Mar 30, 2026 City Council Work Session

[Call to Order and Roll Call ]

[00:00:07]

OUR CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION. IT IS MONDAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY NOVEMBER 30TH. I DON'T KNOW WHERE I GOT LOST. MARCH. MARCH 30TH. AND WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE GREER AS OUR CITY CLERK TODAY. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND CALLING THE ROLE AND ESTABLISHING THE QUORUM.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS HERE. COUNCILOR RADFORD, HE IS RUNNING LATE, BUT ON HIS WAY.

WILL MARK THAT DOWN WHEN HE GETS HERE. COUNCILOR HERE, COUNCILOR HERE. COUNCILOR LARSON IS ABSENT. COUNCILOR LEE HERE. GREAT. AND OUR. MARY MCCORMACK, FORMER CITY CLERK, IS DOING THE TRAINING FOR OUR DEPUTY CITY CLERK. OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO. I DON'T HAVE MY AGENDA RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, ACTUALLY. JIM, CAN I LOOK AT YOUR PAPERS IN FRONT OF ME?

[City Council, Mayor]

AND I ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL. SO FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW, WE HAVE WORKED THROUGH COUNCIL ZEYYIL DEMON AND I WORKED WITH. TALK A LITTLE LOUDER, PLEASE. SORRY.

COUNCIL MEMBER ZYIL DINGMAN AND I HAVE WORKED WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO ADJUST THE SERVER'S CERTIFICATION. AND LEGAL DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO PUT A BULLETED POINT TOGETHER TO SHOW THE CHANGES THAT ARE RESPONSIVE TO ALMOST EVERYTHING WE HEARD AT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

AND WITH THE MEETING THAT SOME OF US HAVE HAD WITH SOME OF THE DOWNTOWN DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT PEOPLE. SO JUST LOOK FOR THAT SOON. FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S BEEN MODIFIED FROM THE ORIGINAL VERSION. SECOND THING IS JUST TO BE AWARE AND ACTUALLY GIVE THE MAYOR SOME FEEDBACK ON THIS. THE SISTER CITIES CITY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS AND FIGURING OUT HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE REALLY SHOULD GIVE TO SISTER CITIES? WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE GIFT BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS? AND WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE WILL WORK BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR TO ELIMINATE THE CITY COMMITTEE. THEY ALREADY THE MEMBERS OF IT ALREADY KNOW THAT. AND WE WILL EXPLAIN WHY ON APRIL 16TH, WHEN WE MEET WITH THEM. BUT. AND TO FIX A TIGHTER BUDGET FOR THEM GOING FORWARD. CAN I WEIGH IN ON THAT FOR A MINUTE? COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS HAS WORKED SEVERAL YEARS ON THE SISTER CITY COMMITTEE, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY'S INVESTMENT IS IS. HAS SOME RATIONAL RATIONALITY BEHIND IT. AND AND WE'VE WE'VE BEEN PAYING FOR SEVERAL OF THEIR THINGS. SO WE DID MEET WITH ZAKI AND LAUREN OLSEN. AND I DO THINK THAT WE CAME TO A PRETTY GOOD AGREEMENT AND THAT THE ORIGINAL REASON FOR BRINGING THE COMMITTEE FORWARD, LIKE THE CITY COMMITTEE FORWARD, IS THAT THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF MIXING OF USING OUR TAX ID. THERE WAS JUST SOME SOME SEPARATION THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN. SO WE FELT LIKE THAT COMMITTEE ACTUALLY HAS FULFILLED ITS PURPOSE, THAT THEY ARE NOW JUST KIND OF MEETING MONTHLY, AND IT'S JUST ANOTHER MEETING TO HAVE A MEETING. THEY'RE JUST ADOPTING OR PASSING, I GUESS, RECEIPTS ON FOR PAYMENT. WE FEEL LIKE THAT CAN JUST BE DONE DIRECTLY TO THE CITY. SO TO HAVE A COMMITTEE. SPENDING THEIR TIME TO DO THAT SEEMED LIKE A WASTE OF THE COMMITTEE'S TIME. ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE DONE A REALLY GREAT JOB GETTING THINGS ORGANIZED, THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE'VE ASKED OF THEM AND THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF OUTREACH, ATTEMPT TO GROW THE PROGRAM AND ALSO HAVE REALLY STABILIZED THE BUDGETING PROCESS. AND FROM NOW ON, WE IT WON'T BE THE END OF THE PROGRAM, BUT MAYOR IS GOING TO MOVE IT TO A STAFF MEMBER TAKING A MOST OF THAT. SO THE BUDGET COMES FROM THAT THAT POSITION. SO ANYWAY, IT'S. AND HONESTLY, THE LAST TWO THINGS WE SAID TO THE ADULT ASSOCIATION WAS WE NEED THEM TO PICK UP MORE OF THE FINANCES OF THE PROGRAM, AND WE

[00:05:04]

YEAH, RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE CAN AT LEAST LOOK INTO THAT WITH THE CDS NOW. TWO OF THE THINGS I WAS HOPING JOHN WILL BE HERE. THIS COMES FROM COUNCILOR RADFORD, BUT HE HAD SUGGESTED YEARS AGO AND HE KEEPS BRINGING IT UP PERIODICALLY. CAN WE HAVE SOME KIND OF TOWN MEETING? NOT FOR ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE THERE, BECAUSE THAT WAS THAT REQUIRES AN OPEN MEETING, BUT MAYBE FOR TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AROUND THE CITY. IS THERE ANY APPETITE FOR THAT? GREAT. IF IT'S JUST TWO, WE DON'T HAVE TO PUBLISH ALL THE MEETING THING, AND IF WE WERE GOING TO DO IT, IT WOULD BE LIMITED. THIS IS THE ISSUE WE CAME TO TALK ABOUT.

IF YOU HAVE OTHER ISSUES, HERE'S SOME CARDS. FILL THEM OUT. GIVE IT TO US. BUT WE CAME TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE TO YOU AND WHY IT'S HAPPENING. AND THEN GET SOME LIKE QUARTERLY OR SOMETHING. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN WE COULD GET THE ENERGY TO DO IT, BUT WE COULD EXPERIMENT WITH THAT. I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING AN OPEN Q&A TOO, THOUGH. YEAH, JUST BEING

[00:10:02]

YEAH. AND BOXES AND STUFF. YOU WANT A BOOKCASE IN THERE. WE HAVE VERY RESPONSIVE STUFF.

CHIEF OF STAFF WHO'S BEEN SUPER RESPONSIVE. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE ROOM. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE ROOM FOR YOUR BOXES DEPENDING ON HOW MANY BOXES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT WE WERE LOOKING AT MOVING THE FILE CABINETS INTO THAT SPACE SO EACH COUNCIL MEMBER COULD HAVE A SOME STORAGE SPACE. I GUESS IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW MANY BOXES YOU'VE GOT. I HAVE LIKE 81A YEAR, I GUESS. YEAH. AND THERE'S ALSO DECORATIONS IN THERE. NOW THERE'S A THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND THE OFFICIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP IS NOW ON THE WALL IN THE ROOM.

AND THERE IS A TABLE AND SOME CHAIRS. SO IF YOU WANT TO USE IT, I HAVE A KEY. I HAVE SEVERAL KEYS. OKAY. I'M DONE. COUNCILMEMBER LEE, I HAD ONE. AND NOW, JIM, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMIND ME BECAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN. IT WAS ABOUT IKERCORP LEASE. OH, THEY'RE CHANGING. IT'S THE IDAHO CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN. CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN. YEAH.

THEY'RE CHANGING THE DETECTIVE IN CHARGE OF IT. THEY HAVE TO CHANGE IT EVERY TWO YEARS.

THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. SO IT'S BEEN DETECTIVE MENDENHALL, BUT HE'S LEAVING THAT POSITION BECAUSE IT'S A ROTATION REQUIREMENT, CORRECT? YEAH. SO JUST FYI. COUNCILMEMBER, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME OUR NEW FIRE CHIEF TO HIS FIRST WORK SESSION. AND HE'S GOT A COUPLE OF WEEKS UNDER HIS BELT NOW. WE HAD THE CELEBRATION OF LIFE THIS WEEKEND FOR JOHN LUND, A RETIRED FIREFIGHTER WHO DIED OF CANCER THIS WEEK AT THE AGE OF 63. A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I WAS REALLY SAD DEAL. BUT I ALSO WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE WINDSTORM WE HAD JUST TO CLEAN UP ABOUT IT WITH PARKS AND RECREATION CITYWIDE, WE LOST 2027 TREES TOTAL IN OUR PARKS AND OUR GOLF COURSES. SIX OF THOSE WERE AT PINE CREST, AND THE SCREEN THAT WAS ALONG THE SIDE OF THE GOLF COURSE HAS SEEN ITS LAST DAYS. IT'S IT'S TORN TO SHREDS AND IT'S COMING DOWN. WHAT IS IT? THE SCREEN ALONG THE SECOND HOLE BETWEEN THE HOUSES AND THE GOLF COURSE IS GOING TO BE TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY A HAZARD. IT'S LEANING AND STUFF AND FALLING APART. THE LAST COUPLE TREES AT FREEMAN PARK, THEY LOST SIX IN TAPAS PARK. THEY LOST ONE. WE LOST ONE DOWN ON THE CORNER OF OF LIBERTY PARK AT BOULEVARD AND ELM STREET ACROSS FROM THE COMMON SENSE. AND YOU KNOW, WE WERE SHORT OF TREES THERE ANYWAY SINCE WE PUT THE ROUNDABOUT IN AND WE LOST ONE OF THE BIG ONES DOWN THERE. BUT IT WAS A HEROIC EFFORT BY IDAHO FALLS POWER TO GETTING THE POWER BACK ON. THEY HAD TWO DIFFERENT DAYS WHERE ACTUALLY IN ONE SPOT THE TREE CAME DOWN ONE DAY AND THEN TWO DAYS LATER ANOTHER ONE CAME DOWN FROM THE SAME SPOT. SO ANYWAY, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING REAL HARD TO GET THAT CLEANED UP AND THAT'S ALL I GOT. AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE LIBRARY ON THEIR NEXT FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. AND WE'VE HAD, WE JUST HAD A SPECIAL MEETING THIS LAST WEEK TO JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT

[00:15:01]

APRIL 2ND IS THE SWEARING IN OF CHIEF OLSON. WE'LL DO THAT AT 6:00, FOLLOWED BY THE 630 COUNCIL MEETING. SO THAT IS THIS THURSDAY, 6 P.M. HERE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. WE HEARD BACK, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE NOW FROM KATHY MUIR FROM LUCY. WE ARE IN. WE ARE DONE WITH THE STATE LEVEL. I JUST WE'VE MOVED ON TO THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE.

SHE THINKS THAT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY QUICKLY. IT'S THE FURTHEST WE'VE EVER BEEN IN 40 YEARS. 30. YEAH, 30 SOME ODD. YEAH. YES. SO WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. SHIP CAME BACK AND SAID WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS THAT THERE ARE NO EFFECTS. SO WE'RE WE ARE GOOD WITH THE CONVERSION PROPERTY. SO THAT ONE IS JUST GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO GETTING FINISHED. ON MARCH 20TH, I DID A INTERVIEW WITH THE NEW YORK TIMES SPECIFIC TO THE. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S LIFE CYCLE FUEL. THAT HE'S PROPOSING AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY. I KNOW BEING ONE OF THOSE, WE DID TALK PRETTY EXTENSIVELY ABOUT HOW THE RESIDENTS OF IDAHO FALLS SEEM TO BE VERY ENERGY, HAVE A VERY HIGH ENERGY IQ. THAT WAS ONE THAT CAME UP. SHE'S LIKE, WOW. WHEN I TALKED TO PEOPLE IN IDAHO FALLS THAT YOU SEEM TO KNOW A LOT ABOUT ENERGY. WE, YOU KNOW, TALK WE ACTUALLY HAD A NICE CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.

I TOLD HER IT WAS IN OUR DNA THAT WE WERE GENERATIONS OF ENERGY PRODUCERS. WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CONTRACTORS OUT OF THE INL AND HOW WE KEPT THAT GOOD WITHIN THE CITY THAT WE TALK REGULARLY WITH THE PLANNING SIDE, WITH INL. AND ANYWAY, SHE ENDED BY SAYING. WELL, IT ENDED BY THE MISSION OF THE INL IS ONE OF THEIR MISSIONS IS TO CHANGE THE ENERGY FUTURE OF THE WORLD. AND SHE SAID, THAT'S A REALLY BOLD STATEMENT. AND I SAID, WELL, WE'VE DONE IT ONCE. AND IT'S LIKE, WE DID THAT IN 1951. WE WERE THE VERY, YOU KNOW, THE EARLY 50S. WE WERE THE FIRST REACTOR. ANYWAY, SHE'S GOING TO COME AND VISIT THIS THIS WEDNESDAY. SO THERE IS MAYBE AN OPPORTUNITY. I HAVE THE MAYOR'S SCHOLARSHIP AWARD AT 6:00 ON WEDNESDAY. AND SO IF SHE'S LATE, I MIGHT CALL ON ONE OF YOU. I WAS THINKING, JOHN, SHE WANTS TO BE TAKEN AROUND A LITTLE BIT AND SEEING HOW IT HAS AFFECTED THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, I THINK THERE'S A GOOD SEQUENCE OF THINGS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN THE 50S AND THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING NOW, AND I DID TELL HER IS THAT WE ARE KEEPING UP WITH INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THIS NEW NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON YOUR RADAR THAT SHE WILL BE IN TOWN ON THIS WEDNESDAY, BUT THEN ALSO THE I AND L TOUR THAT IS HAPPENING ON APRIL 14TH. IF IT IS NOT ON YOUR CALENDAR. I MET WITH THE MAYORS OF AMMON, IONA AND KELLY TODAY, AND THEY ARE ALSO REALLY ENCOURAGING THEIR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE THERE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT HAPPENING OUT AT INL AND THE THINGS THAT IT'S NOT JUST THE CLEANUP PROJECT NOW, THERE'S JUST A LOT GOING ON. SO IF YOU HAVE AN RSVP FOR THAT TOUR THAT IS ON THE 14TH OF APRIL, THAT IS EVERYTHING I HAVE. JOHN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING AS YOU AS YOU COME IN? OKAY. THEN WE WILL TURN THE TIME TO MUNICIPAL SERVICES FOR OUR IMPACT FEE

[Municipal Services, Mayor’s Office, Legal ]

[00:20:02]

AND AS WE AS WE DO THOSE QUESTIONS, IF YOU WOULD. PERFECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION IN YOUR STACK. I TRIED TO PUT EVERYTHING IN THE ORDER BEHIND THE AGENDA. SO ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW. SO IN YOUR PACKET THAT YOU RECEIVED ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, YOU RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DRAFT 2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY. IT WAS DATED MARCH 26TH. WE HAD A DIFFERENT VERSION THAT WAS DATED MARCH 6TH EARLIER THIS MONTH. BUT HERE'S HERE'S THE THING. DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE IN COLLEGE AND YOU HAD TO WRITE A PAPER AND YOU HAD SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE OF A PARTICULAR TOPIC THAT YOU WROTE IT FROM YOUR SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE? WELL, WHEN WE REVIEW IT AND WE GOT SOME FEEDBACK FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE ON THE ACTUAL IMPACT STUDY ITSELF, IT WAS VERY TECHNICAL. SO WE ASKED OUR CONSULTANT, COLIN, TO GO BACK AND CREATE SOME MINOR EDITS. SO THERE'S SOME MINOR EDITS IN THIS, AND IT'S REALLY TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TO WALK THE VIEWER THROUGH SOME OF THE TABLES, SOME OF THE MORE EXPERTISE STUFF THAT HE'S VERY CLOSE TO. AND SO IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SOME CLARITY, AND THEN USE MORE REAL EXAMPLES THAT CAN RELATE TO A PERSON WHO'S NOT NECESSARILY AN EXPERT ON IMPACT FEES. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT. SO MINOR MINOR EDITS INCORPORATED THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU RECEIVED ON FRIDAY. AND WE ALSO UPDATED THE STUDY BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD DURING WORK SESSION ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23RD. AND IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD SOME OF OUR IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS THERE AS WELL. AND SO THERE WAS A REALLY NICE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD. AND THEN AFTER THAT MEETING, WE ACTUALLY HAD AN IMPACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING WHERE WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE STUDY. AND AND WE TALKED ABOUT THEM ALSO ON ON THE 23RD OF FEBRUARY DURING THIS WORK SESSION. SO THERE WAS A PARK'S CAPITAL PLAN UPDATE. AND I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUE, DIRECTOR HOME CAME UP AND TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THOSE UPDATES TO THE CAPITAL PLAN. WE SPOKE ABOUT POLICE VEHICLES, BUT THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY UPDATE. AND SO OUR CONSULTANT HAS UPDATED THE THE TABLES AND THE NUMBERS AND THE METHODOLOGY. WITH THAT, WE DID TALK ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL AND REDUCE THE HOUSING SIZES. WE HAD TEN CATEGORIES, IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE MET LAST MONTH AND WE REDUCED THOSE DOWN TO THREE, AS DISCUSSED WITH COUNCIL, THE STUDY DOES INCLUDE UNFINISHED BASEMENTS IN THE DWELLING SQUARE, SQUARE FEET.

AND WE HAD CONVERSATION. I THINK COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU REMEMBER THIS. WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE IMPACT FEES BEING A ONE TIME FEE. SO IT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE EVERYTHING INCLUDED IN THE FEE. SO IT REALLY IS TRUE TO THE SPIRIT OF A ONE TIME FEE THAT'S INCORPORATED IN THIS VERSION. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD A RECALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEES. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE 3500, 1500 TO STARTING AT 1500. AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE IN THE IN THE PACKET 1500 TO 2999, 3000 OR MORE. AND THE STUDY ALSO INCLUDES THE MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE FEE FOR 100%. IF YOU RECALL, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THREE DEPARTMENTS PARKS AND REC, POLICE AND FIRE, THAT ARE AT 80% OF THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEE. SO THIS STUDY UPDATE INCLUDES 100% OF THE MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE FEE. AND THEN ALSO NO CHANGES TO THE NONRESIDENTIAL REMAINS THE SAME AT 1000 PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET. AND THEN WE REVISED THE CALCULATION FOR THE NONRESIDENT. REVISE THE NONRESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM FEE BASED ON JUST THE UPDATE TO THE STUDY. SO AS FAR AS NOTIFICATION PROCESS GOES, WE WERE ABLE TO SHARE THE COMMENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE RECEIVE FROM THE MEETING THAT WE HAD ON FEBRUARY 23RD, AND WE DID SHARE IT WITH THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THEIR FOLLOWING MEETING. AND I'D BE REMISS BEFORE I SAY ONE THING, AND THAT IS I HAVE THIS NOTE HERE. I HAVE THE DRAFT IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THE LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD.

AND I'D LIKE TO, IF I MAY, REVIEW A REQUEST FOR THE DEFINITION FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE BEFORE I GET ANY FURTHER HERE.

SO THE INNER DRAFT MEETING MINUTES, THE THE THE NARRATIVE FOR THE UNFINISHED BASEMENTS.

[00:25:04]

[00:30:04]

AND SO THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SCHEDULED. AND AND I WANT TO THANK DIRECTOR SANDERS, ASSISTANT ANN, FOR GETTING US ON THE DOCKET THERE. AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO DOING THAT.

AND THAT'S GOING TO BE NEXT WEEK, NEXT TUESDAY. AND THEN THURSDAY, APRIL 23RD. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING A. THE, EXCUSE ME, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 2026 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT, THE STUDY, THE ORDINANCE, THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. EVERYTHING WILL BE PART OF THAT PACKET, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN MONDAY, JUNE 1ST, IS THE TENTATIVE BASED ON CONSENSUS AND DISCUSSION OF THE IMPACT FEE IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. THAT IS WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED. AGAIN, THAT COULD CHANGE, BUT THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A TIMELINE UPDATE OF WHERE WE'RE AT. AND WITH THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS. JAPAN. EXCUSE ME. YES. JUST SO I'M CLEAR, WE'RE GOING TO 100% IN ALL THOSE CATEGORIES. YES. COUNCILOR FRIEDMAN THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I'M INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT COUNCIL THINKS ABOUT THIS. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE SEEN THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE DROPPED FROM TEN CATEGORIES TO THREE. WE WITH THE UPDATED STUDY DID THAT. YEP. YOU'RE GOOD. OKAY. OKAY. GO AHEAD. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, I ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL. SO I'LL START WITH THE RECITALS. AND NOT JUST ARE YOU TALKING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE ORDINANCE ON THE ORDINANCE. YEAH. THE THIRD RECITAL SAYS WHEREAS THE CITY DESIRES TO REMOVE THE EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND INSTEAD EXEMPT TAXING DISTRICTS, I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE TWO SEPARATE RECITALS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TRADE ONE FOR THE OTHER. OKAY, THEN. THE SECOND RECITAL, I'M NOT COUNTING. RIGHT. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE THIRD RECITAL. WHEREAS THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED UPDATES. WHEN I FIRST READ THAT, I ASSUMED THAT THEY ALL THE CHANGES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY THEM. BUT YOU JUST SAID THAT THEY DID NOT RECOMMEND ALL OF THOSE. IN MY MIND, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING AND MAYBE WE COULD REWORD THAT. DO YOU WANT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE ON THAT? THEY WANTED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BASEMENT REMOVED. IT'S MORE LIKE, WHEREAS STAFF AND COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE AND THEY HAVE BEEN. CONSIDERED CONSIDERED. YEAH, I DON'T RECALL MAKING THE DECISION. DID I MISS THAT? NO WE HAVEN'T. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT WE HAD ALL KIND OF. AFTER THAT CONVERSATION WE HAD, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS KIND OF JUST A NIGHTMARE ACROSS THE BOARD AND THAT WE WERE GOING TO THINK ABOUT GOING BACK TO. WELL, THAT'S THE THREE. YES.

AND THEN AND THEN THERE WERE AND THEN THE FINAL OF THAT MEETING, THE DECISION WAS TO GO TO HAVE THEM REWORK THE STUDY AND DO THE 1000, 1500, 3000, THOSE. I PROBABLY SAID THOSE WRONG. SO THAT'S GOING TO TAKE OUT THE COMPLEXITY SO THAT, YES, WE TAKE OUT ALL THE COMPLEXITY AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THREE CATEGORIES USING SQUARE FOOTAGE. BUT TODAY'S THE FIRST TIME.

TODAY'S THE FIRST TIME THAT COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED THAT. YEAH, YEAH. PERFECT. CAME OUT OF THE CONVERSATION WE HAD AT WORK SESSION AFTER WE LOOKED AT SOME OTHER SOME OTHER CITIES AND HOW THEY HAVE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, DIVIDED UP THEIR IMPACT FEES. AND WE WERE THE ONLY ONE WITH THAT MANY CATEGORIES. AND THIS CREATES SOME SIMPLIFICATION. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES USING THE DATA BETWEEN HOW MANY PEOPLE BECAUSE THIS IS ALL ABOUT IMPACT, RIGHT? WE WANT IT TO BE FAIR TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY HERE. AND WE LOOKED AT THE AMOUNT OF INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVE IN THOSE HOMES FOR THOSE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THAT REALLY KIND OF LIKE WAS THE DELINEATION OF WHEN YOU ADD PEOPLE TO THE HOME. AND SO, AND THEN WHAT DID WE HEAR BACK FROM THE IMPACT FEE STUDY? THIS? HAVE WE HEARD? YES, WE DID HAVE A MEETING ON MARCH 10TH. AND THE CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMITTEE WAS NOT TO THEY WERE

[00:35:06]

THEY ALL SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. SO TAKE THIS ALL WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.

THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME MOST OF THOSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD EVEN SEEN THE UPDATED NUMBERS.

OKAY, WE WE HAVE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT ON NOT INCLUDING THE UNFINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU, LIKE I WENT BACK TODAY AND JUST TOOK DIRECTOR SANDERS NUMBERS ON AVERAGES, RIGHT? JUST THE AVERAGE AND THE AVERAGE HOUSE WITH A BASEMENT, UNFINISHED BASEMENT, ALL OF THOSE. AND I DON'T THINK THIS ACCOMPLISHES ANYTHING THAT THE COMMITTEE WAS TRYING TO DO. AND I'LL TELL YOU THE REASON WHY. IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT JUST THE PERCENTAGE NUMBERS ON THE SPREADSHEET THAT I DID RIGHT, USING USING THE 75% THAT THEY'RE BEING ASSESSED AT RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE GO THROUGH ON THE BOTTOM WHERE IT SAYS THE NOTES, BUT LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SEE A 22% INCREASE ON THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WITH THE BASEMENT, SAME 22% INCREASE WITH NO BASEMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A 67% INCREASE ON MOST OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE THAT ARE AVERAGE TO FALL IN THE CATEGORIES OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY, RIGHT? AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE SMALLEST PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE ON IMPACT FEES ON APARTMENT COMPLEXES. THOSE, WHETHER YOU'RE INCLUDING THE HALLWAYS AND THE UTILITY ROOMS OR NOT, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO FALL INTO THAT, THAT CLASSIFICATION.

I, I REACHED OUT TO WADE SANDERS TODAY JUST TO MAKE SURE OF WHAT'S, WHAT'S GETTING ASSESSED MULTIFAMILY VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY, RIGHT? BECAUSE SOME OF THE TOWNHOMES ARE MULTIFAMILY, BUT THEY'RE GETTING ASSESSED AS SINGLE FAMILY, RIGHT. BUT THERE'S NO, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT'S WHAT MOST OF THE DUPLEXES, TWIN HOME STUFF LIKE THAT ARE GETTING ASSESSED UNDER THE MULTIFAMILY SCENARIO. IF YOU GO TO A SQUARE FOOTAGE PRICE AND EVERYTHING GOES TO SINGLE FAMILY, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO IT'S GOING TO INCREASE DRASTICALLY WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE GOING TO BE. AND THE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS WHEN WE'RE JUST USING THE AVERAGE, LIKE I SAID, THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS DIDN'T EVEN HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THIS BECAUSE I JUST PUT IT TOGETHER TODAY BECAUSE I WAS ON VACATION LAST WEEK. BUT I DON'T THINK AS FAR AS THE COMMITTEE, TO SAY THAT WE'RE IN CONSENSUS ON. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT. RIGHT. SO THAT'S JUST HONEST. TRUTH IS, SHOULD WE BE SOME MORE TIME? I, I, I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET THAT IF WE TOOK THIS BACK TO THE COMMITTEE OR I

[00:40:01]

I'M SAYING THEY HAVE THE SMALLEST PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN IMPACT FEES BASED ON BASED ON, BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE GOT FROM BASED ON THE SIXTH. YEAH, I AGREE. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE. THAT'S NOT BEEN THE POINT OF THIS AT ALL. BUT NO. AND AND MY RESPONSE WAS TO YOU, COUNCILMEMBER RADFORD NOT AGREED. AND I THINK THAT IT'S. BUT WHAT WE GET ACCUSED OF WHEN YOU SEE THE NUMBERS IS THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM. I THINK THAT THE WHEN WE WHEN WE GOT THE ORIGINAL STUDY BACK, WAS THAT USED THE PER DOOR SCALE. IT WAS WAY, IT IS WAY MORE IN LINE. IT'S, IT'S A VERY, IT WAS A MORE MINIMAL INCREASE TO WHAT PEOPLE ARE PAYING RIGHT NOW THAN VERSUS GOING TO SQUARE FOOTAGE AND FLIPPING EVERYTHING ONTO THE, THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SCALE. RIGHT. SO IF I MAY CLARIFY. IF I MAY CLARIFY. SO WHEN WE HAD OUR MEETING ON MARCH 10TH, WE THE PACKET WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMMITTEE BEFORE, BUT AGAIN, IT'S 100 AND SOME ODD PAGES. SO THERE'S A LOT FOR SOMEONE TO REVIEW, ESPECIALLY OUR COMMITTEE MEMBERS ALL HAVE FULL TIME JOBS, SO THEY REALLY DO THIS ON THEIR FREE TIME. BUT WHAT WE DID ON MARCH 10TH IS WE DID GO THROUGH AND YOU'LL SEE THE THE POST-ITS ON THIS VERSION HERE WENT THROUGH AND WENT OVER ALL THE CHANGES AND TALKED IN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS AND THAT TYPE OF THING WITH THIS PARTICULAR DRAFT. SO IT WASN'T JUST EMAILED TO THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE STUDY UPDATE. AGAIN, WE HAD A REAL, QUITE LENGTHY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I DID SHARE WAS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IS, IS MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, FOR THE IMPACT FEE TO BE A ONE TIME FEE. I DO, AND IT IS IN OUR MEETING MINUTES AS WELL AS THAT, I MADE THAT STATEMENT GOING FROM TEN CATEGORIES TO THREE CATEGORIES. WITH THE INTEREST IN THE IMPACT FEE, YOU KNOW, ONE TIME FEE, INCLUDING THE UNFINISHED BASEMENTS. AND I KNOW THAT DIRECTOR SANDER WAS THERE AS WELL. AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING ON THE 10TH. NO, I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD TO THE CONVERSATION. JUST TO TJ'S. WHAT? HE INQUIRED. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT SOMETIMES WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE FEE ON A SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTIFAMILY BASIS, BECAUSE OUR. WE TAKE THE DEFINITIONS THAT COME FROM THE IMPACT, THE ORDINANCE. AND THAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T ALWAYS ALIGN WITH THE I R C THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE AND THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE. SO THE CODE THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT USES, IT ALSO DOESN'T ALWAYS ALIGN WITH WHAT WE USE IN THE ZONING CODE. SO WE JUST TAKE WHAT'S THE IMPACT, THE ORDINANCE AND HOW THAT'S HOW WE INTERPRET WHAT GETS ASSESSED FOR SINGLE FAMILY. SO SOME OF THE TOWNHOMES THAT ARE BUILT GET ASSESSED ON SINGLE FAMILY ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION, BUT THEN ALSO REALIZED SOME TOWNHOMES GET ASSESSED MULTI-FAMILY BECAUSE THEY MATCH MORE THE MULTIFAMILY DEFINITION IN THE IMPACT. SO I'D BE INTERESTED BECAUSE MY MEMORY IS. THE WHOLE ISSUE ABOUT THE ONE TIME FEE WAS REALLY KIND OF THE CONCERN OF ONE COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT NOT, I THOUGHT, THE CONCERN AND THE REASON WE WERE LOOKING AT SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS TO TRY TO HELP WITH INCENTIVIZING. OR NOT INCENTIVIZING, BUT MAKING IT MORE EQUITABLE TO BUILD SMALLER IF PEOPLE WANTED TO HAVE SMALLER APPROACHES. AND SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT IF THAT'S HAPPENING HERE? THAT WAS ONE OF THE ELEMENTS AS WELL, IS IF YOU COULD SEE THE. LET ME GET MY MY GLASSES HERE TO READ, BUT THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE THE UNDER UNDER 1500, 1500 TO 2999 AND THEN 3000 OR MORE. THAT WAS PART OF THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL. AND WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO UNDER 1500 DOES GIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE SMALLER DWELLINGS OR SMALLER HOMES OR SMALLER LIVING

[00:45:03]

WE WEREN'T GOING TO DOUBLE THE NUMBER BY FINISHING A BASEMENT. IT WAS JUST A SIMPLER WAY TO SAY, THIS IS THE IMPACT BASED ON TRUE CENSUS DATA ON PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT BEDROOMS AND WHY THAT WENT AWAY. YES. AND SO SO THAT WAS THAT WAS FOR ME THE REASON TO MOVE TOWARDS THIS BECAUSE WE'RE JUST REALLY TRYING TO CAPTURE IMPACT.

IT'S JUST SURPRISING TO ME BECAUSE LAST TIME WE TALKED, IT SEEMED LIKE WE WERE ALL GOING TO GO AWAY FROM THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. BUT NO, THAT WASN'T MY INTENT, MY, MY THOUGHT PROCESS THAT AFTER WE'D HEARD FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT IT WAS LIKE, THIS IS WAY MORE COMPLICATED AND THERE'S ALL THESE DETAILS. AND THEN WE'D ALREADY HAD THE CHALLENGE FROM SAYERS THAT MADE COMPLEXITIES WERE ALWAYS GOING TO BE HARD. SO THAT'S WHAT SURPRISED ME. YEAH. SO WHEN WE LEFT THAT CONVERSATION, IT WAS, WE'RE GOING TO JUST SIMPLIFY THE INTO THE THREE CATEGORIES SO THAT WE REALLY TRIED TO CAPTURE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT AND TRY AND REALLY SAY, WELL, HERE IS THE IMPACT OF A 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOME. HERE IS THE IMPACT OF A 6000 SQUARE FOOT HOME BASED ON CENSUS DATA. WELL, I MEAN, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY YOU'RE BASICALLY THE STUDY THAT YOU'RE USING, RIGHT? IS, IS USING THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE RESIDENTS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. OKAY. SO LET'S LET YOU TAKE LET'S SAY YOU TAKE ROCKWELL, FOR INSTANCE, AND THEY BUILD A 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE WITH AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT, RIGHT? THAT THEY'RE STILL GETTING ASSESSED AT THE 3000. I MEAN, THAT JUMPS UP TO THE 3000 SQUARE FOOT METRIC OF WHAT THEY'RE GETTING ASSESSED AT, WHICH JUMPS THEM UP. AND I MEAN, THAT'S YOU GUYS CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT. YOU THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMITTEE WAS BASICALLY LIKE AN UNFINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE IS NOT EQUATE TO MORE PEOPLE IN THAT HOUSE NECESSARILY. WE CAN'T I DON'T KNOW, I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THIS AND TRIED TO NARROW IT TO THE THREE CATEGORIES BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE THAT WAS THE MOST EQUITABLE WAY TO DO IT, AND IT SEEMED REASONABLE. AND I'M GOING TO COME. WE ADOPTED THIS AN IMPACT FEE STUDY IN 2021, AND WE'RE ABOUT TO ADOPT ONE. AND THE QUOTE THAT I USED IN BOTH OF THESE IMPACT FEES ARE ONE TIME PAYMENTS. THEY WERE NOT MEANT TO BE. FIVE YEARS LATER, I'M FINISHING MY BASEMENT. I PAY ANOTHER ONE. FIVE YEARS LATER, I FINISHED THE SECOND FLOOR OF MY HOUSE.

IT WASN'T FINISHED. I PAY ANOTHER ONE. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. AND THIS IS RIGHT UNDER THE PART THAT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH IDAHO STATE STATUTE. SO ONE TIME FEE IS NOT JUST COME OUT OF MY HEAD ON THE RECORD. IT CAME OUT OF THIS STATEMENT, BUT THE IMPACT FEE.

SO THAT MEANS THAT IF I REMODEL MY HOUSE TO MAKE IT INTO TWO APARTMENTS, AND NOW WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE, LIKE I'M MAKING BYPASS THE IMPACT FEES BECAUSE THE ONE TIME FEES. RIGHT? BUT WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T CREATE AN IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE FOR EVERY SCENARIO, FOR EVERY SCENARIO THAT WE CAN DREAM UP. BUT, BUT THE, FOR THE, THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO FALL INTO. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE 67% INCREASE FROM WHAT THEY PAY NOW AND A 41% INCREASE FROM WHAT THEY WOULD PAY IF THEY WERE PAYING 100%? THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE AT THE END OF THE DAY. SO WE GOT RID OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OUT OF THE IF YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT, THE HEADLINE I'D SEE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S YOUR DECISION.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S. I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT SEEMS SEEM EQUITABLE, THAT ONE'S PAYING 67% AND ANOTHER'S PAYING 5.6%. RIGHT. I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BASED ON HOW THEY WORKED OUT. WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK OUT WHEN WE GOT THEM ORIGINALLY WITH THE TEN CATEGORIES, WE FINALLY SAW THE THREE CATEGORIES ON THE SIX, AND IT'S PAM DID SEND THEM TO US, BUT SHE COULD I MEAN, SHE DID HER JOB, BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. AND WHEN YOU ACTUALLY BREAK DOWN THE NUMBERS OF THOSE THREE CATEGORIES AND USE WADE'S NUMBERS THAT WE GOT FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON AVERAGES, 67% SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY HIGH NUMBER TO ME. YEAH, IT'S STEEP ALONG WITH THEM NOT HAVING AFFORDABLE IN THERE ANYMORE. LIKE THE HEADLINE I'D SEE IN THE NEWSPAPER WOULD BE. WE'RE NOT IN THE MIDST OF A HOUSING CRISIS. WE'RE WE'RE

[00:50:06]

NO, I MEAN HERE. IT'S BEEN USED HERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT I I'VE YET TO SEE ANY DATA THAT SUGGESTS THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ALREADY DONE THE PROJECT HERE. AND I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT IT WAS VERY USEFUL FOR THEM TO GO TO THE BANK. YEAH. ANOTHER REASON THAT I SUPPORT THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT AND UNFINISHED SECOND OR THIRD STORIES IS WHEN WE REALLY TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE BUILDING ON SLACK, WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO BASEMENT, WHICH MEANS THEY ARE GOING TO BE AT THE LOWER SQUARE FOOTAGE LEVEL, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING THE LOWER IMPACT FEE. SO I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I HAVE TONS OF DIFFERENT MEETINGS RIGHT NOW, AND THIS IS NOT GOING TO MAKE OR BREAK. IT IS COMPLEX UNLESS YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE OR BREAK. SO YEAH, I CAN TELL YOU THERE ISN'T A SINGLE DEVELOPER THAT IS GOING TO USE WHATEVER NUMBERS THAT ARE OUT THERE WITHIN THIS RANGE AND SAY, I'M GOING TO DESIGN A HOUSE UNDER THIS. BECAUSE OF THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO DESIGN A HOUSE THAT THEY THINK THAT THE MARKET IS GOING TO TAKE. AND IF IT'S SMALLER, AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT'S DRIVING IT BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQUARE FOOT. YEAH. NOW IS THIS YES, IT'S A COMPONENT. IT'S A VERY, VERY SMALL. I'M NOT SAYING, OH, LET'S JUST MAKE IT BIGGER. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT LOOKING AT THIS WITH MARKET BASED REALITIES AND THIS IS SIMPLY A THIS, THERE ARE IMPACTS THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT WE HAVE TO COVER THE COST FOR. YEAH, I AGREE, I MEAN, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT'S TRUE. BUT LISTENING, THE REASON WE HAVE THIS, THIS COMMITTEE IS TO HEAR FROM DEVELOPERS. I MEAN, THE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS, RIGHT? SO YOU CAN SAY, YEAH, I MEAN IT SHOWS RIGHT HERE, BUT THEY'RE BUILDING WITHOUT A BASEMENT, RIGHT? YOU CAN LOOK AT THE SIZE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEY PUSH IT INTO THE, THE NEXT CATEGORY WHERE THAT THEY INCREASE IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE. IT'S GOING TO BE 67% FROM WHAT THEY'RE PAYING RIGHT NOW.

LIKE THAT'S THE MATH IS THE MATH. IF WE LOOK AT THAT AND WE SAY THE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IS ALSO THE IMPACT? IF THE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS, THEN THE NUMBERS ARE ALSO THE IMPACT. SO THEY ARE PAYING FOR THEIR IMPACT IS THAT I MEAN, IF IF WE'RE LOOKING AT NUMBERS, WE'RE GOING TO COMPARE ONE COLUMN. CAN'T WE COMPARE THAT NEXT COLUMN AND SAY, YES, THE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS. AND THIS IS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT CREATE AN IMPACT FOR THAT CATEGORY. SO DO YOU THINK AN APARTMENT COMPLEX HAS ONLY A 5.6% IMPACT, INCREASED IMPACT ON THE CITY? BECAUSE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPORTIONALITY, THE MIDDLE SECTION, THE MIDDLE SECTION, THE MISSING MIDDLE, AS YOU CALL IT, IS WHAT GETS HIT THE HARDEST OFF OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE PRICING. YES, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT SO THE ONE GETS REDUCED BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE, OH, THEY ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE AS MANY PEOPLE. AND ABOVE 3000. THEY ALSO AREN'T INCREASING THEIR IMPACT DOUBLE OR TRIPLE BECAUSE YEAH, THEY'RE GETTING CHARGED. BUT YEAH, SO THE MIDDLE IS REALLY THE ONES CAUSING THE IMPACT. I MEAN,

[00:55:01]

IT'S LIKE THIS WAS INTENDED TO ACTUALLY CAPTURE IMPACT. AND MAYOR, IF I MAY ADD TO JUST A REMINDER, EVEN THOUGH WE DO HAVE. THE LAST STUDY WAS DATED AT 2021, THE DATA THAT WAS USED WAS IN 2020, WHICH WE WERE A LOT DIFFERENT AS A COMMUNITY. IN 2020, WE HAD SOME ELEMENTS OF COVID AND THAT TYPE OF THING. BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DIRECTOR SANDER, I BELIEVE THE INCREASE IS 1.3% PER YEAR. WHAT'S OUR POPULATION INCREASE THAT WE'RE EXPECTING? YEAH, IT'S ABOUT 11 11,000 TO 1300 OR 1100 TO 1300. SO YOU'RE ALWAYS GOOD LUCK. COUNCILMAN FREEMAN, COULD I INTERJECT TOO A LITTLE BIT JUST ON THE BASEMENT TO FOR MY STAFF, I WOULD JUST PUT A LITTLE BIT OF A PLUG TO OF CLARITY. WE OFTEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT.

THAT'S A SOURCE OF DEBATE. WHATEVER YOU DECIDE AS A COUNCIL, ALSO REALIZE THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF MULTIFAMILY THAT WE DO NOT CALCULATE AS PART OF THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, INCLUDING HALLWAYS, UTILITY ROOMS. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOME CLARITY ON THAT AS WELL. WHEN WE'RE CALCULATING MULTIFAMILY. JUST TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS WELL. WELL, TO ME, WE'RE NOT CHARGING FOR GARAGES FOR AUTOMOBILES. WE'RE NOT CHARGING FOR HALLWAYS AND UTILITY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LIVING SPACE OR POTENTIAL LIVING SPACE. I GUESS MAYBE CUT TO THE QUICK, IS THERE A CONSENSUS ON COUNCIL OR A MAJORITY ON COUNCIL THAT WANTS TO GO BACK AND UNDO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO DECIDE, RIGHT? I'M I'M STICKING WITH IT.

YOU'RE STICKING WITH THE THREE CATEGORIES OF THREE CATEGORIES OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT'S NOT PERFECT. THERE IS NO PERFECT WAY TO DO THIS EXCEPT WE KNOW IT COSTS. THERE'S A BURDEN ON THE COMMUNITY AS WE GROW, AND WE HAVE TO FIND SOME WAY THAT AS WE GROW THE THE PART THAT'S CREATING THAT GROWTH PAYS FOR SOME OF THAT COST. IT DOESN'T PAY FOR THE WHOLE COST. I CONCUR. YEAH, I SUPPORT IT AS WELL. I JUST DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ACCOMPLISHED IF WE DIDN'T, IF WE DIDN'T LISTEN TO THE COMMITTEE AND WE DIDN'T LISTEN TO THIS COMMITTEE.

THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT THE WHOLE A LOT OF THE CONCEPTS ARE IN IT. THAT'S NOT WHAT DROPPED THE WAIVERS FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE VERY CLEARLY SAID, WE CAN'T BE SURE THAT'S DONE. IT WAS NEVER THAT WAS NEVER THE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT THE COMMITTEE TALKED ABOUT WAS WE DIDN'T WANT A DEVELOPER TO COME IN, BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THEN SELL THE PROJECT, AND THEN IT DOESN'T GO BACK TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY IDEA THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAIVER WAS COMING OUT UNTIL IT WAS BROUGHT TO US. WE NEVER SUGGESTED TO PULL THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I KNOW, BUT YOU SAID THERE'S A PROBLEM. THE COMMITTEE SAID THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH IT AND I SHOULDN'T BE ARGUING WITH YOU. BUT BUT THE BUT THE WAIVER IS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE ALTOGETHER. BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS IT'S NOT DIRECTLY RELATED. IT'S THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEES ARE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS.

THEY MADE SEVERAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS, AND WE ADOPTED SOME OF THEM, BUT WE DIDN'T ADOPT ALL OF THEM BECAUSE WE ARE A DIFFERENT ENTITY THAN AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND MAYOR. MAYOR, PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION. SO THE ISSUE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS MORE, AS TJ MENTIONED, WAS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. AND WHEN WE MET WITH OUR LAST CITY ATTORNEY, MICHAEL KIRKHAM, HE DID SOME RESEARCH ON WHAT TYPE OF ENFORCEMENT WE COULD DO, POTENTIALLY FROM A CITY, AND IT WAS VERY LIMITED AS FAR AS WHAT KIND OF ENFORCEMENT WE WERE, WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE AS AN ORGANIZATION. SO I THINK THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE THOUGHT WAS, IS JUST TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT OUT. BUT I

[01:00:04]

I'M SAYING THAT WE DO LISTEN TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THAT WHEN THEY RAISE POINTS AND WE.

THAT'S WELL DONE. THANK YOU FOR RAISING THAT POINT. WE HAVE TRIED TO RESPOND. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THEY SAID, GET RID OF IT. I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. I MEANT THEY RAISED AN ISSUE THAT WE HAD NOT CONSIDERED WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TRYING TO PROCESS THIS, AND WE ASSUMED IT COULD BE DONE THROUGH HUD. BUT I THINK THE COMMITTEE MADE A VERY VALID, WELL, WELL-ARGUED POINT THAT WE SHOULD IT WAS A PROBLEM. IT WAS PROBLEMATIC, I GUESS IS THE RIGHT WORD FOR AFFORDABILITY WITH A PROPERTY IS GOING TO TRANSFER WITH HUD ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IF IT'S GOING TO. HUD DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO TAKE A PROPERTY THAT WAS BUILT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR FROM THE STATE, YOU HAVE TO DO THAT FOR 20 YEARS, AND WHOEVER OWNS IT HAS TO CONTINUE FOR 20 YEARS. SO IT'S THAT WOULD BE ENFORCED. AND AND IF I MAY, I MEAN, WE'RE ALL THINKING ABOUT THIS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS I ALSO WANT TO MENTION, AND I'LL INVITE THE CHAIR TO CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT, BUT ONE OF ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES, AT LEAST WHAT I HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT THE UNFINISHED BASEMENTS IS THE AFFORDABILITY. AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ABOUT AS A CONCERN FOR, INCLUDING THE UNFINISHED BASEMENTS THAT THAT REALLY COULD POTENTIALLY PUT PEOPLE OUT OF THE MARKET, IF YOU WILL, TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY A HOME. AND THEN THAT WOULD SHIFT THE LIVING SPACES INTO APARTMENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND CHAIR, AM I DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY? I MEAN, AFFORDABILITY WAS IS ALWAYS BEEN. OUR GOAL IS TO, TO SEE HOW WE CAN MAKE THIS LIKE PROMOTE SINGLE FAMILY OR EVEN MULTI-FAMILY TO AN EXTENT AND NOT HAVE A BIG INCREASE ON IMPACT FEES. RIGHT. AND WE HAD NO CLUE WHERE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS GOING TO COME IN. THAT WAS UNTIL WE GOT THE NUMBERS. WE HAD NO CLUE. WE DIDN'T SEE THE THREE. WE DIDN'T SEE THE THREE UNTIL THE SIXTH.

LIKE I SAID, WE HAD A MEETING ON THE 10TH THAT THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

THE COMMITTEE HASN'T EVEN SEEN THESE NUMBERS THAT I PUT TOGETHER TODAY. THIS IS LIKE, I JUST DID THAT THIS MORNING. AND I WAS ACTUALLY SHOCKED THAT IT IT ENDED OUT THE WAY IT WAS. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. I JUST DID THAT FOR MY OWN SELF. SO DID THE COMMITTEE. I MEAN, HERE'S ONE QUESTION THAT I KEEP COMING BACK TO. THE COMMITTEE IS TALKING ABOUT IMPACT FEES. WHAT DID THE COMMITTEE TALK ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL IMPACT? BECAUSE IF THE GOAL OF THE COMMITTEE WAS TO REDUCE THE IMPACT FEES, THERE WERE LOTS OF WAYS TO HAVE GOTTEN TO LESS IMPACT FEES. IT'S REALLY ABOUT TRYING TO FIND THE GOOD METHODOLOGY ON IMPACT. TOTALLY, TOTALLY A FAIR POINT. AND I GUESS WITHOUT LOOKING AT A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF PER DOOR VERSUS SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR UNFINISHED VERSUS FINISHED, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THERE WAS NEVER A TIME WHEN WE SAT DOWN AND SAID, OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT THIS. LET'S LOOK AT THIS TOGETHER. LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK OF THESE, HOW THIS WORKS OUT, RIGHT? WHAT THE IMPACT IS. BECAUSE THE BIG THING THAT WHEN WE WENT TO SQUARE FOOTAGE AND YOU HAD TEN CATEGORIES, WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT A 7000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE HAD PROPORTIONALLY THE AMOUNT THAT THEY WERE BEING CHARGED ABOVE AND BEYOND. CORRECT. A SIX OR A 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. THAT WAS ALWAYS THE ARGUMENT WAS, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY AN ACCURATE PORTRAYAL OF THE IMPACT ON THE CITY, WHICH IS THE DIRECT NEXUS TO WHY THIS BECAME WHAT IT BECAME. WHERE IT WAS 3000 GREATER WAS REALLY IN RESPONSE TO THE IMPACT TO THE ADVISORY AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE RECEIVED. BUT I THINK ALSO, JUST SO YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT'S WHERE THE UNFINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE PLAYS A ROLE. IT DOES PLAY A ROLE BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FEE STRUCTURE, THE FEE SCHEDULE, AND WHAT IT DOES TO, LET'S SAY, A SMALL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT AND PUSHES IT INTO THE

[01:05:03]

YEAH. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LEAVING OUT IS WHAT ABOUT THE SECOND FLOOR OF THAT'S NOT FINISHED. ARE YOU GOING TO CHARGE FOR THAT OR NOT. YES. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? THAT'S THE POINT. NO ONE HAS EVER ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. I POSED AGAIN AND AGAIN. HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE OUT THERE? IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY IT SAYS, LIKE, INCENTIVIZE ME NOT TO FINISH THE SECOND FLOOR UNTIL I'VE PAID MY FEE, GOT THE HOUSE BUILT, THEN I DO IT AND I DON'T PAY THE FEE. SO THESE ARE POTENTIAL LIVING SPACES. THIS IS PART OF THE COST OF BUILDING THAT BUILDING AND ITS IMPACT ON THE CITY, IMPACT ON THIS COMMUNITY, BECAUSE WHO PICKS UP THE DIFFERENCE IF IT ISN'T PAID? TAXPAYERS? ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, SO IT'S TO ME BECAUSE I CAN'T RATIONALIZE HOW TO DEAL WITH THE SECOND FLOOR THAT'S UNFINISHED. I'M RIGHT BACK TO THE BASEMENT UNFINISHED. YOU BUILD A BUILDING, YOU PAY IT ONCE IT'S DONE. BUT THIS IS A BIG INCREASE, JIM. THIS IS 60%. PERCENTAGES DON'T MATTER. IT'S DOLLARS AMOUNT TO ME BECAUSE 67% OF $1 IS 67. THE OTHER ARGUMENT TO MAKE WITH THAT WAS THAT THE FEE WAS TOO LOW IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT. YEAH. AND MAYBE TO HELP YOU WITH THE UNFINISHED SECOND STORY, I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME. I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT IN A BUILDING PERMIT THAT A SECOND STORY WAS NEVER FINISHED. SO THEY'RE TYPICALLY BUILT IN LINE WITH THE HOME CONSTRUCTION. BUT WE HAVE TO PASS LAW, RIGHT? WE CAN'T PASS. WE HAVE TO MAKE A LAW. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN ANALYSIS BETWEEN JUST GOING BACK TO THE TWO VERSUS THIS, LIKE, WHAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT? IS IT DO WE KNOW YOU'RE SAYING BETWEEN A MULTI-FAMILY RATE AND A SINGLE FAMILY RATE, INSTEAD OF BREAKING IT INTO THREE AND THEN TWO, LIKE THE COLLECTION IS GOING TO BE THE SAME, RIGHT? IT'S WHO'S GOING TO PAY IT. SO WHAT IF WE DIDN'T USE SQUARE FOOTAGE AT ALL? AND BECAUSE THAT'S THE LAST THING I REMEMBER US SAYING IS THIS IS A NIGHTMARE. AND THEN SO I'M HEARING THE TEN WENT TO THREE.

THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HELP THAT. WHY NOT JUST GO BACK TO WHAT WE WERE DOING IN THE LAST STUDY? WELL, JUSTIFY THE JUSTICE. THE WHOLE REASON I WAS INTERESTED IN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS TO TRY TO GET THE LOWER NUMBER FOR THE SMALLER HOUSING, SO WE COULD GET MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN. THAT WAS MY INTEREST IN MAKING IT. YEAH, THAT WENT OUT THE WINDOW.

THAT'S WHY I WAS PRETTY SUPPORTIVE OF GOING BACK JUST TO THE TWO THAT WE'VE ALWAYS HAD, THE MULTI-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY. SO WHERE ARE WE AT FIVE HERE OR THREE? THAT'S WHAT I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE BUSINESS, RIGHT? LIKE THE BUSINESSES THERE. YEAH, THEY'RE STILL AT THAT'S GOT TO BE THAT WHICH HAS BEEN AND BY FAR, WHAT IS WHAT IS IT THAT WE GAIN THE MOST FROM? IS IT THE HOUSING OR IS IT THE ACTUAL BUSINESSES WE GET

[01:10:05]

THAT'S THE METHODOLOGY. OUR METHODOLOGY, OUR METHODOLOGY. ARE WE THE MOST COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? WE ACTUALLY SAY THIS IS THE IMPACT OF BECAUSE WHAT JIM SAID IS RIGHT, THERE'S NO PERFECT WAY TO DO THIS. AND SO AND WE KIND OF HAVE THIS WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION LAST TIME.

THERE'S NO PERFECT WAY. WHAT IS THE, THE, WHAT IS THE WAY THAT WE FEEL IS THE MOST ADEQUATE FOR IT TO BE EQUITABLE ACROSS. AND, AND THIS, I THOUGHT WE HAD SOME CONSENSUS THAT THIS FELT THAT WAY LAST TIME, BUT NOT THAT PEOPLE CAN'T CHANGE THEIR MIND. I'M ALL ABOUT THAT. I JUST WONDER IF WE COULD SEE THE TWO NUMBERS. IF YOU WENT IF YOU IF WE WOULD HAVE RAN THIS FOR TWO YEARS PREVIOUS AND DID THE TWO NUMBERS TO SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO ME. DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE $1 MILLION AHEAD OR $1 MILLION BEHIND GOING THIS WAY? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IF IF THE IMPACT IS BEING DRIVEN, IF THAT'S THE IF THAT'S THE QUESTION, IS IMPACT, WELL, WHO'S PAYING IT? NOT NOT WHETHER IT'S GOING TO GET COLLECTED. THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS GOING TO STAY THE SAME. IT'S WHO'S PAYING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE IMPACT. IT STAYS THE SAME. NO NO NO. THE DOLLAR AMOUNT STAYS THE SAME BECAUSE YOU HAVE YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. YOU HAVE THE VEHICLE TRIPS PER MILE AND IT'S $1 MILLION. SO IT'S JUST IT'S LIKE WHAT PORTION OF THE PIE WHO PAYS MORE PORTION OF THE WHOLE PIE. SO THE TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE. IT'S WHAT? I MEAN, WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A. YES. AND, AND IF I MAY ADD A LITTLE BIT, THIS, WE WILL WORK ON THIS FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. AND ONE OF THE. AND I DON'T MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE INITIATE. BUT MY RECOLLECTION WAS, IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE STARTED LOOKING AT SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL WAS BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING SOME DIFFICULTY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ON WHAT IS DEFINED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT AND WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE. AND SO ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE HAD OVER A YEAR AGO WAS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN SIMPLIFY THIS TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE US TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD? DO THEY WANT TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS, OR DO THEY WANT TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS AND THEN NOT HAVE THAT CONFUSION? OF WHAT DEFINITION DOES IT FALL UNDER? NOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN YOU DO THE INSPECTIONS, THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS AND THERE ARE CODES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SPRINKLERS, SPRINKLERS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT THAT'S WHAT KIND OF HONESTLY MY RECOLLECTION WAS. IS IT WHAT KIND OF KICKED OFF THE WHOLE CONVERSATION OF GOING EITHER TO SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY AND THEN TRANSITIONING TO A SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL? ANOTHER CAVEAT IS THAT WE REVISIT THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS, MINIMUM, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO IF IF IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IT'S THAT IT'S NOT RIGHT, WE CAN CHANGE IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ETCHED IN STONE. JUST WE JUST WENT THROUGH A CAMPAIGN. WE WENT THROUGH A LAWSUIT. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE WANT TO DO ALL THAT WORK THAT WE CAN TO GET THIS AS RIGHT AS WE CAN WITH THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN. WE DID REMOVE THE POLICE VEHICLES FROM THIS ORDINANCE, AND WE DID TAKE TAKE THE SCHOOLS AND DID EXEMPT THOSE INSTITUTIONS FROM HAVING TO PAY IMPACT FEES. AND MAYOR, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE POLICE VEHICLES WERE THE IMPACT. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WAS NOT IN SUPPORT OF HIS $50 FOR THE POLICE VEHICLES, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY CLEAR DOCUMENTATION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THOSE VEHICLES TO BE KEPT IN SERVICE FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS, AS PER THE AS PER THE ORDINANCE. AND SO AS THAT WAS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT AND THE UNFINISHED BASEMENTS WERE THE TWO MORE HIGHER PRIORITY, HIGHER DISCUSSION ITEMS. AS THE CHAIRS MENTIONED, THERE WERE SOME OTHER OTHER

[01:15:01]

AS I SAY, REALLY BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE AFFORDABLE. SOME DEVELOPERS ARE BUILDING THEM ON A SLAB AND THEY'RE CHARGING LESS THAN PEOPLE THAT HAVE BASEMENTS. THAT'S THAT'S AFFORDABILITY. BUT THIS IS ABOUT GROWTH, PAYING FOR GROWTH.

IT'S A ONE TIME FEE AND A ONE TIME FEE. AND THE CONCEPT THAT POTENTIAL LIVING SPACE IS BETTER JUST. YOU PAY IT UPFRONT. IT'S DONE. FINISHED. JIM. A COUNTERARGUMENT TO THAT IS THAT WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE MORE PEOPLE LIVING IN A SMALLER SPACE TO MAKE OUR CITY MORE EASILY MAINTAINED. SO IF YOU DON'T BUILD THE BASEMENT, THEN YOU'RE BUILDING SOMETHING, POSSIBLY IN A FRINGE OR IN A DIFFERENT PLACE. I THINK WE'RE GUESSING AT THAT COUNCIL. WE'RE GUESSING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE DOING IT RIGHT. AND MANY PEOPLE, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER AND THEN MAYBE WE'D BE FINE IS I JUST DON'T LIKE TO HEAR THAT THEY HAVE FOUR DAYS TO LOOK AT IT. I WOULDN'T MIND SEEING 20, 24 DAYS TO LOOK AT IT. RIGHT.

DELIVER ON THE SIXTH. HE GOT IT MARCH 6TH AND HAD WHAT HE HAD FOR DAYS, MARCH 6TH AND MARCH 10TH. SO THAT'S WHEN THEY BEFORE THEY CAME BACK. BUT NOW IT'S BEEN THIS MANY MORE DAYS RIGHT. I MEAN TJ DID DO THE BUT THEY HAVEN'T MET TO DISCUSS IT WITH THE GROUP. RIGHT. SO I MEAN THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST. BUT ULTIMATELY WE'LL GET TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET.

BUT. AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER RADFORD WOULD YOU IS YOUR ARE YOU ASKING TO JUST GO TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE COMPARISON COMPARING THESE THREE CATEGORIES COMPARED TO WHERE WE WERE AT WITH LIKE 2.6 FOR PEOPLE AND THREE POINT WHATEVER PEOPLE IN MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, WHY GO WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL AT ALL? BECAUSE WE'RE OPENING OURSELVES UP TO LAWSUITS AND COMPLEXITY COMPARED TO JUST SINGLE AND MULTI. WELL, BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE LAWSUIT WAS, WAS WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD ACTUALLY DEFINE WHAT SINGLE FAMILY AND WHAT MULTIFAMILY WAS, I THINK WAS PRECEDENTS FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AROUND THE STATE THAT HAVE DONE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE NOW TRYING TO DO IN SIMPLIFICATION. YEAH. I SAID THAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS COMING, THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY'D BEEN INCREASINGLY USING. BUT WHEN I SAW THAT, IT DOUBLED, THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT IS WHERE I GOT LIKE, OH, I DON'T LIKE THAT AT ALL.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE BROCKWELL AND YOU'RE TRYING TO GET AFFORDABLE HOUSES AND PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN A FINISHED BASEMENT AND NOT A FINISHED BASEMENT, AND IT'S 50 OR 70,000 AND YOU BARELY QUALIFY AT 350, SUDDENLY YOU CAN GET A HOUSE AND SUDDENLY YOU CAN'T FOR FOR 2000 OR FOR 200 FAMILIES, MAYBE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. IT'S MY QUESTION. WHAT NUMBER DID YOU JUST GAVE? 55. WELL, THAT'S TO FINISH THE BASEMENT. THE COST.

YEAH. BUT THE ROCKWELL'S GOING TO PAY A HOUSE FROM ROCKWELL WITH AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT.

IT'S GOING TO COST 303 HUNDRED, MAYBE. AND WITH A FINISHED BASEMENT, IT'S GOING TO COST 350 BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE MATERIALS TO FINISH THE BASEMENT. AND SO IF YOU CAN AFFORD A $300,000 HOUSE WITH A LOAN AND YOU CAN GET A HOUSE AND YOU CAN THEN BUILD LATER ON, YOU CAN FINISH. THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE POINT IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES ABOUT HAVING ALL THESE BASEMENTS. AND SO IF YOU'RE I'M JUST SAYING THERE'S GOING TO BE A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD A HOUSE. NOW BY MAKING THIS DECISION TO GO FROM FROM THAT TO THAT. BUT IS IT IS IT REALLY, IS IT REALLY GOING TO BE $1,125 IS GOING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE, I THINK. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS MORE BETWEEN THE CLASSIFICATION OF MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY, RIGHT? THERE'S RIGHT NOW A LOT OF PEOPLE, A LOT OF BUILDERS ARE BUILDING DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, WHERE PEOPLE CAN GET INTO, RIGHT? THEY ARE, THEY ARE ASSESSED THE FEE UNDER THE MULTI-FAMILY, THE THE DOOR OF MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS 2900, RIGHT? IF YOU GET RID OF MULTIFAMILY, JUST FOR INSTANCE, AND EVERYTHING MOVES INTO SINGLE FAMILY, THAT'S A PRETTY WELL, EVERYTHING'S JUST GOING TO MOVE TO SQUARE FOOTAGE, RIGHT? YEAH. BUT, BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH. BUT I GUESS I'M NOT FOLLOWING WHAT YOU WHAT YOU JUST SAID. WELL, IT'S I MEAN, THERE'S GOING TO

[01:20:05]

SO THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE SHARED. SO THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED. AND AS A MULTIFAMILY UNIT GENERATES MASONRY WALL IN. AND SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS A LITTLE BIT, JUST JUST TO KIND OF GIVE THAT PERSPECTIVE. SO FOR SINGLE FAMILY AT 75% FOR FIRE POLICE PARKS AND 100% TRANSPORTATION, SINGLE FAMILY IS CURRENTLY $5,273.50. MULTIFAMILY IS $2,943.25. SO THAT TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SHIFT THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. IF YOU ON PAGE 13 OF THE DRAFT STUDY, THE MAXIMUM SUPPORT WILL BE ON THAT PAGE. UNDER 1500 IS WOULD BE $3,109, WHICH IS AN INCREASE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE $2,943 I JUST MENTIONED FOR MULTIFAMILY TO 100 AND $166. SO UNDER 1500, YOU'D SEE POTENTIALLY MORE MULTIFAMILY ISH, IF YOU WILL, BASED ON OUR CATEGORIES. SO THAT WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF $166. AND THEN WHEN YOU WENT FROM 1500 TO 2999, THE MAXIMUM SUPPORT FEE, AGAIN, 100% FOR FIRE, POLICE AND PARKS THAT GOES TO $4,902, AND THEN FOR 3000 OR MORE SQUARE FEET IN THE DRAFT STUDY. PAGE 13 IS IS $6,460. SO THE WAY THAT I SEE THIS TOO, IS JUST THE OTHER WAY OF SAYING, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT'S 1500 SQUARE FEET UPPER AND INCLUDE THE BASEMENT, YOU'RE BELOW 3000, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A REDUCTION. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT IS ABOVE 1500FT■S ON THE UPPER LEVEL, AND YOU'RE GOING TO DOUBLE THAT IN THE

[01:25:04]

WHAT'S OUR TIMELINE. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. FIRST 2027 CAN DO WE HAVE TWO WEEKS TO BRING THIS BACK INTO WORK SESSION? TWO WEEKS? MAYOR? WE DO. DOES THAT GIVE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE A TIME TO MEET? IT'S REALLY IT'S REALLY ABOUT I MEAN, BRINGING BACK THE ORIGINAL.

WHAT I DON'T KNOW, WHAT IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND BRINGING IT BACK, COMPARING IT TO THE, THE DOORS TO, I GUESS TO ME IT, IF, IF WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT OUR METHODOLOGY, THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS A REPRESENTATION OF IMPACT, THEN OUR MULTIFAMILY SHOULD BE EQUITABLE TO OUR SINGLE FAMILY IN TERMS OF HOW WE ASSESS. THAT AT LEAST SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE TRAIN OF THOUGHT. I'D LOVE TO BE OPEN. I'D BE OPEN TO ANYBODY WHO SAID I'M MISSING SOMETHING, I DON'T THINK. HAVE WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER SQUARE FOOTAGE HAS ANYTHING TO DO? I THINK YOU JUST MISSED. I THINK YOU JUST MISSED THE WORK SESSION. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME. I THINK YOU WERE HERE FOR A LOT OF IT AND THEN JUST LEFT JUST AT THE END OF IT. IT JUST SEEMS. I THINK YOU MAY HAVE BEEN GONE. IT JUST SEEMS THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS INTERESTING. SO I'LL GO BACK AND ACTUALLY, YEAH, WE HAD A BIG WE HAD A BIG, LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. AND REALLY, I MEAN, FOR ME, IT'S IT'S THE CENSUS DATA, RIGHT? IT'S LIKE, HERE'S THE CENSUS DATA, HERE'S HOW MANY PEOPLE THE IMPACT IS FOR MULTIFAMILY, HERE'S HOW MUCH IT WAS FOR SINGLE FAMILY. THAT WAS ONE METHODOLOGY OR HERE'S THE CENSUS DATA IN TEN CATEGORIES. HERE'S THE CENSUS DATA IN THREE CATEGORIES. SO IT'S IT'S THE IMPACT. AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO WHAT'S THAT METHODOLOGY. AND NOT REALLY ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.

BUT I CARE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY. I AGREE SEPARATE CONVERSATIONS, AS JIM SAID EARLIER. BUT I DO THINK THAT HOW WE APPLY IT, IF WE CAN, IF THERE'S CONSISTENCY THERE, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING THERE ISN'T, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE CAN GET MAYBE MORE CONSISTENT BY SAYING WHATEVER WE'RE ASSESSING ON A MULTIFAMILY UNIT OF X SIZE SHOULD BE THE SAME AS WHAT WE'RE ASSESSING, BECAUSE WE SHOULD MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THE SAME AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WOULD LIVE IN EACH SPACE. BUT ISN'T THAT WHAT THIS IS? WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT SEPARATING MULTIFAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY IN THIS AT ALL. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES DO. I, I WAS JUST, I THOUGHT SOMEBODY JUST SAID, IF YOU HAVE A 1500 SQUARE FOOT OR LESS. NO, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE THAT WAS USING THE OLD MULTIFAMILY. YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT PAGE 13. YEAH, PAGE 13 IS THE ONE WHERE WE HAVE THE STRAIGHT DWELLING UNITS. THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE CATEGORIES. YEAH. SO MAYBE WE'RE ALREADY DOING IT. YEAH. LOOK AT PAGE LOOK. SO THAT'S WHAT'S CONFUSING ABOUT LOOKING AT THIS.

YEAH. SO DON'T YEAH. IF YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THIS AND JUST GO TO PAGE 13 IN THE TABLE. IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE BUILDING SOMETHING TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE UNDER 1500 SQUARE FEET, IT'S THE INCREASE TO THE IMPACT FEE IS GOING TO BE $166. IF YOU'RE BUILDING SOMETHING BETWEEN 1500 AND 3000FT■!S, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A REDUCED AMOUNT OF $372. AND THAT'S EITHER. SO THAT'S INCENTIVIZING BUILDING A SMALLER HOUSE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S 3000

[01:30:01]

IT'S THE ANALYSIS, CORRECT. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO NOTE TOO, AND I KNOW I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I KEEP REPEATING MYSELF, BUT THE CURRENT FEE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY $5,273 PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS ONLY 75% OF FIRE, POLICE AND PARKS. IT'S 100% TRANSPORTATION.

ON PAGE 13, THIS IS 100% POLICE, FIRE, PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION. SO IT IS IT'S BRINGING IT UP TO A CONSISTENCY LEVEL THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. SO SORRY, ALEXANDER, WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS FIGURE SIX UNDER CURRENT FEE THAT WOULD BE CURRENT MAXIMUM FEE WHERE IT SAYS $5,274. THAT'S THE CURRENT FEE UNDER THE 75%, THE 75%. SO THAT'S NOT WE NEVER DID GET THAT COLUMN THAT SHOWS THE CURRENT MAXIMUM CORRECT, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT UNFAIR. AND I THINK AT ONE POINT WE DID DO IT ON THIS, THIS HANDOUT. IT'S THE SECOND COLUMN AT THE TOP. IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT A SINGLE FAMILY AT 100% SUPPORT FEES, IT'S $6,027 PER SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND $3,479 PER MULTIFAMILY. IT SAYS. ONE NOTE THE CURRENT FEE LISTED FOR HOUSING UNITS LESS THAN 1500 SQUARE FEET IS FOR MULTIFAMILY. THAT'S JUST CLARIFYING FOR. STUDY. NOTE ON PAGE 13. YEAH. YEAH, THEY JUST CATEGORIZED CATEGORIZED IT THAT BECAUSE BASED ON THEIR DATA, WE SEE VERY FEW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE UNDER 1500 SQUARE FEET IN IDAHO. SO WAIT, HOW DOES THIS WORK THEN? IF THAT'S TRUE, THERE'S NO MULTI-FAMILY OR SINGLE FAMILY.

AND NOW IT'S JUST THESE THREE, JUST THOSE CATEGORIES ON SQUARE FOOTAGE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DETERMINE IT WON'T MATTER. YEAH, SO THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. WE WOULD STILL TRACK IT INTERNALLY.

WE'RE WE'RE STILL HAVE THOSE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE READY TO TO GO. BUT WE WOULD USE THAT MORE FOR TRACKING NOT IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT FEE. SO THEN WE WOULD JUST HAVE AN INTERNAL MEASURE TO KNOW BECAUSE OUR TRACKING AND I DON'T MEAN TO DIVERT THIS IS A LITTLE DIVERSION, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD WAY TO REALLY TRACK THE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING RIGHT NOW, ACCORDING TO OUR DEFINITIONS. YEAH. WE WOULD JUST LOOK AT IT AT SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THAT'S WHAT THE PROJECT WOULD BE ASSESSED AT. SO IT WOULDN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT THE DEFINITION WAS. SO IF I'M, I, I JUST IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT MY PAPER, THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY. I MEAN, 3000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT HOME RIGHT NOW AT 100% MAXIMUM FEES IS $6,027.

WHAT DO I SHOW ON PAGE 6000 FOR 60? IT GOES TO 6000 FOR 60. SO IT'S AN INCREASE OF $430. WHAT DID YOU SAY 6001. IT WAS 6027. SO YEAH. SO BUT THE BUT THEY WERE REALLY ONLY PAYING THE 5273. WELL, AND I JUST THINK THE OTHER THING IS THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION OF WAIT IS I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO'S BUILDING 1500 SQUARE FOOT APARTMENTS. IT'S PRETTY RARE, ISN'T IT? YEAH. THAT'S HUGE. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE SAYING MULTIFAMILY IS AT UNDER 1500? YEAH. PRETTY MUCH YES. PER UNIT. YOU COULD YOU COULD MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION. YES. YEAH. SO THEN THE SIZE OF A HOUSE BETWEEN 1500 TO 3000 SEES A DECREASE IN EVERYTHING ABOVE 3000 SEES THE BIGGER INCREASE WHEN THERE'S A REDUCTION AT 1500 TO 29. CORRECT. WELL, THAT MAKES ME A LITTLE HAPPIER. I MEAN IN TERMS OF NOT HAVING SINGLE VERSUS MULTI AND THEN JUST HAVING THE

[01:35:04]

AND SO THERE'S THIS THOUGHT THAT A METHODOLOGY THAT MORE PEOPLE COULD POTENTIALLY RESIDE IN A BIGGER SQUARE FOOTAGE DWELLING UNIT BASED ON CENSUS DATA. BUT THE CENSUS, I WOULD AGREE THAT THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT THE DATA SAID. BUT I THINK JUST LIKE THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY IS NOW OVER $100,000. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT? NO. WHAT'S HAPPENED IS PEOPLE HAVE MOVED IN TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD HOUSING. SO NOW YOU'VE GOT FIVE ADULTS WORKING AND THEY'RE BRINGING IN 50 APIECE OR SOMETHING. AND SO I THINK THAT THE LIVING ARRANGEMENTS HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY SINCE 2021, I WOULD THINK. BUT EITHER WAY, I'M SURE THERE'S SOME DIFFERENCE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT SQUARE FOOTAGE WITH THOSE THREE WITHOUT SINGLE MULTI THEN THAT'S OF INTEREST. I CAN, I CAN SEE WHERE THAT GOES. BUT I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT THINGS KIND OF MADE IN TERMS OF DOLLARS AT THIS POINT I JUST IF IT'S ONLY 15% OF BUILDINGS, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE MUCH IMPACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. NOW, IF THERE'S ONLY THREE DIFFERENT SPOTS, DO YOU THINK IT'S OKAY IF WE LEFT OUT THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT? I MEAN, I THINK WHEN WE HAD OUR COMMITTEE MEETING, WE WERE TALKING, WE USE THOSE NUMBERS, SAME NUMBERS. 14% OF BASEMENTS ARE UNFINISHED. IF YOU COLLECT HALF OF THE BASEMENTS THAT GET FINISHED, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 7%. YEAH. LIKE IT'S IT'S NOT THAT IT'S REALLY NOT HUGE, BUT IT DOES.

IT HAS A BIG DIFFERENCE UP FRONT. AND YEAH, AND IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE WHETHER SOMEONE IS GETTING ASSESSED, YOU KNOW, OR CAN AFFORD IT OR CAN AFFORD IT. LIKE THE, IF THEY ARE TRYING TO GET INTO A HOUSE THAT'S AFFORDABLE AND THAT, THAT ADDING THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE FEE, YOU KNOW, INCREASES IT FROM WHAT THEY WERE PAYING BY EVEN 40%. IF YOU'RE AT 100, LIKE THAT'S A PRETTY BIG JUMP. THAT WAS OUR, THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT THE IMPACT FEE. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. IT'S THE FINANCING OF 50,000 MORE DOLLARS IS THE JOB. THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS PROBLEMATIC. BUT 86% ARE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW, I THINK. RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO LIKE, I THINK THE MORE I'VE TALKED TO SOME BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, THE MOVE IS GOING TO BE TO DO MORE UNFINISHED SQUARE FOOTAGE. I DON'T THINK 86. I THINK THAT IS GOING TO I THINK THAT IS THE TREND. I THINK 86% ARE CHOOSING TO DO THAT. THAT'S WHAT ROCKWELL'S DECIDED TO DO, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE BUILDING THEM, AND THEN PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO GET INTO THE FINANCING TO AFFORD IT OR NOT. AND SO THE ONES THAT ARE UNFINISHED ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING CUSTOM MAYBE, OR BUILDING AND DIDN'T HAVE THE DOLLARS. IT'S JUST MY THOUGHT PROCESS, THE ANECDOTE THAT I GOT FROM THE COMMERCIAL PLANS EXAMINER WAS THE PRIMARY ONE THAT DOESN'T FINISH IS ROCKWELL.

SO YEAH, JUST SO THAT'S WHAT I WONDER IS IF LIKE, WHO IS THAT PERSON? AND WE'RE MAKING A DECISION HERE THAT IF THEY, IF I'M A BUILDER AND THIS IS THE NEW PROCESS THAT I'M FINISHING ALL MY BASEMENTS BECAUSE IT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO. YOU'RE FINISHING YOUR BASEMENTS. IF WE DO AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT, IF YOU ALLOW UNFINISHED BASEMENTS AND I DON'T, IT DOESN'T MATTER, THEN IT'S NEUTRAL. AND IF $400,000 IS THE NEW NORM, NORM IS $1,000. MAKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AFFORDABILITY. AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT I'M TRYING TO

[01:40:02]

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES. NOW YOU'RE AT 450,000 44,000, RIGHT. SO IF YOU'RE AT 4000 400,000 VERSUS $399,000, IS THAT $1,000? WHAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE DIFFERENCE? I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE $1,000. I DON'T THINK THAT MATTERS AT ALL. OKAY. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, BUT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE ARGUMENT. BUT NO, THE UNFINISHED BASEMENT IS GOING TO BE $50,000 CHEAPER.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THAT'S ON THE BUILDER AND THE AND AND THE BUYER. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. BUT IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE FINISHED OR I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET CHARGED AS IF IT WAS FINISHED. YOU'RE GOING TO GET CHARGED THAT EXTRA $1,000 AS IF IT WAS. IF I'M A BUILDER WHO IS BUILDING THAT RIGHT, THEN A BULLET I COULD FIRE IS TO SAY, AND I'VE ALREADY PREPAID YOUR FEE. SO WHEN YOU'RE READY TO FINISH YOUR BASEMENT, YOU CAN GO DO IT BECAUSE I PAID YOUR IMPACT FEES FOR YOU. YEAH, $1,000 IMPACT FEE. EXACTLY. BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH $50,000 FROM THE BANK. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO AFFORD. NOT TILL THEY'RE READY TO FINISH. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT RIGHT AWAY. OH, YOU'RE SAYING FOR THE ONES THAT JUST THE ONES THAT SAY, OH, THANKS FOR PREPAYING THAT ONE, I'M READY TO FINISH MY BASEMENT. I WILL WHEN I HAVE THE $50,000, I'LL GIVE YOU A CALL. SHOULD YOU PAY THAT FOR ME? YEAH, I'LL, I'LL BUY YOU A DINNER. OKAY. I'M JUST SAYING LIKE THAT. I COME BACK TO JIM'S EARLIER POINT, RIGHT? LIKE, TRY TO BE SIMPLE, CONSISTENT, EQUITABLE ONE TIME. BUT DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I'M SAYING IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO SOME GROUP OF PEOPLE? THERE'S 100 PEOPLE. I DON'T THINK ANYONE WILL MAKE A DECISION ON A $400,000, $350,000 PURCHASE OFF OF $1,000.

I'M NOT SAYING I'M SAYING IT'S THE $50,000, BUT BUT IF THEY'VE ALREADY DECIDED NOT TO FINISH THEIR BASEMENT, THE IMPACT FEE IS IRRELEVANT. BUT THAT'S WHAT I MEAN IS THAT THIS IS INCENTIVIZING THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PUSH THIS, NOT REALLY, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOW YOU'RE GOING TO 3000FT■S BY HAVING A BASEMENT UNDER A 1500 SQUARE FOOT HOME. WELL, I HAVE ONE MORE THOUGHT I'D LIKE TO THROW OUT. I GUESS I THINK ABOUT IT DIFFERENTLY. BE QUIET. BUT YOU USED TO HAVE THIS STATEMENT. REMEMBER THAT PEOPLE AREN'T IN A ROOM. SO I'M GOING TO BUILD A TINY HOUSE FOR MYSELF BECAUSE THAT'S ALL I CAN AFFORD. IT'S 900FT■!S ON THE SL. IF YOU DO IT BY DOOR. I'M PAYING EXACTLY THE SAME IMPACT FEE AS SOMEONE WHO BUILDS AN 8000 FOOT SQUARE HOUSE. THAT'S NOT EQUITABLE, NOT EVEN CLOSE. IF I CAN AFFORD 8000 SQUARE FOOT, I CAN PAY $1,000 MORE, WHATEVER IT IS. AND IF I'M AT THAT POINT OF I CAN AFFORD THIS, BUT I CAN'T FINISH THE BASEMENT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THAT $50,000. BUILD IT, LEAVE IT UNFINISHED. WHEN MY INCOME GOES UP LATER, I'LL FINISH IT. BUT I'VE ALREADY PAID THE FEES FOR IT. I'M NOT PAYING IT JUST TO ME, THIS IS AS CLOSE AS WE CAN COME TO AN EQUITABLE DECISION THAT MEETS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO REPRESENT A COMMUNITY AND NOT TRYING TO SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS OF AFFORDABILITY. BUT IF I'M A BUILDER AND I GO 900FT■!S ON A SLAB. I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT. IF SOMEONE BUILDS AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR PROBLEM. I JUST THE PROBLEM THAT I KEEP SEEING IS THE 1500 GOES TO 3000 INSTANTLY.

YEAH. BY HAVING AN UNFINISHED BASEMENT. RIGHT. AND THAT JUMPS YOU TWO SPOTS. SO I BUILD MY 900 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AND I PUT A BASEMENT IN IT. I'VE MADE THAT THING TWICE AS BIG AS POTENTIAL LIVING SPACE. IF I JUST GO ON A SLAB AT 900FT■!S. IT'S A VERY SMALL HOUSE, BUT I CAN AFFORD THAT, OR I CAN AFFORD TO BUILD THAT AND SELL IT BECAUSE THERE'S A DEMAND FOR IT. THE BEST WE CAN DO WHEN WE TRY TO DO THIS IS ESTABLISH A SYSTEM THAT'S SOMEWHAT EQUITABLE. DO WE TAX PEOPLE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS ON THEIR TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHETHER IT'S UNFINISHED OR NOT, IT'S VALUATION ASSESSED VALUE ASSESSED VALUE. YEAH. THERE IS AN INHERENT NUMBER IN SQUARE IN IN SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEAH. THAT GOES INTO ASSESSMENT. SO YOU'RE PAYING FOR THAT UNFINISHED SPACE. ANYWAY, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, MICHELLE, A LOT OF THE HOUSES HAVE A THIRD BASEMAN OR A HALF BASEMENT. THE BASEMENT ISN'T UNDERNEATH. YOU KNOW, PART OF MY HOUSE IS ON A SLAB, IS YOURS IS BUILT BY THE SAME PERSON THAT HALF OF MY HOUSE IS ON A SLAB, AND THE OTHER HALF HAS A BASEMENT. SO.

I DON'T. THIS IS ALWAYS WHERE MY SENSE OF LIKE THIS, LIKE LITERALLY STARTS TO MAKE ME LAUGH. AND SO I HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE I KNOW THE ABSURDITY STARTS TO WEAR ON ME AND THEN I, B AND THEN I START FINDING THINGS JUST, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO FIND THE PERFECT, THE PERFECT ANSWER. YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE WE, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT IMPACT. HERE'S THE IMPACT.

[01:45:02]

SO WE. I'M GOOD. I HAVE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS WITH THE ORDINANCE, BUT DO YOU WANT TO CALL TIME ON THIS OR HOW DO YOU WANT TO RUN THE MEETING? WE HAVE TO FOR SURE HAVE OUR QUARTERLY

[]

WE WANT TO PUT OUT THE FIXED BASED OPERATIONS. THE IMPACT FEE IS HEADED TO PLANNING AND ZONING THIS WEEK. I MEAN, IT'S NEXT TUESDAY, NEXT TUESDAY. SO IT'S IT'S ALREADY THIS IS THIS IS HEADED THEIR WAY. I IF IF THEY ARE IF THEY'RE SCRIVENER ERRORS, WE CAN DEAL WITH IT. IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE DETAILED, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WHEN OUR PROCUREMENT POLICY. I MEAN, THERE IS SOME DISCUSSION CONCERNING THAT. I THINK THAT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT I.

WHY I DON'T WANT TO LEAD THE CONVERSATION TRUTHFULLY IS BECAUSE TO COME BACK AND TRY AND BRING EVERYBODY BACK UP TO SPEED ABOUT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE IT HAS TAKEN AN HOUR AND 50 MINUTES. CAN I HAVE FIVE MINUTES? AND I'LL GO, YEAH, OKAY. SO SO COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE. ORDINANCE. YEAH. IT WAS IN YOUR PACKET. I THINK I CAN GET BY WITH JUST ONE THING IN THE STUDY. BUT ORDINANCE THIS IS PAGE TWO IN THE ORDINANCE IT'S G IN THE PACKET. IT'S PAGE THREE. IT MAKES A REFERENCE AGAIN TO IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT A GLOBAL IMPACT BY THE WAY IT STARTS. IT SAYS THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S ACCURATE BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD. ARE YOU READING? I'M ON G. THIS IS PAGE TWO OR PAGE THREE IN THE PACKET. I'M THERE. I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO REWORK THE LANGUAGE THAT TALKS ABOUT IT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL BY THE IMPACT COMMITTEE. WELL I MEAN WELL I GUESS I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THEY'RE APPROVING IT? THAT'S HOW I READ THE SENTENCE. YEAH. WHICH ISN'T WHICH IS AN ACCURATE THE WHOLE THING. SO I DON'T THINK THAT STATEMENT I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT THAT ENTIRE CLAUSE. I SAY REMEMBER THE WHOLE THING. THERE'S NO POINT. ONE SECOND LET ME. OKAY. THEN THE STRIKE THE WHOLE THING. G I DON'T THINK I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW WHY WE NEED IT. YEAH. OKAY. DO YOU MIND IF I TAKE A MOMENT TO JUST PRINT IT OUT SO I CAN TAKE NOTES EASIER? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WE TALK ABOUT THE ORDINANCE. I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO MENTION THAT, THAT WE GOT FEEDBACK OR SOMETHING, WE COULD SAY SOMETHING. IT WAS REVIEWED.

IT WAS IT WAS SUBMITTED FOR COMMENT TO THE IMPACT. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. YEAH. THAT COULD BE PART OF ONE OF THE RECITALS. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANY ORDINANCE. NO, NO. THE OTHER ONE THAT I HAVE IS ON PAGE NINE IN THE PACKET AND IT PAID EIGHT. AND THIS IS JUST A QUESTION OF WHAT IS INTENDED. IT'S C AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, AND IT SAYS TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, INCLUDING ROADS, STREETS, BRIDGES, INCLUDING RIGHTS OF WAY, LANDSCAPING MATERIALS. I THOUGHT WE WERE JUST DOING ARTERIALS WITH IMPACT FEES. SO I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED THAT IT SAID THE WHOLE THING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, AND I THINK THAT COULD BE SORTED OUT. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW, BUT LEGAL AND. SORRY. WHERE ARE YOU GOING? I WAS TAKING NOTES WITH THE LAST CHANGE. THIS IS PAGE NINE IN THE PACKET OR PAGE EIGHT IN

[01:50:01]

THE DEFINITION INCLUDES UNFINISHED LIVING SPACE OR POTENTIAL LIVING SPACE OR SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A REAL DEFINITION. COUNCILOR PRESIDENT FRANCIS, I BELIEVE IT'S PAGE EIGHT, RIGHT BELOW SECTION C UNDER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IT TALKS ABOUT CLIMATE CONTROL THERE. OKAY. YEAH. CLIMATE CONTROLLED SQUARE FOOTAGE. I THINK WE NEED AT LEAST TO DEFINE THAT. BUT I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE SINCE WE'VE DISCUSSED IT TO IMAGINATION. OKAY, THAT'S THAT ONE. SO THE TWO THAT SO MY UNDERSTANDING THE TWO WERE TALKING ABOUT IS GETTING RID OF THAT. IT WAS APPROVED. YEAH. BUT THAT SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, THAT WE CONSIDERED AND THEN THE DEFINITION OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEAH.

OKAY. YEAH. AND, AND THEN THE RECITAL THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WHICH IS KIND OF THE SAME THING AS THAT G IT VERY MUCH RELATED, EXCEPT FOR THAT ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY AFFORDABLE. OKAY. IT WASN'T ACCEPTED. SO MY OTHER THING HAS TO DO WITH ONE THING THAT'S IN THE IMPACT FEE STUDY. I THINK IT'S ON PAGE 13 OF THE STUDY, WHICH 32? YEAH, IT'S PAGE 32 IN THE PACKET AND 13 IN THE STUDY WERE UNDER THE TABLE. THIS IS UNDER TABLE SIX OR FIGURE SIX, ARTICLE CITY COUNCIL AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY REQUESTED THAT RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE BE CHANGED FROM ASSESSING SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE REVISIONS MOVE THE ASSESSMENT FROM TWO HOUSING TYPES TO TEN SIZING GROUPS. I THINK THAT HAS TO BE CHANGED.

YES, WE WE CAUGHT THAT AND WE CORRECTED IT, BUT IT DIDN'T COME THROUGH ON THE DRAFT. OKAY, SO THAT'S GOOD CATCH. I'LL BE QUICK. NOTHING ELSE IS SIGNIFICANT. SORRY. OKAY, SO THIS WOULD BE THE PLAN MOVING FORWARD. IF THOSE CHANGES ARE MADE, WE CAN MAKE THOSE CHANGES.

SO YOU WANT JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU WANT THE DEFINITION OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED. I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE BASED ON THE DISCUSSION TODAY. HONESTLY. YEAH. AND WHERE'S THE I THINK THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN ON WHETHER IT INCLUDES WHERE WEATHER TWO. I MEAN, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT CLIMATE CONTROLLED MEANS. I THINK YOU ONLY NEED TO DEFINE SOMETHING IF AS A MATTER OF PLAIN ENGLISH, IT'S NOT CLEAR, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.

AT LEAST I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING. IT WAS THE HALLWAYS AND THE UTILITY ROOMS OF.

MULTIFAMILY, RIGHT? CITY ATTORNEY? ACTUALLY, OUR PREVIOUS CITY ATTORNEY, MICHAEL KIRKHAM, I BELIEVE, DID HAVE A DEFINITION FOR THAT, FOR CLIMATE CONTROL. AND I CAN DIG IT UP FOR YOU AND SHARE IT WITH YOU IF YOU WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH ME. YEAH. AND THEN WITH THE WHEREAS DID YOU WANT ME TO JUST STRIKE THE SENTENCE ABOUT THE IMPACT FEE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR JUST CHANGE IT TO JUST THAT THEY HAVE REVIEWED IT. I'M GOOD WITH THE REVIEWED IT.

OKAY, OKAY. AND THEN JUST GET RID OF GET RID OF RECOMMENDED UPDATES AND AMENDMENTS. YEP.

AND THEN GETTING RID OF THE TIE TOGETHER THAT WE DID THE. THAT WE TOOK OUT AFFORDABILITY AND REPLACED IT WITH. SO WE'LL FIX THAT. OKAY, SO THE HEARING FOR THE IMPACT FEE STUDY AND THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE IS GOING TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON THE SEVENTH. THIS ORDINANCE, NOT ORDINANCE. EXCUSE ME, THE STUDY AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS

[01:55:01]

ALL THE REST OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING WOULD COUNT. EXCEPT WE DON'T WE DIDN'T EXCLUDE HALLS AND UTILITY ROOMS. AND WE WANT TO DO THAT. IT'S JUST KIND OF EXCLUDE ALL HALLS AND ALL UTILITY ROOMS FROM ALL BUILDINGS. NO NO NO NO NO NO, THIS IS JUST FOR AN APARTMENT. THIS GETS TO I THINK MIKE HAD BEEN READING SOME SUPREME COURT CASES BECAUSE THE RATIONAL NEXUS BETWEEN UNFINISHED AND THE REASON THEY USE CONDITION IS THAT IT'S USABLE SPACE. AND THE ARGUMENT FOR UNFINISHED BASEMENTS TO NOT BE INCLUDED IS THAT IT'S NOT BEING USED AS INFRASTRUCTURE. SO IT'S NOT HAVING AN IMPACT. AND THAT'S THAT'S BEEN PROBLEMATIC IN COURT CASES. BUT NOW IN CORRECT ME, THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT HOW YOU HAVE TO CONDITION THE BASEMENT FOR PIPES OR SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. YEAH, IT WAS IN THE BUILDING CODE. IT'S IN BUILDING CODE THAT YOU HAVE TO CONDITION THE BASEMENT BECAUSE OF THE PIPES DON'T FREEZE. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CONDITIONED. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A QUICKLYO FRAME SOME OF THEM. AND I APOLOGIZE TO DIRECTORS. IF I DON'T FRAME THEM CORRECTLY, YOU'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO CORRECT ME. BUT I'M GOING TO TRY AND BRING THEM TO GET THROUGH THEM MORE QUICKLY. SO HERE COMES OUT MY RED PERSONALITY. I LOVE IT.

[Municipal Services, Mayor’s Office ]

[02:00:03]

BUT I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT ON THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES. SO AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, WE HAD A WORKSHOP WITH BAIRD CHIEF OF STAFF AND THE DIRECTORS. THAT WAS ON FEBRUARY 20TH, 2026. WE ACTUALLY HAD TWO OPTIONS. WE LOOKED AT THE CITY OF MERIDIAN POLICY, AND THAT WAS DATED DECEMBER OF 2024. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS RELATIVELY RECENT. AND THEN ALSO WE LOOKED AT THE ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES PROCUREMENT POLICY, AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY KIND OF OLD. THAT WAS IN JUNE OF 2020. AND AS, AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, THERE IS EXTERNAL AUDIT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FOUND IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A FORMALIZED COUNCIL ADOPTED POLICY ON PROCUREMENT. WE HAVE A VARIETY OF PROCESSES, PAST PRACTICES, SOME DEPARTMENTS HAVE SOME SORT OF A POLICY THAT TALKS ABOUT PROCUREMENT, BUT NOT A CONSISTENT, WHICH IS THE LAST ITEM HERE. THE GOAL CONSISTENT, EFFICIENT AND PREDICTABLE EXPECTATIONS AND PROCESSES. SO OVERVIEW PROCUREMENT. I ATTACHED THE MATRIX TO YOUR PRESENTATION. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING TODAY. IT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED FOR STATE STATUTE. IT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED BASED ON THIS DRAFT POLICY. IT'S JUST A CURRENT PROCESS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND WE USE IT AS A CROSSWALK FOR THE DEPARTMENTS AS THEY'RE MAKING PURCHASES AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE ALL KIND OF TRYING TO GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, IF YOU WILL. WE ALSO HAVE STATE OF IDAHO STATUTES.

AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, ACTUALLY THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS IS MUCH MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN SOME OF OUR OTHER CITIES AND BE THE ACTUAL STATE STATUTE RIGHT NOW. ANYTHING THAT IS 75,000 AND BELOW IS ACTUALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNCIL, AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNCIL FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEIR TEAM TO TO PROCESS THE THE LITTLE WRINKLE WITH THAT IS THAT THE STATE STATUTE ACTUALLY WAS CHANGED TO 100,000. SO WE'VE BEEN OPERATING IN A MORE CONSERVATIVE ROLE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS NOW. AND SO WE'RE BELOW WHAT STATE STATUTE SAYS WE CAN DO. SO THAT'S JUST A LITTLE TIDBIT OF INFORMATION FOR YOU. WE ALSO NEED SOME DECISIONS, AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, ON THRESHOLDS FOR OUR WORKDAY SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION. WE'RE IN THE FINAL STAGES OF OF INCORPORATING THE WORKFLOW PROCESS THAT WILL GO TO DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE ORGANIZATION FOR APPROVAL. SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. AND THEN ALSO JUST TO RECONFIRM THE CAPITALIZATION GUIDELINES, THERE WAS, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, CONSENSUS ON THAT. SO THAT WAS A GOOD THAT WAS GOOD NEWS. AND THEN THE PROPOSED TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT AUTHORIZATION FOR DEPARTMENTS, AS YOU'LL SEE IN A FEW SLIDES THAT CURRENTLY IS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, 75,000. BUT THERE IS A REQUEST TO INCREASE THOSE THRESHOLDS A LITTLE BIT FOR OUR AIRPORT PUBLIC WORKS AND IDAHO FALLS POWER. SO THE FEEDBACK. OKAY, SO WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK. AND I THINK THE MAIN POINT OF THIS CONVERSATION IS, IS THAT WE HAVE THREE RELATIVELY LARGE DEPARTMENTS THAT PROCURE ITEMS AND THAT ARE WAY OVER, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL SUM OF THE TEN, $15,000. NOW, FULL DISCLOSURE, THE CITY OF MERIDIAN HAD $15,000. THE STATE STATUTE ACTUALLY SAYS 100,000.

BUT BECAUSE WE USE THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS THE BASE, BECAUSE IT'S A RELATIVELY LARGE CITY, THAT'S WHY THAT 15,000 GOT IN THERE IN THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT. BUT THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE IT TO 25, AND THEN THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM, EXCUSE ME, IDAHO FALLS POWER TO INCREASE IT EVEN MORE. WHY ARE WE JUST GOING TO THE STATE STATUTE, WHICH IS 100,000. SO AND I'M GOING TO READ OFF A COUPLE OF NOTES HERE. JUST SO I'M DOING A FULL REPRESENTATION OF MY TEAM HERE. SO THE. SO THE PARTICULAR PROBLEMATIC WITH THE QUOTE REQUIREMENTS, PARTICULARLY WITH SOME OF OUR LARGER DEPARTMENTS SUCH AS PUBLIC WORKS AND IDAHO FALLS POWER, IS THAT WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THEIR OPERATIONS. AS YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE HIRED EXPENDITURES THAT THEY USE FOR REGULAR OPERATIONS. SO THAT WAS THEIR INPUT ON, YOU KNOW, 25. WELL, 15,000 IS WAY TOO LOW, 25 IS STILL TOO LOW. AND REALLY THERE'S A REQUEST FOR 100,000. THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE AND I'LL GET TO THAT SLIDE IN A MINUTE. HERE IS FOR GOODS, SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT. WE ACTUALLY REQUIRE THREE QUOTES OR AN ATTEMPT FOR THREE QUOTES. AND AGAIN, SOME OF OUR LARGER DEPARTMENTS SAY THAT BECAUSE OF THEIR SPECIALIZED SERVICES, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET THROUGH QUOTES. SO THERE WAS SOME SOME FEEDBACK ABOUT THAT. AND SO I'M GOING TO GO OVER THAT REAL QUICKLY HERE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THIS TABLE, THE CURRENT DOLLAR THRESHOLD AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. IT IS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 75. ANYTHING GREATER THAN 75. YES.

[02:05:04]

AND I'VE GOT ANOTHER SLIDE THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT. BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF OUR FIRST GOOD SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT. IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO MATCH THE STATE STATUTE. WE JUST WANT TO BE FULL DISCLOSURE WITH THE COUNCIL THAT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE USED TO SEEING THINGS THAT ARE 75,000, 75,000 IN A PENNY OR A DOLLAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT POTENTIALLY IF IF YOU WERE TO GRANT THE AUTHORIZATION UP TO THE STATE STATUTE, THEN YOU WOULDN'T SEE SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT YOU SEE TODAY. I'M FINE WITH THAT. TO ME, THE 25,000 ISN'T SIGNIFICANT TO ME GOING WITH THE STATE STATUTE AND JUST GOING WITH SOMETHING THAT KEEPS UP GROWING, BECAUSE AS INFLATION, AS THINGS COST MORE, WE COULD GET BURDENED BY HAVING EVERYTHING COME TO US.

SO THIS ISN'T ABOUT NECESSARILY EVEN AT THIS POINT, WHAT'S COMING TO US. THIS IS

[02:10:04]

I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS APPROVING THE WORDING OF THE PROCUREMENT POLICY IS NOT WHAT WE'RE. YES, BUT BUT ABOVE. WHEN YOU SAID BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL, THIS IS SIMPLY INTERNALLY THAT THE BRINGING IT TO COUNCIL IS ANYTHING FROM 75,000 OR ABOVE RIGHT NOW. AND DO WE WANT TO LOOK. THAT'S A THAT'S A SEPARATE DISCUSSION LATER IN THE CONVERSATION. OKAY. WHAT SHOULD COME TO COUNCIL? THE IDEA IS WHAT SHOULD THE INTERNAL POLICY BE FOR DEPARTMENTS. AND I CAN USE AN EXAMPLE IF THAT HELPS. SO, YOU KNOW, OVER AT THE D STREET, WE HAD TO REPLACE THAT SEWER LINE AND WE TRIED FOR MONTHS TO GET THREE QUOTES BECAUSE IT WAS OVER 25,000. AND WE WAITED AND WAITED AND WAITED. AND FINALLY WE JUST HAD TO GO BECAUSE IT WAS GO TIME. WE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT BUILDING. AND SO WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO DO IS WE WERE ABLE TO GET TWO OUT OF THE THREE, AND WE DOCUMENTED THE THREE VENDORS OR FOUR VENDORS THAT WE APPROACHED, EVEN THOUGH WE ONLY HAD QUOTES FOR TWO OF THE THREE. SO THAT'S THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE RUN INTO OCCASIONALLY, YOU KNOW, ON PUBLIC WORKS AND IDAHO FALLS POWER, WE'RE TALKING AT A HIGHER LEVEL THAN THAT. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE EXAMPLE.

YEAH. I'M NOT I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT WORDING THAT'S ON THE SCREEN AS A POLICY. WE'RE WRITING THE PROCUREMENT BECAUSE IT SAYS IF POSSIBLE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IN MY MIND THAT MEANS IF FEASIBLE. SO IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO GET THREE WRITTEN QUOTES. BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT YOU'RE SAYING BETWEEN 25 AND 100. YEAH. SO YOU LIKE THE IDEA OF CAPPING DEPARTMENTS AT GETTING OF HAVING A DOLLAR AMOUNT. ARE YOU ARE YOU FOLLOWING? I'M NOT BEING VERY CLEAR. NO I'M NOT OKAY. I'M NOT BEING IF IN THIS PROCUREMENT POLICY, THERE'S THERE'S TWO ISSUES MAYBE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ONE IS AT WHAT LEVEL DO WE HAVE? DOES A DEPARTMENT HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL TO GET OUR APPROVAL? RIGHT. THAT AMOUNT IS 100,000. OKAY. THAT HAS NOT BEEN OUR PRACTICE. AND IT IS NOT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IN THIS POLICY THAT IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE. OKAY, FROM THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION. THIS QUESTION IS WHEN DOES FINANCE.

FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, AUDIT WHAT A DEPARTMENT IS DOING, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE BEING COMPETITIVE OR NOT INTERNALLY. AND STEPHEN BOWERMAN, HE HIS IDEA IS JUST TELL PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE SOME BASIC STANDARDS AND WE WANT THEM TO BE COMPETITIVE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE PAPERWORK OF GETTING QUOTES. AND IF I MAY, REAL QUICK UP TO WHAT LEVEL THAT'S BY STATE STATUTE, IF YOU GO TO 100,000, SO 100,000. 200,000. YES.

[02:15:05]

THEY WILL GET TWO PRICES AND THEY'LL AWARD THAT TO THE LOWEST BIDDER. SO THERE'S A RANGE OF THINGS, BUT WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE DOING IT COMPETITIVE. BUT TO SAY IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE THREE WRITTEN QUOTES IS ACTUALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE 100 TO $250,000 STATE LAW.

SO WHAT I'M WE NEED TO HAVE A PROCESS SUFFICIENT FOR US, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO ENCOURAGE ALL THOSE EMPLOYEES TO ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. AND SOME OF THAT'S TRAINING. SOME OF IT'S. BUT EACH SITUATION SPECIFIC AND EACH DEPARTMENT CAN SAY, GEEZ, I GOT HIGH SCHOOL KIDS OUT THERE BUYING SOME, YOU KNOW, STUFF FOR LAWNMOWERS. I MAYBE WANT, YOU KNOW, I THINK MORE THAN $50 I NEED TO HAVE A DEPARTMENT APPROVAL FOR. SO EACH DEPARTMENT'S GOT TO BE THAT KIND OF TAILORED TO THEIR THING. BUT WE GET PROCESS THAT'S CLEAN AND EFFICIENT. BUT THE, THE BUT SO THE POINT IS, WHAT DOES THIS COUNCIL'S POLICY. RIGHT. SO IT'S WHAT DOES COUNCIL WANT TO DO CONSIDERING THE WIDE RANGE OF DEPARTMENTS WE HAVE WITHIN THE CITY? I WANT TO WORD THAT JUST WHAT YOU SAID WHERE IT SAYS LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 25, THE 25,000 100,000 123 THIRD POINT DOWN. AND IT SAYS WRITTEN QUOTES IF POSSIBLE. SO BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IF THAT READ. QUOTES THREE QUOTES IF FEASIBLE, YOU SAY IT'S A CAT ENGINE. IT'S NOT FEASIBLE. YEAH. YOU'RE DONE. BECAUSE FUNCTIONALLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS IF WE TURN THAT REQUEST IN AND YOU'RE TELLING FINANCE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S THREE QUOTES, THEY WILL DO THAT.

AND THEN EVERY TIME THERE'S NOT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. THEY'LL HAVE A PROCESS. SO BECAUSE THEY WILL DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU TELL THEM TO DO, IT SAYS, IF POSSIBLE, IF THAT'S NOT WHAT I CHANGED IT, I KNOW I'M ASKING FOR THAT ONE TO BE OKAY IF FEASIBLE. SO YOU SEE WHERE THE DOCUMENT. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT BUILDS THIS ENGINE. YEAH. IS THAT IS THAT HOW FINANCE IS GOING TO LOOK AT IT? IS FINANCE GOING TO TAKE THE DIRECTOR AND SAY, YOU'VE GOT TO GO OUT AND GET TWO MORE QUOTES, OR ARE THEY GOING TO SAY, YEP, YOU LOOKED AT THE FEASIBILITY AND. YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WHAT THEY WOULD JUST DO IS JUST ASK FOR THE DOCUMENTATION AND THAT SHOULD BE A NATURAL SUBMITTAL WHEN YOU'RE SUBMITTING SOMETHING FOR PURCHASING TO OPEN A PURCHASE ORDER OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. I MEAN, IT SHOULD JUST BE STANDARD PRACTICE TO SAY THAT IS NOT FEASIBLE TO RECEIVE THREE QUOTES BECAUSE CAT AND I FORGOT WHAT THE OTHER VENDOR NAME WAS. THEY'RE THE ONLY TWO IN TOWN THAT DO IT. SO THEREFORE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. THERE'S ALSO LIKE IF YOU WANT TO MATCH EQUIPMENT TO EQUIPMENT YOU ALREADY HAVE, RIGHT? CORRECT.

YOU WANT TO GET IT FROM THE COMPANY THAT SELLS THAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. AND I THINK ABOUT RADIOS, LIKE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND STUFF LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, OR IF WE'RE BUYING METERS, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO USE THE SAME METERS WE'VE BEEN USING KIND OF THING, YOU KNOW, AND THERE IS THE SOLE SOURCE PROVISION. SO IF IT'S METERS THAT'S BIG ENOUGH, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH A FORMAL PROCESS. SAY WE ONLY BUY EXPERT METERS. BUT SO THAT'S THE BIGGER ONE. THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT'S A REASONABLE PROCESS FOR REALLY LARGE ORDERS FOR RADIOS METERS TO GO THROUGH AND, YOU KNOW, GO TO THE COUNCIL PUBLISHED AND ALL OF THAT. BUT IT'S KEEPING THE PROCESS CLEAN AND FLOWING. AND WE ALSO WANT IF AUSTIN, WE RUN ONE THROUGH THAT'S, YOU KNOW, 200,000 AND WE DIDN'T GET COMPETITIVE QUOTES. I WANT FINANCE TO CALL UP AND SAY, THIS ONE DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT. SO WE WE WANT IN HERE WHERE IT CATCHES US WHEN

[02:20:03]

BUT IF EVERYBODY IS. IF NOT EVERYBODY. BUT IF THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL IS IS SAYING, NO, WE JUST TRUST THE DEPARTMENTS TO DO A COMPETITIVE PROCESS AND THE STATE SAYS 100,000, THEN I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. WE JUST REMOVE THIS. I THINK THIS IS THE EXTERNAL AUDIT. WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING WITH THE EFFICIENCY THAT YOU'RE SAYING. AND THEN THE ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES AND THE STATE AND MATCH THAT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. SO THAT'S THE 100,000. THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO BECAUSE BECAUSE THE EXTERNAL AUDIT IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CARE ABOUT.

RIGHT? YEAH. CAN I ASK A PROCEDURAL QUESTION JUST SO THAT MY OWN UNDERSTANDING. SO LET'S SAY THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE $100,000 PURCHASE BEING MADE IN YOUR WHEN THOSE EXPENSES ARE HAPPENING, ARE EVEN IF IT'S NOT NEEDING TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL OR ARE THEY TALKING TO YOU BEFORE THOSE THINGS ARE THEY'RE JUST, THEY'RE JUST HAPPENING, JUST HAPPENING IN A WORKFLOW THAT WILL START TO BE TRUE, RIGHT? LIKE IN A WORKFLOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A $75,000 PURCHASE WITHOUT YOUR SUPERVISOR APPROVING IT. SO OUR PROCUREMENT TEAM IS BASICALLY THE GATEKEEPER. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS THE DEPARTMENT PUTS IN WHAT WE CALL REQUISITION. AND THEN THE REQUISITIONS TURNED INTO PURCHASE ORDER. AND WHAT THE PROCUREMENT TEAM LOOKS AT IS THEY LOOK FOR THE DOLLAR THRESHOLD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WITHIN CITY GUIDELINES, WHICH IS NOT TO EXCEED 75. THEY ALSO LOOK AT THE STATE GUIDELINES AS WELL, AND STATE GUIDELINES. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING ON THE HIGHER DOLLAR AMOUNT HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, GREATER THAN 100,000 TO 250,000 IN STATE STATUTE, IT SAYS THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE AN INFORMAL BID PROCESS, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE AND DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH SOME KIND OF INFORMAL BID PROCESS, BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO WE GET AUDITED ON THAT, BUT WITH OUR PROCUREMENT TEAM BEING THE GATEKEEPERS, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO SEE THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT REQUISITION IS APPROVED TO GO INTO A PURCHASE ORDER THAT IS ISSUED DIRECTLY TO THE VENDOR, AND THEY WILL MISS THE CITY UNDER A. WE WILL SEE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE THAT COMES ABOVE 100,000. THE COUNCIL. AND JUST IN AN ENTERPRISE SYSTEM, BECAUSE I WORK UNDER ONE RIGHT NOW, THE DIRECTORS. ALL OF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE VERY AWARE OF WHAT THESE ARE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. WHEN YOU SAY YES TO SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, RIGHT? SO THAT THEY DIDN'T. SO IF YOU DIDN'T GET THE THREE BIDS OR YOU DIDN'T TRY TO GET THE THREE BIDS, THAT'S GOING TO COME TO YOU BECAUSE YOU APPROVED THE PURCHASE AFTER MARK, DO YOU WANT TO SAY, I MEAN, JUST AS A HOLISTIC POINT OF VIEW, THE REASON WHY CITIES, NOT JUST US, EVERY OTHER CITY HAS A LOWER VALUE IN THE STATE IS ITS INTERNAL CONTROLS. YOU'RE TRAINING, YOU'RE CREATING AN INTERNAL CONTROL MECHANISM.

WHEN YOU SAY, LET THE DIRECTORS GO UP TO 100,000, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE DON'T NEED AN INTERNAL CONTROL MECHANISM FOR LESS THAN 100,000 BECAUSE THE STATE IS REQUIRED. THAT'S NOT TYPICAL. THAT'S NOT TYPICAL. MOST CITIES HAVE A LOWER AMOUNT. WHY? IT'S BECAUSE IT'S INTERNAL CONTROLS TO ENSURE THAT A COMPETITIVE PROCESS IS CORRECT. YOU WANT IT. YOU WANT A COMPETITIVE PROCESS. YOU WANT YOUR EMPLOYEES TO DO THAT. HOW DO YOU WRITE THAT IN A POLICY? SO FOR EXAMPLE, MOST CITIES PICK A DOLLAR AMOUNT BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THEY THEY CREATE THAT. YEAH. AND DEGREE OF MARK. I MEAN, EMPLOYEES CAN GET LAZY AND QUIT DOING IT. SO THERE

[02:25:03]

WELL, THAT'S GOOD IN SOME CASES, BUT IT'S ALSO BAD WHEN THAT PRICE IS NOT COMPETITIVE TO SOMEONE ELSE. SO YOU WANT TO CREATE THAT FAIR. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. ARE WHAT'S THE PROPOSAL? OKAY, SO THE PROPOSAL IS THIS 2520 5000 25,000 IS TO LOWER OUR THRESHOLD. IT'S NOT TO LOWER OUR THRESHOLD. OUR THRESHOLD WILL STILL STAY. WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY RIGHT NOW GIVING THAT THRESHOLD. OKAY. MERIDIAN'S WAS 15. WE'RE SAYING SHOULD OURS BE 25? SHOULD OURS BE 50? AT WHAT POINT DO WE WANT 50 WITH THE MAYOR AND THE DIRECTORS ALREADY CORRECT? NO, 70 OR 75. THOSE ARE VERY SEPARATE. THAT'S THE THAT'S WHAT HAS TO COME TO COUNCIL. OKAY. SO THIS IS AT WHAT POINT DO YOU WANT THE INTERNAL CONTROL OF OUR MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO WEIGH IN ON TRYING TO INTERNALLY CONTROL THE COMPETITIVE PROCESS. WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT? THIS IS THE FIRST TIME COUNCIL HAS EVER ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE. YEAH. AND I JUST ADDED THE STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. AND WE'RE RIGHT NOW MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN STATUTE, WHICH IS OKAY FROM AN INTERNAL CONTROL STANDPOINT AS. YEAH. CONTROLLER. THAT'S THAT'S HOW CITIES ALWAYS. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE? SO I GUESS I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO, NUMBER ONE, PUT IN THERE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE GETTING QUOTES FOR EVERYTHING AND IT CAN BE VERBAL AND MAYBE JUST OPEN IT UP. YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT AMAZON, I THINK IT'S IN THERE. SO I THINK WE WANT TO SAY THAT. AND I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT 25,000 UP TO 25 IS FINE. BUT IT'S NOT SO RIGID. THAT'S GOT TO BE THREE RED QUOTES. THAT'S WE NEED TO DO IT COMPETITIVELY. AND WE COULD PROBABLY DOCUMENT THAT IN A MANNER, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S GOING TO BE A PART THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU ONLY GET FROM ONE SOURCE. YOU NEED TO DOCUMENT THAT. SOMETIMES YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GET TWO BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE TWO IN TOWN. SO THAT'S THAT RIGIDITY AT THREE QUOTES IS WHERE THERE'S A FAIR BIT OF ANGST FOR ME ON THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW, CHRIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO DEFINITELY BE ON THIS TOO, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO STATE IT THE IT'S REALLY RIGID NOW. THREE WRITTEN IN HAND QUOTES. THAT'S NOT ALWAYS FEASIBLE. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THREE QUOTES, IF FEASIBLE, AND $25,000 WOULD BE A GOOD PLACE TO START. YEAH, I WOULD WANT THAT AS LONG AS GOT THE FLEXIBILITY TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ONLY ONE SOURCE WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN PUT THAT DOWN. IF THERE'S TWO SUPPLIERS THAT DO THAT, AND SOMETIMES IT'LL BE 5 OR 6, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT TOO MUCH COMPARISON WITH OTHER CITIES, BECAUSE WE'RE A CITY THAT RUNS AN AIRPORT. WE RUN A POWER COMPANY, RIGHT? WE DO ALL THE STREETS. MERIDIAN'S IN THE ADA COUNTY. YEAH. HIGHWAY. HIGHWAY DISTRICT. YEAH. THEY DON'T DO THEIR OWN. SO WE I THINK 25,000. YEAH, YEAH. MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR US BECAUSE OF WHO WE ARE. BUT I WANT I THINK YOU HAVE TO HAVE A WRITTEN RECORD BECAUSE WE HAVE TOO MANY TIMES SEEN THAT. OH I TOLD THEM SO PUT IT IN WRITING THEN IT'S DONE AND IT'S DOCUMENTED. AND THE AUDITOR SAYS, OH, WE'VE GOT IT IN WRITING AND COULDN'T GET THREE QUOTES. THE STATE REQUIRES THAT THAT 100,000 BUSHELS THAT YOU SOLICIT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET IT CORRECT. YOU HAVE TO SOLICIT THE QUOTES. SO THAT COULD BE THE CHANGE FOR THE LOWER THRESHOLD. YOU HAVE TO SOLICIT AND DOCUMENT. THE SOLICITOR ASKED FOR QUOTES AND 100,000.

YOU CAN'T GET THEM. YOU DOCUMENT THAT YOU TRIED. YEAH. THE WAY THE POLICY IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE FROM 25 TO 100. FROM 100 TO 250. YEAH. OKAY.

[02:30:07]

AND WE PROBABLY ALWAYS WILL TO KNOW WHO DOES WHAT. AND IT'S GOING TO VARY. IF YOU HAVE A CENTRAL PURCHASING PERSON INSIDE YOUR DEPARTMENT OR NOT. SO THERE'S A CITY POLICY COVERS A MINIMUM IN EACH DEPARTMENT. CERTAINLY GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAILORED TO THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS. YES. SO THAT IS IT. YEAH. IS IT FAIR TO DO THE SAME THING WITH CONTRACTED SERVICES FOR THE SOLICITATION? 50,000 I THINK. OH I THINK WE WANT TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT. WELL I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT DOING 50,000 WOULD BE LESS ADMINISTRATIVE WORK. I BELIEVE I UNDERSTOOD THAT FROM OUR TREASURER. IS THAT WHAT I HEARD? IF YOU MAINTAIN THE THREE QUOTES, IF YOU LESSEN THE THREE QUOTES, THEN 25 IS FINE. OKAY. IF YOU'RE JUST SAYING YOU HAVE TO SOLICIT, 25 WOULD BE DOABLE. SOLICIT IS IT 25 OBTAIN? IS IT 50? SO THAT'S THE QUESTION BEFORE COUNCIL. IF YOU JUST HAVE TO SOLICIT, THEN WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN.

APPROVING IT? I MEAN, THE WHOLE IDEA, RIGHT, IS THAT YOU'VE GIVEN DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU HAVE SOLICITED. IF YOU'RE TALKING TO THE 50, IF YOU COULDN'T GET THREE. YEAH. I MEAN, ME TOO. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. IF IF ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SOLICIT THREE QUOTES AND YOU JUST PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU SOLICITED. THREE THAT YOU WENT OUT AND YOU TALKED TO THESE THREE VENDORS, RIGHT? THEN WE WOULD LEAVE IT AT 25. OKAY.

CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS ON 102 50. OKAY. RIGHT. SO THEN WHAT IS THE POINT OF SOLICITING BELOW 25 IF IF THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO BETWEEN 100 AND 250 WHAT'S THE INTERNAL IS THAT THAT ENSURES THAT COMPETITIVE WITH THAT WAS WAS MADE BECAUSE YOU'VE ASKED OTHER PEOPLE BESIDES JUST ONE PERSON, AND YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DOCUMENT WHO YOU SOLICITED IT TO. THAT'S THE KEY IS THAT YOU DOCUMENT YOUR SOLICITATION. AND SO WHAT FLEXIBILITY DOES THAT GIVE FOR DEPARTMENTS? THEN IF IT'S A SOLE SOURCE TYPE DEVICE, IF IT'S A IF YOU JUST GOT THOSE QUOTES VERBALLY, I DON'T LOVE VERBAL QUOTES. PERSONALLY, EMAIL WOULD BE BETTER. ANY DOCUMENTATION SAYING, OKAY, I'VE ASKED FOR A QUOTE OF A OF AN ITEM OR A SERVICE. THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE LOOKING FOR. AND POTENTIALLY THEIR RESPONSE. YEAH. SO, SO THE SOLE SOURCE PROCESS IS GREAT FOR REALLY BIG ITEMS, BUT THERE'S TIMES, THERE'S A LOT OF THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THAT MIXTURE THAT ARE EQUIPMENT SPECIFIC ACCESSORIES THAT THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT THIS IS KIND OF HANDY FOR. YOU KNOW, THE ENGINE IN A MACHINE IS A GOOD ONE. ARE YOU GOING TO GO THROUGH SOLE SOURCE PROCESS AND PUBLISH THE PAPERWORK THAT GOES WITH THAT SOLE SOURCE THAT THAT'S STARTING TO FEEL LIKE AN AWFUL LOT OF PROCESS FOR SOMETHING WHERE YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'RE GETTING IN TROUBLE. THIS IS EXACTLY WHY IT HAS COME BEFORE YOU. IT IS JUST IT IS A POLICY AND WE CAN COME BACK AND WE CAN REVIEW IT AT SOME POINT. BUT WE WE JUST WANT TO GET IF IT ISN'T WORKING OUT IN THREE MONTHS, IT'S LIKE, OH, HERE'S, HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE FOUND. WE'LL COME BACK AND CHANGE THE WORDING FROM SOLICIT TO OBTAIN. IT'S 25, IT'S 50,000. IT'S WRITTEN. EVERY DEPARTMENT WANTS A LITTLE BIT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. LIKE IT IMPACTS THE. SO REALLY, IT'S REALLY. WHAT POLICY DO WE WANT FOR OUR INTERNAL CONTROLS ON PURCHASING 50,000 25,000 AND WRITTEN OR SOLICITED AND, AND A SNEAK PEEK BEHIND THE SCENES IS WE DO GET AUDITED. SO WHAT THEY'LL DO IS THEY'LL GRAB A RANDOM SAMPLE OF OUR

[02:35:03]

FINE. I DON'T CARE. THEY'LL LOOK AT OUR POLICY AND THEY'LL FOLLOW OUR POLICY SAYS WHATEVER IS WRITTEN, OUR POLICY, THEY'LL HOLD THIS TO A STANDARD LOOK AT THE STATE AND THE POLICY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT. OKAY. SO IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT WE WANT OUR CONTROL TO BE. AND SO EITHER ONE IS IS FEASIBLE, OUR GOAL HERE IS TO ENSURE THAT COMPETITIVE. PURCHASING PRACTICES IS BEING HAD. THAT'S WHY THE SOLICITATION WORKS IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE BID. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS DOING IT COMPETITIVELY, WHICH THIS LOCATION WORKS. SO FEDERAL OMB GUIDELINES FOR ALL THE GRANTS WE MANAGE ARE 15,000 OR LESS. FOR COMPETITIVE. MOST OMB IS 10,000. THAT'S WHAT THEY JUST CHANGED IT. SO IT'S LOWER. THAT'S WHY IT MATTERS ONLY IF THE AGENCY'S UPDATED THEIR GUIDANCE. YEP. RIGHT. YOU DO. THEY DO AUDIT TO WHAT YOUR POLICY IS TO THE POLICY. SO REGARDLESS THERE'S A REASON FOR BEST PRACTICES. WHATEVER WE HAVE, IF WE MOVE OURS TO 50, THE GRANT STILL HAS TO DO THE GRANT WHATEVER THE GRANT IS. YES. CORRECT. YEAH, I GUESS I WOULD SUPPORT 25 IF THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO, AND THEN REVISIT IF WE COME BACK TO THIS IS WAY TOO RESTRICTIVE. START WITH A GOOD ONE. OKAY. LET ME PROVE THAT THEY CAN NOT HAVE. IT'S EASIER TO GO UP SLIGHTLY THAN IT HAS TO GO UP AND THEN BACK DOWN. YEAH, I AGREE. SO COULD I RECOMMEND IT'S 25,000 UP TO 250 BECAUSE IT'S THE EXACT SAME. IT IS, IT'S THE SAME LANGUAGE, BUT WELL ONE IS AN INFORMAL PROCESS. NO, THE OTHER ONE IS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED. THE STATE'S ACTUALLY 100. NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. SO 25 TO 100. YEAH. IT'S 25 TO 100. AND THEN 100 TO 250 IS A DIFFERENT PROCESS. HOW IS IT DIFFERENT. IT'S JUST REQUIRED TO SOLICIT. WELL YOU HAVE TO PUT IT OUT THERE. FRANCIS'S WORDS AND FEASIBLE IS GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

SO IS IT GOING TO BE SO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE METER IN THE DIVISION 75. BUT SOLICIT THREE BIDS. THAT MEANS THE WHOLE PROJECT. THAT'S WHAT POINT IN TIME WE BRING IT TO YOU IN THE MEMO. OKAY. OKAY. SO SOLICIT THREE IF FEASIBLE, THEN THE 100 TO 250 IS IT'S INFORMAL FORMAL BID PROCESS. AND IT'S GOT SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF DAYS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF TOO. OKAY. THERE'S ACTUALLY THE SOLE SOURCE PROCESS THAT'S ALSO IN THE PROCUREMENT POLICY THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW AS WELL. OKAY, SO I CAN SKIP OVER A LOT OF THESE SLIDES. OH, AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE POLICY IS A RECOMMENDED REVISION FOR DIRECTOR'S AUTHORITY FOR OUR AIRPORT PUBLIC WORKS AND IDAHO FALLS POWER FROM 75, WHICH IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE THRESHOLD TO 100,000. AND THAT IS ACTUALLY ALSO WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE MAYOR AS WELL. WE DON'T WANT THE MAYOR TO HAVE LESS AUTHORIZATION THAN HER DIRECTOR. SO THAT IS A PROPOSAL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE POLICY THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US TO INCLUDE IN THE POLICY. SO THAT'S ANOTHER DECISION POINT FOR YOU IF YOU WANT. SO RIGHT NOW, JUST TO REITERATE, WE'RE AT 75,000. ALL DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS AS THE MAYOR HAVE THAT LEVEL. THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE AIRPORT, IDAHO FALLS POWER AND PUBLIC WORKS AND THE MAYOR FROM 75 TO 100,000 WITH THAT. THANK YOU.

[02:40:14]

THAT'S GREAT. BUT USUALLY THE BIG THREE ARE FIRE POLICE AND PARKS. I THINK THAT MEANS IS THAT IT COMES TO COUNCIL 100,000. THE MAYOR DETERMINES. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. I'M SORRY THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. AND THEN REAL QUICKLY, IF I MAY, JUST JUST A COUPLE OF TOUCH POINTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO HAVE FOR THE WORKDAY IMPLEMENTATION, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION TODAY IN ADDITION TO A FEW OTHER THINGS. SO THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS RIGHT NOW, THE CREDIT CITY CREDIT CARD PROCESS IS LESS THAN A THOUSAND.

THE RECOMMENDATION CHANGES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF WORKDAY WOULD BE LESS OR EQUAL TO 5000 WOULD BE A CREDIT CARD OR DIRECT PAYMENT. AND THEN GREATER THAN 5000 A PURCHASE ORDER OR SPEND AUTHORIZATION JUST FOR THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION THAT WE DO NEED TO CHANGE SOME OF OUR INTERNAL PROCESSES ON THAT. AND THEN WE WILL NO LONGER HAVE CONFIRMING POS. WHAT USED TO HAPPEN IS IF YOU HAD SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED THAT CAME UP, SAY, LIKE ON A FRIDAY AFTERNOON AND YOU NEEDED TO GET LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE HAD THAT BIG FLOOD OVER THE FRONTIER CENTER CONFIRMING BASICALLY TO A VENDOR THAT AUTHORIZES A VENDOR UP TO A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IN, IN MY CASE, WOULD HAVE BEEN NO MORE THAN 75,000. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND ISSUE THAT PO SO THEY CAN GET STARTED TO WORK. THE NEW WORKDAY WILL NOT HAVE NEWARK SYSTEM WILL NOT HAVE A CONFIRMING PO. IT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. AND SO WE WILL EITHER BE DOING REQUISITIONS OR DIRECT PAYMENTS OR LIKE A CREDIT CARD, DEPENDING ON THESE THRESHOLD DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT I REVIEWED. AND THEN FOR PROPERTY TRACKING, WE'RE STILL WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES. IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 1000 TO 10,000. AND THEN THE CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLD. THAT WAS SOMETHING WE DID HAVE CONSENSUS ON, THANK GOODNESS. AND THAT IS $10,000. AND SO THAT'S REALLY GOOD NEWS THERE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO OUR NEW WORKDAY PROCESS. AND THEN AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE MAYOR ITEM HORSEPOWER PUBLIC WORKS AIRPORT FROM 75 TO 100,000. SO THAT'S THAT SLIDE. AND SO NEXT STEPS. SO WE TALKED ABOUT MAKING SOME REVISIONS. WE COULD CERTAINLY INCORPORATE THOSE. WE TALKED ABOUT AT ONE POINT, THE SUBGROUP TALKED ABOUT DOING A REGULAR AGENDA FOR ADOPTION ON THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 23RD. I DON'T KNOW, MAYOR. WE'RE READY FOR THAT OR NOT. BUT THE THE CHANGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS SEEM TO BE PRETTY EASY TO DO, BUT IT'S REALLY ABOUT WHAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE. IF IT SHOWS UP THE WAY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT TODAY. LET'S SEE SEE IT ON THE THURSDAY THE 23RD. YEP. SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR ALEXANDER. THANK YOU SO MUCH, EVERYBODY FOR YOUR PATIENCE. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR

[Municipal Services ]

I THINK MARK'S COMING UP. MARK, ARE YOU PARTICIPATING? SOMEBODY SOMEBODY HAD A BIRTHDAY YESTERDAY, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHO IT WAS. BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THAT YOU DO HAVE A COPY OF THE SLIDES. WE DID HAVE A SLIGHT REVISION AFTER I DISTRIBUTED YOUR SLIDES TO YOU ON ONE OF THE SLIDES, AND WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER THAT. IT'S NOT I DON'T THINK IT'S MATERIAL, BUT I'LL HAVE TO OUR TREASURER DECIDE WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR NOT. AND WITH THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE MARK. I THINK MARK'S STARTING. OR IS BROOKE STARTING? MARK STARTING. ALL RIGHT. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO. NO IDEA. I REALLY APOLOGIZE IF THAT IMPACTS. THE CONVERSATION WAS SO MUCH LONGER THAN WHAT WE ALLOTTED TIME FOR. COUNCILMEMBER ROCHELLE LOVES IT WHEN I TALK NUMBERS. THAT'S WHY SHE'S LEAVING LATER. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO TRY OUR VERY FAST TO PICK UP SOME TIME HERE. IT'S RIGHT REAL FAST. QUARTERLY REPORTS BEFORE. YEAH. GOT IT.

YES, WE WERE TALKING FAST. THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING AND GET WARM ENOUGH. YEAH. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH WE'RE GOING TO START WITH WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CASH INVESTMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT BUDGET. AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR ESTIMATES. AND BUT ALL RIGHT, I'M GOING TO START US OFF WITH CASH ON THE SCREEN. IT'S REALLY TINY ON YOUR SLIDES. IT MIGHT BE TINY AS WELL. SO I'M GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THE BIG CHANGES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GENERAL FUND, OUR CASH BALANCE THIS YEAR IS ABOUT 3 MILLION LESS THAN THE PRIOR YEAR. THAT'S PRIMARILY DUE TO ARPA BEING SPENT DOWN.

[02:45:04]

SO WE ARE LOWER THAN THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THEY HELP ARPA FUNDS AND WE HAVE SPENT THEM. THAT'S FINE. AND THIS IS JUST THE THE ACTUAL DOLLARS. OKAY. INVESTMENTS LOOK AT INVESTMENTS, SAFETY, LIQUIDITY AND YIELD IS THE ORDER OF PRIORITY. AND SO HERE IS HOW WE DO SAFETY. IT'S ALL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DIVERSIFYING. WE PUT A LOT OF OUR STUFF INTO US BACKED SECURITIES. SO YOU LOOK AT YOUR TREASURER TREASURY, YOUR AGENCY, WHICH IS BACKED BY THE FAITH OF THE US GOVERNMENT, AND THEN YOUR CDS, WHICH YOU'VE GOT THE FDIC INSURANCE. SO MOST OF OURS IS BACKED BY SOME KIND OF SECURITY IN CASE IT FAILS. WE DO HAVE 26% IN BONDS, WHICH IS CORPORATE BONDS, WHICH IS YOUR DEBT BASED SECURITIES. AND THEN MONEY MARKET, L G, I P ARE YOUR ARE YOUR JUST YOUR LIQUID FUNDS. THIS IS A SLIDE THAT WE UPDATED. AND SO THIS IS MISSING THE TAIL RIGHT DOWN HERE. OR WE HAVE UP TO 2030. SO IT'S MISSING THAT PIECE. PLUS THOSE MISSING ONE A LITTLE RIGHT THERE. AND SO PART OF THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS, IS OUR, OUR TEMPLATE DIDN'T UPDATE.

AND SO WHEN WE WENT TO PRINT, IT WASN'T UPDATED. SO IT'S JUST THE TAIL PART, RIGHT? BUT THIS REPRESENTS A LADDER. AND SO WE BOX OUR, THE FIRST TWO YEARS IN, WE TRY TO GET BETWEEN 5 TO 6 MILLION. AND THEN WE INVEST EVERY TIME A MATURITY, WE REINVEST ON THE BACK END OF THAT BOX. AND THEN AT TIMES WE WILL INVEST INTO THE 2 TO 5 YEAR RANGE. IF OUR, OUR INVESTMENT POLICY SAYS THAT 25% OF OUR INVESTMENTS CAN BE OVER FIVE YEARS OR OVER TWO YEARS, WE'RE AT 27%. SO WE RIGHT NOW ARE OUTSIDE OF POLICY. LET ME TELL YOU HOW THAT HAPPENS. WE

[02:50:04]

AND SO WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. AND SO OUR SHORT TERM INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN CALLED.

AND THAT'S ONE MECHANISM THAT CAUSES THAT. THE OTHER IS LIQUID CASH IS INTO THAT INTO THAT CATEGORY AS WELL. AND SO OUR LIQUID CASH IS ALSO DEBT BECAUSE WE ARE USING THOSE, SOME OF THOSE FUNDS. SO THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THAT. YOU SHOULD SEE THAT BOUNCE BACK IN THE NEXT MONTH OR TWO. AND THEN THIS IS JUST SHOWS YOU FOR OUR YIELD RIGHT NOW, 3.8% IS THE FED RATE. MOST OF OUR INVESTMENTS THAT WE'RE PURCHASING RIGHT NOW ARE BETWEEN 3.5 AND 4%, DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF SECURITY IT IS. ANY QUESTIONS ON INVESTMENTS OR CASH? WHAT'S OUR OVERALL ANNUAL RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO? IT'S ABOUT 3.4%.

OKAY. IT BECAUSE WE HAVE FIVE YEARS. IT'S NOT RIGHT AT THE FED RATE. IT'S A LITTLE BIT LOWER. BUT SO WE TRY TO FLATTEN THE RISK ON YIELD. AND SO WE ARE HIGHER DURING THE WHEN THE INVESTMENT RATE WAS 0.25%, WE ARE IN 1 TO 2% RANGE. AND OUR TOTAL DOLLARS BEING INVESTED 196,000,096 THANK YOU ALL DOESN'T ALLOW US TO. MEET. IT LIMITS WHAT WE CAN FIND. SO WE CAN ONLY USE. SO YEAH, WE'RE REALLY STRICT ON WHAT WE CAN BUY. SO WE CAN'T BUY EQUITIES OF ANY KIND. NO MUTUAL FUNDS, NO EQUITIES. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT CDS, DEBT, DEBT FINANCING.

SO THAT'S YOUR CORPORATE BONDS OR YOUR TREASURY BONDS OR YOUR. MORTGAGE BACKED. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO MOVING ON TO OUR FIRST FOUR MONTHS FINANCIAL REPORT, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT CITYWIDE REVENUES AND EXPENSES BY TYPE AND THEN BY DEPARTMENT. THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT JUST THE GENERAL FUND, THOSE SAME THREE CATEGORIES. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR REVENUE FOR THE CITY, OUR TOP LINE THERE, TAXES AND FRANCHISES, WE GET A BIG DISTRIBUTION OF OUR PROPERTY TAXES IN JANUARY. SO THAT'S WHY OUR PROPERTY TAXES ARE SITTING AT 54% ALMOST. THE OTHER DISTRIBUTION WE GET IN JULY. SO YOU WON'T SEE MUCH MOVEMENT THERE UNTIL JULY. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PERMITS AND FEES AND IMPACT FEES, THAT'S AN AREA WE MENTIONED WE'RE WATCHING. THEY ARE LOWER THAN PRIOR YEAR NUMBERS. IN TALKING WITH DIRECTOR SANAA, THEY'RE NOT SEEING A DROP OFF IN ACTIVITY LIKE THE PERMITS PULLED, BUT IT'S THE TYPES THAT WE'RE GETTING. SO WE ARE SEEING A LOT LESS REVENUE. THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE HAD REALLY HIGH MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. SO THEY'RE WE'RE SEEING A DROP OFF IN REVENUE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE ACTIVITY HAPPENING. SO WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THAT ONE BECAUSE OUR PROJECTIONS WERE DEFINITELY LOWER THAN WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING THERE FOR REVENUE. MOST OF OUR REVENUES YOU'LL SEE HERE ARE RELATIVELY LOW. WE'RE A THIRD OF THE YEAR THROUGH AND THIS REPORT THROUGH JANUARY. BUT A LOT OF OUR ACTIVITY ACTIVITY HAPPENS IN THE SUMMER MONTHS, LATE SPRING. SO THAT'S WHEN YOU'LL SEE THOSE ONES CATCH UP WITH. WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR EXPENDITURES CITYWIDE, AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT A THIRD OF THE WAY THROUGH THE YEAR. WE DON'T HAVE ANY DEPARTMENTS OR ANY ACTIVITY OVER 33% EXCEPT FOR OUR COST ALLOCATION. A LOT OF THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF SOME OF THE COSTS. WE HAVE A LOT OF FRONT LOADED COSTS AND SOME OF THOSE COST ALLOCATED DEPARTMENTS. THE WAGES AND BENEFITS, YOU SEE IS LESS THAN A THIRD OF THE YEAR. WE'RE A LITTLE BIT UNDER. THAT'S PRIMARILY DUE TO JUST STAFFING TURNOVER VACANCIES THERE. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK BY DEPARTMENT.

YOU'LL SEE HR IS A LITTLE BIT OVER THAT 33%. THEY INCLUDE OUR RISK PAYMENTS, OUR PREMIUMS TO INSURANCE. WE DO THOSE EVERY YEAR. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT OVER, BUT IT'LL EVEN OUT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE FOR OUR CITY DEPARTMENTS.

OKAY. I'LL MOVE ON TO THE SO THE REVENUES FOR THE GENERAL FUND AGAIN YOU'RE SEEING THE PROPERTY TAXES THERE, GENERAL FUND PERMITS AND FEES. THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'RE KIND OF KEEPING AN EYE ON. WE'RE AT 410,000 FOR THIS YEAR, WHERE LAST YEAR WE WERE AT 731. SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOW ON THOSE PERMIT FEES COMPARED TO OUR PROJECTIONS. SO WE'RE JUST

[02:55:02]

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE REVENUES FOR THE GENERAL FUND? SO THEN OUR EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL FUND, YOU'LL SEE THE MURPH EXPENSE. THAT'S OUR CAPITAL REPLACEMENTS. THOSE ARE HIGHER THAN A THIRD OF THE YEAR BECAUSE ONCE THE YEAR KICKS OFF, WE GET THOSE ORDERS IN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. ALSO, THINGS COME IN FROM PRIOR YEARS THAT WERE A LITTLE DELAYED OR EXPECTED TO TAKE LONGER, SO THAT YOU'LL SEE THAT ONE OFTEN IS ABOVE THE THIRD OF THE YEAR THROUGH PERCENTAGE. AND THEN WHEN WE LOOK BY DEPARTMENT, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE REALLY KEEPING AN EYE ON PUBLIC SAFETY. SO FIRE AND POLICE, MAKING SURE THEIR OVERTIME IS KIND OF IN LINE WITH THE BUDGET. THEY'RE LOOKING GOOD THIS YEAR. SO FAR WE'RE LAST YEAR WE HAD OTHER ISSUES WITH TRYING TO KEEP THE OVERTIME WITHIN THE BUDGET, WHICH WE DIDN'T HAVE. SO THIS YEAR THINGS ARE LOOKING A LOT BETTER. SO WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON THAT THROUGHOUT THIS YEAR AS WELL. OKAY, ON TO OUR ARPA GRANT. JUST UPDATING YOU ON WHERE WE'RE AT. WE HAD AWARDED A LITTLE OVER 10.5 MILLION. WE HAVE SPENT JUST OVER 10 MILLION SO FAR THROUGH JANUARY. IF YOU ACTUALLY INCLUDE THROUGH FEBRUARY, WE'RE ALMOST FULLY SPENT. THE REMAINING FUNDS AS OF JANUARY WERE $400,000. BEARCAT THAT WAS ORDERED FOR POLICE. THAT IS EXPECTED TO GET HERE HOPEFULLY BY DECEMBER. AND SO WE ARE WE KEEP GETTING PUSHED OUT DATES ON THAT ORDER FROM THE VENDOR. AND SO THAT IS AN AREA WE ARE LOOKING TO REPURPOSE THOSE GRANT FUNDS TO THE PROJECT WE PUT IN. WHEN WE HAD TO OBLIGATE ALL THE FUNDS, WE ADDED A PROJECT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY WAGES IN CASE SOMETHING DIDN'T ACTUALLY COME TO FRUITION IN GETTING THINGS ORDERED AND RECEIVED BY DECEMBER 31ST OF THIS YEAR. THAT'S THE DROP DEAD DEADLINE.

WE HAVE TO USE ALL THE FUNDS BY. SO THEY WERE REQUESTING WE REPURPOSE THOSE TO THE PERSONNEL COSTS. SO THEN THE FUNDS THAT WOULD HAVE PAID THEIR PERSONNEL COSTS CAN NOW GO TOWARDS THAT BEARCAT. WHEN IT DOES COME IN, HOPEFULLY BEFORE DECEMBER. BUT WE DON'T WANT TO BE KIND OF BITING OR HOLDING OUR FINGERS CROSSED. SO THAT'S A PLANNED REPURPOSE. AND THAT WILL PRETTY MUCH EXHAUST ALMOST ALL OF THOSE ARPA FUNDS SO THAT THIS QUARTER WE CAN BE DONE REPORTING ON THAT GRANT. AND JUST TO SAY, WE DID BRING THIS IN PLENTY OF TIME FOR COUNCIL. IF YOU RECALL, I THINK WE BROUGHT IT LIKE TWO YEARS AGO, BUT BECAUSE IT'S THERE'S A CUSTOM BUILD ASSOCIATED WITH SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE AUXILIARY TYPE OF PARTS. IT'S TAKING A LITTLE BIT LONGER, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE DID, WE DID REQUEST IT PLENTY OF TIME. BUT AGAIN, I THINK THAT THIS IS A CONSERVATIVE SOLUTION TO MAKING SURE THAT WE UTILIZE THOSE ARPA DOLLARS AS WE AS COUNCIL HAD APPROVED. THE SECOND ITEM THERE IS THE FIRE STATION GENERATOR OR FIRE STATION NUMBER SEVEN GENERATOR. IT'S BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF BEING INSTALLED. SO WE'RE JUST GETTING FINAL BILLS ON THAT ONE. NO CONCERN OF IT BEING COMPLETED BY DECEMBER OR WE'RE JUST FINISHING THOSE PAYMENTS AS THEY INSTALL THAT. THE CITY PARK SERVICE WATER IRRIGATION CONVERSION IS IN PROCESS. THAT ONE IS MOST LIKELY READY TO CLOSE OUT. WE'RE JUST WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO FINISH THAT ONE OUT. TINY LITTLE BIT LEFT ON SECURITY UPGRADES FOR THE PARKS, AND THEN ANOTHER LITTLE BIT LEFT FOR THE COMMUNITY PARK SERVICE WATER CONVERSION. SO WE'RE EXPECTING PROBABLY BY JUNE, IF NOT BY END OF MARCH, HAVING ALL OF THESE FUNDS EXPENDED. IF ON THOSE SMALLER ONES, THERE'S ANY REMAINING FUNDS, WE HAVE GOTTEN DIRECTION BEFORE TO USE ANY UNUSED FUNDS AND PUT IT TOWARDS THE NORTH FIRE STATION, WHICH WAS BEING FUNDED BY GRANT FUNDING, BUT ALSO IMPACT FEES AND LAB FEES. SO IF THERE'S A FEW THOUSANDS HERE AND THERE, WE WOULD PUT THOSE TOWARDS THE NORTH FIRE STATION. IF WE HAD NO OTHER PROJECTS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ARPA FUNDING? OKAY, THAT'S ALL WE HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YES, WE WILL LOSE OUR QUORUM. SO AS WE. I'LL BE RIGHT BACK. OKAY. WE HAVE. OUR YEAR TO DATE BUDGET

[Airport ]

[03:00:03]

THIS IS NOT REALLY ANYTHING THAT STANDS OUT. WELL, THIS SURPRISED ALL OF THE DIRECTORS.

IF WE'RE DONE BY 630. WITH AS LONG AS THAT OTHER ONE WENT. DIRECTOR TURNER HAS RETURNED TO US FROM WASHINGTON, DC AND THEN. HEADED TO NEVADA. AND WHAT'S THAT? ARCHES AND CANYONLANDS.

YES. AND THEN IT'S HEADED TO SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR ANOTHER AIRPORT. THIS IS THE. I LEAVE AT 1015 TONIGHT. YES, ONLY WITH ALLEGIANT. SO WE'VE GOT. HE'S GOT A BIG. YOU NEED YOUR YOU NEED ON OCCASION DIRECTLY WITH AIRLINES IS THAT WHEN THEY'RE. BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING TWICE A YEAR. TWICE A YEAR. IS THAT JUST FOR GENERAL UPDATES. TYPICALLY IT COULD BE ANYTHING.

WE'RE HOPING THEY SAY, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO EXPAND AMSTERDAM OR SOMETHING. I SEE, I MEAN, IT'S INTENTIONALLY ASPIRATIONAL. YEAH, I WOULD JUMP ON THAT. RIGHT. GREAT. WE ARE READY FOR OUR AIRPORT FINANCIAL PRESENTATION. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. LIKE WE SAID, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS REALLY QUICK. SO I'M JUST GOING TO FLY THROUGH THESE SPREADSHEETS, NOT THE SPREADSHEETS, THE SLIDES. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN DWELL ON THOSE. BUT REALLY QUICK AS FINANCE JUST REPORTED, OUR CASH BALANCE FOR JANUARY 2026 IS 3.2 MILLION, WHICH IS PRETTY GOOD COMPARED TO WHAT WE WERE IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. CONTINUES TO BUILD. A BIG PORTION OF THAT IS RELATED TO STATE GRANTS THAT WE DREW DOWN IN JANUARY. WE GOT ABOUT 1.4 MILLION FROM FROM THE STATE. CONTINUE TO GROW ALONG WITH CFC FUNDS MOVING TO OUR AIRPORT REVENUES. WE'LL JUST LOOK AT THAT SECOND COLUMN OVER. THAT'S OUR ACTUALS. YOU CAN COMPARE THEM TO A PRORATION OF THE FIRST COLUMN TO THE BUDGET OF 2026. WE ARE MEETING ALL OF OUR PRORATED REVENUE PROJECTIONS. PARKING IS DOING REALLY WELL. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CAPACITY.

EVEN IN FEBRUARY, WE HAD PROBLEMS WITH CAPACITY. SO IT CONTINUES TO BE A PROBLEM. BUT SHE IS MUCH. WHAT WAS THAT WISE GENERAL AVIATION UP SO MUCH. OH GENERAL AVIATION YES, THE FY THAT WAS THE ONE I WAS HIGHLIGHTING 500,000. SO WE GOT $400,000 FROM OUR FBO AS A AS A PAYMENT. OH, WE AMENDED IN DECEMBER THAT THAT PAYMENT THAT WAS DUE WITHIN 90 DAYS IS REFLECTED IN THAT LINE ITEM. OKAY. SO IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT, WE'RE ABOUT WHERE WE WERE WITH JANUARY OF LAST YEAR. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE REVENUES. AND THAT WAS $427,000. THAT FIGURE MAKES UP THE DIFFERENCE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR OPERATING EXPENSES, I JUST BROKE THOSE OUT BETWEEN PERSONAL COSTS AND OUR OPERATING COSTS. WE'RE STILL DOING REALLY WELL WITH OPERATING INCOME OF 1.1 MILLION. OUR PERSONNEL COSTS ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THE BUDGET OR APPROPRIATION OF BUDGET. AND A LOT OF THAT IS DUE TO OUR AVIATION ORDER SCREENERS. WE DIDN'T BUDGET THOSE LAST YEAR. AND SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OVER ON THAT AMOUNT BY $10,000. OPERATING COSTS. THE BULK OF OPERATION COSTS. SO ONE OF THE BIG COSTS THAT WE HAD THAT WE WEREN'T EXPECTING, WE HAD BUDGETED, BUT

[03:05:01]

YEAH. SO ALL RIGHT. SO THE LAST COMES FROM OVERSEAS. WE'RE GOING TO POINT SOMETHING OUT HERE. SO FOR FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO'VE BEEN AROUND A WHILE, THE BOTTOM RIGHT COLUMN THERE ON THE FORMATION OF 24,000 TO THE ACTUAL FIGURE, HISTORICALLY, DURING THE WINTER MONTHS, THE AIRPORT HAS RUN IN THE BLACK STARRING THE RED. AND AS I'VE TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT, IS TRYING TO SMOOTH OUT OUR REVENUES OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR SO THAT WE HAVE BETTER CASH FLOWS. THAT'S POSITIVE NOW. SO WE'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, AND I'LL CONTINUE TO CHIP AWAY AT THAT TO PUT THE AIRPORT IN A BETTER FINANCIAL POSITION. THANK YOU. THAT'S AWESOME. AWESOME. SO THEN WE GO INTO OUR NON-OPERATING REVENUE. THIS IS WHERE WE FIND OUR FAA GRANTS, ALL OF OUR GRANT MONEY. WE ONLY HAVE 900,000. AND I KNOW WE JUST TALKED ABOUT GETTING 1.4 MILLION FROM THE STATE. THERE'S SOME OF THOSE GRANTS WERE IN OUR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE. SO THEY'VE ALREADY PUT THEM IN OUR REVENUE FOR LAST YEAR. SO THERE'S THAT LITTLE BIT OF OFFSET THERE. AS YOU CAN SEE, LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME WAS THE SAME WAY, EXCEPT WE WERE -$1.1 MILLION. AND THAT'S JUST JUST ACCOUNTING AUDITING FUNCTION. LATER IN THIS YEAR WE'LL SEE THAT CONTINUE TO GROW. JUST LIKE IN THE 2025. IT BECAME POSITIVE.

OUR CFO, THIS IS JUST THE FUNDS WE RECEIVED THAT CONTINUE TO GROW IN THAT CASH BALANCE.

WE'RE STILL IN THE FIRST AND THEN OUR ASSETS PURCHASED. THE BULK OF THAT 1.4 MILLION IS OUR FAA PROJECTS. BUT WE DO HAVE A QUITE A WHEELED LOADER THIS YEAR AS WELL THAT WILL FIT IN THERE. AND MOST OF THAT IS PAID THROUGH THOSE STATE GRANTS OR THROUGH THE FAA GRANTS AND THEN INTEREST. WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING REALLY WELL IN INTEREST. THAT ONE'S ALWAYS TRICKY TO BUDGET FOR. AND SO AS YOU CAN SEE, ONLY BUDGET 2.2 THOUSAND 500 FOR THIS YEAR FOR PREPARATION, BUT WE'RE ALREADY AT 62,000 FOR THE YEAR. SO INTEREST IS DOING REALLY WELL WITH THE CITY AS A WHOLE. SO OUR NET CHANGE IN POSITION IS 1.4 MILLION. ANY QUESTIONS. IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. YEAH. I'LL JUST MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT. WHILE OUR REVENUES ARE HIGHER THAN WE HAD ANTICIPATED, WE HAD BUDGETED ABOUT 15% GROWTH. WE HAD 20% GROWTH LAST YEAR. THE EXPENSE SIDE IS ALSO, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT IT FOR PERCENTAGE OF THE WAY THROUGH THE BUDGET COMPARED TO PERCENTAGE OF THE WAY THROUGH THE YEAR, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE RIGHT NOW. AND PLEASE DON'T FORGET THAT THE AIRPORT SPENDS ALMOST ALL OF ITS MONEY OUTSIDE OF SNOW REMOVAL IN THE SUMMER WHEN WE'RE REALLY BUSY. SO THERE'S AN EXPECTATION HERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WATCH THE BUDGET PRETTY CLOSELY, BECAUSE WE CAN BE OVER SOME OF OUR BUDGET LINES, DEPENDING ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. JUST BE AWARE OF PERSONNEL RELATED. DOUBLE DIGIT INCREASES TO ELEVATOR ESCALATOR MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS.

SOME OF SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE SERVICES THAT WE CONTRACT OUT HAVE COME BACK AT A MUCH HIGHER COST INCREASE THAN WE ANTICIPATED. AND THEN WE'LL ALSO SEE SOME ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT GOING UP. FUEL IS GOING UP, EVEN REPAIRS, ALL OUR EQUIPMENT. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF ISSUES WITH VEHICLES. AND SO THAT'S DRIVEN UP OUR OPERATING COSTS THERE AS WELL. WE'VE ALSO HAD A FEW UNEXPECTED EXPENSES, BUT WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE TAKING CARE OF. ARE WE RIGHT WITH PARKING FEES AND STUFF? WHAT DOES RIGHT SIDE MEAN TO YOU? BECAUSE I'M CERTAIN IT MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO ME. WELL, I MEAN, DO YOU THINK THAT WE'RE CAPTURING WHAT WE CAN AS FAR AS TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MONEY FOR THE AIRPORT? I, I THINK THAT'S A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE 2627 BUDGET. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK WE COULD LIKELY TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND WILL. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE DONE ANY YET OR INCREASES IN RATES BECAUSE WE DID A RATE INCREASE WHAT LAST YEAR AND THE YEAR BEFORE, JUST THIS PAST SUMMER GOING INTO LAST SUMMER, WE RAISED PARKING FEES. PROBABLY ABOUT TIME TO DO IT AGAIN. IT FEELS GOOD. LIKE I THINK LIKE AS A PATRON, RIGHT? YOU GO LIKE YOU'RE WILLING TO DRIVE AND PARK THERE VERSUS HAVING YOUR NEIGHBOR OR YOUR FRIEND TAKE YOU BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, OKAY, I CAN DO IT. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? IF IT WAS TOO MUCH MORE, I THINK I DON'T KNOW

[03:10:03]

[03:15:05]

THE THE FAA LIMITS US TO A 50 YEAR TERM, AND WE ARE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE TO CONSIDER EVERY BIT OF THE 50 YEARS FOR THE DOLLAR VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THIS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THEY ARE COMMITTED TO 50 YEARS. YEAH. WELL, THE CURRENT THE STANDARD TERMS AND I'M GOING TO I'M A LITTLE I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE STANDARD AGREEMENT RECENTLY AT RECENTLY, BUT I THINK THE BASELINE ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS THIS IS GOING TO BE 30 YEARS. IT'LL BE A DETERMINATION ON WHAT THE EXTENSIONS ARE BASED ON OUR PROPOSAL. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT THEY MAKE A LONG TERM COMMITMENT. THEY'RE NOT HERE FOR TWO YEARS AND GONE, WELL NO, THAT WOULD BE BAD. YEAH, THAT WOULD BE BAD. RIGHT. BUT BUT IT IS A BUSINESS. YEAH. THE INVESTMENT REQUIRED TO DO THIS IS SO SUBSTANTIAL. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO BE HERE FOR AS LONG AS WE'LL LET THEM. RIGHT.

AND IF THEY CAN'T DO THAT, THEY SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO TO PUT THIS FORWARD BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INVEST. THAT IS PART OF IT. YEAH, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY PART OF THIS. THIS PIECE HERE, AS WELL AS THIS PIECE HERE. YEAH. SO SO THAT ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION BEFORE I MOVE ON. YEAH, I'M JUST ASKING. I DIDN'T DIRECTLY SEE IN THIS CRITERIA THE LONG TERM COMMITMENT. BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S HERE. IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO TO WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THE THE EXISTING FBO. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT IS THE SIMILAR TERMS TO SIMILARLY SITUATED TENANTS ON THE AIRPORT THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW. OKAY. THEY HAVE VERY HIGH LEVEL. SO SO THE NEXT CRITERIA IS BIT. WHAT'S THE REVENUE TO THE AIRPORT THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED. AND THEN THE NEXT TWO ARE IMPORTANT TO ME. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S COMING IN AND CONDUCTING BUSINESS HERE IN IDAHO FALLS THAT UNDERSTANDS EASTERN IDAHO'S MARKET, THE AVIATION INDUSTRY IN THE BROADER REGION, AS WELL AS OUR REFERENCES. WE WANT SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO BE COMPLIANT WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS, DOESN'T HAVE ISSUES WITH NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THEIR LEASE AGREEMENT, AND IS GENERALLY A GOOD PARTNER FOR THE AIRPORT AS WELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PROPOSAL EVALUATION? THE SECOND EVALUATION CRITERIA WILL BE AN INTERVIEW. WE WILL SELECT AT LEAST TWO PROPOSALS TO BE INVITED FOR INTERVIEWS. UNLESS, OF COURSE, THERE'S ONLY A SINGLE PROPOSAL WHICH I DO NOT ANTICIPATE. I ANTICIPATE THEIR INTERVIEWS WILL LAST BETWEEN 90 AND 120 MINUTES IN THE SAME PANEL WILL BE EVALUATING THE INTERVIEWS THAT EVALUATED THE PROPOSALS. THE INTERVIEW IS GOING TO AGAIN EVALUATE HOW ARE THEY ENHANCING THEIR PROPOSAL DOCUMENT? ARE THEY CONSISTENT WITH THAT PROPOSAL DOCUMENT AND WHAT THEY SAY? THEY'LL DEMONSTRATE A KNOWLEDGE OF THE COMMUNITY AGAIN, AND A BUSINESS APPROACH TO GROWING THE AIRPORT ACTIVITY, NOT BIFURCATING IT. I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME ON TO THE AIRPORT AND SPLIT UP THE EXISTING BUSINESS. THAT IS NOT BENEFICIAL FOR THE LONG TERM BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY, NOR THE AIRPORT AS A WHOLE. IF WE TAKE A SLICE,

[03:20:04]

ESSENTIALLY, YOU PROFESSIONAL AND DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU'RE GOING TO WORK, PLAY, PLAY NICELY IN THE SANDBOX. THE VISION FOR FUTURE AVIATION DEMAND. THE AVIATION INDUSTRY IS CHANGING. WILL THEY HAVE A PLAN FOR ADDRESSING THAT? ARE WE FINDING WAYS TO IMPLEMENT CHARGING FOR ELECTRIC AIRCRAFT? ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IN A PROPOSAL THAT HAS CONSIDERATIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE AVIATION, FUEL, LIGHT SPORT, AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, THAT TYPE OF THING? AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE QUALITY, COMPLETENESS AND OBVIOUSLY THOUGHTFULNESS FOR RESPONSES TO THE PANEL'S QUESTIONS. TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, I WILL READ THROUGH THE RFP DOCUMENT ONE MORE TIME. HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY LOOK AT IT AGAIN. I THINK THEY'RE REALLY THE LAST THING WE HAVE TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT OUR TIMELINE WORKS WITH PURCHASING TO ISSUE THE RFP SO THAT WE AREN'T DOUBLE BOOKING THEM OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. AND WE'RE HOPEFULLY HAVING AN AWARD MID TO LATE SUMMER THIS YEAR. AND THEN AFTER THAT POINT, WE'LL HAVE TO DO SOME NEGOTIATIONS WITH A SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER BASED ON THE CONTENTS OF THEIR PROPOSAL. WHAT'S THEIR TIMELINE FOR CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION COSTS PERMITTING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS BEFORE WE SEE AN AGREEMENT PRESENTED TO COUNCIL? DO YOU ANTICIPATE BIDS? AT THAT DOLLAR? SO I JUST SIGNED A NEW CONTRACT. DID THEY NOT? GO AHEAD. JOHN, DID YOU HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER BRADFORD WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? WILL YOU SPEAK? SAY IT OUT LOUD. I DON'T RECALL. DO YOU ANTICIPATE BIDS? YEAH. THANK YOU. YES. BASED ON BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ENTITIES SLASH INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE HAVE REACHED OUT TO US. I ANTICIPATE 3 TO 4 AT A MINIMUM. DO YOU ANTICIPATE BIDS AFTER THEY KNOW YOUR REQUIREMENTS ARE.

I DON'T THINK THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT HIGH, TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT $100 MILLION INVESTMENT MINIMUM. I DON'T THINK THAT HIGH, BUT I WOULD I WOULD IMAGINE 30 TO $40 MILLION WOULD BE IT REALLY IF WE GO BACK, IT DEPENDS ON ON ARE THEY GOING TO END UP DOING JUST SOMETHING LIKE THIS, OR ARE THEY GOING TO ADD SOMETHING LIKE THIS? A COUPLE OF THE ENTITIES I'VE TALKED TO ARE NOT SMALL PLAYERS IN THE INDUSTRY.

ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE BRINGING A BUSINESS MODEL THAT HAS HANGARS AND AVIATION AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS TO THE AIRPORT. THEN SOME OF WHAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE, I THINK THIS IS 120 BY 120 HANGER, WHICH IS ROUGHLY WHAT I FELT COULD FIT THE SMALLEST. SORRY, NOT THE SMALLEST, BUT OUR GENERAL AVIATION CRITICAL AIRCRAFT. A LOT OF WHAT THEY WILL NEED TO DO TO BE SUCCESSFUL WILL NEED SOMETHING TWICE THAT SIZE. AND WHY ARE WE NOT BUILDING? WHY DO WE WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO BUILD THESE HANGARS? NOT US. WE ALREADY OWN ALL THE LEASES HERE ON THE OTHER HANGARS. THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. I'M. BUT WHY IS THE LAND. WHY IS THAT PART OF THE RFP? WE OWN THE LAND THEY LEASE. THEY BUILD A LOT OF THE HANGARS. WHY SHOULD WE TAKE THE RISK? SO IF THAT IS A BUSINESS MODEL YOU WANT ME TO PURSUE, I WOULD HAPPILY DO IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF UPSIDES, BUT IT WILL TAKE DECADES FOR IT TO BECOME A PROSPEROUS BUSINESS. BUT WHY DID YOU WHY DID WE INCLUDE IT IN RFP THOUGH, AS OPPOSED TO JUST NOT DOING ANYTHING? OR IS IT NOT PART OF THE RFP TO HAVE, OR THEY JUST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THEY WANT TO DO THIS WITH THE HANGARS, OR THEY WOULD BE COMMITTING TO PRODUCING AT LEAST A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT, DEPENDING ON HOW THE PROPOSALS COME IN. I THINK SOME OF THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS PROJECTION IN THE FUTURE, WHICH YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE. NOW, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION. YOU DON'T HAVE THE CAPITAL TO DO THIS.

JUST ABOUT EVERY DOLLAR WE HAVE THAT'S FREE RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO THE TERMINAL EXPANSION. AND SO FOR US TO MEET CURRENT DEMAND, WE NEED TO ENTER INTO SOME LEVEL OF PRIVATE INVESTMENT OR GO TO A PUBLIC PRIVATE TYPE INVESTMENT. THE THE PIECE THAT I LIKE ABOUT

[03:25:08]

THAT'S THE PREDOMINANT MODEL. YES. COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN NO, I'M GOOD. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, I'M READY TO GO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'RE DONE. WE'RE DONE WITH YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO THIS IS THE THE DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD. I KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THIS. I'M GLAD TO GET THIS MOVING FORWARD. IT HAS WE'VE HAD LOTS OF OTHER ISSUES TO DEAL WITH FIRST. AND SO NOW THAT THIS IS GOOD TIMING TO. NOW I DID HAVE A QUESTION PRESENT THIS FORWARD. YES. ABOUT. WE JUST REDID THE CONTRACT WITH WITH ARAMARK.

CORRECT. OKAY. HOW LONG IS THAT FOR? 50 YEARS. THAT TAKES IN IF THEY EXERCISE BOTH THE EXTENSIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE AVAILABLE TO THEM THROUGH THE END OF SEPTEMBER 20TH 5252 2052.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER, I MOVE COUNCIL MOVE INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION

[Executive Session ]

SECOND. WE WOULD NEED A ROLL CALL. ACTUALLY. OKAY. SORRY. YES, FRANCIS. ALL RIGHT.

BRADFORD. ALL RIGHT. YES.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.