[Call to Order]
          [1. ACTION ITEM: Modifications, Additions, Changes to the Agenda]
          [00:00:08]
          IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. THURSDAY, JULY 16TH, 2026. FIRST OF ALL, ARE THERE 
          [2. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Minutes: June 18, 2026]
ANY MODIFICATIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? HEARING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18TH, 2026 MEETING, WHICH HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY BECKY. IS THERE A ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MINUTES? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18TH MEETING? MOVE TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JUNE 18TH MEETING. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. 
          AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE 
          [3. ACTION ITEM: Approval of Expenditures and Finance Report]
APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES, EXPENDITURES AND FINANCE REPORT. WE HAVE FINANCE REPORT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. THAT IS SIMILAR IN FORM THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT CHANGES. BUT THAT REPORT THE FINANCE REPORT FOR JULY 16TH SHOWS PAYMENTS TO REBECCA THOMPSON FOR THE MINUTES. BRAD KRAMER 2001 6750. AND TO EDMUND BURKE FOR 3000 SIX, 85 AND TO CITY VITAL FALLS FOR $770 IN THE RIVER COMMONS FUND AND THE EAGLE RIDGE FUND, $220. EDMUND BURKE, $100. TO THE CITY OF FALLS IN THE JACKSON HOLE FUND, $200 TO CITY OF IDAHO FALLS AND IN THE ANDERSON BUSH FUND, $715 TO EDMUND BURKE. THOSE ARE THE EXPENDITURES THIS PAST MONTH. 
          IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FINANCE REPORT OR ANY COMMENT ON THE FINANCE REPORT? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINANCE REPORT FOR JULY? I MOVE FOR APPROVE. WE APPROVE THE FINANCE REPORT FOR JULY AS PRESENTED. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. AYE. MOTION PASSES. ALRIGHT. NEXT 
          [4. ACTION ITEM: Proposed Changes to Finance Report]
ITEM IS THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FINANCE REPORT. KASEY, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, KASEY HAS PUT TOGETHER SOME SOME WAYS TO PRESENT THE THE FINANCES IN A WAY THAT WE CAN HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO MONITOR THIS BETTER. SO, KASEY, DO YOU WANT TO WALK THROUGH THAT WITH US? SORRY. THANKS. BEING A LITTLE FUNNY. FUNNY THERE. OKAY. SO AS WE HAD DISCUSSED AND TALKED ABOUT LAST MONTH, THE CHANGES, SO THE FINANCE REPORT, THE CASH AND INVESTMENTS AND THE BILLS TO PAY THAT REPORT WILL REMAIN THE SAME. SINCE WE KNOW THAT THE BOARD WILL NEED TO APPROVE THOSE MONTHLY EXPENSES MONTHLY AT OUR MEETING. THE BUDGET TO ACTUAL REPORT, WE HAVE REVAMPED THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT TO ADEQUATELY REFLECT THE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES BASED ON A FISCAL YEAR TO DATE. SO SO WHAT I'VE DONE IS I HAVE RAN A REPORT IN OUR QUICKBOOKS FILE, AND I HAVE DONE IT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR. SO FROM OCTOBER 1ST OF 2025 TILL JULY 16TH, WITH ALL OF THE CURRENT EXPENDITURES IN THERE. AND YOU CAN SEE BY EACH FUND THAT WE HAVE OUR BUDGET TO ACTUAL AMOUNTS BASED ON A FISCAL YEAR. 
          SO THE SLIGHT CHANGE THAT WE MADE TO THIS IS INSTEAD OF JUST INCLUDING BUDGET TO ACTUALS FOR EXPENDITURES, WE INCLUDED BUDGET TO ACTUALS FOR EACH FUND FOR REVENUES AS WELL. SO WE KIND OF MADE IT MORE INCOME STATEMENT BASED RATHER THAN JUST SHOWING OUR EXPENDITURES AND THE BUDGET TO ACTUALS FOR THAT. SO WE MADE THESE CHANGES. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I JUST KIND OF PUT TOGETHER, AND I WANTED TO OPEN THAT UP FOR ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS, MODIFICATIONS THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT YOU WANT IN THERE? BUT WHEN ENVISIONING THIS, THIS IS KIND OF HOW I ENVISIONED IT THAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE, BUT I WANTED TO OPEN THAT UP TO THE BOARD TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SEE OR ANY CHANGES YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE. ALL RIGHT. 
          THIS LOOKS. YEAH, THIS LOOKS LIKE A REAL IMPROVEMENT. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS? DOES THIS DO WHAT WE'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT DOING? CHRIS QUESTION. YEAH. SO THIS IS FISCAL YEAR TO DATE BUDGET TO ACTUAL. IS THAT A FULL YEAR BUDGET FOR EACH OF THOSE ITEMS, OR IS IT A YES PER READING. SO FULL YEAR BUDGET. THE THE YES. THE BUDGET COLUMN IS THE FULL 
          [00:05:02]
YEAR. THE ACTUALS IS FROM BEGINNING TO CURRENT. CORRECT? YEAH. IT'S INTERESTING. IT DOES BRING OUT THAT WE'VE BROUGHT MORE REVENUE IN THAN WE EXPECTED IN BOTH THE JACKSON HOLE FUND AND IN THE STANLEY BOG FUND. IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS IN THE JACKSON HOLE FUND THAT WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT BY COMING TO THE ARRANGEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER TO GET SOME OF THOSE FUNDS OUT TO THE DEVELOPER IN THE WAY THAT WE HAD WORKED ON AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON. SO THAT'S BUT IT DOES SHOW THAT THE STANLEY BOG AREA DOES HAVE FUNDS COMING INTO IT BEYOND WHAT WE'RE SPENDING. SO IT IS IT'S INTERESTING. YEAH. AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHY THERE WAS THIS IDEA OF REVAMPING THIS REPORT BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO BUDGET SEASON, WE GO THROUGH THE REVENUES AND WE GO THROUGH EXPENDITURES AND WE CREATE THOSE BUDGET AMOUNTS. BUT THEN AFTER THAT, LIKE WE DON'T REALLY TALK ABOUT REVENUES. WE DON'T REALLY LIKE SHOW WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THE REVENUE SIDE OF IT. WE KIND OF GO THROUGH THE EXPENDITURES AND, HEY, WHERE ARE WE AT WITH OUR EXPENDITURE SIDE? BUT WE NEVER, UP UNTIL THIS POINT REALLY TOUCHED THAT AFTER BUDGET SEASON. AND SO I THINK THAT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS APPROACH HELPS THE BOARD BE ABLE TO SEE NOT ONLY NOT ONLY WHERE WE'RE AT WITH OUR EXPENDITURES, BUT FOR OUR BUDGET SIDE OF REVENUES, WHERE WE'RE AT WITH REVENUES, TOO. WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO SEE A NET LINE ITEM FOR EACH OF THOSE LINES? YEAH. SO THAT'S I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. WE CAN DEFINITELY DO LIKE A VARIANCE COLUMN, IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SEE TO KIND OF SAY, YOU KNOW, BASED ON OUR BUDGET TO OUR ACTUAL, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WHETHER WE'RE OVER OUR PROJECTED AMOUNTS OR WHETHER WE'RE STILL UNDER AND KIND OF WHERE WE SEE IT WITH THAT AND HAVING IT AT THE END OF THE DAY, TO HIS POINT, STANLEY VOGUE. SO WE COULD SEE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, OH, WE HAVE X AMOUNT EXTRA, THEN WE KNOW WHAT'S COMING UP. YEAH. SO I CAN DEFINITELY ADD A VARIANCE COLUMN TO THAT FOR EACH FUND. I'M WONDERING IF ON A SEPARATE BELOW IN A BOX WE COULD SAY, OKAY, THIS MUCH OF THE YEAR IS PASSED AND THIS IS THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET THAT WE'VE SPENT. SO YEAH, KIND OF SO WHERE WE SHOULD BE AT, RIGHT. EXPENSES. YEAH. OKAY. SO IT WOULD JUST BE A TOTAL, NOT NECESSARILY BY, BY FUND, RIGHT. JUST SO TWO THIRDS OF THE WAY THROUGH THE YEAR AND WE'VE SPENT WHATEVER. I LIKE THAT WE'VE HAD INCOME UP. YEAH, YEAH, I CAN, I CAN ADD THAT IN BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA THAT CAN KIND OF HELP US GAUGE, OKAY, ARE WE GOING TO BE OFF IN THAT FUND OR ARE WE ALREADY OFF OR WE'RE RIGHT WHERE WE SHOULD BE? SO I'LL ADD THAT AS WELL. GREAT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD IDEAS. GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ON THE PROPOSED THE CHANGES TO THE FINANCE REPORT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY ACTION ON THAT. I THINK WE'VE JUST BEEN DEVELOPING THIS WITH CASSIE AND CASSIE CONTINUING TO WORK WITH US. SO THANK YOU CASSIE. THAT'S EXCELLENT WORK AND WE APPRECIATE YOU PUSHING 
          [5. ACTION ITEM: Tentatively Approve the Draft FY2027 Budget, Authorize Publication and Select the Public Hearing Date]
THAT FORWARD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ALSO HAS SOME CHANGES AND WE PROBABLY STILL NEED YOU. CASSIE. NEXT ACTION ITEM IS THE TENTATIVE TENTATIVELY APPROVE THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET AND AUTHORIZED PUBLICATION AND SELECT THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, AND YOU MAY WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE ADOPTED A NEW GENERAL REVENUE FUND THAT YOU PUT UP FRONT ON THERE, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST MONTH. SO WHY DON'T YOU WALK THROUGH THAT WITH US? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS DOCUMENT HERE, IT DOES LOOK QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT DUE TO US IN PAST MONTHS, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE IDEA OF HAVING A GENERAL FUND FOR IFRA. NOW, WITH THE CLOSEOUT OF RIVER COMMONS HERE IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO, WE HAVE DECIDED TO LOOK INTO THE OPTION OF HAVING A GENERAL FUND FOR THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE REACHED OUT AND SEEN THROUGHOUT DIFFERENT URBAN RENEWAL AGENCIES IN IDAHO. WE DO HAVE A CALL TODAY WITH, I BELIEVE HE IS THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR CCDC CAPITAL, CORPORATE DISTRICT, CAPITAL CITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. YES, THE BOISE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. YEAH. BUT THE BOISE RENEWAL AGENCY TO DISCUSS MORE IN DEPTH HOW THEY DO THIS, HOW THEY KEEP THIS GENERAL FUND UP AND MOVING, KIND OF WHAT, WHAT THE INS AND OUTS LOOKS LIKE OF THAT. HOWEVER, FOR, FOR THIS PURPOSE, FOR THE BUDGET, ALL OF THIS IS, 
          [00:10:05]
AS YOU KNOW, A TENTATIVE BUDGET. WE HOPE TO HAVE A FEW MORE ANSWERS AND CLARIFICATIONS TO OUR QUESTIONS TODAY AFTER WE HAVE OUR CALL WITH HIM. HOWEVER, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS IN THE REVENUES. SO WE HAVE OUR PROPERTY TAXES, WHICH I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THE BOARD. IT IS WE DO NOT RECEIVE DEFINITIVE NUMBERS FROM THE COUNTY. THIS IS ALL PROJECTIONS. WE HAVE PARCEL DATA. HOWEVER, WE DO NOT RECEIVE LEVY RATES BECAUSE WE ARE DEPENDENT ON OTHER ENTITIES. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE PROJECTION OF PROPERTY TAXES, IT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT HISTORICAL DATA AND IT'S TRYING TO DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN TO PROJECT THOSE NUMBERS. AND SO WHAT WE DID IS THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID. SO FOR PROPERTY TAXES, WE WENT THROUGH EACH OF THE DISTRICTS BASED ON THE PARCELS. AND KIND OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST, TRIED TO DO AN ACCURATE PROJECTION TO THE BEST THAT WE COULD. WE HAVE OUR INTEREST INCOME, WHICH IS JUST BASICALLY BASED ON OUR AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE, LIKE THE INTEREST THAT WE EARN ON THOSE INVESTMENTS. OTHER INCOME IS JUST, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BECOME OFFICIAL, THOSE MONIES COMING IN FROM THE DISTRICTS TO THEN PAY FOR THE EXPENDITURES. SO THE ONE THING I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, NOW THAT WE HAVE THIS GENERAL FUND, IS WE HAVE A TRANSFERS LINE THAT WE HAVE THAT 349 IS BASICALLY TAKING. YOU KNOW, A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT WE PROJECT FOR PROPERTY TAXES AND THEN ALLOCATING IT FOR EACH DISTRICT. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL LOOK AT MONTHLY TO SAY, HEY, LIKE BASED ON THE REVENUES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS MONTHLY AND SAY, YOU KNOW, DO OUR TRANSFERS ACCORDINGLY. BUT THIS TRANSFER LINE, THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE AS A GROUP, WHEN ME, BRAD, MEGAN, AND MARK TALKED ABOUT THIS, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT TENTATIVELY WE JUST KIND OF PUT HERE FOR NOW UNTIL WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, ABOUT WHAT MORE GENERAL CONSUMPTION OF THAT. SO TRANSFERS ARE THOSE JUST ENTER INTERFUND TRANSFERS. YEAH. SO BASICALLY BETWEEN THE FUNDS RIGHT. FOR GENERAL FUND AND THROUGHOUT. YEAH. THE OTHER DISTRICTS. SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU SET THE 349,000 AND THEN DIVIDED IT AMONG THE AREAS PROPORTIONATE TO THEIR AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE. IS THAT CORRECT? PROPERTY TAXES TO THE PROPERTY BASED ON WHAT WE FEEL WOULD BE COMING IN THROUGH PROPERTY TAXES? THE PERCENTAGES WAS THE SAME FOR EVERY PROPERTY TYPE FOR NOW. LIKE, LIKE I SAID, THIS IS TENTATIVE UNTIL WE KIND OF GET A BETTER IDEA ONCE WE TALK TO JOEY FROM CCDC. BUT THAT'S TENTATIVELY WHAT WE HAD PUT IN THE BUDGET FOR. AND BRAD AND MEGAN CAN FEEL FREE TO MAKE COMMENTS IF YOU WOULD LIKE. THE ONLY COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE IS THAT THAT TRANSFER LINE WAS SOMETHING THAT WE SAW SHOW UP IN SEVERAL OTHER AGENCIES BUDGETS THAT WAS DOING A SIMILAR CONCEPT. WE DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS QUITE YET, BUT I THINK WE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, BOISE, TWIN FALLS, POCATELLO, MERIDIAN, WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL OTHERS TO SEE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS GOING ON AND HOW THEY HANDLED THIS. AND WITHOUT TALKING TO THEM, WHAT WE WERE SEEING, I'D SAY FAIRLY CONSISTENT PATTERN OF A TRANSFER, INTERDEPARTMENTAL INTERFUND TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. AND SO I ASSUME THEN WHEN WE GET TO EXPENSES AND WE'RE DOING THE COST ACCOUNTING TO PUT THOSE COSTS, IF IT DOES RELATE TO ONE SPECIFIC AREA, IT WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THAT SPECIFIC AREA. 
          YES. IF IT'S A GENERAL EXPENSE THAT REALLY APPLIES TO EVERYTHING WILL BE TAKEN FROM GENERAL. YEAH. SO GREAT POINT ON THAT. SO IF WE SKIP DOWN A LITTLE BIT TO EXPENDITURES, WE DECIDED IT WOULD BE BEST TO BREAK OUT LEGAL FEES AND MANAGEMENT FEES SO THAT IT'S MORE TRANSPARENT TO THE BOARD AS TO WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR LEGAL FEES VERSUS JUST MANAGEMENT FEES BEFORE IT WAS LUMPED ALL INTO JUST PROFESSIONAL FEES, WE WANTED TO MAKE THAT MORE TRANSPARENT. SO WITH THAT, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE LEGAL FEES AND MANAGEMENT FEES OF 100,060 THOUSAND. THAT WOULD BE FOR LIKE YOUR GENERAL COSTS, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE INVOICES THAT COME FROM ELAM AND BURKE THAT SAY THIS IS FOR GENERAL, RIGHT. AND THEN WE HAVE BROAD SERVICES FOR GENERAL. SO THOSE ARE FOR LIKE THE GENERAL AREA, IF YOU WILL. AND THEN IF WE SKIP DOWN TO MISCELLANEOUS, MISCELLANEOUS IS MORE LIKE, OKAY, ELAM AND BURKE IS WORKING ON, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAVE ALLOCATED TIME TOWARDS A PROJECT, A PROJECT 
          [00:15:05]
THAT ISN'T AN OFFICIAL DISTRICT YET. SO LIKE WILLOW CREEK OR RIVERSIDE OR THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHERE THE MISCELLANEOUS COLUMN COMES INTO PLAY, BECAUSE THOSE DISTRICTS HAVEN'T BEEN MADE OFFICIAL YET, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. SO WE KIND OF RECLASSIFIED THAT A LITTLE BIT AS WELL. SO YEAH, I LIKE THAT YOU PUT THE CITY AND THE MANAGEMENT AND THE LEGAL SEPARATELY. SO WE CAN LOOK AT BRAD'S CONTRACT AND SEE IF WE'RE STILL BEING EFFICIENT AND IF THAT'S BEING COST EFFECTIVE VERSUS THE CITY, THAT SHOULD BE HELPFUL. SO THAT'S GOOD. SO THE OTHER KEY POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF IS AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE. THAT IS AS OF JUNE 30TH, WE STILL HAVE A COUPLE MORE MONTHS LEFT. SO WE'VE GOT JULY AND AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER WHERE THOSE COULD PROJECT EVEN HIGHER. THEY GO UP, BUT WE FELT IT WAS SAFER, MORE ON THE SAFER SIDE TO JUST DO. AS OF JUNE 30TH, THE OPA PAYMENT LINE FOR EXPENDITURES IS TAKING THE PROPERTY TAX LINE AND ALLOCATING TAKING THE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THE OPA AGREEMENT STATES FOR EACH OF THOSE DISTRICTS. SO. AND THEN CAPITAL PROJECTS IS BASICALLY THE. AMOUNT, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO HAVE FULL DISCRETION ON IF THERE'S CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE DONE IN THAT SPECIFIC DISTRICT. SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE COMBINING TWO REPORTS HERE BECAUSE THE AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE, YOU DON'T TYPICALLY INCLUDE YOUR CHECKING ACCOUNT BALANCE IN YOUR BUDGET FOR THE YEAR. YEAH. 
          AND THE SAME THING WITH THE CAPITAL PROJECTS. IT FEELS LIKE MORE OF A BALANCE SHEET ITEM. 
          I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT THIS ISN'T LIKE THAT'S NOT REVENUE. YEAH, IT'S IT'S NOT LISTED UNDER REVENUE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S CLEAR. I GUESS IT'S MONEY IN THE BANK, BUT IT'S NOT REVENUE EACH YEAR. NO IT'S NOT. AND SO LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE WITH THE AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE, WE USE THAT TO PROJECT LIKE OUR INTEREST INCOME TO SHOW LIKE WHAT WE THINK WE WOULD BE RECEIVING BASED ON THAT. BUT THAT'S JUST MORE FOR TRANSPARENCY THAN IT IS. 
          ANYTHING ELSE I MIGHT ADD TOO, THERE WAS SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I GUESS IT KEEPS GETTING FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY. THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT AS DISTRICTS WERE GETTING CLOSER TO ENDING, THAT THERE WERE. BIG PROJECTS THAT WOULD POP UP AND THEY HAD TO USE THE CASH BALANCE RATHER THAN THE THE ANNUAL REVENUES. AND SO THE ACCOUNTING AT THAT TIME DECIDED THAT IT WAS IN THE BUDGET PIECE. WE NEEDED TO CAPTURE WHATEVER THAT CASH BALANCE WAS IN ANTICIPATION OF THE THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MIGHT ALL GET SPENT DOWN ON A BIG PROJECT. BUT THIS IS SAYING WE'RE GOING TO SPEND OUT EVERY PROJECT NEXT YEAR BY PUTTING IN THE BUDGET. IT'S IT'S MORE SO JUST IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO. WE'RE AT LEAST ACCOUNTING FOR THAT IN THE BUDGET. NOT NECESSARILY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO. BUT IT'S MORE LIKE WE WANT TO PUT IT IN THE BUDGET TO MAKE THE BUDGET A NET ZERO. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS SEEMS LIKE A BALANCE SHEET UNDERSTANDING. AND THEN IF WE ARE IN THAT LAST YEAR, THEN SHOULD WE BUDGET FOR THAT FUND FOR THE YEAR FOR WHATEVER'S LEFT? BUT THIS LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SPEND, WE GOT ALL THIS REVENUE IN ONE YEAR, AND WE'RE GOING TO SPEND IT ALL IN ONE YEAR, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS TERRIBLY CLEAR AS YOU START TO ACCUMULATE YEAR AFTER YEAR, IF SOMEONE STARTS TO PULL THESE REPORTS, THAT MIGHT NOT BE CLEAR. YEAH, IT CERTAINLY IS KIND OF COMBINING AN INCOME STATEMENT VERSUS A BALANCE SHEET APPROACH. THE THING IS, IS I THINK WE WANT TO BE WE WANT THIS, THIS GOES OUT TO THE PUBLIC. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST PUBLIC DOCUMENTS THERE IS. AND WE WANT TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE'VE ACCUMULATED THESE THIS AMOUNT OF CASH IN THIS PROJECT, AND THAT ALLOWS EITHER THE TAXING ENTITIES TO COME TO US AND SAY, SO THEY'RE ALWAYS ON NOTICE OF HOW MUCH WE'RE HOLDING THEM. THEY CAN SAY, WE THINK THAT OUGHT TO BE. YOU GOT TO HOLD ON TO THAT AND RETURN IT TO US. AND IT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPER TO SAY, WE THINK YOU SHOULD PUT IT IN THESE OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS. AND SO I WANT THAT ONGOING DIALOG GOING SO THAT WE CAN ALWAYS BE LOOKING AT THAT. AND SO THE, YOU KNOW, THE TAXING ENTITIES, THE CITY AND COUNTY HERE KNOW THAT THAT SITTING THERE AND THEY CAN HAVE THAT ARGUMENT. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF AS WE APPROACH ALL THE WAY THROUGH THESE, NOT JUST THE LAST YEAR, BUT ALL THE WAY THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT SHOULD BE THE PLAN? SHOULD IT GO BACK OR SHOULD IT BE INVESTED? SO I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCEPT THAT IT REALLY IS A IT'S NOT AN INCOME STATEMENT. I AGREE, I AGREE, WE NEED TO SEE THE NUMBERS. I JUST DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO SHOW AS REVENUE EXPENSE EVERY YEAR. LIKE WE'RE NOT SPENDING THAT 
          [00:20:04]
MONEY EVERY YEAR HAS CARRIED WITH THE PACE. AND TERRY YEAH I TERRY HAS BEEN A PART OF THESE IN YEARS PAST. THE ONLY ANSWER THAT I CAN REALLY THINK OF AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS JUST ALLOWING THE BOARD FULL DISCLOSURE THAT IF THEY WANT TO USE THOSE, THEN THEY CAN'T, BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T KNOW RIGHT DURING THE YEAR. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IN THE BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE CITY BUDGET LOOKS KIND OF DOES THE SAME THING. THERE'S PLACEHOLDERS THERE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE'RE BUILDING A BUILDING RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR SAVINGS BECAUSE WE BUILT IT UP OVER TIME. SO IT JUST SHOWED ACTUAL REVENUE AND THEN SHOWED THE THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT WOULD LOOK LIKE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY THAT WE BRING OVER. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT SHEET AND AN INCOME STATEMENT KIND OF GUY. BUT YEAH, INVISIBLE ACCOUNTING BECAUSE THERE ARE CARRYOVERS, YOU KNOW, PROJECTS GO OVER FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT. SO YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO WHAT KIND OF WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND TRY TO DISCLOSE IT. BUT I APPRECIATE, BUT YEAH, I AGREE. 
          LIKE FROM AN OUTSIDER'S POINT OF VIEW, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THAT, RIGHT? LIKE I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          IT DOES LOOK LIKE THAT, THAT BUDGET IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOUR PLAN TO SPEND. YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE OURSELVES THIS FLEXIBILITY THAT IF SOME PROJECT CAME IN AND NEEDED TO BE DONE THIS YEAR, AND WE HAVE PUT IT IN THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO IT THIS YEAR FOR THE BUDGET. YES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET IF IT WASN'T IN THERE. 
          GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE. ALL RIGHT. 
          SO ANYTHING ELSE TO PRESENT TO US, KASEY. NO, I THINK HIGH LEVEL THIS IS, YOU KNOW, TENTATIVELY WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH, MEGAN OR BRAD. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO ADD FOR THAT? YEAH. I'M INTERESTED. MEGAN HAS ANY COMMENT ON THAT? YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. COMMISSIONERS AND CASSIE. CASSIE AND MARK HAVE DONE JUST A REALLY GREAT JOB OF UPDATING THESE FINANCIALS AND PROVIDING A LOT MORE TRANSPARENCY AND CLARITY. AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS CONCERNING THE CARRYOVER OF ACCRUED DOLLARS AND HOW THAT SHOWS ON THE BUDGET. I THE DISCUSSION ON THAT POINT IS GREAT. I DO THINK IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE IT SHOW UP AND TECHNICALLY ACKNOWLEDGING IT'S NOT REVENUE, BUT JUST SHOWING THAT THAT EXISTS AND THAT CAN BACKFILL TO ALLOW THE AGENCY TO TAKE ON PROJECTS AS PART OF ITS BUDGET WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING TO COME BACK AND SPECIFICALLY AMEND. SO THE BUDGET CAPACITY IS BUILT IN. WE'RE CONTINUING TO EXPLORE THE GENERAL FUND, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU DO SEE IN MOST MOST AGENCIES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT HAVE MANY DISTRICTS, BECAUSE JUST FOR PURPOSES OF EFFICIENCY, THERE ARE A LOT OF JUST AGENCY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS THAT AREN'T DIRECT COST TO A PARTICULAR REVENUE ALLOCATION AREA. AND SO I THINK THIS, THIS WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO TRACK HOW THOSE DOLLARS ARE ALSO COMING IN AND OUT AND SHOWN IN THE FINANCIAL DOCUMENTS. SO I THINK IT'S JUST IT'S IT'S BEEN A GREAT JOB. AND I KNOW THAT THE ACCOUNTING AND TREASURY STAFF HAS DONE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK TO BRING THIS BEFORE YOU TODAY. SO I THINK IT LOOKS GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, CASSIE. THANK YOU. ANY FOR YOU, BRAD. I THINK IT'S ALL GOOD. OKAY. SO ALL RIGHT. THIS IS ALSO THE DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET THAT WE NEED TO AUTHORIZE PUBLICATION. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE ABOUT WHAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN HERE? FOR THAT, WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC? IS THERE BACK TO KIND OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, WHERE IT SAYS REVENUE? IS THERE ANY WAY TO ADD REVENUE SLASH CASH AVAILABLE, SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE UP AT THE TOP OVER REVENUE, LIKE UP AT THE TOP, WHERE IT STATES REVENUE AND THEN REVENUE? YES. SO SAME THING WITH EXPENDITURES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO IT'S KIND OF JUST A LITTLE MORE LIKE WE'RE NOT MAYBE NOT GOING TO SPEND THAT EVERY YEAR, BUT IT'S THERE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO, IT'S KIND OF A FORMATTING. YEAH. YOU'RE DOING THIS IN EXCEL. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WORKS WITH BUDGETING RULES. SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING REVENUE SLASH AVAILABLE CASH AND EXPENDITURE SLASH PROJECT LINE IS A LINE ITEM SEPARATE ABOVE REVENUE. SO SHE SHE'S SAYING PUT IT IN A WHOLE DIFFERENT KIND OF CATEGORY. SO THAT FIRST AND THEN SHOW REVENUE AS A CATEGORY AND THEN 
          [00:25:05]
DO THE SAME THING WITH EXPENSES, AM I? YEAH. SO WITH THE EXPENSES SIDE OF IT, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT REVENUES, BUT FOR EXPENSES, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING ABOUT THAT ONE? LIKE A LINE ITEM. THIS IS CAPITAL PROJECTS BEFORE EXPENDITURES. SO EXPENDITURES ARE ALMOST G&A. 
          OKAY. YEAH. LET ME TAKE THAT ONE BACK AND SEE IF I CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE. KIND OF OPERATING FORMATTING CHANGE AND WE CAN STILL APPROVE IT. YES, IT WOULD BE MORE OF FORMATTING. IT'S MORE SO HOW YOU WANT IT TO LOOK, BECAUSE IT MIGHT LOOK A LITTLE FUNKY IF IT'S ABOVE EXPENDITURES, BUT BECAUSE TECHNICALLY I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY THAT IT'S NOT AN EXPENDITURE IF IT'S NOT INCLUDED BELOW IT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WHAT EXPENDITURES ARE KIND OF G&A, RIGHT? SO COULD YOU LABEL IT THAT WAY? SHOW EXPENDITURE G AND A AND THEN CAPITAL PROJECTS. AND THEN. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DOLLARS. WE'RE JUST CHANGING THE. AND I LOVE THE PRESENTATION. I LOVE THE TRANSPARENCY OF IT. BUT JUST TO KIND OF HELP A LITTLE MORE WITH THAT, CAN I SEE IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN? SO UP AND ABOVE SECTION FOR CASH BALANCE AND THEN A SECTION FOR REVENUES, BUT THEN A TOTAL OF CASH BALANCE PLUS REVENUES. THEN BELOW YOU'D HAVE EXPENDITURES AS A SECTION, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AS A SEPARATE SECTION, BUT A TOTAL AT THE BOTTOM OF G A AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, FOOTINGS OF BALANCE. DOES THAT HELP KIND OF SOLVE WHAT YOU'RE GOING FOR? OKAY. SO MAYBE YOU AND I CAN. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, MY CONCERN IS THIS IS THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST AND WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF WE'RE APPROVING THE BUDGET, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY NUMBERS OR THE FUNDS OR THE NUMBERS WITHIN THE FUNDS. WE'RE JUST WE CAN ANY MOTION, IT'S MORE THE FORMATTING, THE LOOK, RIGHT? YEAH. IT'S JUST YEAH. IT'S JUST THIS IS PULLING IT OUT OF THE MARGIN. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. I LIKE TO JUST KEEP GOING. I MEAN, I DON'T MIND IF WE CHANGE IT FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO APPROVE SOMETHING TODAY TO GET US PUBLISHED. OR I GUESS YOU COULD DELEGATE DISCRETION TO ME OR SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT THE NEXT VERSION. BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING TO LOOK AT IT. REVISION FOR THIS FOR THIS YEAR. SO I MEAN, THIS IS THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT. I MEAN, I THINK PEOPLE CAN FIGURE IT OUT. IT'S NOT I'M NOT SURE IT'S ROCKET SCIENCE. UNLESS YOU WANTED SOMEBODY COULD MOVE TO HAVE SOMEONE APPROVE IT. BUT WE GOT TO GET WE HAVE TO GET A BUDGET WORKSHEET OUT. IT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE WANT TO APPROVE THIS ONE AND CHANGE IT TO THEN HAVE CASSIE PROPOSE SOMETHING FOR NEXT YEAR. DOES THAT WORK? OKAY. COULD I MAKE A THOUGHT? THE CITY IS KIND OF WORKING WITH THIS SAME QUESTION AND THE PRELIM BUDGETS. I'M LOOKING AT KIND OF ADDRESS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT THE CITY IS DOING, JUST BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THE LEGAL ISSUES OR, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE BACKGROUND FUNCTIONS, BUT KIND OF SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN ANTICIPATION OF NEXT YEAR. OKAY, PERFECT. MR. CHAIR. YES, MEGAN, MAY I ASK A REVENUE SIDE QUESTION FOR CASSIE BEFORE WE JUMP TO APPROVAL? SURE. THANK YOU. SO, CASSIE, I BELIEVE YOU ANSWERED THIS QUESTION, BUT I JUST COULDN'T HEAR IT. SO I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK AND MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IN YOUR FINANCIAL REPORT THROUGH JULY 16TH. IT SHOWS THE ACTUAL REVENUES TO DATE. I THINK YOU SAID THAT THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO RECEIVE FROM THE JUNE 20TH TAX RECEIPTS. IS THAT RIGHT? SORRY. LET ME PULL THAT UP HERE. I CLOSED OUT OF IT. SO THE. SO THE REPORT I RAN IN QUICKBOOKS JUST HAS. SO THE BUDGET IS STATIC. THAT'S FOR THE FULL YEAR, RIGHT. BUT THE EXPENDITURE SIDE IS EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN RECORDED AND PAID UP UNTIL THIS POINT IN TIME. AND WHEN I SAY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MEANING JULY 16TH. SO THAT. OKAY, SO THAT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT CORRECTLY, NO, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T, WE'RE ONLY INCLUDING EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE RECEIVED UP UNTIL THIS POINT, AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE RECEIVED THOSE YET. OKAY. YEAH, I JUST IT WAS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE FINANCIAL REPORT, THERE'S PROPERTY TAXES. LET'S JUST TAKE RIVER COMMONS BUDGETED FOR A MILLION AND ONLY LESS THAN A 
          [00:30:05]
MILLION WERE RECEIVED. BUT THEN THE BUDGET FOR FY 27 PROJECTS, 1.4 MILLION. SO I'M JUST I'M ASSUMING THAT THOSE JUNE 20TH TAX RECEIPTS HAVEN'T BEEN RECEIVED YET. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING. YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET AUTHORIZED PUBLICATION AND SELECT THE HEARING DATE FOR OUR NEXT MEETING ON AUGUST 20TH. 
          MOVED TO APPROVE THE DRAFT BUDGET BUDGET WORKSHEET FOR 27. AND AUTHORIZED PUBLICATION AND SELECT PUBLIC FOR AUGUST 20TH, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? GOOD. WITH THIS GOING OUT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION PASSES AND WE'LL GET THAT PUBLISHED AND WE'LL BE READY 
          [6. ACTION ITEM: IFRA Audit Selection]
FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING NEXT MONTH. ALL RIGHT. CASSIE, YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING INTO THE AUDIT. WE WERE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT AUDIT PROVIDERS AND CONSIDERING WHETHER WE CAN DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT NEXT YEAR. YES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. SO. I HAVE REACHED OUT TO SEVERAL LOCAL FIRMS REGARDING SEEKING A NEW AUDITOR FOR THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. THERE WERE IN MY FINDINGS, THERE WERE SOME THAT DID NOT PERFORM AUDITS. THERE WERE SOME THAT DO PERFORM AUDITS BUT HAVE NOT DONE AUDITS FOR URBAN RENEWAL AGENCIES. SO. BETWEEN THAT, THERE ARE FOUR POTENTIAL AUDITORS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAT THE BOARD CAN SELECT FROM. SO OUR FIRST ONE IS SORREL HART. 
          THEY ARE A LOCAL FIRM. I HAVE REACHED OUT TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS AND I HAD CALLED HIM. 
          I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM ON THE PHONE AS WELL AS EMAIL COMMUNICATION BACK AND FORTH WITH HIM. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE NOTED TO ME WAS HE HAS EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH URBAN RENEWAL AGENCIES. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT PERFORMED AN ACTUAL AUDIT FOR THEM. SO THE QUOTE THAT HE GAVE ME, HE GAVE ME A VERY HIGH LEVEL QUOTE BECAUSE AT THIS POINT HE NEEDS TO GO BACK AND THE FIRST THING HE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DO IS TALK WITH MOSS ADAMS, WHICH IS THE CITY'S AUDITOR, TO DISCUSS THE AUDIT PROCEDURES THAT THEY HAVE, AS WELL AS OUR PREVIOUS AUDITOR, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN RUD TO KIND OF DISCUSS MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND OTHER ACCOUNTING MATTERS. SO HIS HIGH LEVEL RANGE, WITHOUT DOING FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WAS ANYWHERE BETWEEN 30 TO 50,000. THAT'S HIGH LEVEL. WHAT HE DID TELL ME, THOUGH, IS IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MORE IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT THAT, AND WE GO OUT AND WE TALK TO MOSS ADAMS AND READ, HE COULD COME UP WITH A MORE ACCURATE AND MORE SMALLER PRICE RANGE FOR US, BUT HIGH LEVEL BASED ON OUR PRIOR YEAR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. AND WITHOUT TALKING TO BOTH OF THOSE AUDITORS, THAT'S THE PRICE RANGE YOU GAVE ME. SO THAT IS WHAT SORREL HART AND ASSOCIATES GAVE US. THE OTHER FIRM THAT I REACHED OUT TO IS AUSTIN, DENNY AND KILLPACK. THEY, AFTER A CONVERSATION ON THE PHONE AS WELL AS EMAIL COMMUNICATIONS BACK AND FORTH, THEY DECLINED JUST BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET OTHER LICENSING SOFTWARE THAT. THEY FELT LIKE IT JUST THEY DIDN'T. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THAT FOR A YEAR AUDIT. SO THEY DECLINED WITH THAT. OUR OTHER OPTION WOULD BE SO REDDING COMPANY, I REACHED OUT TO JAY. HE IS A PARTNER THERE. THIS PAST YEAR, WE PAID 15,500 FOR RENT TO DO OUR AUDIT. THIS NEXT YEAR IT WENT TO 16,000, SO IT WENT UP BY $500 IF WE WANTED TO GO WITH RED AGAIN. SO I DO HAVE THAT ENGAGEMENT LETTER. IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH RED AGAIN, ALL I WOULD NEED TO DO IS SIGN THAT ENGAGEMENT LETTER. WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE LEE SIGN THAT AS WELL, AND THEN WE COULD SEND THAT AND GO THAT ROUTE IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE. THE OTHER OPTION THAT WE LOOKED INTO LAST YEAR THAT I FELT WE COULD READDRESS 
          [00:35:04]
THIS YEAR WAS WE COULD LUMP OUR AUDIT IN WITH MOSS ADAMS WITH WHAT THE CITY, THE CITY'S AUDITOR. AS YOU MAY RECALL, LAST YEAR, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS, THE PRICE RANGE WAS ANYWHERE BETWEEN 22,500 TO 28,500. THAT PRICE VARIED DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT. SO THE COMPLETING THE AUDIT HAS ONE FEE. ACTUALLY DRAFTING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IS A SEPARATE FEE ADDED ON TOP OF THAT. SO IF WE WANTED THEM TO COMPLETE THE AUDIT, IT WOULD BE THE 22,500. BUT THE ADDITIONAL OF CREATING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL $6,000 THIS YEAR. IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN THAT. SO I KNOW LAST YEAR WHEN WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION, THE BOARD SAID THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN WHAT WE WERE CURRENTLY PAYING WITH RED. AND SO THAT WE DECLINED THAT OPTION LAST YEAR. BUT I THOUGHT I WOULD BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION THIS YEAR AS ANOTHER OPTION. AND THEN THE LAST FIRM THAT I HAD REACHED OUT TO WAS JENSEN PAULSEN AND COMPANY. THEY ARE CURRENTLY DOING THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY AUDITS FOR ASHTON, AMMAN AND RIGBY. SO THEY ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH URBAN RENEWAL AGENCIES. AND I'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH HIM. HE GAVE ME A QUOTE FOR A ONE YEAR ENGAGEMENT OF NOT TO EXCEED 11,000. AND SO THAT'S WHAT HE HAD TOLD ME. I FOR ALL OF THESE AUDIT FIRMS, I HAD ACTUALLY SENT THEM OUR, OUR PRIOR YEAR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO SAY, HEY, HERE IS WHAT RED HAS DONE FOR US. WE'VE HAD RED FOR SEVERAL YEARS. WE'D LOVE TO HAVE A FRESH SET OF EYES ON OUR AUDITS. HERE'S WHAT OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ENTAIL. COULD YOU POTENTIALLY GET ME A BALLPARK QUOTE? AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME BACK WITH. WAS IT NOT TO EXCEED 11,000? I HAD ALSO REACHED OUT TO DEATON AND COMPANY, WHICH I BELIEVE. AND MEGAN, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I THINK THEY WERE THE ONES THAT DO POCATELLO. I BELIEVE THEY DO. POCATELLO'S URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY AUDIT. SO THAT WAS MY FINDINGS. AFTER MUCH COMMUNICATION VIA PHONE AND EMAIL THAT I HAVE GATHERED THIS FAR. DIDN'T GIVE ANY QUOTE. THEY NEVER GOT BACK TO ME. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. 
          GOOD. THANK YOU FOR GATHERING THAT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. YEAH. ANY OTHER ANY QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? THANK YOU. COUNCIL. IT WAS YEAH, IT TOOK A LOT OF TIME, BUT I'M GLAD WE DID IT. IT WAS AN EYE OPENER. SO IT'S GOOD. BECAUSE SINCE I WAS AWAY FOR A WHILE, WHO'S DONE IT THE LAST HOWEVER MANY YEARS RUNNING COMPANY WE'VE USED FOR A LONG TIME, A LONG TIME. OKAY. MOSS ADAMS HAS BEEN DOING THE CITY FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. YEAH, IT'S THEY WERE WITH I. BAILEY. SO WE HAD MOSS ADAMS AND THEN WE DID I. BAILEY. AND THEN WE WENT BACK TO MOSS ADAMS. OKAY. I THINK THIS IS JUST THE SECOND YEAR OF THIS GO. BUT YES, NOW IT'S EITHER THE SECOND OR THE THIRD ONE OF THE TWO. YEAH. OKAY. YEP. BUT AS YOU AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT BROUGHT UP THIS CHANGE OF HAVING POTENTIALLY A DIFFERENT AUDITOR, IS THAT THE PARTNER THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH RETIRED. AND SO IT KIND OF GAVE US THE CONVERSATION OF, OKAY, NOW THAT THERE'S A NEW PARTNER, IS IT TIME TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT A DIFFERENT AUDITOR TO SEE IF WE COULD GET FRESH EYES? IS THERE A BENEFIT TO USING AN AUDITOR THAT IS ALSO AUDITING OTHER URA'S STATEMENTS LIKE, WILL THEY BRING SOME OTHER FRESH POINT OF VIEW TO THE TAX WORLD, TO US? I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ALWAYS NEED TO GO FOR THE LOWEST DOLLAR IF IT'S MORE WORK FOR YOU, BECAUSE THAT MATTERS AS WELL. BUT I'M WONDERING, IS THERE A BENEFIT TO CHANGING TO THE AUDITOR THAT'S DOING THREE OTHERS AS WELL OR. YOU KNOW, I JUST I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THINGS. YEAH. I THINK THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO HAVING ANOTHER AUDITOR LAY SOME EYES ON IT THAT MAY IDENTIFY THINGS THAT SOMEONE WHO'S DONE IT YEAR AFTER YEAR MAY NOT IDENTIFY THAT THERE IS A GREATER SCRUTINY BY SOME CHANGES. SO THAT IS AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF LOOKING AT SOMEBODY ELSE. YOU KNOW, ASHTON AND AMMON AND RIGBY ARE NOT THAT BIG OF YOU ARE. SO I HAVE A FEW PROJECTS, BUT NOTHING PROJECTS 
          [00:40:04]
COMPLICATED AS OURS. AND YEAH, I MEAN, THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION THAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP BECAUSE IN MY MIND, IT'S I DO SEE THAT THERE IS A BENEFIT TO GOING WITH SOMEONE THAT MIGHT HAVE A PRIOR HISTORY OR PAST EXPERIENCE WITH URBAN RENEWALS TO COMPLETE THE AUDIT, BECAUSE AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE HAVING NEW EYES ON THE AUDIT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT HAS HAD THAT EXPERIENCE. NOW, AS FAR AS THE AS YOU ARE AWARE, IPRA HAS GROWN A LOT OVER THE LAST 3 OR 4 YEARS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF NEW POTENTIAL DISTRICTS. WHEN I CAME IN, THERE WAS NOT THAT MANY. AND HERE WE ARE. RIGHT. AND SO YEAH, IT MIGHT BE A CONCERN OF, YOU KNOW, IF IF THERE'S NOT IF THEY'RE NOT BIGGER URBAN RENEWALS, LIKE WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE FOR AN AUDIT FIRM COMING IN AND LOOKING AT AN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY THAT HAS AS MANY AS WE DO, RIGHT? SO THERE IS THAT CONCERN OF LIKE, OH, HAVE THEY WORKED WITH AN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY THAT'S THIS BIG, RIGHT? SO AS OUR CURRENT AUDITOR WEIGHED IN ON THE IDEA OF HOW WE HANDLE OUR THE NEW GENERAL FUND. NO, NO, I HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THAT WITH RUDD JUST BECAUSE THAT TOPIC I KNOW THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, LIKE IT'S KIND OF BEEN LIKE, OH, LIKE IT'S BEEN AN IDEA OF LIKE, OH, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? BUT IT'S NEVER BEEN LIKE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION OF LIKE, HEY, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS? OR HOW HAVE YOU SEEN THIS? RIGHT? I JUST WONDER IN NEGOTIATING THESE AND RENEWING IF THAT SHOULD BE A TOPIC WITH THE AUDITOR LOOKING FORWARD, BECAUSE ONE AUDITOR MAY HAVE MORE EXPERIENCE WITH THAT. 
          MEGAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT OR HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS REGARDING THAT? THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR COMMISSIONERS. CASSIE, I DON'T KNOW, I IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT POINT. AND I THINK IT'S A FAIR POINT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT JENSEN PAULSON HAS DONE AUDITS FOR SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER AGENCIES, WHEREAS EFRA IS SITUATIONALLY QUITE DIFFERENT. 
          CERTAINLY THE GENERAL FUND AND HOW IT'S USED IS A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE AUDITOR. NO MATTER WHO IS ULTIMATELY SELECTED. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE AUDITOR DISCUSSED WITH THE AUDITOR. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ANY OTHER GREAT GUIDANCE ON THAT. I THINK TO THE POINT THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IS, I THINK ANY WHICH WAY WE GO, IT. SO WITH RUDD, WE HAVEN'T REALLY EVER HAD A GENERAL FUND. SO THAT WOULD BE A NEW CONCEPT FOR THEM. BUT THEN IT WOULD ALSO BE A NEW CONCEPT OF GOING WITH A NEW AUDITOR THAT MAY NOT HAVE HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH A BIGGER URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. SO EITHER WAY, IT'S GOING TO BE IT PROBABLY WILL BE A LITTLE BIT OF A GROWING PAIN JUST TO KIND OF SEE, YOU KNOW, IT'S CHANGE. SO I THINK EITHER WHICH WAY THERE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT THE BOARD WANT TO STICK WITH SOMEBODY THAT WE KNOW HAS DONE OUR AUDIT AND INTRODUCE A NEW CONCEPT, OR GO OUT ON A LIMB AND GO WITH A NEW AUDIT FIRM. 
          OKAY. JUST TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION ALONG HERE, TRY TO GET TO A DECISION POINT. IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME WE CAN WE? YOUR WORK HAS SHOWN THAT RUNNING A COMPANY, EVEN THOUGH THEY INCREASED THE RATES A LITTLE BIT, THEY'RE VERY MUCH THEY'RE STILL VERY REASONABLE SOLUTION. SO YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED THAT. SO THEN THE QUESTION LOOKS LIKE TO ME REALLY IT'S BETWEEN RUDD AND COMPANY AND JENSEN PAULSEN, WHETHER YOU WANT TO GIVE JENSEN PAULSEN A YEAR OR TWO TO SEE IF THEY CAN FIND SOMETHING THAT RUNNING COMPANY COULDN'T, THAT'D BE ONE OPTION. AND MOSS ADAMS IS KIND OF AN OUTSIDER THAT MAYBE COULD FIND SOMETHING ABOUT THE INTERACTION BETWEEN US AND THE CITY THAT WE MIGHT NOT HAVE SEEN OTHERWISE, BUT THAT'S A PRETTY EXPENSIVE INCREASE TO FOR THAT LITTLE FOR THAT ADVANTAGE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME, TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S BETWEEN RUNNING COMPANY AND JENSEN PAULSEN. IS THAT BASICALLY CAPSULIZE WHAT EVERYBODY'S THINKING? OKAY, SO THEN BETWEEN THOSE TWO, BETWEEN THAT, WHAT DOES EVERYBODY THINK? OR WHERE WOULD YOU GO? I THINK THERE'S SOME MERIT TO HAVING SOMEBODY ELSE LOOK AT IT PERIODICALLY. I THINK THAT HAS VALUE. AND THE POINT IS HE HE 
          [00:45:05]
HAS SOME EXPERIENCE. IT WAS BROUGHT UP, OBVIOUSLY THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ONE THIS LARGE, BUT HE'S NOT WALKING IN COLD EITHER. IT'S GOOD. CARL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I WOULD AGREE WITH WHAT KIRK SAID. YEAH, YEAH. THAT WAS WHAT BROUGHT UP THIS DISCUSSION INITIALLY WAS WE'VE BEEN WITH FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MONTHS AGO WE SAID IT WOULD BE GOOD TO COMPETE IT AGAIN, BUT THERE WOULD BE SOME VALUE, I THINK, IN SHIFTING FOR A YEAR. CHRIS, CAN I AGREE? AS LONG AS STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT DECISION, BECAUSE CHANGING COULD BE A LOT MORE MONEY SPENT WITH STAFF. YEAH. SO AFTER DISCUSSING, I, I ACTUALLY ASKED QUITE A FEW QUESTIONS AS FAR AS LIKE, ARE YOU ACCEPTING NEW CLIENTS? RIGHT? WHAT WOULD THE PRICE BE? WHAT WOULD THAT ENTAIL? RIGHT? LIKE, WOULD IT ENTAIL YOU COMING OUT ON SITE? WOULD IT ENTAIL ME DROPPING FILES ON A SHAREPOINT LIKE I DID WITH RUDD? WOULD IT BE ME PUTTING IN ALL OF MY DOCUMENTS IN A BOX AND BRINGING IT OVER AS FAR AS THEY GO? BOTH RUDD AND JENSEN ARE PRETTY FLEXIBLE AS FAR AS LIKE, WE'RE WILLING TO DO WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DO, RIGHT? SO I KNOW WITH RED, LIKE THEY CAME OUT, THEY WOULD DO INTERVIEWS. I BELIEVE LAST YEAR THEY DID AN INTERVIEW WITH ME AS WELL AS DIRECTOR SANNER TO JUST KIND OF TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT ITEMS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT IT SOUNDS TO ME BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO KIND OF DO WHAT IS BEST FOR US. AND THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY. OKAY. I THINK THERE'S VALUE. OKAY. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT A CONSENSUS ON THAT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. DO WE NEED IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH DIRECTION FOR YOU OR DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS? DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS? MEGAN, IS THAT CONSENSUS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED ACCORDINGLY? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THERE WAS AN ACTION ITEM TO SELECT THE AUDITOR AND DIRECT STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT. OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO HAVE IS THERE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT TO SELECT JENSEN PAULSEN FOR THIS YEAR AND DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT? SO MOVED. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU KASEY, FOR THAT EXCELLENT REVIEW AND RESEARCH. THANK YOU. 
          [7. DISCUSSION ITEM: Directors Report]
BRAD. WHAT HAVE WE GOT ON THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. YEAH THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY QUICK ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE ONE UPDATE THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT ONTO THIS REPORT. 
          THE MAIN ONE, THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY CHANGED SINCE LAST MONTH IS WILLOW CREEK. WE WERE ABLE TO GET ALL THE CONSENTS SIGNED. AND SO THAT PLAN IS CONTINUING. IT'LL HIT P AND Z. 
          THE GOAL IS AUGUST 4TH AND THEN CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL ON SEPTEMBER 24TH. THE UPDATE I HAVE IS YESTERDAY I DID RECEIVE THE INVOICES FROM TANA OVER AT BALL VENTURES FOR ALL OF THE BONEYARD CLEANUP, AND SO I'LL START REVIEWING THOSE. AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL DEAL WITH THOSE. BUT PERHAPS WRITING THE REIMBURSEMENT CHECK EITHER NEXT MONTH OR SEPTEMBER AT THE LATEST. OKAY. ANY WORD ON BALL VENTURES ON THE NEW DISTRICT AND PROGRESS IN BUILDING THINGS THERE? YEAH, YEAH, I DID ASK HER. THEY'RE STILL ANTICIPATING SIMILAR TIMELINE WHERE THEY'LL HOPEFULLY START ENGINEERING IN LATE FALL, EARLY WINTER OF THIS YEAR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO THE END OF OUR 
          [9. Next Meeting: August 20, 2026]
AGENDA. THANK YOU EVERYONE. OUR NEXT MEETING IS SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 20TH, WHICH WE'LL PUT AS THE HEARING DATE ON THE BUDGET. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOVE TO ADJOURN. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. SEE YOU IN
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.