATURE BONUSES YEARS TO SHOW THEM HOW TO CALCULATE. SO THIS IS TO ANSWER YOUR YOUR QUESTION. SO I THINK THIS IS COMMONLY MISUNDERSTOOD AS WELL. AND BY DEVELOPERS TO THE COMMON SPACE IS 25% OF THE GROSS AREA. SO YOU'RE STARTING FROM THE ENTIRE PROJECT BEFORE WE TAKE OUT ROADS AND ANYTHING ELSE. WE'RE JUST TALKING A GROSS ACREAGE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, AND IT'S 25%. BUT THEN YOU CAN'T INCLUDE ANY ROADWAY, DRIVEWAY, OR PARKING AREA, BUT YOU ALSO CAN'T USE CAN'T INCLUDE ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE AREAS. AND SO WE REQUIRE A 20 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE STRIP ADJACENT TO PUBLIC STREETS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE IN THIS EXAMPLE. AND THEN WE ALSO REQUIRE A 15 FOOT OR NO TEN, TEN, TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP ON ANY PRIVATE STREETS INTERNAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT. SO ALL OF THE GREEN SPACE THAT YOU SEE THERE CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THEIR 25% CALCULATION. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE INCLUDED IS WHAT YOU SEE IN THE HATCHED AREA BASICALLY HERE, WHICH THEY'RE ALSO SHOWING THEIR CLUBHOUSE AND THEIR TENNIS COURTS AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO IN THIS PROJECT, YOU HAVE A SENSE FOR WHAT THE ACTUAL OPEN SPACE IS WITH THAT, WITH THE BOTH GREEN HATCHED AREAS AND THE 25%. SO I MEAN, IT'LL VARY FROM PROJECT TO PROJECT, BUT GENERALLY I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE TYPICALLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 TO 40% ON IF YOU'RE JUST THINKING GREEN SPACE, IF YOU'RE WANTING THAT GREEN SPACE NUMBER. OKAY. SO IN MY MIND, HONESTLY, I THINK WE'RE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB HERE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS COMPLAIN ABOUT IT EVERY TIME. 
          ONCE WE EXPLAIN TO THEM IT'S NOT JUST A 25% ACROSS THE BOARD, IT'S THESE OTHER THINGS THEY DO GO, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S A LOT. WELL, YES, A PUD IS INTENDED AND WE ALWAYS TELL THEM IT'S A HIGHER STANDARD. IT'S NOT STANDARD DEVELOPMENT, IT'S A HIGHER STANDARD. IT'S A NOT A WAY TO GET AROUND THE RULES. IT'S A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE MINIMUM STANDARD. AND THIS IS A WAY THAT WE GET THERE. WHETHER IN PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS. AND MY QUESTION IS HOW DOES IT WORK THAT SAY WHAT I WOULD CALL THE FRONT OF SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS, THAT LIGHT GREEN AREA GETS COUNTED AS COMMON SPACE, BUT IT'S NOT COMMON SPACE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE LIVE THERE AREN'T GOING TO GO HAVE A PICNIC IN FRONT OF SOMEBODY'S HOUSE. TRUE. SO TO ME, THE LIGHT GREEN IS NOT COMMON. IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THEIR COMMON SPACE. 
          IT'S NOT COUNTED TOWARDS THEIR COMMON SPACE NUMBER. SO THEY STILL GOT TO DO 25% ABOVE THAT. 
          I ASKED THAT EXACT QUESTION IN A PUD HEARING, AND I WAS TOLD IT DID COUNT, NOT BY A STAFF PERSON. IT DOES NOT. IF IT'S NOW, THEY COULD HAVE A WIDER SETBACK. SO IF THERE IS MORE THAN TEN FEET, IF THEY'VE GOT 15FT THERE, THEY CAN COUNT SOME OF THE FIVE FEET. AND YOU ARE SEEING THAT WITH A LITTLE BIT OF THE HATCHED AROUND THE BUILDINGS. THEN THERE IS A PORTION THERE THAT POTENTIALLY COULD. THE OTHER THING THAT I'LL TELL YOU, THAT'S KIND OF INTERESTING AND THIS IS HOW DEVELOPMENT GOES. PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION AND THE REQUIREMENT TO USE SURFACE WATER IS CHANGING THE MAKEUP OF THIS, WHERE HISTORICALLY WE HAVE SEEN THAT FRONT AREA AND THAT COMMON SPACE SOMETIMES GETS SPLIT UP BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL LOTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOW HAVING TO DEAL WITH PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION AND HOW TO DELIVER PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION TO THESE UNITS. THE SIMPLE, EASY WAY IS TO MAKE ALL OF THE GREEN SPACE ONE LOT SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE ONE POINT OF SERVICE VERSUS A PRESSURIZED. BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ON A LOT OF THESE TOWNHOMES, YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL FRONT YARD AND SOMETIMES A VERY SMALL BACKYARD. 
          AND IF YOU HAD TO DELIVER INDIVIDUALIZED PRESSURE IRRIGATION FOR BOTH THE FRONT AND THE BACK YARD, THAT BECOMES REALLY CHALLENGING AND VERY COMPLEX. AND SO NOW WHAT WE'RE SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY RESPOND TO THAT REQUIREMENT. AND IT'S JUST EASIER. LET'S MAKE ALL OF THE GREEN SPACE ONE COMMON LOT, EVEN THOUGH PARTS OF IT ARE COUNTED DIFFERENTLY IN ORDER TO DELIVER THE PRESSURE IRRIGATION. AND THEN THEY WOULD JUST CONDO FLAT, JUST THE BUILDING ITSELF. THEY COULD CONTEMPLATE IT OR THEY'LL SOMETIMES PLAT IT. SO THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS AND JUST BASICALLY THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. BUT YEAH, YOU'RE SEEING THAT COME ABOUT MORE OFTEN BECAUSE OF PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION. OKAY. 
          SO I KNOW SOME PLACES I SEE WHERE THEY'LL PUT A LITTLE FENCE OR SOMETHING FOR KIND OF PRIVACY IN THE BACKYARD. ARE THOSE GOING AWAY FOR THE SAME REASONS SO THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET. BUT YES, I COULD SEE THAT HAPPENING. THERE IS THE PUD HAS AN ELEMENT IN IT FOR 
          [02:55:02]
PRIVATE SPACE THAT IS A LITTLE BIT NEBULOUS. WE WOULD TREAT A FENCED AREA LIKE THAT, BUT IT ALSO WOULD REFER TO A BALCONY OR A PATIO AS PRIVATE SPACE. SO THERE ARE MULTIPLE WAYS TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. AND I THINK IT'S YET TO BE SEEN. EXACTLY. I MEAN, PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION, THIS IS THE FIRST CYCLE WE'RE REALLY SEEING THAT COME INTO FRUITION AND WHAT IT'S DOING TO THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT. I THOUGHT THOSE WERE WINDBREAKS TO KEEP THE BARBECUES LIT. SO THEY KEEP SOMEBODY FROM SLIPPING OVER AND SWIPING A BURGER. RIGHT. I'LL GO THROUGH THESE NEXT TWO RATHER RATHER QUICKLY. BUT THIS IS THE AMENITIES. SO IT'S ONE AMENITY FOR EVERY 50 UNITS. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO INCREASE THE AMENITY WHEN YOU GO OVER 50 UNITS. THE LIST OF AMENITIES ARE LISTED IN THE HANDOUT. I DIDN'T WANT TO LIST THAT HERE, BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO PERUSE THAT ONE. NOTE THIS CAME UP IN A PUD. HEARING IS JUST THIS LAST BULLET POINT. IT'S A LITTLE NEBULOUS, BUT IT SAYS AMENITIES SHOULD BE PLACED IN LOGICAL AREAS THAT ALLOW CONVENIENT ACCESS TO MOST OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT SHOULD BE PLACED IN A LOGICAL AREA AND HAVE ACCESS TO IT. THE NEXT ELEMENT IS I'M JUST GOING TO SKIP THIS VERY QUICKLY. THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY. JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, AND COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, YES, YOU HAVE TO BE CONNECTED TO THE PEDESTRIAN NETWORK OR PER OUR CODE. I JUST WANTED TO GET TO THESE LAST TWO SLIDES. ARE WE DOING OKAY, MAYOR? OKAY. SO CARRIE WAS GREAT TO PULL THESE NUMBERS. I WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT OF THE DATA, BECAUSE DATA SHOULD ALWAYS DRIVE DECISIONS. WHAT HE DID IS HE TRIED TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES. SO WE TOOK DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS A PUD AND TRIED TO MATCH IT SIMILARLY WITH WITH DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS JUST STANDARD ZONING, STANDARD DEVELOPMENT. I TOOK ALL THOSE NUMBERS AND I CRUNCHED THEM AND AVERAGED THEM. AND I JUST WANT TO HIT A COUPLE HIGHLIGHTS HERE. SO WE WE WERE ONLY ABLE TO GO BACK TO 2016. SO THIS ONLY REFLECTS NINE YEARS. BUT IN GENERAL YOU CAN SEE THE TOTAL PUD COUNT IS 20. WE HAVE HAD YEARS WHERE WE HAVE HAD NO PUDS. ON AVERAGE WE'RE HITTING ABOUT 1 TO 3. WE HAVE A COUPLE OUTLIERS THERE. BUT JUST TO NOTE, THIS ISN'T A DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF, BUT WE'RE ALSO NOT SEEING ANY OF IT. SO THAT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE. I'LL HIT ON THIS TOTAL COUNT IN A SECOND. I'LL COME BACK TO THAT NUMBER I AVERAGE. I TOOK ALL THE DENSITIES PER ACRE, UNITS PER ACRE, AND I TRIED TO AVERAGE THEM OUT, OR I DID AVERAGE THEM OUT. AND WE'RE GETTING ABOUT TEN UNITS PER ACRE FOR OUR OVERALL PUD COUNT, WHICH, IF YOU REMEMBER BACK IN OUR DENSITIES HERE, IT'S ROUGHLY OH, SHOOT, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK, IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT. THERE IT IS. SO IF WE'RE AT IF WE'RE AT TEN, WE'RE BETWEEN AN R1 AND R2 IS PRIMARILY WHAT WE'RE BUILDING WITH PUD. SO JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT THERE. AND THEN THE AMOUNT OF AMENITIES AND THE COMMON SPACE WAS QUITE INTERESTING. SO WE HAVE 48 AMENITIES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO OUR COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION, MOST DEVELOPERS, WHAT WE'RE FINDING ARE ACTUALLY BUILDING OVER THE 25% STANDARD. 
          SO WE'RE AVERAGING ABOUT 28%, WHICH IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE ABILITY TO BUILD PARKS IN OUR COMMUNITY, THESE PUDS ARE ACTUALLY PROVIDING THAT, MIND YOU, JUST AS COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS SAID, IT IS FOR A NICHE, A NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT WE ARE GETTING THE GREEN SPACE AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS THROUGH THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT. AND THEN THE AVERAGE SIZE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT IS ABOUT SEVEN ACRES. 
          WE'VE HAD TWO PUDS THAT ARE UNDER TWO ACRES THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE COURSE THAT WE'VE BEEN MONITORING. THE SMALLEST PUD WE HAD WAS JUST OVER ONE ACRE AND THAT ONE WAS APPROVED. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THIS VERY BRIEFLY AND I'LL SHOW THE MAPS. SO I WANTED TO JUST COMPARE THE TWO AND THEN EXPLAIN WHAT THAT GRAPH IS DOING. SO THE TOTAL UNITS OF THE PUD THAT WE'VE ADDED TO STOCK TO OUR HOUSING UNITS IS ABOUT 14,400. STANDARD DEVELOPMENT IS GETTING US JUST UNDER 1200. SO WE'VE ADDED 26 UNITS OF THESE ROWHOME TOWNHOME TYPE DEVELOPMENT. THE ONLY REASON I SAY THIS IS BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO ELIMINATE THE PUD, WHICH WE COULD, THE STATE STATUTE ALLOWS US WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PUD ORDINANCE. THE ONLY REASON I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT IS WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING A MIX OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, AND IMAGINE IF WE'RE MISSING MIDDLE, THE PUD IS PROVIDING A PRODUCT THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN STANDARD ZONING. 
          ARE WE STILL GETTING DUPLEXES AND ROW HOMES? YES, THROUGH STANDARD ZONING. WE ALSO ARE GETTING THAT THROUGH PUDS. SO WE'RE ABLE TO MIX THAT HOUSING STOCK, WHICH IS ACTUALLY WHAT 
          [03:00:01]
WE'RE TRYING TO DO AS ONE OF OUR GOALS. SO I SAY THAT THAT'S A GOOD TRANSITION INTO OUR MAPS. 
          SO I HAD BRIAN DO SOME SPATIAL ANALYSIS FOR US BECAUSE WE HAD HEARD THAT A LOT OF THESE PUDS, A LOT OF THIS DENSITY IS GOING TOWARDS A SPECIFIC AREA OF THE CITY, MIND YOU, THAT THE INNER CORE OF OUR CITY RIGHT HERE, BASICALLY THE NUMBER STREETS, THE AREA OF DOWNTOWN, THAT AREA HAS BEEN BUILT OUT. BUT THE PUD IS PROVIDING ACTUALLY, WE WERE QUITE SURPRISED IN LOOKING AT THIS, THAT IT ACTUALLY IS LIKE A BUCKSHOT. RIGHT. IT'S IT'S NOT CONCENTRATED. OUR WHAT WE'RE FINDING ARE THE PUDS ARE WELL SCATTERED THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, WHICH WE'RE ACTUALLY QUITE HAPPY ABOUT. WE'RE HAPPY TO SEE THAT IT'S NOT ALL CONCENTRATED. THERE ARE A FEW THINGS. IF YOU EXTRAPOLATE THIS DATA A LITTLE MORE, WE DO HAVE SOME HIGHER DENSE PRODUCT ON THE NORTH AND ON THE WEST, SO THAT IS A LITTLE MORE TOWARDS THOSE AREAS OF THE CITY IN TERMS OF DENSITY. AND THEN THIS LAST ONE IS JUST THE TIME SERIES DATA HERE. JUST TO SHOW WHEN THOSE DID COME IN, SHOWING THAT MOST OF THE THINGS ON THE NORTH SIDE, RIGHT. THAT'S PRIMARILY WHERE NEW GROWTH IS. THAT'S WHY NEW NEWER GROWTH IS TO THE NORTH AND HOW WE HAVE OLDER GROWTH TO THE SOUTH. BUT ANYWAYS, SO THAT'S OUR PRESENTATION. WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU HAVE? WHAT CONCERNS, WHAT CAN WE HELP YOU WITH ON ON SOME OF THESE. AND ALSO WE'RE VERY OPEN TO IF YOU SEE SOMETHING AND YOU SEE THAT A CODE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED OR REVISED, WE'RE VERY OPEN TO THAT. ANYWAYS, I TURN IT BACK TO YOU. ON WHAT ON WHAT YOU THINK. ANY THOUGHTS, CONCERNS, QUESTIONS, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE? YEAH. I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A THOROUGH LOOK AT AMENITIES. THEY DON'T SEEM EQUAL. IS A PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT EQUAL TO A CLUBHOUSE? NO, I'M NOT SEEING THAT. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT. AND I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE COMMUNITY THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL IN A WAY, IS GIVING SOMETHING TO THE DEVELOPER BY ALLOWING THE DENSER AND MAYBE PRIVATE STREETS, ETC. WHAT ARE THEY GIVING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THAT COMES TO WHAT YOU'RE YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN WE'VE SEEN AMENITIES THAT ARE DOG PARKS THAT ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND WE'VE SEEN AMENITIES COUNTED THAT ARE CLOSED. I DON'T SEE THE CONSISTENCY. AND I LIKE TO DO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IMMEDIATELY, BUT THAT'S WHERE I'D LIKE TO LOOK ON THESE PUDS. 
          SURE. ONE THING I WE'VE TALKED INTERNALLY AS STAFF ABOUT TWO IS WE'LL YOU'LL START SEEING IT IN OUR PRESENTATIONS. WE'LL ADD A SLIDE OF WHY, WHY ARE THEY REQUESTING THE PUD. AND THEN JUST HAVE SOME BULLET POINTS TO, TO HELP SOME OF THAT. TO MY QUESTION, YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERED IT, AND I'M NOT SURE I'M GOING TO ASK THIS VERY WELL. FOR THAT I APOLOGIZE. IT SEEMS LIKE THE CODE SPECIFIES KIND OF WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE TO THE COMMUNITY VIA PUD, AND THAT ENTICES US TO APPROVE IT FOR THE DEVELOPER. AM I IS THERE A SECTION OF OUR OF OUR CITY CODE THAT KIND OF SAYS THESE ARE THE BENEFITS? DO I REMEMBER THAT YOU'D BE IN LIKE THE PURPOSE OF PUD? THERE ARE SEVERAL QUALIFIERS THERE FOR WHY WE WOULD WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT. YES. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. THEY'RE GOING TO START DOING AT THE BEGINNING WHEN THEY PRESENT IT TO COUNCIL. IT'S LIKE, HERE'S WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING A PUD. HERE'S THE BENEFIT TO THEM. 
          HERE'S THE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE AND START SEEING THOSE CLEAR TRADE OFFS BY THE DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFYING THOSE THAT MATCH THAT PART OF THE CODE THAT SAYS, OKAY, HERE'S THE BIT. IT KIND OF GOES BACK A LITTLE BIT TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY GET OUT OF THIS? AND MAYBE THEY'RE DOING THAT AND I'M JUST NOT PAYING ATTENTION BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THAT WE DON'T EXPLICITLY CALL IT OUT IN OUR PRESENTATION. SO IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN I JUST, I, I FEEL BETTER ABOUT GRANTING AN OVERLAY IF I FELT LIKE IT REALLY BENEFITED. YOU KNOW, AGAIN, JUST WHAT THE CODE SAYS IS ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS MATCH UP TO THE CODE. AND THEN THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK THAT THE MAYOR TALKED ABOUT. IS THERE ANY CHANCE OF NOT HAVING STORMWATER? AND MAYBE THIS ISN'T EVEN A GOOD IDEA, NOT HAVING STORMWATER RETENTION PONDS BE AN AMENITY. IS THERE ANY VALUE IN THAT? OR IS THAT YOU COULD I THINK IT WOULD BE A MUCH HIGHER. THE REASON WE ALLOW THE AMENITIES TO BE IN THE STORE ARE WE REQUIRED. SO IT SAYS YOU CAN'T COUNT A STORM PLOT UNLESS THERE'S AN AMENITY IN IT. SO IF THEY'RE JUST DOING A STRAIGHT STORM POND WITH NOTHING, IT'S JUST OPEN SPACE THAT DOES NOT GET COUNTED 
          [03:05:02]
TOWARDS THEIR COMMON SPACE. OH, IN ORDER TO HAVE THE THE STORM PLOT INCLUDED IN THE COMMON SPACE CALCULATION, IT HAS TO INCLUDE THE ASSUMPTION. ALL RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S A LOT OF THE REASON YOU'RE SEEING THE PLAYGROUND BE PUT IN THE POND OR SOME GAZEBO OR SOMETHING BE PLACED IN THE POND SO THAT THEY CAN COUNT IT. OKAY. SO SOME FLEXIBILITY. I WOULD HESITATE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE REQUIRE THAT AN AMENITY AS PART OF A PUD BE BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC BY NECESSITY. I THINK YOU CREATE A BURDEN FOR YOUR FOR YOUR RESIDENTS WHO ARE GOING TO LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY. THEN TO FUND AN AMENITY FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. WELL, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S AN HOA. YEAH, YEAH. BECAUSE YOU SAID THERE'S AN HOA REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? SO IF YOU HAVE TEN HOMES AND YOU REQUIRE THAT THE PLAYGROUND BE AVAILABLE TO THE WHOLE CITY, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THERE'S A CITY PARK RIGHT HERE THAT TEN HOUSES HAVE TO PAY FOR BY THEMSELVES. I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. AND IF YOU WANT MORE NEIGHBORHOODS OR MORE PARKS OR MORE AMENITIES IN R1 NEIGHBORHOODS, THEN THAT'S A CODE THING THAT THE CITY WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT. CODE EXACTIONS IS A TERM YOU CAN PUT EXACTIONS IN YOUR CODE AND REQUIRE THAT THE RIGHT LIKE THE R1 ZONE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PARK OR WHATEVER. THE DOG PARK EXAMPLE. I MEAN, THAT'S AN INTERESTING ONE. THAT WAS ON PUBLIC LAND, AND IT WAS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PUD. AND SO WE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER AT THAT POINT, RATHER THAN THEM PROVIDING THEIR OWN 25%, AND THEN THE CITY ALSO HAVING THEIRS WAS THERE. AND THE CITY'S AT THE TIME WAS JUST A FILLED THERE WERE NO IMPROVEMENTS TO IT. WAS THERE A WAY WE COULD DO SOMETHING TOGETHER? AND SO THAT THAT DID END UP BEING A PUBLIC ONE, BUT IT WAS ALREADY PUBLICLY OWNED LAND. COUNCILOR LEE, I SAW YOU. 
          OH, I JUST I LOVE THAT AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER, LIKE, WHAT YOU SAID IS THAT PUD ACTUALLY IS A HIGHER STANDARD. AND I THINK I APPRECIATE THESE EXAMPLES THAT YOU GAVE. I THINK I WOULD BE EQUALLY INTERESTED TO THINK ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS THAT GOT DONE BY RIGHT WHERE WE WISH, ACTUALLY, THAT THEY'D BEEN DONE BY PUD, WHERE WE COULD HAVE HAD A LITTLE BIT MORE INFLUENCE OVER HOW IT WAS DONE, BECAUSE AS YOU STARTED THE PRESENTATION, IT IS A NEGOTIATION. ULTIMATELY, IT'S A NEGOTIATION. THAT'S HOW I VIEW IT. AND I THINK THAT THAT AGAIN, I JUST I WOULD LIKE US TO THINK ABOUT IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT IS WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES AND WHAT DOES THAT ALLOW US AS, AS A GROUP TO ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, ARRIVE HOPEFULLY AT A BETTER PLACE THAN WHAT JUST A BY RIGHT DEVELOPMENT COULD GET, COULD GET THE CITY AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. I HAVE A QUESTION. THE THE RULE OF NEEDING 50 UNITS IN ORDER TO GET A SECOND AMENITY WHERE THE 50 NUMBER COME FROM OR WHY? WHY IS IT 50? SO WE LOOKED AT THAT WHEN WE CREATED THE ORDINANCE, AND WE KIND OF LOOKED AT SORT OF THE AVERAGE BUILD AND HOW MANY ACRES WERE TAKING UP AND HOW MANY AMENITIES. IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER REALLY, REALLY GOOD. OKAY. THERE'S RIGHT, THERE'S, THERE'S I DON'T KNOW OF ANY PLANNING. BEST PRACTICE. THAT'S 50 OUT THERE. BUT WE DID TRY TO DO SOME ANALYSIS OF HOW MANY UNITS AND HOW MUCH OPEN SPACE AND HOW MANY AMENITIES WE WERE GETTING, AND WE LANDED THERE FOR EASY. GOTCHA. COUNCIL MEMBER HERE I BRING UP PARKING. AND YOU HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ON THAT AS WELL. GOTCHA. I PERSONALLY I THINK 50 IS TOO HIGH. I THINK I MEAN, THAT'S QUITE A BIT OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE IN PUDS WITH THESE TOWNHOMES. THAT'S PROBABLY A LOT OF KIDS, A LOT OF FAMILIES. AND AND YOU'RE STARTING TO GET PRETTY BIG AT 50. YOU HAVE ONLY ONE AMENITY AND IT'S OVER IN THE CORNER. IS IT REALLY GOING TO GET USED? YOU KNOW, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE COST BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPER TOO. IF IT'S TOO LOW, RIGHT THEN THAT COULD BE THAT COULD MAKE IT NOT PENCIL. YEAH. IT'S. YEAH. GOOD QUESTION. VERY GOOD QUESTION. I MEAN JUST YOU KNOW ONCE YOU GET 49 OR 48 AT THAT POINT YOU'RE MOSTLY PARKING LOT AND BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, AND WHERE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT WRITING TO ME LONG TERM. I THINK THERE IS A THRESHOLD IN SOME WAYS A LARGER PUD, MORE DENSE, WILL DO BETTER LONG TERM. IF YOU THINK ABOUT ROAD MAINTENANCE, STORM POND MAINTENANCE, LIKE YOU NEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF UNITS PAYING THAT MONTHLY FEE TO PAY FOR THAT REPLACEMENT OF THAT ROAD IN 20 YEARS. RIGHT. AND SO, I MEAN, I, I THINK OUR LARGER ONES WILL WILL PREVAIL BETTER THAN OUR SMALLER ONES. AND SO NOW IF WE'RE ADDING MORE AMENITIES TO A SMALLER ONE, THAT MIGHT CREATE MORE OF A BURDEN DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY ARE. YEAH. I MEAN, A DOG PARK IS DEFINITELY DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE THAN A CLUBHOUSE WOULD BE FOR SURE. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE MEETING AS WE WERE PLANNING FOR THIS. WHAT THIS 
          [03:10:04]
PRESENTATION LOOKED LIKE WAS THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD KNOW WHAT THEIR COST IS TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD. RIGHT NOW, IT'S MORE WHAT'S THE COST TO MAINTAIN THE COMMON SPACE THAT THEY HAVE TO KNOW? LIKE THOSE EIGHT RESIDENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THAT PUB. SO TO YOUR POINT THAT NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE MORE CONVERSATION AROUND THE ROADS THAT THOSE BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN IT, WE'VE SEEN PRIVATE ROADS THAT NOW COME BECAUSE THEY'RE THE THIRD OWNER IN AND THEY SAY, HOW COME THE CITY'S NOT PLOWING MY ROAD? AND IT'S NOT BUILT FOR THE ROAD STANDARD. SO THERE'LL BE MORE CONVERSATION. A RELATED QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED, REQUIRING AS PART OF PUD ORDINANCE, A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY ESTABLISH OF FINANCIAL RESERVES TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT ROADS AND SIDEWALKS THAT ARE ON THE INSIDE OF THE BODY. I MEAN, TYPICALLY WHAT I SEE. 
          OH, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE BUILT OR CONSTRUCTED, 30 YEARS LATER, THEY'RE RUN DOWN AND THE CURRENT RESIDENTS DON'T HAVE ANY FUNDED MONEY TO BE ABLE TO REPLACE THEM. SO JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE. SUGGESTION TO THINK ABOUT. WE'VE TOSSED IT AROUND A LITTLE BIT PREVIOUSLY. SOME OF IT'S A CHALLENGE TO, I MEAN A REGULAR DEVELOPMENT OF SHOPPING CENTER. WE DON'T REQUIRE AS A CITY THAT IT BE SUCCESSFUL. YEAH, RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS THAT IT BE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE AND SUCCESSFUL FOR THAT DEVELOPER. IS THAT TO COMMERCIAL UNIT. 
          SURE. WHERE YOU HAVE IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS THEY JUST TEND TO DETERIORATE OVER TIME. 
          RIGHT. AND NO REAL ABILITY TO FUND THOSE REPLACEMENTS AFTER 25 OR 30 YEARS. YEAH, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK TO HOW WE WOULD REVIEW THAT. AND LIKE WE MIGHT NEED FINANCES HELP TO KNOW WHETHER THAT'S REALLY IN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE NOT FINANCIAL GURUS. THAT'S NOT OUR EXPERTISE. YEAH I UNDERSTAND YEAH. WE'D HAVE TO FIGURE SOME OF THAT OUT. LUCKILY WOULD COME UP. LUCKILY WE HAVE FINANCE PEOPLE. YEAH IT'S TRUE. SORRY MARK. YEAH YEAH OKAY. AND THIS CONVERSATION CAN CONTINUE. BUT WE JUST THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE OUR FIRST BITE AT THE APPLE OF HAVING OUR FIRST PNC MEETING AND OUR COUNCIL MEETING AND SEE, SEE WHERE IT GOES. AND IF YOU'VE GOT FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE CAN CONTINUE THESE AND HAVE THEM MORE OFTEN. I FEEL LIKE WE DO HAVE WE HAVE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKLOG WAITING TO COME FORWARD TO GET SOME OF THESE MEETINGS TOGETHER, SO THANK YOU FOR STICKING AROUND BEYOND THE TIME ALLOTTED. AND AND ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AND ANY QUESTIONS CAN COME FORWARD AT ANY TIME. 
          THANKS FOR HAVING US. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YOU GUYS DO GREAT WORK. THANK YOU. GREAT WORK. YOU ASK GREAT QUESTIONS. TOUGH DUTY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL WILL 
          [Mayor]
STICK AROUND. AND THE COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION. YOU'RE WELCOME TO PUBLIC MEETINGS. GET A LITTLE. THEY DO GET. WE DID GET SPICY. YEAH I THINK WE GOT OUR WE GOT OUR STANDARD POPULATION REALLY QUICKLY. IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD. IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS FOR FIVE MORE MINUTES. BUT IF THE DISCUSSION IF YOU'RE LIKE, NOPE, WE'RE DONE, WE'LL PUSH IT OFF FOR ANOTHER TWO WEEKS. THE OUR CURRENTLY ADOPTED METHODOLOGY HAS SINGLE FAMILY PER PERSON HOUSING UNITS. SINGLE FAMILY 2.66. MULTIFAMILY 1.84. THE. IF YOU GO BY SQUARE FOOTAGE, IT RISES UP TO A 5000 PEOPLE OR MORE. IT GOES UP TO 3.78. SO IF YOU. SO INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THE BIGGER HOUSES REALLY DO HAVE MORE PEOPLE. IN ESSENCE, YOU'VE CUT IT OFF AT SINGLE FAMILY IS 2.66 AND MULTIFAMILY 1.84, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT. 
          WHAT LEVEL. YOU COULD LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE PAGES, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT LEVEL YOU WOULD CUT IT OFF. ARE YOU GOING TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE FOUR POINTS INSTEAD OF JUST TWO, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO IT BY SQUARE FOOTAGE AND. AGAIN, I GUESS I'M STILL NOT CLEAR THE TRUE ADVANTAGES TO THE DIFFERENT LEVELS. IF ALL THESE OTHER CITIES ARE JUST DOING IT BY DOOR, AND THE ONLY ONE WE CAN THINK OF THAT REALLY ARE RESORT COMMUNITIES, WHAT'S WHAT'S WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO GET AT HERE? WELL, I MEAN, WE COULD AND I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO 
          [03:15:04]
I REALLY AM ASKING. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN TAKING THE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE'VE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD BY VICE. WE HAVE COUNCIL NOT GONE TO THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL. AND ARE THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PROPOSED TO US TODAY FROM THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE KNOW THEIR, FROM THEIR, FROM THEIR FROM THE IMPACT STUDY, FROM FISHER VICE SO FROM TISHLER VICE SAYING IF YOU'RE GOING TO IT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY HAVE TISCHLER BICE HAS THE RECOMMENDATION AND ARE THEY TRYING TO AM I CORRECT I THINK SO, RIGHT. THEY CAME UP WITH A NUMBER. YEAH. THEY CAME UP WITH THE WITH THE TIERS AND EVERYTHING. THE TEN. YEAH. THE TEN TIERS ON THAT STUDY. YEAH. ARE TISCHLER, BICE. IF WE GO TO SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEAH. JUST SAYING. SO IF YOU GO TO A SQUARE FOOTAGE MODEL, YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL THESE. THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH. BUT WHAT DID OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE THEY THEY HAVE DIFFERENT. THEY HAVE THEY TOOK EXCEPTION WITH SOME THINGS THEY WOULD PREFER. JUST PREFER MULTIFAMILY SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH. WELL THEY WOULD NOW AT FIRST THEY REALLY, REALLY MOVED US TOWARDS LET'S DO BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING THEY WERE TRYING TO LOWER IMPACT FEES. YEAH. THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND A WAY. THEY WERE TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO LOWER THE IMPACT FEES ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND THEY THOUGHT THAT. SO SHIFT IT TO MULTIFAMILY. IS THAT WHAT THE GOAL WAS? WELL, NO, IT WAS JUST IF YOU JUST DO IT, NO SINGLE FAMILY WITHOUT SQUARE, WITHOUT FINISHED BASEMENTS, IT'S GOING TO JUST BE LESS. BUT AS IT TURNS OUT, MOST PEOPLE FINISH THE BASEMENT. WELL OVER 50% OF THE PEOPLE FINISH THE BASEMENT. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE. SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO AND THAT CREATED LIKE THIS SECOND COLUMN OF NOW LIKE FINISHED VERSUS UNFINISHED. I MEAN, WE HAVE CREATED SOMETHING FOR THIS CRAZY COMPLICATED WOULD YOU SAY MORE THAN 50% FINISH. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INITIAL CONSTRUCTION. AN INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OKAY. YEAH. YEAH I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE 75%. IT IS. HOW MANY FINISHED THEIR BASEMENT ON INITIAL CONSTRUCTION? ARE YOU ASKING ME? SORRY. YEAH. SO WE RAN THESE NUMBERS, ACTUALLY. AND SO THIS GOES UP TO WHAT YEAR WAS THIS? THIS WAS TO THE FALL OF LAST YEAR. WE FOUND THOSE THAT FINISHED WITH NO BASEMENT, ONLY 14% OF OVERALL SINGLE FAMILY. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 86%, 86%. AND IT'S PRIMARILY ONE DEVELOPER. WE WHEN I HAD THE COMMERCIAL PLANS EXAMINER, IT WAS ROCKWELL. THAT PRIMARILY IS THE ONE THAT DOESN'T FINISH. SO REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD AT OUR LAST WORK SESSION? WELL, TWO WORK SESSIONS AGO, I GUESS, ABOUT ABOUT UNFINISHED BASEMENTS AND ALL OF THE UNFINISHED OF BASEMENTS THAT WE HAVE AROUND HERE. AND JUST NOBODY USES THEM AND NO KIDS SLEEPING IN THEM. AND I BROUGHT UP THE EXAMPLE OF LIKE, MY BEST FRIEND WAS LIKE RAISING AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT. I HAD A DIRECTOR IN THAT MEETING TEXT ME AND SAY, I JUST STAYED IN MY PARENTS UNFINISHED BASEMENT IN MY CHILDHOOD HOME, BUT THAT NO ONE LIVES IN. ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPER. YEAH, YEAH YEAH, YEAH, BUT BUT BUT THEY ARE COMING AT THIS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOW DO WE LOWER FOR A FEW THESE IMPACT FEES. AND THEN WHEN THE, WHEN THE BIGGER HOMES GOT INTO THE GOT INTO THE CONVERSATION NOW WE'RE BACK. WHAT PERCENT. OH YEAH. AND THEY'RE ALL AND THEY THEY AND THEY'VE ALSO STATED THAT THEY JUST FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT THE LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE HOMES DON'T HAVE THAT AS MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THEM AS WE THINK THAT THEY DO. WELL, WE HAVE THE CENSUS DATA TO TELL US WHO TYPICALLY LIVES WHERE, WHICH IS FINE. AND AND THEY'RE RIGHT ON. 
          THEY'RE ACTUALLY RIGHT ON SOME OF IT. WELL, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF HOMES WITHIN THE CITY AGAIN, ROUGH GUESS HERE BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS A QUESTION THAT YOU DON'T LIKELY HAVE MEMORIZED, BUT SINCE LIKE THE LAST 5 OR 6 YEARS, WHAT PERCENTAGE WOULD YOU SAY OF HOMES ARE 5000FT OR BIGGER OR EVEN 4000FT OR BIGGER? OH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND THAT WAS WHAT MY QUESTION WAS. 
          YOU HAD YOU HAD DATA ON THAT. SORRY. ON MY LAPTOP. SO WE THE LAST FIVE YEARS WE'VE PRIMARILY BUILT MORE WHAT I CALL A TOWNHOME PRODUCT. SO THAT'S LIKE AN ATTACHED THREE UNIT. WE BUILT THAT AT A DOUBLE RATE THAN SINGLE FAMILY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS YOU. SO IT DOES SINGLE FAMILY THOUGH IS IS THERE A REAL IS IT A BELL CURVE OR MOSTLY LIKE 2500FT■S. YEAH, EXACTLY. I WOULD THINK 43 4340 340 300 PAM HAD ALL THAT DATA. SO FOR FOR DETACHED. YEAH. FOR 
          [03:20:03]
DETACHED AND THAT'S AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S BASEMENT'S MAIN LEVEL. THAT'S THE WHOLE ENCHILADA. THAT'S WAY BIGGER THAN, THAT'S WAY BIGGER THAN IT IS THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED FROM BEING BUILT. I WOULD HAVE GUESSED MORE LIKE 3000 SQUARE. WOW. THAT'S A THAT'S A BIG HOUSE. AND THAT WAS PART OF THERE'S DATA THAT I GENERATED FOR PAM OF THE AVERAGE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ALL THAT. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER. THAT'S WHY THE AFFORDABLE STUFF IS BECOMING ATTACHED. YEAH, YEAH. BECAUSE OF COURSE THE AMOUNT OF HOME AND LOT SIZE, IT'S REALLY THE, I HATE TO SAY IT, THE CONSUMER ON THE HOUSING SIDE, IT'S THE EXPECTATION OF LARGE HOMES WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO CULTURALLY STRATEGIC SHIFT AWAY FROM WHAT WE EXPECT. WE EXPECT TO LIVE IN WHAT OUR PARENTS WORK THEIR WAY UP TO. RIGHT? WE EXPECT TO START AT THAT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED SIDE. AND YET THERE'S AN INCREASING NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT A YARD. THEY DON'T. YES, YES, WE SEE THAT. WE SEE THAT ECONOMIC SHIFT AS WELL. YES. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. IT'S QUITE INTERESTING. SO AMONGST THE FOUR OF YOU, IS THERE A DIRECTION TO GIVE TO STAFF ON WHETHER OR NOT TO BE AT A. MULTI-FAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY OR SQUARE FOOTAGE I WOULD SUPPORT, I WOULD SUPPORT A MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY PRICING STRUCTURE AND I WOULD, I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PERHAPS. YOU KNOW, A TIGHTENING OF THE TIERS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO BOISE OR EVEN FEWER THAN WHAT BOISE DOES. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING 3000 SQUARE FOOT OR UNDER OR THREE SQUARE FOOT OR OVER, SORT OF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S SORT OF THE BREAKING POINT HERE. AND YOU'RE TALKING JUST SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH, JUST SINGLE FAMILY. SO IT'D BE A ONE, IT'D BE ONE PRICE FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND THEN PERHAPS TWO TWO CATEGORIES FOR. 
          BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL I'M, THAT'S ABOUT THE AND THAT INCLUDES THAT INCLUDES I JUST WAS CRYSTAL CLEAR I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THESE TEN CATEGORIES. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT BREAKING UP BASIC NO BASEMENTS. I WILL VOTE NO STRAIGHT ACROSS AND NOT SO. SO YOU WOULD SAY BASEMENTS COUNT PER SQUARE FOOT IF YOU DO THAT? YES, ABSOLUTELY. WE JUST LEARNED THAT 84% OR 86% ARE BEING FINISHED. BUT OKAY. BUT HOLD ON. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE ASSUMPTION THERE IS THAT MULTIFAMILY IS SMALLER, RIGHT? BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE BECAUSE. SO YOU WENT MULTIFAMILY AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY YOU PUT INTO TWO TIERS. RIGHT. THIS IS WHY I THINK THAT MOST OF THE CITIES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE JUST DOING THE TWO TIERS. YEAH, THAT'S YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THINK. BECAUSE MULTI-FAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY, YOU'RE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION THAT MIGHT NOT BE ACCURATE. ABSOLUTELY. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION SAKE. IS THAT A RETURN TO TYPE. THEN YOU'VE GOT SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY. THAT'S A RETURN TO TYPE. SO NOT BREAKING SINGLE FAMILY INTO DIFFERENT SIZED HOMES. THAT'S MY PREFERENCE BY THE DOOR OKAY. IT'S BY THE DOOR. JUST TO CLARIFY, I REMEMBER LOOKING AT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THE FIRST TIME I CAME UP AND REALIZING THAT PEOPLE ARE BUILDING REALLY SMALL PLACES, MAYBE FOR JUST 1 OR 2 PEOPLE. ARE HIT AT THE SAME LEVEL AS SOMEBODY BUILDING THAT INTENDED. 
          SO A REALLY BIG PLACE, RIGHT? AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM QUITE EQUITABLE. AND I DON'T I MEAN, I HAVE SOME IDEAS OF WHERE WE CAN DRAW THE LINE, BUT IT SEEMS THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS A LITTLE MORE EQUITABLE IN MY MIND THAN FLAT OUT, EXCEPT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE THIS, WE'RE FIGHTING OVER 0.2 PEOPLE, RIGHT. FOR PEOPLE AND AND ANOTHER THE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IS THAT SOME MULTIFAMILY AREN'T THAT ARE PRETTY GOOD SIZE. YEAH. BUT PERCENTAGE WISE MOST PROBABLY ARE NOT MAKING A GUESS. I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY EVERYBODY KNOWS BECAUSE THAT MEANS I HAVEN'T LOOKED IT UP OR TOO LAZY TO LOOK IT UP, BUT I MEAN, BUT THAT'S WHY. THAT'S WHY FOR ME, IT JUST COMES BACK TO LIKE, WHAT IS THE CENSUS DATA SAY? THIS IS WHAT THE CENSUS DATA SAYS, NOT WHAT I'M GUESSING, NOT WHAT ANYBODY IS SAYING. THIS IS WHAT THE CENSUS DATA IS SAYING. WHAT I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH IS WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS EXTRA STUFF ABOUT FINISHED BASEMENTS, I THINK IS NOT. YEAH, I AGREE, I THINK WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? OKAY, BOISE'S DONE IT. AND AGAIN, NOT THAT I'M ALL SAYING LET'S JUST ALWAYS COPY BOISE. BUT HERE'S HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A MULTI TIERED. IF WE'RE GOING TO GO MULTI TIERED WHY DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT. WHY CREATE RECREATE RECREATE THE. WELL THEY'VE GOT FIVE TIERS. WE HAVE TEN. I ARGUE THAT MAYBE WE CONSIDER BECAUSE AGAIN THEY'RE BASING THEIRS ON OUR CENSUS DATA. WE BASE OURS ARE ON OURS RIGHT. 1414 .99 AND BELOW IS 13 ONE AND 1.5 PEOPLE. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT TWO PEOPLE FROM 1500 TO 3000. THAT'D BE A BRAND NEW TIER RIGHT. SO YOU KEEP EVERYBODY IN THE TWOS TOGETHER AND EVERYBODY IN THREES TOGETHER. THAT CREATES THREE TIERS 14.99 AND UNDER, WHICH IS GOING TO BE YOUR STARTER HOME, YOUR 1 TO 2 PERSON PEOPLE. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT 1500 TO 2099. THERE'S SOME GOOD LOGIC IN 3000 
          [03:25:03]
I LIKE THAT. BUT SO AND THAT'S BASED ON THE CENSUS DATA ONE, TWO AND THREE I DO THAT. BUT DO YOU WANT, DO YOU WANT TO PUT SQUARE FOOTAGE AS THE DETERMINING FACTOR. DO YOU WANT TO PUT CENSUS DATA AS THE. SO THAT'S THE SAME THING I KNOW. BUT YOU'RE SAYING SQUARE FOOTAGE. SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE THAT ALIGNS WITH THE CENSUS DATA OF THE PEOPLE. OKAY. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS DON'T DON'T SAY SQUARE FOOTAGE, SAY FROM THIS MANY TO THIS MANY CENSUS DATA IS ONE CATEGORY. AND FROM THIS MANY TO THIS. NO, BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO TO KNOW TO KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE JUST SIMPLY THAT 14.99 BELOW IS, IS GOING TO BE ONE OF OUR TIERS. 
          AND THAT'S THAT'S THE LOWEST TIER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY MULTIFAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY. 
          IT'S JUST 100%. WE'RE BASING IT OFF OF THAT BECAUSE THE CENSUS DATA THAT CORRELATES. YES. SO WE ARE USING SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN 1500 TO 2099 999. OKAY. AND THEN 3000 AND ABOVE. OKAY. 
          SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THAT MULTIFAMILY JUST LIVES BY THOSE SAME NUMBERS? NO, WE'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO SAY MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY. THE WAY THAT THIS IS PIVOTED IS THAT YOU ONLY HAVE THREE TIERS. YOU DON'T HAVE MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY ANYMORE. IT'S JUST BASED UPON THE SQUARE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE UNITS. SO. 
          SO IF I'M MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPER AND I'M BUILDING A 12 UNIT COMPLEX AND EACH UNIT IS 700FT■, I'M PAYING THE THE NUMBER UNDER WHATEVER THAT DESIGNATES WHAT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND IF I HAVE A MIXTURE OF ONE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOM, IT'S JUST SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEP. 
          YEAH. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU PAY I LIKE THAT AND AND I MEAN THEN YOU'RE TRULY I DON'T KNOW I THINK THAT'S THE MOST EQUITABLE WAY. WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE THE CLOSEST TO TRUE PEOPLE WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. WELL, WE'RE PUTTING WE'RE PUTTING THEY ARE PUTTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND MULTI-FAMILY AGAINST MULTIFAMILY. YEAH. AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY, SMALL AGAINST SINGLE FAMILY LARGE. RIGHT. THIS JUST IS OKAY. AND THEN YOU'RE WELL ASK COLIN TO GIVE US A REPORT ON THIS. HOW BIG A DEAL IS THE FACT ON MULTIFAMILY. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE HALLWAYS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MULTIFAMILY IN THERE. IT'S JUST SQUARE, SQUARE FOOTAGE. SQUARE FOOTAGE. BUT IT'S OKAY, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INCLUDING THE HALLWAYS OF THE BUILDING, THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS AND STUFF. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THAT'S THE PART THEY'RE NOT. WELL, I KNOW, AND PEOPLE SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T INCLUDE THE FURNACE. WELL, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INCLUDE THE FURNACE, RIGHT. YOU CAN'T INCLUDE A HALLWAY. WELL, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INCLUDE A HALLWAY. YEAH. 
          SO SPACE AND A LOT OF A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS DON'T EVEN INCLUDE THE EXTERIOR STAIRWELLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE ALL EXTERIOR. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THEIR FINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE. 
          SO THIS IS THIS ALIGNED WITH THAT? THIS IS LIVING SPACE. AND I'M PROBABLY TILTING AT WINDMILLS, BUT IT JUST SEEMS ODD THAT YOU COUNT A HALLWAY IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND A FURNACE ROOM AND ALL THAT, BUT IN A APARTMENT COMPLEX? NO, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THIS. 
          I THINK THIS DOES MAKE MORE I WILL HAVE. I WILL HAVE AN ANSWER FOR US FROM COLIN ON THURSDAY. SO IF THERE IS A IF IF HE'S LIKE, WELL, YOU GUYS WENT OFF THE RAILS AND, AND THE TWO DON'T CORRELATE AND HE DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S A SOUND WAY TO MOVE FORWARD, I WILL LET YOU KNOW THURSDAY AND WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER CONVERSATION. BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO UPDATE THE STUDY USING THE THREE CATEGORIES. WE'RE GOING TO BE SILENT AS TO THE OTHER ENTITIES THAT LIVE WITH THAT ARE TAX BASED. SO THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES. WE WILL NOT INCLUDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE WILL UPDATE THE CIP PLAN TO REFLECT NO POLICE CARS AND A SECOND SHEET OF ICE. DID I CAPTURE IT? CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YEAH. IF HE SAYS THIS IS OKAY? YEAH. WILL HE THEN RUN NUMBERS THAT WILL THAT WILL GENERATE WHAT GIVES US THE SAME INCOME? YES. AND IT'LL BE WHAT IT'LL BE. OKAY. AND JUST, JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AMOUNT WE END UP WITH IN THE END IS THE SAME AMOUNT THAT. YEAH, IT'LL BE WHAT IT'LL BE, BECAUSE IT JUST FEELS LIKE THIS. WE CAN JUST KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH AND WE'LL JUST GET MORE AND MORE CATEGORIES. DO WE GET FOR HERE ON POLICE CARS? BECAUSE I DIDN'T WE ONLY HAD TWO YESES ON THAT. I, I THINK THE POLICE CAN KEEP IT SEPARATED WELL ENOUGH TO MAKE IT WORK, BUT I THINK IT'S NOT WORTH DYING ON THAT HILL. I REALLY THINK THEY COULD DO IT. 
          I KNOW PEOPLE SAY, WELL, POLICE CARS DON'T LAST THAT LONG. SOME DO BECAUSE OF HOW THEY'RE USED, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT'S WORTH THE FIGHT. WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THAT'S ONE OF OUR PROBLEM AREAS IS HAVING POLICE CARS IN THE. IS THAT ACCURATE THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE THE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS ASKED US TO TO KEEP POLICE CARS OUT BECAUSE THEY BECAUSE OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT THERE. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DOESN'T THINK THAT THEY ARE TRUE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AS THEY DON'T THEY THINK THEY DON'T QUALIFY. THEY THINK THEY DON'T QUALIFY. YES. 
          [03:30:06]
AND I, I THINK IT MAKES THE LAWSUIT EASIER TO WORK OUR WAY. WE'VE GOT SOME LEGAL ADVICE THAT WOULD BE BETTER. WELL, YEAH. AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT CAME INTO HEARING. THEY'RE NOT QUITE THE SAME. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THIS. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY. HEY, THANKS. 
          I KNOW, YOU GUYS. THANK YOU FOR STICKING WITH US. WE'VE WE'VE GOT THESE ARE TWO BIG, TWO MASSIVE THINGS OFF OF OUR PLATE. SO THANK YOU FOR STEERING STRONG FOR 3.5 HOURS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.