[0:54] Okay. I'm calling to order regular city council meeting for the city of Hayden,

[0:57] Idaho. It is Tuesday, January 13, 2026, 5:00 p.m. May we get a roll call of

[1:03] council members, please? >> Council President Rotor,

[1:05] » yes. >> Council member White,

[1:06] » yes. >> Council member Dri. Council member

[1:09] Schaefer. >> Yes. Thank you.

[1:15] » Pledge of Allegiance. Sandy, would you like to lead us?

[1:18] » Yes. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:24] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation

[1:30] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[1:40] Okay. I don't have any additions or corrections uh for the meeting tonight.

[1:44] We'll roll into consent which consists of approving the December 9th, 2025 city

[1:49] council meeting minutes. Approving December 19th, 2025 city council meeting

[1:53] minutes. Approval to apply an authorized matching fund allocation for the state

[1:58] of Idaho waterways improvement fund grant for improvements to Honeysuckle

[2:02] Beach and boat launch. Approval of aviation first edition consol

[2:06] consolidation plant. Approval of 2026 the peak health and wellness center

[2:11] contractual services agreement. Approval of Lake City law engagement letter for

[2:15] civil legal services. Approval of Welch commer's Hayden Avenue and Hutter Road

[2:20] intersection amendment one. Ratification of December payroll. Approval

[2:24] ratification for bill of bills paid and approval of four bills of payment. Lots

[2:29] of fours and abs. Any uh questions on the consent tonight?

[2:34] » I have one. Yes, I may. It's um >> one F. It's the Lake City Law Engagement

[2:40] letter for civil legal services. I noticed that we have uh two rates, one

[2:45] for the attorney and one for parallegal. The attorneys for 290 an hour and the

[2:50] parallegal for 180. Um how does that compare to our current contract? So the

[2:56] current rates are 220 225 per hour and for attorneys and we have not increased

[3:02] that rate for six years the entire time that I've been providing legal services

[3:06] to the city. It is significantly lower than private pay rates which are around

[3:11] 400. >> And what about parallegal?

[3:15] » I can't remember what that was. It might have been 150.

[3:17] » Okay. Thank you. I just want >> and and for this record, I think it's

[3:21] good for council to know that when we went through budget development, we knew

[3:25] that these rate increases were coming and did plan for those.

[3:29] » Thank you. >> Any other questions?

[3:31] » Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I have a question >> on item 1J, bills for payment. I'm sorry

[3:37] that I didn't bring this to you earlier, Lisa, but there is a line item in there

[3:40] where the vendor is the city of Hayden for in the amount of $3,223.

[3:50] » I would have I there were some bills for payment that got um approved by the

[3:53] finance director because I was gone. So, I'd have to get back with you.

[3:56] » Okay. Just one >> likely though it has something to do

[3:59] with when we're paying out of different funds, our enterprise funds and our

[4:03] general funds if we're that's it. does say check for escrow if that helps.

[4:08] » Say it's an escro release. >> Escrow release. Okay. Yes.

[4:11] » Okay. Thanks. >> Any other questions? Would I like to

[4:16] make a motion? >> I move to approve the consent calendar

[4:21] as written. >> Second.

[4:23] » Okay. Any questions on the motion? May we get a roll call vote, please?

[4:27] » Council member Dri. Yes. >> Council President Roer.

[4:29] » Yes. >> Council member Schaefer.

[4:31] » Yes. >> Council member White.

[4:32] » Yes. >> Abby, do we have any public comments

[4:34] tonight? >> None. has been turned in.

[4:36] » Okay. All right. At this point in the meeting, uh I would like to acknowledge

[4:40] and ask for a moment of silence. Um one of our city's

[4:45] um most significant servants. Uh Roger Setterfield passed this last weekend.

[4:51] Roger was on city council from 2007 to 2023 and until his last time around ran

[4:58] unopposed. Before that, he was on planning and zoning. Uh Roger to me

[5:03] represents the kind of citizen whose impact is felt long and far uh beyond

[5:11] their time with us. So if you would join me for just a moment of silence. Thank

[5:15] you.

[5:28] Okay. Um, we're going to move if we have no visitor public comments. We've got an

[5:33] oath of office uh to do. But before we do that, uh, I want to let the crowd

[5:39] know, uh, one cannot help but notice, uh, that our mood shifts this time of

[5:43] year, uh, to a more tribal model. Of course, I'm talking about the NFL

[5:48] playoffs. It's a time when otherwise reasonable

[5:52] people suddenly become very certain about their team. Uh tonight we have

[5:57] many people in attendance. Some are here to thank our depart departing council

[6:02] member for her service. Uh others are here to wish our reelected council

[6:07] member continued success. And still several are here to meet and

[6:11] congratulate Hayden's newest council member. Uh but tonight is also a good

[6:16] night to remind all Hayden residents that while we may cheer for different

[6:20] teams, we all belong to one tribe and that is a tribe of our city.

[6:26] And while we may have different ideas about some finer details,

[6:30] uh everyone that sits on this dis shares the same goals to ensure that Hayden

[6:34] remains a strong and welcoming community. So with that, Sandy, if you'd

[6:40] like to join me, I have a little presentation for you.

[6:53] This is in recognition of your service to the city of Hayden for being a city

[6:57] council. >> Thank you so much.

[7:06] » Thank you. Yes. >> Thank you so much. What a blessing.

[7:08] » Yes.

[7:18] Okay. Next, uh we're going to read the o oath of office for uh city council seat

[7:23] 2, which is occupied by Ed D priest. Abby.

[7:26] » Ed.

[7:37] » Is it better if I get out of the way? >> You sure? He'll just be in the shot.

[7:41] » I don't know if I want that. >> Go ahead and raise your right hand.

[7:47] » Do you solemnly swear or affirm to support the Constitution of the United

[7:51] States and the Constitution of the State of Idaho and that you will faithfully

[7:55] discharge the duties of council member of the city of Hayden according to the

[7:58] best of your abilities? >> We do.

[8:01] » Congratulations.

[8:07] Okay, Abby stays and up comes David Ericson, city council seat 4 to be sworn

[8:12] in.

[8:27] » Go ahead and raise your right hand. David, do you solemnly swear or affirm

[8:33] to support that you will support the Constitution of the United States and

[8:37] the Constitution of the State of Idaho and that you will faithfully discharge

[8:40] the duties of council member of the city of Hayden according to the best of your

[8:44] ability? >> I do.

[8:45] » Congratulations.

[8:54] Okay, we're going to take a threem minute recess for some logistics

[8:59] » and then we'll resume

[9:09] that part. That's all right. >> What? Logistics.

[9:12] » That's fine. >> It's getting from something from one

[9:15] place to another. >> Choreography.

[9:17] » Choreography. And was that okay?

[9:20] » Yeah, that was great. Thank you. I appreciate it.

[14:10] Okay, we're calling the meeting back to order, resuming. We're going to start

[14:13] off with a public hearing. Our first action item tonight, which is PZE250102,

[14:18] arts king sod zone map amendment request.

[14:22] This is an applicant initiated amendment request. And I believe for the record,

[14:28] we are recusing our new council member. Yeah, council member Ericson will need

[14:33] to recuse himself based on the fact that he was a um member of the planning and

[14:37] zoning committee that voted commission that voted on this action of the

[14:41] planning and zoning. >> Okay,

[14:43] » correct. >> You need to remove yourself and go to

[14:46] the back of the room. >> Okay, that was quick.

[14:50] » We told you you were good. >> Get some

[14:55] for two minutes. >> All right. All right. So, if

[14:58] » you haven't heard my lecture before, you cannot make any faces. You can't snort,

[15:02] comment, >> snort,

[15:03] » sniff, shake your head, sigh, groan, moan.

[15:07] » All right. So, for the public, uh, we're going to introduce the subject case. The

[15:11] applicant will present, then the staff will present, and if we have any public

[15:15] comment, uh, that will happen, and then we'll have an applicant rebuttal and

[15:21] close the public hearing. So, Donna, please.

[15:25] So we generally do naming conventions that

[15:29] are the last name of the property owner, hence the arts, but the business on the

[15:34] location site is King Sod. That's why we kind of are referring to this as both.

[15:38] So this is the arts kingside king sod zone map amendment um as mayor already

[15:43] identified. So some background, the property was

[15:47] annexed in 1991 by ordinance 204 and it was zoned agricultural.

[15:52] The property is located at the north of the Spokane International Railroad line

[15:57] and it's south of East Lancaster Road and east of North Hutter Road. We'll get

[16:01] a graphic up here shortly. Um the applicant entered into a deferred uh

[16:06] development agreement um at the time of the building permit

[16:10] because the roundabout at that intersection of Lancaster and Hutter was

[16:15] in design and development and it was being constructed. So trying to do

[16:19] frontage improvements prior to that time would have been difficult. Uh the

[16:23] remainder of the unconstructed frontage improvements are required to be

[16:27] completed as part of um the off-site infrastructure.

[16:34] So, when you're looking at a map and you're on the corner of um Lancaster

[16:40] running east and west and Hutter running north and south, um you have a funny

[16:46] weird little triangular piece of property that kind of is surrounded by

[16:50] roads and railroad tracks

[16:55] and then I would go into my analysis. >> Donna, can I ask a question real quick?

[16:59] » Yes. >> If you would pull that map back up.

[17:00] » I can. Can you point to the uh piece of land that is currently in the city that

[17:05] this would be adjacent to?

[17:09] » City limits are um south. >> Thank you.

[17:13] » So there uh county is to the north. All other three corners.

[17:18] » Thank you. >> Rather is due west. All right. So, with

[17:21] that, uh, we have the applicants, uh, the arts, um, and folks, um, that'll be

[17:28] here to present and kind of they kind of worked all together the last time. I

[17:32] assume you guys are all going to work together this time. Um, and so we'll

[17:35] bring up their presentation and they can present their application.

[17:45] » It's all yours. >> Thanks,

[17:53] introduce ourselves again. >> Yeah, I'm Justin Arts.

[17:56] » I'm Wilson McWain. >> And we're just going to go over kind of

[17:59] what the requirements are to request this and why we think um we fit that

[18:04] application request. And so we'll just kind of get right into it.

[18:08] » Yeah. So the overview as Donna had said is our request is to reszone the

[18:12] Kingside property from agricultural its current zoning to the light industrial

[18:17] zoning. And we feel as we go through our presentation

[18:21] um that it supports our the economic development of the area. It aligns with

[18:25] the future land use map and promotes the responsible growth of the that area of

[18:29] the city of Hatton. The existing zoning um is agricultural

[18:36] and it no longer aligns with the surrounding development trends. The area

[18:40] is transitioning transi transitioning to commercial and light industrial uses. Um

[18:46] and the existing plans support this land use change. Um so we there there is

[18:52] sufficient basis for approval for that change

[18:56] when it comes to public health safety and welfare through working with the

[19:00] city and lots of conversations. The light industrial zoning encourages clean

[19:05] and low impact uses and we feel working with the city that they've ensured that

[19:11] many buffers the traffic mitigation for the area our storm water controls on our

[19:16] property through surveys and studies. Uh in conclusion we we see that it promotes

[19:22] the public good and the responsible growth for that area of the city of

[19:26] Hayden. Um it this zone change is consistent

[19:32] with the comprehensive plan. Currently the future land use map does designate

[19:37] this location um for employment lightindustrial.

[19:43] Uh it supports economic diversification and infrastructure efficiency. Um so

[19:49] what we are requesting is fully consistent with the comprehensive plan

[19:53] policies.

[19:57] The zone district purpose and intent coming alongside the future use plan.

[20:02] The light industrial zone is intended for low impact industrial use and

[20:06] employment uses. So we are not bringing in giant manufacturing

[20:11] eyes and nose sores to the city. Um we're bringing in more employment into

[20:16] the city of Hayden. Uh our property is well suited based on size, location, and

[20:20] the surrounding zoning. Through developing and working with our

[20:23] engineers and the city, we have developed our property with the light

[20:27] industrial zoning in mind. And so in conclusion, we see that it has a clear

[20:32] alignment with the light industrial intent.

[20:36] For some neighborhood context, the area is shifting from agricultural to an

[20:41] industrial commercial. Um the light industrial zoning creates compatibility

[20:45] and buffers between the differing uses. Um so in conclusion, it it does match

[20:51] the current emerging neighborhood conditions that surround the properties.

[20:58] And in final summary, through working with the city of Hayden and Panel Health

[21:03] Department and all of these um the PE wonderful people we worked with, we feel

[21:07] we see it meets all the required approval standards. It supports logical

[21:11] compatible growth and economical development. And we're here with the

[21:15] recommendation of the approval of the zone map amendment.

[21:20] » That's the last slide. >> Questions,

[21:25] » Tom? >> Sure. Yeah. Um, I notice where your

[21:30] company address is in RHM >> and

[21:35] I recall that you're and I, as your website says, you're you deliver sod

[21:42] products. >> How is this little piece of land, which

[21:45] it appears to be non-ontiguous to your current property, fit into your business

[21:50] model? It actually fits our current business model quite well because

[21:54] although the location that we are on is 10 acres, we use about an acre and a

[21:59] half of it. We don't actually grow the sod on location. We they we grow it at

[22:04] farms west of here. And so it's just a place for us to facilitate um customers

[22:11] to pick up sod and for us to load trucks and deliver them out. Um, and our

[22:16] footprint is actually going to be very consistent with what our existing

[22:19] footprint is there on memory lane. >> Okay. My other question, this is just

[22:23] piqued my curiosity. When I looked on the GIS map, I saw that you back up to a

[22:30] parcel owned by the Missouri Improvement Company.

[22:34] Now, I didn't know anything about them, so I just Googled it.

[22:38] and they focus on developing processing infrastructure for hemp industry in the

[22:44] West United States. Is that did I get the right company or owner? And

[22:50] » that's a great question. >> Um, and I'm just kind of curious

[22:53] » that did recently change it. >> It is a recent change. through talking

[22:57] to the rail some of the railway employees, there was thought of some

[23:01] sort of transfer station or other railway stuff going in there and it has

[23:06] just recently changed hands. So, I did see the the name on the map, but I

[23:11] didn't do any research to see what that was.

[23:14] » And in the piece that you're referring to, it's that strip of trees between our

[23:18] property and the railroad. >> Yeah.

[23:19] » We don't own it. We don't have any say in it that we we weren't part of that

[23:23] sale or anything like that. So, who owns it now and what they do,

[23:27] » I'm unfamiliar with. >> Doesn't matter to you guys.

[23:29] » Hopefully, it doesn't affect us. >> Yeah. Hopefully someday they sell it to

[23:33] us. >> Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Appreciate it. Nope.

[23:37] Matt. >> Yeah. Thank you, mayor. Um

[23:41] I think people have heard about the Hutter bypass for 20, 30 years. Uh if if

[23:48] how's that being considered in your business model here? How will how could

[23:52] that affect your property or have you considered the effects of the

[23:56] possibility of the Hutter bypass in front of your property?

[24:00] » Yeah. So, when my wife Heather and I bought the property, um I've I've lived

[24:05] in this area since 1996 and I think it's been talked about since 1996. So, it was

[24:10] the 2020 plan back then. I think it was the 2000 plan. I don't know. It's been

[24:13] around. So, it's something I'm very familiar with. Um when I used to work in

[24:17] government, it's something that we talked about. Um, so when we looked at

[24:21] the property, I think there's two lenses that I looked at it through. One, if the

[24:25] bypass took out our property, that would be something that we would have to

[24:29] consider. The way our business is modeled, it would just mean we'd have to

[24:33] find a new location. It's it's not like um we're we're a delivery service, so to

[24:38] speak, so we just have to find a new hub. Um, but we actually looked at it as

[24:42] it would uh we would be in support of the Hutter bypass because when you

[24:46] looked at what the the plan was as far as an exit goes, um, Lancaster Road is

[24:52] one of the only exits for that whole area. And so it would actually bring

[24:55] more traffic past our business, so to speak. And so we would see it as um,

[25:00] people would see us more often. We'd get more uh, roadside traffic that would

[25:04] know we exist. So we would see it as a benefit. Oh, it wouldn't shut your

[25:07] business down if you had to lose that property, so to say, because how to

[25:11] bypass took up 20% of it or something? >> No. No.

[25:14] » Okay. >> Thank you.

[25:19] » All right. Looks like that's the gauntlet.

[25:21] » Okay, cool. >> Thank you guys. Appreciate it.

[25:54] So this is a summary of the staff analysis that is in board book.

[26:00] Um, the first two standards of approval have to do with whether or not there

[26:04] needs to be any additional studies done or plans reviewed. And the second

[26:09] condition has to do with whether any additional conditions would have to be

[26:14] um uh attached to this uh zone map amendment request. And so based on the

[26:20] applicant's proposal, staff did not believe nor did planning and zoning

[26:24] commission in their recommendation believe that any additional studies,

[26:28] plans or conditions were necessary.

[26:34] Uh standard uh the third standard has to do with any amendment to the zoning map

[26:40] has to be in accordance with the future land use map and the goals and policies

[26:43] found in the Hayden comprehensive plan. And this um is actually the comp future

[26:49] land use map of the last comprehensive plan because this a risk request came in

[26:57] prior to the city council approving the comprehensive plan. So we're under the

[27:02] old uh comprehensive plan when we did the review of this and as um identified

[27:07] this corner is um identified in that map as a light industrial uh future land

[27:13] use.

[27:17] And then part of the goals and policies that existed in that plan um identified

[27:23] that the city should encourage development within the corporate limits

[27:27] of the city of Hayden. And it should provide a balance of commercial uses in

[27:31] designated areas throughout the city centered on established transportation

[27:36] corridors uh while protecting the character of

[27:39] adjacent len uses. They should ensure all development can be serviced by

[27:43] existing public facilities or extended to adequately serve that. Uh they should

[27:48] establish a balance between jobs and housing to attract new employment living

[27:52] opportunities. And we need to ensure that ordinances

[27:55] and policies don't violate private property rights or adversely impact

[27:59] property values or create unnecessary limitations on that land use.

[28:05] And then um policies that could be potentially looked at. Uh development

[28:10] should be compatible with the land use chapter of the comprehensive plan.

[28:14] Um we should be able to promote nodes of development um along transportation

[28:20] corridors. We should be able to encourage reszoning

[28:24] to support the creation of those strategic nodes. Um and then also

[28:29] transitions between residential industrial uses should be able to

[28:33] encourage smallcale retail activities um restaurants and other service

[28:39] businesses to create that mixture of commercial and residential uses.

[28:44] And we need to ensure that land uses and zoning compatibility related to

[28:48] development uh near the airport is reviewed as well.

[28:53] All of the um comprehensive goals and conser plan goals and policies are part

[28:58] of the staff analysis because you know whenever anybody reads this you might

[29:03] pull another one that would be appropriate.

[29:08] So the amendment to the zoning map and zone text shall align with the zone

[29:12] district's purpose and intent is the fourth standard. So agriculture

[29:17] um identifies that you should uh provide for um large undeveloped lots primarily

[29:25] used for farming and agricultural pursuits.

[29:29] and light industrial provides for a light manufacturing, processing and

[29:33] distribution and wholesale retail sales in environment that is clean, quiet,

[29:38] free of noise, odor, dust, and smoke.

[29:43] So, the city of Hayden's current zone map identifies this as well as the area

[29:50] um to the south and to the east as being agriculture.

[29:54] Oh.

[29:58] uh infrastructure on the site. The site subject site is on a private well. Uh

[30:03] Panhandle Health District granted a septic permit as a condition of the

[30:07] building permit that was issued on the site.

[30:11] Uh the dry utilities um are installed or shall be installed with development.

[30:17] The dedications of the rideway occurred with the intersection project

[30:22] and the access locations to the site have been approved as part of that

[30:25] intersection pro proc project in order to reduce conflict points.

[30:32] And then the fifth standard of approval is that the amendment to the zoning map

[30:36] and zone text shall be consistent with the neighborhood context. This is

[30:41] looking at both today as well as in the future.

[30:44] So the neighborhood today is the north of this site is the Harbs land

[30:48] application site. Bounded to the south is that Spokane

[30:52] International Rail Railroad. And at the time of application, the Spokane

[30:57] International Railroad owned both those properties, both the rightway that they

[31:01] have their line in as well as the piece of property that council member Schaefer

[31:05] brought up. uh directly adjacent west and north uh

[31:11] KMO classified uh these two roads both Lancaster and Hutter as arterials.

[31:17] West is a home site with farm accessory structures and farther west is farmland

[31:23] and then to the southeast is also farmland.

[31:26] So pictures are worth a thousand words. So, as you're facing southwest from the

[31:33] project site, you'll see that home site, uh the existing existing accessory

[31:39] structures for the farmland and the grain silos.

[31:45] Facing west from the project site, um you see a hay truck and Rothram to the

[31:52] west. Oops. Keep going.

[31:58] Facing east from the project site, you'll see that the project is uh pretty

[32:03] much cleared. The trees along here are part of that existing other piece of

[32:07] property. And to the north is the um harbs land application site.

[32:16] This is facing north from the project site.

[32:21] And then as you're looking at this site here,

[32:26] you also have the airport and the airport uh runway protection zones that

[32:31] this one is not a part of. It's not in any of those runway protection zones

[32:39] and ram to the west.

[32:43] Public agency and public comments that have been received. As you can see, we

[32:47] received um we usually send out between 18 and 20 agency notices. The ones that

[32:53] uh received comments back from um virtually most of them said no comments

[33:00] um at this point or on this proposal or at this time. Uh Northern Lakes Fire

[33:04] Protection District always has comments related to future development and any

[33:09] non-residential site uh goes to the fire department for review as part of the

[33:13] building permit process andor subdivision process.

[33:19] The planning and zoning commission at the conclusion of their deliberations at

[33:23] their November 14th meeting uh recommended approval of the request to a

[33:30] change the zone from agricultural to light industrial.

[33:34] Those are the five standards of approval and motions should the city council

[33:40] choose to move forward. >> Questions for Donna?

[33:46] I I have one if >> Okay. Um,

[33:50] so I understand the lot size is 1.73 acres.

[33:55] Uh, and that it's Panal Health approved for a septic system, which means drain

[34:01] field and and and so I guess we're uh maybe you could help me understand. I

[34:08] know that because it's over the aquifer, the county has a five acre requirement

[34:13] for a septic system for res for residents. So, why can they have a

[34:19] septic system that's a lot smaller than five acres? Do you can you help me with

[34:23] that? >> That's a great question.

[34:27] » Panhandle Health District found that they met the requirements that they laid

[34:30] out for their for their requirements to issue them a septic permit. They

[34:35] recognized that there wasn't any uh sanitary sewer provided by anybody in

[34:41] that far out at this point in time. Um would you have anything additional to

[34:49] add? >> No. Panhandle health district has

[34:51] jurisdiction to issue that permit. We do not.

[34:58] » Okay. I just curious because it seems like the idea is to protect the aquafer

[35:04] with five acres with the residents. Uh, so I guess that's really if Panhandle

[35:09] Health approves it, then it's they have jurisdiction and so therefore it's

[35:15] approved. >> It is.

[35:16] » Okay. Thank you.

[35:20] » Good question, Matt. Any other questions?

[35:25] We're going to move on to public comment. Do we have any public comment

[35:28] forms? >> No public comment.

[35:29] » Does anyone in the audience want to offer any

[35:32] testimony? Okay, hearing none. So, now we move on

[35:37] to applicants rebuttal. So, this would be if you want to uh the time to address

[35:42] any questions that council brought up during the staff presentation. You can't

[35:46] bring up anything new and you're not compelled to necessarily testify either

[35:49] way. So, what would you like to do? >> I can answer the

[35:57] you >> step up, please. Thanks.

[36:04] because the lot is smaller than five acres. That was a concern of ours prior

[36:08] to even applying for it. Uh when that law went into effect there, I forget the

[36:12] year that that takes took place. This piece of property was broken into this

[36:18] 1.73 acres prior to that law. So it dependent health still allowed it to

[36:24] happen. Meaning it didn't uh it didn't get made smaller after they said you

[36:29] have to have five acres for the septic. So is because it was um this lot lines

[36:34] were created prior to that rule. >> It was grandfathered in basically is

[36:37] what you're saying. So that that had to do with

[36:39] » Yes. >> Thank you.

[36:42] » Okay. Uh we're going to close the public

[36:47] hearing now and council, are you going to proceed with

[36:52] deliberations?

[36:56] » I'm going to make a motion. >> Okay. Well, is there any deliberation

[37:00] you want to do prior to the motion? >> They can deliberate after the motion.

[37:03] » Deliberate after. >> All right. Just asking.

[37:06] » Yeah. Um, I move to approve PZE250102

[37:11] arts king sod zone map amendment request finding the request is in accordance

[37:14] with the standards of Hayden city code based upon testimony received at the

[37:18] planning and zoning commission and city council public hearing and the record of

[37:22] the request. >> I'll second that motion.

[37:24] » Motion a second. Is there any discussion on the motion being made or any other

[37:28] deliberation? Well, I guess that's to be related to the motion now.

[37:31] » Yeah, I I'd like to make a just a comment on it. I um what what I do like

[37:35] about this is from the city standpoint, the amount of taxes that property taxes

[37:40] we would receive or have been receiving is that is a land is really small.

[37:46] Whereas when you go into a light industrial, I'm assuming there's going

[37:49] to be well I saw some improvements happening already. that means those

[37:53] improvements will create t more tax taxes for the city. So from that point

[37:58] of view, it is it's a good um it's a good decision.

[38:03] » Okay. Thank you, Matt. Anybody else? >> Um Mr. Mayor, I just want to make the

[38:07] comment that when I was reviewing this and keeping in mind that we just

[38:12] recently went through an update in our future land use map, I was trying to

[38:16] picture how this would fit into the future neighborhood context.

[38:21] even though I acknowledge that you're grandfathered in but but what I came to

[38:26] the conclusion was this is such an odd piece of property in a perfect location

[38:31] for what we call those business nodes that I think it's very this is an

[38:35] appropriate you uh revision of the zone zoning for

[38:40] this >> I just want to make those a comment

[38:43] » okay roll call vote please

[38:47] » council member Schaefer >> yes

[38:49] » council member Council President President Rotor.

[38:52] » Yes. >> And council member Dri.

[38:53] » Yes. >> Okay. Motion passes. We're going to move

[38:56] on to 4B. >> Council member can rejoin you.

[38:59] » Oh, do we want to invite David back up? >> Council

[39:04] David. >> He might actually want to participate at

[39:09] some point. >> Welcome back.

[39:12] » Thank you. >> How was your travels? It

[39:15] » was great. All right, we're going to move on to

[39:17] PZ24 0133 North Government Way Bac Enterprises annexation request. So, this

[39:24] is a city initiated annexation request. >> Mayor, it's I know the folks and there's

[39:30] no I don't have a conflict of interest, but it's Beck.

[39:34] » Is it Beck? >> Yeah, it's Beck.

[39:35] » Thank you. >> Just for the record.

[39:38] » All right. Thank you. And so, um like the last public hearing, staff's going

[39:43] to present. Uh then we'll have public comment uh if there is any and then

[39:48] council will deliberate and decide.

[39:53] So uh tonight we're having a public hearing to um look at the potential

[39:58] annexation of rightway along North Government Way and then three additional

[40:04] pieces of property west of North Government Way.

[40:09] So, um, an agency notice, uh, related to a project adjacent to

[40:16] the, uh, North Government Way, uh, was sent out and is part of that agency

[40:23] comment request back from, uh, Lakes Highway District, who is the owner of

[40:29] that rideway, is shown in blue, um, that it was time for the city,

[40:34] should this other project move forward, for the city to they would respect

[40:38] respectfully requested the city annex that. And so the city um recognized the

[40:44] fact that it probably was about that point of time where we needed to look at

[40:49] at the potential of annexing it, but should we uh take a look at that, we

[40:54] wanted to reach out to the property owners uh to the west of that area in

[40:59] blue and see if they would also be willing to annex at the same point in

[41:03] time. And so the three properties um in red

[41:10] um agreed that now would be a good time to annex and those are the Beink

[41:14] Enterprise properties that we identified.

[41:17] So this is a city initiated request. Um and all of the properties, the

[41:23] property in blue and the property in red are kind of what we're looking at for

[41:26] the annexation request here. Could you use your cursor and show what the

[41:31] annexation uh requests are for? Show me the property.

[41:35] » So, this is blue. This is right away. And this is a vacant piece of property.

[41:41] Uh this is what's commonly called the atrium as you drive up north government

[41:45] way. >> Yeah.

[41:46] » Um and this is a tumble stone >> further to the south.

[41:52] » So, so the is it the beake zone? All three.

[41:55] » All three. Correct.

[41:59] Um at the time of the initiation of this um annexation

[42:05] uh kind of noticing agency comments etc. Uh the properties were all within what

[42:10] was called the area of city impact in what's known as the exclusive tier which

[42:16] means that the city based on that agreement it was envisioned that the

[42:20] city would annex that property at some point in the future being adjacent to

[42:24] the city. Since that time um uh through last fall and all the way up to December

[42:31] 31st, the city worked with Coupney County uh to uh create a new area of

[42:38] impact. These properties are still within that area uh identified that

[42:42] should be annexed into the city.

[42:48] So when looking at an annexation, the first thing that you look at is a zone

[42:54] designation. And the zone designation that the beaks

[42:58] are requesting is commercial for all three properties. And so we need to walk

[43:03] through those five same five standards of approval to see if that zone map

[43:09] amendment to commercial makes sense. So with relationship to the first two

[43:16] standards of approval, does this need additional studies or plans? And are

[43:21] there additional uh conditions that need to be placed? And uh staff does not

[43:25] believe any additional studies, plans or conditions are required.

[43:31] The next three are again the amendments to the zone map are consistent with the

[43:36] future land use map and are consistent with the Hayden comprehensive plan. Are

[43:40] they consistent with the zone map and the zone district's purpose and intent?

[43:46] And are they consistent with the neighborhood context?

[43:50] So looking at the future land use map, both the old future land use map shown

[43:55] here again under the old um comprehensive plan as well as the one

[44:00] that was adopted uh by council. This strip between highway 95 and government

[44:06] way on the future land use map in both cases actually shows up as commercial.

[44:10] So it is consistent with the future land use map.

[44:15] Uh the commercial land uses of the old uh comprehensive plan identify that it

[44:23] allows for most types of businesses. Small retail businesses, serviceoriented

[44:28] businesses, professional offices constitute the majority of commercial

[44:32] activity in the city. So today's use is a retail service establishment as well

[44:38] as general office that exist on site today.

[44:42] Uh the comprehensive plan goals and policies can be found in your staff

[44:46] analysis beginning on page four and in their entirety in the appendix.

[44:51] I did not go through them in detail as part of uh this summary for the

[44:56] presentation. Uh the zone district's purpose and

[45:00] intent is the district definition for commercial in the zone designation as

[45:05] well as the future land use are almost synonymous. office service retail is

[45:10] what's expected in commercial and they have design standards for uh front

[45:15] setbacks and rear setbacks and flanking streets and lot coverages and what have

[45:20] you. And all of those are met by the current um buildings that are on site.

[45:25] So none of them would become non-conforming should this annexation

[45:29] request be granted.

[45:33] So then with the consistent with the neighborhood context, let's kind of do

[45:38] the visual. Um if I'm standing at the southern end of Government Way, the

[45:42] southern side of that blue looking northward,

[45:46] uh you're going to see the Tumblestone property uh to the west and you'll see

[45:52] what um will become Hayden Canyon on the east looking north.

[46:00] So this is about the middle of the proposed annexation area in front of

[46:04] that building that we called the atrium offices. Again looking northward

[46:10] up government way. And then on the uh north of the Beink

[46:18] Enterprises property, those three red three properties in the red square. If

[46:23] you look south, you look through that vacant piece of property headed south

[46:27] and you can see across Highway 95 and down Government Way.

[46:34] And then if you go all the way to the north end of the blue proposed

[46:37] annexation area up at the intersection of West BL Road and face south, um you

[46:45] see a hill on the on the east side of the road and you see Mark's Marine on

[46:49] the west side of the road. So, we received agency comments again

[46:55] that 18 to 20 plus agencies we normally send to and most of them um provided

[47:02] with no comments. Um we did get a follow-up letter in support in the file

[47:08] from Lakes Highway District from their um board. Um, North Coupney Water

[47:15] District, Water and Sewer District is the water purveyor of the Beelic

[47:19] properties and they have an intent and willingness to continue to serve them

[47:22] water. Um, and the Cordelane Airport requested

[47:27] an navigation easement over the property. Um, and what we've done in the

[47:31] past is made that a condition of the annexation request. It would be recorded

[47:36] prior to the ordinance coming forward. Should the city council approve the

[47:40] request?

[47:47] We did have two additional public comments as a part of the planning and

[47:51] zoning commission public hearing uh noticing uh Bronzebo on behalf of Hayden

[47:57] Canyon 64 LLC was in support and El Cooper which was a land owner was also

[48:03] in support. We did not receive any additional public comments as a part of

[48:08] the noticing uh for the city council public hearing.

[48:13] Planning and zoning commission recommended approval with staff

[48:17] recommended conditions of approval. Uh further request for um the zone to be uh

[48:24] commercial should the annexation be approved by council.

[48:30] So we did have a few recommended conditions of approval. The first would

[48:35] be that Beck Enterprises enter into an annexation agreement with the city. Uh

[48:40] the second is that at the time of future site and/or subdivision development, the

[48:44] applicant shall comply with the requirements of Northern Lakes Fire

[48:47] Protection District. uh that there will be a grant of

[48:51] roadway, drainage, utility, and snow storage, easement, and dedications of

[48:54] rightway, and North Government Way in accordance with the city's adopted

[48:58] transportation plan and adopted intersection improvements.

[49:02] Um, nothing shall preclude the city from

[49:06] requiring additional rightway at the time of development accordance with

[49:10] adopted transportation standards and plans at the time of development. That's

[49:14] what we've had in all of our standardized annexation agreements for

[49:18] some time. Um, at the time of future development, sewer shall be extended to

[49:23] the boundaries of the property in accordance with the sewer master plan

[49:26] and all future site plans and existing or future buildings shall connect to

[49:31] municipal sewer with one year within a year of sewer availability.

[49:37] And then that navigation easement shall be recorded as a condition of the

[49:41] annexation agreement and prior to the publication of the ordinance as

[49:45] requested by the court.

[49:49] And those are motions that the city council could

[49:53] uh come to at the conclusion of deliberations.

[49:57] » I stand for questions. >> Any questions for Donna? Matt,

[50:00] » I do have one. Thank you, mayor. Um, regarding the North Kudney sewer

[50:05] district, they they uh are the water purveyor

[50:10] are are these properties currently within their sewer district?

[50:16] » It's a North Quinney water district and they replied as part of their water, not

[50:20] as part of the sewer. So, they'd be serviced by sewer from the city at some

[50:24] point in the future. So now my question is and maybe I didn't state it clear is

[50:29] is is are these properties if they're within the North Quinney Water and Sewer

[50:34] District and if they're providing water do they have the right first to provide

[50:39] sewer to them >> that they did not they did not state

[50:43] that and today the properties are currently on septic systems.

[50:47] » Okay. So that the only reason I bring that because we said with when with

[50:50] within one year uh when sewer comes available through the city of Hayden

[50:55] that they'll have to hook up. I don't I don't want to see a dispute saying hey

[50:58] you can't do that because North Kney water district uh has the right to

[51:03] provide sewer to those properties because of their boundaries. So is that

[51:08] has that been clarified? >> I don't

[51:13] think the water district is a sewer district.

[51:17] nor do they provide source. >> They just do water.

[51:20] » I thought I read where um in their title they are.

[51:24] » Am I wrong, Tom? >> I think they have areas that that

[51:27] provide both, but I don't think in this area they provide both.

[51:30] » I apologize. >> Yeah. I I just don't want to see a

[51:33] conflict saying, "Hey, that's that's our that's our turf, so you know, you can't

[51:38] force them to to go on city sewer if if they have the right." Although they

[51:42] probably don't have the infrastructure there anyway. and maybe a mood point,

[51:46] but I just wanted to bring that up to make sure that we're okay with it.

[51:49] » If it's a condition of approval that they join the city sewer service within

[51:55] a year, then that's their obligation to make sure that they would deanex from

[51:59] North Kney water and sewer if it were even an issue. Okay. That North Kney

[52:04] water and sewer were identifying them as a property to provide sewer service to.

[52:08] » Thank you for the clarification. >> You're welcome.

[52:11] » That's it. >> All right, David. Hi, Donna. Uh, I have

[52:16] a question about that navigation easement. So, does that mean those

[52:19] properties currently don't have an navigation easement?

[52:23] » That's correct. >> What are the implications of that sort

[52:26] of easement? >> So, an navigation easement identifies

[52:30] that you are near um an airport. In some cases, if you're um like on a hill, you

[52:38] have to fill out additional forms because of the envelope of a flight. but

[52:42] in this case, most likely not. So, it's pretty much just to identify that you're

[52:46] near an airport. You're going to hear airport airplanes and air traffic noise.

[52:51] Um, and in this area, you you will hear it because they're close to that runway.

[52:56] » Yeah, that's what I figured. I just wanted to make sure this is somewhat of

[52:59] a standard procedure for the airport within its reach.

[53:04] » Yes. >> Correct.

[53:07] » Anything else, Ed? Oh, Tom. Yeah, Donna. So,

[53:15] annexation was offered on all the properties to the west of Government Way

[53:20] up to Beagle. Correct. >> Correct.

[53:23] » So, uh just curious why Mark's Marine and then the property of the south

[53:29] declined to annex. >> Did they give a reason? Um they had they

[53:34] had several marks Marine uh predominantly accesses off of BAL not

[53:40] off of government way. Um and the the second main reason is that there is no

[53:46] sewer out in that neck of the woods at this point in time. That was the second

[53:50] reason that they gave us. >> So it just doesn't didn't make sense to

[53:54] do it now. Okay.

[53:59] » Any any other questions? Okay. Uh Abby, do we have any public

[54:05] comment for this hearing? >> No, ma'am.

[54:08] » Does anyone in the audience wish to provide testimony?

[54:12] » Okay. Sounds like it's a no. So, at this point, we'll close the public hearing

[54:15] and council can uh now uh choose to deliberate andor make a decision.

[54:26] It would be useful to do some deliberation previous to a motion since

[54:29] you have some standards of approval to consider and to apply the facts that

[54:33] you've heard to those standards of approval before a motion.

[54:37] » Yes. >> Tom, you want to start? Any comments,

[54:41] thoughts? I apart from the fact I was curious why

[54:46] the other two uh um lots declined to uh annex in uh this seems pretty

[54:55] straightforward. I mean if you got some light industrial going on and and we're

[55:00] already on on the other side of government way it seems logical to me

[55:04] that these properties would want to annex into the city. So I I have no

[55:11] objections to this. >> Donna, do we have the slide with the

[55:15] » Well, that's what I was looking for. >> Standards just so we can talk to them a

[55:18] little bit.

[55:22] » Is that good enough? >> Okay.

[55:25] » Well, you want to continue kind of synopsis it up without them probably.

[55:29] Okay. >> It sounds from the presentation as

[55:31] though staff is uh feels that they have met the standards of approval and it

[55:37] sounds like they have. as I look at them now. Uh and also as was brought up on

[55:43] the previous one, I believe the city will now be receiving

[55:47] tax revenue from them, which is uh always nice,

[55:53] especially for those residential compared to bring in commercial.

[55:57] Although it's not a very large swath, it does tilt to probably a very minor

[56:03] degree the burden from residential to commercial. Um, but I do believe they've

[56:09] met the standards of approval. >> Okay,

[56:13] David. >> Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Everything,

[56:15] » excuse me. >> Everything fits within

[56:19] uh what the zone map looks like. It flows. It's contiguous and

[56:25] there aren't any red flags. Makes sense.

[56:28] » Okay, Matt. Yeah, I see the planning and zoning commission recommended approval

[56:33] of um this annexation and that the standards of review and

[56:39] evidence of record finding for approval of zone map amendment. Um I'm looking on

[56:44] page two, I believe, have all been fulfilled.

[56:47] So, um that's my point.

[56:51] » Okay. At this point, would anyone like to make a motion? And do they need Donna

[56:55] to throw the cheat slide up? I'll uh I'll do it. All right.

[57:04] I'll make a motion to approve PZE 24-0133

[57:11] North Government Way and Beic Enterprises LLC annexation request with

[57:15] a zone designation of commercial with staff recommended conditions of approval

[57:20] finding the the request is in accordance with the standards of Hayden City Code

[57:26] based upon testimony received at the city council public hearing and the

[57:29] record of the request. >> Second.

[57:32] » Okay, we have a motion and second. Is there any discussion on the motion?

[57:36] » Abby, may we get a roll call vote, please?

[57:38] » Council President Rotor, >> yes.

[57:40] » Council member Schaefer, >> yes.

[57:41] » Council member Dri, >> yes.

[57:42] » Council member Ericson, >> yes.

[57:44] » All right, that concludes our two public hearings. I forgot something very small.

[57:49] Before we roll into new business,

[57:54] » I wanted to present uh each of our our reelected and our elected council

[57:59] members with a momento that >> Oh, thank you can have on your wall.

[58:04] » This is their uh yeah, their newspaper uh articles of their intent. And I just

[58:10] for public record, I kept all four of the candidates.

[58:13] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Just in case.

[58:15] » Just in case, but I present it to the folks that won. So, those are just a

[58:19] little gift and a uh thank you um for running for office. All right. So, with

[58:24] that, uh we're going to move on to new business. Uh the first action item is to

[58:29] uh consider well not to consider but to elect a council president.

[58:33] This is one where the mayor steps back and council discusses.

[58:38] » Mayor, I'd like to start off as the current president of the council. Um

[58:43] I've had the privilege of being the council president for the last four

[58:47] years and I think it's time to pass the baton. Oh,

[58:51] » and I think it's a it's a good thing that we do share in responsibilities in

[58:55] the city and and and it's it's nice to have a new role and do some changes.

[59:00] This kind of keeps things fresh. So, I'd like to nominate Ed Priest as our

[59:05] council president. >> Okay. Is there any other uh discussion?

[59:10] Is there any another person that desires or

[59:14] would someone like to just second for Ed to be

[59:19] » Ed? How do you feel about that? >> I'm fine.

[59:24] » Man, many sure. >> What you got? Wait, you want me to do my

[59:28] usual and really go some along siloquy or whatever?

[59:32] » You know, Ed, if you become council president, you got to got to moderate

[59:36] the tempo. >> Really chill it out a little bit.

[59:39] » Yeah. Well, okay. There you go. I I appreciate uh the nomination of Council

[59:44] President Roer very much and I would appreciate and uh the opportunity to

[59:49] serve in that uh position long enough. Okay. And and I and I thank uh Council

[59:56] Council President Rotor and our new council member for the second. You need

[1:00:00] me to go anymore? >> All right. So,

[1:00:03] » thank you. >> All right. So, do we have a second or is

[1:00:06] there any more discussion?

[1:00:10] » Anyone else? I I'm reserved because as I'm taking in

[1:00:17] this new seat. Um, I want to let the dust settle, allow everything to uh flow

[1:00:24] the proper way. >> Fair enough.

[1:00:26] » Before I uh shake anything up. >> All right, Tom. Any thoughts?

[1:00:31] Um, I think that maybe this is an

[1:00:36] opportunity to Ed to to show a leadership position when he if he's

[1:00:41] called upon to uh lead a uh city council meeting. And I and I hope and I pray

[1:00:48] that if he you get that opportunity that you will um

[1:00:54] be calmer sometimes.

[1:00:58] I am who I am. With that being said, I'd like to second

[1:01:04] that. >> All right. So, do we is this something

[1:01:05] we vote on, Abby? >> Okay. All right. So, there is a motion.

[1:01:08] There is a second. And I assume we could just do a roll call vote.

[1:01:13] » Council member Schaefer. >> Yes.

[1:01:15] » Council member Depri. >> Oh, man. Yes.

[1:01:18] » Council member Ericson. >> Yes.

[1:01:20] » Council President Rotor. >> Yes.

[1:01:23] » Ed, if you can't vote for yourself, how >> I didn't know if I was allowed to, to be

[1:01:26] honest with you. You always come into that. Can you vote for yourself? You

[1:01:29] can. >> All right. So, our next action item is

[1:01:32] to consider city council to consider a sewer collection system capitalization

[1:01:37] fee study with FCS. FCS did our last uh study uh for fees. And Lisa, do you have

[1:01:47] anything you want to add? Uh just wanted to for the record for those uh members

[1:01:52] of the public who may have not seen the memo that uh the city has over the

[1:01:57] course of um the number of years made improvements to our existing system

[1:02:02] since we set our capitalization fee. This will be your connection fee to the

[1:02:07] system. Uh and and council may recall one of our most significant investments

[1:02:14] was this last summer where we improved the H6 gravity force main and installed

[1:02:19] a new lift station. So in order to recap or receive those fees back to us or the

[1:02:28] cost of the system is divided by the number of connections that support that

[1:02:31] system and that is what the connection fee is based off of. And in order to to

[1:02:36] create a defensible uh rate, we'll use rate setters such as

[1:02:41] FCS to produce a record that we could, if in the event we're sued, could um

[1:02:47] take to court with us. So, um the city council used FCS the last time they did

[1:02:51] this when we came out of the uh court case with

[1:02:56] the uh who was it? >> Nipka. Thank you. I wanted to say Harps,

[1:03:02] but it wasn't with Nipka. uh to help set that rate. So, it seems proper for us to

[1:03:06] go back since they have a general understanding of our system.

[1:03:10] » Thank you. And just for council's clarity, it was in the memo. Uh this uh

[1:03:14] contract is not to exceed uh $18,530 without prior approval.

[1:03:20] Is there any discussion? Any questions? So, I want to make a motion.

[1:03:24] » Questions? >> So, just to be sure and have it on the

[1:03:28] record, we budgeted for this, right? Uh yeah, we we knew that uh at the

[1:03:34] completion of the H6 improvements that it was the proper time to do that. So we

[1:03:39] budgeted for it not knowing exactly when that was happening but anticipating it

[1:03:42] would be in this fiscal year. So yes,

[1:03:48] » any other questions? >> No.

[1:03:51] » Anyone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion that we approve the

[1:03:54] sewer collection system capitalization fee study with FCS.

[1:03:59] Second. Okay, we have a motion, a second. Any discussion on the motion?

[1:04:03] » May we get a roll call vote, please? >> Council member Ericson,

[1:04:06] » yes. >> Council member Schaefer,

[1:04:08] » yes. >> Council President Driest,

[1:04:10] » yes. >> Council member Rotor,

[1:04:11] » yes. >> Very good. All right. Our next uh item

[1:04:16] is uh for Jub Engineers Incorporated in Yes. Incorporated. Authorization for a

[1:04:22] contract amendment for a sewer capitalization fee support services.

[1:04:27] And this one is to not exceed $27,000 to update our s city's sewer GIS data

[1:04:35] and incorporate uh sewer system changes since the last update which was in 2019.

[1:04:41] Any questions for staff council

[1:04:46] or does staff have anything they want to add? Um I I'll add that since 2019 we

[1:04:53] have have over 30 projects and developments that are that have happened

[1:04:56] in the city and those improvements that are associated with those developments

[1:05:01] and those projects are part of the cost that goes into this FCS study. So those

[1:05:07] need to be brought in for our GIS system which we need to do anyway for our

[1:05:11] mapping and our modeling down the road. So it gets our system updated as well as

[1:05:17] provides the background

[1:05:21] associated that goes into the FCS study. >> Thank you, Alan.

[1:05:26] » I do have a question, Mr. Mayor. >> So I've been here for two years now and

[1:05:33] have uh listened to proposals for and voted on other uh uh various projects

[1:05:41] related to the city's sewer. um processing and collection facilities.

[1:05:48] It's all on record, I assume. So, what is it that we're getting above

[1:05:54] and beyond current city records in terms of information to support the rate

[1:06:00] study? >> Well, we get a we get an upgrade GIS

[1:06:04] map, which is what we use to do our modeling for our cap for sewer master

[1:06:10] planning. Um we also that They get they they do and they do an analysis of the

[1:06:16] cost of the pipes that go in the ground, how many linear feet of pipe, manhibles,

[1:06:20] all that gets quantified in that GIS system and then that information gets

[1:06:26] rolled into the model. Uh and also the data on that is is quantified with the

[1:06:33] date and the year and uh the information tied with that such as manhole depth,

[1:06:39] sewer size and we get to use that information for our infrastructure um

[1:06:47] maintenance. In other words, then we can tie that to when when it was cleaned

[1:06:50] last, what what we found, what what the problem areas and all that gets built

[1:06:55] upon over the coming years. So, it provides an area to provide all that

[1:07:01] information to. So they're basically co-esking all the information on size,

[1:07:06] age, maintenance, >> location,

[1:07:09] » capacity, physical location, all into one model.

[1:07:14] » And will they be doing that from records that the city already has um every time

[1:07:20] work has been done? >> Records that we have received from uh

[1:07:23] developers and from our own projects. Yes.

[1:07:26] » So I forgive me, I don't intend to be aggressive, but do you do you think that

[1:07:32] that $27,000 is an appropriate amount for doing this job.

[1:07:37] » It's a pretty big lift putting it together. It also at this

[1:07:42] point um it's going to update the model as well because that model is obsolete

[1:07:48] as far as software goes and I think we all understand when software gets to a

[1:07:53] certain age it is no longer suitable package. So part of the work will be

[1:07:58] updating the software of the GIS model. >> It's not supported anymore that our

[1:08:03] model sits in.

[1:08:07] » All right. Thank you. >> I I think if I can tag along uh on what

[1:08:12] council member Schaefer just asked or discussed um hypothetically, if you want

[1:08:18] to even go that route, uh could staff even do it? And if they could do it,

[1:08:26] what kind of a workload and dollar, you know, could that even be?

[1:08:32] » We do not have a staff member who has the

[1:08:36] » expertise >> expertise or the time to complete this

[1:08:40] work. Mainly the time. It's not we couldn't train somebody or or find

[1:08:43] somebody, but we don't have that currently. Well, and I think the risk,

[1:08:47] the liability risk also is another NIPKA suit if we're not hiring an expert for

[1:08:52] calculation, >> right?

[1:08:54] » That isn't an in-house um employee.

[1:08:58] » It's one of these things where again you you're almost required to go to a an

[1:09:03] impartial, shall we say, non-involved source whether whether

[1:09:07] » Yeah. an unbiased neutral objective expert.

[1:09:10] » Right. >> This is a cheaper investment than

[1:09:13] litigation 100%. Yeah. >> Okay.

[1:09:16] » Thank you. >> Very good. Starboard side. Any

[1:09:18] questions? >> Yeah. Allan, is it is it typical to wait

[1:09:22] six years to do this or is it >> in the falls in line with when we would

[1:09:28] do this? We would do we do like a sewer master plan try to do that five around

[1:09:32] five years. So we're in that we're in that time frame.

[1:09:35] » Yeah. So we're in that window. >> This will also roll into we move to that

[1:09:39] path. This will would be a cost we would have to absorb at that point if we don't

[1:09:44] absorb it here. So, it's just a matter of which Apple which carts come first,

[1:09:50] right? The hard portion of the cart. So, >> yeah. So,

[1:09:53] » this is driving it today. If we were to do the master plan update, that would

[1:09:59] drive it tomorrow. So, and so it's right on schedule with that type of update.

[1:10:05] » Yeah. So, what I'm I just want to repeat what I heard. So, not only is the

[1:10:10] software update necessary, but after all of the lift station and all the work

[1:10:16] that's been done. Getting that updated is necessary to protect us from any sort

[1:10:21] of errors that would result in litigation. So, it's a necessary evil at

[1:10:25] this point. >> Yeah.

[1:10:27] » Yeah. It's a it's an operational thing for the city staff as well.

[1:10:30] » Yeah. Okay. Matt. >> Yeah. Um, having been through the NIPKA

[1:10:36] lawsuit, um, going to the Supreme Court, getting into two mediation sessions,

[1:10:42] um, what we're dealing with here is really critical because the information

[1:10:46] that that have to that has to be derived goes into calculating the sewer

[1:10:52] capitalization fee that we will charge. And that is a cap fee to deliver the

[1:10:58] sewage from our rateayers to HARBs. And so we have to justify that and there's a

[1:11:04] key term for it's called equitable buyin. You have to prove uh that that

[1:11:09] equitable buyin number is correct. And so we have to do this there. This is

[1:11:14] this is in my opinion not cheap but it's it's money well spent to protect

[1:11:20] ourselves from future lawsuits. So um it's critical. We got to do it and I

[1:11:25] support it 100%. >> Okay. If that's everyone's questions,

[1:11:28] anybody like to make a motion? >> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I'll make the motion that

[1:11:34] we approve uh item 5C um authorizing uh contract with JUB Engineers for sewer

[1:11:42] capitalization fee support services. >> This one's for FC.

[1:11:47] » I'm no right. He's on it. >> You're right.

[1:11:51] » Second. You're >> keeping us on our toes.

[1:11:52] » I jumped off. >> All right. We have a motion to second.

[1:11:55] Any discussion? May we get a roll call vote, please?

[1:11:58] » Council member Rotor, >> yes.

[1:11:59] » Council member Ericson, >> yes.

[1:12:01] » Council President Dri, >> yes.

[1:12:02] » Council member Schaefer, >> yes.

[1:12:04] » Okay. Our last new business item is uh an agreement with Wake Media LLC for

[1:12:09] communications and information technology support.

[1:12:17] » Do you want me to talk? >> Uh I if Yes, sure.

[1:12:22] » Thank you, Lisa. Um so this particular one uh the reason it's not in the

[1:12:28] consent agenda given the either the amount or the pro the applic or the

[1:12:34] request is simply because it's not technically budgeted. This is one of

[1:12:37] those that um as mentioned in the budget development process if we felt it was a

[1:12:41] good idea we'd bring it forward. So before you is the contract with Lake

[1:12:45] Media to assist the city with some what I would consider uh more of an umbrella

[1:12:49] or master agreement for as directed as needed IT communication and support

[1:12:53] systems. Uh and the as mentioned in previous meetings, there's been a need

[1:12:59] or a desire from um some of our commissions to develop some programs

[1:13:04] that are supportive of their endeavors uh to include such as the um

[1:13:11] memorial uh what do we call >> papers

[1:13:14] » with the papers. Yeah. So where you can get on and see an interactive map of

[1:13:17] favors that have been paid for or donated and in remembrance of any fallen

[1:13:23] officers or military and this would be a similar action that we would do use this

[1:13:29] company for uh as well as any other supportive materials. So this particular

[1:13:35] contract being under five or not exceeding $5,000 would give us that tool

[1:13:40] to use to build those. So we would be using our fund balance to favor this

[1:13:43] which is you know given the cost is not a concern to to me and my behalf. So

[1:13:48] » thank you Lisa. The only thing I'll add is we had a previous contract uh last

[1:13:52] fiscal year with my site marketing for the same service. So even though this

[1:13:56] company's new the service being provided is not

[1:14:06] » do you need a a motion? >> Well thank you. Okay,

[1:14:11] Mr. Mayor, I motion that we approve item 5D, agreement with Wake Media LLC for

[1:14:18] communications and information technology support.

[1:14:22] » Is there a second? >> Second.

[1:14:24] » Any discussion? And we get a roll call vote, please.

[1:14:28] » Council member Ericson, >> yes.

[1:14:30] » Council President Dri, >> yes.

[1:14:32] » Council member Rotor, >> yes.

[1:14:33] » Council member Schaefer, >> yes.

[1:14:35] » Okay, we're going to move into our reports. Lisa is going to give us a 2025

[1:14:40] year in review presentation. >> Promised you this at the last meeting

[1:14:44] and you postponed me till tonight. So you get it tonight.

[1:14:48] » Give me a second here. >> Can we propose postpone you next

[1:14:53] December? >> Stop.

[1:14:54] » No, just kidding. >> Ouch.

[1:15:02] » Now I got to figure out where I put it.

[1:15:10] It's title 1.13. >> Yeah. So, you got the um you got the

[1:15:15] presentation in the packet of materials so that you could come prepared if you

[1:15:20] have any questions. But, uh typically what we like what I like to do when

[1:15:25] we're looking at um the culmination at at the year end uh unfortunately this is

[1:15:30] kind of culminating with a year beginning is a reverse kind of review.

[1:15:34] um review mirror look at some of the places that we've come over the year and

[1:15:39] really to to find some pride from this whole city on the work that's been

[1:15:45] accomplished and then to pivot from that position into a year looking forward so

[1:15:52] that council can see some of the driving factors for what will likely be coming

[1:15:56] before you in the in the coming year. And so we'll just kind of go through all

[1:16:00] the departments. Uh and there will be a few that that get overlooked and it's

[1:16:05] not intentional just because their work is sort of ebbing and flowing across

[1:16:08] multiple departments. So under or within the finance department, uh just a

[1:16:13] summary review, uh worth noting beyond a big transition from a

[1:16:20] on-site software system to a a cloud-based system, we also accomplished

[1:16:25] over the course of three uh this one year three fiscal year audits with a

[1:16:30] final audit coming to you in March, but the majority of that work happening this

[1:16:33] last year. Yes. >> So are we up to date now? We caught up.

[1:16:36] We'll be in March when you when that's uh tenatively planned to be delivered to

[1:16:39] you guys. We'll be on we are actually meeting the 25 schedule for an audit. So

[1:16:44] right now we are realistically um caught up.

[1:16:48] » Excellent. So, >> long time.

[1:16:50] » Uh, and as included in my report, you saw a financial statement that was

[1:16:55] prepared by my by my office in concert with finance that does provide not only

[1:17:00] your month-to-month financial information, but also fund balance,

[1:17:03] something we've not been able to do up until more recently. So, a fund balance

[1:17:07] of all your funds. So, if you if you don't have that, I I printed off some

[1:17:10] copies. I'm happy to give those out. Uh and in addition to that, we've initiated

[1:17:15] the financial policy which is sort of a culmination of a a myriad of different

[1:17:20] policies that the city has adopted over the course of it the last uh 20 years

[1:17:25] and then building also a reserve policy. So something I've uh challenged the

[1:17:30] council and myself with when I started here and now feel comfortable and

[1:17:34] confident that we can move forward with bringing that forward to you. So I look

[1:17:36] forward to seeing that in your hands here coming soon.

[1:17:41] So, we jump into recreation. Uh, you know, these this is a lot of numbers is

[1:17:45] why I gave this to you ahead of time. I just want to uh do a couple takeaways

[1:17:49] that when we look across our recreation uh user profile, right, who's coming and

[1:17:56] who's playing, what we're seeing is on our youth programs, we're seeing a

[1:18:00] fairly decent split between residential and non-residential

[1:18:04] uh participants. non-residents are slightly above residents, but uh overall

[1:18:10] we're we're seeing support by a community beyond Hayden for a wreck

[1:18:15] program. And and then in addition to that, because our programs are run so

[1:18:19] successfully and people enjoy them, we're seeing increases. So what we're

[1:18:22] finding is this sort of kind of growing out of our shoes a little bit here and

[1:18:26] we're some of the things that we'll have to tackle looking ahead will be how do

[1:18:30] we how do we either change our programs to be more reflective of the

[1:18:35] restrictions that we do have or how do we grow and some of that will be

[1:18:38] compartmentalized into specific programs. But overall just know that our

[1:18:43] wreck program is continually being supported within our community and

[1:18:47] beyond.

[1:18:52] Adult league's down, guys. We need to get the adults out there. So, do what

[1:18:56] you can. But overall, we're still seeing, you know, relatively as we look

[1:18:59] year to year, circumstantially >> holding steady. Go ahead.

[1:19:02] » Can you back up just a second? So, we had for the year we had 3,258

[1:19:08] players. And go the next one. We had almost a thou. So, we had 5,000

[1:19:15] participants. Wow. >> Yeah.

[1:19:19] and and it's a it's a really a hats off and a testament to how the wreck pro

[1:19:23] program is run starting from the director downward.

[1:19:26] » Uh this is also our our department that sees the most temporary employees. So

[1:19:32] we're always when we come to you in budget year and we're saying well how

[1:19:35] many coaches do we need or how many temporary employees do we need? And you

[1:19:39] see that notch going up you'll understand why why are we needing that?

[1:19:42] Well, our programs are growing uh and and you know, as we bring on more wreck

[1:19:47] facilities like we did this last year with Crawford Park, it's a direct

[1:19:50] representation of that growth coming forward in the form of more um

[1:19:54] participation.

[1:19:58] » One of the areas that maybe is not as known but it's good to talk about is our

[1:20:04] special interest programs. This these are programs that we contract with uh

[1:20:10] participate uh programs or coaches or vendors to offer a variety of different

[1:20:17] opportunities to engage in recreation. And so it might be ice skating or um or

[1:20:24] dance, but it's still important when we think about recreation being supported

[1:20:29] across all of our community. And so uh again similarly like you saw in our

[1:20:33] other programs that split kind of being represented here where non-residents

[1:20:38] kind of squeak out a little bit higher than our residential uh participation or

[1:20:42] participants but overall supported when we see the number of participants and

[1:20:46] still growing

[1:20:51] within wreck. We also uh we kind of have a split between that between the wreck

[1:20:55] program but also our city events. This one's a little harder to get a true

[1:21:00] count when we talk about our city events. So, this would be our Hayden

[1:21:04] days and some of our uh programs in the winter. Uh much like it's been shown

[1:21:09] here. This is our lights parade. Um so, we try to do a good job of estimating

[1:21:13] based on sort of capacity that that facility could hold. And so, you'll see

[1:21:18] that um you know, we have estimated at our events saw about just under 15,000

[1:21:22] people, which is significant. And you'll see those events can't be

[1:21:28] supported without this without the strong um support of our volunteers who

[1:21:32] help make that happen. So you'll see that at 281 this last year. Uh when we

[1:21:37] look at our facilities in the reservation, this is also a good

[1:21:40] indicator of the um programs and the facilities that we have being a

[1:21:45] activated by our community. You'll see those supporting an increase uh of in

[1:21:50] the field reservations 43%. And a participation of you know a 35%

[1:21:55] increase. So good. This is a healthy response to the uh investments that you

[1:21:59] guys make in our facilities being used by the community.

[1:22:04] Jumping over to community development. This is just a synopsis of uh the

[1:22:08] reports that you guys get. You got it last month. So this is just taking from

[1:22:11] that. What are we seeing happen here? We expect, just so you know, with the way

[1:22:15] that the um economy is that when you see interest rates being what they are for

[1:22:21] um mortgage rates, you're going to see that closely tie back to the number of u

[1:22:27] requests for new new single family dwellings. Um so we're seeing a little

[1:22:31] bit of that starting to happen now comparatively to the previous year, but

[1:22:35] overall still strong. It's still a strong department. We um we know that we

[1:22:39] built into the budget this last year for another planner. We're actively still

[1:22:43] looking for that planner, but we're also taking to heart the reality that if um

[1:22:47] if interest rates stay up, you know, maybe we ought to be thinking about how

[1:22:50] we can be more resilient and the last thing we want to do is bring on somebody

[1:22:53] and then find out that the market doesn't drive that position. So, all

[1:22:56] things that we're considering uh within sort of long range that I think is worth

[1:23:02] um acknowledging and and praising really our our staff and our um and our

[1:23:07] electeds on is the completion of the five-year update for the comprehensive

[1:23:11] plan that um in every community and as you probably all very well know my

[1:23:17] background I I jokingly say that I'm a recovering planner um is that the um

[1:23:23] updates to comprehensive plans even if they're totally rewrites or updates is

[1:23:26] an extensive and exhausting process and to get that done in this last year is a

[1:23:32] testament to your staff and the work that they put together. So, if you

[1:23:36] haven't already, take the time to thank them. So, um and then the area of impact

[1:23:40] agreement, uh this was a nailbiter. I won't lie. Uh

[1:23:47] two years ago, the state legislature passed a improvements to title 50 in

[1:23:52] this area where the area of impact required every city in the state of

[1:23:58] Idaho to go back to the respective county and renegotiate that AO AOI

[1:24:02] agreement area of impact. I I they now call it the AI, but I with that

[1:24:06] terminology being sort of um overutilized these days, I stay back

[1:24:10] with AOI. uh that um in order for us to even hear the annexation agreement that

[1:24:15] you wanted to tonight, we had to have that agreement in place by December

[1:24:18] 31st. And when did the ordinance get signed by the county commissioners? Like

[1:24:23] two days before the end of the year >> and it got recorded on the 31st.

[1:24:26] » Yes, that's that's where I was going to go because I know the county was having

[1:24:29] some issues with it and I believe that's where that we went to that hearing.

[1:24:34] » Yep. >> And so they did it is all

[1:24:36] » Yes. Not every city got theirs done in time, but we did. And again, this is a

[1:24:41] time where you can take a moment in your uh free time here at the city or if

[1:24:45] you're coming in to thank your staff because that was a huge undertaking in a

[1:24:48] short amount of time. And granted, it wasn't the time frame that we were on.

[1:24:51] We got our stuff to them well in advance of that date, but um the county was on a

[1:24:56] different track for getting that done and and followed through with their

[1:24:59] commitment to get it done by the end of the year with the the like I said,

[1:25:03] nailbiting finish, right? As the mayor alluded to today, we're you know, we're

[1:25:06] talking about football season. This was one of those nailbiters for us.

[1:25:10] » Just a clarification on this subject. So, as I understood it, it was Post

[1:25:14] Falls and Celane that the county had the problems with in their area of impacts.

[1:25:19] » They had problems with everybody's. It wasn't respective of anyone. I mean,

[1:25:23] » okay. So, they did come back with directives to Hayden changes. We

[1:25:30] again a a a dose of gratitude to our staff and working with the county staff

[1:25:34] and the and the BOCC is they they ask for things in order to help what I what

[1:25:40] I like to refer to as reducing the friction. So many times things get stuck

[1:25:45] because somebody has to carry it from point A to point B. and uh and our staff

[1:25:50] did a very good job, Donna specifically, in taking that friction away and making

[1:25:54] it easy for the county to get ours across the finish line. So, some of the

[1:25:58] cities didn't have that level of uh staff and and um they'll be working

[1:26:02] through the that process again with the county this next year, but ours is a

[1:26:06] true testament a hat off to um to Donna and her team up there. Before you go to

[1:26:12] the next slide, could you uh explain the code enforcement column and what those

[1:26:17] four numbers mean and what what that's about? I I don't understand.

[1:26:23] » Which one? Where are we at? Sorry. >> This code enforcement column.

[1:26:26] » Oh, yeah. Sorry. Uh so those are be um ones that got open in the last year,

[1:26:31] ones that were closed. as a prosecutor uh as I understand and and if I get this

[1:26:35] wrong, Donna, I can interject is simply that when we get done and cannot through

[1:26:39] our own tools within our toolbox get compliance, then we hand it over to the

[1:26:44] prosecutor and the prosecutor struggling in those four cases to just even connect

[1:26:48] with the property owners. Uh so, >> so these are code enforcement violations

[1:26:53] that were >> or some level of code enforcement

[1:26:55] compliance. >> That's what I wasn't sure of. So, what's

[1:26:58] the difference between open, closed, and city? I

[1:27:01] » help me with the city one. I don't recall.

[1:27:03] » So, uh, an open violation is a violation that we're currently working with the

[1:27:08] property owner on to resolve working through that process. Closed

[1:27:13] violations are those violations that were opened in the last year and have

[1:27:18] closed, so they've met compliance requirements.

[1:27:21] and the city. Uh so the 28 that are open, four of them are with the

[1:27:27] prosecutor who's trying to get to a property owner to

[1:27:30] » Oh, right. And then 24 Switzerland >> and the other 24 are with the city

[1:27:35] trying to get compliance. >> So the 20 the prosecutor and the city

[1:27:40] are the 28 that are open >> where they sit right now.

[1:27:43] » Okay. So, >> uh, when we talk about budget, when we

[1:27:46] get to that whole conversation, which, you know, it feels like we just got over

[1:27:51] with it. We're going to start here in a couple months. Uh, we'll be talking

[1:27:54] about, uh, the the new growth of construction, adding to our tax roles.

[1:27:59] As as many of you know, we're allowed to take 90% of that value to increase our,

[1:28:04] um, base levy increase as long as it doesn't exceed uh, 5% or 8% overall. uh

[1:28:11] this will come into play in that regard. So you start to see that valuation being

[1:28:15] added to the um city's overall value base value for taxation and it will it

[1:28:22] definitely helps. So this new construction will come on the rolls in

[1:28:26] this next year theoretically. Um the commercial for sure, light industrial

[1:28:30] for sure, but single family dwellings is a little a little different and I'm

[1:28:34] happy to talk about the why about that maybe offline. But either way, um that's

[1:28:38] what we're seeing when we talk about base levy or our total valuation coming

[1:28:44] up in the next uh discussion of budget.

[1:28:51] So when we break apart our permits, you can kind of see there's been and there

[1:28:55] always has been uh much ado about the residential multif family uh and you'll

[1:29:01] see that we still remain at zero. So, uh, duplexes, typically we get one or

[1:29:05] two duplexes, but this year none. Um, and single family homes generally right

[1:29:11] now are the ones that bring, um, the most permits in any given year. So, when

[1:29:16] you look at non-residential, those are going to be your commercial permits,

[1:29:20] your industrial permits, uh, and possibly even residential, non um,

[1:29:25] non-residential. So, like your garages. Is that a true statement, Donna? No.

[1:29:30] Okay. So, no, don't include that. And then the other uh which is it's just

[1:29:35] a fun one to talk about and that's the building permit that we had to pull the

[1:29:38] city had to pull for the H6 lift station.

[1:29:41] » So there's no number under residential multifamily. That's

[1:29:45] » yeah it's just zero. Sorry it might be on there. It might have just come off

[1:29:48] the page.

[1:29:52] » So another element of community development is looking at okay well what

[1:29:55] are we doing uh on the economic side of things for businesses? And you'll start

[1:29:59] to see that we've looked at new or expanded businesses, 12 new, three

[1:30:04] expanded, one relocated. And on the major minor subdivisions, 10 and 13

[1:30:09] respectively that were applied for, correct? Not necessarily platted all the

[1:30:14] way through. And then uh when we we look at workload, you know, not only are we

[1:30:19] looking at what's revenue coming in, but what is the actual workload being

[1:30:23] processed through this the the department, you know, when we're talking

[1:30:26] about all the other applications that go through community development, 41

[1:30:30] additionals. So, it's a busy department. I mean, if if I had to say anything in

[1:30:36] sort of looking at that review, they were busy busy all year long. And Lisa,

[1:30:41] to that point, for our taxpayers, finance, community development,

[1:30:45] uh, recreation, they're all departments of three, four, well, four people.

[1:30:49] » Yeah. The city has approximately roughly around 30 to 35 full-time employees. So,

[1:30:55] when you think about the workload being spread over all of those employees, your

[1:30:59] employees, they they work long hours, they get a lot done in the day. And you

[1:31:05] know, as part of my leadership has been, it's like we get you for the hours, we

[1:31:09] get you, go home and be a a person on the other end of that, so you can come

[1:31:12] back and work hard again the next day. Yeah.

[1:31:15] » Um 13 major subdivisions. What's the break? What's the break point on?

[1:31:20] » So that would to me it would be over four, correct?

[1:31:22] » No, it's five acres. >> Oh, five acres

[1:31:26] size. >> It's acreage, not number of units. So

[1:31:29] there's 13 subdivisions over five acres that are in the works right now. one

[1:31:34] phase or another. Yep. >> Okay.

[1:31:37] » All good questions. Moving to move on to public works. This is our largest

[1:31:41] department. Uh it covers a huge expansive area over the city. Literally,

[1:31:46] they cover the city. Uh

[1:31:51] when we think about um the public works department, we really think about it in

[1:31:56] a couple different um areas. We have administration which is our um like key

[1:32:02] staff that work out of city hall and then we'll have our streets department

[1:32:07] and our parks department that make up the remainder of that. Uh when we think

[1:32:12] about the completions of projects in this last year. Many many of you have

[1:32:17] heard this or been part of this process and probably can recall uh all the um

[1:32:22] the huray and the high fives as we navigated the year here. but they're

[1:32:26] worth renoting and that is that the city was, you know, given the option,

[1:32:30] something I know the highway district hoped for for 50 years to purchase the

[1:32:34] property that we um were able to buy the buildings from the Lakes Highway

[1:32:39] District and because of the foresight that council had in this and the support

[1:32:44] that you gave your administration, we were able to additionally uh work with

[1:32:48] the county on buying the adjacent 4 acres to the south of that. this

[1:32:53] particular um accomplishment secured our future for

[1:32:57] this department for the remainder of this decade and and many more to come.

[1:33:01] So that is a a hats off moment, proud moment, exciting moment for us. We've

[1:33:06] secured our our current um future and our and our you know 50 years down the

[1:33:12] road theoretically. Um, so that land, if you recall, took us to the pro process

[1:33:19] of selling a 5acre piece of land that we had had on uh Dakota Street. Uh, that

[1:33:24] was a piece of property that the city had invested in um about 10 years ago in

[1:33:29] order to move facilities that are over behind here in McIntyre Park to that

[1:33:34] land. But because of the opportunity that came with the Lakes Highway

[1:33:36] District, we were able to sell that and purchase this one. We didn't, it wasn't

[1:33:40] quite tit fortat, meaning we didn't bring in enough money to cover the full

[1:33:43] expense of that, but it narrowed the the um cost purchased by um from, you know,

[1:33:49] what would have been a couple million dollars down to just a couple

[1:33:52] hundred,000. >> You off hand know what the city paid for

[1:33:55] that Dakota property when they purchased it?

[1:33:58] » Yeah, it was somewhere around $385,000. >> And we and we sold it for what?

[1:34:02] » Uh just under 1.8. >> Yeah.

[1:34:06] » Don't quote me on that, but I check back with you. That's my rec 2015 is when

[1:34:11] they purchased it and I think it was right around 385,000ish.4ish.

[1:34:16] » Uh well I think it's worth I guess we could say is that uh we bought the land

[1:34:21] for about $7 a square well we bought the land for $7 a square foot and we sold

[1:34:25] the land for roughly $950 a square foot. So we did good.

[1:34:31] uh and as a result of the uh purchase of the buildings because if council

[1:34:36] remembers and for the benefit of our new council member, the city had the option

[1:34:39] of buying the buildings, but the land didn't come with the buildings. The land

[1:34:42] was owned by the county under the um airport ownership. And so we purchased

[1:34:47] the buildings for roughly a quarter of the cost it would have been to make to

[1:34:52] create new buildings. Now, we got some aged buildings, but we were able to take

[1:34:56] uh an a turnkey operation from one system to another without a lot of

[1:35:01] investment, but we were we did have to make some and those are noted here on

[1:35:05] this page when it relates when, as I mentioned, the improvements are

[1:35:08] investment made to that facility. So, much of our money that um that we had

[1:35:12] saved for and were um able to, we invested out there to create a more

[1:35:16] usable space. And I mean, I'm not going to speak for the guys. I think they

[1:35:20] could all uh would all appreciate anybody who wants to go out there and

[1:35:23] see the facility. Um they would love to show you around and and I'm I'm hoping

[1:35:28] that in that opportunity they'd be um beaming with pride over the the

[1:35:33] opportunity to be out there now. So

[1:35:38] you've heard me talk a lot about street maintenance and a way to sort of get

[1:35:43] back or crawl back in some deferred maintenance that the city that I took

[1:35:47] over when I I took over my position here. And much of that was just looking

[1:35:50] at how do we how many street lane miles are we maintaining a year and how can we

[1:35:55] take um our maintenance dollars that are limited. They're really all most of our

[1:36:00] maintenance dollars come from property tax and money shared by the state and

[1:36:04] invest those in a prudent way that really promagates I think forward what

[1:36:08] our citizens expect of us. They would like good roads that don't have potholes

[1:36:13] and and still maintain a level of of um pride and ownership. So we uh in in

[1:36:19] concert with that uh statement that you'll see some of the street

[1:36:22] maintenance that's been done and you'll see that we are u getting to that

[1:36:26] approximate 19 to 20 lane miles of chips a year that we need to get to to

[1:36:31] maintain that 7 to 10 year time frame of maintenance. So, we're making we're

[1:36:35] making strides there and and that is really again a testament to your staff

[1:36:38] and the work that they're putting in to try to um show good faith effort that

[1:36:43] the streets that they that that you guys have have taken on that they uh and uh

[1:36:48] that you've entrusted them to. They're they are investing those dollars wisely.

[1:36:52] » Lisa, do you know what happened to those missing street lights? Do you know like

[1:36:57] » which ones? >> I don't know. It says replace six

[1:37:00] missing street lights. >> Oh, yeah. So, yeah. Thank you.

[1:37:02] » Stolen. Really? Where where' they go? Good

[1:37:05] question. Trees knock over the lights. >> Yeah, I'd be happy to. I It's so when

[1:37:10] the city we have, and you'll learn about this when we go through budget, but we

[1:37:13] have a a special fund that the city took out a um I'm going to draw a blank on

[1:37:19] the name. Uh we took out money basically through a levy on um just properties

[1:37:25] along Government Way to do the investments that made Government Way the

[1:37:29] way it is now. And in that um in that process, they put in all the

[1:37:35] street lights that are there. And over the course of time and under the

[1:37:38] previous administration, when a street light was taken out by a vehicle or or

[1:37:43] damaged by some means, uh they weren't replaced. And it was my opinion that our

[1:37:49] property owners are paying for and and are every month or every year paying for

[1:37:54] uh that that investment being made. It's our obligation to go back and replace

[1:37:58] those. So, we brought before council probably late summerish, early fall, a

[1:38:04] proposal to replace a certain number of those. We couldn't do all of them all at

[1:38:08] once, but um and so we've replaced all of them and one has already been taken

[1:38:12] out. So, >> really?

[1:38:15] » Yes. How many days? Eight days. >> Two days.

[1:38:18] » Where was it? >> Eight days. It was eight days.

[1:38:20] » Peak fitness. >> Where was it?

[1:38:23] » In front of Peak Fitness. Oh, >> so uh you'll hear this a lot in any if

[1:38:29] you um happen to to serve in any cities and I've I've worked for a lot of

[1:38:33] smaller cities across northern Idaho that uh generally street departments

[1:38:39] don't love things in the middle of streets

[1:38:43] like trees and lights, but we planned ours that way.

[1:38:48] So, uh, so a lot of times those get damaged or or then they have to be

[1:38:51] replaced. Okay. Uh, moving on to public works,

[1:38:56] unless there's any other questions about streets. Uh, public works is the, um,

[1:39:03] another major sector of our public works facility. And this is where the council

[1:39:08] may recall and um if not I'm going to be so excited to remind you of our major

[1:39:13] investment that started with a novel uh idea supported by our our legal council

[1:39:20] and our staff to engage in a public private partnership with landowners and

[1:39:25] developers who needed to exercise an expansion within the gravity sewer main

[1:39:31] force main and uh a new lift station for the H6 uh basin. And that uh project was

[1:39:41] roughly 20 millionish dollars, maybe a little less. And we partnered with the

[1:39:46] developers that um make up a majority of them of the Hayden Canyon subdivisions

[1:39:52] and were able to uh essentially come together and kind of co-uild this um

[1:39:57] facility. And that was that will hopefully come to you guys in a meeting

[1:40:01] uh soon to accept all of that infrastructure through a resolution. And

[1:40:04] so we're looking forward to bringing you that. Um big it was a big project. It

[1:40:08] was a it was a big deal and uh it's a pretty exciting place to be at this

[1:40:12] point now. But we're saying we're done with that for the most part. Uh and in

[1:40:16] addition, anytime we um you know, we think about public works and the sewer

[1:40:20] side, we're thinking about how are we maintaining that system? How are we how

[1:40:23] are we keeping it operational? And uh council may recall we invested in a a

[1:40:29] sewer uh van, I guess, of sorts. I don't a TV

[1:40:33] van. and you'll see that it's been out working that CCTV is uh out there

[1:40:38] putting uh cameras in our sewer lines and inspecting those sewer lines to make

[1:40:42] sure that they are um not leaking or are still performing well. And then as part

[1:40:47] of that as well, we uh typically and mo uh cities will have rotations of wind

[1:40:52] sewer mains are flushed so that way we make sure there aren't any issues that

[1:40:57] could potentially bubble up. And we were just talking about today how I've seen

[1:41:01] two sewer geysers and they're not fun to have to go through. So um thankfully

[1:41:04] here not here but elsewhere. And then uh as council recalls and has heard

[1:41:09] multiple times over the course of last year, we started the disillusion process

[1:41:12] and that's been initiated. Something that uh was a number one priority I

[1:41:17] learned of the council previous of my ad taking over administration and to see

[1:41:22] that work go where it's at now is um it's promising that we'll get to the

[1:41:26] finish line.

[1:41:30] So unless there's any questions on the rearview mirror, we're going to turn to

[1:41:33] the um windshield here. So we're going to look ahead

[1:41:39] when you know I think we'll spend some time and possibly suggesting at some

[1:41:44] point a workshop with council uh and administration to set some priorities

[1:41:49] over some of the work. We don't need competing priorities. So we want to make

[1:41:52] sure that we're all working with the same level of understanding and not

[1:41:56] creating friction amongst um the staff as well as council. So as we look at

[1:42:00] these, these are mainly staff initiated recognizing that we owe maybe a more

[1:42:05] detailed and in-depth conversation with council about how we want to prioritize

[1:42:08] this. But I'm going to break it up into the respective departments. So when we

[1:42:12] think about administration, what are the things we're working on? You heard some

[1:42:14] of that tonight. Um and you've heard it previously. Um trying to complete some

[1:42:18] of the work that we started. McIntyre Park is uh going through the process

[1:42:22] right now of what we call a master planning effort. And the hope of that is

[1:42:26] that um at the culmination of the termination of the urban renewal agency

[1:42:30] that that money that's been allocated or appropriated that they think they're

[1:42:34] going to get that they would wish to invest in McIntyre Park will be able to

[1:42:38] do so. So, uh but in order to get to that place, we have to first all agree

[1:42:42] on what that plan looks like. And that process is exciting. Um it's

[1:42:46] invigorating. We're looking forward to seeing the completion of that. and then

[1:42:50] those dollars being invested wisely back into that facility. I mentioned earlier

[1:42:54] under the financial um update the financial policy. This is um

[1:43:00] really mostly done. The only other area that still needs some work on is our

[1:43:04] investment policy, one that we don't have or didn't have previously. So, I'm

[1:43:08] hoping to bring that to you guys soon. Uh the capitalization update, you heard

[1:43:13] that tonight. That's an exciting endeavor to get done. So that's taking

[1:43:16] all the investments, the 20 million plus whatever projects were done ahead of the

[1:43:21] H6 basin and and making sure that we're re um getting back out of that the cost

[1:43:26] of that improvement back to the connecting users of that system. So

[1:43:29] those will be new future users. And then one thing you haven't heard yet, but

[1:43:33] it's something I'm hope to present to you at some point is the space analysis.

[1:43:37] It's really getting more uh disciplined about, okay, well, we're here and we

[1:43:42] talk all the time and and you hear it during budget and you hear it from staff

[1:43:45] and you maybe even hear it amongst the uh leadership about, well, if we need to

[1:43:50] bring another person in to do X, you know, the question is where do we put

[1:43:54] them? We are maxed out in our space here. uh we've so one thing I'd like to

[1:43:59] tackle is okay how can we get uh in a place where we can really study what our

[1:44:04] space needs are so that as things align for example the uh urban renewal agency

[1:44:10] looking at a potential new building at the old owl cafe site is there a way

[1:44:16] that we can um dovetail into that discussion some needs analysis that can

[1:44:20] be planned for or that at least be built in in uh open space and not planned out

[1:44:25] space yet for the idea that we can come in and retrofit it later with our own

[1:44:30] dollars. So, those are all um priorities of the admin side of things for now. Uh

[1:44:36] I'm sure there's be more opportunity to go in more depth later with parks. Um

[1:44:42] really the um the area and you've heard about this is is to finish the McIntyre

[1:44:46] Park Plan um to implement it. That's the key component of our goals for 26 is get

[1:44:53] it done and let's get going. You know, we've got some major safety issues,

[1:44:56] especially along Honeysuckle, that we need to address. We've got some

[1:44:59] buildings that we need to plan for their future, what that space is going to do

[1:45:04] for us. Um, and we need to get going on that. So, that's the exciting part

[1:45:07] there. Uh, you heard tonight on the consent agenda, the honeysuckle

[1:45:10] waterways grant. This is an opportunity to improve sort of high uh high water

[1:45:16] and under some improvements that to improve to better make an improvement

[1:45:20] and better the uh facility out there. So, it's not right now we're having a

[1:45:24] lot of spalling concrete that's sort of wasting away out there underwater.

[1:45:29] And then um you've heard this before and we're excited to um bring forward to you

[1:45:33] the installations of those painted come together bench projects. So,

[1:45:37] » benches >> on the sewer side of things, uh the

[1:45:40] facility plan, the capitalization study, and then the the continuation of the

[1:45:44] dissolution. That will be our main focus on the streets facility upgrades. These

[1:45:49] are these are things that we budgeted for this this next year. We're looking

[1:45:52] to complete those. And then on the intersection designs, many of you have

[1:45:56] heard uh complaints from your constituencies. We hear them as well.

[1:46:00] And and then of course, we're just seeing a lot of

[1:46:04] concern with uh with with the number of accidents happening at these that we

[1:46:08] need to do something. So you'll see us take a large um leap of um investment

[1:46:14] into into completing some of our at least designs and then trying to align

[1:46:18] those design plans with uh funds to complete those projects. And then you'll

[1:46:23] see here chip ceiling 19.5 lane miles. This is again kind of that jumping up

[1:46:27] trying to get to that where should we where should we be every year in order

[1:46:31] to meet our maintenance requirement for that seven-year life cycle of a street.

[1:46:36] And then outside of streets, but more administratively, but it's kind of its

[1:46:39] own department now, I guess you could call it, is our law law enforcement

[1:46:42] really looking at strategic planning along um what we're doing there. We uh

[1:46:47] have gone through kind of a roller coaster ride over the last uh 12 months

[1:46:50] or so. Uh the mayor and I starting that and then council uh completing that at

[1:46:54] the end of the year and really trying to get more organized around where we're

[1:46:58] going so that it's not a yo-yo effect on us, especially as we look at budget for

[1:47:02] fiscal year 27. Lisa, before you move on, so this past

[1:47:08] year, we have authorized a minor expansion in HURA with the expectation

[1:47:15] of funds being used for four different intersections along Government Way. I

[1:47:22] saw only two >> for this year. uh the we're looking at

[1:47:25] trying to take advantage of the two that already have funds uh and contracts open

[1:47:31] for them with the idea that realistically those other two might come

[1:47:35] the next year. >> Okay. So they're acknowledged as being

[1:47:39] on deck for some work to be done, but they

[1:47:43] we have other priorities, right? The two other take priority right now.

[1:47:47] » And it's not that they I guess you could argue that they are a priority, but it's

[1:47:52] because we already have a number of concerns for safety in those

[1:47:56] intersections and we only have so much staff.

[1:47:59] » Got it. >> Again, if I go back to I would love to

[1:48:00] hire another engineer or another more support administrative staff, but I have

[1:48:04] nowhere to put them. So, um, we can only look at pacing our projects over that

[1:48:09] year. >> All right. Thank you.

[1:48:11] » On recreation, uh, this is just a it's kind of a neat problem to have and it's

[1:48:16] to, uh, continue to try to address our continued need for, uh, and the support

[1:48:20] of our community for our programs and how do we how do we um, support our

[1:48:26] community in that area? And that's something I look forward to challenging

[1:48:29] our director with and the council with. And and then we will likely review our

[1:48:34] fees associated with non-residents to try to bring um some commensurate cost

[1:48:40] for the you know the subsidies that are made in the in the recreation department

[1:48:45] to support um have the non-resident fee come in with a um reasonable rate that

[1:48:50] they're paying for that. under community development. This, as

[1:48:54] council knows, with the completion of the comprehensive plan update, it's a

[1:48:58] lean-in to all things code. And so, we'll be looking at in particular just

[1:49:04] these are just three areas. It doesn't mean that they're the only areas. It's

[1:49:07] just three areas that have been sort of prompted the um the need for a comp plan

[1:49:13] update. And those are listed there. They'll probably likely be more if not

[1:49:17] already being happening at this point. And then you know it this is under

[1:49:21] community development but it doesn't necessarily have to be and that's the

[1:49:24] transportation and parks master plan 2027 will prompt require us if we're

[1:49:30] going to keep our impact fees uh for uh transportation and parks. We have to

[1:49:36] re-evaluate the impact fee but we can't do so unless our transportation plans

[1:49:40] are updated. So those will be questions coming to you likely in this next budget

[1:49:44] year. And with that I stand for questions. Any

[1:49:49] questions? >> Comment maybe.

[1:49:52] » Go ahead. >> Uh, with our current law enforcement

[1:49:55] situation being what it is, and I think I brought this up to you

[1:50:00] at a future time, do we maybe want to consider bringing back the impact fees

[1:50:05] for law enforcement? I think that might be a discussion we

[1:50:10] » Yeah, I think that that's a fair conversation to have as we navigate

[1:50:14] through the strategic planning exercise that we'll go through in the next Well,

[1:50:18] the that RFP is uh the the responses are due by the 20

[1:50:25] the 21st, I believe. Is that a Wednesday? I think that's the Wednesday.

[1:50:28] Uh and then the hope would be after that they come in that we would staff would

[1:50:33] review them to make sure that they're complete and we can accept them as a a

[1:50:37] strong prop or a complete proposal and then we'll likely call a special meeting

[1:50:41] with a public safety commission to review those made recommendation and

[1:50:44] bring them back to you guys and then from there get going because that's

[1:50:48] another one where I wish we were I wish it was three months ago or six months

[1:50:51] ago where we're at right now but right >> we are where we are.

[1:50:56] » Any other questions? I had a question about recreation. Um sounds like

[1:51:04] potentially they're overwhelmed with all this activities, that sort of thing.

[1:51:10] Um are they open to

[1:51:14] um more activities being added like different ones, say shooting, fishing,

[1:51:21] camping? >> I think all of those are are options and

[1:51:23] and Susie's here. She can probably speak so I don't speak for her. special

[1:51:26] interest, what we call special special interest. And what we do is we contract

[1:51:30] with instructors, businesses. Yeah. >> Um and stuff like that. And then we have

[1:51:36] standard uh city gets uh 30%. And the contractor gets 70. And we do a

[1:51:42] contract. It goes through you, you approve it as a commit, as a council.

[1:51:46] And so that just adds to what we offer without us having to do it ourselves.

[1:51:51] » It's even better. >> Yeah.

[1:51:52] » Yeah. That's great. So yes, we are we actually even have it in our guide. It's

[1:51:56] like, hey, do you teach blah blah blah? Yeah. Contact us and we'll, you know,

[1:52:00] talk about it and we have a program proposal form we'll give you and they

[1:52:04] fill it out. And >> I guess the point that Susie is trying

[1:52:06] to illuminate is that if there's a demand for something, there's a

[1:52:09] willingness for us to review whether or not it could become something that we

[1:52:13] would sponsor on behalf of of that vendor who's producing that

[1:52:16] » that sport or activity. Uh I think we've gone vacasillated between like paint,

[1:52:23] what do they call them? Like >> we had art and flow.

[1:52:25] » Yeah, art and flow. Right. So there and and

[1:52:28] » sometimes those aren't um maybe uh economical for the vendor itself. So

[1:52:34] you'll see those kind of eb and flow as as demand is there. So if there's a

[1:52:37] demand for something and there's an opportunity for us to co-create an an

[1:52:42] activity, you'll see us jump in. >> Okay.

[1:52:45] » Any other questions? I I had one I noticed a couple of the

[1:52:49] master plans listed, but I thought I heard earlier tonight that our sewer

[1:52:52] master plan might be coming due. >> Yeah, that um is definitely one we

[1:52:57] probably need to look at uh as well. Um I need to work with the department on

[1:53:01] whether or not that's something we'll try to achieve this next year or if

[1:53:04] it'll be something that we look at for >> fiscal 28.

[1:53:08] » 27. >> 27. Thank you.

[1:53:11] » All right. Uh Lisa, did you have anything else like calendar or anything

[1:53:15] else to go? Just want to make sure I I'll reiterate again that you have a

[1:53:18] financial report in your packet that came from me. And if you don't have it,

[1:53:22] I'm I printed some I think they're on my desk.

[1:53:26] » Did you email it to us? >> It was in the packet. So it was under

[1:53:29] the administ city of >> tonight's council meeting packet. It was

[1:53:33] there. >> Yeah.

[1:53:34] » Yeah. >> And at the bottom of that financial

[1:53:37] report, something that hasn't been done since I started is giving you your um

[1:53:42] fund balance information. And that h is a, you know, a big for me it's a big

[1:53:48] deal because you've given you gave me a city to manage and I've been managing it

[1:53:52] financially blind for the last two years. And so it's exciting to get to

[1:53:56] the point where we actually have good numbers on where we sit in all of our

[1:53:59] funds. So I'm happy to answer any questions relative to that, but I want

[1:54:02] to make sure you know that it is a little different than you've received in

[1:54:05] the past. And if you need me, I can go grab one.

[1:54:07] » So that fund balance is accurate now. It's as accurate as we could get for

[1:54:12] December 31st of 2025. And you know, >> talking with finance, it's always scary

[1:54:18] when we give you a number because you think that that number, you know, is the

[1:54:21] number it'll be next month and things eb and flow and change because we're we run

[1:54:26] uh with a city usually run 60 to 90 days in the rears. So, you're still cleaning

[1:54:30] up and and the way our books have been since I started here, we're still even

[1:54:35] um changing things from the previous the fiscal year that's still open. So, not

[1:54:40] so much in 25, but in the other years for sure.

[1:54:44] » That's scary. >> Does anybody want one? I If you don't

[1:54:45] have one, I get it. >> Tell me.

[1:54:47] » Well, it's on it's it's on page two if you guys open up the administrator

[1:54:51] report. >> See it?

[1:54:52] » Okay. All right. Any other questions for Lisa? All right. All right, we're going

[1:54:57] to move on to reports for mayor counsel. Um, I had something for this. Uh, each

[1:55:02] council member has and mayor has served on u different boards in the area. And

[1:55:10] so I guess I'm just asking council if you want to email me later or tell me

[1:55:13] now. Are there any boards that you'd like to try out something different? Do

[1:55:17] you want to shake things up? Do you want to keep uh consistent with what you've

[1:55:21] been on? >> I'm fine where I am. I'm cool being in

[1:55:26] Campio. >> Okay, Matt, any thoughts?

[1:55:31] » Um, I I have a term on urban renewal that I

[1:55:36] think I have another three years ahead. >> So, I like I like being part of that.

[1:55:42] And uh as far as the uh AARBs, um I I I' I'd like to continue on Harb.

[1:55:50] So, >> Sure. And knock on wood, it'll be into

[1:55:52] life here. That's what we're hoping.

[1:55:55] » All right. Very good. >> Mayor, the only other one that wouldn't

[1:56:00] uh maybe Councilman Ericen doesn't know about would be the airport board that

[1:56:04] » I was going to discuss that with him. >> I'm happy to pick up where Sandy left

[1:56:08] off. >> Well, and I had another option to throw

[1:56:10] at you. So, I figured is is that something I can do offline?

[1:56:14] » You can talk to them about boards offline.

[1:56:16] » Okay. Thank you. >> I just didn't we didn't talk about that

[1:56:18] one as specific. So, >> that's true. That is true. All right.

[1:56:20] Very good. Um, so are there any requests for future agenda items by council at

[1:56:25] this moment? Ed? >> Yeah. Um, I don't know if I brought this

[1:56:28] up before, but I've noticed that um, Commissioner Matari uses the uh, I keep

[1:56:37] calling it the courthouse, the county building for uh, to have his community

[1:56:41] or town hall meetings. and I' I'd like to put it on for future discussion is

[1:56:47] the ability to possibly use this room uh for community meetings.

[1:56:51] » I'm having one at the library uh next week, I guess it is. And I I I

[1:56:57] I'm trying to understand why it seems the commissioner can use the county

[1:57:02] building there. Um, I don't know what the logistics or dynamics of whatever of

[1:57:06] it are, but I I I think this would serve as a much more professional centralized

[1:57:11] location for people. Um, you know, close everything up, you know, if we have to

[1:57:17] alarm something. I can't see how difficult it could be, but I I'd like to

[1:57:20] have that for a future discussion. >> Okay, we put that on the agenda in the

[1:57:24] future. >> So, for clarification, it would be um a

[1:57:28] discussion regarding any elected than utilizing space for town hall. Not just

[1:57:34] youth, but >> no, anybody. Yeah,

[1:57:35] » it would be anybody. >> Well, any elected.

[1:57:38] » Well, they could they could restrain it to elected, but yes, let's be real clear

[1:57:43] on what the action item is or what the discussion item is.

[1:57:47] » Any Hayden elected using chambers for

[1:57:52] » but I don't know that it can then be restricted to

[1:57:56] uh just electeds. It might have to be appointed. It might have to be

[1:58:00] commission members. This is a bigger issue and just because it's being done

[1:58:03] at the county doesn't mean it's correct. >> Well, I'm not that's why we need to have

[1:58:07] the discussion. >> Yeah, you could open up a can of worms.

[1:58:09] You don't mean to accidentally. >> Well, I just we'll have that discussion.

[1:58:12] I guess it's just the time to have it. >> But to the extent that you're asking me

[1:58:16] to provide a legal opinion regarding whether or not it's appropriate for

[1:58:20] electeds to use the public space for private town hall meetings, that is

[1:58:24] privileged information. that is not appropriate for a public discussion

[1:58:27] unless the council takes a vote to release that privileged analysis to the

[1:58:32] public. So this is a bigger issue than just having a conversation about it.

[1:58:38] » You lost me. I'll be honest. >> Do you want do you want sack to produce

[1:58:41] an opinion on the use of a public space city hall for private use by electeds?

[1:58:47] That would be to be given to you as a privileged community. I think that's

[1:58:52] maybe more or less where we should start than having a conversation where it's

[1:58:59] » what is the privileged communication that we're talking about?

[1:59:02] » Any legal opinion I provide to you is a privileged between you. Yeah.

[1:59:06] » Not not what I might discuss in my community meeting. Think about what

[1:59:10] you're discussing. >> Okay. Yeah.

[1:59:11] » So, if you're asking for a legal opinion on the appropriateness of the use of

[1:59:15] this space, that would be a privileged communication.

[1:59:17] » Would that be like an executive session thing

[1:59:19] » to you? You could review it. It would be in writing, but you can't disclose that

[1:59:25] to the public without a vote of counsel. Attorney client privileged

[1:59:29] communications are held by law by the client. You are all the client. Okay.

[1:59:35] » So, it requires all of you to take a vote then whether or not you're going to

[1:59:39] discuss that opinion in public. >> Wow. Okay.

[1:59:43] » Yeah, that's fine. >> Does that sound reasonable, council?

[1:59:46] » Yeah, let's do that as soon as possible. >> Yeah.

[1:59:49] » Okay. Yeah. Are there any details that council would

[1:59:55] appreciate uh legal counsel providing upfront in that analysis?

[2:00:00] » You're you're going to get a written legal opinion from

[2:00:04] » something tells me. >> Okay. All right. Fair enough.

[2:00:07] » Because what it has to outline is the obligation by the city entirely then of

[2:00:14] if you were to go in one direction or the other, who would be entitled to have

[2:00:19] the same level of access? Okay. All right. Thank you. Are there any other

[2:00:24] requests for future agenda items? >> Yeah, I Mr. Mayor, I'm going to

[2:00:28] pontificate a little bit here. I did briefly broach Lisa about this right

[2:00:33] before tonight's meeting, but I've heard a couple questions that make me think

[2:00:38] that maybe this is an important thing. The city spends money doing studies.

[2:00:44] This city spends money with engineering firms supporting the work that the city

[2:00:48] does. And those efforts coincide with obligations

[2:00:55] the city has in terms of like a five-year master plan on this or a

[2:01:01] 20-year master plan on that. I heard you bring up the sewer master plan and I

[2:01:07] think back on my private industry experience where we were endeavoring to

[2:01:12] go into a large scale pro multi-million dollar project and the project manager

[2:01:17] will put together what's called a Gant chart which shows all the dependencies

[2:01:22] and I'm wondering if the council feels it would be important so that we have

[2:01:27] the big picture of what of what is happening and where we are in the

[2:01:32] timeline of like seeing a large Gant chart of all these different studies

[2:01:38] that we do, how the money that the city is being spent, where it goes to support

[2:01:44] what master plan so that we have a we can at

[2:01:49] least we're we're better equipped in terms of knowledge for responding to um

[2:01:56] uh constituent questions. Uh, and does does anybody else feel like that's

[2:02:02] something that would help our do our jobs better up here in the DAS?

[2:02:08] » Did I explain myself? >> Life cycle. You want the life cycle of

[2:02:11] the planning efforts when the last one was approved and when the next one would

[2:02:15] be slated in what year to be reviewed? >> Yeah. Well, not only that, but the city

[2:02:20] spends a substantial amount of money to a couple different engineering firms

[2:02:26] in support of the work that it does as well as we spend a fair amount of money

[2:02:32] on studies. I sometimes I get lost in the weeds

[2:02:37] seeing where the how that money is spent and where it provides fruit down the

[2:02:41] road. >> So, just some sort of like infographic.

[2:02:46] Yeah, I don't want

[2:02:48] » I have is right now just thinking it out is you'd almost have to do it by fund.

[2:02:52] » You what? >> By fund

[2:02:54] » because each fund that we pay for these out of has um

[2:02:59] » is this too complicated a thing to ask for?

[2:03:02] Well, I think it's worth having a conversation offline about ways that I

[2:03:07] can support what you're looking for. And if you feel in that learning opportunity

[2:03:11] that it would be good to share with not only the other council members but also

[2:03:15] the public, we can have that conversation.

[2:03:17] » Okay. >> I I think the other thing that would be

[2:03:19] fruitful out of that conversation, thinking of new council members, is is

[2:03:24] what plans are they inheriting that are already adopted as a new council member?

[2:03:30] And and are those plans are they going to have any say I'm looking at council

[2:03:33] member Ericson at this point having any say in the redevelopment or updating of

[2:03:38] any of those plans while they're here or are they stuck with them?

[2:03:42] » Because I think that's really also what you're looking at.

[2:03:45] » Yep. >> Yep.

[2:03:47] I don't I don't I don't know if this is in particular what you're talking about

[2:03:51] specifically, but it sounds like, you know, we have certain things that

[2:03:57] come up and we say, "Okay, we need to do a study on it and an individ like an

[2:04:02] individual topic that might not be related to a sewer plan or this or that

[2:04:06] plan." And we have one of those coming up uh type situations. And when we have

[2:04:12] those and I know that in particular there are some who rail why you why are

[2:04:18] you doing that you know and and I don't know whether uh you know that can be is

[2:04:25] part of where you're going you know why why are we doing these you know not

[2:04:29] specifically related to the sewer or to this or to that but in particular this

[2:04:33] law enforcement we have a RFP or whatever out you know some people don't

[2:04:39] want us to do you know, how do how do you explain it?

[2:04:43] And you know, in your Gant chart, you talk about including

[2:04:46] » but the only thing I worry about a Gant chart is that it's it's going to be

[2:04:49] specific to a funding source when we have what 14 funds or something like

[2:04:55] that. So, >> and some of these and these studies are

[2:04:58] paid for out of a variety of different funds. So, it's not like general fund

[2:05:01] dollars all the time to pay for a study. Most of the time it's not. Case in

[2:05:05] point, the approval tonight to submit the grant application and the funding

[2:05:09] support for the Honeysuckle Beach comes out of a different fund and that memo is

[2:05:14] supposed to give you guys clarity about where those funds are coming from so

[2:05:17] that you can track those in in reverse. Now, that said, I'm not saying that we

[2:05:21] can do a summary level by fund of active contracts like like you're not going to

[2:05:27] make me go back or you don't want me necessarily to go back and pull up the

[2:05:30] contracts that we completed last year. So that' be like the HURA expansion.

[2:05:34] That one's done. And unless I'm hearing otherwise, we would just look at active

[2:05:38] ones based on fund. >> I'm content if it's okay with the rest

[2:05:44] of the council that I meet with you one on- one to see if this is even feasible

[2:05:49] or not because the first thing I don't want to add a burden to the staff

[2:05:53] already. But it I'm I'd like to explore the idea of whether or not we could see

[2:05:58] sort of a big picture of >> I think it's a it's a good exercise. I

[2:06:01] don't have any problems doing it. It would take some time.

[2:06:03] » Is that all right with you guys? >> Yeah.

[2:06:07] » So, Tom, there's two things I thought of. One,

[2:06:10] having something for each of the major projects like law enforcement or sewer

[2:06:15] upgrades or whatever is good. The flip side of that is I think we could

[2:06:21] accidentally go crazy with our demands on staff for the dialing in the correct

[2:06:25] level of detail because as a guy that's worked a lot of Gant charts,

[2:06:29] » you can get crazy. I I don't know that necessarily by fun, but more by what are

[2:06:33] we trying to accomplish and then just tying the different funds in. But even

[2:06:36] that again could drive you guys crazy trying to be like

[2:06:40] » use a Gant chart just because of the level of confusion that can come with

[2:06:42] that. >> I'm amazed that you all are dwelling on

[2:06:44] the phrase Gant chart. So I just brought that up as an example.

[2:06:48] » I don't know if you know this, but I worked for an engineering firm for 10

[2:06:50] years, so I know what they are. But my point is is I think we can give some

[2:06:53] summary level information relative to our larger grant or larger contracts for

[2:06:58] larger projects if you're interested. and I'm a certified PMP, so I get nerd

[2:07:03] out on you on Gant charts. >> Little did you know.

[2:07:08] » All right, we're gonna move on. Uh, our next agenda item is an executive session

[2:07:12] and move uh into executive session uh supporting Idaho code 742061F.

[2:07:19] And we need a motion to go into executive session.

[2:07:23] I make a motion that we go into executive session based on IDO code

[2:07:27] 74-2061.

[2:07:31] » Second. >> Motion a second. And may we get a roll

[2:07:33] call vote, please? >> Council member Erikson.

[2:07:36] » Yes. >> Council member Schaefer.

[2:07:37] » Yes. >> Council member Rotor.

[2:07:39] » Yes. >> Council President uh Depri.

[2:07:42] » Yes. >> Okay. To the public, uh, safe drive home

[2:07:45] while we go into executive session. And let's, uh, take a fivem minute break.

[2:07:49] » We do have one action item. public action item after executives.

[2:07:53] » Yes, we do.

Hayden City Council Meeting 2026-01-13

Transcript