Aug 13, 2026 City Council Meeting

[1. Call to Order & Roll Call]

[00:00:10]

MEETING TO ORDER. TONIGHT IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 13TH AND WE WOULD LIKE THE CITY CLERK TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM WITH THE ROLL CALL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS HERE.

COUNCILOR RADFORD, COUNCILOR DINGMAN HERE. COUNCILOR FREEMAN HERE. COUNCILOR LARSON HERE.

COUNCILOR LEE HERE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. YOU HAVE A QUORUM? THANK YOU. TONIGHT, WE HAVE THE HONOR OF HAVING GARY MILLS IN THE AUDIENCE, AND HE IS GOING TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY STAFF TONIGHT WHO WISHES TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE

[ 3. Staff Responses to Prior Public Comment and Other Updates]

[ 4. Public Comment]

MY WORK HAS GOTTEN TO LET ME LIVE AROUND THE WORLD, WHICH HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE EXPERIENCE. I'VE GOTTEN TO LIVE IN COUNTRIES FROM ASIA TO PACIFIC, LIVING IN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS, IN INDIA, ETC. BUT. AND NOW I LIVE HERE. MOVED IN A FEW MONTHS AGO. IT HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE HERE IN IDAHO FALLS, AND ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE, AND ONE OF THE GREAT LITTLE JOYS IN MY LIFE, IS BEING ABLE TO WAKE UP EVERY FRIDAY MORNING AND TAKE A LITTLE THREE MINUTE WALK DOWN THE STREET TO THE LOCAL BAKERY. THEY ARE LOCALLY OWNED. THEIR ECONOMY SUPPORTS LOCALS. THEY ARE. THEY HIRE LOCALLY.

THEIR TAX TAXES ARE DONE LOCALLY. THEY SELL LOCALLY. RIGHT NEXT TO THEM IS MIDGET MARKET, A CORNER STORE THAT HAS THINGS YOU MAY NEED. GOING TO NEED IS OPEN AS OPEN AS LATE AS 1 A.M. AND EVEN THOUGH I LIVE IN A DECIDEDLY RESIDENTIAL AREA, WE STILL HAVE THESE LITTLE

[00:05:01]

[00:10:05]

[4. Consent Agenda]

FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. THANK YOU. THE MOTION CARRIES. OKAY.

[5.A.1) Written Decision on Requests for Reconsideration Regarding Planned Unit Development for Willows Place Townhomes]

AND IF AT ANY POINT YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING, AGAIN, THIS IS YOUR WRITTEN DECISION. SO IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. WE CAN GET IT REVISED. ONE OF THE FINDINGS IS THE FINDING 15 THE REVISED UD WAS SUBMITTED MAY 21ST AND THAT SUBMITTED THE CDS. RIGHT. BUT IT WASN'T PRESENTED TO COUNCIL WHEN WHEN CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED MEDIATION AGREEMENT AND THAT THAT THAT FINDING IS USED LATER ON IN THE BODY WHEN DISCUSSING THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES. BASICALLY IT WASN'T PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. SO AT THAT TIME, COUNCIL COULDN'T HAVE APPROVED THE REVISED BODY AT THAT TIME BECAUSE IT WASN'T PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. FINDING A NEW FINDING IS NUMBER 19, ADDED ADDED THAT THE REVISED OR THE UNITS IN THE REVISED BODY WILL BE TWIN HOMES, AND ADDED THAT THERE ARE TWIN HOMES IN THE AREA THAT ARE SIMILAR IN BULK SCALE, STRUCTURAL MASS AND CHARACTER. IT'S FINDING 33. SO JUST FOR YOUR REFERENCE, THIS IS KIND OF A. THIS IS A DETAIL FROM ONE OF THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS THAT CDS GAVE. THIS CAME FROM THE JANUARY 22ND ONE. SO YOU CAN SEE IN RED THAT'S THE AREA OF THE POD. AND IF YOU LOOK OFF TO THIS ONE, OKAY, HOLD ON, GO BACK. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER, THAT THAT RESIDENTIAL SECTION IS TWIN HOMES, AS YOU CAN SEE. AND I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT CLOSER RIGHT THERE. SO

[00:15:02]

THIS IS THE REVISED BODY THAT WAS APPROVED, AND YOU CAN SEE THE SAME SORT OF TWIN HOME LAYOUT HERE. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BEING. YEAH, THE ONES OVER HERE LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE THEIR DRIVEWAYS ARE SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER. WHEREAS WITH THE REVISED UD THEIR NEXT TO EACH OTHER OR TOUCHING AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE IDENTICAL. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS BE COMPATIBLE. RIGHT? SIMILAR TO. SO THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THAT FACTUAL FINDING. SOME OF THE IN THE WHAT I'LL CALL THE CONCLUSIONS. THIS IS THE SECOND PART OF IT. THIS IS THE REASON. THIS IS WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT IT APPLIES THE LAW TO THE FACTUAL FINDINGS. IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE HEARING, AND WE DISCUSSED IT LAST WEEK, THAT THERE WAS A CLAIM THAT IT NEEDED TO GO TO BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL PUD THAT WAS NOT APPROVED, IT HAD BEEN MODIFIED AFTER MEDIATION, AND THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT IT HAD TO GO BACK DOWN TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THAT'S ADDRESSED IN CONCLUSION NUMBER THREE, BASICALLY, THAT RULE IN OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES IT GOES TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ONLY IF IT'S A MODIFICATION TO AN ALREADY APPROVED PUD HERE. THERE'S THERE WAS NOT A ALREADY APPROVED PUD. AND SO THAT RULE DOES NOT REQUIRE IT GO BACK DOWN. PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION, ONE OF THE MORE SALIENT ARGUMENTS THAT THE. THE PEOPLE REQUESTING RECONSIDERATION MADE WAS ABOUT DUE PROCESS. KIND OF THE GENERAL THRUST WAS THEY WEREN'T AFFORDED THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO BE HEARD IN A MEANINGFUL TIME AND A MEANINGFUL MANNER. THAT'S ADDRESSED IN CONCLUSIONS FOUR THROUGH SEVEN. THE WAY THE REASONING GOES IS THE PROPOSED MEDIATION AGREEMENT DID NOT BIND COUNCIL TO APPROVE WHATEVER REVISED DUTY THEY MAY SUBMIT. INSTEAD, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED BY IDAHO CODE. WE HAD THAT PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL AFTER THAT PUBLIC HEARING THE COUNCIL APPROVED IT. AND JUST IN CASE THERE WAS ANY QUESTION, THEY ALSO HAD A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING LAST WEEK, RIGHT, AT WHICH COUNCIL HAD FULL AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER ITS DECISION AND CHANGE ITS MIND IF IT WANTED TO. SO THEY HAD. THAT'S THE WAY THAT THE WRITTEN STATEMENT GOES, THAT THEY HAD MORE THAN ADEQUATE DUE PROCESS. THERE'S SOME CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE PLAYGROUND. AGAIN, COUNCIL, THIS IS THIS WAS A POINT THAT HAD COME UP WITH THE WITH THE DEVELOPER COUNCIL INITIALLY SAID, HEY, YOUR PLAYGROUND IS TOO FAR FROM THE PUBLIC STREET. IT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS A PUBLIC AMENITY. AND SO AS PART OF THE REVISED DUTY, THEY MOVED IT CLOSER TO THE STREET. AND NOW IT IS COUNCIL COUNCIL. AT LEAST THE LAST APPROVED WRITTEN STATEMENT SAID THAT NOW IT IS, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. SO PROVIDING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. SO IT SATISFIES THE EXCEPTION THAT THE SITE MUST BE TWO ACRES OR MORE. THERE WAS SOME ARGUMENT THAT THE PLAYGROUND LOST WASN'T A PUBLIC BENEFIT, BECAUSE IT WAS REDUNDANT TO OTHER PLAYGROUNDS IN THE AREA, AND THE WAY THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ADDRESSES THAT IS BY SAYING IT DOESN'T LOSE ALL THAT, BUT JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER PLAYGROUNDS IN THE AREA, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S CLOSER TO SOMETHING MORE CONVENIENT TO USE IT. THE NEXT POINT THAT THEY'RE COMPATIBLE WITH, THE UNITS OF THE REVISED PUD ARE COMPATIBLE, COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD STRUCTURES. THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE PREVIOUS FINDING WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. AGAIN, THAT WAS BRIEFLY MENTIONED IN THE ARGUMENT ORAL ARGUMENT LAST WEEK. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO ADDRESS THAT. THERE WAS ANOTHER ARGUMENT ABOUT A BERM BEING REQUIRED UNDER CITY CODE 11-2-6.

SUB. SUB. SUB SEVEN. SUB B. THAT WASN'T THE EXACT CITATION THEY GAVE. THE CITATION THEY GAVE WASN'T AN ACCURATE CITATION, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE AIMING AT. AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN CONCLUSION. 19. WHAT THAT DOES IS THAT WOULD REQUIRE IF THE PUD HAD A PARKING LOT THAT BORDERED A PRIVATE OR PUBLIC STREET, THEN THERE WOULD BE A NEED FOR A BERM. HERE. THE. THE PARKING LOT DOES NOT BORDER A PUBLIC STREET. YOU DON'T. YOU DON'T NEED. THEY WERE. THEY WERE KIND OF FLIPPING IT, BUT THEY WERE ARGUING. IS THAT BECAUSE THE CHURCH PROPERTY HAS A PARKING LOT THAT. A BERM IS REQUIRED ALONG THE PRIVATE STREET WITHIN THE TOD. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE RULE REQUIRES. WHAT THE RULE REQUIRES IS WHEN THE PV HAS A PARKING SPACE, THEN IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE A BERM. IF IT'S CONTIGUOUS TO A PRIVATE

[00:20:05]

CONCLUSION 30 TALKS ABOUT TALKS ABOUT FENCES, THAT THERE'S NO RULE THAT REQUIRES A FENCE IN THIS INSTANCE. AND TO THE EXTENT THE COUNCIL DID HAVE DISCRETION, AND THIS COUNCIL DOES HAVE DISCRETION IN SOME INSTANCES TO REQUIRE EVENTS, COUNCIL'S NOT EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO REQUIRE FENCE, THE REASONING BEING THAT IT'S A MATTER THAT CAN BE HANDLED BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORS AND THE DEVELOPER. AND THEN FINALLY, THERE WAS A CLAIM EASEMENT. THERE WAS A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT CLAIMED BY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. THAT'S.

AND THAT JUST SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL CANNOT DECIDE. AND THAT'S WHY THAT CONCLUSION.

THAT'S A MATTER FOR THE COURT SYSTEM. COUNCIL COULDN'T ADJUDICATE WHETHER THERE IS OR IS NOT A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT THAT DOCUMENT, WHAT THE DRAFT IS. I STAND READY FOR ANY REVISIONS. OR AGAIN THIS IS YOUR DOCUMENT.

SO I'M HAPPY TO REVISE IT ISN'T IT? FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. JUST REALLY A QUESTION A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR MY OWN INFORMATION. THAT IS BASICALLY IF YOU'RE USING SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY TO ACCESS YOUR PROPERTY OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, THEN IT CAN BE OPEN TO PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT. YES, IT'S JUST ACCESS, BUT IT'S STILL SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY THAT YOU'VE BEEN USING TO ACCESS YOUR PROPERTY. THAT'S CORRECT. IF I HAD A IF I WALKED ACROSS MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND DID IT FOR THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME AND MET THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, AND THEN AND THEN I COULD GO TO COURT AND I COULD SAY, HEY, JUDGE, I HAVE PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, SO I GET TO KEEP WALKING THERE. THEY CAN'T STOP ME FROM IT. BUT BUT I DON'T I WOULDN'T HAVE TITLE TO THE LAND. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TITLE. IT'S JUST THAT IF THEY, IF THEY PUT SOMETHING IN TO BLOCK ME, I COULD GO TO THE COURT AND SAY, YOU CAN'T BLOCK ME FROM WALKING THERE LIKE A FENCE OR SOMETHING. OKAY, SO THAT'S WHY IT IS NOT WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY, BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW HOW OFTEN THEY'VE BEEN USING SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY. WELL, IT'S NOT JUST THAT. IT'S JUST THAT COUNCIL LACKS JURISDICTION. YEAH, IT'S JUST THERE'S JUST NOTHING. YEAH, WE ARE NOT THAT. AND REALLY, IT'S GOING TO BE THE DEVELOPER TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT. THAT'S A THAT'S AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE NEIGHBOR. IF THE NEIGHBOR FELT LIKE THEY HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, THEY CAN FILE IN COURT. AND THEN IT'S UP TO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A RISK THAT THE DEVELOPER IS TAKING, BUT IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER PV SHOULD BE CRAMPED OR NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. WE ARE. I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE WRITTEN DECISION REGARDING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, AFFIRMING THE REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILLOW PLACE TOWNHOMES, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. I'LL SECOND. FREEMAN. YES, RADFORD. HI. DINGMANN. YES. LARSON. YES.

THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL, BEFORE YOU LEAVE TONIGHT AND AS OUR OTHER TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE COMING BACK UP FOR THE FOUR OF YOU, THIS IS A DECISION THAT WE NEED TO SIGN TONIGHT. IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF YOUR ALL OF THE VOTING MEMBERS SIGNATURES. OKAY.

[5.B.1) Memorandum of Agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration and the Idaho State Historic Preservation Office]

DUE TO OUR GRANT ASSURANCES FOR ACCEPTING FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR IMPROVING THE AIRPORT, THIS MOA RECTIFIES OUR NONCOMPLIANCE FOR THAT HANGAR BEING TORE DOWN. NUMBER ONE, BY COMMEMORATING THAT HANGAR THROUGH A PLAQUE THAT WILL BE PLACED MOST LIKELY IN BAGGAGE CLAIM IN THE TERMINAL BUILDING, AND THEN ALSO THROUGH NOTIFICATION TO ALL OF OUR OTHER TENANTS AT THE

[00:25:01]

WE HAVE SIGNED A WORK ORDER WITH OUR. TO ASSIST US WITH THIS EFFORT, AND THAT IS A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $15,000, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. DIRECTOR TURNER, CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY THAT IT WAS NOT THE AIRPORT OR THE CITY THAT TORE DOWN THIS HANGAR? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. WE DID NOT TEAR DOWN THE SINGER, THE THE LEASEE OF THE HANGAR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. SO FIRST ONE IS AT THIS POINT, WHAT RESPONSIBILITY IS GUNS AND GEAR TAKEN TO HELP WITH THIS COMMEMORATIVE. THEY HAVE RELEASED THEIR LEASE AT THE AIRPORT AT THIS POINT, DRAFTING THAT DOCUMENT. WE DID RETAIN SOME RIGHTS DEPENDING ON WHAT THE OVERALL COST TO THIS IS, BUT I THINK THAT'S A MATTER A DISCUSSION SEPARATE FROM THE MOU, TO KEEP US IN THE GOOD GRACES OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. OKAY. MY SECOND QUESTION IS, CAN YOU HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT PROCEDURE STEPS THE AIRPORT CAN TAKE IN THE FUTURE? I'M SORRY. I GOT VERY DISTRACTED. ME TOO. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. I'M TRYING TO SAY, HOW DO WE CATCH THIS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS? IS THERE A WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS BEFORE IT HAPPENS? OR DID YOU? IT COMES SOMEWHAT COMES DOWN TO PROPERTY RIGHTS. THERE'S A CLASSIC POINT OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN AIRPORT SPONSORS AND TENANTS ON WHO OWNS THE HANGAR ON GROUND LEASES. I THINK THAT CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS RESEARCHED THAT NOT RECENTLY, BUT THERE'S AN ELEMENT THERE TO ARGUE THAT THAT WAS PROPERTY OF THE CITY THAT WAS TORE DOWN. THERE MAY BE AN OPPOSING VIEWPOINT ON THAT MATTER. THE OTHER PIECE THAT IS PROBLEMATIC IN SOME OF OUR GROUND LEASES IS THAT WHEN THOSE GROUND LEASES WERE ENTERED INTO, THEY WERE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE HISTORIC REGISTRY. AND IT BECOMES SO THROUGH THE TERM OF THAT LEASE, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN. COUNCIL PRESIDENT, IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO HOW STRONGLY DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO DIRECT ME AND OUR STAFF AT THE AIRPORT TO EXERCISE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF TENANTS? I AM OPEN TO ALL INPUT AND DIRECTION ON THAT MATTER. I THINK THAT THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO SAY THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN DOING SINCE I STARTED AND WORKING THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN WAS EACH TIME I TALKED TO THE TENANTS OF THESE ELIGIBLE STRUCTURES IS AT LEAST MAKING SURE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR STRUCTURE IS ELIGIBLE, AND THAT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL STEPS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN THROUGH THIS PROCESS. IT'S ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON HOW WE CAN PROCEED AND IMPLEMENTING THE MASTER PLAN, AND THANKFULLY, IT'S NOT QUITE AS ONEROUS AS I MAY BE FEARFUL OF, BUT. I THINK I'LL STOP THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, IDAHO STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND THE IDAHO FALLS REGIONAL AIRPORT, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. LARSON. YES. FRANCIS I. LEE.

YES. YES. FREEMAN. YES. RADFORD. HI. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS COMING

[5.C.1) Development Agreement - Circle K Pancheri Drive and Skyline Dr]

SO TONIGHT FOR US WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH CIRCLE K. SO IT'S A DEVELOPER THAT'S DEVELOPING A CIRCLE K STORE ON THE CORNER OF SKYLINE AND PANCARI DRIVE. WE HAD A PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON OUR PREVIOUS PLOT FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND IT WAS PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTING IMPACT FEES AND SOME DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. BUT, BUT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT FORWARD INSTEAD OF CDS WITH THE THAT'S NOT BEING REVISED. THIS IS ONE LOT WITHIN THE PLAT, A THREE WAY COMMERCIAL CENTER AS THE PLAT THAT THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED. BUT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE REQUIRED THAT THEY EXTEND THE ROAD SKYLINE AT THE INTERSECTION TO THE SOUTH, APPROXIMATELY AN ADDITIONAL 200 TO 250FT. AND WITH THAT, WE'RE PARTICIPATING WITH THE IMPACT FEE FUNDS AS AVAILABLE UP TO ABOUT 119,500. THAT'S A COST PROJECTION BASED ON OUR NUMBERS, NOT ON THE ONES THAT SO. BUT WITH THAT, IT'S AN AMENDED

[00:30:09]

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR CANFIELD. ALL RIGHT THEN. WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION FROM COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CIRCLE K AND CAREY DRIVE AND SKYLINE DRIVE, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND DAIMON. YES. RADFORD. LARSON. YES. LEE. YES. FRANCIS

[5.C.2) Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Small Urban Funding Agreement ]

OKAY. OUR NEXT. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR KEN. OH, I'M SORRY, WE HAVE TO DO THE VOTE. HERE WE GO.

WE ARE. WE'LL DO THE VOTE. AND THEN. BUT DIRECTOR CANFIELD, THAT IS. THANK YOU. DAMON. YES.

FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I BRADFORD I. LEE. YES. AND LARSON. YES. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. CROSSED OFF MY PEN AND WAS READY FOR THE NEXT. THE NEXT ONE IS COMING TO US

[5.D.1) Bid Rejection - IFP 26-21-2 Upper Development Dam No. 1 Rehabilitation .]

[00:35:01]

BRADFORD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. AND I WOULD ALSO MOVE THE COUNCIL REJECT

[5.D.2) Bid Rejection - IFP 26-21-1 Upper Coffer Dam Project ]

DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. AND, FRANCIS, I THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. WE HAVE SEVERAL

[5.E.1) Purchase Replacement Cardiac Monitor/Defibrillators for Idaho Falls Fire Department]

AND THIS ITEM IS TOTALS. TOTALS $759,308.67. AND IT DOES INCLUDE THE TRADE IN ALLOWANCE OF 165 000, OR A TOTAL OF 11000 PER MONITOR. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU WANT TO GET MORE SPECIFICS ON HOW THESE THINGS WORK, WE DO HAVE THESE EMAILS HERE. YOU HAVE CHIEF COME UP. I'M JUST CURIOUS IF WE'RE CHANGING OR CHANGING BRANDS OF MONITORS IS WHAT I OR IS THIS INCLUDE SOME TRAINING ON THE NEW MONITORS. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO. SO INCLUDED IN THE BID IS A FULL BUILD OUT OF THE MONITOR. SO ZOLL WILL SEND A TEAM. ONCE THEY GET HERE AND THEY'LL WORK WITH EVERY SINGLE CREW WITH THE BUILD OUT FOR THAT. I KNOW WE'VE BEEN USING LIFEPAK FOR DECADES. YEAH, THAT'S A BIG CHANGE. OKAY. AND I JUST LIKE TO COMMENT BECAUSE THESE, THESE CARDIAC MONITORS ARE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT WE CARRY IN THE AMBULANCE. AND THERE ARE $50,000 A PIECE PLUS AND THAT'S A BIG PURCHASE. SO, ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL I GOT. GO AHEAD. COUNCIL MEMBER REDFORD, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE GROUND EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANSPORT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THAT IS AND HOW THAT IS FUNDED? YEAH. SO THE GMG FUND IS. IT'S A FEDERAL MONIES THAT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS CAPTURED. AND IT IS A PROGRAM THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS INSTITUTED BECAUSE OUR FEE STRUCTURE DOESN'T MATCH WHAT MEDICARE PAYS FOR OUR SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE EMS SIDE. AND SO THE GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ASSIST AGENCIES THAT PROVIDE A LOT OF TRANSPORT FOR MEDICARE PATIENTS TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE A LITTLE BIT. AND SO WE'VE CAPTURED IN THIS THIS YEAR, WE RECEIVED $1.4 MILLION IN THAT. AND SO THAT IS THE FUNDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY FUNDING THIS. AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, BUT I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SPENT GMT MONEY. THIS WILL BE THE THIS IS OUR FIRST PURCHASE. OTHER THAN THE PAYMENT FOR THE FOR HELPING SOMEONE GET SOMEONE. YEAH. SO SO THIS IS. THE CONCERN. YEAH.

[00:40:03]

SO BEING PAID OUT AND THE THE PART OF THE USEFUL LIFE IS THE MONITORS WE BOUGHT WITH THE CARES FUNDS WERE REFURBISHED AS WELL. AND THESE ARE ALL BRAND NEW. AND THE OTHER THING IS.

THE LIFE PACK. WE'VE USED THE LIFEPAK 15. I DON'T KNOW, COUNCILMAN FREEMAN PROBABLY 15 YEARS, MAYBE MAYBE PROBABLY 20 YEARS. SO THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE ACTUAL MONITOR IS SIGNIFICANT, DIFFERENT. IF WE WERE UPGRADING THE LIFE PACKS LIFE PACK 35 NOW AS WELL. SO THAT WAS WHAT WE COMPARED AGAINST WAS THE THIS ZOLL MONITOR OR THE LIFE PACK 35. SO AS FAR AS UPGRADING THE ACTUAL MONITOR, SO THESE WOULD HOPEFULLY HAVE LONGER THAN A FIVE YEAR LIFE IS WHAT I'M HEARING BEING NEW AS OPPOSED TO A. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO ZOLL, THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY A NINE YEAR, 9 TO 10 YEAR LIFESPAN WITHOUT. AS FAR AS WARRANTIES GO, THEIR LIFESPAN IS LONGER, BUT THEIR WARRANTIES ARE ABOUT TEN YEARS. OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? ALL RIGHT. IF OUR FIRE LIAISON OR MUNICIPAL SERVICES EITHER. YES. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE AND ACCEPT THE PURCHASE OF THE 15 ZENITH CARDIAC MONITOR DEFIBRILLATOR DEFIBRILLATORS FROM ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION. ACCESSING THE SOURCEWELL COOPERATIVE PURCHASE GOVERNMENT CONTRACT 041823-ZLL FOR A TOTAL OF $759,308.67 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. ME. YES. DINGMANN. YES, FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON.

YES. RADFORD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. AND NOW OUR BACKUP SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT

[5.E.2) Backup Software and Support Platform Services for Information Technology]

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE IT TEAM HAS HAD PLANNED FOR AND LOOKING AT VIABLE OPTIONS AND IN IN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE COST ANALYSIS, THEY WERE ACTUALLY GIVEN A COUPLE OF QUOTES. ONE QUOTE WAS A THREE YEAR SERVICE CONTRACT PACKAGE FOR $218,760.06. THAT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY $72,920.02 PER YEAR. OR EXCUSE ME, WE COULD ACTUALLY ENTER A FIVE YEAR SUPPORT AGREEMENT. AND THAT IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS. THAT'S ALMOST A 25% SAVINGS OVER THE TERM. AND THAT WOULD BE $272,013.16, OR $54,402.63. THIS ACTUAL SOFTWARE IS REQUIRED, AND IT IS A BACKUP SERVER STORAGE. AND THERE'S, THERE'S ENHANCEMENTS IN THE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS PARTICULAR PURCHASE. AND WE'VE BEEN USING COHESITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW. SO AGAIN, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A TOTAL FIVE YEAR SERVICE PACKAGE FOR A TOTAL OF $272,013.16. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. OKAY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I'M READING A PART HERE. UPON ACCEPTANCE, THIS QUOTE WOULD BE BINDING OBLIGATION THE CUSTOMER WITHOUT NEED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL PERMISSION. SO I'M USED TO SEEING THOSE TERMINATION CLAUSES IN CONTRACTS. AND I DIDN'T SEE ONE FOR THIS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO BE TECHNICALLY RENEW IT EVERY YEAR, RIGHT? CORRECT. SO WHAT DO WE DO IF THERE'S NO TERMINATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT. OR THE ACTUAL ATTACHMENT IS ACTUALLY THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH COMPUNET, WE WOULD ONCE WE ISSUE THE POA, WE WOULD WORK DILIGENTLY WITH THE VENDOR, WHICH IS THEME AND OBJECT FIRST DATA ON THE ACTUAL CONTRACT

[00:45:04]

COUNCILMEMBER BRADFORD, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND AND MAYBE JOSEPH TOO. IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR YOU OR HIM IN THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN. AND WE GET THESE ATTACKS WHERE PEOPLE TRY TO TAKE OUR DATA. I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS AN AUTOMATED BACKUP SYSTEM SO THAT WE CAN RE STRUCTURE WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY A RANSOM THAT WE DON'T WANT TO. YEAH, THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER PART OF OUR DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN. SO IN THE EVENT IF WHEN WE WERE ATTACKED, WE COULD WE COULD RECOVER FROM THAT. WE ALSO USE IT IN JUST DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS. USERS WILL CALL DELETE HAVE DELETED FILES GOING BACK. WE CAN WE CAN USE IT FOR THAT AS WELL. WE USE IT MOSTLY FOR THAT. HOPEFULLY WE NEVER HAVE TO USE IT FOR THE DISASTER, BUT THAT IS PART OF IT. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS. WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION. START ON PAGE. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THE BACKUP SOFTWARE AND SUPPORT SERVICES FROM OMNIA PARTNERS COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT NUMBER R 250302 WITH COMPUNET INC. FOR VM AND OBJECT OBJECT FIRST DATA PLATFORM SERVICES FOR A TOTAL OF $272,013.16, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND.

RADFORD I. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. LEIGH. YES. THANK YOU.

MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. NOW WE ARE GOING TO OPEN OUR PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED FEES

[5.E.3) Public Hearing for the Proposed Fees for Fiscal Year 2026/27 ]

[00:50:02]

THEY ACTUALLY ADD LANDING FEES TO INCLUDE TERM FEES. THERE'S ALSO A REVISED FEE STRUCTURE TO ADD TERM FEES FOR TERMINAL RENT. AND THEN THERE'S A NEW FEE, A BAG FEE THAT'S A KEY REPLACEMENT FEE AT $50 PER KEY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR TURNER? OKAY, SO I'VE GOT A COUPLE PAGES ON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

I DO HAVE DIRECTOR SANDER HERE TO ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DIRECTOR SANDER AND I SPOKE ABOUT, AS WELL AS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE WORK SESSIONS, IS WE HAVEN'T REALLY DONE A DEEP DIVE ON SOME OF OUR FEES IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THERE IS PLANS TO DO MORE OF A DEEP DIVE AND DO A TRANSITION OR INCREMENTAL FEE APPROACH OVER THIS NEXT YEAR, BUT THESE ARE THE FEES THAT ARE CHANGING, AND THERE'S SUBDIVISION FEES, ANNEXATION FEES AND APPLICATION FEES. THOSE ARE ON SECTION TWO, PAGES ONE THROUGH TWO, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FEE VALUATION TABLE. I'VE GOT THOSE LISTED THERE, AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING FEE VALUATION TABLE. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY ON PAGES TWO THROUGH FOUR. AND THEN WE'VE GOT A COUPLE MORE. SO NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN ADDITIONS, CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS, WHICH WE I BELIEVE WE HAD A WORK SESSION ABOUT THAT A FEW WEEKS AGO. AND THEN PARKLET LEASE TEMPORARY ON STREET CONSTRUCTION, PARKING PERMITS.

SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MAYOR OR COUNCIL FROM DIRECTOR SANDER ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FEES? I DO HAVE I DO HAVE ONE. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION FEES THAT WERE REMOVED. AS IT SAYS, REMOVED. THIS IS THE BRIDGE AND ARTERIAL FEE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, SECTION TWO, PAGE ONE. TWO ANNEXATION FEES, THE 2.4 AND TWO POINT 4AB WAS REMOVED. I THINK THOSE ARE IN REFERENCE TO NOW WE DO IMPACT FEES. AND SO WHEN WE DID THAT, THE BRIDGE AND ARTERIAL ROADS GET REMOVED BECAUSE THEY'RE REPLACED BY OUR IMPACT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. WELL I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO IDAHO FALLS POWER. SO WE DO HAVE GENERAL MANAGER FREDERICKSON HERE. AND WE ALSO HAVE THE CFO, BRUCE JOSH BRUCE HERE AS WELL. THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES TO OUR ELECTRIC SERVICES TO VARIOUS BASE DEMAND AND SERVICE CHARGES. THERE'LL BE A NEW STREETLIGHT UTILITY FEE PER ACCOUNT PER MONTH. AND EXCUSE ME, A PUBLIC UNLIT FIBER OPTIC NETWORK FEE FOR BACKBONE SERVICE FEE PER SINGLE PAIR. FIBER PER MONTH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR IDAHO FALLS POWER OR FIBER? MUNICIPAL SERVICES? SO EVERYBODY KNOWS AT THIS POINT IN THE COMMUNITY, WE HAVE A NEW LOBBY AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INTEREST IN, HEY, CAN I COME AND RENT JUST A LOBBY BECAUSE IT'S JUST SO BEAUTIFUL AND IT'S GOT ADA RESTROOMS. SO WE'VE ADDED A NEW FEE. IT'S JUST THE MAIN LOBBY FLOOR RENTAL THAT WILL BE CONTINGENT ON ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE AUDITORIUM, BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD A COUPLE REQUESTS TO RENT OUT THE SPACE, AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A HIGH SCHOOL REUNION LAST WEEK, AND IT WAS A 40 YEAR HIGH SCHOOL REUNION THAT THEY HAD IN THE LOBBY, AND THEY LOVED IT. AND THEY WERE DOING SELFIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE STILL DO SELFIES AFTER 40 YEARS. BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S THIS NEW FEE. IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A BASIC FEE RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING WITH IDAHO FALLS ARTS COUNCIL IS THEY WILL BE DOING A BENCHMARKING STUDY FOR US. WE'VE ALREADY ENTERED INTO NEGOTIATION WITH THEM TO BEGIN THAT PROCESS. AND WE'RE GOING TO REALLY DO A DEEP DIVE ON OUR BENCHMARKING OF OUR FEES WITH LIKE FACILITIES IN SOUTHEAST IDAHO AS WELL AS UTAH. AND WE ALSO INCLUDE WYOMING, AND I THINK WE DO MONTANA AND THAT THAT BENCHMARKING STUDY WILL BE AVAILABLE IN NOVEMBER. AND WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO COUNCIL TO GO OVER THE RESULTS OF THAT STUDY. BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF THERE ISN'T A FEE ON THE FEE SCHEDULE, WE CAN'T RENT

[00:55:03]

BUT LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT LOBBY SPACE.

SO OKAY, SO PARKS AND RECREATION SECTION EIGHT, PAGES SIX THROUGH 13. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE MOST PAGES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. THE FEES, AS YOU SEE LISTED HERE, ■ARE REVISED WITH SERVICES AND PROGRAMS PROVIDED. WE DO HAVE OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR AT HOME HERE. IF THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FROM MAYOR OR COUNCIL PRIOR TO US OPENING UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. I JUST WANT TO HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A FEW FEES THAT ARE CROSSED OUT. DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE NOT DOING THOSE PROGRAMS ANYMORE, OR WHAT ALL DOES THAT MEAN THOSE THAT ARE CROSSED OUT, WE'RE ACTUALLY REVISING SOME OF THE PROGRAMS AND FEES BASED ON THAT. BUT DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC PROGRAM THAT YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT A LOT OF LIKE GREENBELT BENDING PAD? ET CETERA. ET CETERA. ACROSS THE HOW DOES THAT REPLACE OH, IS THAT REPLACED BY A LINE DOWN OR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS. YEAH. SO JUST BELOW THAT OR JUST ABOVE THAT, EXCUSE ME. JUST BELOW THAT THERE IS A NEW FEE. WE HAD BOTH OF THOSE FEES IN FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH AND REALLY TRIED TO ELIMINATE EITHER PROGRAMS THAT WE DON'T OFFER ANYMORE, DUPLICATED FEES THAT MAYBE WERE PUT IN OVER THE, OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE WERE VERY PRECISE WITH OUR FEES.

WE'RE TRYING TO GENERALIZE A LITTLE BIT MORE NOW SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF INCLUDE NOT HAVE TO PUT EVERY PROGRAM THAT WHEN WE DON'T OPERATE ANYMORE AND TAKE THAT PROGRAM OFF, WE'RE TRYING TO KNOCK OUT ANY OF THOSE DUPLICATIONS AND NON-OPERATED PROGRAMS. SO REALLY, IF YOU SEE, AS DIRECTOR ALEXANDER SAID, SEVEN PAGES OF FEES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION, HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO WHITTLE THAT DOWN TO TO MAYBE FOUR PAGES OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. BUT IT'S REALLY, IT'S REALLY TRYING TO CLEAN UP OUR OVERALL FEE SCHEDULE TO BETTER REFLECT EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE HOSTING IN PARKS RECREATION. SO THE MAIN THING I'M VERIFYING WE'RE STILL EXPECTING PEOPLE TO PAY FOR THE USE OF THOSE SPACE. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. YES.

YEAH. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ON, ON YOUR RACEWAY, IDAHO FALLS RACEWAY 7605. IT'S ON. WELL, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT PAGE IT'S ON BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THIS ONE. BUT ALL OF THE FEES, I WASN'T SURE WHETHER THAT WAS JUST BECAUSE THE RACEWAY, WE ACTUALLY HAVE LEASES FOR THAT RACEWAY NOW. AND SO THEY PAY US A DOLLAR PER USER. I JUST WOULD LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY ON, ON WHY ALL OF THOSE FEES WERE CROSSED OUT. SO A HANDFUL OF YEARS AGO, WHEN WE RAN THE MOTOCROSS TRACK AS A, WE WOULD PREP IT EVERY WEEK AND HAVE WEEKLY PRACTICES. WE WOULD CHARGE RIDERS. I THINK THERE'S A, THERE'S A RIDER CHARGE IN THERE AND THAT WE CHARGE THEM A WEEKLY FEE. WE GOT OUT OF THAT AND STARTED TO UTILIZE USER GROUPS OUT THERE RENTING THOSE FACILITIES FROM US. AND SO NOW THEY HANDLE ALL THEIR RIDERS, ALL THEIR PRACTICES. WHEN THEY DO HAVE EVENTS THAT PEOPLE THAT SPECTATORS COME AND PAY FOR, WE DO HAVE A SURCHARGE FOR THAT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE DON'T RUN ANY SPECIFIC EVENTS OR PROGRAMS OUT OF THAT SITE ANY LONGER. SO THESE FEES WOULD BE MAINTAINED THROUGH A CONTRACT WITH THE USER GROUP. YES, YES.

THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THE NEXT AREA WE HAVE IS SECTION NINE, PAGE 13, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THERE ARE THREE NEW FEES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED AT RISK, DANGEROUS, UNALTERED LICENSE, AT RISK, DANGEROUS ALTERED LICENSE, AND THEN A NEW EUTHANASIA

[01:00:05]

THERE'S CHANGES TO COUNTY AND CITY RATES, AS WELL AS SEPTIC HAULERS. AND THEN ON OUR WATER, THERE'LL BE CHANGES TO SERVICE CONNECTION FEES, A DISCONNECT RECONNECTION FEE, AND A VARIETY OF THE OTHER RECHARGE, ADMINISTRATION AND SAMPLING FEES FOR WASTEWATER. I'M SORRY.

WATER. I FORGOT HIS OWN WATER. AND SO THIS IS THE LAST ONE THAT WE HAVE FOR FEES. THIS IS THE CONCLUSION OF THE STAFF PRESENTATION. AND ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY NEED TO COME FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AND AT THIS POINT, MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION FOR THIS TIME. THANK YOU. WE WOULD NOW OPEN THE MIC UP THE PODIUM TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY RESIDENTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND COME TO THE PODIUM AND COMMENT SPECIFICALLY ON THE FEES, THE FEE CHANGES OR ANY OF THE FEES THAT ARE BEING CHARGED. YOU ARE WELCOME TO COME TO THE PODIUM TO DISCUSS ANY OF YOUR CONCERNS OR SUPPORT. OKAY. DIRECTOR ALEXANDER, I WOULD SAY THAT NO ONE IS HERE TO GIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON OUR FEES THIS YEAR. OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SO THE NEXT HEARING THAT WE HAVE IS THE FOREGONE HEARINGS. THERE'LL BE TWO HEARINGS TO STAFF PRESENTATIONS.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO START WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION. SO EXCUSE ME, I DO NEED TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE. YES WE DO. YES WE YES YES YES. SO ALL OF A SUDDEN I WENT TO THE NEXT ONE. SO YES, IF THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING WE'RE NOT HAVING A VOTE. RIGHT. YEAH. CORRECT. NOT YET. BECAUSE THIS IS THE HEARING. AND THEN WE WILL ADOPT THE BUDGET. WE'LL VOTE ON THE FOREGONE. YES, BUT NOT THE FEES. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND REOPEN AND START A NEW HEARING, WHICH IS THE A PUBLIC HEARING TO LEVY THE 1% FOREGONE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2627. YES. SO THIS IS THE 1% FOREGONE. THIS IS THE PRIORITIZED REQUEST THAT WE REVIEWED DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS. THE 1% FOREGONE IS ALLOWED AS IS UP TO 1%. IT CAN BE LESS THAN 1%, BUT IT CAN'T BE MORE THAN 1%. AND THAT IS ONGOING. SO IT'S ADDED TO THE BASE. THIS 1% FOREGONE ACTUALLY COMES FROM OUR FOREGONE BALANCES THAT WE HAVE ABOUT $5.7 MILLION AVAILABLE. AND THAT IS MONEY THAT HAS NOT BEEN LEVIED IN PREVIOUS FISCAL YEARS THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE CITY TO PROVIDE ONGOING FUNDING REQUESTS. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF FOCUS AND DISCUSSION DURING THIS BUDGET PROCESS ON OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, LEGAL, FIRE AND POLICE PARTICULARLY, AND THE CONSENSUS OF THE DIRECTORS AND COUNCIL DURING WORK SESSIONS WAS TO GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND AND PRIORITIZE ONE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, WHICH WOULD BE A NEW POSITION. THE FOCUS WOULD BE ON CIVIL AND PROSECUTION. TWO FIRE EMS TRAINING OFFICERS, THEY WOULD BE AT A CAPTAIN LEVEL, AND THAT WOULD SPEAK TO A LOT OF THE STANDARDIZATION OF THE TRAINING, INCLUDING THE DEFIBRILLATORS. AND THEN ONE POLICE DISPATCHER AND THE POLICE, THE POLICE DISPATCHER, THE NEW POLICE DISPATCHER IS ACTUALLY A SHARED COST WITH BONNEVILLE COUNTY. SO CURRENTLY THE SHARED COST WOULD BE $37,406 FOR BONNEVILLE COUNTY. THE FOREGONE AMOUNT THAT YOU SEE ON THIS SLIDE IS $36,947.

AND THEN I'LL GET INTO MORE DETAILS OF THE GROWTH AND THE OTHER FUNDING. AND THIS FOREGONE SLIDE IS ON PAGE 49 AND 50 OF THE DRAFT BUDGET BOOK. YOU SHOULD HAVE IT IN YOUR

[01:05:03]

[5.E.5) Public Hearing to Levy One-Time Capital Project Forgone for Fiscal Year 2026/27 ]

[5.E.4) Public Hearing to Levy 1% Forgone for Fiscal Year 2026/27 ]

WE'LL OPEN OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M CLOSING THAT HEARING NOW. AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE. MAKING SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE ACTION ITEMS ACTUALLY WRITTEN ON THE AGENDA. I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE ON THAT. OKAY, SO NOW WE DO

[5.E.6) Public Hearing for the 2026/27 Fiscal Year Budget ]

[01:10:04]

LESS THAN 1% OF THE ONE TIME CAPITAL. AGAIN, WE CAN ONLY USE IT ONE TIME. IT'S GOING TO BE FOR SPECIFIC CAPITAL PROJECT. AND ONCE THE PROJECT IS DONE, THE MONEY GOES AWAY. THAT ONE TIME AMOUNT IS ESTIMATED TO BE $353,000. SO IT IS LESS THAN 1%. THE ESTIMATED ENDING FOREGONE BALANCE IF THE BUDGET ASSUMPTION IS ADOPTED, AS WE ARE PRESENTING THIS EVENING, IS ABOUT 4.6 MILLION WILL BE REMAINING. AND WE DO HAVE WE WILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY TAX CALCULATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION. BUT THE ESTIMATED PROPERTY TAX INCLUDED IN THIS THREE, 93.5 MILLION IS 54 MILLION. SO MOVING RIGHT ALONG, THE PROPOSED TENTATIVE NOT TO EXCEED BUDGET INCLUDES A 2% COST OF LIVING FOR NONUNION CITY EMPLOYEES. MARKET STUDY ADJUSTMENTS FOR IDAHO FALLS POWER AND FIBER EMPLOYEES. THEY ACTUALLY USE A MILLIMAN STUDY, AND IT'S AN ELECTRIC INDUSTRY BASED, MARKET BASED STUDY. AND THAT IS WHAT IS USED OVER IN OUR IDAHO FALLS POWER AND FIBER AREA, AN INCREASE OF 5% FOR MEDICAL BENEFITS, 5% VISION, AND 10% FOR OUR DENTAL PLAN. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR EVERYONE IN TODAY'S DAY AND AGE TO HAVE INCREASES TO THEIR MEDICAL BENEFITS, AND WE'VE BEEN VERY APPRECIATIVE THAT COUNCIL HAS BEEN SO SUPPORTIVE OF OUR EMPLOYEES TO HONOR THOSE INCREASES WITHOUT IMPACTING THE EMPLOYEES SALARY AND WAGES. AND THEN FINALLY, OUR REPLACEMENT OF A UTILITY BILLING SOFTWARE IS CALLED, WE CALL IT A CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM, BUT IT IS A IT IS A REPLACEMENT. WE'VE HAD ONE FOR, I WANT TO SAY A LITTLE OVER TEN YEARS, AND THAT AMOUNT IS GOING TO BE AN ESTIMATED $2 MILLION AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND THERE'LL BE MORE WORK DONE GOING, GOING ON TO THAT. AND WE PLANNED ON DOING THIS, THIS, THIS SECOND COMPONENT FIRST. WE AGREED AND THERE WAS COUNCIL CONSENSUS THAT WE WENT LIVE WITH OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM. WE ARE USING WORKDAY AND SPRY POINT. THAT'S GOING VERY WELL AT THIS POINT. SO THE TIMING IS PERFECT TO LOOK AT A UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE INFORMATION SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME MORE BELLS AND WHISTLES, IF YOU WILL, OR ENHANCEMENT CUSTOMER SERVICES. AND I'M NOT GOING TO STEAL THE THUNDER ON THAT BECAUSE I KNOW OUR CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FROM IDAHO FALLS POWER WILL BE DOING A PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL.

SO. BUT WITH THAT, IT IS IT IS IN THE BUDGET AND IT IS INCLUDED IN THAT TOTAL. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, AND IT'S IN YOUR PACKET, AND THAT IS THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THIS IS THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IT'S A REALLY COOL INFOGRAPHIC AND I WANTED TO SHOW IT TO YOU. I'M JUST REMINDING MYSELF THAT IT'S IN THE PACKET BY THIS SLIDE HERE, BUT IT DOES LIST INVESTMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY AS A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY $17 MILLION TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR OUR IDAHO FALLS POWER PARKS AND RECREATION, OUR IDAHO FALLS ZOO, GOLF PUBLIC WORKS, AND OUR IDAHO FALLS POLICE. THE FUNDING SOURCES ARE LISTED AT THE BOTTOM. THERE'S A VARIETY OF FUNDING SOURCES THAT ARE GOING TO HELP BUILD THESE INVESTMENTS INTO OUR COMMUNITY FOR ALL TO ENJOY, AND THEY ARE LISTED DOWN AT THE BOTTOM. SO THERE'S A VARIETY OF FUNDING SOURCES. BUT IN YOUR INFOGRAPHIC, IT ACTUALLY BREAKS IT OUT BY THE FUNDING SOURCES. SO FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'LL SEE HERE ON HERE THE STREET IMPACT FEE, PARKS IMPACT FEE AND IMPACT FEE. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, PRIORITY REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY THAT WOULD BE FOCUSED ON CIVIL AND CRIMINAL. AND I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF NOTES, NOTES THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAD SHARED WITH COUNCIL DURING OUR BUDGET WORK SESSIONS. AND THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FIFTH ATTORNEY AS ESSENTIAL TO THE CITY'S GROWING POPULATION INCREASE OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASELOADS. SO THIS POSITION WILL BE VERY WELL USED. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT IS FUNDED OUT OF 1% FOREGONE. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE TWO FIRE EMS TRAINING CAPTAINS THAT ARE AT THE CAPTAIN LEVEL WITH 1% FOREGONE. CHIEF OLSON HAD NOTED TO TO THE COUNCIL THAT THE. EXCUSE ME, THE FIRE CAPTAINS ARE ESSENTIAL TO MEETING TRAINING DEMANDS ACROSS ALL SHIFTS WHILE MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY OF TRAINING STANDARDS. TRAINING HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY CHIEF OLSON AS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT INVESTMENTS THE CITY CAN MAKE TO OUR FIRE AND EMS PROFESSIONALS, AS IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS SAFETY, PERFORMANCE AND PUBLIC SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY.

[01:15:06]

SO WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT PRIORITIZE REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. THE TOP ITEM RIGHT NOW IS THE POLICE RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. THIS RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS MISSION CRITICAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND IS IN COLLABORATION WITH BONNEVILLE COUNTY. WE'VE REALLY BEEN ABLE TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH ONE ANOTHER ON THE RESPONSE TO CALLS. IT ALSO IDENTIFIES SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS TO HAVING JOINT RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WITH BONNEVILLE COUNTY, AND IT'S THE MOST COST EFFICIENT OPTION FOR THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. AND FINALLY, INSTALLATION OF A BASIC. FINALLY, THE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY. PHASE ONE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS IS THE INSTALLATION OF BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO A FUTURE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY. AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN THE EARLY CONCEPTUAL STAGES, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE'VE ACTUALLY HAVE A LOCATION SELECTED JUST YET.

BUT THERE IS A LONG TERM VISION WITH SERVING EMERGENCY RESPONDERS THROUGHOUT THE REGION. SO IT REALLY COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A REGIONAL TYPE OF TRAINING OPPORTUNITY FOR US IN OUR COMMUNITY. AND THOSE ARE ON PAGE 50 AND 54 OF THE DRAFT BOOK. THE OTHER PRIORITIZED REQUEST THAT WE HAD THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT IN OUR BUDGET SESSIONS IS OUR GIFT CONTRIBUTION. AS MANY PEOPLE KNOW, THE GIFT IS A POPULAR AND WELL LOVED, WELL USED PROGRAM, AND THE COSTS OVER TIME HAVE INCREASED. THE OPERATIONAL COSTS HAVE INCREASED OVER TIME DUE TO THE GROWTH AND DUE TO THE POPULARITY OF IT. AND SO IT WAS A PRIORITIZED REQUEST TO USE OUR GROWTH MONEY THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE, THAT WE HAVE EARNED BY GROWING CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 THAT WILL BE ONGOING, AND THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY PUT INTO THE GIFT.

GREATER IDAHO FALLS TRANSIT CONTRIBUTION. WE HAD A PRESENTATION BY OUR LIBRARY BOARD AND OUR LIBRARY DIRECTOR. RIGHT. PRIORITIZED THE LIBRARY OPERATIONAL TAX LEVY INCREASE OF $201,661. THIS IS ONGOING. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A NEW REQUEST. IT'S AN INCREMENTAL CITY CONTRIBUTION TO SUPPORT LIBRARY OPERATIONS, TO ALIGN THE LIBRARY MISSION AND VISION TO SUPPORT LIFELONG LITERACY, BROAD ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, WHILE REMAINING FOCUSED AND FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. AND SO THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED AND PRIORITIZED WITH COUNCIL DURING OUR BUDGET WORK SESSIONS. THE NEXT ITEM IS OUR POLICE PAY SCALE CHANGE FOR SWORN OFFICERS. THIS IS ACTUALLY SOME OF THE NOTES FROM CHIEF JOHNSON ARE THAT IT'S A CONTRIBUTION TO POLICE RECRUITMENT AND RETAINMENT EFFORTS THROUGH REFLECTING A COMPETITIVE PAY SCHEDULE TO MAINTAIN COMMUNITY POLICING INITIATIVES. POLICE COMMUNITY POLICING HAS BEEN A PRIORITY IDENTIFIED BY COUNCIL, AND SO THIS IS ONE WAY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE BY OFFERING RECRUITMENT AND RETAINING EFFORTS. AND THEN FINALLY, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE POLICE POLICE DISPATCHER I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A VARIETY OF FUNDING THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BUT THAT IS LISTED THERE AS PART OF GROWTH IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,533. THESE ITEMS ARE ON PAGE 49, 50 AND 52 OF THE DRAFT BUDGET BOOK. SO THE PRIORITY REQUEST FROM THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND THOSE ARE RATE FUNDED.

SO THEY ARE COVERED THROUGH THE RATES THAT ARE CHARGED FOR THE SERVICES, PRIORITIZED REQUESTS FROM OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IS TO WATER SERVICE TECHNICIANS. THE IDAHO FALLS POWER HAD PRIORITIZED TWO POWER WIRE MEN. THERE IS ONE APPRENTICE GENERATION MECHANIC FOR IDAHO FALLS POWER AND THEN ONE FIBER COMMUNICATIONS AND SPLICING TECHNICIAN FOR IDAHO FALLS POWER AND FIBER. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THEY ARE FUNDED BY THE UTILITY RATES AND THEY ARE DUE. THE REQUESTS ARE DUE TO GROWTH AND STRATEGIC AND INTEGRATED PLANNING TO MAINTAIN CITY UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE. SO I'M NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO REVENUE. SO

[01:20:02]

[01:25:06]

SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY TAX VALUATION TABLE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FAR COLUMN TO THE RIGHT IS THE ESTIMATED 2027 VALUATION CERTIFIED PROPERTY TAX. THAT'S THE 54.1 MILLION I MENTIONED EARLIER. AND THEN THAT LEVY RATE WOULD BE 0.006. AND IT'S ON PAGE 28 OF THE DRAFT BUDGET BOOK. BUT THERE IS AN INVERSE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUATION AND LEVY RATE. SO WHEN VALUATION GOES UP, THE LEVY RATE GOES DOWN. WE ESTIMATED OUR FINANCE TEAM ESTIMATED A 3.3% INCREASE FOR PROPERTY VALUATION. AND THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE.

WE'VE BEEN VERY CLOSE AND OUR ESTIMATES AND OUR CITY TREASURER HAS DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB OVER THE LAST 11 YEARS, GETTING US WITHIN SOME CASES, 4 TO $5000. SO THAT'S THE PROCESS. WORKS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. THE PROPOSED ALLOCATION FOR THE PROPERTY TAXES. AND THAT WOULD BE YOUR SECOND TO COLUMN OVER TO THE RIGHT THE TOTAL. THERE'S THE 54.1 MILLION. THEIR GENERAL FUND IS 40 45.6 MILLION. STREETS AT THREE, RECREATION AT 1.2 AND LIBRARY AT 3.3. AND THIS IS ON PAGE 28 OF THE DRAFT BUDGET BOOK. IT WILL ALSO SHOW YOU THE INCREASED PERCENTAGE ON THE FAR RIGHT COLUMN. OKAY, SO THIS IS THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL IMPACT TO RESIDENTIAL. OUR CURRENT PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT IS LISTED ON THE TOP LINE RIGHT THERE FOR A HOME ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE OF 375,000. THE CURRENT PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT IS $1,460, ADDING IN THE 3% STATUTORY GROWTH, YOU CAN SEE IT'S 95 TO $8, THE FORGONE 1% FOR OPERATIONS AND THE FORGONE FOR CAPITAL AND THE ANNUAL AMOUNT WOULD COME TO $1,580 PER YEAR, OR $132 A MONTH FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH A CURRENT PROPERTY TAX ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUE OF 375,000. THE TOTAL CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT IS THE ANNUAL WOULD BE $121 A YEAR, AND THE MONTHLY WOULD BE ABOUT $10 A YEAR. AND THEN THE OTHER ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES

[01:30:06]

SO I AM I THINK IT'S AMAZING THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT I KNOW THAT THE THE IDEA IS, OH, THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS VERSUS ANY OTHER CITY, BUT THE, THE THINGS THAT WE DO PROVIDE AS A CITY ARE NOT SEPARATED BY BOARDS. THIS IS THE BOARD FOR, FOR ALL OF THOSE. SO THANK YOU TO COUNCIL FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. AND WE ARE NOW GOING TO OPEN THE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME TO THE PODIUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS BUDGET. YES. MR. MILLS AND I DO. PEOPLE KNOW THAT MR. MILLS WAS ACTUALLY, I BET NOT. I'M GOING TO SAY HE WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER AT ONE POINT. SO WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK IN CHAMBERS. WELL, YOU KNOW, I SAT OVER ON THE SECOND

[01:35:04]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, A BAR? IT WAS ACTUALLY AN OLD RAILING. SO. SO THEY COULDN'T THROW SOMETHING AT YOU. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WAS WONDERING HOW OLD MAYBE THAT WAS. THAT THERE WAS A BAR IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. OKAY, FIRST OFF, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE IT ON MY NOTE OF ACRONYMS WAS WHAT I WAS JUST HEARING ABOUT WITH FEES. AND I WANT TO EXPRESS ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF MY RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH IT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WITH AMBULANCE THAT YES, UNFORTUNATELY, MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY LAST YEAR AND IT SEEMED LIKE BECAUSE OF THE CONTRACT OF THE THIRD PARTY BUILDING, AND I WAS SURPRISED THE CITY DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF IT THEMSELVES. BUT OUT OF CALIFORNIA IS THE CONTRACT TO FOR AMBULANCE BILLING. AND IT SEEMS LIKE OF ALL THE BILLS I GOT FOR MY MOTHER, THAT WAS THE LAST ONE, LIKE 90 DAYS LATER THAT THAT TOOK HER TO ER, AND THEN THE HOURS THAT LED FROM THERE FROM CARDIAC. SO IN OTHER WORDS, I WAS SURPRISED HOW SLOW IT WAS. SO WHETHER THAT'S JUST BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY GET FROM YOU ALL OR THE FINANCE PERSON, OR YOU KNOW HOW THAT PROCESS HAPPENS. OKAY, NOW LET'S, LET'S START OFF WITH, I NOTICED THERE WAS ONE ITEM IN THE BUDGET AS I GAVE MY QUICK REVIEW OF IT, THAT APPARENTLY THERE'S IN A PROJECT THAT MAY USING THE LAND AND LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND. WELL, I'LL TELL YOU FROM MY OLD MEMORY FROM BACK IN THE 90S WHEN I WAS. AND WHAT I'LL TELL YOU A WEAKNESS THAT I STILL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HOW IT'S MAYBE MODIFIED OR MAYBE CAUGHT UP TO SINCE. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE CITY WAS APPROACHED IN THE 90S FROM THE ART GUILD THAT BUILT THAT ART MUSEUM NEXT TO THE ELECTRICAL DEPARTMENT, YES, THAT'S WHAT WE CALLED IT THEN. I STILL CAN'T GET USED TO CALLING IT IDAHO FALLS POWER AND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TRADE OFF SORT OF THAT WE TOLD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WE WOULD DO IN AUTHORIZING THAT MUSEUM TO BE BUILT AS AN EDUCATION AND CULTURAL CENTER ON THE GREENBELT WAS THEN THE ART GUILD HAD RECEIVED THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S TO THE WEST OF JOHN BASS FOR FOUR BAY THERE BY JOHN HOLES. THAT'S JUST ACROSS THE CANAL, AND THAT WE WOULD LANDSCAPE IT. AND FOR 30 YEARS IT'S NEVER BEEN LANDSCAPED AND IT JUST STAYS THERE IN THE DRY WEEDS. SO I'D BE CURIOUS IF SOMETHING HAS EVER BEEN MODIFIED WITH THAT, THAT WE DID SOMETHING ELSE IN EXCHANGE TO LEAVE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THE WAY IT IS. THE NEXT ONE IS THAT I WAS GLAD TO HEAR COMMENT THAT GOOD SOFTWARE IS PUT IN PLACE FOR PROTECTION OF THE MUNICIPALITY FROM HACKERS AND ALL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'VE READ PLENTY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS TO WHERE APPARENTLY UTILITIES ARE THE MOST COMMONLY HACKED NOW. AND WE CERTAINLY DO, AS THE MAYOR JUST SAID, HAVE MULTIPLE UTILITIES. AND WHERE IT'S NOT, IT MAY SEEM LIKE A BIG PART OF THE BUDGET, BUT IT'S STILL PROBABLY A VERY MODEST SIZED UTILITY, AND HACKERS WOULD PROBABLY THINK THAT IT WAS A PRIME EASY TO GET ONE. SO I ALWAYS HOPE THAT NOBODY WOULD EVER QUESTION WHAT WOULD BE INTENDED IN THE BUDGET FOR THAT ONE. FINALLY, THEN, THE OTHER ITEM THAT I CAN SHARE WITH YOU AND HOPE THAT THERE'S NEVER ANY DISCUSSION AND BUDGE ABOUT FROM ANY DEPARTMENT OR ANY ABOUT. WE HAVE TO PUT THAT MUCH IN MURPH, WHICH. WHICH COULD PUT IT SOMEPLACE ELSE, BECAUSE I LIVED THROUGH THE DAYS WHEN I SAT NEXT TO MEL ERIKSSON, THAT SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW, OR SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE NEVER KNOWN. MEL ERIKSSON AND I SAT NEXT TO HIM AND MANY TIMES DURING BUDGET MEETINGS, AND HE WOULD REMIND US ALL WHAT IT WAS LIKE IN THE 1960S WHEN HE STARTED ON THE COUNCIL, AND THERE WAS NOT MURPH. AND WHEN THEY HAD TO MAKE THAT TRANSITION FROM CREATING MURPH, SO THAT THERE WASN'T ALWAYS THAT IT WAS A BACK AND FORTH OF LIKE, WELL, WHO REALLY DESERVES THIS PRIORITY THIS YEAR? OR, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF. WELL, WE WANT $100,000 FOR THIS. WELL, WE DO TOO. AND, AND SO I THINK IT'S A, IT'S BEEN A GOOD VEHICLE THAT'S BEEN USED FOR PROBABLY A GOOD 50 YEARS. AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL ALWAYS BE ABLE TO BE USED. AND IF YOU EVER HAD THOSE NICE PEOPLE, I'LL SAY THAT POLITELY

[01:40:02]

MY NAME IS GARY MILLS. AND YES, I'VE LIVED IN THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME. AND MR. MILLS, I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT AFTER 30 YEARS, WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR LWCF AND WE ARE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING. THAT ONE PARCEL THEN THAT WAS DONATED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. BUT WE ARE FINALLY ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING BECAUSE WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE MAP AND PARK. GOOD. GOOD. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME TO THE PODIUM? MR. ASHCROFT? YEAH. SO MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN ASHCROFT, AND I AM A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT, MAINLY CONNECTING THE CITY'S MISSION, PART OF ITS STRATEGIC PLAN TO THE BUDGETING PROCESS, SPECIFICALLY THE PHRASE AND THE MISSION THAT'S MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE IS A BUDGETING PROCESS IS, IS PRETTY GOOD AS FAR AS CITY GOES. I THINK AS CITIES GO, I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE, ESPECIALLY FOR HOW COMPLEX THE CITY WE ARE. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION AND A LOT OF WORK GOES INTO IT, AND I THINK WE DO SOME DECENT ENGAGEMENT WITH SURVEYS, WITH SOME COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS ON SPECIFIC INITIATIVES. BUT I'M KIND OF TALKING MORE ABOUT JUST GENERAL BUDGET, HIGH LEVEL ENGAGEMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY. SO I THINK WE WE FALL SHORT IN THE SENSE THAT, LIKE, TO ME, THIS KIND OF SEEMS LIKE THE BIGGEST STEP OF THE BUDGET WHERE WE HAVE A BIG HEARING TO APPROVE THE WHOLE THING. AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF HOW THE COMMUNITY SEES IT TOO. BUT IT JUST ENCOMPASSES SO MUCH. AND, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE TWO DEGREES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION. I CARE A LOT ABOUT THE CITY. AND I'LL SAY IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO GOING FROM WHEN THIS IS RELEASED TO THEN YOU GOT A PUBLIC HEARING TO TRY TO THINK OF, HOW DO I MEANINGFULLY ENGAGE AND CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CONVERSATION AS SOMEBODY WHO REALLY CARES? AND. I THINK WHY IT'S DIFFICULT IS BECAUSE, ONE, THERE'S JUST SO MUCH INFORMATION. BUT TWO, IT'S ALSO THERE'S, THERE'S, IT'S HARD TO FIND THAT HIGH LEVEL INFORMATION AND DIGEST IT EASILY OF WHY WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING. BUDGETARILY WHICH DEPARTMENTS FINANCIALLY ARE JUST STRAINED, YOU KNOW, JUST TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS OF EVEN WHERE WE'RE SUBSIDIZING THINGS AND MAYBE FUNDS THAT ARE KIND OF OPTIONAL AND WHICH ONES WE'RE CHOOSING, WHERE WE'RE CHOOSING TO INVEST THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THOSE HIGHER LEVEL QUESTIONS WHERE YOU GUYS ARE MAKING DECISIONS. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF HOW THAT LIKE THE REASONING BEHIND YOUR PRIORITIES AND HOW YOU'RE STRUCTURING IT. BUT I THINK IT'S JUST HARD TO GRASP FROM THIS PROCESS FOR AN EVERYDAY RESIDENT. AND I THINK IT'S HARD. IT MAKES IT HARD TO FOR COMMUNITY RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES TO TAKE OWNERSHIP IN THAT PROCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AND SO I, I'VE LOOKED A LITTLE BIT INTO IT BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S, IT'S NOT AN EASY PROBLEM TO FIX, BUT I THINK ONE PATH TO KIND OF MAYBE START DOWN THAT I'VE SEEN EXAMPLES OF FROM OTHER CITIES IS TO KIND OF HAVE A SEPARATE PORTION OF THE BUDGET PROCESS THAT THEY CALL LIKE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET WHERE IT'S NOT THE TECHNICAL ACCOUNTING OR WHERE MONEY IS GOING TO BE IN THE FUNDS. AND IT'S JUST GOT A LOT LESS DETAIL AND IT'S A LOT MORE BOILED DOWN INTO THIS IS WHERE WE CURRENTLY SEE BUDGET PRIORITIES AND WHY. AND THE COMMUNITY CAN ENGAGE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS ARE VERY CAPABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THAT CONVERSATION. BUT I THINK WE KIND OF JUST HAVE TO MEET THEM IN A PLACE THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE AND A LITTLE BIT LESS BURDENSOME OR CHALLENGING TO SIFT THROUGH EVERYTHING. AND I MAKE SURE LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME STUFF THAT I'M NOT EVEN AWARE OF THAT KIND OF DOES THAT DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE BUDGET SEASON. BUT, YOU KNOW, I JUST

[01:45:04]

AND WE, WE FIND A WAY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. BUT YEAH, IT'S WE DON'T TONIGHT'S NOT THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR MONTHS AND OUR STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR MONTHS AND JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT ALL WORK. IT IS REALLY COMPLICATED AND IT'S HARD FOR US TOO. SO, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE YOU FEEL THAT YOU DON'T KNOW IT ALL, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW IT ALL. MAYBE BROOKS KNOWS IT ALL. OKAY, THANKS. THANK YOU, COUNCIL

[5.F.1) Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and Initial Zoning of R3, Multiple Dwelling Residential - 11.874 acres]

26-002A REQUEST TO ANNEX 11.874 ACRES INTO THE CITY AND WITH A ZONING DESIGNATION OF R-3. SO THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED RIGHT HERE ON 15TH EAST BETWEEN 49TH SOUTH, UP HERE TO THE NORTH AND

[01:50:07]

IMAGINE IF. AND THIS. WITH EVERY ANNEXATION. THIS IS A. THIS IS THE EXHIBIT. THAT'S A.

INCLUDED WITH IT. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT. I DON'T KNOW WHY IN THE PC MINUTES. I'M JUST HIGHLIGHTING THE ACREAGE RIGHT THERE. IT'S 11.874. YOU'LL NOTICE IN THE PACKET THE PC MINUTES ACTUALLY DESIGNATED AS 10.7. I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE'S A DISCREPANCY THERE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO CALL OUT. THAT'S THE ACTUAL ACREAGE THAT'S BEING ANNEXED. THIS ITEM WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON APRIL 7TH. NO ONE SPOKE AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING FOR OR AGAINST IT, AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. AND THIS IS WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S FARM LAND. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE WHO IS HERE TO TESTIFY? FOR THIS ANNEXATION? OKAY. THEN I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND LET. OKAY. SO ANY NO DEVELOPER, NO ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS PROPERTY AT ALL? OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. COUNCIL.

THE HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. WE ARE READY FOR ANY DELIBERATION OR AN ACTION ITEM. WELL, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TALK ABOUT IT OVER WITH DIRECTOR SANDER TODAY AND LIAISON MEETING AND PRETTY CLEAR. AND WE'RE USED TO ANNEXATION, SO. YEAH. OKAY. OUR LIAISONS ARE READY WITH EMOTION.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR CENTER. CAN YOU TELL ME THE THE ROAD FRONTAGE ALONG 15TH EAST THERE OR FIFTH? SORRY, ARE YOU TALKING THE NORTH SOUTH. NORTH SOUTH. YEP. RIGHT THERE.

YEP. THAT IS 15 PIECE 15TH EAST. WHAT'S THE FRONTAGE? IT IS ON 15 PIECES. THE LENGTH. SORRY.

OH THE LENGTH APPROXIMATELY. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE IT PRINTED OFF ON MY. HOLD ON. LET ME GRAB IT REAL QUICK. ON THAT ONE. YEAH. SORRY. THAT'S A SLIDE NOT THE ACTUAL ITEM. I CAN GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. TOO MANY BUDGET ITEMS IN THE IN THE AGENDAS. I JUST HAVE TO DOWNLOAD IT AND HAVE IT. THE ACTUAL EXHIBIT PULLED UP AND THEN I CAN ZOOM IN ON IT, I THINK. AND IF IT'S NOT EASILY OBTAINABLE, YOU CAN GET IT TO ME LATER. IT'S TOTALLY FINE, I GOT IT. HERE WE ARE. SO THE. FRONTAGE ALONG IT IS TWO. MAKE SURE THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S 40FT. IT SEEMED TO 2006. THAT'S RIGHT, I DON'T KNOW. TWO.

[01:55:19]

SECOND. LEE. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 11.874 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY WITH THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 11.874 ACRES IN PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION FOUR, THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION FIVE, TOWNSHIP ONE NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, LARSON. YES, BRADFORD I.

LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. AND, FRANCIS, I THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. AND I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL ZONING FOR R THREE MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL, AS SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE, EXHIBITS UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUESTS THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY THAT THE CITY LIMITS DOCUMENTS BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE AREA ANNEXED HEREWITH, AND THAT THE CITY PLANNER BE INSTRUCTED TO REFLECT SAID ANNEXATION AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INITIAL ZONING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS LOCATED IN THE PLANNING OFFICE. SECOND. LEE. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I.

FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. I MOTION CARRIES, AND I'LL READ THAT IN AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 11.874 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE AS R THREE MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. AND FINALLY, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF R-3 MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, BRADFORD. A. LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. YES. LEE.

YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. IT'S VERY SERIOUS IN HERE TONIGHT. I HAVE NOTICED, AND I WANT TO BRING JUST A LITTLE BIT OF LEVITY BECAUSE I LOVE THAT WE ARE ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 11.874. RIGHT. IT'S GOING OUT TO THE THOUSANDS OF ENDANGERED. AND WE'RE CALLING IT APPROXIMATE. AND I JUST I DON'T KNOW WHY I FIND THAT FUNNY, BUT I THINK THAT IS YEAH, APPROXIMATELY LIKE PRETTY, LIKE APPROXIMATELY, RIGHT. WE'RE APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES, BUT WE ARE AT THE THOUSANDTH .12 ACRES. BUT NO, WE ARE APPROXIMATELY. YEAH. SO ANYWAY, I, IT'S PARTLY BECAUSE ILLOGICAL FOUND ALUMINUM CAP. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE SIZE OF IT, BUT IT IS APPROXIMATELY, WE'RE PRETTY, WE'RE PRETTY TIGHT ON THAT ONE

[5.F.2) Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and Initial Zoning of R3, Multiple Dwelling Residential - Annexation and Initial Zoning Ordinance and Reasoned Statements of Relevant Criteria and Standards for approximately 1.17 acres ]

[02:00:06]

AND. I'M SORRY. I'M MISSING A SLIDE THERE. THE. THIS IS IN THE GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT, WHICH WAS THE SAME TRANSECT THAT WAS LOCATED IN THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATION THAT WAS APPROVED. R3 IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD MATCH THAT TRANSECT AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF THE. IMAGINE IF THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY RIGHT HERE. THIS. THIS CREAM SQUARE RIGHT HERE, AND THE PROPERTY IS THERE IN PURPLE.

THIS IS THE EXHIBIT FOR IT SHOWING THE 1.17 ACRES AND TAKEN FROM THE STREET. THERE'S TREES IN FRONT OF IT. IT'S BASICALLY A FARMLAND OR VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY. THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON JULY 7TH. NO ONE CAME IN. THERE WAS SOME PUBLIC COMMENT. EXCUSE ME, I SHOULD OR NO, THIS ONE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. SORRY, THIS IS JUST THAT IT WAS PART OF THE FUTURE. PUD AND THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED THAT THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION OR ANYBODY THAT SPOKE FOR IT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY PLANNING COMMISSION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THIS. AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT? AM I TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS WAS NOT APPROVED, THEN THE PUD THAT'S NEXT WOULD NOT BE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE IT DEPENDS UPON THIS PIECE TO TO DO THE P YOU DO. THAT'S A THAT'S A GOOD POINT. NOT ENTIRELY. I KNOW MY STAFF BECAUSE I DID POSE THAT QUESTION WHEN I REVIEWED THIS, AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD STILL LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ANNEXATION, WHETHER THE PUD MOVES FORWARD OR NOT. SO THEY'RE JUST WANTING TO INITIATE. I WAS LOOKING AT IT THE OTHER WAY. IF THIS WASN'T APPROVED, THEN THE PUD MIGHT NOT EVEN BE HEARD. THEY WOULD STILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUD. THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO REVISE IT. OKAY. IF IT WERE TO BE DENIED, IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN TONIGHT. OKAY. CORRECT. YEAH. QUICK QUESTION THEN. JUST CLARITY. IS THIS RELATED TO THE PUD THAT INVOLVES THE WILLOW CREEK FLOW THROUGH THIS ONE OVER HERE? IT'S A FUTURE PUD. YOU MEAN ON THIS SITE? COUNCIL MEMBER TROUT. THIS THIS ONE. IT IS NOT A PED THAT WE'VE ALREADY. IT'S NOT ONE. IT'S NOT ONE THAT YOU HAVE. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT.

YEAH. SORRY IF I WAS GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH INFORMATION THERE. IT'S JUST THE ANNEXATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. I WAS JUST GIVING YOU A HEADS UP. ANY QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL FOR STAFF? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC? YES. PLEASE COME AND TESTIFY. THE. ARE YOU THE DEVELOPER? YES. YES. OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY I SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE DEVELOPER A CHANCE TO. YEAH. I'M DAVID REED, I'M REPRESENTING LAURA HOLMES FROM MAPLETON, UTAH. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS DAVE REED. AND IN UTAH, I'M WE'RE HERE TO REQUEST THE ANNEXATION OF A 1.17 ACRE PARCEL OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. IT'S CURRENTLY LOCATED IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY.

IT'S OWNED BY THE WHITE FAMILY, BUT IT'S UNDER CONTRACT WITH US. SO OUR HOMES, IT SITS RIGHT ON THE BORDER OF THE PROJECT. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE DESIGN, ALREADY FITS WITH THE PUD THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND WILL BE IN FRONT OF THIS COUNCIL IN TWO WEEKS.

PRIMARY REASON WE NEED THIS APPROVED IS FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY AND CONNECTIVITY, AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY. WE'VE DESIGNED A 112 FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH DEDICATED ROAD TO PULL IN FROM 33RD NORTH, ITS POSITION JUST TO THE EAST OF THE LDS CHURCH. THIS CREATES THE SOUTHERN ACCESS POINT INTO WILLOW CREEK COVE, WHICH WILL ALLOW SMOOTH TRAFFIC AND FULL EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS, AS WELL AS POTENTIAL FULL ACCESS TO THE FUTURE PARK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. TO MY ENTERTAINS AND ENSURES THE OVERALL PUD IS FULLY SERVICED

[02:05:06]

BRADFORD. ARE YOU. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. FRANCIS. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I'LL READ THAT.

IN AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.17 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY WITH THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.17 ACRES IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION SIX, TOWNSHIP TWO NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. YES. DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS I.

FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. BRADFORD. I MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL ZONING FOR R-3 MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL WITH THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONE AS SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE EXHIBITS UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUESTS THAT IT BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. THAT THE CITY LIMITS DOCUMENTS BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE AREA ANNEXED HEREWITH, AND THAT THE CITY PLANNER BE INSTRUCTED TO REFLECT SAID ANNEXATION AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INITIAL ZONING ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS LOCATED IN THE PLANNING OFFICE. SECOND. LARSON, DINGMANN. YES. FRANCIS. I.

FREEMAN. YES. LEE. YES. BRADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. AND FINALLY, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF R-3 MULTIPLE DWELLING RESIDENTIAL WITH THE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT AIRPORT OVERLAY ZONE AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, FRANCIS I DINGMANN. YES.

LEE. YES. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. BRADFORD, I THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. NOT MY

[5.F.3) Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Harvest Village ]

YOU CAN HAVE DIRECTOR CENTER. I DO KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE.

BUT I CAN START. THE NEXT ITEM. THE NEXT ITEM ON HERE IS A PD 26-002, WHICH IS LOCATED ON EAST 65TH NORTH JUST NORTH. THIS IS SAGE LAKES GOLF COURSE RIGHT HERE. SO WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, KIND OF THE IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT HERE. AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 14.575 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED TO R-2 AND HAS THE AIR THE APPROACH AIRPORT OVERLAY ON IT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE GENERAL URBAN TRANSECT, WHICH TYPICALLY ALLOWS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CALLS OUT MIXED TYPE OF HOUSING AND DENSE, MORE DENSE FORM OF HOUSING. SO R2, R3 ARE TYPICALLY WHAT FALL IN LINE WITH THOSE ZONES. HERE'S THE. THE PUD CONCEPT. SO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? AND A

[02:10:03]

ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT CAME DISCUSSED THIS PROPERTY OVER HERE. I BELIEVE THEY THEY LIVE IN THIS HOME AND THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THIS PROPERTY OWNER FOR GRAZING OF THEIR HORSES. WHEN HE CAME TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, HE EXPRESSED JUST THAT. HE HAD THIS HANDSHAKE AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AT ONE TIME. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THIS PROPERTY IS SOLD AND THAT AGREEMENT MAY HAVE BEEN BETWEEN HIM AND THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THE TIME. BUT WITH THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO SET AGREEMENT ON THIS. AND SO THERE WAS NOTHING REALLY THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD REALLY DO ABOUT THAT ISSUE. THEY ALSO THERE WERE SOME INDIVIDUALS JUST THAT PRIMARILY DEALT WITH

[02:15:02]

THEY WERE COMMENTING PRIMARILY ABOUT THE SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH THAT WE ARE HAVING ON THE NORTH SIDE. THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC ELEMENTS, THE EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S NOW GOING TO BE PUSHED OUT ON 65TH FROM A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT UP HERE TO THE NORTH. JUST AS PART OF THIS PUD, THERE IS A RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION DOWN HERE, OVER HERE TO GET TO THE WIDTH OF 65TH, AS IT'S A MAJOR ARTERIAL FOR THAT EAST WEST OR A MINOR ARTERIAL ON THE EAST WEST. SO THOSE WERE THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATED ON THIS.

THEY DID PASS IT UNANIMOUSLY AND SENT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. AND W&TH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE OR IF YOU WANT TO. I KNOW THE DEVELOPER IS HERE AND HE WANTED TO SPEAK AS WELL, BUT LET'S HAVE THE DEVELOPER. OKAY, OKAY.

THAT'S FINE. LET'S HAVE DEVELOPER SPEAK. AND THEN WE CAN ASK THE DEVELOPER OR DIRECTOR QUESTIONS. SO. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR. MY NAME IS TYLER WARREN. I AM ENGINEERING. I'M HERE AS THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEVELOPER. I DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP INITIALLY, BUT A WAY IS VERY THOROUGH, AS YOU GUYS PROBABLY KNOW. SO NOT TOO MANY THINGS I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT. I KNOW PREVIOUSLY A CONCERN OF THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN MAYBE THE REASONING BEHIND GOING FOR THE PUD, PRIMARILY THE PRIMARY REASON FOR PURSUING A PUD ON THIS PROPERTY IS JUST TO GET THOSE LOTS TO FRONT ALONG THE PRIVATE STREETS, AND THE PD ALLOWS FOR THAT. BUT OVERALL, I BELIEVE THE OTHER COMMENT WAS WITH THE HORSE PROPERTY. THE DEVELOPER AND AND AND THAT HORSE OWNER HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING ON THAT ON THEIR I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUES ON THAT. SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO DIVE INTO THOSE QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER. YES, LET'S DO IT. MY FIRST ONE, MAYBE ON THE TREES, DON'T WE REQUIRE TREES ON THE PRIVATE ON ON, I'M SORRY, ON THE PUBLIC ROADS. SO THAT WOULD MEET OUR STANDARDS. YES.

AND THERE'S NO MOVEMENT OF TREES OUT THERE. THIS IS ONLY FOR THE PRIVATE STREET. AM I CORRECT ON THAT? THAT'S CORRECT. THE PUBLIC STREET SIDE, THE STREET TREE REQUIREMENT IS BEING MET THAT REALLY IT'S ALONG THE PRIVATE STREET THAT THEY WERE SHIFTING THEM AROUND.

OKAY. YEAH. AND WE ARE WE'RE MEETING. SO I BELIEVE THE PRIVATE STREETS, IT'S YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEM ALONG THE DRIVEWAYS. CORRECT. SO EXCEPTING THOSE AREAS, WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR. THIS WOULD BE AN ODD QUESTION, BUT HAVE WE DONE A LOT OF THESE WHERE WE HAVE THE PRIVATE STREET AND THE PUBLIC STREET IN THE SAME PLACE, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO LOOK ODD WHEN WE PLOW THE ONE STREET AND LEAVE THE OTHER ONES WITH SNOW ON THEM. IS EVERYBODY PREPARED FOR THAT? YEAH. SO WHEN IT COMES TO MAINTENANCE OF THESE, SO THE HOA WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR PLOWING OF THE PRIVATE STREETS. AND THEN WE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE PUBLIC ONES. THAT'S CORRECT. SO YES, WE WE MET THESE THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS.

AND THESE ISSUES DO COME UP THROUGH THE COURSE OF REVIEW. AND THEY ARE OKAY WITH OKAY.

AND THEN FOR THE DEVELOPER, AS YOU KNOW, WITH PUDS, COUNCIL HAS SOME INPUT ON HOW THINGS ARE GOING. IS THE DEVELOPER AMENABLE TO ESTABLISHING A PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT TO MEET PARK STANDARDS? I, WE CAN I CAN DISCUSS IT WITH. INITIALLY, IT WAS MORE OF A PRIVATE. RIGHT.

BUT IT'S THE QUALITY OF WHAT'S PUT IN. OKAY, I WOULD CAN I ADD TO THAT? IT'S SOMEWHAT THE CONCERN THAT YOU GO TO WALMART AND GET A SWING SET, RIGHT? AND THEN. SURE. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT SEEMS TO ME. YEAH. AND IT'S THE QUALITY OF WHAT'S THERE. AND WE, WE HAVE A BIT OF PRECEDENCE TO THAT. SO IT MAKES IN MY MIND, IT'S PART OF WHAT MAKES A QUALITY. SURE. YEAH. I, WE HAD SOMETHING SPECIFIC IN MIND. I'M NOT, I'M JUST NOT VERY VERSED IN THE PARKS REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT'S WHY I'M HESITANT TO, TO, TO AGREE TO THAT. I, WE'RE INTENDING ON MAKING A NICE LIVABLE SPACE WITH GOOD AMENITIES. SO I WOULD INITIALLY SAY YES, THEY WOULD BE

[02:20:06]

I WANT TO SAY I WANT TO SAY YES. SO. CAN YOU TELL ME THE THE PROPOSED LENGTHS OF YOUR DRIVEWAYS? FOUR FEET, THE APRONS BETWEEN THE PRIVATE STREET AND THE BUILDING. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? NO. THE ACTUAL LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY ITSELF BEFORE IT MEETS THE HOUSE OR THE BUILDING. 14 SO THERE'S NOT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING DRIVEWAYS. THEY'RE JUST APRONS. FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB TO. SO MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD. DIRECTOR CENTER, YOU MENTIONED TWO PARKING STALLS PER DWELLING. HOW ARE THOSE PARKING. TELL ME ABOUT THEIR PARKING STALLS. SO THAT'S TWO STALLS PER RESIDENCE. THERE'S TWO GARAGE PARKING THAT WE'RE PROVIDING. AND THEN SO SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE SITE, THERE'S SOME SOME VISITOR PARKING. OH, I SCREWED THAT UP. SORRY. WE'RE LOOKING TO ORDER SOME ACTUAL LASER POINTERS SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE. SORRY. YEAH, BUT THERE'S JUST THERE'S, THERE'S VISITOR STALLS IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE SITE. IN ADDITION TO THOSE, THE GARAGE. I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASCERTAIN IS THE PARKING STALLS THAT ARE BEING COUNTED ARE DO THEY FIT A PICKUP TRUCK? I'LL JUST DO THEY FIT AN F-150? I BELIEVE THEY'RE 22 FOOT OR ARE THEY 20? I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THAT ANSWER FOR YOU CURRENTLY, BUT THEY'RE NOT FOUR FEET. NO, THE PARKING IN THE GARAGE STALLS ARE NOT. YEAH, THEY SHOULD BE 20. I BELIEVE THEY'RE AT LEAST 20. YEAH. I CAN LOOK IT UP IF IF THAT'S CRITICAL, LIKE IF YOU GIVE ME A SECOND. BUT YEAH, IT SHOULD.

COUNCIL MEMBER LEE MAYBE COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, WHAT WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO SEE FROM A PD THAT HAS THE GARAGE. AND THEN. WELL, I JUST THINK WHEN YOU HAVE THAT KIND OF PARKING TO PER. AND THEN THERE'S NOT IF IF YOU DON'T HAVE SIGNIFICANT OR SUFFICIENT GUEST PARKING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE CARS THAT EXTEND TRUCKS, ESPECIALLY, RIGHT? THAT'S A FULL SIZE TRUCK IS GOING TO EXTEND WAY PAST THAT 20FT. AND SO YOU'RE JUST PARKING CONCERNS ME WHEN IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 FOOT DEPTH STALLS, ALL. I CAN LOOK THAT UP. I THINK I HAVE IT SOMEWHERE. QUITE SURE ON THE ON THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT HOW THE VEHICLES ARE. I KNOW THE VISITORS ARE NOT ABOUT 20. AND MAYBE YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THIS, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS? YEAH. I'M SORRY. SORRY. I WAS TRYING TO PULL THAT UP. IT JUST TAKES A BIT TO TO DOWNLOAD. LET ME GET YOU THOSE DISTANCES COUNCILMEMBER. SO THE DRIVEWAYS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR ARE. THIS IS THIS IS IT FOUR FEET THAT GOES INTO. SO YEAH, SO THIS IS THE, THIS WOULD BE BASICALLY THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE. BACK TO THE GARAGE, WHICH HAS. IT WOULD BE 22. YEAH. SO THE SO IT DOES TURN IN. IT'S JUST HARD BECAUSE I CAN ZOOM IN ON, ON OUR SOFTWARE HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER, I REALIZE THIS

[02:25:05]

IT'S NOT TANDEM PARKING. CORRECT. IT'S SIDE BY SIDE. DIRECTOR SANAA, CAN YOU POINT OUT WHERE THE PUBLIC PARKING GUEST PARKING IS? SO NEAR PHASE ONE, THERE'LL BE THESE VISITOR STALLS HERE. THERE'S SOME VISITOR STALLS IN BETWEEN THESE BUILDINGS HERE. VISITOR PARKING OVER HERE NEAR THE PICKLEBALL COURTS. WEST OF THIS PUBLIC STREET HERE. AND I BELIEVE SOME SOME VISITOR STALLS ALONG THIS HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO TRY TO ENLARGE THE DRAWING? YES, PLEASE. I THINK IT'S KIND OF LOW RES IN OUR PACKET. SO IT'S IT'S IT'S HAVING A HARD TIME READING IT. HOW MANY HOW MANY PUBLIC OR GUEST PARKING STALLS DO YOU HAVE PER TOWNHOME? BECAUSE THERE'S NO ON STREET PARKING. RIGHT. LET ME. I PULLED UP HERE. SORRY. 18. 1818 VISITOR PARKING FOR HOW MANY UNITS? FIVE. SO ON THAT ALL THE PRIVATE STREETS WILL HAVE NO PARKING ON THEM. AM I RIGHT THEN? YES, BUT THE PUBLIC STREET WOULD ALLOW PARKING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE WIDTH OF A PUBLIC STREET. YES, THERE WOULD BE PARKING ON BOTH SIDES IN A PUBLIC STREET. YEAH, YEAH. THE 70 FOOT, 60 FOOT ALLOW PARKING ON BOTH SIDES. SO THERE WOULD BE PARKING ON THE PUBLIC STREETS, BUT NOT ON THE PRIVATE STREETS. AND NONE OF THESE FRONTAGES ARE ON THE PUBLIC STREETS. OKAY, PERFECT. THERE. THE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 70 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, THERE ARE IN FRONT OF THE SULCUS. SO YOU'LL SEE HERE, IF YOU ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT, THE WEST, THE EAST SIDE OF THIS RIGHT OF WAY, THOSE ARE FRONTING THE PUBLIC STREET, BUT JUST A HANDFUL. THOSE ARROWS IN THE STREETS ARE. ARE THEY ONE WAY STREETS? NO, THOSE WERE A SEPARATE PART OF THE APPLICATION. SO THOSE ARE JUST INDICATING LIKE PRELIMINARY GRADING. THE LEGEND DID IT. YEAH. THE DRAINAGE LEGEND DIDN'T MAKE IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE DIRECTOR CENTER. I DO HAVE THAT QUESTION. AND FOR THE DO WE NOT HAVE WE DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR. WE JUST HAVE TWO IN THEIR GARAGE BUT NO VISITOR PARKING. I JUST THIS IS THIS IS A LITTLE UNIQUE. I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I'VE EVER SEEN THAT HAS ONLY GARAGE PARKING, DOESN'T HAVE ANY DRIVEWAY PARKING AND THEN SUCH LIMITED 18 PUBLIC SPOTS FOR HOW MANY UNITS AGAIN, 175. YEAH. THE THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL IS JUST THAT YOU HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO OFF STREET PARKING PER UNIT. SO AS LONG AS THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT PER CODE, THEN THEY'VE MET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, OFTEN WITH PUDS THEY WILL HAVE BECAUSE IN THIS INSTANCE, THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWING PARKING ON THE PRIVATE STREET. THEY OFTEN WILL HAVE THIS GUEST PARKING, BUT REALLY THEY HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE TWO PER UNIT. IS THE REQUIREMENT TWO PER UNIT, BUT NOT GUEST PARKING NECESSARILY PARKING NECESSARILY. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY JUST HAVE TO IT'S KIND OF IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT WITH LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, YOU JUST HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE TWO PARKING SPOTS FOR THAT. BUT THERE'S NO DRIVEWAYS FOR GUESTS TO PARK IN. RIGHT? SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THEY'RE PROPOSING IT INSIDE THE GARAGE, RIGHT? SO THAT IS A LITTLE AND WE ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT A THING, RIGHT? DIRECTOR CENTER. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST THAT'S MY GUESS. DON'T PARK IN MY GARAGE. OKAY? JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR. THAT'S WHAT'S PROPOSED THAT WE'RE ALL LIVING IN THE SAME KIND OF WORLD TOGETHER. OKAY. YEAH. IF GUEST PARK IN YOUR GARAGE. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT. YOUR UNIQUE LIFESTYLE, BUT. OKAY, I'M JUST CHECKING HERE.

[02:30:01]

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER IS THERE AND THIS MAY BE FOR DIRECTOR. I'M NOT SURE. DOES THIS NEED A TRAFFIC STUDY? HAS ONE BEEN DONE? IS ONE ANTICIPATED? YEAH. WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT WE REQUIRE A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. AND THAT HAS BEEN CONDUCTED FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND IT AGAIN, THIS WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THAT BEING DONE OR THAT THEY COULD ACCOMMODATE THE TRAFFIC. CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AT ALL? I WOULD ACTUALLY TURN TO CHRIS CANFIELD JUST BECAUSE HE'S THE ENGINEER ON. SO TRAFFIC STUDY WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

HISTORICALLY, WHAT WE LOOK FOR IS FOR TURNAROUND REQUIREMENTS OUT ON THE FRONTAGE OF 65TH NORTH. FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. YOU'LL ALSO SEE NORTH OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, THAT ADJACENT ROADWAY THAT RUNS EAST WEST, THAT RUNS ACROSS THE CANAL. SO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THESE DEVELOPMENTS, WE'LL HAVE TO RESOLVE A CANAL CROSSING FOR THAT FUTURE ROAD ADJACENT TO THE RIVER HOLLOW DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE DETAILS OF THE STUDY ITSELF, BUT AS WE PROCEED THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT'S INCUMBENT ON PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, AS IDENTIFIED AND IMPROVED, ARE ADDRESSED WITH WITH THE FINAL PLAN. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. CANFIELD. YEAH. ON THESE PRIVATE STREETS, HOW DO WE MARKET SO THERE'S NO PARKING BECAUSE IT'S PART OF FIRE GETTING IN AND OUT. AND IF PEOPLE START PARKING ON BOTH SIDES, WE'RE NOT 26FT ANYMORE. SO HOW DO WE MARK THAT? SO FIRE IS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED WITH OUR SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS THAT THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT FIRE. HISTORICALLY, I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT BASICALLY IT'S SIGNING. SO THEY'LL SIGN IT AND THEN THEY'LL ENFORCE IT.

AND IF PEOPLE ARE PARKING THERE, THEN THEY'LL PAY ATTENTION. AND THEY'RE TYPICALLY THE STANDARDS THAT I'VE SEEN ARE LADDER TRUCK REQUIREMENTS REQUIRING 26FT OF PAVED WIDTH BETWEEN CURBS KIND OF THING ON THOSE PRIVATE STREETS, MINIMUM UNOBSTRUCTED. THANK YOU. A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. YES. BACK TO THE APPLICANT, PLEASE. CAN YOU COMMIT TO PAINTING THE CURBS RED? LET'S DO IT. BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE SIGNS ARE NOT ENOUGH. YEAH, I AGREE OKAY.

WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO TELL COUNCIL MEMBER LEE THAT I LOOKED UP THE LENGTH OF A THREE QUARTER TON FORD CREW CAB 22.22. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE AT 22FT. YOU JUST DON'T HAVE ANY GRACE ROOM.

YOU GOT TO PARK RIGHT UP AGAINST THE. AND THERE IS THIS VARIED SETBACK. THE. ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK FROM 20 TO 15FT SO THAT. SO CAN WE TALK ABOUT THAT JUST FOR A SECOND? YES. WHAT'S THE COUNCIL NOT DELIBERATE. NOT IN DELIBERATION, BUT JUST TO THE APPLICANT. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION CAN I ASK DIRECTOR SAM. YOU MAY. YES. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. YES. OKAY. I MEAN, YES, THE THE TYPICAL 20 FOOT. WHAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF WHAT THAT GETS USED FOR? DO YOU KNOW, IN JUST IN PLANNING WHEN WE WHEN WE DO OUR PLANNING FOR THEM? YEAH, THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD, REALLY GOOD QUESTION. I'LL GIVE YOU A GENERAL ANSWER AND THEN I'LL GO VERY SPECIFIC. SO SETBACKS REALLY ARE TO PROVIDE AMPLE SPACE FOR PRIMARILY HEALTH AND FIRE REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT'S WHY YOU USUALLY HAVE A SEPARATION. IT'S A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET FROM HABITABLE STRUCTURES. HOWEVER THE FRONT SETBACK IN THIS CASE WE WHAT'S REQUIRED THERE IS THE 15FT. AND THAT'S REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE UTILITIES THAT NEED TO RUN IN THERE. SO THE 20FT IS THE 15FT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY THAT WE NEED IN THE FRONT FOR UTILITIES. BUT IF IT'S FIVE FEET FROM THAT, MEANING 20FT, THAT'S MORE FOR AN ESTHETIC COMPONENT TO THAT. SOME CITIES ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT

[02:35:07]

HOWEVER, EVEN WITH THAT, WE STILL FUNDAMENTALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS SORT OF DENSITY AND THIS SORT OF DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR IN THE FUTURE AS THE CITY GROWS, AS OPPOSED TO SINGLE FAMILY SUBURBAN SPRAWL. AND WE GIVE OUR SUPPORT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC. WE WOULD TURN THE TIME. OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT THAT IF YOU'D LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER, I DO HAVE THE ELEVATIONS PULLED UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BACK OF IT. IF IT'S NOT SHOWING ME PUBLIC PARKING, THEN NO, I DON'T NEED TO SEE IT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ELEVATION. THANK YOU. SORRY, I DON'T HAVE IT ON THE ELECTRIC. THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S AT THE BACK OF IT. SO THERE'S THE FORFEIT RADIUS TO TURN IN AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE IT. IT'S TWO. IT'S A SINGLE GARAGE DOOR WITH TWO STALLS.

IT'S NOT TWO. I MEAN THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND WHAT IS THE WIDTH? IS IT? I MEAN, IT'S A DOUBLE CAR GARAGE IS WHAT IT'S. YEAH. IT'S A TWO CAR. CORRECT. AS OPPOSED TO TWO SINGLE CAR GARAGES. YES I DO. I'M LOOKING AT THE PUD LIST OF EXPECTATIONS, I GUESS I WOULD CALL IT. AND THERE IS A REFERENCE TO FUNCTIONAL AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF STREETS PATHWAYS. WHERE'S THE PATHWAY THAT WE WOULD CALL FOR THIS PUD. YEAH. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT'S THESE TWO LINES RIGHT HERE. THAT CIRCLE THE DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN. THERE WE GO. SO THESE TWO WHITE LINES OR THESE, THIS SOLID WHITE LINE RIGHT HERE. SO THESE ARE WALKWAYS OUT TO THE EXISTING SIDE TO THE SIDEWALK NETWORK. AND THEN THIS IS THE INTERNAL NETWORK RIGHT HERE COMES DOWN TO THE STREET. AND IT ALSO CIRCLES THE PUD. THAT'S WHAT THESE TWO LINES, THE SINGLE SOLID WHITE ALONG THE EXTERIOR. THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. OKAY. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THOSE OVER HERE? YEAH. SO THEN THERE'S, THERE'S A SIDEWALK NETWORK RIGHT HERE ALONG THE RETENTION POND THAT COMES ALL THE WAY DOWN AND CIRCLES THE UNITS THERE. IT COMES AROUND AND CIRCLES THE UNITS HERE. OKAY. AND THEN IT'S ALSO UP HERE. IT CONNECTS TO THE SIDEWALK NETWORK OF THE MORE APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S SO GRAINY,

[02:40:02]

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THEY'RE ASKING FOR VARIANCES FROM OUR TYPICAL CODE, NOT THE PUD CODE. IS THAT CORRECT? NO. VARIANCE THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS FOR THE R-2 STANDARD IS A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. WITH THE PUD. IT IS WITHIN THEIR RIGHT TO ASK FOR A REDUCED SETBACK ON THE FRONT, WHICH THEY'RE REQUESTING A 15 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THE OTHER ELEMENT TO WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THE PUD IS THE PRIVATE STREET NETWORK. SO THAT IS A. SO PD IS REQUIRED TREES ALONG PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS. THAT IS A PUD REQUIREMENT. SO IN THEORY I MEAN IS IT ACCURATE THAT IF THEY CAN'T MEET THE PD REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE A REASON TO DENY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET THE THE ORDINANCE. YES. IF LIKE IF THEY COULDN'T MEET LIKE THE AMENITY REQUIREMENT, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE AT LEAST FOUR AMENITIES, THAT WOULD BE A BASIS FOR DENIAL. WOULD IT WOULD IT WOULD A BASIS FOR DENIAL BE THAT THEY CAN'T PROVIDE THE REQUIRED TREES ALONG THE THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS? I MEAN, I NEED TO LOOK WAIT, WHERE IS THE PUBLIC STREET REQUIREMENT? BECAUSE IF IT'S IF IF THE IF THE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC. A NUMBER OF CERTAIN PUBLIC TREES OR TREES ALONG. POETRY. YES. IF THEY HAVEN'T FILLED OUT, THAT WOULD BE A BASIS TO DENY. AND THEY CAN. THEY CAN MEET THE NUMBER OF TREES, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING, COUNCILMEMBER, THEY CAN MEET THE NUMBER. YEAH, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU. IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF, OF, OF PLACING THEM ON THE PRIVATE STREETS. YOU RECOMMENDED THAT THE TREES BE PLANTED ELSEWHERE. SO THE SAME AMOUNT OF TREES ARE ON THE PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THEY COULD PLANT THEM AT THE REQUIRED DISTANCES THOUGH. AND WE CAN'T ALWAYS GUARANTEE BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY WHETHER THOSE SPECIES OF TREES WOULD LIVE. SO THAT'S WHY WE OFTEN SAY HERE'S A LITTLE VARIATION. IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU USE THE. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION THEN FOR THE DEVELOPER AS WELL. YOUR RETENTION PONDS THAT THAT ARE AS PART OF THAT 25% GREEN SPACE, WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE SLOPE TO GET DOWN? TO GET DOWN? YEAH, LIKE AS IF THEY'RE EVERY RING IS HOW FAR WHAT IS THE SLOPE? YEAH. SO I'M, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON IS THE TYPICAL SIZE WOULD BE 3 TO 1.0 ON A. AND ACCESS DOWN THE SIDE OF A MANAGEABLE SLOPE IN CERTAIN AREAS. SO IT WON'T BE IT'S PRETTY STEEP. YEAH. PRETTY STEEP THROUGHOUT THE PRETTY STEEP. AND THEN THERE'LL BE AREAS TO GO DOWN. BUT I THINK THAT SHOULD ONLY BE A CONCERN WITH THE AREA IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE PLANNING TO PUT THAT DOG YARD. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY CASE OF THAT. THE THE OTHER AREAS ARE JUST GREEN SPACE. AND IF WE COULD REDUCE THAT SIDE SLOPE. SO IT'S TYPICALLY DO A 3 TO 1. BUT IF WE WANT IT TO BE ACCESSIBLE. SO IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE WE COULD DO THOSE DEDICATED AREAS. OR IF WE NEED TO WE CAN JUST REDUCE THE SLOPE. I'M JUST NOT SURE IF THOSE. THAT IS WHAT WAS

[02:45:03]

THAN IT IS ABOUT ACCESS. YEAH. THAT IS PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT WE NEED TO GET VOLUME. BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO, TO MAKE IT MORE OF A USABLE SPACE. SO IT WOULD SEEM LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE STEPS OR SOME KIND OF AN ADA SIDEWALK DOWN INTO IT, SOMETHING WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY ACCESSIBLE TO PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE, THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT ONTO THIS PLAN, BUT THAT'S AT LEAST FOR THE MIDDLE ONE. THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN. BUT IN THAT TRIANGULAR PIECE THERE, THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN IS TO ACTUALLY HAVE SOME SOME WAY TO ACCESS DOWN IN THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE 3 TO 1 SLOPE ISN'T ISN'T HELPFUL, BUT WE CAN INCORPORATE THAT INTO THOSE OTHER OPTIONS AS WELL. I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE AT LEAST ADA ACCESSIBILITY OF A SIDEWALK DOWN INTO THOSE, IF THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AN AMENITY AND PART OF THE ACCESSIBLE GREEN SPACE. LET ME ADD TOWARDS THE COMMON SPACE, TOWARDS THE COMMON SPACES. YES. OKAY. COUNCIL, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER, WE CAN ALWAYS CLOSE THE HEARING AND THEN DELIBERATE. AND IF YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS AS THEY COME UP THROUGH DELIBERATION, WE CAN OPEN THE HEARING BACK UP. OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE HEARING AND ALLOW FOR COUNCIL DELIBERATION. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. I'LL I'LL LEAD OUT IF YOU WANT. I'M OPEN MINDED ON THIS. AND SO I'M I'M. BUT I'M SEEING AT LEAST THREE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE REQUIRING ONE, THE PLAYGROUND QUALITY. SECOND, EXTRA STEPS ON THE FIRE CLEARING PRIVATE STREETS, ABSOLUTELY NO PARKING. AND THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE TAKING STEPS CONSISTENT WITH FIRE REQUIREMENTS. I'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT IT IN MOTION TO MAKE THOSE EXTRA STEPS TO MAKE IT CLEAR THERE IS NO PARKING ON THAT STREET. AND THEN IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU RIGHT, IT WOULD BE A REDUCTION IN THE SLOPE, OR AT LEAST ADA ACCESSIBLE COMMON SPACE. YES. ON BOTH OF THEIR ON BOTH OF THEIR LARGE. THOSE ARE STORM. THEY ARE STORM PONDS, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 80 ACCESSIBLE STORM POND. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ADDITIONS? AND SOMEBODY. YOU THINK WE OUGHT TO NOT DO THIS AT ALL. WE HAVE MET OUR REQUIREMENTS. AND I GUESS I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE ASKING FOR VARIANCE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT THAT MAKES IT SEEM AS THOUGH WE JUST HAVE TO AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE EVERY VARIANCE THAT'S REQUESTED. THAT IS TRUE. I AM SORRY, MR. JONES. THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED HERE. SO I'M LOOKING SO I'M LOOKING DEEPER INTO THAT FOR FOR SETBACKS SPECIFICALLY. SO THAT'S ADDRESSED IN SUBSECTION FOUR OF 111126. IT SAYS DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, INCLUDING SETBACKS IF DIFFERENT FROM THE REGULAR REQUIREMENTS AS CODE, SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PUD BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA.

AND THERE IS A CRITERIA FOR SETBACKS. THIS IS IN SUBSECTION D OF THAT SECTION. SETBACKS SHALL REFLECT THE GENERAL STANDARDS OF THE AREA AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH THE PUD IS LOCATED. ANOTHER SUBSECTION IN RESIDENTIAL PUDS. THE ESTABLISHED SETBACKS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES CONTIGUOUS TO OR ACROSS FROM THE STREET FROM THE PUD SHALL CONSTITUTE THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PERIMETER PERIMETER AREA OF THE PUD, WHICH IS CONTIGUOUS TO SUBSECTION II. INTERNAL SETBACKS BETWEEN BUILDINGS OR INTERNAL LOT LINES WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DUTIES MAY BE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE PROCESS, SO THAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR VARYING THE SETBACK FROM THE NORMAL UNDERLYING ZONE. SO THOSE WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO BE SATISFIED THAT WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING MEETS THAT CRITERIA. IF IT DOESN'T, THEN COUNCIL CAN SAY, NO. YOU HAVEN'T MET OUR CRITERIA FOR VARYING THE SETBACK. AND IF YOU WANT, WE CAN TRY TO PULL UP THAT RULE. I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF LANGUAGE, AND SOMETIMES IT'S EASIER TO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF COUNCIL, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS. THAT WOULD BE THE

[02:50:01]

OR DOES IT MEAN ALL OF THE ZONE IS CONTIGUOUS TO. ONE? I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT OUR. ANYTHING BEING DEVELOPED WOULD CONTINUE THE R-2 ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF 20FT REQUIRED.

IF IT'S AN R-2, YEAH WE WOULD. SURROUNDING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE EDGE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TO 20 FOOT. WE SHOW THAT AGAIN WITH THE WHERE THE. I THINK THE VARIANCES WERE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, NOT TO THE WEST. OKAY. YES. SO WHATEVER IS TO THE WEST WOULDN'T MATTER.

YEAH. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. AND CAN YOU GIVE US AN HOUR. THAT'S NOT THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED. NO THAT'S CORRECT. THE VARIANCE. SORRY, I WAS LOOKING AT THAT LANDSCAPING.

YEAH. THE TITLE AND CHAPTER. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE THAT YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE. SO THE. JUST TO IMPRESS THIS FIRST. SO THE VARIANCE IS UP HERE. THESE WOULD BE IF. DID YOU MENTION WEST. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HEAR EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE DISCUSSING. I APOLOGIZE THIS WOULD BE THE SIDE SETBACK OVER HERE WHICH IS A FIVE FEET IN THE R-2. THEY'RE REQUESTING THE 20 THE 15 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT ON THIS PORTION. THIS PORTION, WHAT I HAD IN THE READ ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE, YOU HAVE THE ZONING MAP HAS R-2 ZONING THAT SURROUNDS THIS ENTIRETY. IS THAT AM I REMEMBERING THAT CORRECTLY? YES. EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNDEVELOPED. YEAH. THE SURROUNDING ZONING IS ACTUALLY. OH, OH, THAT'S THE ONE. YEAH. THE ZONING MAP THAT YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT. YEAH. SO THE SURROUNDING ZONING. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. COUNCILMEMBER LEE, YOU ARE CORRECT. THE R2 IS WHAT'S COMPLETELY AROUND YOU, BUT NOTHING'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED.

WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT HAD THE RED LINES? BECAUSE IT SHOWS THAT. YEAH. SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE 15 FOOT. THOSE ARE 15 FOOT. AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES. THEY'RE NOT UP AGAINST THAT OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD. OKAY. WHAT ARE YOUR. PROCEDURES? HERE ARE TWO. SO IT'S MORE THAN THIS. BUT THEY'RE THE THEY'RE THE FRONT SETBACKS. SO THE. I MEAN, HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE FUTURE? LIKE IF I'M LOOKING AT THE STREET SYSTEM, THE STREET NETWORK HERE, I DON'T SEE IT AS BEING UP AGAINST ANYTHING ELSE THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'RE BACKING THAT OTHER DIVISION THAT'S BEEN PLATTED. I CAN'T SEE THAT IT ACTUALLY SETS A. IT DOESN'T SET A LINE OR A CURVE INTO ANOTHER POTENTIAL PROPERTY. BUT I THINK COUNCILMEMBER LEE'S POINT IS THAT THAT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IN THE SENSE OF THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT, JUST SOLELY BASED UPON ANY VARIANCE APPROVED HERE. NOW WOULD SET THE MINIMUM STANDARD REGARDLESS. DOESN'T MATTER. THAT ISN'T HOW I. THAT ISN'T HOW I UNDERSTOOD HIS I. WHAT TITLE AND CHAPTER ARE YOU READING FROM? 11 AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, IT WAS AS IT COMES UP AGAINST IT. 1126WW. I CAN APPRECIATE THE CONCERN BECAUSE I HAVE HAD THAT ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S SOMETHING WE LOOKED AT FROM LEGAL ON PRIOR SITUATION. THE FACT THAT IT'S

[02:55:04]

I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING CONFUSED, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'M BEING TOLD THAT THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY REQUESTED A VARIANCE AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REQUEST A VARIANCE, YOU HAVE TO PASS A VARIANCE. I HAVE TO APPROVE IT. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING CONFUSED. AND I'M KIND OF TALKING ABOUT, I THINK WHAT, WHAT COUNCILMEMBER LEE SAID, IF WE DO THIS AND WE NEVER FORCE ANYBODY TO LIVE UP TO THE 20 FOOT, I THINK IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S SOMETHING I READ JUST RECENTLY FROM LEGAL THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT? THAT IF WE DO, IF WE GRANT A VARIANCE FROM 20 TO 15, THEN DOES THAT MEAN EVERYBODY IN THE FUTURE CAN ASK FOR 15? WE'RE FORCED TO AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDE THAT. OR CAN WE TAKE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, OR DO WE NOT HAVE THAT? NO, YOU'RE NOT BOUND BY YOUR IT'S LIKE IT'S INFORMATIVE, BUT YOU'RE NOT BOUND BY YOUR PRIOR DECISIONS. OKAY. AND, BUT I THINK YOU MIGHT BE GETTING A DIFFERENT THING, WHICH IS IF THERE'S A PUD THAT'S BUILT ACROSS FROM THERE, WOULD THAT AFFECT THAT PUD? ABSOLUTELY. YES. YEAH. NOW, IF IT'S NOT A PUD, IF IT'S JUST A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT. NO IT'S NOT A PUD IN THIS CRITERIA DOESN'T APPLY. SO IT WOULDN'T AFFECT IT UNLESS IT HAPPENED TO BE ANOTHER PUD. SO HOW HOW DOES IT AFFECT IT IF THE ONE ACROSS IS A PUD. WELL IT ESSENTIALLY THIS SETS PRECEDENT OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY ALLOWED AND DEEMED ACCEPTABLE. AND SO NOW THE NEXT ONE COMES IN. BUT YET WE DON'T WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS VARIANCE, BUT YET WE'RE APPROVING IT THE NEXT WE. MY SHORT SIX MONTHS ON COUNCIL HAS TOLD ME FROM OTHER PUDS THAT IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, ACTUALLY, WHAT WE DO APPROVE HERE THAT PUD SAYS THAT THE. WE HAVE TO BE. THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF CONSISTENCY THAT LOOKS IS LOOKED BACK UPON. THIS IS. I'M NOT REALLY TRYING TO CHAMPION THE THE VARIANCE. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT. IT SOUNDS A LOT LIKE. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S. COUNCIL. NOW AS FAR AS TREES, WHAT YOU POINTED ME TO THAT IS IN SUBSECTION SIX. SO THIS IS 1126, SUBSECTION W, SUBSECTION SIX HAS A REQUIREMENT OF ONE. SO I CAN'T FIND SOMETHING SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE ALONG A PRIVATE STREET OR A PUBLIC STREET, A NUMBER FOUR STREETS. WHAT IT DOES SAY IS A MINIMUM OF ONE TREE PER 5000FT■S. SO IF YOU'VE GOT A, YOU KNOW, A SQUARE, 5000, 5000FT■!S, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A TREE WITHIN THAT SQUARE. NOW, IN THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS ALTERNATE TREE SPACING CAN BE REQUESTED AS PART OF THE PUD, BUT SHALL NOT REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER, MINIMUM NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED. SO THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE DONE IS THEY SAID, HEY, IT WORKS OUT BETTER IF WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE NUMBER. BUT THIS THE, THE NUMBER, THE TOTAL NUMBER IS STILL MET. MY CONCERN AROUND TREES PRIMARILY WOULD END UP BEING THAT WE HAVE A CANOPY TO PROTECT THE PAVEMENT OF OUR PUBLIC STREET, BECAUSE WE GET 50 YEARS OF VALUE OUT OF A STREET THAT'S COVERED FROM UV, WHICH I THINK THAT THAT IS THERE. ALTHOUGH I DO WORRY THAT IN OUR PUD ORDINANCE, WE'RE NOT REQUIRING TALL ENOUGH TREES THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CREATE CANOPIES. YEAH. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE LOOKED AT IN THE TREE ORDINANCE. AND WE DID TRY TO SAY AND SUGGEST THAT GET THE TALLEST TREES FOR THESE STREETS. TO BE HONEST, SOMETIMES THE REGULAR NATURE OF TREES ALONG SOME OF THESE STREETS ARE TOO REGULAR. AND IT DOESN'T REALLY HELP NATURE AND SOME OF THE ANIMALS THAT WANT TO USE THIS. SO I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY VARY A BIT, BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER DOES NEED TO BE TRUE, I THINK, BECAUSE I THINK WE WANT TO HAVE AS MANY TREES AS WE CAN TO HELP THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT OF THE OF THESE ROOFS. ONE THING I WOULD SAY FROM AN IDAHO FALLS PERSPECTIVE, MORE TREES MEANS WE HAVE LESS ENERGY USAGE. A WELL-PLACED TREE CAN REDUCE AIR CONDITIONER USE BY 40%. AND WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH INSULATION. WE CAN'T DO THAT WITH ANYTHING ELSE. SO THE MORE TREES WE HAVE AROUND THESE BUILDINGS, THE BETTER. I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC STREET, THE PUBLIC STREET, DOES HAVE CITY CODE NUMBER OF TREES ON IT TO CREATE THAT KIND OF CANOPY, BUT IT WON'T BE THAT WAY IN THE PRIVATE STREETS. JUST TO TAKE A CHANCE OF DEVELOPERS THAT ARE HERE NOW.

[03:00:08]

NO PROBLEM. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A TREE. THERE YOU GO. WELL, HERE'S AN IDEA. SEE HOW THIS GOES? IS THERE A WAY TO. MITIGATE THE 15 FOOT SETBACK IMPACT BY REQUIRING MORE TREES ALONG THAT SETBACK? KIND OF KEYNOTE? GO TO THE SETBACK PHOTO. I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT WE WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THAT IF YOU GUYS WANTED TO WRITE THAT IN ON IT.

LIKE, LIKE AS STATED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A VALUE TO THE TREES AND WE WANT A NICE LITTLE SPACE.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY, IF THERE'S A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TREES YOU WOULD WANT OR JUST YOU CAN PUT THAT IN THE THE REQUIREMENT AND WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO MEET THAT. WERE YOU ASKING ME THAT QUESTION? I'M ASKING THE REST OF THE COUNCIL BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINT IN TRYING IT IF NOBODY SUPPORTS IT. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT THE SETBACK FOR ME IS LESS OF AN ISSUE IF WE'RE PROTECTED BY OUR IF WE HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR OUR UTILITIES. I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST, SETBACKS ARE A MODERN INVENTION AROUND HOW UTILITIES ARE BUILT, BECAUSE IF YOU WALK AROUND D.C. OR GEORGETOWN OR, YOU KNOW, CITIES, THEY BUILT RIGHT TO THE SIDEWALK, RIGHT? BUT THEY HAD A DIFFERENT WAY TO GET UTILITIES TO THOSE PROPERTIES DOWN ALLEYS. SO THAT'S MY THOUGHT. BUT I DO THINK MICHELLE HAS A GREAT POINT THAT IF WHEN YOU VARY, YOU'RE ASKING SOMETHING, YOU KNOW. THOSE ARE UTILITY EASEMENTS. CAN YOU PUT TREES IN THAT? THAT IS YOU CAN DO THAT. OUR FORESTER HAS WORKED OUT WAYS FOR THAT. YES, YES, THERE ARE THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT NOW. WELL, THE REASON I MADE THAT SUGGESTION OR IDEA IS IT'S A WAY TO SAY, OKAY, THERE IS A PRECEDENCE HERE, BUT FUTURE DEVELOPERS SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING TO MITIGATE THAT VARIANCE. ALL RIGHT. AND COUNCIL RADFORD, I'M WITH YOU ON THE TREES. COUNCIL. ARE WE READY FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION. AND AND WE'LL SEE IF IF WE GET ANYWHERE WITH IT, WE HAVE A THIRD OR FOURTH ITEM.

NOW. WE DO NOW HAVE A FOURTH ITEM. OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT PLAYGROUND QUALITY OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. THE NO PARKING MARKINGS, THE COMMON SPACE, ADA ACCESSIBLE. AND THEN THE TREE. YEAH. AND WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I'M REQUIRING TREES IN THE 15 FOOT SETBACKS, BUT I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS I NEED MR. SANDER TO HELP ME OUT HERE. WHAT TREES ARE REQUIRED OR SHOWN ON THE PUD FOR THE ALL THE ALL THE RED STUFF UP THERE. FOR THE 15 FOOT SETBACK SUPPLY.

YEAH, I WAS JUST, I WAS ACTUALLY JUST CRUNCHING THOSE NUMBERS REAL QUICK. THE TOTAL TREES REQUIRED ARE 127 TREES ON SITE FOR THAT 5000 RULE. WHEN YOU ASKED ME THAT QUESTION, I WAS AT 112 AND I HADN'T HIT THE THE NORTHEAST CORNER. SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY WOULD BE MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT. SO YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE IN THE FRONT SETBACK. IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. YEAH. WE'RE ALL AGREED LINES ARE HERE. THOSE AREN'T TREES RIGHT. THOSE ARE SETBACKS. THAT'S RIGHT. YES. THE RED IN THOSE ZONES. HOW MANY TREES WOULD BE REQUIRED

[03:05:08]

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PLAN EXTRA TREES TO GET THEIR 15 FOOT SETBACK. THAT'S A SEPARATION WOULD BE. I'D HAVE TO LOOK UP THE ORDER. COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER. COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, WHAT IS THE. WHAT IS THE NEXUS BETWEEN TREES AND SETBACK? JUST TELL ME, ISN'T THE IDEA. THE SETBACK IS. YOU'RE. YOU'RE SOME DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE EDGE.

THE. ALSO, THE OTHER CONCERN THAT WASN'T MENTIONED A LOT OF TIMES THE PLANTING. YOU CAN PLANT TREES IN THE EASEMENT. BUT JUST BE COGNIZANT THAT WHEN YOU PLANT THEM OVER THE UTILITY LINE, YOU CAN. THE ROOT SYSTEM GETS INTO THAT INTO THAT UTILITY LINE. IT CAN PROVIDE PROBLEMS AS WELL. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT MORE AS A BUFFER. EXACTLY. AND HERE'S, HERE'S MY REASONING, BECAUSE IF WE JUST SAY, THIS IS WHAT I PICKED UP FROM THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, IF WE JUST SAY, OH, GO AHEAD AND DO THE 15FT. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S ACTUALLY POSSIBLE THAT THIS WOULD FAIL IN A VOTE BASED ON CONVERSATION UP HERE. JUST SAYING THAT. SECOND, IT SETS THE PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PUDS. AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SAY, OKAY, WE UNDERSTAND TO MAKE THIS WORK, YOU NEED THESE 15 FOOT SETBACKS, BUT YOU OWE BACK BECAUSE YOU'RE REDUCING THE SETBACK FROM STANDARD AND FROM WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE R-2 THAT MIGHT DEVELOP ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THAT, PUT THE BUFFER OF EXTRA TREES IN THERE BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. SO THIS IS AN EXTRA STEP BY THE DEVELOPER TO SAY, THIS IS THIS IS IMPORTANT. THIS WILL PENCIL OUT FOR US, BUT WE UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRE MORE OF A BUFFER SCREENING OF TREES. THIS IS EXTRA BEYOND THE BASIC REQUIREMENT. SO THOUGHT THAT'S KIND OF OCCURRING TO ME IS THAT WE'RE GOING FROM 15 TO OR FROM 20 TO 15. THAT'S A 25% REDUCTION, RIGHT? SO THAT REDUCES THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE NEEDED BY 25%. IS THAT MAKE SENSE? NO. IT INCREASES. THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE 20. SO THE NUMBER OF TREES WOULD BE 25% LESS BECAUSE WE'D HAVE LESS LANDSCAPING. NO NO NO NO NO NO. IF YOU WENT DOWN YOU'RE YOU WOULD BE REQUIRING MORE INFINITELY NUMBER MORE TREES JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A, A 25% LESS SETBACK, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ONE TREE PER FOOT PER. RIGHT. BUT COUNCILMAN FRANCIS, MAYBE 1FT/FT■!S LIKE THAT WOULD BE.

YEAH. IF I COULD ASK THIS QUESTION TO COUNCILMAN FRANCIS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE TREE SPACING ALONG PLAN SOUTH, WHERE THEY HAVE, THEY'VE ALSO NOTED THE VARIANCE OF THE SETBACK. IS THAT SPACING LOOK ADEQUATE TO YOU? SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE ALONG? I DON'T SEE THOSE TREE LINES ON THE NORTH. ON THE NORTH SIDE THEY'RE NOT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF YOU SEE SOMETHING COMPARABLE TO WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING, PLAN SOUTH EXACTLY ALONG THE NORTH. IS THAT IS THAT WHAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO YOU? WELL DONE.

THANK YOU. TO ANSWER YOUR TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS WELL, COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT THE SPACING OF THE TREES. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY I'LL JUST READ THIS SECTION.

IT'S BEST JUST TO READ CODE, BUT IT SAYS ALL PUDS THAT INCLUDE LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES OR RESIDENTIAL USES CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES. SO THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THAT THIS REALLY APPLIES. YOU SHALL PROVIDE A BUFFER FROM CONTIGUOUS RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE BUFFER SHALL BE NO LESS THAN TEN FEET IN WIDTH, AND SHALL INCLUDE TREES WITH NO LESS THAN 20FT CENTER SEPARATE. SO YOU'VE GOT A 20 FOOT SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TREE, BUT THAT'S ONLY BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUFFERS. SO JUST BE COGNIZANT OF THAT. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THERE'S NO BUFFER HERE BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USE. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I ALSO SUGGESTING THAT WE REQUIRE MORE TREES TO BE PLANTED. AND I THINK MR. LEE HAS IT EXACTLY RIGHT. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, WHERE YOU SEE THE TREES ON THE SOUTHERN PART. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT THERE. CITY CLERK CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT FOR US, PLEASE? THAT THAT EXACT LAYOUT WOULD BE REQUIRED ON THE NORTHERN. SO THOSE WOULD BE LIKE A 20 FOOT SETBACK. 20 FOOT. YEAH. AND I WAS JUST GIVING YOU WHAT THE CLOSEST SEPARATION STANDARD I COULD FIND WAS THAT IT WOULD BE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL 20. AND THAT WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT. BUT THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED ON THE NORTH.

THAT SAME LOOK. AND THEY'RE NOT THERE NOW. I SEE FOUR TREES, ONE PART OF THE NORTH AND ZERO,

[03:10:06]

OBVIOUSLY, THE DENSITY OF. BUT IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU. THEY HAVE SIDEWALKS RIGHT LEADING OUT FROM EACH ONE OF THOSE. AND THERE'S A. IS THERE A PATHWAY? IS THAT WHERE THE PATHWAY RUNS? SO YOU CAN. YOU WOULD JUST BE PUTTING 22. OR IS THAT A ROAD. I CAN ONLY DRAW THAT. IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW THE REST OF YOU FEEL, BECAUSE I'M NOT. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK. YEAH, I CAN APPRECIATE IT. IF I COULD READ ON THAT WHOLE TOP EDGE.

THERE'S FOUR. I SEE WHAT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I ALSO, I MEAN, I CAN APPRECIATE THE SHADE, I COULD ALSO APPRECIATE WHO MIGHT LIVE IN THIS AND THINK LIKE, WHY DID THEY PUT ALL THESE TREES ON MY PROPERTY THAT I WANT TO HAVE A RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU GO OUT THERE AND IT'S LIKE, OH, WELL, I GUESS I DON'T HAVE ANY GREEN SPACE. IT'S JUST A TREE. I DO LIKE WHAT IS I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S RANDOM THOUGH. I LIKE WHAT IS ON THAT. WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST NOTHING TO THE LEFT. SO I WOULD ADD SOME TREES, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY THERE'S A PERCENTAGE. AND SO THAT'S A VERY ODD STATEMENT. WAS WAS THERE A PATHWAY ALONG THAT NORTH BORDER RIGHT THERE WHERE THE FRONT OF THOSE HOMES MEET THE EDGE PUBLIC STREET SIDEWALK? YEAH, BECAUSE I WAS THINKING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT.

YEAH. RIGHT THERE WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A PATHWAY, I THOUGHT IT WAS WHAT I'M ASKING IS, ARE THE TREES GOING TO BE IN THE PATHWAY BECAUSE WE'RE HEADED THE THE LITTLE GRAY STRIP YOU SEE ALONG THE BLACK LINE, JUST THAT'S A THAT'S A SIDEWALK AS PART OF THIS STREET PROFILE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNSEL, ANYONE IS READY TO MAKE A MOTION, ASK MORE QUESTIONS. SAY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TO SEE. AND I WOULD JUST ADVISE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE CHANGES, WE WOULD OPEN THAT. WE. I WOULD JUST ADVISE THAT YOU YOU DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO MEET THE CONDITIONS THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE. AND THEN WE TABLE THIS TO A DATE, CERTAIN TABLE THIS AND THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN WE, YOU KNOW, THEN IT COMES BACK THAT WAY COUNCIL CAN SEE IF THE YOU KNOW, THE CONDITIONS THAT THEY SAID ARE. IF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE SET ARE NOT MET, THEN IT WOULD NOT BE APPROVED THOUGH. I MEAN, WE COULD APPROVE IT WITH THESE CONDITIONS AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER HEARING. THERE ISN'T A WAY FOR THEM TO BUILD IT IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE CONDITIONS THAT COUNCIL SETS. IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW SPECIFIC COUNCIL WANTS TO BE WITH THE CONDITIONS. LIKE IF WE'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TREES AND THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO REVISE THAT. SO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TREES. I THINK, IN CONDITIONS THAT THE CONDITIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC. YES. SO THEY HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC ENOUGH THAT WE THAT WE THAT STAFF CAN GO BACK AND SAY, HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO REVISE THIS. THAT'S WHAT I THAT IS THE ONLY I MEAN, FOR ME, THAT'S THE ONLY DIRECTION FORWARD BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, GIVE ME A ROCK. NO, I DON'T LIKE THAT ROCK. GIVE ME ANOTHER ONE.

RIGHT. IT HAS TO BE SPECIFIC. THIS IS WHAT, WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT AND NOT JUST. YEAH.

BRING US BACK ANOTHER DESIGN. SO I'M GOING TO TRY AND WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES. ALL RIGHT.

SO I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD FOR HARVEST VILLAGE AS AMENDED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. ONE THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT WILL MATCH CURRENT PARKS AND REC STANDARDS AS OF AUGUST 13TH. SO AS OF TODAY AND SECOND, THE. THE PRIVATE STREETS WILL TAKE ADDITIONAL MARKINGS, INCLUDING PAINTING THE CURBS TO MARKED NO PARKING AS WELL AS THE SIGNS.

AND THAT WOULD BE DONE WITH WITH FIRE'S INPUT. AND THEN ALL OF THE OPEN SPACES, STORM AREAS WOULD BE REDUCED. THE SLOPE TO ADA ACCESSIBLE STORM COMMON GROUND. OKAY. I WOULD SAY IT'S

[03:15:07]

THEY COULD DO THE RAMP WAY INTO IT. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A RAMP WAY, MAKING IT ADA ACCESSIBLE. AND FOR THAT THEY WOULD MATCH THE TREE LINE OF THE SOUTHERN LINE OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE PUD ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENTS. WOULD YOU WANT TO SPECIFY THE AREAS THAT HAVE A 15 FOOT SETBACK WOULD HAVE 15 FOOT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FINDING, RIGHT? SO IT'D BE THE SAME SPACING THAT THEY'RE SHOWING ON THE SOUTHERN PART.

BUT THEY WOULD DO THAT ON THE NORTH. OR AS CAN I JUST ADD ONE THING? I MEAN, IF THEY DO THAT AND IT LANDS ON A SIDEWALK, RIGHT, YOU WOULD DO IT TO ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE. I MEAN, A REASONABLE. RIGHT? YEAH. I MEAN YES, YES, YES. OKAY. JUST WITH WITH CREATIVE IMAGINATION. YES.

THIS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED. YES, YES, YES. CLARK, I'M SO SORRY FOR THE MESSY MOTION, BUT ARE WE OKAY? SORT OF THE FOUR POINTS. OKAY, I WILL SECOND IT. LARSON. YES. DINGMANN. YES.

FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. NO. LEE. YES. RADFORD I MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. I DON'T LIKE. DIRECTOR CENTER. YOU ARE ALSO BEEN CLEAR ON ALL OF THAT. OKAY. REALLY QUICKLY FOR OH YES WE DO. WE HAVE MORE TO GO. YEAH. LET'S GO AHEAD. WE'VE GOT THAT ONE. SO NOW LET'S GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE REINSTATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA. STANDARDS COUNCIL. HOLD ON. SORRY. I JUST WANT TO THAT'S CORRECT. SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED IF YOU WANT TO DIRECT STAFF TO REVISE THE REASON STATEMENT, TO HAVE THE CONDITIONS IN THERE, AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK IN LATER.

MEETING. YES. AND SO CAN WE. FOR A DATE CERTAIN ON THE STATEMENT OR WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT. SURE. I CAN TABLE FOR CERTAIN. OKAY. SO I'M WHAT IF. MOTION JUST TO CHANGE THE. OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO. OR, OR YOU CAN JUST SAY THAT THE. I THINK I GUESS YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION SAYING THAT DIRECT STAFF TO. TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THIS, TO TAKE THE MOTION, USE THAT AS THE CONDITIONS AND INSERT THAT INTO THE REASON STATEMENT AND THAT THAT'S THE ONE APPROVED BY COUNCIL. AND THEN IT'LL JUST GET DISTRIBUTED FOR SIGNATURE. ONCE THAT'S BEEN DONE, YOU WON'T HAVE THE ONLY ISSUE WITH THAT. YOU WON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY APPROVING, AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO HAVE INPUT ON THAT.

YEAH, YEAH. I THINK WE NEED LANGUAGE. I WOULD ADVISE LET'S GET THE LANGUAGE, BUT WE CAN TELL STAFF TO BRING IT AT A DATE. CERTAIN. CAN YOU BRING THAT IN OUR NEXT MEETING, OUR NEXT THURSDAY? YEAH. WHAT DOES WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR TO ANYONE. DOES IT SLOW THE DEVELOPMENT.

DOES IT SLOW? WHAT IS THE. THE REASON STATEMENT IS, IS THE ACTUAL APPROVAL ONCE THAT GETS APPROVED. SO IN ESSENCE, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE JUST SAYING THE REASON STATEMENT WILL COME BACK AND THAT'S WHEN IT WILL BE APPROVED BY VOTE. BUT THE RECENT STATEMENT HAS TO BE APPROVED. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WHAT THAT GETS APPROVED. THAT'S WHAT THE APPEAL GOES OFF OF. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IT'S JUST REALLY MATTERS WHEN THE AT LEAST STATEMENT GETS APPROVED BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER ALREADY KNOWS WHAT THE FOUR STANDARDS OR MODIFICATIONS ARE, AND THEY CAN PROCEED WITH CDS TO GET THERE. OKAY, SO IF YOU WANTED TO GET DONE TONIGHT, YOU COULD TAKE A RECESS, DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT IT UP REAL QUICK, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A LOOK AT IT AND GO FROM THERE IF YOU WANT. THAT'S AN OPTION. IT IS A LITTLE BIT LATE AND SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO DO THINGS ON THE FLY. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT TONIGHT. OKAY. I JUST THOUGHT, I MEAN, I'M WILLING TO IT'S FOR IT'S I THINK WE COULD GET IT DONE. YEAH. I THINK WE DO IT TONIGHT. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOOD. TAKE IT. TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AND THEN. AND THEN WE'RE DONE. I MEAN, THEN IT'S DONE. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, GO AHEAD AND DRAFT THAT UP. I'M GOING TO GIVE SOME ONE THING FOR ANNOUNCEMENTS. THEN WE'LL TAKE THE RECESS. I'M MOVING ON TO ITEM SIX FOR A MINUTE. THE 2023 2024. WE HAVE FOUND THAT

[03:20:01]

SO DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF YOU START SEEING LIKE MAY OF 2024 LIKE THAT. THEY TRICKLE THROUGH.

WE DO NOT KNOW YET HOW TO ALLOW FOR COUNCIL MEMBER LEE TO VOTE ON MINUTES THAT HE DID NOT SEE, SO THEY MIGHT COME ON. OH MAY MAKE A SUGGESTION. HOW ABOUT WE PUT THOSE ON THE REGULAR AGENDA WHEN WE HAVE THEM, AND THEN COUNCILOR LEE CAN ABSTAIN? OKAY. SO SO YOU WILL START SEEING SEVERAL OF THOSE COMING THROUGH. IT WAS A 2023. 2024 WAS A BUSY TIME, I GUESS. SO WE HAVE WE DO HAVE THEM ON VIDEO, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO REMEMBER. DID I REALLY SAY THAT IT IS ON VIDEO? THEY WILL BE TRANSCRIBED FROM THE VIDEO. OKAY, O COUNCIL. LET'S GO THROUGH.

[6. Announcements]

THIS WEEKEND I WE HAD AN AMAZING ICONIC WEEKEND LAST WEEKEND WITH THE YOUTH JAM, THE DUCK RACE AND SO MUCH GOING ON, BUT I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY COMMUNITY EVENT KIND OF ANNOUNCEMENTS. COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK FOR ABOUT THE 23RD STRAIGHT YEAR, I DIDN'T WIN THE DUCK RACE. BUT YOUR MONEY WENT TO GOODNESS NO ANNOUNCEMENTS. THANK YOU MAYOR. WE DID DRAW $25,000 INTO THE RIVER, AND THIS YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR THAT THE DUCKS DID NOT GO OVER THE FALLS BECAUSE WE HAD A WATERFALL TWO DAYS PRIOR. AND SO IT INCREASED THE FLOW OF THE RIVER TOO MUCH ON THE BOTTOM PART OF THE DAM, SO WE COULD NOT RETRIEVE THE DUCKS BELOW THE DAM. SO THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT THEY RETRIEVED THE DUCKS, JUST BY FUNNELING THEM AT THE TOP OF THE DAM, BUT IT'S STILL A DUCK RACE. AND WE HAD A WINNER AND 25,000 DUCKS, AND IT'S OVER $7 MILLION. THAT ROTARY HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE GREENBELT AND THE PARKS ALONG THE GREENBELT OVER THE LAST 30 YEARS. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER. IT IS A MINOR THING, BUT COUNCILOR RADFORD AND I ARE GOING TO MEET WITH THE AARP ON WEDNESDAY TO TALK OVER POSSIBILITIES FOR GRANTS AND THINGS FOR ADDRESSING COMMUNITY NEEDS, PARTICULARLY FOR PEOPLE OVER THE AGE OF 50 AND HOUSING. SO WE'LL SEE WHERE THAT GOES. BUT IT OPENED SOME DOORS, WE HOPE. COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. SECOND, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A PICTURE, SO I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE PERTINENT. WE STOPPED THE PICTURE. MR. JONES, WILL YOU PLEASE TAKE US THROUGH THE CHANGES THAT YOU HAVE MADE IN THIS DOCUMENT AS IT PERTAINS TO WHAT WE SAW IN OUR PACKET VERSUS WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US NOW? YEAH. THE ONLY CHANGES I MADE WERE CONCLUSION 14. SO THAT'S ON PAGE THREE. FOR. SO AT THE VERY END, RIGHT BEFORE

[03:25:08]

SECOND. FRANCIS, A DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND WITH ALL OF OUR ANNOUNCEMENTS HAVING

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.