[0:00] we have any other choice. Now, before I

[0:02] turn this over to the council, Mr.

[0:04] Fuller, do you have any comments on that

[0:06] at all with the action that we need to

[0:08] take?

[0:10] >> No.

[0:12] >> Okay. Uh our our attorney Lyall Fer says

[0:15] we can move forward. Council, you have

[0:18] this in your packet. You're aware of the

[0:20] uh situation. Uh, this subject will be

[0:23] discussed later in this council meeting,

[0:25] but at this point in time, I would

[0:26] entertain a motion to take action on

[0:28] these bids.

[0:31] >> May I'll make a motion that we at this

[0:33] moment reject the accepted bids on the

[0:36] new water tank construction.

[0:39] >> Reject all of the

[0:40] >> reject all bids.

[0:41] >> Is there a second?

[0:43] >> I'll second it.

[0:44] >> Any questions, comments? just a comment

[0:48] and uh if you'll clarify for me and for

[0:50] our uh community, we're not rejecting

[0:54] the grant.

[0:56] >> Uh we're not we're not putting that in

[0:58] jeopardy. We're we're only rejecting the

[1:01] bids until we can uh talk about a

[1:05] different solution.

[1:06] >> Correct.

[1:07] >> Thanks for that clarification. Correct.

[1:09] We we are going to try to do anything

[1:13] imaginable to retain this grant.

[1:17] Correct. Thank you, Mr. Dodge. Yep.

[1:21] >> Okay. I'll uh take a vote to reject all

[1:24] bids. Terry Larson.

[1:29] » Hi,

[1:29] >> Thomas. Chris Larson.

[1:30] >> Hi.

[1:31] >> Brent Dodge.

[1:32] >> Okay, thank you. All bids have been

[1:34] rejected. Uh we do have a representative

[1:36] from Keller Engineering. Jared, do you

[1:39] do we do you do that? Do we do that?

[1:41] Help us out here. Would you please come

[1:42] up and tell us the procedure and thanks

[1:46] for coming down?

[1:48] >> When you get there, hit the red button.

[1:51] Good. We've got a new mic that I think

[1:53] will be much much better if you'll get

[1:56] it right up there.

[1:57] >> Okay.

[1:57] >> Thank you.

[1:58] first and foremost, Mayor

[2:00] Council. Thank you for letting us come

[2:01] down. Uh obviously, I'm not I am not

[2:04] Coulter. uh he is viewing online. Uh he

[2:08] could not be here. So he he sends his

[2:10] regards and his apologies for not being

[2:11] able to be here. Um but yes, to answer

[2:14] your question, mayor, yeah, at this

[2:15] point, the council has made this

[2:17] decision to reject all bids, so we can

[2:19] go ahead and and send out notices to all

[2:21] of the contractors

[2:23] um to to let them know of that.

[2:26] >> So you will take care of that then?

[2:27] >> Yes. Yep.

[2:28] >> Okay. Um,

[2:31] I'm I might be getting a tiny bit ahead

[2:33] of oursel, but

[2:36] I'm going to hope and assume maybe that

[2:38] you will let them know that we're

[2:40] looking at other options to possibly

[2:43] rebid. Correct?

[2:44] >> Yep.

[2:44] >> Okay. Any questions for Jared?

[2:47] >> That was going to be my question. You

[2:48] just asked him, so thanks.

[2:49] >> Okay. Thanks, man. Appreciate that.

[2:51] >> Thank you.

[2:52] >> Okay.

[2:55] Next on the agenda, water line

[2:57] connection. Robert Miller, 12:05 West

[3:01] Highway 36.

[3:04] Bob or Pat, if you don't mind, thanks

[3:06] for being here. Would welcome. Come on

[3:08] up and tell us. I'm a little bit uh more

[3:12] than a little bit. I'm shocked that you

[3:13] don't have city water. So, uh tell us

[3:17] the story.

[3:19] Thanks for coming again.

[3:20] >> Well, thanks for putting us on the

[3:22] agenda. Uh we uh were

[3:28] uh when we moved here about 50 years

[3:32] ago, we were in the county and we built

[3:36] our home.

[3:38] Uh Chris, I don't know if you know where

[3:40] our house is. Okay. I think everyone

[3:43] else does. Um so we were in the county

[3:46] and um we drilled a well

[3:50] and it was um it was adequate you know

[3:54] it was adequate for our needs and then a

[3:57] few years ago we

[3:59] uh became part of the city so we're now

[4:04] uh city residents. I don't know how many

[4:06] years ago that was but we would sure

[4:10] like to have a city water

[4:12] >> Bob. So, are you saying that the the

[4:15] city annexed you and to the city? I

[4:17] thought you were always in the city.

[4:22] » I didn't think so, Dan. I thought we

[4:25] were in the county and then we were

[4:27] annexed in at a later date.

[4:31] >> But you never applied for annexation.

[4:34] >> Not that I remember.

[4:36] >> Pat, help us out here. She's going to

[4:38] rescue you, Bob.

[4:38] >> Oh, good. Here comes it. I'll just step

[4:41] aside.

[4:43] >> Sorry.

[4:44] >> No, thank you.

[4:45] >> So, when we bought the property, I came

[4:48] in before we bought it and I was

[4:49] guaranteed a water hookup and um then

[4:53] when it came time we built the house and

[4:55] everything, we were denied. I'm not

[4:58] going to go into that. But so then we

[5:00] had no choice but to drill this well.

[5:02] So, we did. Then Arlene Nash contacted

[5:05] me 20 years later, 15 years later,

[5:08] whatever it was, right before she quit,

[5:11] and she said, "We're going to," I think

[5:13] it was when they put in the bluff, the

[5:16] >> Blair River Blair. And she said, "We're

[5:19] going to annex that and we'll annex you

[5:21] and you'll be up for city water." And I

[5:23] said, "I don't want your water." I was

[5:25] ticked, you know? I mean, I Yeah. So I

[5:30] said, "No, don't annex me. I don't want

[5:32] that. So then then we we decided, well,

[5:37] we've been on a couple of missions and

[5:39] we're gone. And it would be nice to know

[5:42] that we don't have to have somebody come

[5:43] in and check and make sure the wells

[5:45] running and everything else. It just be

[5:47] easier on ever the family while we're

[5:50] gone if we had city water. So then I

[5:54] came in and and um Linda AOK said,

[5:57] "Well, I think you're already in the

[5:58] city." And I said, "We are?" And she

[6:00] said, "Yeah. and she contacted Chris and

[6:04] he said, "Yeah, they've been paying city

[6:06] taxes for quite a while." I said, "Well,

[6:07] if I'd have known, I'd have been voting

[6:09] on in the city." So, cuz we haven't ever

[6:12] voted on the city elections cuz we

[6:14] thought we were in the county.

[6:16] >> Interesting. Okay.

[6:17] >> Yeah. So, it's been kind of a mess. All

[6:19] a mixup, let's say.

[6:22] Well, and I don't want to make this too

[6:24] personal, but I remember exactly when

[6:27] you came to town and when you built your

[6:28] house and when you uh uh got your

[6:31] business financed. So, you've been good

[6:34] solid members of the community. But,

[6:36] council, do you have any questions for

[6:38] the Millers on this situation?

[6:40] >> I don't have any questions for the

[6:42] Millers particularly, but do you know

[6:44] where the where would you hook up or

[6:47] where do we hook up?

[6:48] >> We'll have Sean talk about that.

[6:50] >> Okay. Okay. You're getting to that.

[6:51] >> Yeah, if that's okay.

[6:52] >> Okay. Yeah. Perfect.

[6:53] >> Um, let let's see what Oh, go ahead.

[6:56] >> Here's why you have a good wife.

[7:00] >> You know, I I can just stand here and

[7:03] try to look intelligent. You know,

[7:06] take over. You're not telling me

[7:08] something I haven't known for years.

[7:11] >> Why don't you folks have a chair and we

[7:12] will discuss this. Okay. Thank you very

[7:14] much. Sean, would you please come up and

[7:17] tell us uh uh the logistics and what the

[7:21] situation is on this?

[7:23] >> Yes. Uh so the water line uh stops on uh

[7:27] on on street about uh 600 ft uh east uh

[7:33] and on the north side of the road from

[7:35] the Miller property. Um so in order to

[7:39] get them a a connection, it's not simply

[7:41] just purchasing a connection and and

[7:43] doing that. it's actually extending the water line through. Um, with that

[7:49] being said, if the city were in the move

[7:52] for a big project, I would like to get

[7:54] that water line looped all the way down

[7:56] to the bluffs because the bluffs

[7:58] actually comes in from the industrial

[7:59] park and uh cuts through a field and

[8:01] then that's how it uh connects into that

[8:03] subdivision. So, it's it's not looped,

[8:04] it's just a big long dead end. Um,

[8:08] that's a bigger project probably though

[8:09] than what we're looking at here. So

[8:11] again, at the very minimum though, it's

[8:13] uh 600 ft of water line uh main line

[8:15] that would have to be extended out uh to

[8:18] the west.

[8:20] >> So as far as you know, the existing

[8:23] water line on Onida Street is a 6-in

[8:25] line.

[8:26] >> That's my understanding. Correct.

[8:28] >> And so help us with the

[8:29] >> our current code. Uh we're required to

[8:31] put everything in at least an 8 inch.

[8:33] That's the minimum.

[8:34] >> Okay.

[8:36] And the line runs on the north side of

[8:39] Highway 34. Correct.

[8:40] >> That's correct. So, um, even if the line

[8:43] was there, uh, they'd have to, uh, the

[8:45] millers would have to bore under the

[8:47] road, uh, or or work with the state. I'm

[8:48] sure the state would make them bore it,

[8:50] uh, in order to get that, uh, across the highway.

[8:54] >> So, is the city under any obligation to

[8:58] provide them water? I didn't know about

[9:01] the annexation issue with Arlene. of

[9:05] >> typically if someone is annexed into the

[9:07] city, that's an an issue that is not

[9:11] ignored,

[9:12] >> right? This is kind of a an odd

[9:14] situation. So, I wasn't aware of

[9:16] everything that happened with how that

[9:17] went down with the the annexation when

[9:19] they were brought into the city. Uh that

[9:21] being said, if we were to um if the

[9:25] miller were to come to us now and say,

[9:26] "Hey, I want to build a house here." Uh

[9:28] we'd say, "Okay, that's fine. Uh you're

[9:30] going to have to extend the water line,

[9:32] though." if they were coming in today

[9:34] and and that would be on them to do that

[9:36] uh as opposed to the the city.

[9:39] >> Any questions for Sean?

[9:46] What's your Sorry, Sean. Stay there.

[9:47] What's your recommendation? Do you uh

[9:50] dare tip your toe in the middle of this?

[9:52] >> Well, like I said, if I had my my

[9:54] choice, I would like to see that water

[9:56] line extended anyway. Um, I think it's

[9:59] uh definitely something that we need to

[10:02] do in the future uh to say the very

[10:03] least to get it extended out to all the

[10:05] way to the Bluff Sloop to get that uh

[10:07] looped into the the water system.

[10:09] >> Now, now there's a provision in our code

[10:11] as I recall that if there is a residence

[10:14] within a,000 ft of water line, the city

[10:17] is required to supply them water. Am I

[10:19] correct in that or

[10:21] >> they're required to hook up?

[10:22] >> Okay.

[10:22] >> Um so we would we would say yeah, you

[10:24] need to hook up as opposed to drilling a

[10:26] well. Again, this is kind of an audit

[10:28] situation where some things have

[10:30] happened in the past that have made it

[10:31] so it's not just straightforward.

[10:32] >> Okay, I understand that and I'm going to

[10:34] keep going here. So, even though they

[10:36] are required to hook up, uh I would

[10:39] assume that they would be subject to the

[10:43] connection fee.

[10:44] >> Correct.

[10:44] >> I mean, okay.

[10:45] >> Yeah. Any uh new connection, you've got

[10:47] to pay the connection fee. And so, um

[10:49] they would be subject sub excuse me,

[10:51] subject to that at this time. Um and

[10:54] that would be just the standard

[10:55] connection fee. um which is I believe

[10:57] $9,000.

[10:59] >> Council,

[11:00] >> my question is for Sean or maybe even

[11:02] Scott can answer this with no

[11:05] institutional knowledge. We're talking a

[11:07] minimum of 600 ft of mainline.

[11:10] >> Correct.

[11:13] >> How much would that cost?

[11:15] >> Scott, come up, please.

[11:18] >> He's prepared,

[11:19] >> you know.

[11:24] All right. So, I talked to Facers about

[11:26] this

[11:27] >> um for 600 feet and I just had them do 6

[11:31] in mainline

[11:33] and that would be $56,745.

[11:38] >> Say it again.

[11:40] >> $56,745.

[11:46] » That's not a bid. That's just an

[11:47] estimate. Correct.

[11:48] >> It's an estimate. Yeah.

[11:50] >> Okay. That would you

[11:52] >> That is just your question. Correct.

[11:54] Yeah. And that's painful.

[12:00] » Any other questions for Scott?

[12:02] >> What it would be if it was an 8 in

[12:03] extended out there? How much that cost

[12:05] of the pipe? It' probably be

[12:08] my guess it would be close to $5,000

[12:11] more for 8 in

[12:16] spot would how far is it in theory from

[12:21] potentially where the miller's line

[12:23] would go from there to Bar River Bluffs?

[12:27] Is that another I mean 2,000 ft? I mean

[12:30] yeah just give me

[12:32] >> I don't think it'd be that far but

[12:36] probably roughly 1500 feet.

[12:39] Okay.

[12:40] >> I mean, this looping project that Sean

[12:42] describes, I understand it, but that's a huge that's a budget breaker.

[12:47] That's something we got to plan for uh

[12:50] out of budget. Um

[12:54] » well, if we ever plan on right, it would

[12:57] be best to go with an 8 in line at that

[13:00] point. But if we're just going to extend

[13:02] and dead end it, you could go dead end

[13:05] it and put a fire hydrant on the end as

[13:08] well. So,

[13:13] » okay. Any other questions?

[13:14] >> Bid does include the fire hydrant on the

[13:16] end as well. So, that would benefit them

[13:19] as well.

[13:20] >> Okay. Thank you.

[13:22] >> I have questions for Lyall.

[13:24] >> Ly, please come up. Thank you.

[13:29] My main question is um that maybe Lyall

[13:33] can answer. I've done a little bit of

[13:34] research on this, but I'm not sure if

[13:36] I'm accurate. Idaho code does obligate a

[13:39] city to provide utilities if when where

[13:43] feasible.

[13:44] >> Uh our city code says within 1,000 ft

[13:47] the resident should has to hook up. I

[13:51] think 1300 I think.

[13:52] >> I think it's code 50-301

[13:55] or 18. I mean that it talks about

[13:58] utilities that were obligated to provide

[14:01] sewer and water.

[14:03] >> If if we have a system, you don't have

[14:06] to have water and sewer, but if you do,

[14:08] then you try to serve the people in the

[14:10] city.

[14:10] >> My question is, does that code extend to

[14:12] the fact that then the city should

[14:14] extend that mainline for this city

[14:16] resident at our cost?

[14:22] I I would have said yes before hearing

[14:25] about the annexation stuff tonight and

[14:27] I'm not sure what happened with the

[14:29] annexation

[14:29] >> and that was new to me but if I throw

[14:32] that in the mixing bowl in my opinion

[14:35] when the city was the applicant to annex

[14:38] them they should have given them water.

[14:41] Now I realize Mrs. Miller, you said no.

[14:44] But that's when I would have looked at

[14:46] you and said, "You're getting it

[14:47] anyway."

[14:49] I think the city missed their obligation

[14:51] then, to be honest.

[14:55] >> Yeah.

[14:58] >> And to me that when it when you were the

[15:00] applicant for annexation, there's some

[15:03] different rules. If we are the applicant

[15:05] and we annex, I think then that

[15:08] obligates us to provide the services we

[15:10] have.

[15:11] >> Yeah. to reference what Sean said

[15:13] earlier. You know, if they were coming

[15:14] in new with a bare piece of ground and

[15:17] building a home, the cost would be on

[15:19] them,

[15:19] >> right?

[15:20] >> Properly

[15:20] >> extend the mainline

[15:21] >> to extend the mainline, but that's we're

[15:22] in a different odd odd duck situation.

[15:25] >> But I'm sure you guys don't want to

[15:27] spend $56,000.

[15:31] » I Yeah, I did. I didn't think it would

[15:34] be that high.

[15:37] >> Mr.

[15:39] I would uh maybe just take a

[15:43] add to what Councilman Thomas has said

[15:45] and maybe get the attorney to review

[15:47] this, but there seems to be some

[15:49] verbiage in uh our municipal code

[15:52] 13.72.020

[15:57] and it says for any property annex to

[16:00] the city from and after the adoption of

[16:03] this ordinance which is number 20115. So

[16:06] this was dated in 2017.

[16:09] There's some steps that we need to take.

[16:12] Number two says this says if the city

[16:15] annexes property to the city without the

[16:17] consent, permission or request of the

[16:19] owner, which would be this case here,

[16:22] then the owner of said property shall

[16:24] not be required to transfer shares of

[16:25] water to the city upon annexation.

[16:28] However, prior to development, and this

[16:30] is where it maybe gets a little bit

[16:31] fuzzy, but I thought this was

[16:33] interesting. Number seven says this

[16:37] says there is hereby established a fund

[16:40] within the budget of the city to be

[16:42] hereafter named the water acquisition

[16:46] fund.

[16:47] Um said fund shall be used to receive

[16:50] funds from developers of annexed areas

[16:54] and for the acquisition of water for the

[16:57] city and its inhabitants and to expand

[17:00] and upgrade the water system for

[17:02] extensions to annexed areas.

[17:06] So,

[17:07] >> I'm wondering what the balance

[17:08] >> we have said I'm wonder.

[17:12] >> You know what the balance is, Kelly?

[17:16] >> 26,000.

[17:18] >> Okay. We've only had one applicant for

[17:21] annexation in my time here and that that

[17:24] the money that's in that fund would have

[17:25] been from that applicant.

[17:27] >> Apparently, there's a money in a bucket

[17:29] for

[17:30] >> that would go toward this

[17:35] Well,

[17:35] >> so that changes the cost to the

[17:37] >> I appreciate you bringing that to my

[17:39] attention, Councilman Dodge, and I'll look at that

[17:43] >> ordinance in further further detail.

[17:46] >> Kelly, how difficult would it be to get

[17:49] the exact amount of money that's in

[17:51] there? Would you go check on that,

[17:52] please? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dodge,

[17:54] for bringing that up. It's uh

[17:58] But you do remember that, Mr. Thomas?

[18:00] >> Yes.

[18:00] >> Okay. Okay.

[18:01] >> I had actually forgotten about the water

[18:03] acquisition fund. You know, that's been

[18:05] there forever. Usually not had much in

[18:07] it and we would use it to buy shares of

[18:09] secondary water on occasion. But in my

[18:12] I'm just going to say guys, in my

[18:14] opinion, I think we ought to approve

[18:15] this application. The Millers would be

[18:18] responsible for the connection fee. And

[18:21] I I think this is under the city

[18:23] umbrella of obligation to provide a

[18:25] service to a city resident and we can

[18:27] use the water acquisition fund to cover

[18:29] about half the cost of that.

[18:32] I'm going to it's not in the form of a

[18:35] motion yet. I'd like to hear what Kelly

[18:37] comes back with, but I support this.

[18:39] >> Okay.

[18:40] >> On those reasons.

[18:40] >> Thank you for that. If it's all right.

[18:42] Terry, can you hear us? All right. Do

[18:44] you do you want to comment on this?

[18:47] So, I just one question. Um, so the

[18:52] people speaking from the mic, it's a

[18:53] little bit broken, but I'm getting most

[18:55] of it. So, uh, Scott said that the the

[19:00] bid or the cost to extend

[19:03] that water line

[19:05] um, 600 ft would be about what was it

[19:08] 57,000.

[19:09] >> Yes.

[19:10] >> Is that is that a bid to extend? Is that

[19:14] labor and everything or is that just

[19:17] pipe?

[19:17] >> And that's 6 inch pipe.

[19:20] >> It's an estimate and it's all inclusive.

[19:24] >> Okay, that was I wasn't sure if that was

[19:26] materials only or if that was materials

[19:28] and labor. And then um so that answers

[19:32] that question. I guess

[19:36] my other my other concern is and I hate

[19:39] I mean it's it's dumb to hook six to

[19:42] eight, but I believe we have an

[19:45] ordinance that says any new mainline has

[19:48] to be 8 in.

[19:50] Uh

[19:53] yeah, we'd be going from 6 to 8, but is

[19:56] there something that we need to do or

[19:58] we're in ordinance that any mainline has

[20:01] to be 8 in? And now we're talking that

[20:03] the city itself is going to put 6 in in.

[20:06] You know, maybe that's a question for

[20:08] Lyall. Seems like a little bit of a

[20:10] sticky a sticky situation there where

[20:13] we're requiring developers or stuff like

[20:17] that to put in eight, but then we like

[20:19] to put in six. So maybe maybe we could

[20:23] discuss that or get an answer somewhat

[20:25] to that.

[20:28] » Can I can I throw one more in the mix?

[20:31] We've had two two comments from our

[20:34] public well from our staff that

[20:37] mentioned it would be nice to loop it

[20:40] and I'm wondering if uh if we're

[20:42] stopping short of of of the of the

[20:46] recommendation that they're making.

[20:49] >> You mean to do the loop?

[20:50] >> To do the loop and and and uh because um

[20:56] it's it you know it's good, better,

[20:58] best. In other words, put four tires on

[21:00] instead of two. But the thing with that

[21:03] kind of project though, we're talking

[21:06] multi-million dollars.

[21:07] >> Well, I I don't know. Is that right?

[21:09] >> I I would think so.

[21:14] » Say what?

[21:19] » Have him come up and

[21:20] >> Yeah. I don't know.

[21:21] >> I'm more worried about what the cost

[21:22] would be to do the whole looping right

[21:24] now.

[21:24] >> We just don't know the number on that.

[21:27] the other water projects we're trying

[21:28] >> Well, I don't I don't know if it's I was

[21:30] thinking if it was another $10,000.

[21:32] >> Oh, no. I didn't Wouldn't we loop it

[21:34] more?

[21:34] >> No, no, that that would make sense.

[21:36] >> I didn't I didn't I did when you said a

[21:39] couple of million, I was no

[21:42] >> based upon your place quickly.

[21:43] >> Based upon Mr. Montgomery's estimate,

[21:47] you know, multiply that by three or

[21:49] four. That's a long ways away from two

[21:51] million bucks.

[21:52] >> Yeah. But still, it's more than we've

[21:54] got in our fund. Yeah. Mr. Mickelson,

[21:57] what figure did you come up with?

[22:00] 71,000.

[22:04] » Well, I can see some people in our

[22:06] audience smiling.

[22:08] >> Okay.

[22:10] I will now make the motion that we

[22:12] approve the application for this water

[22:14] connection with the city extending the

[22:16] main line following an estimate uh at

[22:20] our cost and the connection on the

[22:22] applicant's cost. Is that adequate word

[22:25] or

[22:25] >> specify pipe size

[22:28] >> that the city will adhere to their own

[22:30] ordinance of an 8 in or pipe mainline?

[22:35] Does that cover it all?

[22:38] >> Is there a second?

[22:40] And I guess I should add them and be the

[22:42] funds for this project will come from

[22:44] the water acquisition fund and the

[22:46] millers will pay

[22:47] >> and the millers will be obligated for

[22:49] the normal connection fee. Well, since

[22:52] we haven't got a second yet, but we

[22:54] there is something uh Mr. and Mrs.

[22:56] Miller, you need to be aware of. Again,

[22:59] the water line is on the north side. You

[23:01] would be responsible to get it under the

[23:04] road to your home. So I just hope you

[23:09] understand that. So

[23:11] >> you want to make that contingent on them

[23:13] purchasing the water connection because

[23:15] there's no reason for us to do it if

[23:16] they don't purchase.

[23:18] >> We could do this and she could look at

[23:19] me again and say what she said before. I

[23:21] don't want your water.

[23:24] So that's conditional upon the the

[23:26] miller's agreement.

[23:27] >> Do you want to come up?

[23:30] >> Mr. Mickelson is coming up. I was just

[23:33] going to tell you we would have to

[23:35] whenever we decide to do that we'd have

[23:37] to open the budget because we've never

[23:38] budgeted for anything coming out of that

[23:40] fund. But just just so you know that we

[23:42] can do it.

[23:43] >> Good point. Thank you for that.

[23:45] >> And of course that would be before our

[23:47] next fiscal year starts October 1st. I

[23:50] don't know how soon this would happen.

[23:52] Uh but if it's before October 1st, we'd

[23:55] have to do what Kelly said. Well, and I

[23:57] guess even after.

[23:58] >> Yeah. Either way,

[23:59] >> right? Okay.

[24:01] >> Okay.

[24:03] Uh, Taylor, do you have any other

[24:04] comments? We kind of interrupted you.

[24:08] >> No, you're you're good. I think all my

[24:10] questions have been answered.

[24:15] >> Well, we're looking for a second on Mr.

[24:17] Thomas's motion.

[24:18] >> I'll second it.

[24:20] >> Was that you, Mr. Dodge? I didn't see.

[24:22] Okay. Uh, Mr. Brent Dodge seconded this

[24:24] motion. Any questions, comments?

[24:29] Let me just just clarification. Uh our

[24:33] attorney, have you looked at that? Is

[24:34] that the uh proper use of the uh uh of

[24:38] the ordinance or of the code?

[24:42] >> I haven't had a chance to review.

[24:44] >> Do you mean of the use of the fund?

[24:47] >> Yeah, use of the fund. I mean, that's

[24:48] it. That's a

[24:50] >> I just want to make sure that we're

[24:52] using the code

[24:53] >> as it water project.

[24:55] >> Yes,

[24:56] >> correct. I as I read it would be

[25:01] use of funds would include to expand and

[25:03] upgrade the water system for extension

[25:05] to add.

[25:07] >> Okay, that almost sounds perfect.

[25:10] >> Sounds like it matches.

[25:11] >> Okay.

[25:13] We have a motion on the table to

[25:16] approve the uh water line connection.

[25:20] The city will extend the line with with

[25:24] an 8 in line

[25:26] to uh approximately 600 ft which would

[25:30] allow the millers to connect at their

[25:33] expense.

[25:35] All in favor? Mr. Terry Larson.

[25:39] >> I.

[25:40] >> Todd Thomas.

[25:41] >> I.

[25:41] >> Chris Larson.

[25:42] >> I.

[25:42] >> Brent Dodge.

[25:43] >> I.

[25:43] >> Okay. Motion carries. I hope that'll

[25:46] work, folks.

[25:47] Um,

[25:49] we will uh move forward with that. Okay.

[25:52] >> I just hope we can finally stop coming

[25:54] up with these once in these things that

[25:57] are once in a blue moon and we've had so

[25:58] many of these in my time on the council

[26:01] decisions that were made years ago that

[26:03] are come back to bite us now. But

[26:05] >> I think we all agree, Mr. Chris. Thank

[26:07] you.

[26:09] Okay. Next on the agenda, uh, east

[26:12] Enclave subdivision building permit

[26:14] issuance prior to essential

[26:16] infrastructure completion and also uh

[26:20] included in this discussion partial

[26:22] refund east enclave infrastructure

[26:26] and rounds uh $826,90.

[26:30] Sean, would you please come up and and

[26:33] uh

[26:34] talk about these? I I think you need to

[26:37] talk about uh the uh uh building permit

[26:41] issuance issue and then I might have

[26:43] Scott Montgomery come up and talk about

[26:45] the other.

[26:46] >> Okay. Uh so Enclave East uh subdivision

[26:51] uh Cameron Rans and Jordan Snedker uh

[26:54] sent in a request uh to have provisional

[26:58] uh building permits issued

[27:01] uh without having all the infrastructure

[27:03] in. Uh so what's going on is they've uh

[27:07] made deposits and they've paid what they

[27:09] need to pay to get the uh electric

[27:12] company and the gas company and a few

[27:13] other utilities out. Uh those companies

[27:16] have not shown up yet uh to complete

[27:18] that work and so that's pushing them

[27:20] further out and the people who have

[27:21] purchased their lots that's pushing them

[27:23] further out uh as far as being able to

[27:25] get in there and get work done. Um along

[27:28] with that, without having that

[27:29] infrastructure in, they can't put in uh

[27:31] the city sidewalk.

[27:33] Uh so with that, they're asking that we

[27:36] uh grant uh building permits uh

[27:38] provisional status that uh would allow

[27:41] people to go in uh people who have

[27:42] purchased those lots to go in and uh

[27:45] begin doing work. Um in speaking with

[27:49] them they've said that uh the utility

[27:51] companies have expressed that it should

[27:53] be you know this week or next week uh

[27:56] that they get work done and uh I haven't

[27:58] talked to them today so it may have

[27:59] already begun but uh very soon is what

[28:03] uh the feeling that I got from them.

[28:08] >> Any questions for Sean?

[28:18] Scott, do you want to please come up and

[28:20] talk about your letter that you wrote

[28:21] and uh

[28:29] » you've been out to the site obviously?

[28:31] >> Yes. Yes, I was out there. Um checked

[28:35] all the roads, curb, gutter, um

[28:39] checked all the electrical condo. All

[28:42] the boxes are there. Conduit's in.

[28:45] Um I can't remember what else was on the

[28:48] list, but the the street signs are not

[28:50] there. That's why they was taken out.

[28:52] The street signs and the stop signs.

[28:56] >> Are all the fire hydrants in?

[28:58] >> Yes.

[28:59] >> Okay.

[29:01] Um any questions for Mr. Montgomery?

[29:08] » Thank you.

[29:12] So, where we're at on this, I I think

[29:14] that we're going to have to have two

[29:15] motions.

[29:17] Council, I don't know. How do you

[29:21] want to discuss this? Terry Larson, do

[29:24] you want to say anything about one of

[29:26] these requests?

[29:29] >> Yeah. Um, I didn't So, I didn't realize

[29:33] that we had two requests. one for the

[29:35] bond re the partial bond refund and for

[29:38] the request for building permissive

[29:40] within the same issue. Um and then next

[29:45] on the agenda we have the

[29:49] uh Ralph subdivision

[29:52] that is kind of in a similar situation

[29:57] sidewalk-wise. It's not the same

[29:58] situation but there there's an ask

[30:00] there. Um, so I think

[30:04] you know the the relief from the

[30:07] sidewalks for Enclave and the bonding

[30:11] for the sidewalks for uh the Rouse

[30:15] subdivision. Those are two things that

[30:17] are kind of tied together that I think

[30:20] the discussion needs to be had with

[30:22] those two kind of going back and forth

[30:26] between those two things. But depending

[30:28] on the decision that's made with the sidewalk issue, I think would

[30:37] make a difference of possibly the

[30:41] bonding, the refund of the bonding. Is

[30:43] that does make sense what I'm saying?

[30:49] » No.

[30:50] Well, the council said no, and I'm

[30:53] saying maybe,

[30:55] but uh I didn't know if you had a

[30:58] personal uh issue on one or both of

[31:01] these.

[31:04] No, I I don't have a personal issue on

[31:06] either of them. Um, as far as the

[31:11] Enclave and the and the Ralph

[31:14] subdivision, I think whatever the

[31:16] decision that's made is, it needs to be

[31:20] basically the same for both parties. I

[31:23] don't think we refuse one and then allow

[31:25] one because by ordinance um, you know,

[31:30] we're not allowed the ordinance requires

[31:32] the sidewalk to be put in. So if we

[31:35] allow for the Ralph subdivision to bond

[31:38] for sidewalks,

[31:40] then I think we're would be at least at

[31:43] the obligation to allow the rounds to

[31:46] bond for sidewalk.

[31:48] And if they bond decide to bond for

[31:50] sidewalk, if that decision is made in

[31:52] that favor, then I would say that the

[31:55] partial bond refund shouldn't be as much

[31:59] as it is.

[32:02] >> Okay. I and I appreciate the input. We will I'm sure the rest of the council

[32:07] will have some discussion. I if I can

[32:09] clean this up a little bit, at least try

[32:11] to clean this up a little bit. On the

[32:12] back of your page, council, the letter

[32:15] that Scott Montgomery wrote, our city

[32:17] clerk, Linda AOK, has given us a

[32:20] complete review of the total bond amount

[32:24] and the releases and what the remaining

[32:26] amount would be. I I do want to say that

[32:30] this based upon changes to our municipal

[32:33] code, partial releases will not ever be

[32:37] an issue ever again. Uh but based upon

[32:41] this proposal, we still have $444,900

[32:46] remaining in a letter of credit that

[32:51] would cover the infrastructure

[32:53] improvements. and that excludes the 10%

[32:56] retainage that the city will hold on to

[32:59] for a year after the entire development

[33:02] is complete. I don't know if that makes

[33:04] any difference, but I'm wondering if we

[33:06] can maybe move forward on one of these

[33:09] and take these issues one at a time.

[33:11] >> Can can you can somebody uh

[33:16] >> there was that much of the bond left? um

[33:20] that my my understanding was the with

[33:24] the release of the bond that we all we

[33:26] would have was

[33:29] >> the 10%

[33:32] >> that thought. So if we do still have um

[33:36] adequate funds to for the you know as a

[33:40] through the bond to cover the sidewalks

[33:43] then whatever the

[33:46] I didn't both ways.

[33:50] >> No I got I got you T. I think that I

[33:52] think that we would be covered but Mr.

[33:54] Dodge you you had a comment please.

[33:56] >> That that was mainly my comment. I was

[34:00] curious on when they approached us on

[34:02] this and when we approved this. I would

[34:05] like to see a copy of what we did

[34:07] approve. Um I don't remember it being

[34:10] this all cart. I I thought it was um

[34:15] >> mean for the item bonded.

[34:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I don't remember it but I

[34:20] thought it was um at different phases or

[34:24] I I don't know. Do you have a copy of

[34:25] the development agreement?

[34:26] >> Uh I I do. I I'm referencing a copy of

[34:29] the development agreement. Um, let me

[34:32] find that.

[34:35] Uh, so the development agreement

[34:36] references that the total bond amount

[34:38] would be 2,661,000

[34:41] for the current phase of the

[34:43] subdivision,

[34:44] but I'm I'm not aware of a a exhibit or

[34:48] schedule that breaks it down further

[34:50] than that. Maybe honor the developers

[34:53] are, but that was the total amount and

[34:55] that was how it was listed in the

[34:56] development agreement.

[34:58] >> Then what did we agree to? We I know we

[35:00] agreed to do partial releases, but what

[35:03] was that agreement like?

[35:09] » Well, I'm not sure there was a specific

[35:12] agreement. The request has come to the

[35:14] council every time they've wanted a

[35:16] release as part of the consent calendar.

[35:19] I think we put some sideboards on it is my

[35:22] >> within the I thought within the

[35:24] development agreement.

[35:26] Let me let me look for that further.

[35:28] Council,

[35:29] >> yeah, I just I I wor sideboards.

[35:32] >> Okay. What what I think we ought to do

[35:34] and council let you tell me if you

[35:35] disagree. I think we should table this

[35:38] partial refund request until next

[35:40] meeting until we get a little more

[35:42] information on the previous releases. I

[35:45] don't know how you feel about that.

[35:49] Well, uh, if I may go ahead, I'm going

[35:52] to I'm a believer in cutting the Gordian

[35:54] knot and keeping it simple. I'm okay

[35:58] with a partial release as requested for

[36:01] the roadway improvements. You know, our

[36:03] original agenda had electrical listed

[36:05] and that was incorrect. We took that off

[36:08] and the number has been adjusted per Mr.

[36:11] McGomery's letter, you know, signage,

[36:14] things like that. So, I'm honestly okay

[36:16] with this partial release right now. Uh,

[36:20] but I'm also very much relieved that we

[36:22] have changed that ordinance so that we

[36:24] don't keep doing partials.

[36:26] When you go down to number six and talk

[36:28] about building permit issuance, at this

[36:30] point, I'm honestly going to say I'm not

[36:32] in favor of that until all those

[36:35] improvements are done. Uh, I don't think

[36:37] it's fair to the future occupants of the

[36:41] subdivision to allow building to start

[36:43] without all the infrastructure in first.

[36:46] That's just my opinion on that. I think

[36:49] the other issue of bonding for sidewalks

[36:52] with Mr. Ralphs is slightly different. I

[36:55] totally get why you want to wait and do

[36:57] the concrete after so you don't break it

[36:59] up and have to redo it. I'm more

[37:02] comfortable with a with a bonding for

[37:04] that uh while the construction gets

[37:06] finished. I wouldn't want Mr. Ralphs to

[37:09] have a building permit either in this

[37:11] case without all the infrastructure put

[37:13] in first aside from the sidewalks.

[37:16] >> Okay. So, let's stay with cutting the

[37:17] guardian now. Did you want to make a

[37:19] motion in regards to the partial refund

[37:21] release, Mr. Thomas? Let's see where

[37:24] this goes. Yeah, I'm happy to make a

[37:25] motion right now just on that topic that

[37:27] we do grant the partial refund uh

[37:31] release of bond to on East Enclave for

[37:34] the adjusted amount of $826,90.

[37:38] >> Is there a second?

[37:39] >> I'll second that.

[37:40] >> Chris Larson has seconded it. Council,

[37:42] do you want to make any more discussions

[37:44] about this issue?

[37:46] >> The I I would like to read the uh

[37:49] >> Please go ahead.

[37:50] >> Yeah, the agreement. So the agreement

[37:51] that we made with Enclave uh subdivision

[37:54] is this. The city will partially release

[37:58] any shity provided by the developer as

[38:01] individual components of the

[38:03] improvements i.e. water, sewer, road,

[38:06] sidewalks are completed and installed,

[38:09] provided that no such partial release

[38:11] will occur unless and until the

[38:13] appropriate city official, including the

[38:16] director of public works, director of

[38:17] land use, planning, and city engineer,

[38:19] if applicable, have inspected the

[38:21] completed improvements and deemed them

[38:23] acceptable, at least so far as to grant

[38:26] a partial release of the shy. My my

[38:29] understanding of that paragraph is that

[38:32] um it it fits within their application.

[38:37] >> I think it does.

[38:38] >> Thank you for that.

[38:40] Okay. I will call for a vote. All in

[38:42] favor for Mr. Thomas's motion.

[38:45] >> I I

[38:46] >> I

[38:49] Terry.

[38:51] >> Uh I

[38:53] >> Okay, we have a reluctant eye from Terry

[38:55] Larson. Uh motion motion carries

[38:58] unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we're back to number six. Uh East

[39:03] Enclaves building permit issuance prior

[39:06] to essential infrastructure completion.

[39:16] » Thank you.

[39:18] Since we've drugg out the development

[39:20] agreement,

[39:23] uh in subp paragraph U as in between T

[39:28] and V, page 11, it does say no building

[39:31] permits will be issued prior to

[39:32] completion of improvements according to

[39:34] the improvement plan in this agreement.

[39:36] And so that that topic is addressed in

[39:38] the development agreement. Now, I think

[39:39] Cody Ralphs is not to the progress to

[39:43] the point of having a final development

[39:44] agreement yet on on that one, but just

[39:48] thought I'd add that piece of

[39:49] information to your discussion. And

[39:51] >> so I think that statement there backs up

[39:53] what I suggested that we do not approve

[39:55] conditional building permits until all

[39:57] the infrastructure improvements are

[39:59] done. So I'll put that in the form of a

[40:01] motion.

[40:03] >> I'll second that.

[40:05] So your form of the motion is to deny

[40:08] it.

[40:08] >> Correct.

[40:08] >> Okay. Is that you're understanding, Mr.

[40:11] Dodge? Okay. Any last comments, Terry?

[40:15] >> I I have a comment. Okay. So, I I don't disagree with with Todd's logic

[40:23] there that I and I believe that the

[40:26] sidewalks, you know, that there's a good

[40:28] chance of breaking those sidewalks up.

[40:30] But when we pass this ordinance, that

[40:32] was one of my arguments against passing

[40:34] this ordinance was that very thing. And

[40:38] we opted to pass the ordinance with that

[40:41] still in there. So now we have a

[40:46] developer that we're looking to grant

[40:49] permission with a bond to get around

[40:51] that. So

[40:53] in my opinion, you know, we've got an

[40:55] ordinance that I feel like we know had

[40:58] issues with it and now we're it's not a

[41:03] variance, but we're now we're going

[41:05] against what our ordinance is. So,

[41:09] I'm still on the I'm still on the uh my

[41:15] stool, I guess, of or my standpoint of

[41:19] if we grant one, we grant both because

[41:23] we know

[41:25] we've known since we passed the

[41:27] ordinance that this was an issue.

[41:31] >> This this one this one for Enclave

[41:32] though is not about sidewalks, right?

[41:34] It's because the electrical is not the

[41:36] power company hasn't done their work.

[41:38] It's because

[41:39] >> gas hasn't been put in.

[41:41] >> That's my understanding.

[41:42] >> That's what I That's what I understand.

[41:45] >> Terry, we're going to have Mr. Snder

[41:47] come up.

[41:48] >> Thanks, Jordan. Hope that's okay.

[41:50] Council,

[41:52] >> we do have a motion on the table with a

[41:54] second.

[41:55] >> Can you hear me?

[41:57] >> Can now? Yep.

[41:58] >> Thank you. Um, just to clarify, um, our

[42:01] hands are tied based off of the, uh,

[42:03] power company and the gas company. We've

[42:06] paid our fee for them to come out.

[42:08] They've just got a backlog. And, in

[42:10] fact, they've showed up today. They've

[42:12] started. And so, um, I talked to them

[42:15] today. They said within this week or

[42:17] next week, they would be completed. Um,

[42:20] we've just got some people that are

[42:22] wanting to start, you know, breaking

[42:23] down before snowfalls, but our hands are

[42:26] tied as the developer that we I mean,

[42:28] it's a monopoly that Rocky Mountain

[42:30] Power has. We've paid their fee. We've

[42:32] been compliant. Um,

[42:35] regarding we're just they're just

[42:37] wanting to get started. Um, and so it's

[42:40] within a week or, you know, 10 days from

[42:43] them being completed and then it would

[42:45] be the sidewalk. the sidewalk can't go

[42:47] in until after those um uh improvements

[42:50] are installed. But then you go back to

[42:53] you put this sidewalks in and they're

[42:55] going to get brack crack cracked, broken

[42:56] and you know um but we're willing to do that and

[43:01] we're going to do that but um we're just

[43:04] asking for this variance or this you

[43:06] know conditional approval for lots so

[43:08] that we can continue progressing without

[43:11] getting held up by uh a monopolistic

[43:14] entity such as Rocky Mountain Power.

[43:17] But they're on site. They are on site

[43:19] today. They're on all this week. So, I'd

[43:21] say within, you know, 10 days.

[43:24] You guys have any questions for me?

[43:27] >> Thank you, Mr. Senator. Go ahead, Chris.

[43:29] >> I was just going to ask Jordan. Jordan,

[43:30] just your opinion on this, but it was

[43:32] something I was thinking was I I

[43:35] understand that Rocky Mountain Power is

[43:37] holding you up and whatever else, but

[43:39] why is that the city's problem?

[43:42] That's kind of my thought when I that

[43:45] that's not the city's problem at all.

[43:47] this is our problem as part of the risk

[43:50] that we um took on when we decided to do

[43:52] this project. Um but we're just trying

[43:55] to provide a service to the people of

[43:59] Preston so that they can continue moving

[44:01] forward. And so we're just asking for

[44:04] this um consideration to to not delay

[44:08] things as you know fall's coming and

[44:10] winter's coming.

[44:11] >> You know, Mr. Snediger and I appreciate

[44:13] your application and and you asking the

[44:16] question and and I ditto what you said

[44:19] and that is is that we're trying to

[44:20] provide a service to the city or the

[44:22] municipality to make sure that everybody

[44:25] fits within the code. And so we don't

[44:29] doubt your integrity or what you're

[44:31] trying to do, but we as council members

[44:35] and as this board um we have to keep

[44:38] order. And so uh that's um and as such

[44:43] the code specifically says no building

[44:46] permit shall be granted until curb

[44:48] gutter and railway of a phase of a m a

[44:52] major subdivision are completed. That's

[44:53] code 16.28.020.

[44:57] And your comment in regards to the um

[45:01] cracked sidewalks and those things that

[45:05] um maybe you think are ridiculous. We've

[45:08] made a provision for that. Uh it says to

[45:11] the extent necessary to accommodate the

[45:14] sidewalk, curb, and gutter when

[45:16] determined that it is technically or

[45:18] otherwise infeasible to comply such as

[45:21] where there is a lack of public

[45:22] rightway, extreme uh topographical

[45:24] conditions, uh presence of a fire

[45:27] hydrant, mailboxes, those kinds of

[45:29] things. We've made a provision for those

[45:31] sidewalks. So, uh, if if you feel like

[45:35] there's an extenduating circumstance,

[45:38] uh, you can make a a a request for those

[45:42] sidewalks not to go in.

[45:43] >> But for you to say that, um, the city is

[45:48] not um is not builder friendly, I think

[45:52] is a mischaracterization.

[45:54] I think you're putting words in my

[45:56] mouth. Okay, Councilman died. I didn't

[45:58] say that you're not builder friendly at

[45:59] all.

[46:01] Thank you for your comments. You know,

[46:02] >> Jordan, I'm I'm very comfortable with

[46:04] the sidewalks coming later. Sure.

[46:07] >> I get you don't want to, you know, do it

[46:09] twice. And we've done that several times

[46:12] either with a partial bond or just a

[46:14] waiver, a variance. I recall one

[46:16] instance with a homeowner where they

[46:18] were required, they had to do

[46:19] asphaltting. Well, it was December, they

[46:21] couldn't get hot mix and so we gave an

[46:24] extended, you know, time to do it later.

[46:26] So, I don't want you to worry about the

[46:28] sidewalks.

[46:29] >> Okay.

[46:30] There's still a method there.

[46:32] >> Sure.

[46:33] >> The signs are purchased, but we can't

[46:34] put the signs in before the concrete.

[46:37] Um, it's just uh we're just waiting on

[46:39] the the big players to install their work.

[46:42] >> I get it.

[46:43] >> So, thank you for coming up, Jordan.

[46:45] Appreciate you being here. Okay, we have

[46:47] a motion on the table to uh deny this

[46:50] request number six. Uh, I'm going to do

[46:53] a roll call vote. Mr. Dodge.

[46:55] >> Hi.

[46:56] >> Uh, Terry Larson.

[46:59] >> Nay.

[47:01] >> Was that May?

[47:02] >> Tell what it said.

[47:04] >> Nay.

[47:05] >> May is in no. Chris Larson.

[47:07] >> I.

[47:08] >> Uh, Todd Thomas.

[47:10] >> I.

[47:11] >> Okay. Motion carries 3 to one. Thank

[47:13] you, Terry Larson. Thank you, Mr. Sneder

[47:16] and Mr. Rounds. Okay. Number seven,

[47:19] general obligation revenue bond on

[47:21] November ballot for 2 million gallon

[47:25] water storage tank.

[47:29] I guess this is where I will

[47:31] editorialize briefly

[47:34] based upon the fact that we do have a

[47:37] grant for $3,750,000

[47:42] as well as the fact that the city of

[47:43] Preston does need additional water

[47:45] storage. We have about four and a half

[47:48] million gallons of water storage

[47:50] currently and an extra two million

[47:52] gallon would do uh uh significantly

[47:56] increase our uh holdings of water and

[47:59] based upon the fact that our city

[48:01] engineering essentially has been

[48:03] completed on this project. Is that

[48:05] correct Mr. Jared Richens? Okay. The

[48:09] council has decided that we would like

[48:12] to put the qu the request on the ballot

[48:16] to have the citizens vote in the

[48:19] November election to approve a revenue

[48:23] bond for $2,500,000.

[48:27] Now, this is a situation that would

[48:30] require

[48:32] uh a majority vote only.

[48:35] Also, this is a situation. It is a

[48:37] revenue bond.

[48:40] It will have no bearing whatsoever on

[48:42] individuals property taxes. It will not

[48:45] affect the property tax on your home or

[48:47] improvements or property, bare land,

[48:50] development, whatever. This is purely a

[48:53] revenue bond. I want to give a brief

[48:56] history. We currently have a revenue

[48:59] bond in place that was incurred in 1998,

[49:04] a 30-year bond for in excess of $5.4

[49:08] million.

[49:10] That was to 4 million was to improve

[49:13] lines and water meters. $1.4 million was

[49:17] for a new water tank.

[49:19] This bond was refinanced

[49:22] uh by the council in the year 2020.

[49:27] That 5.3 million, 5.4 million was paid

[49:31] down to 2.8 million.

[49:34] The council was able to refinance this

[49:36] at a fixed interest rate of 1.97%.

[49:41] This uh obligation balance is about

[49:46] uh $500,000.

[49:49] And this 30-year bond will be totally

[49:52] paid off on May 15, 2028.

[49:57] So the fact of the matter is is this

[49:59] proposed $2.5 million item that will be

[50:02] on the november ballot if the council so

[50:05] chooses will actually be less of a debt

[50:09] service obligation than we are currently

[50:12] paying. Uh council, help me here. any uh

[50:15] information that you want to discuss for

[50:18] the public?

[50:23] » Um what I what I would just add is that

[50:26] one of our biggest issues that we have

[50:29] as a city with the um spring that we get

[50:32] our water from is that storage capacity.

[50:36] uh until we were surprised with the

[50:39] amount of the bids, we had every

[50:41] intention of moving forward with a 2

[50:44] milli extra holding for the city. Um if

[50:48] that water does not get held that we

[50:50] already have right to and we fill up our

[50:53] current tanks, it just flows out into

[50:56] foster, right? So, what we're talking

[50:58] about here is the ability to hang on to

[51:00] more of our water that can then be used

[51:03] in situations like this summer where we

[51:06] had a pretty major drought. Um, from all

[51:09] things that I've been reading, it sounds

[51:11] like we might be in for another drought

[51:13] this winter um potentially. But what this tank does is it gives us the

[51:20] ability to have 2 million more gallons

[51:22] in holding for circumstances such as

[51:25] this. the fact that um we're able to do

[51:29] this without an increase to the water

[51:32] bill specifically, and I don't want to

[51:35] get that confused with a sewer bill and

[51:37] a water bill. I know that we get you get

[51:39] that at the same time, but there

[51:41] wouldn't be an increase to the water

[51:42] bill, which this has to come out of

[51:44] those funds. So, being able to move

[51:48] forward with this, I I would hope um

[51:51] getting it on the on the ballot. I'm

[51:54] hoping that the citizens would see the need that the city has for this and

[51:59] be able to also understand that we're

[52:00] not talking about increasing that water

[52:02] bill. We're talking about the funds that

[52:04] we're already getting in every month

[52:06] being able to continue to pay for it,

[52:08] but we just can't build the tank without

[52:10] that approval from the public. That's

[52:13] the that's the big thing. And so that's what we'll hopefully be asking

[52:18] for uh on that November election. But

[52:20] that's my that's me uh editorializing on

[52:24] that.

[52:25] >> Well, I appreciate that, Chris Larson.

[52:27] Uh to give your perspective, u uh to Mr.

[52:32] Thomas, do you have his

[52:33] >> Yeah, my thoughts on this. Uh I'm I'm

[52:35] comfortable with this decision. I think

[52:37] this water tank is extremely important

[52:39] to us. That's going to do uh have a

[52:43] great deal of benefit to us until the

[52:46] lucky day comes that we find another

[52:48] source of water.

[52:50] Uh,

[52:52] so

[52:53] I would encourage this to be on the

[52:56] November ballot. I am a big believer in

[52:58] ballot initiatives. No matter what the

[53:00] topic, even if I vote no on it or I vote

[53:04] yes on it, I'm a big believer in the

[53:06] Republican form of government of one

[53:08] person, one vote. And a ballot

[53:10] initiative like this gives the voter

[53:12] that chance. But then the responsibility

[53:15] needs will rest not just on the council

[53:18] shoulders. it'll rest on the city

[53:20] residents. That's where it should be.

[53:23] Um, they need to say yes or no. And what

[53:26] they're basically doing with a yes vote,

[53:28] you're giving the council and the mayor

[53:30] permission to go borrow that money to

[53:33] build this project. If they say no, we

[53:36] won't be able to build it. And then

[53:38] you're running the risk of running out

[53:40] of water possibly. I like the election

[53:43] option much much better than judicial

[53:46] confirmation.

[53:47] Uh we've done judicial confirmation

[53:49] twice. Once for the water meters in 98.

[53:54] Uh and I think that turned out to be a

[53:56] good move for the city. And then we did

[53:59] it for the sewer plant.

[54:01] We chose to hold an election like this

[54:04] for bonding about six, seven years ago

[54:07] uh

[54:09] to raise the money for a new water

[54:12] mainline from the tank into town if you

[54:15] can recall that. and it went very

[54:17] successful. We had a 70 something%

[54:20] approval

[54:22] uh with the city and we appreciated

[54:23] that. The job of the council now is to

[54:26] educate and inform the voters so they

[54:28] make the right choice. So I'm all in

[54:30] favor of this. Mr. Dodge, have you got

[54:32] any comments on this, please?

[54:34] >> It was um we started this process with

[54:38] uh the bond. Uh I remember the day up at

[54:43] the capital all of us uh council member

[54:45] including the mayor met with uh uh

[54:49] congressman's uh office and uh this is

[54:53] where the seed was planted where we

[54:56] needed a water tank and uh and fast

[55:00] forward

[55:02] it's got to be 5 years ago and uh fast

[55:07] forward we thought that we had enough

[55:09] money to build a water tank.

[55:12] And uh the inflation has just uh uh

[55:17] caught us off guard. And so with that

[55:20] being said,

[55:22] we essentially have uh we get to make a

[55:26] decision. And um so I I want the

[55:30] citizens to think of it this way.

[55:32] Basically, um, we're we're going to get

[55:38] a a new an additional water tank for 50

[55:42] cents on the dollar.

[55:44] Um, if we decide, hey, we don't want to

[55:48] bond for it, we don't want we're not

[55:50] going to bond for it, we're not going to

[55:52] pay that money, uh, then we'll just send

[55:55] back the $3.7 million.

[55:58] And, uh, at a future date when we do

[56:01] need another water tank, the price tag

[56:04] of that, we'll have to pay full price.

[56:08] And so in my mind's eye, uh missing out

[56:11] on that opportunity

[56:14] uh would be um would not be in our best

[56:17] interest. Who doesn't want to go uh

[56:20] shopping

[56:22] uh with a uh and shop at uh on the

[56:26] clearance rack at uh 50% discount.

[56:30] >> Thank you, Mr. Dodge. Terry Larson, you

[56:32] got any comments on this?

[56:34] Um I just I I do echo everything that's

[56:37] been said. Um and just you know

[56:41] reflecting on it when we when we asked

[56:45] for this grant and was given basically

[56:48] given the grant and through the process.

[56:51] Uh the exact same thing has happened

[56:53] with with what happened with the

[56:54] wastewater treatment plant. From the

[56:56] time we started the process to the time

[57:00] the rubber hit the road we doubled in

[57:02] price. Well,

[57:05] you know, like Brent said, 50 cents on

[57:07] the dollar is really good. And I would

[57:08] say it was at probably even more than 50

[57:11] cents on the dollar that we're getting.

[57:13] And uh the need for the water is not

[57:18] going to lessen. The cost of the tank is

[57:21] going to increase the longer we kick it

[57:23] down the road. So, you know, next time

[57:26] another council, another mayor, whatever

[57:28] it is, goes to do the exact same thing,

[57:32] it's not going to be 6 to7 million. It's

[57:35] going to be 12 $15 million probably with

[57:40] not even $3.7 million worth of grant to

[57:42] match it. So, you know, I I I think it's

[57:46] foolish that if we that we don't move

[57:48] forward with this and and I agree

[57:51] wholeheartedly it's at the at the

[57:53] citizens discretion of whether we do it

[57:55] or not and and I agree it needs to go to

[57:58] them to decide.

[58:02] >> Thank you, Mr. Terry Larson. Mr. Thomas,

[58:05] you had another comment. My last thought

[58:06] is, you know, in the whole course of

[58:08] this wastewater plant, many comments

[58:10] have been made, uh, like, why didn't you

[58:13] guys do this 10 years ago? It'd have

[58:15] been cheaper. Well, it might have been.

[58:17] Uh, but 10 years ago, if we had started

[58:20] the wastewater thing, we might not have

[58:22] got the grant funding we got this time,

[58:24] and we might have had a whole different

[58:25] interest rate. So, it could all turn out

[58:28] to be sixes.

[58:30] That we will never know. But, this is

[58:32] the second chance. Now, let's not kick

[58:35] this down the road. Let's do it when

[58:37] it's cheaper so that in 5 years we try

[58:40] to do it and we're not told the same

[58:42] thing. Why didn't you guys do it 5 years

[58:44] ago when it was cheaper? Uh, so that's

[58:47] my thoughts on it.

[58:51] I

[58:51] >> think we might have lost Mr. Terry.

[58:55] >> Linda, can you see if you can get Terry

[58:57] Larson on the phone uh

[58:59] >> before we vote?

[59:01] >> Correct.

[59:02] Uh,

[59:04] she's going to grab her phone.

[59:06] >> Um, the other thing I'll say, you know,

[59:07] did uh I'm kind of assuming we're going

[59:11] to approve to put this on the ballot. We

[59:13] then have to meet a deadline of wording

[59:15] for the ballot. Between now and then,

[59:18] please everyone keep an eye on us. We'll

[59:21] be having some town halls and some

[59:22] education where people can come and look

[59:26] at pictures and diagrams and information

[59:29] and education. Please keep an eye out

[59:31] for that information from the city so

[59:34] that you make an informed vote.

[59:36] Kelly, please come up. Kelly,

[59:43] » I was just going to say when we applied

[59:45] for this grant, we applied for like I I

[59:48] might be wrong, but like 5.9 million and

[59:51] the 3.7 was all they give us. So, we

[59:54] didn't

[59:56] not plan for how much the water tank was

[59:58] going to be. We're just didn't get the

[1:00:00] money.

[1:00:00] >> Good point.

[1:00:01] >> Thank you for the update. Now, let me

[1:00:02] just uh give some additional information

[1:00:05] to the public and the council. Uh we

[1:00:09] have asked our engineers to rebid this

[1:00:13] as quick as possible under the

[1:00:15] assumption that the voters will act in

[1:00:19] the affirmative for this $2.5 million.

[1:00:22] But this next bid process

[1:00:25] will include a provision and Jared can

[1:00:28] you come up briefly to basically state

[1:00:32] if the bids come in way high again there

[1:00:36] will be a secondary aspect to the bid to

[1:00:39] give us another figure if we only can go

[1:00:41] do a million and a half gallon tank. Uh

[1:00:45] so Jared give us enlighten us a little

[1:00:47] bit about that please.

[1:00:48] >> Yeah. Yep. Um, so as as the mayor

[1:00:51] mentions, we've looked at uh what

[1:00:54] potentially could be the the city's in

[1:00:56] the city's best interest for moving

[1:00:58] forward. Obviously, the city has made an

[1:01:00] investment in the design of this tank.

[1:01:02] The city needs this tank. The city wants

[1:01:04] to see this tank move forward. You have

[1:01:06] the the almost $4 million in grant

[1:01:08] wanting to see that put to to beneficial

[1:01:10] use. Um so as we went back and took a

[1:01:14] look at things uh really we saw kind of

[1:01:17] three options for moving forward um the

[1:01:20] first option as has been discussed would

[1:01:23] to do a a bond election or or judicial

[1:01:26] confirmation obtain that authority to

[1:01:28] bond u to make up the the shortfall in

[1:01:31] the funding um and still only target a 2

[1:01:34] million gallon tank. That would be

[1:01:36] option number one. Um, option number two

[1:01:40] to hedge our bets. Um, it would take a

[1:01:44] little bit of of re-engineering.

[1:01:45] Currently, the the tank is designed as a 2 million gallon tank. Um, but we

[1:01:50] could go back and re-engineer that to be

[1:01:53] a 1.5 million gallon tank uh with an

[1:01:56] adder to then go to 2 million gallons if

[1:02:00] sufficient construction monies are

[1:02:02] available. Um so that would take some additional engineering work to to

[1:02:07] redo. Uh there are some options as we

[1:02:11] were looking at that to make that work

[1:02:13] within the current engineering contract.

[1:02:16] Um to cover that additional engineering

[1:02:18] work. Uh but that one would be one

[1:02:20] option. Um, and then the third option

[1:02:24] would be to to forego the bonds to look

[1:02:28] at reducing the size of the tank and

[1:02:31] then to to move forward with a a smaller

[1:02:33] tank. Um, something that the city could

[1:02:35] potentially afford with the the funding

[1:02:37] currently available.

[1:02:39] >> I don't know if you have these numbers

[1:02:40] memorized.

[1:02:42] 2 million gallons. How many days does

[1:02:44] that give the city of Preston?

[1:02:47] >> I I do.

[1:02:48] >> Maybe Scott would give us a better idea

[1:02:50] or Brian even.

[1:02:52] We'll do how many we have currently

[1:02:54] >> based on the current usage. If we base

[1:02:56] it on the waste water flows coming to

[1:02:58] the treatment plant, it be six to 10

[1:03:00] days

[1:03:01] >> of emergency use

[1:03:03] >> of the current usage of the city as

[1:03:05] right

[1:03:05] >> an emergency I'm sure you can get people

[1:03:07] to ration right

[1:03:08] >> and you can extend that even longer but

[1:03:10] as current usage 2 million would be

[1:03:12] about

[1:03:13] >> because I think currently what's our

[1:03:15] storage capacity 6 million four and a

[1:03:18] half four and a half so we're we're

[1:03:20] going up by 50% and it you're basically

[1:03:23] saying in an emergency it would add at

[1:03:25] least a week

[1:03:27] of water to the houses while we get the

[1:03:30] thing fixed or whatever. Okay.

[1:03:32] >> Yeah.

[1:03:32] >> Thank you.

[1:03:33] >> Obviously, what what's measured at the

[1:03:34] treatment plant doesn't account for

[1:03:36] outdoor water use, but as as Brian

[1:03:38] pointed out in an emergency, hopefully

[1:03:41] you would cretail that outdoor use and only provide what's needed for the

[1:03:45] home.

[1:03:46] And the idea I think council is if we

[1:03:50] approve this,

[1:03:53] we're going to rebid this ASAP because

[1:03:55] we don't have to accept the bid for 60

[1:03:57] days and that will put us past the

[1:04:00] November election. In other words, we're

[1:04:02] doing we want to do what we can to not

[1:04:05] have inflation rip our rip the cost of

[1:04:08] this. So it's insurmountable.

[1:04:11] >> Is that is that correct?

[1:04:12] >> That's correct.

[1:04:12] >> So you you're thinking September maybe

[1:04:14] we can rebid this? Yeah, we would we

[1:04:16] would get the bidding scheduled um you

[1:04:19] know, let's say September, typically a

[1:04:21] three to four week bid process. Um so

[1:04:24] that would mean the bids come in

[1:04:25] sometime in October. Uh the the election

[1:04:28] would be in November, but then as the

[1:04:30] mayor pointed out, um there's a

[1:04:32] requirement that those bids that come in October are then able to be held for

[1:04:37] 60 days. Um, and so that means the city

[1:04:40] could respond to those biders um, as

[1:04:43] late as, you know, sometime in November,

[1:04:46] so early December.

[1:04:48] >> Thank you, Jared. Any questions for him?

[1:04:50] >> Thanks, B.

[1:04:51] >> I was going to say that does that would

[1:04:53] still keep us on target for starting

[1:04:55] construction hopefully next spring.

[1:04:59] >> Uh, yeah, depending on their specific

[1:05:01] schedules. Yeah.

[1:05:03] >> Yeah.

[1:05:03] >> So, potentially Earth.

[1:05:05] >> We're trying not to lose time. We're

[1:05:06] trying to do all that all that stuff.

[1:05:08] purpose behind it. So, just wanted to

[1:05:10] make that clear.

[1:05:11] >> So, this is an action item. We need to

[1:05:13] uh get approval for the general

[1:05:17] obligation bond, Mr. Fer. Right. And

[1:05:19] then we do the ordinance. Help us out

[1:05:21] here, please.

[1:05:25] » Yeah, there's an ordinance in the in the

[1:05:27] packet that references potential ballot

[1:05:30] language, references the u the amount of

[1:05:33] the two up to 2.5 million. uh has the

[1:05:37] information that that we had as of when

[1:05:39] we put this together uh last week. So,

[1:05:42] in terms of uh motions, uh mayor, I I

[1:05:46] think you could uh take a entertain a

[1:05:48] vote or motion to have this uh placed on

[1:05:52] the ballot and then have a maybe a

[1:05:55] separate motion to introduce the

[1:05:57] ordinance and and go from there. Thank

[1:05:59] you. Okay. Okay, I'll entertain a motion

[1:06:01] to uh place a general obligation revenue

[1:06:04] bond on the November ballot for a 2

[1:06:07] milliongal water storage tank.

[1:06:09] >> I'll make a motion that we uh place a

[1:06:12] general obligation revenue bond on the

[1:06:14] November ballot for a 2 milli water

[1:06:16] storage tank.

[1:06:16] >> Thank you, Chris Larson. Is there a

[1:06:18] second?

[1:06:18] >> I'll second it.

[1:06:19] >> Thank you, Mr. Thomas. All in favor?

[1:06:23] I I

[1:06:25] >> I

[1:06:26] >> Terry.

[1:06:29] Uh Terry, are you there? Let me

[1:06:40] » nice.

[1:06:41] >> Okay, we will pass the motion to the

[1:06:50] » Okay, can you hear? Okay, Terry.

[1:06:53] >> Yeah, I apologize. I'm going through the

[1:06:56] rolling hills, Oregon, and that keeps

[1:06:57] dropping my service.

[1:07:00] >> Okay, we we're voting on the motion to

[1:07:02] put this on the ballot. Terry, did you

[1:07:04] want to vote?

[1:07:08] » Pardon?

[1:07:10] >> Do you want to vote on the motion to put

[1:07:12] this on the ballot?

[1:07:14] >> Yes.

[1:07:15] >> Okay. Motion carries. Four to nothing.

[1:07:17] Thank you, Terry Larson. Okay. Next is

[1:07:19] we need to have a resolution for the

[1:07:22] general obligation revenue bond which

[1:07:24] has been prepared. Would someone like to

[1:07:27] introduce this uh ordinance?

[1:07:31] >> Mayor, I'll make the motion that we

[1:07:32] introduce ordinance 2026-7 for a general

[1:07:35] obligation revenue bond.

[1:07:42] » Instruct our city clerk to read the

[1:07:43] ordinance in summary and wave the

[1:07:45] reading of three consecutive days.

[1:07:48] Is there a second?

[1:07:50] >> I'll second it.

[1:07:51] >> Thank you. Uh, Chris Larson. Roll call

[1:07:53] vote. Terry Larson.

[1:07:57] » Hi.

[1:07:58] >> Todd Thomas.

[1:07:58] >> Hi.

[1:07:59] >> Rand Dodge.

[1:08:00] >> Hi.

[1:08:00] >> Chris Larson.

[1:08:01] >> Hi.

[1:08:02] >> Thank you. Linda, can you read this in

[1:08:04] summary, please?

[1:08:16] An ordinance of the city council of the

[1:08:18] city of Preston, Idaho, providing for

[1:08:20] and calling a special election at which

[1:08:23] there shall be submitted to the electors

[1:08:25] qualified to vote thereon the question

[1:08:27] of issuing the city's water revenue

[1:08:29] bonds for the purpose of financing in

[1:08:32] part the cost of renovation,

[1:08:34] improvement, upgrading, and betterment

[1:08:36] of the city's water system, including

[1:08:38] construction of a new water storage

[1:08:40] tank. providing details in connection

[1:08:42] where or with

[1:08:44] and of the election of the question and

[1:08:46] also providing for publication by

[1:08:48] summary dispensing with reading on three

[1:08:50] separate days and providing an effective

[1:08:53] date.

[1:08:53] >> Thank you, Linda AOK. Ordinance 2026-7

[1:08:57] was read once in summary by city clerk

[1:09:00] AOK.

[1:09:03] Does someone want to make a motion to

[1:09:05] approve ordinance 2026-7? Mayor, I'll

[1:09:08] make a motion that we approve ordinance

[1:09:09] 2026-7.

[1:09:11] >> Is there a second?

[1:09:12] >> Thank you, Chris Larson. Uh, roll call

[1:09:14] vote. Terry Larson,

[1:09:17] >> I.

[1:09:17] >> Todd Thomas,

[1:09:18] >> hi.

[1:09:18] >> Brent Dodge,

[1:09:19] >> hi.

[1:09:20] >> Chris Larson,

[1:09:20] >> hi.

[1:09:21] >> Thank you. Thanks for getting back to

[1:09:23] us, Terry. Thank you, council. I think

[1:09:25] this is a a good move and and our

[1:09:28] engineers. Thank you, Jared, for being

[1:09:30] here and giving us a little further

[1:09:31] explanation. Okay, we're on number nine.

[1:09:35] Amendment to owner consultant agreement

[1:09:38] for the ch children pedestrian safety

[1:09:41] ADA ramp. Scott, did you want to visit

[1:09:44] with that us about that or Jared, do you

[1:09:46] want to talk about that at all?

[1:09:48] >> Uh Lyall is Nope.

[1:09:52] >> Come on up, Jared. This is just a change

[1:09:54] order, I assume.

[1:09:58] Shouldn't uh shouldn't let Scott off the

[1:09:59] hook. Um so what this is uh this is a I

[1:10:04] guess a good problem to have. Um in this

[1:10:06] case uh the sidewalk project that the

[1:10:09] city received a grant for uh bids came

[1:10:11] in very favorably. Um and so the city

[1:10:15] was able to do additional work. Um so

[1:10:19] this amendment actually amends our

[1:10:21] contract to do additional design and

[1:10:23] then also construction um administration

[1:10:26] services associated with that sidewalk

[1:10:29] project. Um and so reader excavation has

[1:10:33] been here in town. They've actually

[1:10:34] already completed um most or or all of

[1:10:38] the the base bid work. Um we had sent

[1:10:41] them some additional sidewalk to get

[1:10:44] started on on 4 East. Um and then

[1:10:48] there's also the potential uh ELTAC is

[1:10:51] supposed to be responding to us this

[1:10:54] week about potential additional funding

[1:10:56] besides the extra that the city already

[1:10:58] had. um where you could be able to do

[1:11:01] even more. So, this is uh for that

[1:11:04] additional services that that we would

[1:11:06] be providing.

[1:11:07] >> As you recall, council, we have a bid,

[1:11:09] I'm sorry, we have a grant for 250,000.

[1:11:12] The bid came in, I think, don't hold me

[1:11:14] to this, about 160. Yep.

[1:11:16] >> And this is amending the contract to

[1:11:20] give Reader Construction

[1:11:22] uh additional latitude to to do this

[1:11:25] extra work. Correct.

[1:11:26] >> Yep. Correct. Yeah. that that initial

[1:11:28] you know 90ish thousand of extra funds

[1:11:31] plus you know whatever LTAC comes back

[1:11:34] with whatever extra funds they they have

[1:11:36] available and for the purpose of the

[1:11:38] public this money has to be spent by the

[1:11:41] end of this fiscal year

[1:11:42] >> uh by the I believe early September is

[1:11:46] the cut off point yeah

[1:11:47] >> okay

[1:11:47] >> so

[1:11:48] >> thank you Jared any questions comments

[1:11:50] >> I just wanted to clarify

[1:11:52] >> so if you remember if you've seen this

[1:11:56] agreement obviously this

[1:11:57] published by Coulter. So, you're you're asking us to um to approve this

[1:12:03] amendment, which is a an additional 135.

[1:12:07] >> Yep.

[1:12:07] >> The contract.

[1:12:08] >> Yeah.

[1:12:08] >> And then um do you recall off the top of

[1:12:11] your head how many additional linear

[1:12:14] feet you were able to uh of sidewalk

[1:12:16] were you able to provide?

[1:12:18] >> Um

[1:12:19] I know on 400 East it was it was quite a

[1:12:22] bit. Um it was, you know, all of that

[1:12:25] behind

[1:12:27] um

[1:12:29] behind the store there that was redone.

[1:12:32] Uh there's a couple of blocks of

[1:12:34] sidewalk and then there's going to be

[1:12:36] even more besides that. Um I don't

[1:12:40] remember Scott what you and Jake had

[1:12:42] talked about.

[1:12:45] » Like 300.

[1:12:48] >> Yeah.

[1:12:48] >> And include 480 ramps. 4880 ramps and

[1:12:53] then there was more on Second East.

[1:12:58] That was the next section. That was the

[1:13:00] priority east.

[1:13:03] It'll be going from second north all the

[1:13:05] way

[1:13:16] heritage home area.

[1:13:18] >> This is this is this is this is

[1:13:20] wonderful. Yes,

[1:13:21] >> we've had we've had uh from memory,

[1:13:24] we've had multiple people come to these

[1:13:26] chambers and ask us uh please please fix

[1:13:30] the sidewalks and uh this is an answer

[1:13:34] to that uh request and and we appreciate

[1:13:36] you going the extra mile and applying

[1:13:38] for additional funds and yep

[1:13:40] >> doing the work that you've done because

[1:13:41] uh you've even got your name in the uh

[1:13:44] on social media

[1:13:46] couple members of our community that was

[1:13:49] expressed gratitude for for what is

[1:13:51] taking place.

[1:13:52] >> Yeah. Well, thank you. Thank you, Jared.

[1:13:55] This addendum, Jared, has some specific

[1:13:57] locations listed. Um, but one

[1:14:01] intersection I don't see, and maybe it's

[1:14:03] on here,

[1:14:05] First East and First North by the

[1:14:07] hospital. Out of those four, there's

[1:14:09] only one ADA ramp there. Is that on this

[1:14:12] list of additional?

[1:14:15] >> Okay.

[1:14:19] That's my pet intersection as Scott

[1:14:21] knows. Yeah. Thank you.

[1:14:23] >> Thank you, Jared. Okay. I'll entertain a

[1:14:25] motion to take action on this amendment

[1:14:27] on the sidewalks. Gentlemen,

[1:14:34] » I'll make a motion that

[1:14:37] uh we move forward with the amendment to

[1:14:39] the owner consultant agreement,

[1:14:40] amendment one for the child pedestrian

[1:14:42] safety ADA ramps and sidewalks.

[1:14:45] >> Is there a second? I'll second that. All

[1:14:47] in favor?

[1:14:49] I I

[1:14:50] >> I I

[1:14:51] >> motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[1:14:54] We're down to bond option for sidewalk

[1:14:56] and improvement agreement Silver Sage

[1:14:58] PUD. Sean's already on his way up. Thank

[1:15:00] you, Sean.

[1:15:02] >> So, I just spoke with Mr. Rouse. Uh he's

[1:15:04] decided to withdraw his request, so uh

[1:15:08] we won't be considering that at this

[1:15:09] time.

[1:15:12] » Thank you, Sean. It's an action item.

[1:15:14] What do we do? just uh say the request

[1:15:17] has been withdrawn.

[1:15:19] >> You need a motion on it.

[1:15:22] >> Thank you very much, Linda. You've got

[1:15:24] that, I'm sure. Okay. Uh we're down to

[1:15:27] unless I missed something. Council and department head report on

[1:15:31] the signed designations. Terry Larson,

[1:15:34] do you have anything to report?

[1:15:40] » No, we lost.

[1:15:40] >> He's gone. Brent Dodge.

[1:15:42] >> No. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Chris

[1:15:44] Larson.

[1:15:46] >> Thing I just wanted to mention is that

[1:15:47] we're coming up on, believe it or not,

[1:15:51] the holiday season planning and things

[1:15:53] like that. Um, school's getting ready to

[1:15:56] start again. But as far as the

[1:15:58] candlelight dinner is concerned, uh we are um having that again this year.

[1:16:03] It will be on November the 7th, which is

[1:16:05] a Saturday. We would invite uh anybody

[1:16:09] in the community to come out to the

[1:16:11] candlelight dinner that everybody's

[1:16:14] invited. We get asked every year, do you

[1:16:16] have to be part of an organization or

[1:16:18] whatever? You don't. Individuals are

[1:16:19] more than welcome to purchase a seat for

[1:16:22] that catered dinner and uh come out to

[1:16:25] the Robinson building and enjoy that.

[1:16:27] There's a

[1:16:29] uh an a silent auction that goes on. uh

[1:16:32] any of the funds or anything that's

[1:16:33] raised always just goes back into uh the

[1:16:36] traditions that we have downtown on

[1:16:38] Thanksgiving weekend as well as

[1:16:40] replacing lights uh downtown during the

[1:16:43] holiday season. So that's coming up. Put

[1:16:45] it on your calendar. We'd love to see a

[1:16:47] big turnout and honestly I'd love to see

[1:16:49] you purchase tickets early so that we

[1:16:51] know what to plan on.

[1:16:52] >> Thank you for that, Mr. Thomas.

[1:16:54] >> Believe it or not, nothing.

[1:16:57] >> Okay. And I'd like to have our uh

[1:16:59] wastewater treatment plant operator

[1:17:02] director uh um Brian Moss. Thank you,

[1:17:06] Brian.

[1:17:08] >> Yes, thank you. Uh progress report for

[1:17:11] the month of July. We're down to fine

[1:17:14] details for the most part at the

[1:17:15] treatment plant. It's largely

[1:17:16] operational at this point. Um getting a

[1:17:19] lot of stuff crossed off of the punch

[1:17:21] list. Uh Keller's been great at showing

[1:17:23] up and making sure a lot of that stuff

[1:17:25] is done to completion and correctly. Um,

[1:17:28] we've added things here and there. Um,

[1:17:30] RSCI has been great to work with as far

[1:17:32] as uh, making sure things are wrapped up

[1:17:34] for the most part. Um, getting a lot of

[1:17:36] cooperation with them. Uh, Violia, we're

[1:17:40] still working with trying to get the

[1:17:42] membranes dialed in completely. They are

[1:17:44] operational and they are working and we

[1:17:46] have gotten a lot of the things that uh,

[1:17:48] we need to to get those working. Uh, but

[1:17:50] we're still, you know, getting some of

[1:17:52] those bugs worked out. Uh but as a whole

[1:17:55] as it is, the treatment plant has

[1:17:57] consistently been meeting our permit

[1:17:59] limits to levels that the city has not

[1:18:01] seen before. Uh the quality of the water

[1:18:03] going back into the creek is better than

[1:18:05] it's ever been uh for the month of July.

[1:18:08] We have successfully treated and

[1:18:10] discharged over 16 million gallons back

[1:18:13] into the Worm Creek. Um through that

[1:18:16] process, we also uh uh accumulate

[1:18:19] bioolids in the process. That's not the

[1:18:21] same as trash that we're able to pull

[1:18:22] out in the beginning stages of the

[1:18:23] treatment plant. Um, that's the bacteria

[1:18:26] and other bugs that are working to treat

[1:18:28] the organics and other things of the

[1:18:29] wastewater. Uh, but that has to get

[1:18:31] wasted out regularly to maintain a

[1:18:33] healthy plant. Uh, we have removed 25

[1:18:36] tons of that from the plant over the

[1:18:37] month of July. Um, and these are ongoing

[1:18:41] processes that happen, you know, every

[1:18:44] day. So, uh, we're working with the

[1:18:46] county and the landfill and how they

[1:18:47] accept that and and they've been great

[1:18:49] to work with as well to help us, uh,

[1:18:51] have a place for us to put that stuff.

[1:18:53] Um, Headworks, uh, we've seen some, uh,

[1:18:57] work there with the HVAC system, uh,

[1:18:59] and, uh, Huber has been out to check on

[1:19:02] some of the equipment. We're still

[1:19:04] looking at some replacement of some

[1:19:05] equipment there that hasn't been working

[1:19:06] correctly. Uh, it is under warranty and

[1:19:08] Huber is going to be replacing that

[1:19:10] stuff. Um, we're just waiting on that

[1:19:12] because that's coming from Europe. So,

[1:19:14] it takes time to get here right now. Uh,

[1:19:17] as far as everything else, like I said,

[1:19:19] we're just down to fine details for the

[1:19:20] most part.

[1:19:23] Brian, if I can ask, put you on the spot

[1:19:25] a little bit. You stated that our water

[1:19:28] uh quality from the treatment plant is

[1:19:32] better than ever. Can you

[1:19:35] give us a specific from what to what?

[1:19:39] Are we getting close to DEEQ

[1:19:41] requirement?

[1:19:41] >> Right. So, a lot of the things that we

[1:19:43] have to remove uh the suspended solids

[1:19:45] in the wastewater, the uh a lot of the

[1:19:49] uh components that create a demand on

[1:19:52] the oxygen from the wastewater, you

[1:19:54] know, so we don't want to cause fish

[1:19:55] kills and things like that by putting

[1:19:57] oxygen depleted water back out to the

[1:19:59] creek, things like that.

[1:20:01] um the percent removal that we have to

[1:20:02] get from a lot of the uh minerals and

[1:20:05] other uh things that are carried in

[1:20:07] wastewater. Uh prior to uh this

[1:20:10] treatment plant that we currently are

[1:20:12] operating, we were consistently in the

[1:20:15] best day low 90s mainly in the mid 80%

[1:20:19] range of removal. We are consistently

[1:20:22] hitting 98 99% removal of all these

[1:20:25] things right now. So it's very very

[1:20:28] clean going back into the creek. That's

[1:20:30] got to be impressive to the regulators.

[1:20:32] >> It helps keep them off our back. Yes.

[1:20:34] >> So, let me ask you this. Is it clean

[1:20:36] enough that you'd drink it?

[1:20:38] >> I wouldn't go that far. I was I think

[1:20:40] Terry asked me that before, too. And and

[1:20:41] I I would probably send it through

[1:20:43] another filter before that. But, but we

[1:20:45] are seeing because of treatments and

[1:20:47] technologies like we have right now

[1:20:49] where ideas of putting a water treatment

[1:20:52] plant on the end of a wastewater

[1:20:53] treatment plant is not very far off

[1:20:55] anymore.

[1:20:56] So, uh, and also to mention, uh, the

[1:20:58] city Preston will be hosting, uh, there

[1:21:01] are organizations out there that help

[1:21:03] operators maintain their licenses. And,

[1:21:05] uh, Southeast Idaho operator section is

[1:21:08] one of those. And that concludes

[1:21:10] operators from both water and wastewater

[1:21:12] in Southeast Idaho. And they will be

[1:21:15] coming here for a class this week. And

[1:21:16] we will also be including a tour of the

[1:21:18] plant for them while they're here.

[1:21:22] >> Good report. Thank you.

[1:21:23] >> May I have Go ahead, please.

[1:21:25] >> Yeah. So there's two stages as I

[1:21:27] understand it. Actually there's a lot

[1:21:29] more stages but the uh the sand

[1:21:31] filtration system and then the membrane

[1:21:33] system. Um

[1:21:36] I guess there was a there was some

[1:21:38] confusion or maybe a lack of fitting

[1:21:41] problem with the membranes and and

[1:21:43] that's the part that you spoke about

[1:21:45] that they're fixing that right?

[1:21:48] >> Something of that. Yes.

[1:21:50] >> Yeah. I was just curious on how was it

[1:21:53] really necessary that we go to the

[1:21:55] membrane or are you able to get the

[1:21:58] quality of uh get us up to the uh level

[1:22:02] or a standard with just the sand uh

[1:22:05] filtration system?

[1:22:06] >> Uh there's probably a dozen or more

[1:22:08] different processes that could have been

[1:22:10] used. Uh this one was probably most

[1:22:12] likely selected because of the level of

[1:22:13] our flows and the footprint. Uh we don't

[1:22:16] have a lot of area out there. The sand

[1:22:18] filters would have required a much

[1:22:19] bigger footprint to be able to handle

[1:22:21] the same amount of flows. So, you know,

[1:22:24] that that would have definitely been

[1:22:25] impacted with the decisions there.

[1:22:29] >> So, we don't have both. We just have the

[1:22:31] >> No, we just have the membrane.

[1:22:32] >> Oh, okay. Very good. Thank you.

[1:22:36] >> Any other questions? Hey, thanks, Brian.

[1:22:41] Chief McMan.

[1:22:51] The police department responded 204

[1:22:53] calls for service during the month of

[1:22:55] July and 43 of those were just on the

[1:22:57] rodeo weekend. Officers issued 64

[1:23:00] infractions with 26 were on the rodeo

[1:23:02] weekend. 11 misdemeanor, two were on the

[1:23:04] rodeo weekend. 19 city citations, which

[1:23:07] 17 were on rodeo weekend. filed four

[1:23:10] felonies and conducted 229 traffic stops

[1:23:12] which 63 of those were on rodeo weekend.

[1:23:16] Copy the calls been attached as well as

[1:23:17] the month of reported dispositions.

[1:23:19] During the month of July, we had a lot

[1:23:21] of department training. We had a use of

[1:23:23] legal use of force legal update from IIC

[1:23:26] crimp. We completed a CPR research

[1:23:28] training and we appreciate Katie Golitly

[1:23:31] for doing that for us. I had Matt

[1:23:33] Dassler conduct some Archon training for

[1:23:35] us and ITD came down and helped officers

[1:23:39] uh Gaye and Griffin get trained up on

[1:23:40] the use of the new school lights out on

[1:23:42] 91 by the junior high. Uh those new

[1:23:45] lights are way easier to program and

[1:23:47] hopefully they'll be more easily seen by

[1:23:50] traffic. We survived the rodeo weekend

[1:23:52] which was extremely busy for us and it

[1:23:54] sounds like it's going to get even worse

[1:23:55] for us with them adding another day to

[1:23:57] it. Uh making it almost an entire week

[1:24:00] for us instead of just a weekend. There

[1:24:02] were some issues that came up with the

[1:24:03] parade and I'll be discussing those with

[1:24:05] the head of the parade committee uh

[1:24:07] hopefully pretty soon so they can get uh

[1:24:09] working on it by the end of the by the

[1:24:12] time they get started for the next one.

[1:24:15] The officers that were on foot patrol

[1:24:16] during the parade had some very positive

[1:24:18] interactions with the community. It has

[1:24:20] also been very helpful to have an

[1:24:21] officer assigned to take calls on each

[1:24:23] side of the city. Seems how we can't get

[1:24:25] across uh each side very quickly.

[1:24:29] We did have several accidents over rodeo

[1:24:31] weekend, which is expected when we have

[1:24:32] so many visitors and such an enormous

[1:24:34] increase in traffic. I would like to

[1:24:37] give a huge thank you to Bill Chambers

[1:24:39] with Northstar's Ultimate Outdoors for

[1:24:41] providing us a side by side to use over

[1:24:43] the weekend. We did have an ambulance

[1:24:45] call during the parade one of the nights

[1:24:47] and it helped to have the side by side

[1:24:49] to assist getting the ambulance to the

[1:24:51] hospital. Now, we move on to the

[1:24:53] Franklin County Fair and school starts

[1:24:55] on August 24th. Um, one thing I'd like

[1:24:58] to mention is you're talking about

[1:24:59] sidewalks. That's one thing I noticed

[1:25:02] over the the rodeo weekend. We really

[1:25:04] need to look at getting sidewalks on 300

[1:25:07] North and around our uh parks and

[1:25:11] fairgrounds. There's a lot of foot track

[1:25:14] over foot foot traffic over there year

[1:25:16] round on a lot of things. 300 North has

[1:25:19] zero sidewalk on it heading towards the

[1:25:22] fairgrounds and so there people are

[1:25:24] having to walk in the lane of traffic.

[1:25:25] So, I would just as as in the in the

[1:25:28] coming years as we start looking at at

[1:25:30] sidewalk, that was that would be one

[1:25:31] that I would suggest putting on top of

[1:25:33] the list.

[1:25:36] >> A good suggestion. I'm surprised that

[1:25:38] hasn't been suggested before to be

[1:25:40] honest with you. Thank you. Any other

[1:25:42] questions for the chief?

[1:25:44] Thank you,

[1:25:46] Mr. Montgomery. You're chomping at the

[1:25:48] bit here.

[1:25:54] All right, the last little bit we've had

[1:25:56] a a water leak on Second West, 186 South

[1:26:00] where we had to pull a new service line

[1:26:02] for that house. Um, we've painted

[1:26:05] crosswalks and we do have a few more to

[1:26:07] go. Um,

[1:26:11] we cut down the tree that was behind

[1:26:14] Carquest in that little alleyway. It had

[1:26:16] a big crack in it, so we got it down

[1:26:18] before it came down on someone's

[1:26:20] vehicle.

[1:26:21] Uh we've had the tree stumps ground

[1:26:24] down. We've put sod back in into place

[1:26:26] or hardly even know that they're gone.

[1:26:29] Uh we had a water leaky on 2200 South

[1:26:33] 1164 East.

[1:26:35] Um

[1:26:37] we put up and taken down the rodeo flags

[1:26:39] on Main Street.

[1:26:42] We've had two water meters that we had

[1:26:45] issues with that wasn't reading right

[1:26:47] when we got there to change them out.

[1:26:50] realized that they were way too deep and

[1:26:52] we were not able to work on them at that

[1:26:53] time. So, we had to raise them up. Our

[1:26:57] Vermeier vac

[1:26:59] has had to go to Idaho Falls to get some

[1:27:02] work done on it. It

[1:27:05] quit working on us. Um, having some

[1:27:08] issues with it. We trim the trees behind

[1:27:11] the the furniture store so it's not

[1:27:14] rubbing their trailer or their truck as

[1:27:16] they go in and out of the alleyway.

[1:27:19] uh the sidewalks, the ADA ramps, they

[1:27:22] pretty well completed everything over

[1:27:23] here in this section of town that they

[1:27:26] was originally contracted to do. They

[1:27:29] are now over on fourth east. They're

[1:27:31] going to start that tomorrow.

[1:27:34] Uh Scott Weekes has been out on the road

[1:27:38] grader on our couple gravel roads that

[1:27:41] we've had. He's been smoothing those up.

[1:27:42] Gordon's been out in the patch truck and

[1:27:46] the dump truck that we have ordered a

[1:27:47] couple years ago. I finally got the text

[1:27:50] saying that it is done. It's just got to

[1:27:52] get delivered.

[1:27:54] So,

[1:27:57] » do does our sidewalk contractors readers

[1:28:00] are they aware that schools start on

[1:28:02] August 24th and will they get that done

[1:28:04] in the next two weeks?

[1:28:06] >> That's why he says that they will be

[1:28:08] done.

[1:28:09] >> Thank you.

[1:28:09] >> So,

[1:28:10] >> any questions for Mr. Montgomery.

[1:28:13] Thanks, Scott. Sean

[1:28:20] uh coordinated a meeting with Jones and

[1:28:23] DeL as well as public works and facer

[1:28:26] excavation on the eighth north waterline

[1:28:28] project. We'll have another meeting on

[1:28:30] the 12th. Um and then they should be

[1:28:32] starting that on the 17th. Um so far so

[1:28:37] good. I think uh everything went pretty

[1:28:39] smooth at that initial meeting. Uh we'll

[1:28:41] kind of see how that goes uh once

[1:28:43] construction actually starts. But uh I

[1:28:45] think we've made a good choice there. Um

[1:28:48] we'll get uh once the budget passes,

[1:28:50] I'll start looking for uh

[1:28:53] grants for the impact study and capital

[1:28:55] improvements plan. Um been refining a

[1:28:59] few things in cloud permit uh tweaking

[1:29:00] the different uh certificates and

[1:29:04] permits. Um so uh that's going well.

[1:29:08] still running in the system, but it's uh seems to be working pretty well

[1:29:10] for us. Um we made the purchase for the

[1:29:15] downtown Rotary Park of the uh the

[1:29:18] banner signs, the metal banner signs.

[1:29:20] So, those are going to be uh that bill

[1:29:23] was signed this just just now. And that

[1:29:26] uh those will be fabricated and then

[1:29:28] delivered. Um and then we'll be

[1:29:31] responsible though to get them

[1:29:32] installed. So, uh I think we still have

[1:29:35] a little bit of money left over um on

[1:29:37] those ARPA funds that were obligated to

[1:29:39] that. Um so, we'll have to look and see

[1:29:41] what we can get done with that, but u

[1:29:43] you know, maybe a little bit of concrete

[1:29:44] and a few things like that.

[1:29:46] Um our domain name lapsed uh for a few

[1:29:49] hours. So, um

[1:29:53] we uh purchased uh re repurchased it for

[1:29:56] nine years. So, that won't happen again

[1:29:58] for a long time. Probably by the time

[1:29:59] that happens again, we'll have forgotten

[1:30:00] about it and have to figure it out.

[1:30:02] um working with Lyall on a few things as

[1:30:05] far as water code and how wells can be

[1:30:09] uh integrated into the city or not. Um

[1:30:12] so we've been discussing a few things

[1:30:14] and uh once we get everything ironed

[1:30:16] out, I'll bring that back to you on uh

[1:30:18] what we've what we determine.

[1:30:21] Um

[1:30:23] Kellen Associates um had a few things on

[1:30:26] Silver Sage PUD phase one. So, they're

[1:30:28] going to make a few changes to their uh

[1:30:30] construction documents. And then, uh

[1:30:33] their final PL should be forthcoming

[1:30:35] shortly after that. And then, um

[1:30:40] also with that, there may be a request

[1:30:42] of a zone change on the south end of

[1:30:45] that property. Um there was a kind of a

[1:30:49] single lot that they were planning

[1:30:51] initially on doing just some additional

[1:30:54] multifamily housing. Uh however uh with

[1:30:57] interest in the commercial side um the

[1:31:00] people who are interested in that want

[1:31:02] it to be want that lot to be changed to

[1:31:03] commercial so they can purchase it for

[1:31:04] their use. So uh that may be forthcoming

[1:31:07] here soon as well. Um

[1:31:12] we had the forecast board meeting on the

[1:31:14] 6th. Uh I was elected chair of the board

[1:31:16] again this year.

[1:31:19] Uh updated the website with information

[1:31:21] for Rex soccer. And then uh included in

[1:31:24] your packet, there was a world atlas uh

[1:31:27] article where Preston was named uh one

[1:31:30] of the nine towns in Idaho for a weekend

[1:31:33] retreat. So that's kind of a cool thing

[1:31:35] uh that they did. Uh so I just encourage

[1:31:38] you to read that and if anybody um

[1:31:40] anybody out in the community would like

[1:31:41] a copy of that as well, I've got a copy

[1:31:42] that they can read. So any questions

[1:31:45] about anything?

[1:31:46] >> Thank you.

[1:31:47] >> Thanks, Sean. Good report. This

[1:31:49] concludes our council meeting. Our

[1:31:51] commissioner informed me that he had to

[1:31:52] get over to the fair before 6:30. He had

[1:31:56] nothing to report. So, we will now

[1:31:58] adjourn this meeting and we will

[1:31:59] reconvene on August 24th, which will be

[1:32:02] our public hearing for our budget. Thank

[1:32:04] you everyone.

14 City Council Meeting August 10 2026

Transcript