[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.