Jul 06, 2026 City Council Work Session

[Call to Order and Roll Call]

[00:00:02]

LAMINAR FLOW AND ALL THAT. WE ARE CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER. IT'S A LITTLE AFTER AND WE ARE ON AIR. OKAY. OKAY. YEP. YES. SO IF OUR CITY CLERK CAN PLEASE GIVE US THE ROLL CALL AND WE CAN ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS HERE.

COUNCILOR RADFORD PRESENT COUNCILOR DINGMAN HERE. COUNCILOR FREEMAN HERE.

COUNCILOR LARSON HERE. COUNCILOR LEE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU.

WE DO HAVE A FULL AGENDA, AND THE US IS PLAYING WORLD CUP. SO I'VE ASKED LINDA TO GIVE US OCCASIONAL UPDATES ON THE. WE'LL START AT SIX. RIGHT. IT'S SIX NOW. 6:00. YEAH, BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S SIX. NO, NO, THAT CHANGED BECAUSE. AGREED. IT WAS I MEAN, LET'S JUST KEEP GOING LIKE. YEAH, YEAH. LET'S JUST BE DONE BY 6:00. EVEN I'M WATCHING IT. SO. SO DOES BELGIUM GET ANYTHING ON THEIR ON THEIR PUSH BACK OR DID THAT GET. NO NOTHING HAPPENED. WELL DID THEIR PRESIDENT CALL. ALL THE IMPORTANT STUFF HAPPENED EARLY, BUT MY BRACKET DOES SHOW USA AGAINST ENGLAND IN HONOR OF 250. YES IT DOES. SO WE'RE ON OUR WAY. I LIKE IT. YOU KNOW, WATCHING THAT ENGLAND THING, THAT MAY BE ONE YOU'D WANT TO TELL YOUR FRIENDS THAT YOU WATCHED. THAT WAS A KIND OF A BIG DEAL. WAS THE NORWEGIAN GUY, TOO. THEY WENT LIKE POUNDING

[CDS]

MAYOR. COUNCIL. WE WE WILL TRY TO BE AS AS QUICK AS WE CAN. WE KNOW THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DISCUSS THE BUDGET THIS EVENING. SO REALLY THIS IS A LISA SHOW, SO I'LL REALLY TURN IT OVER TO DEBORAH. I JUST SIT HERE AND SHE DOES ALL THE WORK AND DOES A GREAT JOB. SO. GOOD AFTERNOON.

AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN. SO AFTER OUR PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HELD ON MAY 22ND, WE'RE HEADING INTO APPROVING OUR 2026 2030 CONSOLIDATED PLAN THAT INCLUDES OUR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR 2026.

SO IT'S THE INITIATING ANNUAL ACTION PLAN THAT GOES WITH OUR COMPLAINT, ALONG WITH OUR ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENT TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE. SO THIS IS WHAT THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT LOOKS LIKE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. BUT FOR TODAY'S MEETING, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS APPROVING THE LIST OF RECOMMENDED PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES FOR OUR 2026 FUNDING. SO PROVIDED IS A LIST ON THE SCREEN. AND IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED OVER THE HOLIDAY BREAK FOR YOU TO TO LOOK AT AND ALSO SOME EXPLANATIONS AND JUSTIFICATION AS TO HOW THOSE PROJECTS WE'RE LOOKING AT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED. SO. GIVEN OUR EXTENSIVE PUBLIC OUTREACH FOR THE COMP PLAN, A LOT OF THESE ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS, THAT'S HOW THEY WERE RECOMMENDED AS TO WHAT THE NEEDS WERE, HOW THEY WERE IDENTIFIED. THE PRIORITIES AS THEY ALIGN WITH HUD AS WELL. SO JUST TO GO TO TO THE FORMULAS ON THE SECOND PAGE THERE. WE HAD OVER 627,000 IN APPLICATION REQUESTS, AND OUR ALLOCATION IS AT 414 143. SO YOU CAN SEE WE HAD TO MAKE SOME OVER 200,000 CUTS AND STILL MEET OUR OUR ALLOWANCES WITHIN THOSE CATEGORIES. SO VERY QUICKLY, I'LL GO THROUGH THE FORMULA THAT WE USED. WE TOOK OUR ALLOCATION AMOUNT AND SUBTRACT THE ADMIN OFF THE TOP. AND THEN YOU TAKE THE 70% MAX OR MINIMUM THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE FOR LMI TO REACH 231,928. THAT'S THE MINIMUM ALLOWED FOR OUR 70% MAXIMUM THAT WE HAVE TO REACH FROM THERE. WE SUBTRACT THAT OFF OF THE 3313 1440 GIVES US 9939432 LEFT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND SLUM AND BLIGHT. AND YOU'LL SEE AS WE GO THROUGH IT, HOW THAT'S DEDUCTED SO WE CAN MEET THOSE NEEDS. AND ALSO COVER THE EXACT AMOUNT OF 414. 143. I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE LIST BRIEFLY IF IF THAT'S OKAY. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN STOP ME FOR PUBLIC SERVICE

[00:05:03]

THEN THE EASTERN IDAHO COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERS 6000 TOWARDS THEIR PARKING LOT.

WAREHOUSE LED LIGHTING UPGRADE. IDAHO FALLS RESCUE MISSION TO DO SECURITY CAMERAS WITH THEIR NEW. WITH NEW INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL SECURITY CAMERA SYSTEM AT 12,500 AND THE SENIOR CENTER TO CONTINUE MEALS ON WHEELS WITH REUSABLE AND DISPOSABLE TRAYS TO DELIVER AT 23,000 815.

AND THEN CDS TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM AT ONE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE. 1880 2828. SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS TO HOW THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE CONSIDERED AND GO FROM THERE. I'LL JUST MENTION I RECUSE MYSELF FROM THE CONVERSATION. I CAN'T. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. FERRIS? WE APPRECIATE THIS. I KNOW IT IS SO HARD TO PICK.

THANK YOU. PAINFULLY. YES. SO? SO. OKAY. I THINK OTHER OTHER THAN JUST TOP NOTCH JOB, THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS. SO SELF-EXPLANATORY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO WE WILL HAVE THIS.

IT IS A. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK HOW IT HOW IT SHOWS UP ON THURSDAY AS A RESOLUTION. IT IS.

YEAH. SO IT'S NOT ON. IT'S NOT ON CONSENT RESOLUTION TO THIS PLAN. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT COMING FROM OUR PUBLIC WORKS AND IDAHO FALLS POWER DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE A

[Public Works, Idaho Falls Power]

THANKS, MAYOR. YEAH, IT WAS A GOOD EVENT. SO SO FOR TODAY, I'M GOING TO CHAT ABOUT THE STRATEGIC UTILITY EXTENSIONS UPDATE. BASICALLY, IT'S DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN. IT'S WITHIN THE IMPACT AREA. IT'S THESE EXTENSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL. SO ON APRIL 20TH, DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON CAME IN AND PRESENTED ON THE CONCEPT OF STRATEGIC UTILITY EXTENSIONS. AND THE DIRECTION BY COUNCIL WAS TO SAY EXPLORE IT AND COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. THE THE WE'RE GOING TO COMP, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS THAT THESE UTILITY EXTENSIONS BE TO COMPLEMENT OUR SERVICE AREAS WHERE UTILITIES ARE CURRENTLY AT AND WHERE WE WANT TO SERVE IN THE FUTURE. AND THEN AS WE WORKED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THERE IS SOME STUFF THAT I'LL CHAT ABOUT

[00:10:03]

WE DO SHARE THE BORDER ALONG 25TH EAST WITH OUR IMPACT AREA. IT'S PRETTY TIGHT ON THAT ON THE EAST SIDE AND THEN ON THE WEST SIDE, WE GO ABOUT A HALF MILE TO THE NORTH, WHERE OUR CURRENT CITY LIMITS ARE. SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME AND BRING BEFORE YOU INITIALLY IS ON THE CORNER OF IONA AND 15TH EAST. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THIS SLIDE. IT SHOWS THAT IMPACT AREA. THAT MAGENTA LINE IS THE IMPACT AREA BOUNDARY. SO IT'S WITHIN THE IMPACT AREA. AND THEN THE DASHED LINE WITHIN THIS AREA IS THE CURRENT CITY LIMIT. SO YOU SEE WE'RE A LITTLE BIT SHORT OF REACHING THEM ON THE 15TH EAST OR FROM THE EAST SIDE OVER WHERE THE MEAT PACKING PLANT CURRENTLY IS ON THE TO THE WEST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN YOU'LL SEE OUR PEAKING PLANT. SO THIS PROJECT IS BORDERED BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS UP TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF THEM, OR NORTH AND EAST OF THEM, EXCUSE ME. AND THEN JUST BARELY TO THE EAST OF THAT IS OUR CURRENT PEAKING PLAN AS WELL. JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE. IT DOES COMPLEMENT. ONE OF OUR PROJECTS WE'VE IDENTIFIED IS WOODRUFF IN OUR IMPACT AREA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. WE'VE GOT A PLAN TO WIDEN WOODRUFF BETWEEN LINCOLN AND YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY.

THAT'S A FEDERAL AID PROJECT THAT'S SCHEDULED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2028. AND THEN WE'VE ALSO GOT A PROJECT WE'VE IDENTIFIED TO WIDEN WOODRUFF NORTH OF YELLOWSTONE WITH OUR IMPACT FEES, AND THAT'S IN COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY AS WELL. WE'VE INITIATED DESIGN ON THAT. IT'S WE'RE FINALIZING THE PLANS AND IT'S READY TO BID. AND IT'S CURRENTLY IN FISCAL YEAR 27 IS WHEN THAT WAS BUDGETED IN THE CIP. SO THIS COMPLEMENTS OUR OUR FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS WELL AS WE WORK WITH THE COUNTY ON THAT. THE PROPOSAL. HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS SHOWS THE VICINITY OF WHERE THE SEWER LINES ARE AND THE WATER LINES. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE SEWER IN THE ANDERSON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ALONG YELLOWSTONE HIGHWAY, JUST SOUTH OF THE PROJECT, AND THE GREEN LINES DOWN THERE. THE WATER LINE TO THE SOUTH IS CURRENTLY AT THE INTERSECTION OF YELLOWSTONE, CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION OF YELLOWSTONE AND WOODRUFF. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE WATERMAN THAT FEEDS THE MEAT PACKING PLANT ALONG IONA ROAD, THAT'S IN THE CITY TO THE WEST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO WHAT WE DO HAVE FOR SERVICES PURPOSES, THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH FALLS WATER TO DEFINE OUR SERVICE AREAS. AND THAT BOUNDARY IN THIS CASE IS 15TH EAST. SO THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SERVED BY SEWER ONLY. FALLS WATER HAS PLANS TO SERVE THEM AND THEY ACTUALLY EXIST IN IONA ROAD, ABOUT 500FT FROM THE INTERSECTION OF IONA AND 15TH EAST. HOWEVER, THIS. THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES NEED SEWER. AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE COMING TO US TO SEE ABOUT DEVELOPMENT WITH THE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AGREEMENT. SO NOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AGAIN, WE HAD AN INITIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION ON 420 WHERE WE PRESENTED THE CONCEPT AND WE BASICALLY SAID, GO FOR IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. WE DID AN INTERNAL REVIEW. SO WE DRAFTED AN AGREEMENT IN IN THE THE FIRST WORK SESSION, THERE WAS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE CITY OF NAMPA HAD DONE FOR OUTSIDE AREA STRATEGIC UTILITY CONNECTIONS.

WE TOOK THAT AGREEMENT AND WE ALSO TOOK AN AGREEMENT WHERE WE. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DONE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH DEVELOPERS ON THE EAST SIDE OF A HIT ROAD ALONG AN, FOR EXAMPLE, TO GET THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION STUFF DONE THERE. SO WE GRABBED SOME OF THAT, GRABBED SOME OF THIS, AND GRABBED SOME OF OUR STANDARD AGREEMENT TO TRY TO ACHIEVE OUR COMMON GOALS. SO WE CREATED A DRAFT. WE DID SOME INTERNAL REVIEWS. WE DID HAVE A MEETING AFTER THE INTERNAL REVIEWS ON JUNE 15TH. AND THEN WE DID DO A REVIEW WITH BONNEVILLE COUNTY ON JUNE 24TH. AND THAT LED TO WE DO NEED TO HAVE A COUNTY FOLLOW UP RELATED TO THE COUNTY RESOLUTION FOR ALLOWED CONNECTIONS OF CITY SERVICES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS KIND OF BETTER DEFINE WHEN WE'RE REQUIRED TO ALLOW CONNECTION TO CITY UTILITIES THAT EXIST IN THE COUNTY, RIGHT, OF WAYS BEYOND CITY LIMITS. SO THIS AGREEMENT WOULD HELP US SERVICE WELL, IN THAT RESPECT, WE DID SHARE A COPY OF THIS DRAFT WITH

[00:15:05]

YEAH. BUT BASICALLY FOR THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT AS FAR AS WHAT'S UNIQUE REGARDING THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT VERSUS OTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, YOU WOULD SEE WITH OUR INTERNAL CITY PLATS ARE THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. AND BASICALLY IT'S COUNTY INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION. SO WE'VE ADDED THE COUNTY AS A SIGNATORY TO THIS AGREEMENT. WE'VE MET WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT THAT AND GOT AGREEMENT FOR THAT. THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS WITH THE COUNTY. YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH CDS ON OUR BUILDING PERMITS TO ESTABLISH OUR COLLECTION OF OUR IMPACT FEES AS AN EXAMPLE, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE'D WORK WITH THE COUNTY IN THE SAME CAPACITY, AND WE CAN'T IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THEY WOULDN'T BE CALLED NECESSARILY IMPACT FEES BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. THESE WOULD BE SUBSTITUTE DEVELOPMENT FEES, AND THEY WOULD DEFINE WHAT IT WOULD BECOME TO US IN THAT CAPACITY. OR IN THIS CASE, IF THEY BUILD THE ROADS WITH THE WITH THE TRANSPORTATION PORTION OF THAT IMPACT FEE WOULD BE AS PART OF THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION. RIGHT? SO THERE'S AN ACCEPTANCE PROCESS. WE DEFINE JURISDICTIONS FOR THE COUNTY TO DO THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPT THAT. AND OBVIOUSLY THE CITY FOR US TO ACCEPT THE UTILITIES FOR OUR PROCESS AND OUR OWNERSHIP, FOR CONNECTIONS TO OUR SYSTEM, THE FEE COLLECTIONS, I MENTIONED THAT EARLIER. THAT'S ON PARAGRAPH 30. AND IN THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR THIS CONNECTION FEES. SO IN THIS AGREEMENT, THE FIRST 15 PAGES ARE WHAT I CALL THE GENERAL CONDITION PARAGRAPHS. I CALL IT THE LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE EVERY TIME WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. THESE ARE THESE HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. SO THE THE INITIAL PARAGRAPHS. SO PARAGRAPH 31 OR EXCUSE ME, PARAGRAPH 30 IS THE FEE COLLECTION, FOR EXAMPLE. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S ON PAGE NINE AS A POINT OF REFERENCE. AND WE'VE HIGHLIGHTED IT AND MADE SOME COMMENTS. PARAGRAPH 31 SPEAKS TO ANNEXATION UPON CONTIGUITY, RIGHT, TO DEFINE THAT. THAT WAS THE NEXT BULLET POINT. THE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT, YOU WILL ANNEX ONE YEAR CONTIGUOUS. WE DEFINE THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO BE REQUIRED. THIS ONE'S KIND OF UNIQUE TO. IF THE COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE A PLAQUE, THEIR NEXUS TO GET THE RIGHT OF WAY ISN'T DONE. AND IN THIS EXAMPLE, THIS PARCEL ACTUALLY DOESN'T NEED A PLAT FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD ESTABLISH THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS WELL. SO, AND WE GOT THAT IN THE AGREEMENT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH POWER AS WELL WITH CDS AND WATER WASTEWATER. AND BRIAN AND I, JUST TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THERE IS AN UNFORTUNATE TIMING THAT IMPACTS POWER ON THE ON THE BUYOUTS. SO FOR DEVELOPER IN THIS CASE, HE'S NOT THE CITY LIMITS. HE CAN'T BE SERVED BY IDAHO FALLS POWER AND A MEMO WITH ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER. AND SO HE'D BE, IN A SENSE, BRINGING IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER. AND THEN IF HE'S WHEN THEY GET SWITCHED TO US, THEN THERE'S THERE'S SOME SOME OF THAT STUFF CAN BE NAVIGATED, BUT THAT'S THE COORDINATION THAT WE'LL BE WORKING THROUGH. WE DID DEFINE SOME OF THAT IN THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, WHICH IS AT THE END OF THE AGREEMENT, UTILITY COORDINATION. SO THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND IRRIGATION. SO AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE KIND OF LAMENTED ON WITH THE COUNTY IS THAT WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IN CITY ORDINANCE, WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT WATER, AND WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT WASTEWATER ORDINANCE. SO THAT IF THINGS THAT COULD AFFECT OUR SYSTEM ARE ARE ISSUES, THEN WE CAN GO IN AND ADDRESS IT. RIGHT. RESIDENT IN IDAHO FALLS, IF SOMETHING IS WRONG THAT COMES DOWN THE SEWER, WE CAN GO INSPECT IT, EVALUATE IT AND MITIGATE FOR IT. ON THE IMPACTS TO THE TREATMENT PLAN. SO WHERE THESE FOLKS WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS IN THIS AGREEMENT, WE'RE ESTABLISHING THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR ORDINANCE TO MEET OUR PERMITS FOR WASTEWATER AND TO MEET OUR STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WATER ADMINISTRATION AS WELL ON CONNECTIONS, WHERE APPLICABLE. IN THIS CASE, IT'S PURELY THE WASTEWATER ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN. BUT THAT THAT'S KIND OF BRIDGED US WITH CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT A RECENT RESOLUTION WHERE THEY SAID THAT WE NEED TO ALLOW CONNECTIONS, AND WE'VE SAID, WELL, LOVE TO DO IT, BUT IF WE GET AN AGREEMENT LIKE THIS WHERE WE

[00:20:01]

RESPECTIVE IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO HONOR THE AGREEMENTS THAT WE'VE SUBJECTED OURSELVES TO.

SO IS THE IRRIGATION GOING TO BE SEPARATE FROM FALLS WATER? FALLS WATER IS JUST GOING TO BE POTABLE, BUT THEN WE'LL STILL HAVE SURFACE WATER THAT WE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR. CORRECT. SO WE DO HAVE SOME WATER. YEAH. AND, AND THE, THE INTERESTING ELEMENT NOW IS WHEN THE PLAT WITHIN THE CITY THAT TRIGGERS US TO GO DOWN THE PATH OF HONORING OUR AND OUR DEFINITIONS WITH THE IRRIGATION DISTRICT STANDARDS TO COMPLY AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND DIVERSIONS, THIS ONE, THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP A DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH THEIR SURFACE WATER. AND SO IT'LL LOOK PROBABLY CLEANER. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'LL LOOK AS FAR AS WHAT THE IRRIGATION WANTS TO DO WHEN THEY'RE READY TO ANNEX. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IRRIGATION DISTRICT ABOUT EXAMPLES LIKE THIS, WHERE WE HAVE A SINGLE SOURCE, A SINGLE PUMP, AND JUST ALLOWING THE PROPERTY TO CONTINUE THEIR SERVICE, THE WAY, THE WAY IT WAS. OKAY. CONNECTION TO, AGAIN, THE CONNECTION SUBJECT TO CITY ORDINANCES. I, I HIGHLIGHTED THAT THAT'S PARAGRAPH 32 ON PAGE NINE AS WELL. THE IN THIS EXAMPLE WOULD MAKE THEM SUBJECT TO OUR CITY ORDINANCES FOR WASTEWATER. AND THEN OUR WATER AND SEWER. WE DO HAVE REIMBURSEMENT CLAUSES WHERE THEY WOULD BE BUILDING CITY UTILITIES AND WHERE APPLICABLE, WE WOULD FIND THOSE IN SPECIAL CONDITIONS, WHICH IS NORMAL IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. BUT IT'S JUST PART OF A HIGHLIGHT. BUT IT HAPPENS TO BE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE. SO THESE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT WE ENCOUNTERED THAT WE BROUGHT UP. AND WE JUST WANTED TO POINT THEM OUT TO YOU AND KIND OF GIVE YOU A BRIEFING OF IT. THIS IS THE STATUS OF THE AGREEMENT, AND WE'RE IN HOPES TO GET CONSENSUS WITH THE COUNTY ON ON THE CONNECTION SUBJECT TO CITY ORDINANCES AND WHAT TO DO WITH THOSE UTILITIES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. SO WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? YES. OKAY. SO IN THAT PARAGRAPH 31, IT SAYS THE DEVELOPER AGREES THAT THE DEVELOPER SHALL COMMUNICATE THIS REQUIREMENT TO THE PROPERTY PURCHASER. BUT COMMUNICATE DOESN'T MEAN THE NEXT PURCHASER AGREES IS THAT I'M JUST ONE MEMBER ON THIS. IT DOESN'T SEEM VERY STRONG. THERE IS A CLAUSE IN HERE THAT SAYS THAT THIS AGREEMENT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY AND ASSIGNS. AND SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEFINE THERE IS TO SAY, HEY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN HERE AND DUE DILIGENCE WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THIS, OKAY, WE WANT THE DEVELOPER TO COMMUNICATE THAT SHOULD HE SELL THIS, THAT HE COMMUNICATES THESE, THIS AGREEMENT IS APPLICABLE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. TRANSPARENCY.

OKAY. MY QUESTION IS ALSO ON PARAGRAPH 31. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY, THE DEVELOPER AGREES THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE ANNEXED ONCE THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONTIGUOUS. LIKE WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM ANY OTHER REASON, ANY OTHER HEARING, ANY OTHER ANYTHING. IT'S LIKE WE THEY JUST BECOME PART OF THE CITY. IS THAT RIGHT? I MEAN, IS THAT THAT'S SOMETHING I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH WADE ON AND LEGAL. BUT THAT'S BUT THAT WAS OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT IS I MEAN, THAT THAT'S THE PIECE THAT I JUST WANT IT TO BE SUPER STRONG.

IT'S NOT LIKE THEN WE'RE GOING TO SEND YOU A LETTER AND TELL YOU THAT YOU'RE CONTIGUOUS AND THEN YOU'LL INITIATE THE. IT'S RIGHT. IT'S LIKE, THIS IS THIS IS YOUR INITIATION. YEAH, THIS WOULD BE LEGALLY BINDING CONSENT. AND WE CAN INITIATE THE ANNEXATION PROCESS. AND WE MADE SURE THAT WHAT'S IN THE AGREEMENT FROM THE CBS SIDE THAT IT WAS IMPLIED CONSENT.

OKAY, GOOD. THIS IS EXPRESS CONSENT. IT'S NOT IMPLIED. YEAH. YES. EXPRESS EXPRESS WOULD THE DEVELOPER LIKE TO BE IN THE CITY. BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT CONTIGUOUS AT THIS POINT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY. I MEAN REALLY THEY THE NEXUS IS THE NEED FOR SEWER, FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND THE STANDARDS BY WHICH THEY ARE SUBJECT TO. OKAY. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALWAYS BALKED AT THE IDEA OF EXTENDING THE SERVICES BECAUSE THIS DOES INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO ANNEX IF THEY WERE GETTING THE SERVICE ALREADY. RIGHT. I KNOW THAT WE THAT'S WHY WE WROTE THE RESOLUTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT THIS SEEMS TO COVER ALL THAT. HONESTLY. IT DOES. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S WE'RE TRYING. YEAH. NO, BUT I MEAN, IF IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO ANNEX AS

[00:25:01]

[Legal, Police, City Clerk, CDS, Fire (Part 1 of 2)]

I'M JUST GOING TO. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE. I'VE BEEN SENDING US EMAILS ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENED. THIS IS JUST KIND OF MORE FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE, AS WELL AS ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. SO LAST TIME WE TOUCHED ON THIS ORDINANCE, IT WAS JUNE 22ND. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF ORDINANCES. I HAVE. OKAY. OKAY. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE WE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND THESE HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED. THIS IS THE WILL OF COUNCIL. LAST TIME WE MET FOR COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS, WE ADDED AN EXCEPTION THAT IF THERE ARE 20 OR FEWER EMPLOYEES OF THAT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT, THAT THAT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THAT PART OF THE CODE. THIS WOULDN'T BE PERMISSION TO. YOU KNOW, IF IF IT WOULD VIOLATE STATE CODE.

THIS OBVIOUSLY CAN'T ACCEPT THAT, BUT IT WOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO OUR ORDINANCE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SECTION. FOR GROUPS OF 20 OR FEWER EMPLOYEES OF THE COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENT.

SECOND ONE IS THE LIMIT FOR ALCOHOL CATERING PERMITS STARTS IN OCTOBER 2028. THIS EFFECTIVELY GIVES TWO YEARS OF UNLIMITED ALCOHOL CATERING PERMITS PER LOCATION, AND THEN THE SCALE DOWN WILL START. AFTER THAT DATE FROM GO TO 52, THEN 26 NEXT YEAR, AND THEN FINALLY 12. WE HAD DISCUSSED ABOUT NONPROFITS OR LOCATIONS OWNED OR LEASED BY NONPROFITS.

THEY ARE NOW EXEMPT FROM THE LIMIT ON ALCOHOL CATERING PERMITS. OKAY. IT'S NOT WORKING AGAIN, MADAM CLERK. SO WHEN YOU SAY EXEMPT, IT'S REALLY JUST THE FREQUENCY OR NUMBER THAT THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM, CORRECT? YES. ONLY THE THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM THE LIMIT ON THE NUMBER.

THEY CAN STILL GET THEM. CLARIFIED THAT THE OCCUPANCY LOAD IS GOING TO BE DETERMINED BY THE BUILDING CODE, AS WELL AS POLICIES ADOPTED BY FIRE. THE SIX DAY PERIOD BETWEEN EVENTS FOR CHARITABLE EVENTS PERMIT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED AND CHANGED. THE APPROVER FOR SERVER TRAINING PROGRAMS FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN GENERAL.

SINCE THEN, WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT. SO THESE ARE NOW GETTING CHANGES THAT WEREN'T. CITY COUNCIL DIDN'T DIRECT AT THE JUNE 22ND MEETING, BUT THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK FROM PUBLIC COMMENT. OR OTHER CHANGES THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOUND OR OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOUND. ONE OF THEM WAS WE JUST GOT RID OF SOME REDUNDANT REQUIREMENTS. THE. THE PRIOR DRAFT REQUIRED THEM TO LIST EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF OWNERSHIP IN THE. SO IF YOU'RE APPLYING FOR AN ALCOHOL LICENSE. THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD TO LIST EVERY STOCKHOLDER THAT HAD STOCK IN THE APPLICANT. WE REMOVED THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE. SO WHEN THEY GO GET THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE, THEY ALREADY HAVE TO DO THIS. SO THERE'S NO POINT IN US DUPLICATING THOSE EFFORTS. IN ADDITION, I NOTICED THAT IT WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER STATE CODE FOR WINE OR BEER. AND SO IT WOULD BE ADDING IF WE HAD IT IN OUR CODE, WE'D BE ADDING A REQUIREMENT THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BY THE STATE. SO OUR IDEA WAS JUST TO OMIT IT ENTIRELY, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE. SPEAKING WITH

[00:30:04]

AND THEN OTHER PEOPLE HAVE EVENTS THERE THAT MAXES OUT THE NUMBER THAT'S ALLOWED AT THAT LOCATION. THEN IN THAT, WE HAVE TO TURN AROUND AND SAY, HEY, SORRY, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE ON THE BALL AND WELL IN ADVANCE, WE'RE GOING TO NOW HAVE TO DENY YOUR APPLICATIONS. NOW THAT LOCATION IS OVER. ITS NUMBER OF PERMITTED ALCOHOL CATERING PERMITS. SO WE FELT THE BETTER COURSE WOULD DO IS TO DO IT BY NUMBER OF PERMITS ISSUED, RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL EVENTS.

THAT KIND OF TRIGGERED SOME OTHER CHANGES DEFINING WHEN IT'S DEEMED ISSUED. IT'S WHEN IT'S APPROVED BY THE CLERK. AND THEN ALSO, SHOULD SOMEBODY CANCEL AN ALCOHOL CATERING PERMIT EVENT WITH AT LEAST 24 NOTICES WITHOUT WITH AT LEAST 24 HOURS NOTICE, WE REMOVE THAT FROM WHAT'S COUNTED TOWARDS THE LIMIT. SO IF THEY IF THEY GIVE US ENOUGH NOTICE, THEN AND THEN CANCEL IT, THEN IT WON'T COUNT TOWARDS THEIR LIMIT FOR THAT YEAR. ANOTHER CHANGE WE MADE WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS THAT BARTENDER COULD CONCEIVABLY INCLUDE SOMEBODY AT A CHARITABLE EVENT THAT SOLD BEER OR WINE ONLY. WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT THE BARTENDERS NOT DOES NOT INCLUDE THOSE PEOPLE. THE. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE 300 FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR ALCOHOL LICENSES. THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IDAHO CODE.

SO WE JUST CLARIFIED THAT THIS IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IDAHO CODE. IT'S ONLY FOR ALCOHOL LICENSES. IT'S NOT FOR ALCOHOL CATERING PERMITS OR CHARITABLE EVENT PERMITS. THIS IS ONLY FOR ALCOHOL LICENSES. AND THEN WE ALSO SPLIT A SUBSECTION JUST TO MAKE IT MORE READABLE AS THERE'S TOO MUCH TEXT. WHAT DO WE CALL PEOPLE WHO JUST SERVE BEER AND WINE? IF NOT BARTENDER? I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR THAT. OKAY. BECAUSE BARTENDERS SERVER OF ALCOHOL, I SUPPOSE. OKAY. AND THE REASON WAS BECAUSE BARTENDERS HAVE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO SPECIFIC TO BARTENDERS. AND WE WERE JUST MAKING SURE THAT OTHER PEOPLE WHO SERVED OTHER FORMS OF ALCOHOL WERE NOT INCLUDED. THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT WHAT COUNTS AS POSSESSION FOR PURPOSES OF BARTENDER IDENTIFICATION OR STATUTE, OR OUR ORDINANCE IS CURRENTLY REQUIRE THEM TO POSSESS IDENTIFICATION. AND SO WHAT I DID IS I BORROWED FROM THE FROM CRIMINAL LAW. WHAT COUNTS POSSESSION IS, HAS A NUANCED MEANING. EITHER YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT IN PHYSICAL POSSESSION OR THE POWER AND INTENTION TO CONTROL IT. SO LIKE, LET'S SAY I HAVE IT IN MY, LET'S SAY I HAVE MY WALLET IN MY BACK, MY OFFICE RIGHT NOW. I STILL HAVE POSSESSION OVER IT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ON MY PHYSICAL POSSESSION, BECAUSE I HAVE THE FULL POWER AND INTENTION TO CONTROL IT. AND SO THAT'S THAT DEFINITION OF POSSESSION ALLOWS. THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT ON THEIR PHYSICAL PERSON, JUST AS LONG AS THEY POSSESS IT UNDER THAT DEFINITION. EXCUSE ME. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE WHAT INFORMATION THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CHIEF OF POLICE COULD OBTAIN THROUGH THE SUBPOENA POWERS. SO WE LIMITED IT TO. IT'S ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ENFORCING THE. THIS CHAPTER, MEANING THE ALCOHOL ORDINANCES, STATE CODE RELATED TO ALCOHOL OR INVESTIGATING A CRIMINAL MATTER. SO AGAIN, IT. FOR IT TO PASS MUSTER, THE SUBPOENA WOULD HAVE TO TOUCH ON ONE OF THOSE MATTERS AND BE BE RELEVANT TO THAT. WHAT DUE PROCESS DOES ANYONE HAVE? WHAT DID YOU PROCESS? BECAUSE IF IT'S IF IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THOSE THINGS, IF IT'S LIMITED, WHAT IF THEY THINK, OH, THAT'S NOT LIMITED? WHO DO THEY ARGUE FOR? YEAH. SO THE WAY THE SO I CAN SEND SUBPOENAS ALL DAY. RIGHT. BUT I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURT. YEAH. RIGHT. SO AND THIS IS THIS IS WHAT I DID IS I COPIED WHAT THE STATE STATUTE HAD BECAUSE THERE'S A STATE STATUTE THAT GIVES US SORT OF POWER TO, I BELIEVE IT'S THE ISP AS WELL AS COUNTY PROSECUTORS. WE JUST WEREN'T LISTED. NO CITY ENTITY IS LISTED. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED THIS IN THERE. BUT WHAT THAT DOES IS IF IF THEY REFUSE TO PROVIDE IT, THEN MY OFFICE CAN GO TO THE COURT AND SAY, HEY, PLEASE ORDER THEM TO GIVE THIS. AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE JUDGE. IF THE JUDGE THINKS THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE OR LEGAL EXCUSE, THEN THE JUDGE CAN SAY, NO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS THIS PERTAINS TO THAT MATTER.

[00:35:03]

PREVIOUSLY. IT WAS A SEVEN DAY SUSPENSION FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION. THAT'S BEEN CHANGED TO JUST A $1,000 FINE. THE SECOND SUSPENSION CHANGED FROM A TEN DAY SUSPENSION. SECOND VIOLATION CHANGED FROM A TEN DAY SUSPENSION TO A SEVEN DAY SUSPENSION, AND THE PENALTIES FOR A THIRD FOURTH REMAIN THE SAME. AND JUST NOTE THAT THE CLERK WOULD HAVE DISCRETION IN THIS PROCESS. SO IF THERE WAS LIKE A VERY MINOR VIOLATION, JUST JUST LIKE AN OFFICER WHO PULLS SOMEBODY OVER A SPEEDING TICKET, THEY DON'T HAVE TO WRITE THEM A TICKET EVERY TIME THEY CAN SAY, HEY, THIS IS YOUR WARNING. THE CITY CLERK WOULD HAVE THAT AUTHORITY AS WELL TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO FORWARD ON THIS PROCESS FOR THIS VIOLATION. PLEASE COME INTO COMPLIANCE. AND IF YOU DON'T COME INTO COMPLIANCE AT THE END OF THE STORY, RIGHT? SO THIS DOES GIVE THE CITY CLERK DISCRETION. YES. WHEN DOES THE CLOCK RESET ON FIRST? SECOND, I BELIEVE IT'S EVERY FIVE YEARS. DOUBLE CHECK THAT. BUT THAT'S I REMEMBER I WE PUT A FIVE YEAR COOLDOWN. SO IF YOU'VE GOT. SO BASICALLY IF EVERY, EVERY VIOLATION IS ON THE, ON THE RECORD, IF IT'S LIKE A DRIVER'S LICENSE, IT'S ON THE RECORD FOR FIVE YEARS AND THE PENALTIES, JUST LOOK BACK TO A FIVE YEAR LOOK BACK. HOW MANY VIOLATIONS HAVE YOU HAD IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS? AND THAT DETERMINES WHAT THE CURRENT PENALTY IS IF YOU DOUBLE CHECK. BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S WHAT I THINK IT WAS FIVE YEARS. YES, IT'S FIVE YEARS. AND THAT'S FOR EVERY EVERY STEP OF THE PROCESS. SO IF THEY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE THREE VIOLATIONS AND THEN ONE DROPS OFF AND THEY GET A THIRD ONE, BUT THEY EVERY TIME THEY WAIT, YOU KNOW, JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF TIME, THEY NEVER ACTUALLY GET REVOKED. THEY HAVE TO HAVE FOUR VIOLATIONS WITHIN FIVE YEARS. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN WE RECEIVED ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK THIS LAST WEEK. THERE WAS ONE TYPO I NEEDED TO FIX THAT'S NOTED UP THERE. IT'S JUST CHANGE DENIAL TO CLERK'S DECISION FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS. AND THEN ALSO BACK TO THAT, THE SUBPOENA POWER. WE ADDED A SECTION THAT THEY HAVE A 14 DAYS TO RESPOND TO A SUBPOENA OR FILE A MOTION TO QUASH. WE CITED TO THE IDAHO CRIMINAL RULES FOR MOTION TO QUASH THAT. THERE ARE THERE'S ALREADY A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR IN IN THE CRIMINAL REALM FOR QUASHING SUBPOENAS. SO THEY CAN THEY CAN BASICALLY TELL THE COURT, HEY, WE DON'T THINK THAT THE INFORMATION THEY SAW WAS PROPER. AND THEN THEY CAN SEEK TO QUASH IT. SO THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL MEMBER RADFORD. THAT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER PROCESS THAT I SPOKE ABOUT. SO THIS ONE'S IF THEY WANT TO PROACTIVELY SAY, HEY, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS WAS DISCOVERABLE, THEN THEY CAN APPLY TO A COURT AND GET IT NIPPED IN THE BUD, SO TO SPEAK. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT CAME UP IS WE HAVE A 14 DAY PERIOD AND THEN ALLOW A MOTION TO QUASH IS WHAT IF LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE AUTOMATIC DATA DESTRUCTION POLICIES, RIGHT? THERE ARE CAMERAS ONLY RECORD IT AND KEEP IT IN STORAGE FOR SO MANY DAYS. WE ALSO PUT IN THERE THAT IF THEY KNOWINGLY ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OR PERMIT THE DESTRUCTION OR DESTROY THE RECORDS WHILE THEY'RE BEING SOUGHT, THAT'S A MISDEMEANOR. THAT'S JUST TO PREVENT A BAD ACTOR FROM DESTROYING DATA WHILE WHILE IT'S BEING SOUGHT BY SUBPOENA. ANY QUESTIONS? JUST IN GENERAL, ARE WE. YEAH, I JUST. I'M STILL I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT IF PEOPLE BRING THEIR BUILDING UP TO CODE, THEN THERE'S NO LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF CATERING PERMITS. CORRECT. IF THEY'RE AN A2 ASSEMBLY GROUP OR IF THEY'RE OWNED BY A NONPROFIT. AND HOW DOES THAT PLACE US WITH OTHER CITIES IN AREAS OF OUR STATE? BECAUSE WHEN I REVIEW THIS WITH WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, IT SEEMS

[00:40:05]

I'M CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT THIS CONCEPT OF US CRIMINALIZING INSTEAD OF HAVING A $1,000 FINE FOR THE PERSON WHO IS THE LANDLORDS NOW THAT SAY, YOU KNOW, HEY, IF IF SOMEONE'S DISPENSING AND I JUST GO BACK TO MY CHILDHOOD, EVEN MORMON STEAK DANCES, I SAW PEOPLE DISPENSING ALCOHOL. I'M SURE THAT MORMON CHURCH DIDN'T WANT THEM JUST DOING THAT. BUT NOW YOU'VE GOT A LANDLORD WHO COULD BE LIKE LOOKING AT PEOPLE'S SOCIAL MEDIA. THEY COULD BE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN IF THEY'RE GOING TO GET A MISDEMEANOR, BECAUSE SOMEONE JUST SNEAKS IN A SNUFF OF ALCOHOL AND THEY'RE JUST AND THEY'RE GIVING IT TO THEIR FRIENDS. TO ME, THAT IS WAY TOO FAR FOR. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IT HAS TO BE KNOWINGLY. THAT'S IN THE STATUTE. IT HAS TO BE THAT THE LANDOWNER KNEW THAT IT WAS HAPPENING AND STILL ALLOWED IT TO. SO IF SOMEBODY SNEAKS IT IN, IT WOULDN'T BE A VIOLATION. AND SO WHEN I LOOKED THAT UP, THE BEST PRACTICE WAS TO HAVE CONTRACTS THAT STATE, HEY, YOU'RE NOT BRINGING ANY ALCOHOL IN. AND THAT WOULD THEN DECRIMINALIZE THE LANDLORD. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE AT LEAST ADDED SO THAT OUR LANDLORDS. SO THAT IF A CONTRACT DOES EXIST AND THEY ASK THEM TO NOT BRING THEIR OWN BEER OR THEIR OWN ALCOHOL AND THEY SIGN THAT, THEN I THINK THE LANDLORD SHOULD BE HELD HARMLESS AT SOME POINT OR ELSE I DO THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS GREAT LIKE, WELL, I THINK BEHAVIOR, I THINK RATHER THAN ADDING IT TO THE STATUTE, I THINK JUST AS A MATTER OF PROOF, LIKE, ABSOLUTELY, IF WE IF WE CHARGE SOMEBODY THINKING THAT THEY HAVE PERMITTED IT AND THEY COME IN SAYING TO MY OFFICE, HEY, LOOK, I HAVE THIS CONTRACT SAYING, NO, I ABSOLUTELY FORBID, YOU KNOW, FORBID THEM FROM DOING IT. AND WE HAVE IT IN CONTRACT. WELL, THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A NO NO UNLESS WE HAVE FACTS THAT THEY SIGNED IT, THEY SIGNED A CONTRACT. AND THEN NONETHELESS WE CAUGHT THEM DISTRIBUTING ALCOHOL OR YOU CAN RECORD IT, PAY ATTENTION. BUT IF THAT'S ALL THE FACTS WE HAVE, WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY KNOWINGLY PERMITTED IT WHEN THEY HAVE A CONTRACT EXPRESSLY DISALLOWING THE SAME. AND DO YOU THINK THERE'S A BETTER WORD, A BETTER APPROACH THAN KNOWINGLY? BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT GOT FLAGGED, IS KIND OF GENERALLY BROAD AND VERY HARD TO ENFORCE. VERY HARD TO KNOWINGLY IS A HIGH STANDARD.

IT'S BETTER. SO OTHER ONES YOU COULD DO AS NEGLIGENTLY OR RECKLESSLY, BUT THOSE DON'T REQUIRE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. UNDER THE LAW, ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE IS FAIRLY HARD TO PROVE BECAUSE HE HAS TO PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY KNEW, RIGHT, THAT THERE WAS ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE INSTEAD OF JUST IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM TO, YOU KNOW, TO TURN A BLIND EYE AND BE KIND OF, WELL, MAYBE IT DID, MAYBE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY, MY OFFICE WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO PROVE ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. AND BECAUSE I CAN'T, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEM TO TESTIFY. SO I CAN'T SAY, HEY, PLEASE TAKE THE STAND. DID YOU KNOW OR NOT? I HAVE TO USE FACTS, OBJECTIVE FACTS, TO SHOW THAT, YES. IN FACT, THEY KNEW AND THAT THAT ISN'T TOUGH.

THINGS THAT ARE KNOWINGLY ARE TOUGH. SO I THINK THAT'S I IF IF YOU THINK THAT'S THE BEST WORD, THEN I'M OKAY WITH THAT. BUT I DO, I DO STILL THINK THAT WE SHOULD FIND A WAY NOT TO CRIMINALIZE THE FIRST OFFENSE OR, YOU KNOW, I DON'T MIND CRIMINALIZING CRIMINALIZATION AT SOME POINT SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T JUST THINK THEY CAN JUST PAY FINES. BUT I JUST THINK THIS IS I THINK I THINK EVENT CENTERS ARE REALLY IN A WEIRD SPOT HERE COMPARED TO THEIR COMPETITORS IN AMMAN OR, YOU KNOW, IN THE COUNTY. LIKE, I'M JUST WORRIED THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE MAKING IT REALLY DIFFICULT TO HOLD EVENTS IN IDAHO FALLS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO ACTUALLY HAVE EVENTS IN IDAHO FALLS, AND WE WANT TO BUILD BUSINESS. WE WANT TO DO THAT. AND, AND IF WE'RE JUST SO STRINGENT COMPARED TO EVERYONE ELSE, AND THAT'S WHERE I GET CONCERNED. SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS. ONE QUESTION THAT MAY HELP CLARIFY SOME OF THIS. COULD YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT? THIS SUSPENSION IN MY READING APPLIES TO A LICENSE AND ALCOHOL LICENSE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN A CATERING PERMIT OR THE LOCATION. IF SOMEONE GETS A CATERING PERMIT TO HAVE AN EVENT AT A, AT A LOCATION DURING THE NEXT TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER, WHEN IT'S A LIMITED, THIS IS THIS SECTION OF THE LAW APPLIES ONLY TO THE LICENSEE DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU TALK ABOUT THIS SECTION. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER RADFORD WAS TALKING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL.

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DISPENSING OR ALLOWING THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL ON A COMMERCIAL PREMISE. YEAH, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF AN ALCOHOL LICENSE, BECAUSE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVENTS AND ALL OF THAT. YES, I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD IMPROVEMENT. LIKE, YEAH, I THINK YEAH. BUT THAT THAT SECTION DOESN'T APPLY TO COMMERCIAL EVENT CENTER DOES THE CATERING PROCESS AND OR LIKE FOR ME, IT WAS A BOOKSTORE, RIGHT? LIKE THERE WAS A LONG TIME WHERE BARNES AND NOBLE WAS TRYING TO DO ALCOHOL SERVICE.

[00:45:02]

CORRECT. I MEAN, IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, THE EVENT HAPPENED. AND AGAIN, MY OFFICE WOULD HAVE TO PROVE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THEY, IN FACT, KNEW. I'M I'M JUST TRYING TO BE THE DEVIL'S ADVOCATE BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT IT INSTANTLY COMES UP WITH WHEN YOU TRY TO PUT THIS THROUGH SOME OF THE TOOLS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT COMMERCIALIZATION IS NOT SOMETHING ANY OTHER CITY HAS DONE. SO WE'RE OUT ON A LIMB AND THEN WE'RE CRIMINALIZING IT. SO I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT WE'RE GOING WAY FARTHER THAN ANYONE ELSE. BUT I WILL NOTE THAT THE IDAHO CODE IS THIS 23-602, THE IDAHO CODE, AND THIS IS FOR THE IDAHO CODE, UNLESS IT'S AUTHORIZED BY TITLE 23. ANY PERSON WHO SHALL HAVE POSSESSION, MANUFACTURER OR TRANSPORT, PURCHASE, SELL OR DISPOSE OF ANY ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SHALL BE GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. SO IT'S KIND OF A BASE AND WHAT THIS IS DOING, WHAT THIS CODE. SO IT'S A MISDEMEANOR IF YOU IF YOU DISPOSE OF ALCOHOL. SO NOT EVEN JUST SELLING, BUT IF YOU DISPOSE OF ALCOHOL AND IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY THE IDAHO CODE, THEN IT'S BY DEFAULT A MISDEMEANOR, A STATE CODE. WHAT OUR ORDINANCE WOULD BE DOING IS, AND WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO THIS UNDER THE IDAHO CODE WORKS. AND IDAHO LAW IS KIND OF REINFORCE THAT TO SAY IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE, IF YOU'RE LEASING TO SOMEBODY KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BASICALLY BE VIOLATING THIS CODE, WE WANT TO DISCOURAGE THAT BY MAKING THAT A MISDEMEANOR AS WELL. AGAIN, IT HAD TO BE KNOWINGLY THAT YOU. BUT PREVIOUSLY, THE STATE LAW WAS THE CATERING PERMIT HOLDER OR THE PERSON WHO WAS DISPENSING WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED. RIGHT? NOT THE NOT THE LANDLORD. ISN'T THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN OUR CODE? CORRECT.

YEAH. SO THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE GO WAY PAST. BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE OTHER THING THAT WAS SUGGESTED HERE IS THAT YOU COULD HAVE EVERYONE SIGN A CONTRACT SAYING, HEY, THIS IS THE LAW IN IDAHO. YOU CAN'T DISPENSE. AND I'VE TOLD YOU THAT. AND NOW I'M NOT GOING TO BE LEGALLY HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS. TO ME AS A LANDLORD, YOU COULD DO THAT BEFORE YOU RENT IT TO YOUR SPACE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S THE RIGHT THAT'S THE BEST PRACTICE. I'M SAYING MAYBE WE SHOULD MENTION THAT SOMEHOW. WHAT'S THE ARGUMENT? NOT PUTTING IT IN THE ORDINANCE SO THAT PEOPLE THAT READ IT JUST KNOW TO DO THAT, THE ONLY ARGUMENT WOULD BE IF WE PUT AN EXCEPTION LIKE THAT, THEN IF THERE WAS A PRETTY BAD ACTOR THAT PUT THAT IN THE CONTRACTS, BUT THEN WAS FOUND LATER ACTUALLY DISPENSING THE ALCOHOL AT THE EVENT, THAT WOULD BE

[00:50:04]

IF YOU HAVE A CONTRACT, THEN EVEN IF THEY KNOWINGLY DID IT, IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE CONTRACT. YEAH. AND MAYBE SOMEHOW YOU MENTIONED THAT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER LANGUAGE BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT, YOU KNOW, THE OWNER'S RIGHTS. AND I THINK THIS IS A BIG THIS IS A BIG STEP FOR US THAT WE'RE USUALLY VERY FRIENDLY TO OWNERS. AND THIS IS THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT. SO IF YOU THINK THE CONTRACT LANGUAGE IS ENOUGH PROTECTION, I LIKE THAT AS THE MIDDLE GROUND BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE. BUT ANYWAY, THOSE WERE MY CONCERNS THAT I'M TRYING TO GET OUT BEFORE WE IF COUNCIL WANTS COUNCIL TO CHANGE SOMETHING, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE ANY CHANGES. SO I THINK WE'LL HEAR ABOUT IT. DO WE HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE VOTE? WELL, THAT'S WHAT THAT'S YEAH, THAT'S WE WERE HOPING THAT THAT DISCUSSION COULD BE THURSDAY WHEN IT COMES BACK TO COUNCIL RATHER THAN TODAY. SO WE CAN MOVE TO THE BUDGET, BUT PROCESS EVERYTHING YOU HEARD BACK TO THE ORDINANCE. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE COULD AMEND IT ON THE FLY IF WE HAVE TO, OR WE CAN IF WE HAVE FOUR OF US. I MEAN, THE THE GIST IS IF WE'VE GOT FOUR OF US THAT ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THURSDAY, I'M JUST SAYING, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS WHAT I JUST SAID ABOUT LAND OWNERS AND LAND OWNERS. AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE WAY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE. AND SO I NEED TIME TO TELL SOME OTHERS THAT THEY NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS. SO WHAT I'M SAYING. THE OTHER COUNCILOR BRADFORD THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH LEGAL IS DOING LIKE A REALLY STRONG FAQ PAGE SO THAT BUSINESS OWNERS CAN GO ONLINE AND THEY CAN SEE OUR PROCESS. THEY CAN GET SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED. BOISE HAS A PRETTY GOOD ONE THAT GOES OVER A LOT OF DETAILS. AND SO BECAUSE WE DO WANT WE I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE. I'M SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S JUST LIMITS TO HOW MUCH WE CAN SAY IN AN ORDINANCE, RIGHT? SO WE DO WANT TO PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY DETAILED. JUST DOES EVERYONE NOT AGREE? I MEAN, OR DO PEOPLE JUST THINK I'M WRONG, THAT WE'RE OVER THE LEDGE HERE ON OWNERSHIP OF A BUILDING? I MEAN, I JUST THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE DOING DIFFERENTLY THAN. I JUST DON'T SEE IT. I DON'T SEE THAT. I DON'T SEE THE THREAT. SO IF YOU OWN AN EVENT CENTER AND SOMEBODY COMES IN AND SELLS ALCOHOL, BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT, JUST DISPENSES IT, OKAY, I'M GOING TO HAVE IT IN MY CONTRACT. YEAH, BUT YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT WITH WHAT YOU READ. IF YOU'RE AN EVENT CENTER, YOU WILL THOUGH. I MEAN, IF YOU WERE THIS ALL STARTED, REMEMBER THIS ALL STARTED BECAUSE WE'VE HAD MASSIVE CONFUSION AT OUR EVENT CENTERS THAT THIS WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD AT ALL. REMEMBER? AND WE'VE HAD PEOPLE CHARGED FOR THIS VERY THING, ESSENTIALLY, BECAUSE THERE WAS CONFUSION AROUND THIS.

AND NOW THEY'RE FACING CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS. AND I DON'T THINK THEY'LL EVER GET CHARGED.

THEY'VE BEEN CHARGED. AND COURT DATES, I DON'T THINK THEY WILL. WELL, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THIS HASN'T BEEN THE NORM THROUGHOUT THE STATE, THAT THE LANDLORDS IN TROUBLE, BUT IT'S BEEN AS THE DISPENSER, THE PERSON DISPENSING. SO IF THAT'S SOME KID THAT SNUCK IT IN, THAT'S WHO GETS CHARGED. BUT DOESN'T THE KNOWINGLY MAYBE COVER THAT? IF WHEN I TALK TO THE ATTORNEYS THAT I'VE TALKED TO KNOWINGLY, SUCH A BROAD TERM THAT JUST LIKE HE SAYS, IT'S A. BUT THEN THAT'S WHY HE HAS TO PROVE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. SO KNOWINGLY IS REALLY ON THE PART OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR. AND THAT'S THAT'S MY POINT, THOUGH, IS WHEN I TALK TO ATTORNEYS, THEY WERE SAYING, KNOWING THERE'S SUCH A BROAD TERM TO, TO PEOPLE THAT IF THEY READ THAT I'M NOT GOING TO DO MY EVENT CENTER OR I DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE HAPPEN. AND SO THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT. AND SO I THINK THAT THERE'S, IT'S NOT WELL DEFINED. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO RUN A BUSINESS AND YOU MIGHT GET A CRIMINAL CHARGE, YOU WANT TO KNOW BETTER THAN JUST KNOWING HOW WOULD YOU WHAT WOULD IT SAY? IT WOULD SAY THE OTHER CITIES THEY HAVE, THEY SAY THE CONTRACT. WHEN I RESEARCHED THIS, YOU IF YOU'RE AN EVENT CENTER, IF THERE'S A CONTRACT IN PLACE AND SOMEONE DOES SOMETHING THEY SHOULDN'T CHARGE, IF THERE'S A CONTRACT, IT DOESN'T STIPULATE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CONTRACT. RIGHT? HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THAT? IN FACT, BECAUSE MOST PLACES HAVEN'T TAKEN THIS ON AT ALL, WE'RE KIND OF LEADING THE WAY AROUND EVENTS. EVERYTHING IN IDAHO, PARTICULARLY IF YOU WENT TO POCATELLO AND HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH EVENT CENTER OWNERS, OR IF YOU WENT TO EVENT CENTER OWNERS GROUP CONVERSATION, YOU GET THIS CONVERSATION A LOT. SO JUST I THINK THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING WE'RE FULLY AWARE OF. AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT LATER IN TERMS OF THAT, BUT I JUST

[00:55:07]

IT IS IN LEGISTAR. ZACH, I WASN'T SURE WHETHER THE MOST RECENT COPY BECAUSE WE MADE SOME CHANGES. I MADE SOME CHANGES AND I WILL GET THAT UPDATED. I WAS JUST WAITING TILL AFTER THIS TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY FEEDBACK ON THE WORDING THAT I SENT, BUT I GET THAT FINAL VERSION, SO I HAVEN'T. I HAVEN'T PUSHED THAT FORWARD YET, BUT THE PLAN IS TO DO IT THURSDAY. WE CAN VOTE AND CHANGE LANGUAGE ON THE FLY. AND AS WITH EVERYTHING, IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE LOOKING FOR COMPLIANCE RATHER THAN PUNISHMENT. NOT NOT OUT SEEKING PUNISHMENT, JUST LOOKING FOR COMPLIANCE. FEELS LIKE THERE'S THIS KNOWINGLY PIECE. AND IF THERE'S SOME ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMPLIANCE THERE OR WILLINGNESS TO COMPLY. I'VE SEEN OUR PROSECUTOR DO A GOOD JOB TRYING TO GET COMPLIANCE RATHER THAN FINES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW THIS IS HUNDREDS OF HOURS, WHICH MIGHT BE ONE REASON WHY WE SEE SOMETHING COME FORWARD IN OUR BUDGET IN THE NEXT HALF AN HOUR. THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT PUT A BIG EFFORT INTO THIS. THEY HAVE PUT A BIG EFFORT INTO THIS. LET'S I THINK WE SHOULD PUSH ON FOR

[Finance Team, Mayor’s Office, Council, General Fund Departments (Part 1 of 2)]

SO TODAY'S OUR BROADER PERFORMANCE, IDENTIFYING THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THEN KIND OF GIVING AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE TO DATE. AND I ONCE AGAIN THANK BROOKS OVER AND OVER. NOT ONLY DID THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT LAUNCH THE ERP, THEY GOT US THROUGH THE AUDIT AND A BUDGET, WHICH HAS BEEN SUCH A LIFT. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND SO I'LL TURN IT TO BROOKS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN A BIG TEAM EFFORT TO GET US HERE. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY VOICE. 4TH OF JULY WEEKEND, BUT I WAS RECRUITING AND HIRING TOO MUCH, I THINK. AND ALLERGIES HAVE HIT ME A LITTLE BIT. SO I APOLOGIZE IF I'M A LITTLE CROAKY. SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR CURRENT FISCAL YEAR BUDGET AND WHERE WE'RE AT SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF COMING AGAIN INTO THE BUDGET THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ROLL FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR, AS WELL AS JUST SOME AREAS THAT WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE 2627 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS. SO FOR OUR REVENUE PROJECTIONS, OUR PERSONNEL, THE DIFFERENT OBLIGATIONS WE HAVE OUTSTANDING, AND THEN SOME OF THOSE AREAS OF NOTE AS WELL THAT WE'LL BE KEEPING AN EYE ON. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCESS WE DID TO BALANCE THE GENERAL FUND. AS WE GET REQUESTS IN FROM EVERYBODY, WE USUALLY HAVE MORE THAN WE CAN AFFORD. SO WE GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO GET IT DOWN TO A BALANCED BUDGET, AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT IS STILL POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE. AND THOSE REQUESTS FOR USES OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ROADMAP BEFORE WE DIVE IN? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO FOR OUR 2526 CURRENT BUDGET, IF YOU REMEMBER, LAST YEAR WE MOVED A LOT OF SERVICES OUT OF OR OUT TO OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

[01:00:08]

THAT AMOUNT WAS A LITTLE OVER 700,000. SO THAT HOLE THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET WAS KIND OF MADE UP FOR BY THE COUNTY FEES THAT WERE PAID FOR LATE INTEREST AND PENALTIES THAT WE GOT A ONE TIME KIND OF BACKFLOW FROM THE COURT SETTLEMENT THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR. SO THOSE TWO THINGS KIND OF CAME UP ABOUT A WASH IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR. SO WE'RE NOT UPSIDE DOWN ABOUT $700,000, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN EXTRA 700,000 TO SPEND BECAUSE OF THAT. SO WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON THE PARKS MAINTENANCE. THERE ARE CERTAIN ONES THAT ARE JUST PAID FOR THROUGH A TRANSFER, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN ONES THAT ARE PARKS. TEAMS ARE TRACKING THEIR TIME. THAT'S THE FERC LICENSE PROPERTIES. SO AS PARKS MAINTAINS THOSE PROPERTIES, THEY'RE TRACKING THEIR TIME AND THOSE ARE BILLED OUT. SO THAT'S THE PIECE THAT WE'RE REALLY KEEPING AN EYE ON TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING UP THAT BUDGET THAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO BE COVERED BY THAT. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE ITEMS? OKAY. KERMIT. AND IMPACT FEES IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE OUR PERMITTING FEE REVENUE HAS BEEN DOWN. THE ACTIVITY HASN'T NECESSARILY BEEN DOWN, BUT THE TYPE OF ACTIVITY WE'RE SEEING IS NOT THE BIG DOLLAR PROJECTS. SO OUR FEE REVENUES ARE DOWN AS WELL AS OUR IMPACT FEE REVENUES ARE DOWN. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE HAVE LESS AVAILABLE FOR ACTUAL PROJECTS GOING FORWARD. WE'VE BUILT UP A LOT OF FUNDS FROM THOSE IMPACT FEES THAT WE'RE PLANNING TO SPEND, BUT WE'RE NOT SEEING THE SAME AMOUNT COMING IN ANNUALLY. AND THEN FOR OUR POLICE COMPLEX DEBT, THAT IS, WE HAVE PLANNED 630,000 OF THAT DEBT TO BE PAID FOR OUT OF THOSE IMPACT FEES THAT WE COLLECT. BUT IF WE START SEEING THE IMPACT FEES CONTINUE TO BE LOWER, THAT AMOUNT THAT'S BEING COVERED BY IMPACT FEES TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND.

SO THAT'S AN AREA WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON AS WELL, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE HAVING ENOUGH OF THOSE IMPACT FEES TO COVER THAT 630,000. WHAT'S THE PAYMENT? 1.2 MILLION EACH YEAR? YEAH.

OKAY. AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR FARMLAND AND ZOO WE'VE OPENED THIS YEAR AND WE'RE OUTPERFORMING OUR PRIOR YEAR IN OUR FEES COLLECTED, BUT WE'RE NOT QUITE MEETING THE BUDGET WE'RE EXPECTING. SO WE'RE DOING BETTER THAN LAST YEAR. WHAT WE BUDGETED IS A LITTLE MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY. WE'RE LOOKING KIND OF ON A WEEKLY BASIS. SO WE'RE KEEPING TRACK OF THAT AS WELL. THE OUTPERFORMANCE IS A 10% HIGHER, 12% HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, 20%. WE'RE ABOUT DOUBLE LAST YEAR FOR FUND LAND, BUT WE NEED TO BE ABOUT SIX TIMES FUNLAND LAST YEAR TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE BUDGET. OKAY. IT IS IT IS DOING REALLY WELL. I MEAN, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, IT'S JUST NOT AS MUCH AS THE CONSULTANT HAD SAID, BUT THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB BRINGING IN MONEY. EVEN HAVING THE CONCESSIONS. I'VE BEEN DOING MY PART. I WALKED OVER AND BUY LOTS OF FOOD. SO SIMILAR TO IT, RIGHT? SO FOR THE ZOO AND FINLAND, SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR, IF THE REVENUES AREN'T COMING IN AT THE LEVELS WE NEED, WE WERE JUST WATCHING THE EXPENSE SIDE AND KIND OF IN JULY THIS MONTH, WE'RE KIND OF KEEPING THAT REALLY CLOSELY, AND WE'LL BE COMMUNICATING WITH OUR PARKS AND REC TEAM TO SAY WE GOT TO KEEP OUR EXPENSES AS TIGHT AS POSSIBLE, SO THERE'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND. WHEN WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC SAFETY SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR, WE JUST WANT TO KEEP AN EYE ON OVERTIME AND PERSONNEL COSTS. LAST YEAR WE WERE A LITTLE OVER IN SOME AREAS FOR FIRE. UNFORTUNATELY, WATER IS NOT HELPING THAT. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE JUST KEEPING AN EYE ON THAT. AS SUMMER MONTHS GET BUSIER AND SEASON PICKS UP, WE HOPE ALL OF THAT OVERPAYMENT COMES IN RELATED TO THOSE THINGS ARE COVERED. BUT IF THEY'RE NOT, AGAIN, THAT'S AN IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND. IF WE HAVE FIRE AND POLICE PERSONNEL COSTS THAT ARE OVER BUDGET. SO THOSE ARE AREAS THAT WE'LL KEEP TRACK OF. AND THEN I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE A NEW FUNDING SOURCE, THE GMT MONEY THAT'S GROUND EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORT FUNDING THROUGH THE SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, THE MEDICARE PROGRAM, MEDICAID PROGRAM. WE GOT 1.4 MILLION THAT CAME IN IN JUNE. WE'RE BUDGETING NEXT YEAR TO GET ABOUT 2.8 MILLION IN REVENUE COMING IN TO EMS. SO IT'S HALF A YEAR. IT'S NO. IT'S ACTUALLY

[01:05:07]

[01:10:06]

THE GROWTH AND ANNEXATION. WE JUST GOT SOME NUMBERS THIS LAST WEEK FOR GROWTH, AND ANNEXATION IS EXPECTED TO BE A LITTLE OVER 1 MILLION. AND WE'LL GET INTO IT A LITTLE BIT. WE ASSUME 750,000 OF THAT ALREADY BEING USED TO HELP OUR BUDGET BALANCE THIS YEAR, PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE PERSONNEL AND BENEFIT COSTS HAVE BEEN OR CAME IN A LITTLE MORE THAN EXPECTED. AND WE'LL GET INTO MORE DETAIL ON THAT. BUT IT LEAVES ABOUT 300 000 OF THAT GROWTH MONEY AVAILABLE FOR DEPARTMENT REQUESTS. THEN WE ALSO HAVE FOREGONE AS AN OPTION, WE HAVE THE 1% OF FOREGONE WOULD BE ABOUT 530 000. AND THEN THERE IS AN OPTION FOR 3% TO GO TOWARDS CAPITAL ONE TIME REQUESTS. THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 1.6 MILLION. THEN OUR STATE SHARED REVENUES. THERE'S TWO SOURCES FOR OUR GENERAL FUND. THERE'S LIQUOR TAX AS WELL AS STATE SHARE OF INCOME TAX. THAT THE CHANGE OF THOSE BRINGS IN AN ADDITIONAL 338,000, AS ESTIMATED. AND THEN OUR STREETS FUNDING FROM THE STATE SHARED REVENUES IS ANOTHER 528,000 EXPECTED NEXT YEAR. THEN WE HAVE ONE OTHER. CAN YOU SORRY, I THOUGHT THE ALCOHOL FUNDING WAS. I THOUGHT THAT TEXT WAS ALL GOING TO THE COURTS NOW, OR IS THERE STILL. WE GET SOME SOME, BUT IT'S A MUCH LOWER. WE GET JUST UNDER A MILLION, ABOUT A MILLION. IT'S ACTUALLY THE PROJECTION FOR THIS UPCOMING YEAR IS A LITTLE BIT DOWN. THEY'RE EXPECTING LESS. WE GET A QUARTERLY PAYMENT THERE.

WE'RE EXPECTING LESS. AND THEN THEY DO A TRUE UP. AND THEIR TROOP IS USUALLY LESS THAN WHAT THEY PROJECT THAT WE RECEIVED. SO WE BUDGETED JUST OVER A MILLION THIS YEAR FOR THAT. AND THEN AT SOME POINT, CAN YOU LET ME KNOW WHAT THE SALES TAX NOT HERE, BUT IF YOU COULD SEND ME THAT EQUATION OF HOW THEY DETERMINE THAT BECAUSE FOR A LONG TIME, YEAH, WE GOT 11% OF ALL SALES TAX IN THE AREA. OKAY. YEAH. I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE. AND SO I'M WONDERING HOW MUCH WE DO GET. OKAY. SO THE SALES TAX IS NOT ON THIS YET. AM I READING IT RIGHT. IT'S ON THERE.

IT'S PART OF THAT GENERAL FUND. THE THE TOTAL WE GET IS ABOUT 700 THAT WE'RE PLANNING TO GET ABOUT 7.7 MILLION. BUT THE LIQUOR TAX IS GOING DOWN. SO THAT'S WHERE THE NET OF THE TWO OF THOSE IS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 338,000. THEN WE HAVE THE POLICE COMPLEX ACCESS FUNDING.

SO IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE ISSUED THE DEBT FOR POLICE FACILITY, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SPEND IT ALL. SO THE EXCESS FUNDING WAS THERE THAT WE DIDN'T DRAW DOWN. PLUS, THE INTEREST WAS ABLE TO GO TOWARDS OUR DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT. SO THAT EXTRA MONEY THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY PAY OUR DEBT WITH IS WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR SOME ONE TIME REQUESTS. SO THAT'S ABOUT 680,000. OKAY. THEN OUR BASELINE PERSONNEL ASSUMPTIONS, WE ASSUMED EVERYONE RECEIVED THEIR SEVENTH GRADE INCREASES POWER. WE INCLUDED A 6% INCREASE AS THEIR ON THE MILLMAN STUDY. THEN ALL OTHER EMPLOYEES GOT A 2% COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR HEALTH INSURANCE. WE ASSUMED A 5% INCREASE. WE NEGOTIATED IT AT 4.7% AND THAT THE CHANGE THERE, THE ADDITIONAL. THERE. WE LEAVE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BUFFER WHEN PEOPLE CHANGE PLANS, SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SWITCH TO THE MORE EXPENSIVE PLAN AND MOVE AROUND. SO WE WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM THERE. DENTAL ASSUMED AT 10% AND THEN PERCY AT 3.5% FOR A PARTIAL YEAR CHANGE. AND THAT CHANGE WILL MOST LIKELY NOT COME INTO FRUITION. SO THE NUMBERS BEHIND THAT, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR I'VE GOT A CHART HERE OF OUR 24, 25 ACTUALS, OUR 2526 BUDGET, AND THEN THE 2627 PROPOSED BUDGET. AND THEN WHAT THAT CHANGE IS YEAR OVER YEAR, THE PROPERTY TAX SUPPORTED FUNDS, THAT MEANS THE GENERAL FUNDED THE STREETS AND LIBRARY AND RECREATION AS WELL. SO THOSE ARE ANY FUNDS THAT GET PROPERTY TAXES INCLUDED OR ALLOCATED TO THEM.

SO THOSE PROPERTY TAX NUMBERS, WE DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN THE COUNTY AT THIS POINT. NOT FINAL AT ALL, BUT THEY'RE BASED ON PRELIMINARY. YES. SO YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY TAX SUPPORTED FUNDS FOR THE PERSONNEL ESTIMATED INCREASE IS GOING TO BE ABOUT 3 MILLION IN PERSONNEL COSTS. THAT ALSO INCLUDES ANY PART TIME EMPLOYEES, CASUAL EMPLOYEES, ANY OVERTIME OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEN BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE ALL IN PEOPLE COST FOR THE PART OUR CITY. OKAY, THIS NEXT SLIDE HERE IS OUR PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION. SO WE ALLOCATE OUR PROPERTY TAXES TO THE GENERAL FUND, OUR STREETS FUND,

[01:15:06]

THAT'S NOT TRUE. IT DOES BRING TRAFFIC PEOPLE INTO THE GENERAL FUND. SO THERE IS THAT PIECE OF IT. BUT THIS IS WHY WE START TO SEE OURSELVES GETTING OFF. IS THAT JUST TO HAVE THAT 2% COLA, PLUS BRINGING TRAFFIC INTO THE GENERAL FUND, WE'RE WE'RE RUNNING A SHORTFALL AND BRINGING TRAFFIC PERSONNEL INTO THE GENERAL FUND. THAT'S ABOUT 513,000 THAT PREVIOUSLY WAS IN THE POWER FUND. YEAH. SO WE'D STILL BE SHORT. YES. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE EVEN OUR GUESS IS EVEN WIDER. SO THAT'S WHY FTE ARE REALLY SOMETHING. THIS IS WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR TEN YEARS. IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE. AND THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF IT. RIGHT. 800,000 A YEAR THAT WE'RE NOW UPSIDE DOWN. WELL I MEAN AND WE GET GROWTH AND ANNEXATION. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ABLE TO COVER IT. SO THERE IS A REASON TO ADD FTE BASED ON GROWTH ANNEXATION, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE METHODOLOGY IN PLACE TO SAY THIS IS HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE WE NEED TO ADD BASED ON OUR GROWTH. SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BEGIN WORKING ON WITH YEAR ROUND BUDGETING. THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WRAPS UP ERP. YES. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE IS THE ESTIMATED STATE REVENUES. JUST A LITTLE MORE DETAIL FOR YOU. LIKE I SAID, THE LIQUOR TAX IS EXPECTED TO GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT THIS YEAR. WELL THE STATE SALES TAX OUR SHARE IS EXPECTED TO GO UP ABOUT HALF A MILLION. AND THEN THE STREETS FUNDING GOING UP A LITTLE OVER HALF A MILLION. SO NOW ON TO OUR OBLIGATIONS. SOME OF THESE ARE OUR LONG TERM COMMITMENTS HERE.

SO WE HAVE DEBT SERVICE ON THE POLICE COMPLEX. THAT'S 2 MILLION EVERY YEAR. WE HAVE OUTSTANDING DEBT WITH OUR POWER BONDS FOR TRANSMISSION AND POWER SUPPLY. AND THEN OUR WASTEWATER DEQ LOAN FOR WASTEWATER EXPANSION. IT'S ABOUT 1.1 MILLION EVERY YEAR.

THEN WE ALSO HAVE LEASE ANNUAL PAYMENTS FOR OUR POLICE AND FIRE AND EMS EQUIPMENT. THE POLICE VEHICLES IS A MILLION AND A HALF CURRENTLY COMMITTED. THOSE ALL COME OUT OF THE MERC FUNDS. SAME FOR FIRE AND EQUIPMENT. THE FIRE EQUIPMENT IS A LEASE THAT WE ARE ON OUR.

THIS WILL BE COMING UP ON OUR FOURTH YEAR. WE'RE GETTING THE EQUIPMENT THIS FALL AND IT'S GOING TO START PAYING ON IT JUST TO GET THE BILLS GOING. BUT WE'LL BE RECEIVING THOSE THREE FIRE ENGINES THIS FALL. AND THEN THE EMS EQUIPMENT IS FOR A LEASE FOR STRYKER EQUIPMENT OF THE AMBULANCES. WE HAVE THIS ONGOING REPAYMENT FROM FALL TO THE MERC BALANCES FOR ARCS ABOUT 300 000 EACH YEAR. WE HAVE FOUR AND A HALF YEARS LEFT OF THAT. WE ALSO HAVE A FIBER TO POWER LOAN REPAYMENT. THAT'S ABOUT 19.2 MILLION PLUS INTEREST. THAT WAS FOR THE BUILD OUT OF OUR FIBER SYSTEM. AND THEN A NEW REPAYMENT INTERNALLY IS OUR ERP IMPLEMENTATION. SO THAT WAS FUNDED BY OUR GENERAL FUND, WASTEWATER AND POWER FUNDS. AND THEN ALL OF THE COST WILL BE REPAID BY ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS OVER THE COURSE OF

[01:20:03]

GETTING THAT UP IS 2 MILLION, BUT IT'S THE YEAR TO YEAR COST IN THE 800 TO LIKE, WHAT'S THE ONGOING COST? WE HAVEN'T EVEN PUT THAT OUT FOR RFP YET. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION WORK. YEAH, WE'RE A LITTLE TOO EARLY TO TELL, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE PAYING BILLS. SO THERE WILL BE SOME NETTING OF THAT COST. I COULD INTERRUPT JUST ONE THING RIGHT HERE. WHEN I WENT TO APA THIS PAST WEEK IN BOSTON, I WAS INCREDIBLY INTERESTED IN HOW MANY DIFFERENT WAYS PEOPLE PRESENTED THEIR UTILITY BILLS. AND IT JUST MADE ME ALL THAT MORE EXCITED THAT WE'RE DOING IT THE WAY THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO. I MEAN, SOMETIMES IT'S EVEN LIKE THIS IS, YOU KNOW, YOUR OWN POWER COMPANY. THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD PAY IF YOU WEREN'T PART OF YOUR POWER COMPANY. AND THEY HAVE SPREAD IT OUT, LOTS OF THINGS. AND THEN YOU MAKE TRASH VERY SEPARATE AND SANITARY TRASH AND SANITATION AND WATER. AND THERE'S JUST A MILLION COOL WAYS TO DO A BILL. NO OFFENSE TO OUR CURRENT SYSTEM, BUT IT'S NOT COOL. SO THERE ARE THERE JUST ARE. BESIDES, THE TECHNOLOGY IS REALLY IMPROVED AND PREPAID.

PREPAID. YEAH. THERE'S ALL THERE'S ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT, BUT JUST BEING ABLE TO REALLY TELL A STORY, THAT'S THE PIECE THAT I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO, IS TELLING THE STORY THAT WE OWN. THE CUSTOMERS OWN THE POWER COMPANY AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR THEM. SO ANYWAY, JUST TO THROW THAT OUT THERE, VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. OKAY, SO AGAIN, JUST REITERATING, WE ARE SEEING LOWER IMPACT FEES THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

THIS MAY JUST BE OUR NEW NORMAL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON. WE BUDGETED THE REVENUES PRETTY CONSERVATIVELY, ASSUMING PRETTY SIMILAR TO THIS YEAR'S NUMBERS. SO WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT LANDS US FOR THE FUNDING OF OUR PROJECTS. WE HAVE THE MONEY FOR THE EXISTING PROJECTS, BUT GOING FORWARD IT MIGHT BE A NEW NORMAL FOR WHAT LEVEL YOU CAN EXPECT. AND THEN WHAT'S THE DELTA BETWEEN THAT LOWER IMPACT FEES VERSUS WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING? YOU KNOW, IS IT 2 MILLION LESS? IS IT ACROSS ALL OF THEM? IT'S I THINK IT'S ABOUT HALF OF WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING. WE WERE I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE SUMMER MONTHS FINISH OUT, BUT WE'RE SEEING MUCH, MUCH LOWER. WHEN WE WERE THE LAST TIME I REALLY LOOKED CLOSELY AT IT WAS IN MARCH, AND WE WERE COMING IN AT LIKE HALF OF WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING. AND BEFORE WE WERE, I DON'T REMEMBER OUR NUMBER. WAS IT 14 MILLION OR SO A YEAR? I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT. YEAH.

OKAY. THOSE NUMBERS. JUST GIVES ME AN IDEA OF SCALE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO A NEW AREA

[01:25:12]

BUT IF WE'RE NOT AT THE RIGHT FEE LEVEL, WE WANT TO ALSO ADJUST THOSE AS WELL. AND WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON THAT THIS BUDGET, OR ARE WE GOING TO WORK ON THAT THROUGH THE YEAR BUDGET? YEAH. WHAT ABOUT THE LIBRARY? LIBRARY HAS SOME OF THESE BUT IT'S PRETTY MINIMAL. THEY ARE PRIMARILY PROPERTY TAX SUPPORTED. OKAY. SO I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH FOR BALANCING THE GENERAL FUND. AS ALL THE DEPARTMENTS SUBMITTED THEIR PROPOSED BUDGETS. WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE SALARY PROJECTIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT FINANCE PROJECTS AND PUTS IN THERE THAT A LOT OF DEPARTMENTS DON'T HAVE MUCH CONTROL OVER THE SALARY PROJECTIONS BEING ONE OF THEM. BUT ALSO, I CRAMP. THAT'S OUR INSURANCE PROVIDER. THE COST ALLOCATION TRANSFER. SO WE PUT ALL THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER.

WHEN WE ROLLED IT ALL UP, WE STILL HAD TOO MUCH IN COSTS. OFTEN AT THAT POINT WE HAVE ABOUT 5 MILLION IN EXTRA COSTS. THIS YEAR WE WERE MUCH CLOSER TO ABOUT 2 MILLION IN EXTRA COSTS THAT WE NEEDED TO TRIM DOWN TO BE ABLE TO GET IT TO A BALANCED BUDGET. SO WHAT THAT SHOWED ME IS ALL THE DEPARTMENTS REALLY WORKED VERY HARD TO PREPARE VERY TIGHT BUDGETS. A LOT OF DEPARTMENTS, YOU SAW DECREASED COSTS IN MANY AREAS. SO TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE COULD AFFORD THE PERSONNEL CHANGES THAT WE WERE PROPOSING WITH THOSE SALARY PROJECTIONS THAT WE BROUGHT IN, THE BIG CHANGE WE SAW FROM WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROJECTED TO WHAT WE CAME OUT WITH, IS RIGHT IN THAT WINDOW. FROM MARCH TO APRIL, WE HAD A LOT OF NEW HIRES THAT WERE IN THE SYSTEM BUT DIDN'T HAVE BENEFITS ADDED YET, SO THEY HADN'T MADE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE SELECTIONS AND MADE ALL THEIR SELECTIONS OF WHAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE CONTRIBUTING. AND SO A LOT OF THOSE COME IN AT 30,000. IF YOU'RE ON THE MORE EXPENSIVE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN TO THE CITY, THAT'S A 30,000 IMPACT TO THAT DEPARTMENT PER PERSON, DEPENDING ON WHAT PLAN THEY TAKE OR UP TO THAT AMOUNT, IF THEY'RE SINGLE OR FAMILY, OR THE MORE EXPENSIVE ONES, IT CAN BE ABOUT A $30,000 SHIFT. YEAH. DO WE DO WE BUDGET THAT? DO WE ASK THE DIRECTORS TO BUDGET THAT BASED ON WHAT THE FAMILY HAD DONE THE YEAR BEFORE, OR THE EMPLOYEE HAD DONE THE YEAR BEFORE ON THOSE BENEFIT COSTS? OR DO WE JUST ASSUME EVERY. AND THEN WITH NEW HIRES, WE ASSUME THE WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT. SO? YEAH, FOR EXISTING EMPLOYEES, WE ASSUME THE SAME. AND THEN FOR NEW EMPLOYEES, WE ASSUME THE MOST EXPENSIVE OPTION, NOT THE WORST CASE SCENARIO HAVING A FAMILY. BUT YEAH, THE MOST EXPENSIVE. AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE MANY JUST POSITION CHANGES. THAT'S FROM TURNOVER PROMOTIONS, RESTRUCTURES OF DIFFERENT DIVISIONS THAT THAT HAPPENS AS WELL. WHEN WE BELIEVE WE DON'T ALWAYS REPLACE WITH THE EXACT SAME POSITION. AND THEN THIS ALSO INCLUDES ALL OF THE SEASONAL EMPLOYEES, THE OVERTIME, THE CASUAL EMPLOYEES, AND THEN THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE AS WELL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THE TERM CASUAL EMPLOYEE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. A YEAR AND A HALF OR LESS UNDER 20 HOURS. OKAY. AND THEY MIGHT BE SEASONAL, BUT THEY MIGHT BE ALL YEAR ROUND. BUT UNDER THEY CHOOSE NOT TO WORK MORE THAN 20 HOURS. VERY CASUAL EMPLOYMENT. SO ONCE WE ROLLED ALL OF THE NUMBERS UP TOGETHER, OUR GENERAL FUND STILL HAD A LITTLE OVER 2 MILLION THAT WE NEEDED TO CUT TO GET IT BALANCED. AND SO WE WENT TO IS EVERY DEPARTMENT THAT HAD MORE THAN A 2.5% INCREASE IN THEIR OPERATIONAL BUDGETS, WE ASKED TO CUT TO GET US DOWN UNDER THAT AMOUNT. AND THEN EVEN WITH THAT MAYOR ALLOWED US TO INCLUDE THE GROWTH, THE 750,000 OF THE GROWTH, PARTLY TO COVER

[01:30:04]

AND THEN THIS IS THEIR FULL EXPENDITURES, NOT INCLUDING THE OFFSETS THAT WE HAVE FOR COST ALLOCATION OR INTER-DEPARTMENTAL TRANSFERS FOR THINGS LIKE THE AIRPORT PAYING FOR POLICE OR OUR FIRE AND EMS INTERFUND TRANSFERS THAT WE HAVE FOR DISPATCH. SO THOSE TYPES OF AGREED UPON TRANSFERS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN HERE. SO IT'S SHOWING WHAT IS THAT TOTAL COST OF EACH OF THESE DEPARTMENTS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE MOST DEPARTMENTS WE HAVE A PRETTY STEADY INCREASE. YOU SEE THE LAST TWO YEARS ON EACH OF THESE HAS HASHES. THOSE ARE BUDGETED NUMBERS NOT ACTUAL NUMBERS. SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HASHED AND ALSO WHY THEY'RE OFTEN HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. BECAUSE OUR BUDGET, WE USUALLY DON'T SPEND THE FULL BUDGET BECAUSE IT INCLUDES CAPITAL COSTS. IT INCLUDES GRANTS. IT INCLUDES ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE A LOT OF TIMING ISSUES, THE NATURE OF THAT TYPE OF EXPENSE. AND WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS HARD TO SEE. SO THAT'S YOUR FIRST PAGE ON THIS SECOND HANDOUT HERE. TELL ME ABOUT NON-DEPARTMENTAL THOUGH. THINGS LIKE WE WERE ADDING THINGS THAT WENT DOWN.

SO NON-DEPARTMENTAL HAS THE ERP PROJECT IN IT. THAT'S THE BIG CHUNK THERE. AND THEN WITH THIS NEW FISCAL YEAR, IT DOES HAVE THE INCREASE OF WE'VE MOVED GIFTS AND THE PARKING. IT ALWAYS PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK US WHY CITY COUNCIL NEEDED $2 MILLION. YEAH. SO YEAH, THERE IS PART OF THE HANDOUT IS THE EXPENDITURE HISTORY BY DEPARTMENT. DID YOU GO THROUGH PHASES? I GOT ALL THREE IN THERE. YEAH. SO IT'S THE EXPENDITURES. AND THEN THE NEXT PAGE IS HOW MUCH OF THAT IS PAID FOR BY THOSE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS OF THE GENERAL FUND. SO THAT IT'S THE ONE THAT HAS 63 MILLION ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED BUDGET. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS A PERCENT. SO IT'S NOT WHAT PERCENT IS COVERED BY PROPERTY TAXES AND STATE REVENUES. IT'S WHAT PERCENT OF THE WHOLE OF THE GENERAL FUND. EACH OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS. OKAY. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON KIND OF THAT HISTORY BY DEPARTMENT. I KNOW THE HISTORY, BUT THE QUESTION ABOUT THE 3% AND 8% CAP, ARE WE UP AGAINST ANY OF THAT? NO, NO, NOT FOR THIS YEAR. SO WITH ALL OF THAT SAID, WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE STILL UNOBLIGATED AS FAR AS OUR REVENUE SOURCES GO, IS 300,000 LEFT OF THE BROKEN ANNEXATION EXPECTED. AGAIN, THOSE NUMBERS AREN'T FINAL UNTIL AFTER WE KIND OF ADOPT THE BUDGET, BUT WE'RE PRETTY CONFIDENT IN THE THAT WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST 1,000,050. SO THAT GIVES US 300,000 AVAILABLE FOR ADDITIONAL ONGOING ASKS. WE HAVE THE OPTION OF 1% FOREGONE. THAT'S 535,000. AND THEN WE HAVE THE COP POLICE COMPLEX ACCESS FUNDING OF 680,000. THAT IS A ONE TIME SOURCE THAT DOESN'T ADD TO OUR PROPERTY TAX BASE. AND THEN THE LAST THE LAST ITEM IS THE 3% FOR CAPITAL FOREGONE MONEY. THAT IS ONE THAT WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING BECAUSE IF WE USE IT, IT IS THEN GONE AND IT NEVER COMES INTO OUR BASE. SO IF WE CAN USE UP TO 3% IN CAPITAL FOREGONE, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 1,000,006 AVAILABLE FOR ONE TIME ACCESS, SO CAPITAL FOREGONE, IT ONLY GETS USED TO BUILD THE CAPITAL. AND THEN ONCE THE CAPITAL IS PAID OFF, IT DOESN'T IT DIDN'T IT DOESN'T ACT IN PERPETUITY. LIKE. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE ALSO HAVE A REQUEST. WHAT DO WE HAVE IN FOREGONE? WE HAVE A LITTLE OVER 5 MILLION. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT OVER 5 MILLION I. KIND OF IRRELEVANT NOW. RIGHT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET TO IT. WE CAN USE THE 1% EACH YEAR. SO WE WOULD HAVE IT FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS OR SO IF WE JUST TOOK THE 1%. BUT

[01:35:03]

YEAH. BUT AND IT'S INVESTED WITH OUR INVESTMENT POLICY. SO WE'RE EARNING SOME MONEY ON THIS. MONEY IS JUST NOT IT'S IN THEORY. SO IT'S. YEAH. SO IN PAST YEARS WE HAVEN'T TAKEN THE FULL 3% STATUTORY ALLOWABLE THAT ANY AMOUNT BELOW THAT 3% STATUTORY ALLOWABLE WOULD BE GOING INTO THAT FOREGONE. IT'S NOT MONEY THAT HAS BEEN LEVIED, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LEVY IN THE FUTURE. RIGHT. SO THERE'S NOT A POT OF MONEY SITTING ANYWHERE OTHER THAN IN OUR CITIZEN SPACE. OKAY. SO WE'VE HANDED OUT A LISTING OF ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS. CORRECT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT. TIME TO TAKE A BREAK. YES. BECAUSE THEN I THINK WE GET IN KIND OF THAT BROAD OVERVIEW. AND THEN AS WE GET BACK, I'M GOING TO KIND OF BEGIN TO FRAME A LITTLE BIT OF THAT CONVERSATION. AND LET'S JUST TAKE. LET'S START BACK UP AT QUARTER TWO, IF THAT'S OKAY. AND THEN WE CAN KIND OF KEEP SHORTLY. I'M SURE I SAW YOUR.

OKAY AS WE THERE'S A FEW THINGS I JUST WANT TO FRAME UP AS WE MOVE INTO THIS INTO THIS NEXT PART. BECAUSE I KNOW IN YEARS PAST, THIS WAS KIND OF LIKE THE CULMINATION PAGE AND WE'RE, WE'RE NOT THERE YET. BUT, BUT WE HAVE DONE A FEW THINGS. OBVIOUSLY, MY FIRST YEAR AS MAYOR, ONE STEP THAT I WANTED TO KIND OF RECTIFY IN THE BUDGET PROCESS IS THAT IN YEARS PAST, AFTER THE DEPARTMENTS HAD MADE THEIR CUTS SOME OF THE FIRST TIME, JUST BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF WHEN THE BUDGET COMES OUT, SOME OF THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY WOULD GET TO SEE WHAT THEIR BUDGETS LOOKED LIKE IS WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. SO ONE THING THAT I HAD OFFERED THEM WAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO THEN PLACE WHATEVER CUTS THEY'D MADE BACK ON TO THE REQUEST LIST, SO THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY KIND OF GET A SENSE, SEE WHAT THEY HAD GIVEN UP, SEE WHAT THEY HAD GIVEN UP. IN MOST CASES, ACTUALLY. OTHER OTHER ITEMS BECAME THE PRIORITY.

ALSO, KNOWING THAT THERE ARE ALWAYS MANY MORE REQUESTS THAN FUNDS AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE DIRECTORS DID HAVE A CHANCE LAST THURSDAY TO SIT AND LOOK AT WHAT WAS AVAILABLE AND WHAT THEIR REQUESTS WERE. I HAD ALREADY ASKED THEM TO PRIORITIZE THEIR LIST SO THAT THEY HAVE THEIR THEIR LISTING IN PRIORITIES. IT WAS ALWAYS DIFFICULT FOR ME AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TO TO WONDER WHAT WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE? SO IN NO WAY. HAVE WE SET THIS BUDGET FOR YOU.

WE ARE COMING FORWARD WITH. HERE'S WHAT THEY HAVE SAID THEIR PRIORITIES ARE. AND BEFORE THE NEXT. BUDGET TUESDAY BEFORE WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BUDGET TUESDAY, THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT AS. AS YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THEIR PRIORITIES, WE DID NOT DISCUSS OR DEBATE WHY THAT WAS AT THE TOP OF THEIR LIST. WE DID NOT DEBATE ANY OF THE RAMIFICATIONS. WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FINANCIAL RAMIFICATIONS, BUT WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT OTHER RAMIFICATIONS, YOU KNOW, SOCIALLY OR POLITICALLY, WHAT SOME OF THOSE RAMIFICATIONS WOULD BE. WE JUST ASKED THEM TO PRIORITIZE. AND SO AS, AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE WE AND WE HAVEN'T TAKEN ANYTHING OFF. SO YOU CAN ALSO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OH, HERE'S THE PRIORITY. BUT THIS ISN'T KIND OF WHERE WE WERE HEADED AS A COUNCIL. THIS IS 100% COUNCIL'S BUDGET. OTHER THAN THE TRAFFIC. SAYING THAT, THAT ONE JUST HAS TO COME BACK INTO COME INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE FIRST TIME LEGALLY. SO AS AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS, I'M GOING TO HAVE BROOKS RUNNING. WE'RE GOING TO START BY DISCUSSING WHERE THE DIRECTORS LANDED WITH THEIR PRIORITIES. AND THEN ALL OF THE OTHER REQUESTS ARE STILL ON THE LIST.

AND SOME OF THESE AS, AS YOU TALK TO IN YOUR LIAISONS OR AS YOU SET UP MEETINGS WITH THE

[01:40:06]

AND THEN TO THE RIGHT OF THAT IS THE TYPES OF COSTS THEY ARE, WHETHER IT'S ONGOING OR ONE TIME DIVIDED BY PERSONNEL, OTHER AND CAPITAL OR EQUIPMENT TO GET YOU TO YOUR TOTAL ANTICIPATED UNFUNDED COSTS THAT ARE ON THE FAR RIGHT. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ONE PAGER, IT IS JUST THE PRIORITIZED LIST, THE EIGHT PAGER, THAT'S EVERYTHING UNDER THE SUN. IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT DIDN'T MAKE THE CUT FOR THIS YEAR OF REQUEST, AND EVEN EVEN IN THE PRIORITIZED LIST. THERE'S MORE IN THE PRIORITIZED LIST THAN THERE ARE FUNDS. SO IT DOESN'T DOESN'T EQUAL OUT. I MEAN, THERE'S LOTS OF DECISIONS TO BE MADE. LIKE I SAID, WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T DEBATE THESE PHILOSOPHICALLY. THEY JUST PICKED THEIR TOP PRIORITIES.

AND WITH THE FUNDING AVAILABLE, IF WE'RE INCLUDING THE 300 000 IN GROWTH, THAT'S REMAINING THE 1% FOREGONE OF 535 000 AND THE ONE TIME COPY DEBT EXCESS FUNDING OF 680,000. THAT'S A MILLION 515 IN FUNDING AVAILABLE. ALL OF THOSE PRIORITIZED COSTS TOTAL UP TO 1.725. SO WE'RE ABOUT 210 SHORT WITH THAT PRIORITIZED LIST. BUT BUT JUST FOUNDATIONALLY WE HAVE TO AGREE TO 100%, 1% FOREGONE. THAT IS ONLY WITH WITH. YEAH. OTHERWISE, OTHERWISE WE'RE 750 300,000. IT'S 300,000 PLUS THE COPY. YEAH. YES. PLUS, WOULD YOU LIKE US TO BE LOOKING AT THIS FOR THE 3% FOREGONE, LIKE THE CAPITAL OF TRAINING FACILITY? SO YOU COULD TAKE THOSE OUT TO GET TO SOME NUMBERS AS WELL, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES. OKAY. SO AND AND TO THIS POINT, THE ONE THING THAT I DID SAY IS FIRST, THE REASON TO PUT MORE OF THAT GROWTH AND

[01:45:06]

WE WOULD NOT GOING TO ELIMINATE THAT. THAT WAS BUILT INTO THE ASSUMPTION. AND SO, YOU KNOW THAT IT'S LIKE, HERE WE ARE MOVING FORWARD. EVERYBODY'S AT A 2.5% INCREASE IN THEIR DEPARTMENT. THEY'VE ALREADY MADE CUTS, BUT THE ONLY OTHER PLACE TO START CUTTING WOULD BE PERSONNEL. SO THE CONVERSATION, I THINK, I THINK FOR YOUR SAKE, BRANDON, JUST COMING IN IS THAT OVER THE YEARS, AS WE WOULD LOOK AT TRYING TO FIND THINGS THROUGH PERSONNEL COSTS, WE WOULD GET BEHIND AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO CATCH UP AT SOME POINT IN A STUDY. AND THEN SO WE'VE JUST KIND OF DETERMINED AS A COUNCIL THAT IF WE DON'T STAY UP AT 2 OR 3%, THAT THEN WE'RE GOING TO FALL BEHIND BECAUSE WAGE GROWTH WAS 20% OVER TWO YEARS. SOMETIMES AT SOME POINT SINCE LAST FEW YEARS. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY SHE'S SAYING SHE KIND OF ASSUMED THAT THIS COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO. WELL, AND WE HAD ALREADY MADE THAT ASSUMPTION EARLY ON TO DO 2%. SO WHEN WE ACTUALLY SAW THE NUMBERS COME IN SO MUCH HIGHER THAN EVEN WHAT THE ORIGINAL ASSUMPTION WAS, WHEN COUNCIL MET IN OUR PRIORITY MEETING, IT WAS LIKE, OH, THERE IS, THERE ISN'T. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND SAY, NO, JUST 1%. RIGHT? THAT WAS WE'D ALREADY MADE THAT ASSUMPTION. AND SO THAT'S WHAT CARRIED INTO GROWTH AND ANNEXATION. SO I GUESS THIS COUNCIL WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 1% FIRST. 1%, THE 1% FOREGONE. FOREGONE.

YES. THAT'S A FOREGONE CONCLUSION THAT WE'RE GOING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. THE 3%.

NO. WELL, BUT WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE IF IF IF I HAVE TO, MAYBE, WELL, IF THERE'S ACTUAL CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, I THINK WE'VE LOOKED AT PORTLAND FOR THAT. SO SOMETHING ABOUT LIKE, LIKE THE STORAGE BUILDING THAT WE TOOK OUT OF THE BUDGET THAT DIDN'T GET BUILT. RIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK THAT IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION FUNDS THAT WOULD QUALIFY ONLY EQUATES TO $278,000. SO THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. BUT YOU CAN TAKE ANY PERCENTAGE OF THE 3%, RIGHT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ALL THREE. WHERE DO YOU WHERE DO YOU OH. FROM THE FROM THE ESTIMATED COST. THAT'S BECAUSE YEAH, BECAUSE THIS ONE THERE'S SIX POINT. BUT YOU CAN DO BOTH. RIGHT. LIKE THE TRADING STATION.

YEAH. THERE'S 6.3 MILLION. YES. FOR ALL OF THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER. CORRECT. CORRECT. AND WE DID HAVE THE DISCUSSION WITH THE DIRECTORS THAT IT WOULD BE THEIR THEIR PREFERENCE TO KEEP IT IN ONE TIME, I MEAN, NOT ONE TIME IN FOREGONE SO THAT IT ADDS TO THE BASE EVERY YEAR. OBVIOUSLY, RECOGNIZING IT'S THE COUNCIL'S DECISION. BUT THAT WAS THE GENERAL CONSENSUS THERE IS IF IF WE CAN, LET'S JUST KEEP CHIPPING AWAY AT IT. YEAH, WE'RE ADDING IT TO THE BASE BECAUSE I HAVE THE CONCERN THAT THE STATE WILL JUST TAKE. THAT WAS TO SAY SO. YEAH. WHAT DO WE THINK THE RISK. I MEAN, WE TALK ABOUT THIS EVERY YEAR AND THERE'S TYPICALLY A BILL THAT COMES FORWARD. WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU ELIMINATE I DON'T RECALL I DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING. THEY WORKED ON TRYING TO IMPROVE THE 389 AND BASICALLY THEY COULDN'T PULL ANYTHING OFF EXCEPT FOR FIRE DISTRICTS. I THINK GOT A BREAK SOMEHOW, BUT IT DIDN'T HELP THE CITY'S. SO THAT'S STILL SOMETHING ASSOCIATION OF IDAHO CITIES IS BLOCKING OR REFORM. 389 WHICH WOULD HELP US. WE DON'T HAVE AN IMMINENT THREAT OF THEM COMING. THEY DON'T WE DON'T HAVE AN IMMINENT THREAT FACING US AS FAR AS THEM COMING AFTER ELIMINATING FOREGONE. I THINK THERE WAS A DISCUSSION A YEAR AGO, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING THIS YEAR. SO WE CAN'T TAKE YOU KNOW, WE DON'T OBVIOUSLY HAVE A FORMAL VOTE, BUT THE CONSENSUS IS GROWTH, ANNEXATION, THE REMAINING, THE 1% FOREGONE AND THE COPXS. NOT WE'RE STILL 700,000. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I WAS THINKING WE COULD GO THROUGH THE PRIORITIZED REQUESTS AND THEN DIVE INTO THE ADDITIONAL ONES. IF YOU'RE WANTING TO SEE MORE BEYOND JUST THE PRIORITIZED FROM THE DEPARTMENTS. THE FIRST ONE IS AN ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS GIFT. SO IT'S A 5% INCREASE ON WHAT WE'VE DONE HISTORICALLY IS AT THE 410 000 A YEAR. SO THEY'RE WANTING TO GET ANOTHER 2000 TOWARDS THEIR OPERATIONS JUST

[01:50:05]

[Legal, Police, City Clerk, CDS, Fire (Part 2 of 2)]

AND THE BASIC IDEA WAS AT THAT TIME, I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING DISMAL, LIKE ON AVERAGE, PUBLIC DEFENDERS WERE SPENDING EIGHT MINUTES PER CASE. IT WAS NOT COMPETENT REPRESENTATION. SO IN RESPONSE TO THAT, THEY SETTLED WITH THE ACLU. AND PART OF THAT SETTLEMENT IS THEY MADE IT A STATE RUN SYSTEM INSTEAD OF COUNTY, AND THEY GAVE A LOT MORE CASH TO THE SYSTEM. I WAS TALKING WITH MY STAFF TODAY WHEN I GOT HERE ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO, THEY HAD THREE ATTORNEYS THAT WERE AT THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE THAT WERE MAINLY DEDICATED TO MISDEMEANORS, WHICH IS WHAT MY OFFICE PROSECUTES. CURRENTLY THEY HAVE FIVE ATTORNEYS, SO THEY'VE INCREASED IT IN THE LAST TWO YEARS BY FROM 3 TO 5 THAT ARE DEDICATED TO TO MISDEMEANORS, WHICH IS GREAT. PEOPLE ARE GETTING THEIR REPRESENTATION, BETTER REPRESENTATION. BUT WHAT IT HAS MEANT IS OUR OFFICE IS SOMEWHAT OUTGUNNED AT THIS POINT. IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT WHEN THEY CAN SAY, YEAH, WE'LL GO TO TRIAL. WE'VE GOT THE MANPOWER TO DO THAT. WHILE MY OFFICE, WE'RE STILL LIMITED. WE HAVE FOUR ATTORNEYS, BUT WE'RE DOING CIVIL AND CRIMINAL. WE ROUGHLY OUR TIME IS SPLIT ABOUT HALF AND HALF. SO IT'S ABOUT TWO PEOPLE THAT WE'VE GOT EQUIVALENT DOING PROSECUTION. THE IDEA IS WE HAVE OVER 100 OFFICERS OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, INVESTIGATING CRIMES. AND GRANTED, A LOT OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, GO TO GO TO OUR FELONIES, BUT A GOOD PERCENTAGE ARE MISDEMEANORS. AND IT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN. THIS HAS NOT HAPPENED. MY OFFICE, WE'VE BEEN GAINING MOMENTUM. WE'VE BEEN GOING TO TRIAL. BUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN IS JUST BECAUSE OF THE PRESSURE OF BEING OUTGUNNED, THAT WE'RE MAKING PLEA DEALS THAT ARE LESS THAN OPTIMAL.

RIGHT. AND THEN OUR POLICE OFFICERS FEEL DISCOURAGED BECAUSE THEY WATCH THESE CASES THAT THEY'RE INVESTIGATING, RIGHT? THEY GET DISCOURAGED AND THEY'RE LIKE, OH, OKAY, IT'S NOT REALLY WORTH MY TIME TO INVESTIGATE VERY THOROUGHLY. THEY DO A WORSE JOB. THESE ARE DISCOURAGED BASED ON WHAT MY OFFICE IS DOING. AND THEN IT KIND OF CREATES THIS BAD CYCLE, AND IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR MY OFFICE TO PROSECUTE. THAT'S ALSO MY MEMORY THAT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE HAD LESS POLICE, AND WE WENT FROM A CERTAIN NUMBER OF. DOLLARS THAT WE WERE PROSECUTING, AND THAT REDUCED ENOUGH THAT RANDY, AT SOME POINT CUT ONE OF THE ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS OR DIDN'T REPLACE ONE. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. YEAH. WELL, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IF THE REASON. I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT REASONS AS TO WHY, BUT IN 2014, OUR OFFICE HAD FOUR ATTORNEYS. WE'RE STILL AT FOUR ATTORNEYS, AND THE POPULATION HAS INCREASED, I DON'T KNOW, 20% SINCE THEN. AND, YOU KNOW, POPULATION DRIVES BOTH CRIMINAL CASES. THIS IS MORE PEOPLE. YOU HAVE MORE CASES, YOU HAVE CRIMINAL CASES, AS WELL AS THE CIVIL WORKLOAD THAT OUR OFFICE HAS. YOU JUST HAVE MORE ISSUES COMING UP WHEN THAT HAPPENS. OUR OFFICE, IN THE LAST 12 YEARS, WE'VE NOT HAD AN INCREASE. WE DID HAVE A TIME LIKE DURING COVID, WHERE WE WENT DOWN TO THREE ATTORNEYS, BUT WE WEREN'T GOING TO TRIAL BECAUSE THE COURTS WOULDN'T LET US GO TO TRIAL. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE GOOD PART OF THE REASON FOR THE ASK THERE. AND IN ADDITION, WE'VE LOST A LOT OF EXPERIENCE. WE HAD MIKE KIRKHAM, WHO PREVIOUSLY HAD TEN YEARS EXPERIENCE. OUR OFFICE IS COMING UP TO SPEED, BUT WE'RE NOT AS FAST AS MIKE WAS BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE STILL LEARNING WHAT HE KNEW. THAT'S NOT THE FAULT OF ANYBODY IN MY OFFICE OR JUST ON THE CIVIL SIDE. ON THE CIVIL SIDE. CORRECT. ON THE CRIMINAL SIDE. THE CRIMINAL SIDE. YEAH, YEAH. WE'RE WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT THERE. IT'S ON ON THE CIVIL SIDE, WE'RE STILL

[01:55:03]

YES. THAT WOULD THAT WAS OUR DIRECTORS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WAS OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY. THIS IS THE SECOND ONE. THE REASON WHY THIS IS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN ADDING NEW POLICE OFFICERS IS BECAUSE. WE'VE LOST QUITE A FEW EXPERIENCED OFFICERS TO OTHER AGENCIES. IN THE LAST YEAR. WE LOST ONE TO TO NAMPA, ONE TO THE STATE, ONE TO BONNEVILLE COUNTY, AND THE COST OF OF BACKFILLING FOR THEM AND RETRAINING THEM. THE COST IS SIGNIFICANT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO, TO DO IS NOT BECOME A TRAINING GROUND FOR OTHER AGENCIES WHERE WE GET PEOPLE TRAINED AND VERY DEPLOYABLE, VERY WORKABLE, AND THEN THEY GO TAKE THOSE SKILLS SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO IT'S VERY STRATEGIC TO THAT, THAT MAKE

[02:00:02]

IF I PRESENTED YOU STEP TWO, WHICH MAYBE I DO NEXT YEAR, MAYBE NOT. BUT SEE WHERE YOU GUYS ARE AT. STEP USE AN ADDITIONAL $185,000. AND IF MORE GOES TO THAT ENTRY LEVEL, AND THEN STEP THREE WOULD BE MORE MONEY. AND AGAIN, GOES MORE TO THE TOP LEVEL AS WELL.

BUT THIS WAS THE MOST. CONSERVATIVE LOWEST COST, TRYING TO GET THE MOST BANG OUT OF LUCK THAT WE COULD OUT OF IT. OKAY, SO THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE SECOND PRIORITY, THE FIRST PRIORITY. AND I'M JUST GOING TO LET THE CHIEF TAKE US THROUGH A FEW OF THESE. THEY'RE FIRST PRIORITY COMES IN THE FORM OF SOFTWARE. SO THIS IS THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. AND THIS COMES UNDER POLICE BUT ALSO TOUCHES FIRE JUST TO A SMALL AMOUNT, BECAUSE THIS IS THE DISPATCHING SOFTWARE THAT DISPATCHES EVERYBODY. AND THEN IT'S ALSO THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE WHERE WE DO KEEP ALL OF OUR CASES AND OUR AND OUR CALLS. SO IT'S BEEN ABOUT A DECADE. WE HAVE A COMBINED RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. WE'RE ATTACHED TO THE HIPAA, BONNEVILLE COUNTY. THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT TO THAT. AND THERE IS SOME I'M GOING TO CALL IT A DOWNSIDE. THE DOWNSIDE IS BONNEVILLE COUNTY IS MOVING ON THIS. AND SO WHETHER I PRESENT THIS, WE DON'T HAVE AN OPTION, BUT NOT TO DO IT. IT KIND OF FEELS THAT WAY. IF WE WEREN'T ATTACHED TO BONNEVILLE COUNTY, WE WOULDN'T BE FORCED TO TO MOVE RIGHT NOW, HOWEVER, THAT ATTACHMENT TO MONROE COUNTY SAVES US, HAS SAVED US, WILL CONTINUE TO SAVE US A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. SO ABOUT 8 OR 9 YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A IT WASN'T A PLAN.

IT WAS A NEED TO MOVE TO THE THE WHAT THEY CALL THE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM FOR OUR RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. IT'S BEEN PUT OFF FOR, FOR MANY YEARS. THIS YEAR, BONNEVILLE COUNTY DECIDED TO TAKE A HARD RUN. THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WAS ABLE TO GET THE FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY. SO THEY MOVED THIS YEAR AND LET US KNOW THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO TO THAT ENTERPRISE SYSTEM THIS YEAR. WHAT THAT DOES IS IT CREATES A LOT OF EFFICIENCIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT. IT CREATES EFFICIENCIES FOR OUR OUR CASEWORK. IT CREATES A BETTER DISPATCHING FOR FOR EVERYONE IN THE FIELD. THE COUNTY HAS A BIGGER PART OF IT. THEY ALSO RUN THE JAILS OUT OF IT AND THE COURT SYSTEM, A LOT OF OTHER STUFF THAT'S NOT PROPORTIONATE THAT WE WOULD HELP YOU PAY FOR. BUT IT'S AN ENTIRE SYSTEM. SO AS THAT GETS UPGRADED, THE COSTS THAT GETS ASSOCIATED WITH THE IDAHO FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ABOUT, 100 OR 237.

IS OUR PROPORTION OF $237,000. WE HAVE BEEN PAYING A LOT LESS THAN THAT FOR OUR RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. IT'S UNDER 50,000. WE HAVE BEEN PAYING TO PUT INTO CONTEXT, THOUGH, WE LOOKED SEVERAL YEARS ABOUT JUST GOING OUT ON OUR OWN AND DOING OUR OWN RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, AND THE COST FOR US TO GO ON OUR OWN WOULD BE ABOUT $1.2 MILLION. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE HAD THE ARPA REQUEST FOR FIVE YEARS AGO. THAT WAS A RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THAT TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT $1 MILLION. SO IF WE DON'T GO WITH THE COUNTY, IF WE DON'T DO THIS, WE WILL HAVE TO DO IT ON OUR OWN, AND THAT WILL COST NORTH OF $1 MILLION TO TO DUPLICATE WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THE 200 000 PLUS WITH THE COUNTY. SO THERE'S A LOT OF SAVINGS TO

[02:05:05]

IT MOVES EVERYTHING TO THIS ENTERPRISE SYSTEM. BUT WHERE CHIEF HAS ALREADY GOT $45,000 A YEAR ALREADY IN THE BUDGET FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM, THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT 192 IN THE REALITY IS THE TWO OF THOSE TOGETHER, THE 83 AND THE 192. YES. YOU GOT TO SUBTRACT.

CORRECT. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE BOTH OF THEM TO WORK. SO WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH THE ONGOING YOU GOT ONGOING OPERATIONAL AND ONE TIME AND THIS SOFTWARE CAME OUT OF A LITTLE BLUE. BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. SO THE TOTAL SYSTEM COST QUITE A BIT MORE THAN THAT. IT'S CLOSER TO $1 MILLION. THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS PAYING MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE PAYING INTO IT, BECAUSE THEY ARE PAYING WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR THOSE SAME OPERATIONS WORKING, BUT THEY WILL ALSO PAY FOR THE JAIL MODULE AND SOME OTHER STUFF. THE COUNTY'S E-911 FUND WILL BE PAYING 100 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS TO THIS. THIS IS ONE CONTRACT WE'RE SUBCONTRACTING FROM THE COUNTY, SO THE ACTUAL COST IS MUCH HIGHER. THIS IS OUR PORTION OF IT. THE COUNTY'S PICKED UP A CHUNK OF IT ALSO.

SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS A VERY SMALL ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT USING THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT PORTION OF IT. I THINK IT'S ABOUT 20,000 REQUIRE 20 30,000 FIRE SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE FOR THEIR PORTION OF THE DISPATCHING PART OF IT. YEAH, KIND OF A PROCESS QUESTION. LET'S LOOK AT THAT 192 NUMBER. SO NEXT YEAR, IF THIS WAS FUNDED NEXT YEAR, WOULD THAT FLOW OVER INTO THE ALREADY FUNDED PART OF THIS? IT WOULD ALREADY IT WOULDN'T SHOW UP IN THE SPREADSHEET AT ALL. IT WOULD BE IN THEIR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUDGET. OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S ONGOING. SO THAT WOULD JUST AUTOMATICALLY BE IN THEIR BUDGET AND, AND TAKE THE REGULAR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, 2.5% INCREASE OR WHATEVER THE SOFTWARE INCREASE WOULD BE. IT WOULD ANYTHING THAT'S ONGOING MOVES OVER INTO THAT DEPARTMENT BUDGET. OKAY. IT'S ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT THAT WE'RE SHARK. THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE. OKAY. AND THEN CHIEF HAS TWO MORE ITEMS ON HERE. SO ONE IS THE DISPATCH POSITION, A FREE CALL EVERY YEAR. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ADDING A DISPATCHER. THERE'S BEEN A FIVE YEAR PLAN. WE JUST HAVEN'T BROUGHT THOSE POSITIONS FORWARD. WHEN WE DID THE CHALLENGE OF ACTUALLY FILLING THE POSITIONS, WE DON'T WANT TO BRING A POSITION FORWARD. SAY WE'D LIKE YOU TO TO APPROVE THIS FUNDING, KNOWING THAT WE WOULD NEVER FILL IT. THAT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. WE HAVE MADE SOME REALLY GOOD PROGRESS IN GETTING THAT DISPATCH CENTER STAFFED. WE BELIEVE WE'RE AT THE AT THE TIME WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY FILL A POSITION. THERE'S AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN BONNEVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IDAHO FALLS FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHAT STAFFING LEVEL WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO. SO EVENTUALLY, WE WANT TO HAVE FIVE ADDITIONAL DISPATCHERS. WE'RE LOOKING AT JUST ONE THIS YEAR THAT IS COST SHARED BETWEEN THE BONNEVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO THE ENTIRE POSITION AND THE ENTIRE COST WOULD SHOW UP IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. BUT ABOUT 33% OF IT WOULD BE OFFSET BY ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ABOUT 13% FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO IS THAT THE 37, 400, 630,000 PART OF IT? IT'S THE 56 108. WELL, SORRY. OH, YEAH. THE FUNDING SOURCE, CORRECT? YES. ALL RIGHT. WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD DO, AND THAT WOULD BE A 911 DISPATCHER THAT WOULD WORK IN THE DISPATCH OFFICE. HOW MANY DO WE HAVE NOW? NO, THERE'S TOTAL STAFFING. THERE IS 30 RIGHT NOW. AND THAT NUMBER 30 HAS BEEN THE SAME FOR YOU'D LIKE TO GET TO 35. CORRECT. AT AT 35 IT WOULD BE LESS THE WAY THE WAY THE

[02:10:01]

THERE'S ONE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW WOULD BE A VERY LARGE SEIZURE, WHICH WOULD BE PROBABLY WHAT'S TYPICALLY JUST WE HAVE ONE THAT'S IN THE PROCESS OF THIS NEW LAW THAT WE DO OVER A 2 OR 3 YEAR. SO YOU'LL SEE A BIG ONE COMING UP SO IT CAN FLUCTUATE AND GO UP, BUT IT'S RELATIVELY STEADY. WE USED TO BE WE HAVE 180 000 IN THAT NARCOTICS SEIZURE FUNDS CURRENTLY. SO THAT'S A FEW YEARS WORTH OF HALF OF THAT POSITION. AND THEN THE OPIOID MONIES, WE'RE GETTING OVER 180,000 A YEAR RIGHT NOW FOR AT LEAST 15 MORE YEARS. YEAH. OKAY. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION IS BECAUSE THERE'S KIND OF A STIPULATED NUMBER OF YEARS BASED ON THE SETTLEMENT. TELL ME HOW MUCH WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN USING SEIZURE MONEY PREVIOUSLY SEIZURE MONEY. WE WE BOUGHT EQUIPMENT WITH IT. WE BOUGHT SOME CARS WITH IT. WE BOUGHT SOME OF OUR NARCOTICS CARS WE JUST PURCHASED. SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HIT MURPH ON IT.

WE BOUGHT CAMERAS THAT ARE SPECIALIZED FOR NARCOTICS. WE BOUGHT A. IT'S A LITTLE. IT'S A MACHINE THAT CAN TELL YOU WHAT KIND OF DRUGS YOU HAVE. WE SPENT IT MOSTLY ON EQUIPMENT BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE DIRECTLY RELATED TO NARCOTICS. IT'S GOVERNMENT OR THE ■COUNTY ATTORNEY ACTUALLY HAS SOME SAY IN WHERE THAT MONEY GOES. AND THERE'S A LIST OF WHAT IT CAN AND CAN'T GO TO. SO WE'RE VERY LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN SPEND ON. AND IT DOESN'T APPEAR HERE BECAUSE IT'S IT'S FUNDED. THERE'S NO HIT TO THE FUND. CORRECT. THERE'S NO GENERAL FUND REQUEST ON THIS. IT WOULD BE FUNDED BY THOSE TWO SOURCES. SO BOTH OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES HAVE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL. SO WE'D BE NEEDING TO MONITOR TO MAKE SURE THERE IS FUNDING AVAILABLE AS WELL AS WE HAVE TO REPORT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE REPORTING UNDER THE ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES FOR EACH OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES. HOW MUCH OF THAT ASSET FORFEITURE MONEY YOU SAID THERE WAS 185 000 IN IT CURRENTLY. AND HOW MUCH OF IT WOULD IT TAKE TO OFFSET WHAT WE GET FROM THE OPIOID? HE'S PROPOSING A 50%, 50, 50. SO ABOUT 5000 A

[02:15:09]

OKAY. IT WAS THE FRONT COVER. THE POLICE IN SINCE 21 TO NOW WHAT'S PROPOSED WILL BE 29. WE KNOW THAT THE BUDGET ALWAYS RUNS A LITTLE HIGHER THAN WHAT ACTUALLY COMES IN IS $9 MILLION, BUT THEIR DEPENDENCY ON THE GENERAL FUND IS NOT EVEN QUITE FOUR. SO IT IS THESE KIND OF IT'S THE SROS, IT'S THE GRANTS. IT'S OR OPIOID MONEY, MONEY, THE THE ICAC POSITION, THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS, THE THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE DISPATCHERS.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF. I'VE ALWAYS SAID WE DON'T MAKE MONEY AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT WE HAVE FOUND PARTNERSHIPS TO HELP PAY FOR A LOT OF THINGS. THIS IS A BETTER WAY TO SAY IT.

THEY HAVE FOUND A LOT OF PARTNERSHIPS OVER THE YEARS TO INCREASE THEIR. THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE EXPENDITURES. SO SO THEIR DEPENDENCY ON THE GENERAL FUND, ALTHOUGH IT IS OUR HIGHEST PERCENTAGE, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS HOVERING AROUND 35% OF THE ENTIRE GENERAL FUND IT.

THEIR DEPENDENCY ON IT IS NOT INCREASING YEAR OVER YEAR. IT'S IT'S ONE OF THOSE TRENDS THAT I DID NOT KNOW IN THE PAST. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU AS WELL. OKAY.

THANK YOU KEITH. THEN WE HAVE OUR OTHER CHIEF OLSON FROM FIRE TO COME. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU SEE THAT WE HAVE THE TWO TRAINING OFFICERS. KIND OF AS A PACKAGE DEAL THERE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE IDAHO FALLS FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS THE SMALLEST RATIO OF STAFF OFFICERS TO LINE PERSONNEL IN THE STATE. AND SO ONE OF OUR PRIORITIES IS TO TRY AND

[02:20:06]

MEET THE THE EXPECTATIONS TO BE CON THEMSELVES AND CLEAN THEMSELVES AFTER FIRES AND EXPOSURES IS AN ESSENTIAL PART AS WELL. AND SO THE FACILITY HAS TO BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE DEMANDS. AND SO IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST PUTTING A NEW SHOWER LIKE RETILING A NEW SHOWER OR, OR A NEW TOILET IN THERE. SO. WE IDENTIFIED THIS AS A QUALITY OF LIFE NEED FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS IN THE STATION. I ALWAYS FIND THAT, YOU KNOW, I SAW THE BATHROOM. IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE NEED A NEW BATHROOM IN CITY HALL TOO. THEN IT WAS ACTUALLY AS THE TWO CHIEFS WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, IT'S LIKE, OH YEAH, THIS IS THEIR LIKE, GET READY BATHROOM. THIS IS THEIR CLEAN OFF. THIS IS NOT JUST TO YOUR POINT, THIS ISN'T JUST UPGRADING THE TILE. SO ANYWAY, I, I APPRECIATE THAT TO HAVE SOME, A DESCRIPTION BEHIND THAT, SOME NARRATIVE BEHIND WHY TWO BATHROOMS? TWO, NOT JUST ONE. IT SHOULD BE FOR THE, FOR, FOR ALL THE BATHROOMS IN THERE. IS THAT ACCURATE FOR ITS STATION, FOR THE ENTIRETY OF STATION. FOR BATHROOM. YEAH. AND ONE ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE LIST BECAUSE WE'VE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET IS THE LEASE PAYMENTS FOR THE THREE ENGINES. THAT'S 601,000 COMING OUT OF MURPH. AND THEN IF WE CAN JUMP DOWN TO THE VERY BOTTOM, THE CAPITAL REQUESTS FOR FIRE. SO THE CONEX CONTAINERS, YOU KNOW, I FELT

[02:25:08]

IMPACT FEES. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, THE DEPARTMENT IS COMMITTED TO UTILIZING THE FUNDS TO TRY AND HELP GET US OVER THE FINISH LINE FOR THE FOR THE STUDY TO COME UP WITH A BUSINESS MODEL TO SUPPORT THE THE SUPPORT, THE ONGOING CARE, THE FACILITY. THIS WOULD BE MONIES SET ASIDE TO BEGINNING THE PROCESSES AND THE VALUE FOUND WITHIN THE STUDY. SO WHETHER THAT'S RUNNING WATER LINES. OR ELECTRICITY AND AND OR LAYING CONCRETE, I MEAN YOU NAME IT, CHIEF, I DO HAVE THAT PICTURE OF WHAT SOME OF THAT CONEX BOX. I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL CAN SEE THAT HERE, BUT WHAT THEY DO. OH, OKAY. WELL, THAT HELPS IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN WHY IT WAS A ELECTRONICS BOX IS A I, I CAN'T PULL A NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD ABOUT HOW MUCH HAS BEEN DEDICATED INTO THAT FACILITY SO FAR. BUT AGAIN, I AM NOT EXAGGERATING WHEN I SAY PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR FOR WHAT THEY'VE CREATED. AND WHILE IT'S FANTASTIC, IT'S HARDLY THE GOAL OF WHAT WE WANT TO TRY TO ACCOMPLISH. IT'S IT'S A GREAT RESOURCE. IT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD DEDICATE THAT MONEY TO THE CONEX CONTAINERS. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL MOVE WITH AND END UP LIVING WHEREVER WE DECIDE TO BUILD THE ACTUAL REGIONAL TRAINING FACILITY IN THE FUTURE. AND THE CONEX BOX STRUCTURE IS SOMETHING THAT MAYBE IMPACT THE ELIGIBLE, BUT WE ARE FULLY EXHAUSTED OF OUR FIRE IMPACT FEES. SO THERE AREN'T ANY LEFT RIGHT NOW. AND WE'RE NOT SEEING THOSE COLLECTIONS COMING IN. SO IT'S THAT'S WHY IT'S ON THIS AS AN ASK FROM THE GENERAL FUND FOR ONE TIME MONIES. THANK YOU, CHIEF AND COUNCIL, YOU WILL SEE THIS AS EACH DIRECTOR HAS PREPARED THEIR PRIORITIES THAT WILL COME FORWARD ON OUR BUDGET

[02:30:05]

[Finance Team, Mayor’s Office, Council, General Fund Departments (Part 2 of 2)]

AND THE NEW AND THE SLEEVES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE GROUND. AND SO FOR 74,000, THAT WOULD BE A COMPLETE RENOVATION OF THOSE. WE WOULD ALSO MAKE THOSE SO THAT WE CAN PULL THEM OUT, OUT OF THE WAY. AND SO THAT RIGHT NOW WE CAN'T THEY'RE BEAT DOWN INTO THE PIPES TO WHERE THEY CAN'T REALLY COME BACK OUT, EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM HAVE SOME SWAY TO THEM OR SOME WATER. SO SAFETY CONCERN THAT WE FEEL LIKE NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED OVER THE. SECOND THING IS NEW CUSTOM BLEACHERS AT THE ICE RINK. IF ANYONE HAS EVER BEEN TO THE ICE RINK TO WATCH A HOCKEY GAME OR TO WATCH A SKATING COMPETITION, YOU KNOW THAT OUR OUR CURRENT BLEACHERS ARE MADE OUT OF CHEESE GRATER. IT'S. THEY ARE KIND OF THE REALLY THE THE. FARTHEST PROBABLY FROM ADA ACCESSIBLE AND, AND USER FRIENDLY BLEACHERS THAT YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET. THEY WERE BUILT BY USER GROUPS ABOUT PROBABLY 15 YEARS AGO. GREAT GIFT TO THE, TO THE TO THE FACILITY, BUT THEY GO RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE BOARDS. THERE IS NO WAY FOR GRANDMAS AND GRANDPAS OR ANYBODY WITH ANY KIND OF DISABILITIES TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR WAY THROUGH THOSE. AND SO WE WOULD LOVE TO, TO BE ABLE TO BUILD UP SOME CUSTOM BLEACHERS THAT WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR SOME ADA ACCESS, MAYBE A LIFTED SECTION WHERE, WHERE FOLKS IN WHEELCHAIRS MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER VANTAGE POINT TO BE ABLE TO SEE ONTO THAT ICE AND BE ABLE TO BE BE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMFORTABLE IN THERE WHILE THEY'RE SPECTATING. THEY'RE REALLY BAD. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, YOU HAVE A SPACE ABOUT THIS BIG TO WALK BETWEEN THE BLEACHERS AND THE, AND THE BOARDS. I MEAN, YOU, IT'S YEAH, I'M SURPRISED PEOPLE DON'T FALL DOWN ALL THE TIME. YOU SEE LITTLE KIDS IN THERE ALL THE TIME TRIPPING OVER. AND I WAS JUST JOKING ABOUT THE, THE CHEESE GRATER THING. BUT IT IS, IT'S MADE OUT

[02:35:02]

AND FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, I KNOW MR. RICK WARREN, WHO IS WITH BUILDING MAINTENANCE, WHO IS RETIRED, HAS REBUILT IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER. AND AS CONTINUOUSLY SAID, YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO NEED A NEW DOOR. THESE PARTS AREN'T AVAILABLE ANYMORE. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIX THIS. WHEN WE HAVE KIND OF A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THE OF IT. SO SWITCHING THIS OVER THE 18000 WOULD ACTUALLY THAT BID ACTUALLY INCLUDES MAKING ADA COMPLIANT. SO THERE WILL BE AN AUTOMATIC OPENER ON THE OUTSIDE AND FOR BOTH DOORS INTO THE ENTRANCEWAY AND A COMPLETE NEW DOOR WITH UPDATED HARDWARE, I GUESS INCLUDED IN THAT. THOSE ARE OUR THREE REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. I DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT TWO. THERE'S ITEMS THAT WE HAVE FUNDED IN THE BUDGET FOR PARKS. THE WINTER AND SPRING ACTIVITY GUIDES ARE THINGS WE HAVEN'T DONE IN THE PAST. IN MEETING WITH THE DEPARTMENT, HEADS KIND OF CAME UP WITH A CREATIVE SOLUTION OF DOING SOME INTERNAL ADVERTISING AS WE SEND THOSE OUT WITH UTILITIES AND POWER AND FIBER AND AIRPORT POTENTIALLY TO FUND SOME OF THAT. THOSE ACTIVITY GUIDES A BUNCH OF PROJECTS FOR THE GREENBELT CAPITAL MAINTENANCE. SO THOSE PARKS THAT ARE DONE BY THE POWER FUND, PARKS ALONG THE RIVER, AND I'M GOING TO GET TO THAT JUST AS WE WRAP UP. WE DO HAVE WE HAVE ONE MORE. BUT I, I DID WANT TO HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE ON A SOUR NOTE. SO WE DO HAVE. AND WHEN I SAY SOUR, I JUST MEAN BECAUSE IT'S SO MUCH, IT'S SO HEAVY TO TRY AND DECIDE WHAT TO FUND. BUT THANK YOU DIRECTOR. ABSOLUTELY.

THANK YOU EVERYBODY. AND THEN ACTUALLY, AS WE HAD SOMETHING I WANT TO ASK. YES. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT ABOUT TREES AND AND OUTSIDE USERS AND STUFF. YOU KNOW, ARE WE TAKING A CLOSE LOOK AT AT ADJUSTING OUR FEES? WE I MEAN, I KNOW THAT EVERY HIGH SCHOOL IN THE VALLEY COMES HERE TO SWIM, RIGHT? AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT USE THOSE BLOCKS. I MEAN, WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT WE ARE CONTINUING TO LOOK AT THAT. WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME MEETINGS WITH MY STAFF THIS WEEK TO REALLY DEEP DIVE EVEN FURTHER INTO OUR BUDGET, INTO OUR FEES. BUT YEAH, SO RIGHT NOW, FOR INSTANCE, EVERYBODY USED TO PAY THE SAME TO COME AND SWIM, WHETHER THEY WERE WITH RIGBY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 9391. WE'VE CHANGED THAT NOW TO WHERE 91 IS TREATED LIKE A FULL RESIDENT, ESSENTIALLY BODY THE 93. WE LOOK AT THEIR THEIR IN CITY OUT OF CITY RESIDENT RATE. AND SO LAST YEAR IT WAS ABOUT 89% WAS WAS OUT OF CITY. AND SO THEY HAD A VERY SMALL DISCOUNT. BUT RIGHT NOW FOR DISTRICT 91, IT'S ABOUT $14 A LANE PER HOUR FOR OUT OF CITY. IT'S $29 AN HOUR.

AND SO WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED IT. WE'VE GOT IT. THERE IS THAT POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURN THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO OFFER A FACILITY FOR AS MANY USERS AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, ESPECIALLY WHERE SWIMMING HAS BECOME A SANCTIONED SPORT IN IDAHO. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HAVING I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AQUATIC CENTER AND IT'S 50% SUBSIDIZED BY BY OUR TAXPAYERS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT A, WE HAVE PUBLIC SWIMS AVAILABLE. B OUR PROGRAMS ARE HITTING OUR RESIDENTS AND, AND, AND TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE WATER TEMPERATURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ONLY FACILITATING THESE SWIM TEAMS, BUT ALSO FACILITATING GENERAL SWIM AND FAMILY SWIM AND FUN TIME AS WELL. SO THAT'S SOME THINGS THAT WE ARE, WE ARE LOOKING JUST AS FAR AS FEES GO ACROSS THE BOARD AT TRYING AS HARD AS WE CAN TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THAT NONRESIDENT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP, YOU KNOW, WE STARTED THAT RESIDENT CARD LAST YEAR IN 25. IT'S BEEN REALLY SUCCESSFUL, BUT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO, TO, TO LOCK THAT PROCESS IN. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS THAT HAVE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY PRACTICE LAW IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, BUT THEY LIVE OUTSIDE OR THEY HAVE A BUSINESS OR THEY HAVE RENTALS. AND IT'S THIS LIKE CONTINUOUS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO LOCK THAT PROCESS IN, BUT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO REALLY TRY TO ONLY

[02:40:02]

THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE A FULL YEAR FOR OUR DEPARTMENTS TO ENACT THESE PRIORITIES, THINGS THAT ARE FUNDED. SO THERE ARE NEW ASKS, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF GREAT THINGS HAPPENING IN THE CITY, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR IMPACT FEES, THAT WE CAN GET SOME GOOD PARK PROJECTS DONE WITH OUR NEW FERC LICENSING, THE NEW GREENBELT STUFF. SO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AS WELL.

AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER THING THAT IS IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET COMING FROM, IT'LL BE A COMBINATION OF MY DEPARTMENT AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES, AND HR IS JUST IN THE BUDGET. THERE IS A CHANCE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR SPACE UTILIZATION WITH GIS MOVING OVER TO POWER FINANCE, COMING BACK HOME. ANNEX B, WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO GET RID OF THE HART BUILDING. WE'D LIKE TO

[02:45:02]

THERE'S ACTUALLY A LOT OF SPACE IN THIS BUILDING AS WELL, ESPECIALLY AS GIS HAS MOVED OUT AROUND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. THERE'S SPACE TO BE UP FOR GRABS. IT'S JUST NOT ALL THAT CONVENIENT. AND, AND AS MANY PEOPLE WALK IN TO THE TREASURER. TO SIGN UP FOR UTILITIES, WALK IN TO THE UTILITY, SIGN UP TO PAY THEIR BILL. IT'S JUST THERE'S JUST NOT A GOOD FLOW.

SO, I MEAN, THIS LOOKS LIKE FIVE SIX. IT'S ABOUT $1 MILLION TOTAL, RIGHT? IT'S ESTIMATED COST FOR ANNEX B RENOVATIONS. YES. BUT THAT'S THAT'S ACTUALLY. WHICH WHICH JUST PAGE ONE IS THERE'S MULTIPLE PHASES. SO THE FIRST PHASE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PULLING OFF ABOUT 300 000 TO GET EVERYBODY BACK WHERE THEY SHOULD BE AND, AND GET HR INTO A SPACE THAT'S USABLE. SO DOES THAT, DOES THAT ELIMINATE THE HART BUILDING AT THAT POINT. IT DOES. YES. OKAY. SO THAT ELIMINATES IT. WE'RE PAYING RENT. THEN THAT ANNEX B, THERE'S ADDITIONAL WORK THAT COULD BE DONE TO ADD TRAINING SPACE ADD WORKSPACE. THERE'S MULTIPLE PHASES TO THAT PROJECT.

SO THAT'S THE TWO PHASES YOU SEE ON THERE. AND BUT THE ONLY PART THIS YEAR WE'RE PLANNING TO GO FORWARD WITH IS 300,000 FOR GETTING HR OUT OF THE HART BUILDING INTO THE NEW BUILDING WITH SOME REMODELS, BUT ALSO ALL THE REST OF THE STAFF BEING HERE KIND OF AT THE CITY HALL AND ANNEX LOCATION, KIND OF THIS CAMPUS, GET PEOPLE BACK INTO WORKSPACES FROM THE ERP PROJECT AS WELL. AND DO WE HAVE DO WE ALREADY HAVE QUOTES THAT WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT 300,000 OR IS THAT JUST AN ESTIMATE, JUST AN ESTIMATE? JUST. WELL, WE HAVE SOME ON THE THE ACTUAL ANNEX B REMODEL WAS AN WAS THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE. OKAY. AND THEN I THINK THE MINE GOT PULLED OFF. RIGHT. WE DID. YEAH. SO I'M ONE DAY I'M REALLY HOPING TO BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THE SECURITY. AND THIS WILL BE PART OF THAT STUDY IS TO TRY AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT SO THAT THIS ENTRANCE BECOMES MORE HOSPITABLE. MAYBE IT'S JUST SIGNAGE. EVERY DIRECTOR'S HEARD ME SAY THIS SO MANY TIMES THEY CAN PLUG THEIR EARS. I'M TIRED OF HEARING PEOPLE SAY, I WENT TO YOUR PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE. AND AND THEY DON'T KNOW. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JUST DOESN'T ROLL OFF THE TONGUE. IT DOES NOT MATTER OF A YEAR, 11 YEARS. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH I TELL PEOPLE AND THEY DO NOT REMEMBER IT. AND I CAN'T TELL WHETHER THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ACCEPT PUBLIC WORKS, EVERYBODY. PUBLIC WORKS IS A UNIVERSALLY ISH KNOWN TERM. THEY CALL THAT OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT. I CANNOT FIND ANYONE THAT GETS ON BOARD WITH MEMORIZING SERVICES. WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THIS FACT. YES. SO MAYBE WE'LL PUT UP SOME OF THAT BLACK SIGNAGE THAT COUNTY HAS ACROSS THE STREET. SO ANYWAY, JUST SO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GIVING YOU THIS HOMEWORK, BUT HERE, HERE, COMPARE THESE TALK TO THE DIRECTORS. THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO FOR OUR BUDGET TUESDAY. WE WILL HAVE PAGES LIKE THIS THAT DO TO WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. HERE'S OUR FEES, OUR SCHEDULE RELATIVE TO THE USER FEES VERSUS WHAT WE'RE SUPPORTING GENERAL FUND.

SO WE DO. I'M SORRY, DID YOU SAY PUBLIC OR BUDGET TUESDAY WE GET PRIORITIES. YES. AND YOU WILL GET THE YOU WILL GET. HOW THEY'RE FULFILLING THE COUNCIL PRIORITIES. OKAY. SO THROUGH THROUGH THEIR BUDGET, IT'S LIKE, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, WHY THIS I, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO USE PARKS SPECIFICALLY AS THEY HAVE AS THEY HAVE WORKED THROUGH THEIR BUDGET, NOT A BUDGET ASK.

THAT'S THE KEY IS IT'S NOT LIKE, OH, IN ORDER TO FILL COUNCIL'S PRIORITY, WE'VE GOT TO GO ASK COUNCIL FOR MONEY. IT'S IN THEIR BUDGETS. THEY HAVE SET ASIDE MONEY. THEY'VE SET ASIDE PROJECTS TO FULFILL WHAT COUNCIL HAS ASKED. THAT'S THE PRIORITY. SO IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LCFF COMPLIANCE, WHICH WE WERE GOING TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO, THAT'S ALREADY IN THE BUDGET. SO ALL OF THOSE PIECES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE. THEY'RE NOT COMING FORWARD AS

[02:50:06]

[All Participants]

NOTHING NEW. THIS YEAR ERP WILL BE ROLLED OUT MOVING FORWARD, BUT IT'S STILL JUST GRAVITY.

OKAY. WE'LL RECEIVE THE YES PLEASE. I MOVE. COUNCIL RECEIVED THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE JUNE 20TH JUNE 2ND, 2026 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT. I'LL. SECOND. WE ACTUALLY. SORRY, CLARK. SORRY, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY DO TAKE A ROLL CALL. WE DO TAKE ONE. WE'VE GOT A FIRST FROM COUNCIL MEMBER. I DID SOMETHING WRONG AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER DINGMAN TO ACCEPT THE. OKAY, FRANCIS, I DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YEAH. NO. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. AND. RADFORD. I. MOTION

[Executive Session ]

OH, AND WE WILL NOT RECONVENE. DID I FORGET THAT WE WILL NOT RECONVENE? LARSON. YES. DAIMON.

YES, FRANCIS I. BRENNAN. YES. RADFORD.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.