[0:56] Yeah. So, we'll go ahead and call the
meeting to order. Uh, we'll start with
[1:00] the pledge of allegiance. Rick, would
you mind leading us in the pledge?
[1:07] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[1:13] republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:19] justice for all.
>> Thank you, Rick.
[1:27] » Lan, if you could take the role, please.
>> Hodkin,
[1:30] » present. Ken Owens,
>> here.
[1:34] Matthew Shore
>> present.
[1:36] » Mary Sanders
>> here. Laura
[1:38] » present.
>> Excellent. Uh item four, amendments to
[1:42] the agenda and declaration of conflict
exparte contacts and site visits.
[1:49] None here.
[1:53] Just like that, we're on number five. Uh
action item. This is the consent
[1:57] calendar approval. We live.
>> Mayor and council. Before you on the
[2:01] consent calendar is the regular council
minutes of July 22nd, 2026, the regular
[2:06] and special bills as presented in the
packet and the acceptance of
[2:10] infrastructure and utility easement for
the Westwood apartment.
[2:16] » Council, any questions?
[2:21] » How about a motion?
>> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion
[2:23] that we approve the consent calendar as
read.
[2:27] » Made a second.
>> Second. Ken seconded
[2:31] and Loran if you take the role.
>> Larry Sanders.
[2:34] » Yes.
>> Ken Owens.
[2:35] » Yes.
>> Laura F.
[2:37] » Hi.
>> Matthew.
[2:39] » Yes. Right. Consent calendar approved.
Uh visitor comments. An opportunity to
[2:44] address concerns. No formal action
allowed. 3minut time limit per issue.
[2:48] Issues may be placed on a subsequent
agenda. Uh as a reminder, no public
[2:53] comments may be made on land use items.
Land use items include any item relating
[2:57] to a specific land use application or
process that is governed by state code.
[3:05] Is there anybody that would like to Yes,
sir.
[3:17] » My my concern is mainly the water.
>> Oh, sorry, sir. Would you mind stating
[3:21] your name and address for the
>> Oh, I'm sorry. Bob Granger. I live at
[3:24] 14592 North Parkway Street, Rather.
>> Thank you, Bob.
[3:29] » Uh, I purchased my home in 1978.
We raised two children. Until recently,
[3:35] I've never had any low water pressure
until recently.
[3:39] And now in the mornings, my water
pressure is probably half or less than
[3:44] what it normally is.
and
[3:48] loss of pressure is a direct result of
this city council rubber stamping every
[3:52] development plan across their desk.
Approvals are granted without any
[3:57] consideration to our infrastructure.
And a question I have, can anyone here
[4:02] tell me how many homes or apartments
have been approved that have not been
[4:07] built yet? Does anybody have a number
for that?
[4:14] Typically, we don't question an answer
during this time, but if Laura is
[4:17] willing to answer,
>> uh, including single family homes
[4:24] and apartments and,
uh, duplexes,
[4:30] it's around 1,500.
>> Okay, we've already got a low water
[4:34] pressure and these homes haven't been
built. What's going to happen to our
[4:38] water pressure when they get built? I'm
real concerned about that.
[4:43] Uh,
and I don't believe that approving more
[4:48] buildings is going to improve that water
system. The aquifer is a finite source
[4:53] and is already had been taxed to the
max. Everybody in the area, every city
[4:57] around here uses it and, you know, it's
going to run out. I mean, we're we're
[5:02] going to have no water at all.
My suggestion is a moratorium on any new
[5:07] construction if the solutions to the
existing problem is rectified. Council
[5:11] needs to start doing the job they were
elected to do. Looking out for the
[5:14] residents of Rather and not the rich
developers,
[5:23] you know, and and what's next?
Overcrowded schools or septic system at
[5:27] a cost of millions of dollars? We
already have residents whose homes are
[5:31] paid for but fear losing them due to
increased taxes. We need solutions to
[5:35] our overburdened infrastructures, not
more construction. Put your personal
[5:40] agendas aside and do the job you elected
to do. Start looking out for the
[5:44] residents of Rafter. Thank you.
>> Thank you, B.
[5:50] » Is there anyone else?
[6:00] Hi, my name is Michelle Fuljam. Um, I
reside in Spokane. Uh, but I'm a land
[6:05] use attorney and I practice here in
Cland in Coupney County for 34 years. My
[6:11] land use practice, I represent
developers, neighbors, property rights
[6:16] groups, HOAs. I've represented cities. I
was the legal counsel for the Coupney
[6:22] County Board of Commissioners doing
their land use litigation. I have a
[6:26] variety of perspectives on land use law
over the past three decades. I'm here on
[6:31] behalf of my client Hayden Holmes to
assert two legal objections to the
[6:35] proposed moratorum. The first legal
objection is that it's a violation of
[6:39] Idaho code 67-6523.
[6:44] Raft's moratorium would be void and
uninforcable for failure to meet the
[6:49] required showing of imminent peril.
Idaho code 67-6523
[6:56] governs the authority of local
governments to impose development
[6:59] moratoriums, but it's required to show
and factually support imminent peril to
[7:07] the public health, safety, and welfare.
Typically that imminent peril is shown
[7:13] through with Hower Lake, with Spirit
Lake, with those moratoriums. It was
[7:19] DEEQ findings of contaminated water in
the lake, pollution, runoff, untreated
[7:27] site disturbance um from imperous
surfaces were contaminating the lake.
[7:32] And that EQ scientific finding is what
was the basis. Same with the really
[7:36] famous Sierra Tahoe case. Lake Tahoe was
polluted. The contaminants were tested
[7:42] and the untreated development runoff, no
storm water mitigation was causing
[7:46] imminent peril to the health, safety,
welfare of the citizens due to the lake
[7:50] contaminants. We don't have that here.
We don't have anything like that
[7:54] scientific showing. Um the JUB analysis
has shown reasonable alternative um
[8:02] options for your water supply, your
water storage issues. Additional tank
[8:06] storage, additional well supply. Your
own city engineer has indicated
[8:11] conservation is a method. You have all
these other tools for water supply
[8:16] issues being resolved before you jump to
moratorum. So a moratorium would be
[8:21] unlawful because of a lack of imminent
peril. That gives rise to the second
[8:26] objections a regulatory taking which
would require compensation.
[8:31] Government regulation that deprivives a
property owner of all or of
[8:35] substantially all economically
beneficial use constitutes a taking and
[8:42] it requires compensation. And that's
what would happen here is that the
[8:46] property owners would deprived of
economically beneficial use of their
[8:51] development land and the city would owe
compensation. Thank you.
[8:57] » Thank you, Michelle.
[9:10] Hello, my name is Joe Nunu and I live
over in Radiant Lake
[9:17] and um [snorts] I noticed the water
pressure dropping.
[9:23] I have sprinkler heads across my 7500T
lawn and I've seen those sprinkler heads
[9:30] not pop up.
Okay, this has been going on.
[9:37] I monitor the water.
I've worked I was a former BP of the
[9:43] Radiant Lake HOA Association.
I also had projects to
[9:51] reclaim sand. So, I'm not a
lawyer.
[9:58] I don't speak mumbo jumbo.
I'm talking to you directly.
[10:04] The water pressure is low
and uh
[10:10] you've got to really take a look at
everything.
[10:14] I used to live in California
and uh and I'm familiar with Lake Tahoe
[10:22] and they have problems in Lake Tahoe
keeping that water clean, that lake
[10:26] clean. It's an overgrowth. It's overpop
populating. I no longer vacation over
[10:32] there. So, uh, that's all I have to say
and thank you for your attention.
[10:36] » Thank you, Joe. Joe, can I just ask a
quick question? Has the city been out to
[10:40] measure the water pressure at your
property?
[10:44] » Uh, no. But, uh, I can tell from the
sprinkler heads that pop [clears throat]
[10:49] up around the neighborhood, they're not
popping up as high as they used to. And,
[10:54] uh,
that's all I have to say.
[10:57] » Yeah. And I'll I'll I'll we'll talk more
later during our topic on this, but
[11:01] thank you so much for your feedback.
Yes, ma'am.
[11:10] » My name is Chris Paulus. I've been here
since 1977
[11:16] and um I don't have any personal water
issues. However,
[11:23] what do you all think is going to happen
when you keep building
[11:27] and building and building and building
and taxpayer is now paying for all the
[11:33] extra roads, the extra schools, the
extra everything for all the people that
[11:39] have increased our area 50%. in five
years.
[11:46] So the other lady I I agree with the
first person that was up here,
[11:51] everything he said. And the other lady
said, "Well, we could always just uh
[11:58] um cut back on our water use." And I'm
thinking, you know, I've been here a
[12:04] long time
and why should I suffer?
[12:08] because somebody else needs to make a
whole lot of money and they're not
[12:13] paying attention to my needs.
So, I guess uh just as a person who's
[12:21] been here a long time, I think you all
need to think about
[12:26] the excessive building we're going
through. The traffic is terrible. It's
[12:31] frustrating.
So, that's all I have to say.
[12:35] » Thank you, Chris.
[12:40] Sir. Yes, ma'am.
[12:46] » My name is Jessica Cargle. I live on
Windshine Court in Rath here. Do you
[12:50] want my actual address?
>> No, that's fine.
[12:52] » Okay. Um, I'm also the president of the
North Idaho Building Contract
[12:55] Association. So, I know I'm the bad guy
in the room for a lot of you people. Um,
[12:59] but I just want to speak to the idea of
the greedy developer. Um because the
[13:04] reality is that a lot of the
improvements, the roads and the schools
[13:07] and things that you guys see built being
built are on the dime of the developer
[13:11] these days. Um impact fees are driving
the prices of housing up. And I'm the
[13:16] mother of two adult children who grew up
here, went to Lakeland schools who
[13:20] cannot afford a home here. So I
understand infrastructure issues.
[13:23] Obviously from the building side, we
definitely understand infrastructure
[13:26] issues. Um we would like to see
solutions to those. One of the questions
[13:31] we have is since 2020, since this growth
started, what has been done by the city
[13:35] to prepare for where we are today? And I
think part of what we're dealing with is
[13:39] a lack of preparation that we can maybe
look forward to do a better job in that.
[13:43] Um, if it's not imminent peril, then
possibly this is a targeted solution
[13:48] type of a a need where we look at the
specific areas and specific ways that we
[13:53] can address those issues. I know
everybody
[13:57] here doesn't like the prairie being
filled in, but the reality is our local
[14:01] economy, if we constrain the building
supply, it's it's basic supply and
[14:05] demand. We constrain the supply, the
demand grows higher. We're not stopping
[14:09] people from coming into this area. We're
not stopping people from wanting to live
[14:12] here. What we are doing is pricing out
our local young families from being able
[14:16] to stay where they grew up. And that is
what we advocate for on the building
[14:21] side. We're not greedy. I if we could
sit down any day and talk numbers about
[14:26] what actually goes into what is
developed and how much the public
[14:29] benefits from what the developers do on
their dime by the requirement of the
[14:33] city. Great. We're a community. It's
growing. Understood. But
[14:38] we the anti-growth mentality of just
building is bad is pricing our local
[14:44] young people out of of the dream of home
ownership. And that is something we
[14:48] advocate for. So I would like you to
just consider that in your decisions
[14:51] today that a moratorium may not be the
answer that targeted solutions may be
[14:56] the answer to fix the infrastructure
issues. But there are people who would
[15:00] like to have their kids stay here and be
able to afford a home. And the more cost
[15:03] we apply to the requirements to build
and the more we constrain the supply,
[15:09] the harder it's going to be for our
young people to afford to stay in their
[15:12] hometown.
>> Thank you.
[15:15] » Thank you. Anyone
[15:23] else? Rick.
[15:27] » Thank you. Thank you, mayor. My name is
Rick Fine and I reside in Brookshshire.
[15:32] I'm the HOA president there. Uh, couple
concerns.
[15:37] I'm not going to beat the dead horse
about the water pressure. I'm working on
[15:41] our end where we're having problems with
it. I will get Kevin a report so he
[15:46] knows exactly which zones we have that
aren't even coming up. Going back to
[15:53] uh issues continuously with the water.
If the we're we're blaming this person
[16:01] or we're blaming the developer,
but we should be looking at that side
[16:07] because the builder is the one who comes
up with the plans. And if they stop
[16:12] building all these greenways,
that would save a third of the water.
[16:18] A third. And I'm having problems with
keeping my grass green. And then I get a
[16:24] letter saying, "Your grass is brown."
Well,
[16:29] I just showed Leon the school property
that's over 8 ft tall against our fence.
[16:38] And if it catches on fire, it's going to
go through the whole neighborhood. What
[16:43] they told you about it was cut today,
they out and out lied to you. So you
[16:48] need to take your authority and go
downstairs and say, "You lied to me. Fix
[16:54] the problem. The school is responsible
for that lot. Get them to responsible to
[16:59] do it." This one is on Meer. Every time
I put in a slip, they tell me that the
[17:09] developer needs to finish the whole
development before they'll do it.
[17:16] It's Hayden Holmes. It's Dom Holmes.
It's Architect Holmes. Who's the one
[17:21] that's finally going to put it in?
I brought this to Leon's attention two
[17:27] weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago, that
there was a cement truck dumping slurry
[17:34] against this.
[17:38] Did anything ever get corrected on that?
No, because there was another truck 2
[17:42] days ago. And until the city council
gets on them and starts firing people
[17:49] because they're not doing their job,
we're going to continue to have
[17:52] problems.
Thank you.
[17:55] » Thanks, Rick.
[17:58] » Is there anyone else that would like to
comment?
[18:05] » All right. In that case, we'll move on
to item number seven, old business. This
[18:10] is an action item. Consideration of
adopting of findings of imminent peril
[18:15] related to water system pressure
concerns for an emergency moratorum
[18:19] ordinance.
>> Mr. Mayor and council, before you on
[18:23] that uh is that item for imminent peril?
There was a question that uh was not
[18:29] able to be answered in time for uh
council. I got a comments out at 3:00,
[18:36] but most of the council has not had an
opportunity to look at that. I kind of
[18:40] wanted to go through that real quick to
help address some of the questions that
[18:44] came up. Um, first of all, there in my
memo that is on the front of this, it
[18:50] talks about the uh water pressure
complaints and work orders that we
[18:54] received since June of 2022.
There's been 39 work orders over the
[19:00] four years. Um,
>> sorry, Leon, just just so I understand.
[19:04] So, so of all of the complaints that
we've gotten online, only 39 people have
[19:10] actually come to the city and said, "I
have a problem. Come measure at my
[19:12] house." Is that what that is?
>> Okay. So, 39 people in Rather have said,
[19:16] "I have a problem. Come read my water
pressure."
[19:19] » That's correct.
>> Thank you.
[19:22] » Um, there was only one reading with less
than 40 PSI.
[19:27] This reading was determined to be a leak
on Washington Street and the property
[19:31] owner had has repaired that leak. Um,
the rest of them were over 40 PSI. I
[19:38] also broke it down by 10 PSI points for
each one of them. How many were in
[19:44] there? Seven from the 40 to 49, 5 to 50
to 59, 7 to 69, 5 70 to 79, 7 80 to 89,
[19:55] and 6 90 plus PSI with one of them just
stating that the pressure was good.
[20:00] » And sorry, Liam, my my eyes are
horrible. Um, and I'm not sure if the
[20:05] folks that are here can see this.
>> Thank you so much.
[20:13] » All [snorts] right. Trying to get that
bigger.
[20:16] » Okay. Um, so that was the extent of the
pressure readings. Another question is,
[20:22] has it been getting worse? Um, in 2022
we had 10. In 2023 we or sorry, in 2022
[20:29] we had two. In 2023 we had 10. In 2024
we had 11. 2025 we had 11. And in 2026
[20:38] we had five. The other part of the
question was is it seasonal or when does
[20:44] it happen? Uh so I also group this by
complaints by month. So the complaint
[20:50] was received in January. It's listed
here as those numbers. So in January we
[20:54] had three, February we had four, March
we had three, April we had three, May we
[21:01] had five, June we had 10, July we had
seven, August 2, September zero, October
[21:08] 2, November zero and December zero. Um
there I was surprised at the number that
[21:17] came in the January and February and
March time frame cuz uh uh irrigation
[21:22] hasn't started yet but irrigation does
start up in April, May, June, July and
[21:28] August. So you see a higher number of
those complaints in the May, June and
[21:33] July time frame.
>> Leon, sorry. Are those are those more
[21:36] recent Chris?
I believe that's the entire this is the
[21:42] entire fouryear period.
>> Okay. So So we don't have the data here
[21:46] to say those January, February, March if
they're newer or older.
[21:50] » Yeah, we do. All of the documentation
that supports these numbers are in this
[21:53] packet.
>> Okay.
[21:57] » Yeah, I tried to I got this this morning
[clears throat] and tried to put this
[22:02] together today. So
um we also have pressure logs. So in
[22:06] 2026, we got the pressure loggers. Um
those pressure loggers, whenever we get
[22:12] a complaint, we put them next to a fire
hydrant next to the complaint so we can
[22:15] see what the pressure is doing uh in
that area. Um there is a base pressure
[22:23] uh reading of 13 PSI. So you have to
subtract the 13 from every pressure
[22:28] reading as you go through. These in demo
[clears throat] are net. So, I've
[22:33] already subtracted the 13 PSI.
On page one, we had a pressure reading
[22:38] on March 6th. Um, pointing out that we
only did one day testing because of
[22:43] freezing concerns. If it freezes
overnight, it will ruin our machine. Um,
[22:48] the lowest red pressure was 71 PSI
during that time frame. On page two,
[22:55] there's a Thisman and Railway on March
6. Same reasoning why it was in hunger.
[23:01] Uh the lowest pressure reading was 41
PSI during this time frame. On page
[23:07] three is trestle and Voyager. Um the
lowest pressure reading on that on April
[23:13] 14th to 15th was 67 PSI during the time
frame. On Brookshshire and Railway April
[23:20] 22nd to 20 21st to 22nd the lowest
reading was 40 PSI during the time
[23:26] frame. on Trestle and Voyager from April
21st to 22nd the lowest reading was 54
[23:33] PSI.
on thyman and railway on May 20th to
[23:39] 21st. The lowest reading was 34 PSI
during this time frame. The length of
[23:44] the time that it was below 40 PSI was
approximately sorry that zoomed it out
[23:50] 24 minutes.
Uh on
[23:54] Thyman and Railway on May 22nd to May
26, the lowest region was 37 PSI. The
[24:01] length of time it was below 40 PSI is
approximately 2 hours from 3:30 a.m. to
[24:07] 5:30 a.m. On Simmons Street on June 16th
through June 17th, the lowest reading
[24:13] was 43 PSI. And on Farley Way, July 23rd
through July 24th, we had the lowest
[24:21] reading was 20 PSI during this time
frame. Um, and it was approximately 3
[24:28] hours from 4:15 to 7:15 a.m.
Um, we also have in the data in this
[24:36] memo, uh, questions about well pressure.
So, in the sheets that we have, uh,
[24:42] which I can pull up if needed, we have
three wells reported on here. Red,
[24:47] yellow, and white represent those three
wells. The lowest well pressure was
[24:52] approximately 40 PSI on
August 10th at 440 to 4 uh 530 at one
[25:00] well. The other low well pressure was on
the same well and that was approximately
[25:05] 45 PSI on August 11th from 440 to 610 at
one well. All other wells stayed above
[25:13] 50 PSI pressure from August 9th through
August 11th. Our storage measurements at
[25:20] our water tower on Rather Mountain,
we saw a decrease of six feet
[25:26] approximately between 3:40 p.m. and 8:40
p.m. on the 9th and the 10th. We saw a
[25:34] decrease of 16 ft from 2:45 to 7:00 a.m.
on the 10th. And we saw a storage
[25:40] decrease of 15 ft decrease from 2:45 to
7 a.m. on the 11th. Every time there was
[25:47] a decrease, there was a recovery period
to fill up the storage each day. The
[25:52] lowest level was 14 ft of storage
capacity. The maximum capacity is 34 ft.
[25:58] I want to point out that each time that
it decreased, it reinccreased back to
[26:03] the 34 ft before it decreased again.
Corbin Crossing has a booster pack to
[26:10] help with pressure. So, in that booster
pack report, we saw a decrease of
[26:15] pressure, which is the green line on
that report, approximately 50 PSI August
[26:21] 11th from 4:00 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. During
the two days,
[26:26] um, the volume of water pushed through
that pack increased at August 10th at
[26:32] 8:00 p.m. and again on August 11th at
4:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Uh all of the
[26:40] documentation supporting those numbers
is included in the packet. Uh graphs,
[26:45] measurements, work orders, emails, um
are included in that packet. Um one of
[26:52] the things that we also noticed, uh
Chris and I both drove around the city
[26:56] between 4:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. On
Friday, Chris did it, and on Monday, I
[27:03] did it. The one of the things that I
noticed during this time frame, and
[27:07] you'll see also it corresponds with the
times that are listed here, is
[27:11] [clears throat] that between um 4:30 and
7:00, a majority of rather waters their
[27:17] yards. This is a major diversion of
water at a a very short time frame
[27:23] within our city. Um, so we have a lot of
irrigation issues. As a point of
[27:30] consideration,
as driving, both Chris and I noticed
[27:34] that on the corner of Majestic Avenue
and Maya Road at 4:30 in the morning,
[27:40] there was a puddle that went across the
road from the island all the way to the
[27:46] swell that covered the entire road.
We're not talking about wet road. We're
[27:50] talking about at least an inch of water
in that area. Um,
[27:56] which brings us to look at other things.
We took a look at our water usage for
[28:01] the city. Um, in June,
we noticed that we had, and I'll zoom in
[28:09] on this,
[28:15] we had our top 10 water users.
Uh the Birkshshire HOA in June was our
[28:22] highest user at 4,799,000
[28:26] uh gallons watering 9.5 acres of common
space. That's approximately 505,000
[28:34] gallons per acre.
Um the conservation method is 1 in of
[28:40] water per week per acre for the month.
If you were to put that in to
[28:47] Brookshshire's acreage, you would use
1,31,000
[28:52] gallons.
Uh, so that number is there for all of
[28:55] these others as well. The Golden Spikes
Estates, this is just their irrigation
[29:00] line. They used 5.8.
Sorry, that numbers I did not sort these
[29:06] numbers very well. That's a higher use
in the Brook Golden Spikes than the
[29:11] Brookshshire.
Um the Westwood Property Owners, which
[29:16] is the homeowners association on the
corner of Majestic and Meyer, they also
[29:22] do uh green space along the road as
well. So they have 3 meters. Those three
[29:28] meters totaled uh 2.2 million gallons of
water. The splash pad in June was 2.4
[29:37] million gallons. [clears throat]
That's for the kids. They press the
[29:39] button, the water turns on. Stubmer Park
was 1.8 million. Betty Kefir was
[29:46] 800,000. Shepherd of the Hills was
800,000. North Idaho College was 700.
[29:52] Gutney Electric was seven. And a Vista
irrigation was 689.
[29:58] Each one of those on the far end shows
what they would use if they had a 1 in
[30:02] of water per week, per acre for the
month. Um, and that shows you who's
[30:09] conserving and who's not conserving
water in their irrigation processes.
[30:14] Um, it's also important to notice that
there is no substantial benefit to
[30:20] watering your yard more than 10 minutes
per station.
[30:27] The reason for that is because our land
is very porous. When we did a water well
[30:32] test for Okay. Well, we were required to
dig a pit and put water in the pit and
[30:38] we had to see how long it would take to
drop back into the ground. That pit
[30:44] never filled
at four 3,000 gallons per minute. Chris,
[30:49] 3,000 gallons per minute into that pit
and it never filled.
[30:54] Um
also have a map of where those water
[30:59] users are
um in the top 10 for June. In July, the
[31:06] Brookshshire HOA used 5.7 million
gallons. The Golden Spikes Estates
[31:15] used 4 million gallons. The Splash Pad
used 2.2 million gallons. The Westwood
[31:21] Property Owners Association use 1.7,
Betty Kefir 1.7, North Idaho College
[31:27] 1.5, StubMer 1.2, Coupney Electric 1
million, Shepard of the Hills 900, and
[31:34] Keech at 873.
Um, the reason why we brought this up is
[31:40] as we drove around town, we noticed that
there was a lot of water running in the
[31:44] streets, down the sidewalks. Swells were
filled and not being absorbed into the
[31:49] ground.
uh obvious that where there is
[31:53] overwatering within our system. They
also correspond to the pressure times
[31:58] that we have loss of pressure um in the
data that is presented in the packet
[32:03] that I put together for you. Um
basically what we're seeing as far as
[32:09] evidence here is that our problem is
specific to the time frame when people
[32:14] water their lawns, not specific to the
development of houses. If we were to do
[32:20] some sort of conservation effort or
something to that effect and try to
[32:24] provide education to the public that
would do more benefit for the pressure
[32:30] of the city than doing a moratorum on
growth. Our moratorum also requires us
[32:37] to look at things that we can do to try
to uh fix the problem before actually
[32:44] doing a moratorum. And we have to state
what we did try and if we didn't try
[32:50] anything, why we didn't try anything.
Why would it not work? Okay. We also
[32:55] have uh
information from our city engineer and
[33:00] our public works director that have said
that we needed to do a water storage
[33:05] facility to help with pressure uh
alleviation.
[33:09] Now that pressure uh that water tower
[clears throat] we do have a possibility
[33:14] possibility of land that we can build
that water tower on. We have 100% of the
[33:19] dollars to build it to put water lines
in and to make it a functional piece of
[33:24] our infrastructure. We have collected
those dollars from every commercial and
[33:29] residential building permit for the last
10 plus years. Um that's why we have the
[33:34] money available to do that project. uh
planning and preparation. In the 10
[33:40] years that I've been here, Kevin has
always said we're going to need another
[33:43] water storage facility. The question is
is where? Where can we get it? We don't
[33:48] own land for it. So, we need to either
get land in an agreement with a property
[33:53] owner or we need to get land through an
annexation or we need to buy land, one
[33:58] of the three. And so, now we have an
opportunity for that as well. before you
[34:04] on this old business item is to talk
about findings. Um
[34:10] Emily has put together a council
moratorum findings worksheet if the
[34:16] council decides that they have findings.
I would recommend there are um
[34:22] essentially 11 different things that
have to be filled out on this council
[34:26] worksheet. If the council determines
that there is findings for eminent peril
[34:32] and that then I would highly suggest
taking a workshop time within the next
[34:38] week to fill this out and get it
prepared. It would not delay a public
[34:44] hearing or an ordinance in front of the
city council because we do not have time
[34:49] uh to have a 15-day notice prior to the
next council meeting. And taking a a day
[34:55] within the next week to do a workshop to
fill this out will only help us to get
[35:00] an ordinance ready to go to be submitted
for a public hearing on the first
[35:05] council meeting of September. The other
item that is before you today is if you
[35:10] don't
uh find findings of imminent peril. Then
[35:15] we do have an action item in new
business, the consideration of a
[35:20] resolution acknowledging preliminary
water concerns and directing staff. That
[35:25] resolution is in front of the council
today as well. So that there is
[35:30] something that can be done today. Uh it
does list things in that resolution that
[35:36] the city staff has already done and is
continuing to do as well as other items
[35:44] which we'll get to in when we come to
the resolution part. However, I would
[35:49] strongly recommend the council to
consider this. If you find that there is
[35:55] imminent peril, then I recommend that
you do not address the resolution
[36:01] because it would only weaken the
standings for imminent peril uh for your
[36:07] moratorum.
With that, I'll stand for any questions
[36:12] and uh other than that, then we'll allow
the council to deliberate on their
[36:16] decision.
[36:20] And and maybe I missed it in the the
packet [clears throat] that we received
[36:24] today. Did we did we hear back from the
fire department on the potential issues
[36:30] that they were having with the hydrant
by Dashco?
[36:34] » So I did hear back from him. So here's
what I immediately after our staff
[36:40] meeting on Tuesday reached out to Tyler
Dresco. He is the fire marshal for the
[36:45] Northern Lakes Fire District.
The initial response that he told me is
[36:49] he had no clue that anyone tried to fill
up in any one of the four agencies that
[36:55] attempted uh that were there in the
fire. Um filling up anywhere locating
[37:01] sorry filling up their units anywhere
other than the location of the fire. Uh
[37:10] he said that the fire dedicated and and
named a specific source for water. They
[37:16] were supposed to fill up during the fire
and after the fire. They should not ever
[37:22] leave a fire with an empty unit. Um, so
that's per their policies. Um, I told
[37:28] him that there was reports that somebody
tried to fill up at Dashco and somebody
[37:32] tried to fill up at Greens Fairy. He
said he would contact the other agencies
[37:36] and see if there was any report of any
low pressure. Per all policies in the
[37:42] fire departments, they are supposed to
report the any low water pressure within
[37:48] 24 hours to the fire marshall of the
jurisdiction that they filled up in. He
[37:53] received no reports back from any of the
fire agencies that helped on that fire.
[37:59] So he has nothing to back up the
comments that you had mentioned about
[38:03] filling up in other locations.
>> Yeah. And you know, again, all I have to
[38:07] go by is what I was told by the
firefighters that were on Greens Fairy
[38:10] Road. I I actually have a picture um of
them trying to fill up and and and just
[38:16] for public notification,
um they told me that they couldn't fill
[38:20] up a Dashco. There was a problem with
water pressure there. Um they moved out
[38:24] to Greens Ferry because they knew that
the hydrants were there. Um, and I asked
[38:28] them if they were having problems with
water pressure, at which point they
[38:31] reached down and they squeezed the hose
completely together. The fire hose
[38:35] looked like about a 4 inch hose. And
they said, "Yeah, we're having water
[38:39] pressure issues." Now, my understanding
is based on the staff meeting, those
[38:42] lines aren't supposed to be live.
They're not supposed to be filling up
[38:45] there. Is that is that correct?
>> That's correct.
[38:47] » Correct.
>> So, apparently we have not communicated
[38:50] with our first responders that those are
not hydrants that they're supposed to be
[38:53] using.
Well, that hasn't been accepted
[38:56] infrastructure by the city. Period.
>> But they're there and there's no there's
[38:59] no indication that they're not supposed
to be used.
[39:03] » Oh, there. Yes, you're correct. There is
no indication that they're not supposed
[39:07] to be used, but they shouldn't have been
water at that site at all. And somebody
[39:11] has a valve turned on that shouldn't
have been turned on.
[39:14] » Okay. And we've been able to track that
down at all.
[39:17] » I don't
turn that. Could that be impacting the
[39:22] greater system as well if we have valves
turned on that shouldn't be turned on?
[39:26] » Not if it's not supplying water.
>> I mean, water was coming out of the
[39:31] hose.
>> Yeah, there there was some residual
[39:33] issues when we had the uh shut down on
the 24 in through their farms and that
[39:39] may have been what was left over. It
could have been the residual from their
[39:42] pressure testing.
[39:46] And I mean my concern there as we're
discussing imminent peril is that the
[39:51] fire department doesn't know where
they're supposed to get water.
[39:53] » No. The fire department directed all
units to get water at the station by the
[39:59] fire. So they were directed basically
not to get water anywhere else.
[40:04] » Yeah. And whoever is supplying that
water, kudos. I mean I I was up there. I
[40:08] posted pictures of uh you know one of
our officers jumping in to help out. you
[40:12] know, we we pulled the line from the
truck, hooked it up to the hydrant,
[40:15] hooked the other end up to the truck,
and [clears throat] I mean, it it filled
[40:18] it like that. The that line was rock
hard. I actually stepped on it to kind
[40:22] of judge how, you know, how much
pressure was going through it. Um, so,
[40:26] you know, I know that's not in the city
of Rather, but kudos to that
[40:29] neighborhood. They've got great water
pressure.
[40:33] I'm I'm more concerned about the fact
that, you know, we have a and and maybe
[40:38] this is more of a fire department issue.
um and whoever the you know uh incident
[40:43] commander was for that um and that we
have trucks getting water from hydrants
[40:49] that are essentially turned off
>> and that they didn't they weren't aware
[40:53] of that
>> and they shouldn't have been there in
[40:56] the first place.
>> No.
[41:01] » Um loss of pressure times. Can you pull
up that chart, Leon?
[41:05] » I'm sorry. What? You said you had a
chart that showed the the times where we
[41:09] had lack of pressure where the pressure
dropped. I believe that's the the AM
[41:13] times that you were referenced.
>> Yes. So, let me get past the work orders
[41:18] here. Let me zoom out so that I can see
what's on the screen.
[41:37] So these are the pressure logs. Mayor,
[41:42] this one is the uh believe this is the
first one.
[41:49] Second, I've got a lot of papers.
[41:54] » Which page is that?
>> Getting there just a second. It's page
[41:57] 48 on the digital copy file. Uh
[42:04] this one
[42:08] » it's page two of the
[42:13] » pressure logs.
[42:17] » Is that what you're looking for? Just a
number.
[42:19] » No, I'm looking for the chart. Just
>> I'm I'm a visual person. [clears throat]
[42:24] » Here is the
the first one there up on the screen.
[42:30] I've zoomed it in.
>> Notice that the low pressure point right
[42:34] here is just below the 85 mark, but you
have to subtract 13 off of that, which
[42:40] would put it at about 72
in there, as I stated in the
[42:49] packet. As you can tell, it's hard to
read exactly where that is at. So, I
[42:53] made an estimate. I said 70 PSI on that
page.
[42:57] » All right. Sorry. Can you scroll down
just a little bit so I can see the
[43:00] reference line on the x- axis?
>> Okay. So, what
[43:05] and maybe this is a question for Chris.
What What are we looking at where
[43:09] there's a line very low and then it goes
up? Is that
[43:12] » And then at the end it drops again. What
What is that?
[43:15] » That's when I take it off the fire
hydrant.
[43:16] » Okay. Okay. So, that's when you're
putting it on and taking
[43:19] » because it's calibrated in the shop and
downloaded. You have your install and
[43:23] then you have when I take it off and
then go and download it.
[43:27] And they'll see on that uh before it
starts it's at approximately 13 PSI down
[43:34] at that bottom side. So that is the uh
subtraction
[43:39] number that needs to be done on that
>> and these are in March.
[43:43] » Yes.
>> Do we have any from July or August?
[43:47] » Let me go to the next one.
[43:51] » So this is also in March.
[43:59] And again, the low here I'm estimating
at 41 PSI.
[44:05] Trying to have it large and show you
everything at the same time. But
[44:09] » yeah, I appreciate that point.
>> It comes down just below the 55.
[44:16] Get a conservative estimate that that
would put it at about 41.
[44:22] Okay,
the next one. This one's even harder to
[44:27] read because it gets into a higher
pressure category.
[44:31] So, this one runs
at about 60 70 80. So, this line along
[44:40] here is 80 PSI, but you have to subtract
13 from that, which would get you to 77.
[44:48] » Or is that right? 80
>> 67
[44:51] » I said 67. Yeah, that's right. That's 13
minus or 80 - 13. Apologize,
[44:58] but it stayed that consistent pressure.
That's on trestle and Voyager.
[45:04] Uh that was in April on the 14th.
>> Okay. And that's that's at the hydrant.
[45:09] » Mhm.
>> Okay.
[45:11] » This is [clears throat] a
pressure reading. Let me scroll down
[45:16] here a little bit. Oops. Oops.
[45:25] This is a Brookshshire and Railway.
Your lowest point on this graph is right
[45:31] here at the very beginning of the
readings. This was over a longer period
[45:35] of time. Um, from May 21 to to April
22nd, I estimated that that was at about
[45:44] 44 PSI.
Um, as you can tell, it kind of goes up
[45:50] and down quite a bit throughout the day,
but never below the 40 PSI mark.
[45:58] Okay,
the next page,
[46:05] this is on Trestle and Voyager. Again,
this is in April on the 22nd.
[46:11] Again, the lowest point is right about
this point right here,
[46:16] which I'm estimating to be about 40 50
PSI
[46:21] based off of reading that graph.
[46:27] Here's another one.
This is on Thisman and Railway on May
[46:32] 21st.
The lowest point on this graph
[46:37] is right here.
And that
[46:42] on May 20. I'm just making sure I got
the right one. May 20th, May 21st.
[46:48] Um, I'm estimating that to be at about
45 or sorry, 34 PSI during this time
[46:55] frame. I also mentioned that it was at
approximately 24 minutes and that was at
[47:03] about
3:30 in the morning,
[47:06] » 4 or 5:00 in the afternoon if I'm
reading that right. maybe 4:30
[47:12] and for a short period of time
[47:17] on
May 24th
[47:23] or May, sorry, this is May 22nd through
the 26th.
[47:29] We have a couple low points. We have a
low point right here that would probably
[47:36] put that at about 5253.
So that would be at about 40 PSI.
[47:42] You have another short period of time to
the dips right here. This is at about
[47:47] 5253 there. So you subtract it be about
39 30 or 40. And then you have another
[47:54] period of time right here that uh shows
a drop at
[48:01] where I'm estimating is the low spot and
that be about 37 PSI.
[48:08] And if I calculated this right, which I
may be, may not be. I'm looking at the
[48:14] right one.
roughly between 3:30, it's either sorry,
[48:20] 3:30 a.m. or 3:30 p.m. I'm looking at
the data here. It's probably 3:30 p.m.
[48:27] Um, for a period of what I've estimated
to be about 2 hours.
[48:35] Um,
this one
[48:43] is on Simmons
on June 16th
[48:47] through the 17th. The lowest reading at
this particular point is about 43 PSI.
[48:57] And then the big one is this one.
This was on July
[49:05] uh 23rd through the 24th.
And this one has a big dip in the
[49:10] pressure. And that big dip in the
pressure
[49:14] was for 3 hours from approximately 4:15
a.m. to 7:15 a.m.
[49:23] Again, that one's in a watering time
frame.
[49:26] » Yeah. What was your estimated reading
there? Uh, estimated reading at the
[49:31] lowest point was uh
>> 40 PSI.
[49:38] » No,
>> 20 PSI, I think.
[49:42] » Oh, yeah. 20 PSI. Sorry, I said it was
below 40 or 3 hours.
[49:53] But the lowest was this point at 20 PSI.
[50:00] So at the level where we are required to
notify
[50:05] authorities. Correct.
>> If we get below that. Yes.
[50:08] » If it goes below. Okay. It's it's
greater than or equal 220 then.
[50:11] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[50:15] » Uh again we're seeing it during
irrigation times for the most part.
[50:20] There's other dips in other times of the
day. But some of the things that staff
[50:25] has looked at is conservation. Uh the
Hayden, Cord Lane, Post Falls all have
[50:30] watering days. Depending upon what side
of the street that you're on, we would
[50:34] be the only ones that would ever do
that. Um Spokane's done it as well.
[50:39] » And I believe our code has specifics as
well um that dictate what would happen
[50:44] in a water emergency in terms of days of
the week and hub and water. [snorts] I
[50:47] believe it's residential and commercial
is how it's split. Right, Chris? This
[50:51] isn't deemed a water emergency, but it
could be education on conservation.
[50:56] So, we could do the first step on that.
Now, um the other thing that we noticed
[51:03] over the course of last year versus this
year is last year we did a tiered system
[51:08] with water pricing at 67 cents per or 69
cents per thousand gallons for the first
[51:17] 20,000 gallons and then it went up to
$1.40. 40 when those first started
[51:23] hitting the actual bills because we
notified the public in March, April, and
[51:27] May of those price increases. When the
bills actually hit, we immediately saw a
[51:34] reduction of 500,000 gallons of water
used per day for the months of July and
[51:41] August from what our normal was. So that
helped us to have some sort of water
[51:47] conservation. The other thing is
providing education on how much water.
[51:52] Now I can understand that, you know,
something goes brown. It could be a
[51:59] number of things, not necessarily just
water issues. Um because if you water
[52:04] longer, like I said, 10 minutes, that
water drains faster than it can get to
[52:09] the grass. And so there could be other
things like how much top soil is there?
[52:14] Is there rock underneath the inch or two
of top soil that's heating up and
[52:19] burning the grass? Water's not going to
solve that problem. There are other
[52:24] issues that you could look at, too. In
my yard, for example, I tried to be
[52:29] conservative with my water. My my
reading was 17,000 gallons. I have one
[52:34] area of my yard that's green and another
area of my yard that goes from brown to
[52:39] green.
The green spot is next to my neighbor
[52:43] where you could tell that my neighbor
waters more than I do and my my yard
[52:47] benefits from that in a certain part of
my yard. Okay. Um so therefore there's
[52:54] several different ways to address how
green your yard is. Um but the uh
[53:04] um what we're seeing is irrigation
related. We're seeing seasonal as in
[53:10] summertime more than anything else. Um,
and we are not seeing corresponding dips
[53:19] based off of the number of building
permits that are issued or the number of
[53:23] certificate certificates of occupancy
that are issued. So maybe maybe Chris
[53:29] and Kevin can help me understand um if
if we
[53:34] are at a low point of 20 PSI and let's
say the worst possible happens and we
[53:40] get a fire in Ratham. Rick
[clears throat] Pine shared some pretty
[53:43] concerning photos about some school
district property. Um you know that very
[53:48] likely could catch fire. Um so so if
that happens and we're at 20 PSI and
[53:52] they crank open the hydrants, what
happens?
[54:00] based off of fire.
>> Well, basically um this meter or this
[54:05] reading was taken from the exact same uh
hydrant that we flowed for the master
[54:10] plan for JUB
>> and at that point um granted it was a
[54:14] little bit higher but um it was able to
recover and keep pumping.
[54:20] » When when was that reading taken?
>> This reading? No, the reading that
[54:24] you're talking about for
>> JUB
[54:27] last year
[54:31] in September.
>> Oh, September.
[54:33] » Okay. So, after peak season,
[54:38] » July, fire testing was July, August.
Pressure testing was September. So I I
[54:43] mean I think one of the biggest problems
that I have, you know, when we're
[54:46] talking about looking at the evidence
and looking at the numbers and things
[54:49] like that is that we're kind of doing a
little bit of apples to oranges
[54:52] comparison, right? We're we're looking
at evidence here that's showing that it
[54:56] drops to 20 PSI. And you know, we've
we've talked about this at past meetings
[55:01] where you have to kind of plan for the
worst, hope for the best. JUB said the
[55:04] same thing, right? Well, what happens if
your pumps go offline and you're only
[55:07] operating on one, right? Um I if it is
worst case scenario and it's July
[55:15] 24th
and we have a fire, what happens to our
[55:19] water pressure?
>> I don't think I can speak intelligently
[55:23] to that without seeing the hydraulic
modeling from the the plant
[55:28] » and and we've never had a hydraulic
model done in the past. Is that do I
[55:32] understand that correctly as well?
>> That's correct.
[55:38] The other concern though in addressing
this as far as an imminent peril is
[55:42] continuous.
What you're seeing is obviously yes
[55:46] there is a drop in the pressure. The
question is is it continuous? looking at
[55:51] this graph as the only evidence
then I would say that it's not
[55:57] continuous
>> for a a short period of time over the
[56:01] period of uh 2 and 1/2 3 days
and the pressure stays up during those
[56:09] other times even during a morning time
frame that would match this exact same
[56:14] situation on a previous day in this in
this graph.
[56:18] » Yeah. And if I'm if I'm not mistaken,
the city attorney basically said the
[56:21] definition there would be her ability to
argue what is continuous and what is
[56:25] not.
>> That that that graph um from a
[56:28] statistical perspective shows a
continuous drop in water pressure.
[56:33] » The length of that continuity is in
question, but it is continuous by
[56:38] definition. Right? So so now we're
talking about well what is the length?
[56:42] How how long does it have to be low for
it to be continuous? And is an emergency
[56:47] going to wait for our water pressure to
come back up, for the t for the tank on
[56:52] the mountain to refill, for all of the
stars to align, for us to be able to
[56:58] fight a what could be a catastrophic
fire? And we almost had one on the
[57:02] mountain. We were very close. Thank God
for our first responders getting up
[57:06] there as quickly as they did. I mean, we
even had RPD chipping in to fill up
[57:10] tenders.
>> I would like to add one thing, Mr. Mayor
[57:16] um for your consideration is when that
peak or when that maximum drop is the
[57:21] reservoir is not empty.
>> Okay,
[57:23] » Chris, I have a question. So, if you
crank on a fire hydrant when you got a
[57:28] 20 PSI reading in like a neighborhood,
is the water following the path of least
[57:33] resistance, the larger line being the
fire hydrant?
[57:36] » I would believe it would.
>> So, it's going to feed the fire hydrant
[57:40] and not feed the residents.
>> I would Yeah. The laws of hydraulics
[57:44] would tell me yes.
>> Well, I think it would depend on where
[57:46] it's at on the line, isn't it?
>> No. The smaller line will stop and the
[57:49] bigger line
>> it'll just suck the water out of every
[57:51] sprinklers and go. Okay.
[57:56] » At 20 PSI.
>> 20 PSI.
[58:00] » Well, no, because it would be sucking
all the residence will be turned off at
[58:05] that.
>> And that's that's what the hydraulic
[58:07] model will show, right? I mean, that's
that's the hope.
[58:09] » Yeah.
>> With a 90% accuracy. Right.
[58:18] Um,
[58:23] Leon, what's that one inch of water per
week based on? So, if you go off of uh
[58:28] and do a Google thing and ask for one
inch of water, that's uh Chris has put
[58:33] out stuff in our website as well as
Kevin that says the appropriate amount
[58:38] of water for water conservation is
approximately one inch of water per week
[58:43] per acre. And then so if you type that
into Google, it will tell you how much
[58:48] that is. And then that's what I put into
the uh the formula for those top 10
[58:56] water users.
[59:00] And we had when I did a drive by just in
some of the things that I saw that was
[59:06] interesting was there was a business off
of Bagel Road that when I drove by it
[59:12] was watering one zone. When I drove by
again 30 minutes later it was still
[59:17] watering that same zone. And again, with
our water, with our soil content,
[59:23] watering any more than about 10 minutes
is just wasting the water. It's not
[59:28] going to feed your grass any better than
10 minutes of water per person.
[59:32] » Yeah. And I know it's been previously
mentioned, you know, as we've been
[59:35] discussing water pressure and things
like that. And, you know, the fact that
[59:38] again, this chart uh illustrates, you
know, during the morning typically
[59:43] everybody's watering their lawns. for
most homeowners, they don't ever touch
[59:47] their sprinkler settings, right? It's
it's whatever it's set at. Have we
[59:51] worked with
uh builders in the area to maybe start
[59:56] implementing some, hey, maybe you guys
should start sending some of these to
[59:59] the evenings?
>> No, we have not done anything like that.
[1:00:02] That's one of the things that we could
add to the resolution of things that we
[1:00:06] need to get done.
>> And and do we know why from an
[1:00:10] agricultural perspective the default is
to water in the morning?
[1:00:14] I don't know the answer to that
>> because that's not what they default at
[1:00:18] » that. It has to be set that way.
>> I was gonna say Eric might be able to
[1:00:22] speak to that. He's probably more not to
throw you out in the bus. Quite
[1:00:26] honestly, there's people that water in
the morning and people that water in the
[1:00:30] evening.
>> Yeah. I water in the evening.
[1:00:33] » Yeah.
Both.
[1:00:37] And since I only water for about I water
on one zone for four minutes and the
[1:00:42] other zone for six minutes. Uh I water
in the morning and I water at night.
[1:00:48] But the one of the things that we could
do as far as education for the public is
[1:00:51] to set your meter your irrigation at
times that aren't going to be times that
[1:00:56] are people getting getting up. So if you
water say 10 o'clock at night, 8 o'clock
[1:01:01] at night uh and avoid the uh 4:30 to
7:30 time frame and then spread out more
[1:01:08] more throughout either the early
mornings of the hours or in the evening
[1:01:14] times, then you're not competing with
getting up and showering and fixing
[1:01:21] breakfast with all the irrigation water.
We obviously see that we have a major
[1:01:26] demand on our water during the early
morning hours when everybody's getting
[1:01:31] up and taking showers and getting ready
for work and doing things. We also have
[1:01:36] a demand for irrigation during that time
frame. So again, educating the public on
[1:01:42] trying to get their meat their
irrigation swapped to other times, say
[1:01:47] between 8:00 at night and and 4:00 in
the morning and and doing that. Even the
[1:01:54] idea of alternating your water um a
little bit in the morning and a little
[1:01:58] bit at night would also help because
when I went through the Corbin crossing
[1:02:03] subdivision, you could tell that more I
would say between 75% and 90% of the
[1:02:09] residents were watering between 5:30 and
6:30 in the morning. That's the same
[1:02:14] type that people getting up and getting
ready for work and trying to get ready
[1:02:17] to work.
>> Living in Corbin Crossings, I can tell
[1:02:20] you yes, that is a fact. I cannot water
my lawn and take a shower in the
[1:02:24] morning. That's why I water my lawn in
the evening and take a
[1:02:29] mediocre water pressure shower in the
morning.
[1:02:33] Yeah. And you you live in an area that's
got a booster pump. And in this data,
[1:02:38] you'll see that in those early mornings,
uh, that booster pump shows that it is
[1:02:43] working at pretty close to peak capacity
in those early morning hours. And it's
[1:02:49] pumping more volume of water
[clears throat] to the citizens in that
[1:02:53] subdivision during that time than any
other time throughout the day.
[1:03:01] Matter of fact, let me
>> pop down.
[1:03:09] So, this is that booster pack graph. I'm
going to try to put this in here.
[1:03:15] There's two graphs, one that talks
pressure and one that talks uh uh
[1:03:20] volume, but I want to show you the red
is your volume. Okay, you have a peak at
[1:03:27] volume at about 8:00 at night and you
have a peak of volume for a very long
[1:03:33] period of time between about 4 a.m. and
7 a.m. That's your peak volume in that
[1:03:41] [clears throat]
particular subdivision. It's the only
[1:03:43] subdivision that has pressure pumps.
>> Okay.
[1:03:46] » And and why does that sub why is that
the case? because there was low pressure
[1:03:50] problems and that's where the uh
Majestic Park water tower was built to
[1:03:57] handle only that subdivision. And then
it was better efficiency to put booster
[1:04:03] packs in that well that serves that
subdivision than it was to continue
[1:04:09] using a 50,000galon water tank.
So the pressure, you'll see a small drop
[1:04:16] in the pressure here. And I'm going to
try to do this so you can see that small
[1:04:21] dip in the pressure does not need to
subtract 13 psi because this is not the
[1:04:25] same situation as those pressure
lockers. But at this low peak of time
[1:04:31] right here, which is about noon time
frame, is at about 50 between 56 and 75
[1:04:38] PSI. It's hard to guesstimate where
that's at right there.
[1:04:42] The other time that that pressure drops
is between the 4:00 a.m. and 7 a.m. for
[1:04:50] that system. And that's because you see
the peak of the water needs is in that
[1:04:56] same time frame. Again, again pointing
to irrigation, not necessarily pointing
[1:05:01] to growth within that subdivision. This
is a sole subdivision looking at it in a
[1:05:07] smaller view than the entire city. Um,
but it represents what we see in the
[1:05:13] entire city because a lot of people
water between the 4 and 7:00 hour.
[1:05:18] Everybody wants to get up and get ready
for work at that same hour when kids go
[1:05:22] to school. That's what time they're
getting ready to go to school. So, we're
[1:05:28] seeing those the pressure drop and the
peak of water supply in that time frame
[1:05:34] is the biggest and most drastic time
frame there. Even the pressure at 8:00
[1:05:40] um is staying pretty constant when the
volume is increasing seeing at 8:00. I
[1:05:47] know it's tough to read with the other
white lines and the pink lines that are
[1:05:51] there, but uh you're seeing a high peak
in volume at about 8:00 at night. It's
[1:05:57] for a short period of time,
but the pressure stays.
[1:06:02] You see the pressure drop and the volume
increased drastically in the morning
[1:06:07] time frame.
[1:06:15] » Mr. Mayor,
>> yeah. Um,
[1:06:19] rather Chris, when it dropped to that 20
PSI, did we investigate why?
[1:06:26] » We're currently investigating that.
That's that's really what started the
[1:06:29] conser the conversation about the
conservation. Sorry if I mix that up.
[1:06:34] But what we saw um as you go forward
once you break into the irrigation
[1:06:39] system you know we always had that drop
and you know we had two different we
[1:06:43] have two different scenarios. You have
one in the winter when the reservoir is
[1:06:46] completely full and the well shuts off
and you're waiting for the hydraulics to
[1:06:50] change and then in the middle you can
kind of see both and then the irrigation
[1:06:54] started happening and then we started
seeing that gap white. So the first
[1:06:58] thing we went um we went and did is we
triple checked all the valves that were
[1:07:04] in that area and then we started looking
at larger water users that may be on the
[1:07:09] way into Brookshshire. Um, we're still
looking into that. And I know, uh, one
[1:07:14] thing that just recently happened is
they just tied another line across Red
[1:07:18] Cliff. So, we'll be monitoring the SCADA
and I'll probably put that same one out
[1:07:22] again just to see if that changes
anything.
[1:07:27] Mr. Mayor, another item that we prepared
is this map. I know it's hard to read.
[1:07:32] These are residential and commercial
lots. Basically kind of give you an idea
[1:07:38] of how much water these are. These do
not include irrigation
[1:07:43] because irrigation doesn't have an
address specifically for it. The address
[1:07:48] is, you know, the business or some other
third party group. So, in this, and I'm
[1:07:56] going to zoom in even though you can't
see the the whole thing, but I'm just
[1:08:00] going to straight zoom in here.
So, if there is a green dot on a
[1:08:06] resident, that means that that green
dot, that resident is using less than
[1:08:11] 20,000 gallons of water per month. This
was taken off of the June usage because
[1:08:17] we've had that for a little bit longer.
The July usage didn't come in and get
[1:08:22] completed until August 6th. We really
didn't have time to work with that. The
[1:08:27] orange dot is um between
20 and 50,000 gallons.
[1:08:35] Uh the yellow dot is over 50,000 to
100,000.
[1:08:41] And then the red dots are over a
100,000. And there were a few users that
[1:08:46] used way more than that. So we kind of
put them into that bigger bigger
[1:08:50] category. Uh but it goes to show a
little bit about the water usage. Um
[1:08:57] there are a few users that use a lot of
water.
[1:09:03] Um and there are those that are very
conservative in their water use and stay
[1:09:09] below the 20,000 gallons. And then
there's everybody in between.
[1:09:14] Uh trying to get more data to see where
this is at. Um the big thing we had one
[1:09:21] user who actually sat on council uh that
when we were doing this we had a
[1:09:26] conversation as council when we did the
tier water system uh last year in March
[1:09:32] and that would be in 25 we started
talking about that and the realization
[1:09:38] that they were using 100,000 gallons of
water a month to water their yard was a
[1:09:43] surprise to them because our water
prices were so cheap. it didn't really
[1:09:48] make a big deal difference if they were
using, you know, 10,000 or 100,000
[1:09:53] gallons. Uh when we changed that, uh it
did change a lot of people and how much
[1:10:00] water they use. Uh in this particular,
uh
[1:10:06] graphic, that same individual, I looked
at their home, they're now using between
[1:10:12] 20 and 50,000 gallons.
So sometimes providing education
[1:10:19] » helps to do that. Now there are other
times where education does not help but
[1:10:25] maybe another tier of water pricing say
you change the tiers then you make it a
[1:10:32] little bit more expensive if you're in
the higher area again creating the other
[1:10:36] effect that we saw last year where
there's reduction of water. So there's
[1:10:41] education and then there's also a cost
item to get up in the morning for staff
[1:10:46] and try to monitor who's got their water
on and who doesn't is we do not have the
[1:10:52] staff power to be up at 4:00 in the
morning to monitor whether or not people
[1:10:56] are following conservation efforts.
>> But we do have
[1:11:00] » but we do have the ability to measure
how much water goes through their
[1:11:03] » Yeah. Thank you.
And the reality is is today you can take
[1:11:09] just about [clears throat] any one of
our wells and in the wintertime in
[1:11:13] December one well will service the needs
for health and safety of our citizens
[1:11:19] for the entire month you know for the
entire month of December or January.
[1:11:24] We do not have a need for five wells
until we get to the irrigation system.
[1:11:32] And so is it right for the citizens that
are conservative on their water to pay
[1:11:37] the same rate as what it is for the
citizens that use extra water? And
[1:11:42] that's why we put in the tier system
because the more water you use, the more
[1:11:47] infrastructure we need.
>> Can you scroll down to Birkshshire in
[1:11:54] this?
>> Sure.
[1:12:00] » Go ahead. point my house.
>> Um, no, I think really what I'm pointing
[1:12:05] out is the fact that there are less of
those big water users in [clears throat]
[1:12:08] the Brookshshire neighborhood. Now, I
don't know if that's because of the
[1:12:12] water issue that they're having with
with pressure or or if it's just
[1:12:18] generally because they're better
custodians of their water.
[1:12:21] » Well, you could say that uh for a lot of
them, we still have the same few houses
[1:12:26] that are using less than 20,000.
We still have a pretty good decent
[1:12:31] amount that's using between 20 and 50.
Uh, and we still have a few a few of the
[1:12:38] water users between 50 and 100 and then
a couple of them that are above the
[1:12:42] 100,000 gallons.
I'm not trying to single out any single
[1:12:47] subdivision or any single individual.
What I'm trying to point out is that
[1:12:53] there are
definite ways to look at conservation
[1:12:58] across the board. It's not one
subdivision over another. There are high
[1:13:03] users that I think should be cutting
back on their water. They should be
[1:13:06] looking at other ways to keep their
grass green other than just water being
[1:13:10] the sole reason.
>> Yeah. But I think what you are doing is
[1:13:13] you're trying to draw a correlation
between good custodianship of water and
[1:13:18] water pressure, right? And
>> from what I can see just anecdotally on
[1:13:24] the graph, one of the biggest areas that
has problems with water pressure seems
[1:13:28] to be one of the better areas with being
custodians of their water.
[1:13:31] » Wow.
>> Because I don't see a lot of big red
[1:13:33] dots in that.
>> You don't see a lot of big red dots, but
[1:13:36] you do see just as many orange dots as
you see everywhere else.
[1:13:40] » There's not a huge number of red dots
throughout the entire city,
[1:13:44] » but there is a good average of orange
and yellow dots through the whole city.
[1:13:49] It doesn't matter what subdivision
you're in. You've got them all over the
[1:13:53] place. And the reason why I'm bringing
this up, mayor, is because our issue is
[1:13:58] is really in the irrigation time frames
when we're irrigating.
[1:14:03] And that's what's causing the low
pressure. It's the irrigation use of
[1:14:08] water. Um, I have areas in my yard that
are brown. I know I need to add more top
[1:14:14] soil because it's right next to the
cement and that cement heats up and it's
[1:14:19] going to burn the grass. It doesn't
matter how much water you put on it,
[1:14:22] it's going to burn up the grass next to
that. So, you add more top soil and add
[1:14:26] seed on it cuz it's dead. And maybe I
can get the grass to grow because
[1:14:31] there'll be more distance to uh isolate
that heat from burning the the
[1:14:38] grassroots.
Okay. So, everyone, including myself,
[1:14:44] has work to do in improving it. It's the
easy solution is water, right? Add more
[1:14:51] water. Add more water. It'll get green
someday, but it won't. I mean, I've been
[1:14:56] to Brookshshire. I drove down railway.
There's brown all over the place, isn't
[1:14:59] there?
>> Yes. Can I respond to that?
[1:15:03] » Yeah, go for it. Uh Brookshshire has the
biggest green space in any of the
[1:15:10] developments. Okay? And I've asked the
city to stop making us water that. But
[1:15:17] they say, "Nope, you got to water it.
You got to have trees in there." And if
[1:15:21] the developers keep putting in green
spaces, we're just wasting water. We
[1:15:27] don't need the grass.
>> But 20 ft wide. If you're looking at how
[1:15:32] much water is being used there on a per
acre level, you're using more water than
[1:15:39] any of the others on a per acre level.
Not
[1:15:41] » Leon, I agree. Let me cut my water
sprinklers off to the commons. Mayor,
[1:15:47] let me do that and I'll let it go and
then you'll see
[1:15:52] » 500,000
going down.
[1:15:54] » There's other solutions to keep it
green.
[1:15:57] » Can I make a quick comment here?
I had a black pillar of bricks
[1:16:06] and next to it, right next to the black
pillar of bricks, that lawn always turns
[1:16:13] brown or yellow.
>> It gets the same amount of water as
[1:16:17] everywhere else. But the color of the
brick absorbs the heat and radiates it
[1:16:23] out directly to that grass.
>> Y
[1:16:26] » has nothing to do with how much water.
All right, we're going to we're going to
[1:16:30] take a fivem minute recess.
[1:16:41] [clears throat]
[1:16:43] » Why? Because the city requires us to the
city requires us to have maintained
[1:16:49] trees and maintain grass. And that's the
that comes back to the developer.
[1:16:56] So made Joe
saying, "Oh, we'll make it pretty."
[1:17:02] » So, Rick Rick, so I can I can I can I
can answer part of that, right? So, one
[1:17:08] of the biggest things that the people in
Ratham have complained about is the
[1:17:11] density of the neighborhoods. And from a
city planning perspective, one of the
[1:17:16] ways to change the perception of density
is to include more green space.
[1:17:20] » Absolutely. Put don't put Brookshshire
up there on the [laughter] on the
[1:17:27] » I was putting you up there as an example
of a good example.
[1:17:30] » No, I'm talking about Leon.
>> Good example.
[1:17:32] » I'm talking about Leon.
>> Because there's so much green space.
[1:17:35] » Exactly.
>> Yeah. I have 9 and 12 acres and that's a
[1:17:39] whole subdivision. And if you break that
down, 3 something of it is commons.
[1:17:45] » Do you do you have your commons set to
only water for 10 minutes? No, we do not
[1:17:50] because that's what the developer did.
>> Yeah. So, can we set it to 10 minutes
[1:17:55] and see how it goes?
>> We probably could, but why should
[1:18:00] Brookshshire be
>> and I have made that point before. Why
[1:18:05] should I be limited on how much I water
my
[1:18:07] » lawn?
So, that my that was going to be my
[1:18:11] question. Is the HOA being built because
they have to keep a green space
[1:18:18] » at the higher rate because we're using
over 1,000 gallons.
[1:18:23] » System
>> then that should that shouldn't be that
[1:18:26] should not be because that's mandated by
the city.
[1:18:30] » So the city should be way.
>> Yes.
[1:18:33] » And I have a meter I have a pressure
gauge on my house between 4 and 5 a.m. I
[1:18:38] measure 5 psi.
>> Yes. I mean, we're
[1:18:42] » 5 PSI of
>> saying it, too.
[1:18:44] » It's all We're all using.
>> Look at Brookshshire.
[1:18:51] » Yeah,
>> we have two red dots.
[1:18:54] » There are other options than just
watering your lawn.
[1:18:57] » I fertilize the hell out of my everyday.
>> What do you use for fertilizer? Out of
[1:19:01] curiosity.
>> Sorry.
[1:19:04] Which one?
>> I just use triple 16 on mine and it
[1:19:07] seems to do. No, no,
>> I use it, too, because it's great for
[1:19:11] everything else, too. But I have like
four or five different ones. And my
[1:19:15] front yard is pristine green. And I
don't water I mean I might water a
[1:19:20] little more than the 10 minutes, but not
not an hour. Not none like that.
[1:19:25] » It's I think mine are set at 15 minutes.
And I have three
[1:19:29] uh zones. My backyard, I agree with him.
I need more top soil life to fix that.
[1:19:35] But I've gone back and fertilized the
hell out of it and it's green and I've
[1:19:39] got my water bag now that yard. But what
frustrates me is I have 5 PSI at my
[1:19:45] house when my wife's trying to shower to
go.
[1:19:47] » Yeah. And that's that's my problem.
>> And I mean she's like I'm in here
[1:19:51] forever trying to get the soap off of
me.
[1:19:54] » You can't wash dishes. You can't wash
your clothes.
[1:19:57] » Have you have you had them come out and
hook a thing up?
[1:20:00] » I have emailed you. I have emailed you,
Chris. I have a return email saying that
[1:20:05] they're supposed to be putting a meter
some or a pressure check to check and I
[1:20:11] don't know where
>> I I can show you the email that I got
[1:20:17] » cuz I'm like
>> so reply to reply. Do me a favor. Reply
[1:20:20] to his email so you see me on it and I
replied to his email.
[1:20:24] » Do it again.
>> Okay.
[1:20:25] » With pictures of my 5 PSI. Now
[clears throat] granted I'll give you
[1:20:29] this.
>> Every water meter has a plus minus,
[1:20:31] right?
>> Sure. So, if I'm at five and let's say
[1:20:34] it's a I'm off by five PSI. Okay, I got
10.
[1:20:37] » Then you got it's not plusus.
>> Yeah, [laughter] right. Right. Right.
[1:20:42] And
>> you know, if I could get a constant 40
[1:20:46] PSI, I would jump up and down and and
wear a skirt for you to be honest with
[1:20:50] you because listen, if we fix it, I'm
going to hold you to that. [laughter]
[1:20:55] Okay.
[1:21:02] We've got a minute.
>> Better hurry up.
[1:21:30] Well, that's right. I just want to get
an idea.
[1:21:40] Oh, literally
the whole thing is my point is
[1:21:48] we're still going to be over that
threshold of trying to conserve water.
[1:21:53] Even if we were doing 10 minutes,
[1:21:58] we would still be paying out the heat.
[1:22:31] And that's everything.
[1:22:37] » When we come back, we'll go to you
first.
[1:22:40] We'll work down the line like
[1:22:47] » Yeah, you didn't tap me.
>> I know.
[1:22:49] » I was waiting for him.
>> Yeah. [laughter] I'll go first, Larry.
[1:22:54] And then
[clears throat]
[1:23:09] we'll just wait for Mr. Serge.
[1:23:14] » Sure.
>> Yes. Pam just told me.
[1:23:20] » Yeah. Sorry. the
the microphone is still broken. Um I I
[1:23:26] think I have a fix on the internet, but
I think we need a powered USB hub. I
[1:23:31] have one at home. And
>> you were asking of the question about
[1:23:34] why people water in the morning and in
the evening. You ever water your grass
[1:23:38] during the day? It evaporates before it
gets on there. Larry knows that. But
[1:23:43] it's so the default setting that most
most horiculturists are going to
[1:23:47] » between 4 and six is better to water in
the morning.
[1:23:50] » Yeah, absolutely.
[1:23:56] » Okay. All right.
>> I used the g back to it.
[1:24:03] » Look at me go.
>> All right. Um
[1:24:10] » go ahead and start. Um
Laura, you you wanted to start off here?
[1:24:15] » Yeah. Uh before I do, I just had a quick
question for Chris about the uh work
[1:24:20] orders.
>> The those readings, were they all taken
[1:24:23] basically between 9:00 a.m. 5:00 p.m.
during
[1:24:29] » City of Wrath from hours?
>> Yeah, they were taken during business
[1:24:32] hours. There should be a time stamp on
them.
[1:24:34] » Okay. So if those residents were having
lower water pressure
[1:24:41] during those earlier hours where you
weren't able to measure it, that's quite
[1:24:45] possible, right?
>> Yeah. That's why we got the uh pressure
[1:24:48] transducers because they monitor your
monitor 24 hours a day.
[1:24:52] » You need the pressure logs.
>> Yeah. So those would be more accurate
[1:24:57] for what those residents were actually
experiencing.
[1:25:00] » Yeah. It would give you a much clearer
picture.
[1:25:02] » Okay. Just wanted to clarify that.
>> Um, yeah. So, I did prepare something
[1:25:07] that I wanted to say. [clears throat]
>> I'm I believe that
[1:25:16] um the proposed
moratorum does meet the requirements of
[1:25:22] Idaho code 67-6524.
[1:25:27] The statute
does not require us to prove that water
[1:25:32] that the water system has already
failed. It requires requires us to state
[1:25:38] and find in writing that an imminent
peril to public health, safety or
[1:25:43] welfare requires moratorum.
I believe that the evidence that we have
[1:25:48] seen before us supports that finding.
First, this is not a hypothetical or
[1:25:54] speculative problem. Our
engineering consultants have presented
[1:26:00] preliminary findings showing that our
water system is very stressed.
[1:26:06] During summer demand, our wells are
being pushed to near full capacity. Our
[1:26:12] tank storage is struggling to recover,
especially during peak hour demand. The
[1:26:18] engineers have identified pump cycle
related pressure fluctuations and told
[1:26:23] us that additional water storage and
infrastructure are necessary to fix this
[1:26:29] problem both for current conditions and
future conditions. We also have the
[1:26:36] evidence from our public works director
of low pressure.
[1:26:42] uh we had which has been pre uh pre
presented to us
[1:26:48] at measures below 40 PSI at specific
continuous times and locations. The
[1:26:55] reason the 40 PSI is being brought up is
because
[1:27:01] uh per IDAPA which is the Idaho codes uh
rules and regulations anything below 40
[1:27:08] PSI is considered a measurable
deficiency.
[1:27:13] And this isn't something that suddenly
appeared.
[1:27:17] Our public works again director again
has showed us the evidence that these
[1:27:22] complaints began approximately four
years ago and that they have increased
[1:27:27] and actually remained steady for the
last few years.
[1:27:32] as our uh growth has accelerated we know
rather has grown considerably um
[1:27:40] approximately
30 to 40% in the last uh 5 years and Jub
[1:27:47] Engineering's preliminary findings they
started by saying this is from rather
[1:27:54] growing this is what they said rather is
growing summer demand is pushing supply
[1:27:59] limitations tank storage is struggling
Um during these peak hour demands,
[1:28:05] current pump oper operating sequences
are contributing to isolated pressure
[1:28:11] fluctuations
and additional storage and um supply
[1:28:16] infrastructure is needed to address this
problem. That's what they said.
[1:28:22] Um [clears throat] so yes our engineers
have specifically identified it
[1:28:28] identified that the population the de
development growth is the reason for the
[1:28:33] increasing water demand. So we have very
important
[1:28:38] sequence of facts. Populations growing
rapidly, water demands increasing,
[1:28:43] systems becoming increasingly stressed,
low pressure problems have emerged and
[1:28:48] increased. Our wells are approaching the
capacity during peak demand. Storage is
[1:28:53] struggling to recover and the
infrastructure needed to provide
[1:28:58] additional capacity
and resilience is not yet in place.
[1:29:03] [cough] That in my view is substantially
more than any generalized concern about
[1:29:09] growth. Nor is it just isolated
incidents. Second, I believe the peril
[1:29:15] is imminent because these conditions are
occurring now and are most pronounced
[1:29:19] during predictable periods of peak
demand.
[1:29:23] We should not have to wait for the
system to fail or even get worse or for
[1:29:28] a fire to occur when pressure and
storage are at their lowest to recognize
[1:29:33] that this there is a risk. Third, the
proposed moratorum is directly connected
[1:29:38] to the problem. New development requires
municipal water service. It creates
[1:29:44] additional demand on the very system
that our engineers have identified as
[1:29:49] stressed. The moratorum would
temporarily
[1:29:53] [clears throat] prevent us from adding
that additional demand while we complete
[1:29:57] the water system master master plan, the
hydraulic modeling and determine exactly
[1:30:02] what infrastructure is necessary and
begin addressing those deficiencies.
[1:30:08] Finally, I recognize that the
engineering study is not yet complete,
[1:30:13] but I don't believe that means we have
no evidence. We already have measured
[1:30:18] pressure data, operational data,
historical complaints, water demand
[1:30:23] information, rapid population growth,
and the preliminary engineering findings
[1:30:31] uh to address uh the option of
water conservation and education of the
[1:30:40] public about that. I do think that's
important and can be done, but it's not
[1:30:44] a fix to the problem because that takes
time to implement. We don't have the
[1:30:49] time for that right now. The question
before us is not whether we can prove
[1:30:53] that our water system will fail
tomorrow. The question is whether the
[1:30:57] evidence demonstrates
is there an immediate threat that
[1:31:01] continuing to add demand before
corrective infrastructure is in place
[1:31:06] would that present an unacceptable
unacceptable risk to public health
[1:31:10] safety or welfare? By the way, the word
welfare
[1:31:15] can certainly apply to
the inability to have adequate water
[1:31:20] pressure for our residents. I believe
the evidence supports that conclusion
[1:31:25] and for that reason I do believe that a
temporary narrowly tail tailored interim
[1:31:31] moratorum is reasonable and responsible
action again not to stop growth
[1:31:36] permanently but to protect the
reliability and safety of our water
[1:31:41] system while we finish the engineering
work and determine how much additional
[1:31:46] development our infrastructure can
safely support.
[1:31:56] So you're you're saying instead of a
citywide moratorum, a a directed
[1:32:02] moratorium to certain parts of the city,
what parts of the city?
[1:32:08] I think that it could be tailored to to
um not necessarily just
[1:32:15] all building permits, but uh possibly to
water system hookups or again to a
[1:32:23] geographical area as an option.
>> And to our staff, what what areas of the
[1:32:30] city do we typically have the most
complaints of low water pressure? I know
[1:32:33] we do get complaints of high water
pressure downhill, but where do we get
[1:32:36] the complaints of high water pressure?
So, if we were to identify an area where
[1:32:40] possibly we would we would need to
implement a moratorium, where would that
[1:32:45] be?
>> My best guess based on that would be
[1:32:48] Brookshshire.
>> Just Brookshshire.
[1:32:51] » That's where most of the complaints come
from.
[1:32:53] » Okay. Um, what about the surrounding
areas about Corbin Crossing or across
[1:32:58] Meyer or
>> Corbin crossing I believe is built out
[1:33:03] We're very close to it and we've had a
handful there and just a couple and
[1:33:10] the one across my
[1:33:14] » Prairie Sky.
>> Okay. Um what about what about future
[1:33:18] subdivisions?
>> Future subdivision.
[1:33:22] » Yeah. So so example, there's there's new
homes that are going to be going in that
[1:33:25] are actually uphill from me. I have
water pressure issues in Corbin
[1:33:28] crossings in the morning as was
demonstrated. Um
[1:33:34] that area would be impacted as well.
Correct.
[1:33:36] » Um I don't I'm not sure I understand
exactly what you're getting out by the
[1:33:40] top hill.
>> Um so so literally physically higher
[1:33:43] than where my house is.
>> Um there are additional buildable lots,
[1:33:49] higher elevation. Yeah. Would those
potentially be having the same issue as
[1:33:52] I'm having?
>> I couldn't speak to that because it
[1:33:56] hasn't hasn't been built yet. I believe
you'd be talking about the one just
[1:33:59] north of you,
>> the subdivision. Uh yeah, I think so.
[1:34:02] Yeah.
>> Yeah. I haven't seen seen anything on
[1:34:05] that plans.
[1:34:11] » So I guess if we my question to council
would be if you would consider a
[1:34:17] an area
where where a moratorum would need to go
[1:34:23] until we are able to complete our water
master plan on whatever conditions it is
[1:34:26] that you identify. What would that area
be? Would it be would it be BL South?
[1:34:33] Would it be Lancaster South? Would it be
where where would you anticipate that
[1:34:40] being,
>> Mr. Mayor? Based on what you're
[1:34:43] questioning, I think an elevation study
would have to be done in order to be
[1:34:47] able to see what is higher or what is
lower because there are definitely areas
[1:34:50] in the subdivision that's to the north
of you that is quite a bit lower
[1:34:54] elevation than you are. Uh once you get
over the hill as as someone that runs it
[1:35:00] almost daily, I can tell you that I have
to go uphill.
[1:35:03] [laughter]
>> But you also have a downhill section. So
[1:35:07] » I I Yeah, I also live in a trough,
right? So yeah, the area behind me was
[1:35:11] built up for the development behind me
to the north of my house. It used to be
[1:35:17] flat. It got built up.
I'm not suggesting
[1:35:23] uh a moratorum at all, but if you're
going to look at that, you'd have to I
[1:35:27] would say you'd have to tie it to an
elevation threshold.
[1:35:31] » Do we have anything like that or would
that be a new study?
[1:35:33] » We have to look into that and see what
those elevations are and where the the
[1:35:37] problems are because if we tie it to an
elevation, we'd have to look at that. I
[1:35:42] don't we don't have any data on that. We
haven't done any data on that. We
[1:35:47] haven't done surveys on that. We have
some elevation charge from the county,
[1:35:53] but those are pretty big uh numbers in
between. So, you'd have to be a little
[1:35:58] bit more detailed than that. But again,
uh just to back up what I said before,
[1:36:05] uh I think your problem is in
irrigation, not in development. And
[1:36:10] therefore,
uh saying that not doing any water
[1:36:14] conservation methods first. One of the
requirements in the uh code is that you
[1:36:19] have to list your less restrictive
alternatives and why either they didn't
[1:36:24] work or why you're not doing them. And
as we've looked at it, we've seen that
[1:36:30] the most of this stuff happens in the
June, July, August time frame. Uh yeah,
[1:36:36] there's no way even a moratorum can go
into effect until September. And by
[1:36:41] September, you've already dropped in the
pressure tissue problems. If you look at
[1:36:46] your sheet, you basically have no
complaints uh over a four-year period
[1:36:51] from September to January.
>> January being the first set of
[1:36:56] complaints. I think there was two in
October.
[1:36:59] » Sorry, Leon. I I think to to that point,
um, if if the city is able to negotiate
[1:37:05] and and I I don't want to get into too
details because we have it on the
[1:37:09] agenda, negotiate a new site for a water
tower, what is the soonest, and maybe
[1:37:13] Kevin, this is a question for you. What
is the soonest that water tower would be
[1:37:16] completed?
>> Well, certainly it depends on the size.
[1:37:22] Two, depends on the location.
three to erect uh a tank of that. Um I
[1:37:29] haven't built a tank in 20 years. Um but
I'm thinking you're probably looking at
[1:37:35] a year and a half, two years of time.
>> So another year and a half or two years
[1:37:38] of summertime possibly catastrophic
issues. [clears throat]
[1:37:43] » [snorts]
>> Now, with that said, mayor, um the
[1:37:46] ability to sink another well is
much less in time frame.
[1:37:56] » And that property would the
>> quote unquote property would would be
[1:38:01] able to accommodate a well and a tower.
>> Correct. Yes.
[1:38:07] Is there a reason we're not utilizing
the Majestic Water Tower? If if we have
[1:38:12] issues,
>> can we
[1:38:16] Matt, I'm going to let uh Chris explain
it to you from an operational standpoint
[1:38:20] because it's it'll make more sense that
way. But
[1:38:23] » Okay. So, from an operational
standpoint, with the installation of the
[1:38:26] booster pack, the 50,000galon tank will
just sit there idle, which leads to
[1:38:32] water quality issues, stagnation, things
like that, cuz our tanks are actually
[1:38:35] mounted sealed.
>> Makes sense.
[1:38:37] » So, you have to keep turning over.
>> So, wouldn't with the booster pack, it
[1:38:41] wouldn't actually use the water. Is that
what you're saying?
[1:38:43] » It would fill it and it would just stay
there.
[1:38:44] » Stay full.
>> Okay. And yeah, deq would get involved.
[1:38:48] Yeah.
[clears throat]
[1:38:51] Any
[1:38:55] other? Larry, you're up next.
>> Okay, Laura, that was articulate. Thank
[1:39:00] you. Um, I
I appreciate your concerns, but first
[1:39:06] and foremost,
those of us on this board right here
[1:39:10] have an obligation to take care of the
citizens of Rather. And part of that is
[1:39:14] the property owners, part of that is our
citizens. And we're going down a road
[1:39:21] that I don't think we want to go down at
this point. The reason I say that is a
[1:39:26] lot of key words there. Preliminary. We
don't have our water study yet.
[1:39:31] Everything in there. Yeah. Jub came and
made a good presentation,
[1:39:36] but he kept saying this is preliminary.
This is preliminary. This is
[1:39:39] preliminary. We've talked to our
experts, two here and the one at JUB,
[1:39:45] and we're all waiting for our water
study, which is very close. We've been
[1:39:50] working on this for a long, long time.
Like Kevin said, he's been wanting the
[1:39:54] well, wanting to find a well for what,
nine years now?
[1:39:57] » A tank.
>> 10 or a tank, I mean. And we've been
[1:40:00] saving for it. We've been working on
this and it's coming together.
[1:40:04] But I go back to
the road we don't want to go down. If we
[1:40:10] if we we have to claim imminent peril to
our city to do a moratorum
[1:40:17] and which is the health, safety and
welfare of our citizens.
[1:40:22] Imminent peril needs to come up with it
has to be issues have to be occurring
[1:40:27] continuously
predictability or is likely to occur in
[1:40:33] a way that clearly creates health,
safety or welfare issues. Our charts
[1:40:38] that we saw today and everything we've
seen, those are not continuous.
[1:40:42] Continuous isn't 3 hours. Continuous
isn't 25 minutes. Continuous is it's a
[1:40:49] problem and we aren't coming out of it.
Okay. I can't see right now a reason for
[1:40:55] a moratorum. Now,
after we get our water study and our
[1:41:01] hydraulic figures come out and go, you
have a problem here and we have to fix
[1:41:05] it. and then I'll be the first one to
vote for a moratorum if I think there's
[1:41:09] a problem. But right now, we're going
down a road we don't want to go and
[1:41:14] protecting our citizens. And the reason
I say that is if we do if we do a
[1:41:19] moratorum and it's not right and we jump
put the cart before the horse, we're
[1:41:24] going to get our butt sued big time and
it's going to cost millions of dollars
[1:41:29] and you people are going to be paying
for it. Okay? Our city can't afford
[1:41:33] that. Let's be patient. Let's sit back.
Let's look at all the facts. Let's
[1:41:37] gather everything. It's what we've been
doing, the charts, everything else. You
[1:41:41] guys have been doing a great job and our
attorneys been doing a great job and
[1:41:45] trying to steer us in the right
direction. I'm not saying we don't have
[1:41:48] a problem. I'm not saying we don't have
a problem to the point of imminent
[1:41:52] peril. Now, not jumping ahead again like
the mayor said, but our next item on the
[1:41:58] agenda is new business and consideration
of a resolution acknowledging
[1:42:03] preliminary preliminary water concerns
and directing our staff. That's what
[1:42:08] we've been doing for months. We've
brought this subject up almost every
[1:42:12] city council meeting for three or four
months and we haven't gotten any closer
[1:42:17] to resolving the issue as we are
tonight. There's so many unanswered
[1:42:21] questions. What do you think? What do
you think? Sorry. What do you think is
[1:42:24] causing that, Larry? That we're not
getting any closer?
[1:42:26] » I mean, are you saying that staff isn't
doing their jobs? We're not collecting
[1:42:29] data? What What does that mean?
>> Don't put words in my mouth.
[1:42:31] » No, I'm asking you what that mean.
>> Well, and that's I'm getting to that.
[1:42:34] We're we're we're getting all of our
facts together. What I'm saying is is
[1:42:37] we're not getting any closer. And I
think having this [clears throat] on the
[1:42:41] I think what we did is we um we tabled
it to this meeting, right? because we
[1:42:47] talked about it last meeting and we
haven't we've actually gotten a lot
[1:42:50] farther because Leon and everybody's
brought a bunch of charts together,
[1:42:53] brought a bunch of facts together, your
your uh uh the memos that you gave us on
[1:42:59] the water pressures and stuff, those are
all great, but that don't get us any
[1:43:02] closer to resolving it. I think we're
not going to resolve it until we get our
[1:43:07] water study plan and put our put our
experts together on that because we need
[1:43:12] to listen to our experts. I don't know
anything about it, but I do know that if
[1:43:17] we go down the wrong road, we're gonna
get our butts sued and I don't want to
[1:43:20] be a part of that and I won't sign off
on that.
[1:43:25] » That's fair. Can you
>> And I think we one more thing. Oh, no.
[1:43:28] Go ahead.
>> The less restrictive
[1:43:31] ways to fix our water do through
mitigation or odd and even watering. I
[1:43:37] know it's an inconvenience, but
conservation, I think, and education,
[1:43:42] educating the other people and and Laura
made a comment at one of the other
[1:43:46] meetings that this seems to be a
seasonal problem. And I think we've
[1:43:50] witnessed that tonight is that looking
at our water use or it is seasonal. It's
[1:43:56] about a three or four month long ordeal
and we're coming into about 6 weeks left
[1:44:02] of irrigation time and then we're going
to our water is going to go way down.
[1:44:06] So, um, is that going to affect the
pressure? It seems to, but I don't know.
[1:44:11] I don't have a water pressure problem at
my house, but or I I do notice a little
[1:44:16] less water pressure when I'm irrigating,
but not enough to where it falls below
[1:44:22] what I feel is a safe and healthy
standard.
[1:44:26] Okay. So my my opinion is let's drop
this and wait till our water plan find
[1:44:33] out the facts and then make a decision.
That's fair points, Larry. Absolutely.
[1:44:39] So can you can you help me understand a
little bit better what you consider the
[1:44:42] welfare of the citizens to be
because you mentioned that earlier as as
[1:44:48] one of the criteria.
>> And what is your opinion?
[1:44:51] » Well, no, I'm asking you.
I I'm not asking for my definition. I I
[1:44:57] think I think mental well-being of our
citizens is a high priority for me,
[1:45:02] right? And and my definition, right? And
and I can't tell you the innumerable
[1:45:07] amount of people, including me, who if I
wake up at 5 in the morning and go to
[1:45:12] take a shower and there's no water
pressure, I'm going to be honest, I'm a
[1:45:15] little peeved that day.
>> But does that affect your welfare?
[1:45:18] » It it it affects your attitude.
>> It affects my well-being. Yes. But
[1:45:22] that's not your
>> But I'm asking what your definition of
[1:45:24] wellbeing is.
>> Well, welfare is is the city to provide
[1:45:28] for its people. [clears throat] It's our
it's our responsibility to pro provide
[1:45:32] them with water and police in fire and
all that kind of stuff. That's my
[1:45:38] opinion. I I I can't speak for you or
them or who about how your welfare is.
[1:45:45] Okay? That's that's a loose term and I I
can't really answer that. I'm sorry. I
[1:45:49] can't. But that's the but that is the
let me put it this way that is the way
[1:45:55] the law is written for a uh imminent or
an imminent domain or not imminent
[1:46:02] domain but a um moratorum on imminent
peril and it has to be it affects the
[1:46:09] the health and welfare of the of the
citizens. Okay, a judge is going to
[1:46:14] decide that and I think a good attorney
can tear that apart and I can't. I'm not
[1:46:19] an attorney and I don't have Webster's
dictionary in front of me. So, I don't
[1:46:23] mean to be rude or disrespectful, but I
can't answer that question. I think how
[1:46:28] you're trying to get me to answer.
>> No, no, I'm not trying to get you to I'm
[1:46:31] just trying to understand your
perspective [clears throat] and and and
[1:46:34] you know, you you mentioned water, you
know, the city's responsibility to
[1:46:39] provide water. Um I I guess maybe more
broadly would you consider mental
[1:46:44] well-being as part of the welfare of the
city?
[1:46:46] » Well, let me put it to you this way.
Okay, if we did a moratorum
[1:46:51] and we were wrong, which I think right
now we are
[1:46:56] very wrong. We aren't even close to
having enough documentation to do it.
[1:47:02] Think of the consequences of a
moratorum. Will that have a greater
[1:47:05] impact on our welfare of our citizens
because they're going to have to pay out
[1:47:09] of their nose to pay for the legal fees
and everything or can they be can we
[1:47:14] wait a little bit longer um until our
experts find out the facts. Not only do
[1:47:20] we affect the welfare of the citizens of
Raptor and this will affect some of them
[1:47:24] but if we put a moratorum on building
that's going to affect the contractors
[1:47:29] the the asphalt guys the landscapers the
plumbers the sheetrock guys the framers
[1:47:35] the electricians the and go and building
supply companies they're all going to
[1:47:40] get affected very strongly and that's
going to affect a lot of people and
[1:47:45] you're going to have a lot of people
attacking you and I don't want to be a
[1:47:49] part of that right now. It's not
it's I'm not saying it ain't going to
[1:47:54] happen. I'm going to say it's not now.
Now is not the time. We don't have
[1:47:58] enough facts and information to do a
definitive. Yes, we need a moratorum.
[1:48:04] Okay. And I think to address what you
said about a continuous um you know
[1:48:11] issue, I I I'm not going to quote the
city attorney directly, but essentially
[1:48:14] what was said is what it really boils
down to is the attorney's ability to
[1:48:18] argue what is continuous,
>> right? It's pretty subjective.
[1:48:23] » True. And and the opposing attorney
that's going to sue us, they're they're
[1:48:28] pretty
>> their ability to argue it as well. Yeah.
[1:48:30] And and and that's my point is I'm not
feeling comfortable that we're at that
[1:48:35] point yet to where we can go to bat and
get that done and and try to fix the
[1:48:40] problem. I think we need to wait for our
water study. You know, Albert Einstein,
[1:48:45] they say he said this, but he didn't.
But the definition of insanity, and
[1:48:49] that's doing the same thing over and
over and over again, expecting different
[1:48:52] results and then feeling like that's
where we are. We keep going over and
[1:48:56] over and over and over on this,
expecting different results, and we
[1:48:59] aren't there yet. We aren't going to get
results till we get the facts and we
[1:49:03] don't have the facts yet. We need the
water study. We need more input like
[1:49:07] charge like Leon did and things. That
all takes time and and we've been
[1:49:12] working on it. We've been working on it
for a long time. We're just not there
[1:49:15] yet.
>> But but we have enough of a water study
[1:49:19] to identify the most optimal place to
put a new wire water tower.
[1:49:24] Kevin,
[1:49:28] » uh, a couple things, Mayor. Uh, we
actually looked at, uh, several
[1:49:32] different locations, uh, for
possibilities, um, for a new motor
[1:49:36] storage.
Um, just happened to be that we had an
[1:49:41] opportunity um, come before us on a
different landings matter that we uh,
[1:49:47] approached that property owner about
that bus.
[1:49:52] I I suggested an alternative site. Was
that researched at all?
[1:49:56] » Which site was that?
>> Um the potential of purchasing the land
[1:50:00] in Brookshshire from Lakeland Joint
School District.
[1:50:04] » Yeah, that would be a good spot as well.
>> There's several good spots in there. U
[1:50:09] the majority of the spots we looked at
were all in the southern part of the
[1:50:15] city uh corporate wise. Um, keep in
mind, um, it's a construction cost
[1:50:22] situation at that point in time, uh,
because if you pick, uh, a lower
[1:50:28] elevation, you're building a taller
tank. Um, so we looked at it from a
[1:50:34] topographical standpoint uh, to try to
determine which lands met that type of
[1:50:39] criteria, did the best value for
construction that we could. In other
[1:50:43] words, not build it as tall as what we
would if we were put it down into drill
[1:50:48] hole.
>> Um those are exciting things.
[1:50:50] » What about replacing the current water
tower?
[1:50:53] » We looked at that site as well.
>> Because that's one of the high points in
[1:50:57] the city, isn't it?
>> It is.
[1:50:59] » Okay. So, shorter water tower.
>> We looked at that actually that was a
[1:51:02] favorable location as well. Um, some of
that comes into play with uh the overall
[1:51:08] footprint that we're looking at for
that, but we did look at that site and
[1:51:12] you were correct that would be a good
site to put a water tower as well.
[1:51:16] » Right. Yeah. And sorry, we're starting
to drift into one of our next topic. So,
[1:51:20] I want to kind of steer away from that.
Um, and speaking of steering, I just I
[1:51:24] think you said something, Larry, that
bothered me a little bit and I was
[1:51:27] hoping maybe you can clarify a little
bit. No, no. Just just just a minute
[1:51:30] ago. And and um you made the statement
that the city attorney is trying to
[1:51:35] steer us. Can you clarify that?
>> Uh
[1:51:41] I don't understand. Well, I maybe that's
a poor choice of words. She she is our
[1:51:46] legal counsel. Okay. If we are sitting
here and she gives us guidance to do
[1:51:51] something a certain way and we don't do
it that way, we're liable. But if and
[1:51:57] she won't defend us, but if she steers
us to do something a certain way and we
[1:52:02] honor her words and trust her judgment,
then we're protected. Okay? And and by
[1:52:08] steering us, I I that's probably that
was probably a poor choice where it's
[1:52:12] more like guiding us and directing us in
the paths that maybe we should consider
[1:52:18] because she knows the laws. She knows
the legalities. I don't. I sell auto
[1:52:22] parts, you know. I I I trust her
judgment because she's one of the
[1:52:26] experts. I trust their judgment over
there because they're experts and I
[1:52:31] trust, you know, and that's why
are they always right? No. But usually
[1:52:36] when they're not, they'll tell you. And
and that that's what I mean by that by
[1:52:41] steering us. I don't mean she's, you
know, proddding us to go a certain way.
[1:52:45] She's giving us legal guidance, which is
her job, and she does a darn good job of
[1:52:50] it. So, does that answer your question?
Right. Yeah. No, thank you. Appreciate
[1:52:54] that.
>> Uh, is that everything you Sorry.
[1:52:57] » Uh, you had made comments about uh
Emily's quote of uh what she can defend.
[1:53:03] » In that [clears throat] same memo, she
also talked to you about what she felt
[1:53:07] continuous would be and continuous would
be for a prolonged period of time in a
[1:53:12] 48 hour window. It would be [snorts]
close to a a 23 24 hour period in the 48
[1:53:19] hour window. And and that is this our
current city attorney's definition of
[1:53:23] what she would be able to defend,
>> right? And that's what you were you were
[1:53:26] saying. What what can she defend? That's
what I wanted to throw that out there.
[1:53:30] » Thank you. No, I appreciate that. Thank
you for the clarity. Larry, uh, sorry,
[1:53:33] Leon. Um, Larry, did you have anything
else?
[1:53:36] » I think I stated my case. I think you
know where I stand,
[1:53:39] » right? Uh, Matt, uh, Chris, can you help
me understand these uh, work orders?
[1:53:47] Some of them don't have a scheduled date
and a time, but they have a result.
[1:53:53] » Um, basically in our work queue, they
get sent out and um, they come to me and
[1:53:58] I, you know, I hand them out to my
employees and if you have an imperative
[1:54:04] maintenance thing that you have to do,
it'll shift your time. So, it just gets
[1:54:08] you have to prioritize yourself to get
those things done.
[1:54:11] » Okay. So, it's safe to say those that
don't have a scheduled date and time
[1:54:14] were completed on or about the day it
was filed.
[1:54:19] » That would be a fairly normal turnaround
day, next day.
[1:54:24] » Okay. Um,
we're talking about a moratorum on
[1:54:28] building and I'll say I'm trying to I'm
trying to get pulled in one direction or
[1:54:34] or the other direction. But looking at
the work orders, April 27, 2023, there
[1:54:40] was a reading of 92 PSI. Um, where's our
street on this? In Santa Fe Street.
[1:54:47] Um, you know, I thumb through all this
here. April 23, reading of 75 PSI. No
[1:54:54] low pressure found. Uh, Irish circle.
So, there's quite a few of the no
[1:55:03] low pressure found on these work orders.
[1:55:09] Uh, here's here's another one. March
2024, the best reading he got was 70
[1:55:14] PSI. He checked again and he got 82. and
that it's going to be a Cascade Street.
[1:55:23] So, what I'm getting at is this is to me
not necessarily pointing at the culprit
[1:55:29] of low water pressure being the addition
of new houses. Now, that's not to say
[1:55:35] that the addition of new houses creates
more lawns to water,
[1:55:41] but when we're looking at
decently good water pressure readings in
[1:55:47] months that I certainly hope people are
not watering their lawn,
[1:55:54] it's high. And the lower ones are going
to be the months that people are
[1:55:59] lowering their law, watering their lawns
rather.
[1:56:02] So to me that's going to point to where
staff is going when it comes to it's an
[1:56:08] irrigation is the culprit. The immediate
culprit, potentially a secondary culprit
[1:56:13] could be building,
but the immediate one with the data on
[1:56:18] these work orders is telling me is that
it's
[1:56:23] it's something happening in the summer.
And I think it's the data presented
[1:56:28] today is uh telling me it's water
watering our lawns. I think it was 500%.
[1:56:34] Don't quote me on that, but we increase
our water usage by 500%.
[1:56:39] uh in the summer. Additionally,
um if we're if we're going to enact
[1:56:44] imminent peril,
we we need to
[1:56:49] show what we have done. Now I
without having wrath city code 8-1-12
[1:57:01] being set up which is going to be the
water system emergencies
[1:57:06] which uh in the event of a water
emergency as declared by the public
[1:57:09] works director the following actions may
be put into immediate effect by the
[1:57:14] city. Uh the first thing a 8-1-12A
is irrigation and sprinkling sprinkling
[1:57:23] restricted.
Once a water emergency has been
[1:57:25] declared, the public works director may
require that all or part of the citizens
[1:57:31] comply with the following water
rationing schedule while the emergency
[1:57:35] is in effect.
So, if we're saying that we're in a time
[1:57:40] of imminent peril, but we're also not
enacting city code that we have for an
[1:57:47] emergency. That's what I'm struggling
with. I don't know if there's anyone
[1:57:52] that's able to help me pop out of that
struggle.
[1:57:55] » I I think the difference in my mind and
and I think the city attorney could
[1:57:59] probably help here as well. Um, imminent
peril means the potential of something
[1:58:03] happening. An emergency being there is
something happening. So, let's say that
[1:58:09] their rather mountain catches fire.
They're pulling from every hydrant that
[1:58:12] they can find. That is an emergency. The
uh in this case, I believe it would be
[1:58:17] Chris could implement a water emergency
and say, "All right, at this point, you
[1:58:23] know, commercial businesses, you can
water on this uh Monday, Wednesday,
[1:58:26] Friday. Residents Tuesday, Thursday,
Saturday." Right? I I think that's the
[1:58:31] difference. An active emergency versus
the potential of an emergency.
[1:58:37] Fair enough.
[1:58:41] So then the the next thing that the the
struggle that I've got here is is we've
[1:58:47] not gone below that 20 PSI. Now I would
actually disagree with your estimate of
[1:58:54] where we're at when it hits a 20. that
was above a 35 um on the reading. And my
[1:59:00] very quick math, 35 minus 13, I wrote it
down, is 22.
[1:59:06] So that's not 20. I don't I'm not a
water expert. I don't know how much PSI
[1:59:11] uh that two PSI matters, but it does
matter between 20 and 19. And so we've
[1:59:17] got a difference of two from 20 to 22.
So I read that as 22.
[1:59:21] A measurable deficiency
[1:59:26] I would argue we have a measurable
deficiency. We have a deficiency in our
[1:59:29] water system.
Is that deficiency leading us to an
[1:59:34] imminent peril? The threat of
[1:59:38] welfare or harming the welfare of the
citizens.
[1:59:44] I I'm not sure it does.
>> That doesn't mean we don't have a
[1:59:48] problem.
>> Yeah. Sorry. What was the fire
[1:59:50] department's response to that?
>> Did Did they respond at all? That's my
[1:59:54] next part here
>> on Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
[1:59:56] » Yeah, you're good. The the fire
department um commented on their uh
[2:00:00] their memo. If you've got the packet,
it's page 43 of the PDF and it's the
[2:00:06] last sentence and it goes into page 44.
Currently, there are no concerns from
[2:00:11] the fire department regarding the
pressures or the adequacy of the water
[2:00:14] systems in raft.
He also notices that the hydrants within
[2:00:19] the city are required to be periodically
tested and maintained.
[2:00:25] So we have our
our fire department saying that they
[2:00:30] don't have a concern.
[2:00:35] That is all I have.
Okay.
[2:00:40] I don't know what's left.
[2:00:46] I think there's obviously a problem in
Brookshshire, but
[2:00:50] um the water readings that Leon showed
us, uh the HOA is using four times the
[2:00:58] amount of water an acre.
And that's where the majority of the
[2:01:03] problems are coming from.
The majority of the complaints for water
[2:01:08] pressure problems are coming out of
Brookshshire, which the HOA is using
[2:01:11] four times the amount of water to water
one acre. They're also the largest
[2:01:18] usage user of water in we're after.
I think some education needs to happen
[2:01:24] there.
>> That's just the HOA, not the city,
[2:01:28] » right? That's not the residence. That's
just the HOA water and green space.
[2:01:35] Well, I don't I don't So, based on based
on the actual workhold orders, so I I'll
[2:01:40] ask you, Chris, are the majority of
these in Brookshshire? The people that
[2:01:45] have actually taken the time to request
us to come out and do readings. Are the
[2:01:48] majority in Brookshshire?
>> I would have to look at it again to make
[2:01:51] sure, but there is a number from
say
[2:01:58] absolutely
[2:02:14] And and to your point, Ken, I think
anecdotally the majority of the
[2:02:17] complaints I get are from people in
Brookshshire.
[2:02:19] » Yeah.
>> Right.
[2:02:19] » I mean, that's that's what I'm getting,
too.
[2:02:22] » Yeah.
>> But I mean, [clears throat and cough]
[2:02:24] there's definitely a problem, but it I'm
thinking it might lie in Brookshshire.
[2:02:28] The answer
So, I mean, I don't I don't see it
[2:02:33] fitting it's not fitting imminent peril
there. I mean, if you put a moratorum,
[2:02:38] how's that going to solve any problem?
They're still going to have a low water
[2:02:40] pressure in Brookshire.
[2:02:44] » Even if we don't build another house,
>> even if you don't build another house,
[2:02:47] there's still got a water pressure
problem
[2:02:51] because there's more water being used
there than anywhere else.
[2:02:55] » Mr. Mayor, I believe Leon said that
Golden Spike was the
[2:03:02] » highest.
>> So it between the two months they're
[2:03:06] basically average there.
>> Okay. In one of them they were higher.
[2:03:09] » One was higher in one month and one was
higher in the other month. So
[2:03:12] » how did they compare elevation wise?
>> I had no idea.
[2:03:18] » So one's at the top of our water supply
and the other one's at the bottom of the
[2:03:22] water supply. It would stand a reason.
Kevin, maybe you can give me the John's
[2:03:26] an idiot answer here. um the lower
altitude would tend to have higher water
[2:03:33] pressure
versus the higher altitude having lower
[2:03:36] water pressure. All things being
>> Yeah. typically the way our water system
[2:03:41] is set up, it would be dependent upon of
course that
[2:03:44] » So would would Golden Spike, even though
they're using more water, would they
[2:03:48] realize a low pressure scenario before
say Brookshshire
[2:03:54] or would Brookshshire realize it first
being higher?
[2:03:58] Mayor, the difficulty is saying it off
the cuff on one way or waiting until we
[2:04:06] actually have that master. I know.
[cough and clears throat]
[2:04:09] » There you go.
>> Well, I think the I think the problem is
[2:04:15] that we're we're making decisions
tonight on our agenda based on an
[2:04:18] incomplete master plan. We're asking for
a water tower when we don't have a wa
[2:04:23] master plan to show us that that is the
most optimal place to put it.
[2:04:30] So I don't think we can talk out of both
sides of our mouth on this. Now that's
[2:04:33] for
a couple items down the line, but you
[2:04:37] know I I don't know that we can say
definitively one way or another. I I
[2:04:42] agree with you. You know, I I'm begging
people, you know,
[2:04:47] um Chris has got my my list, but you
know, we don't hardly anybody has
[2:04:52] actually filed a complaint with the
city. If you're having water pressure
[2:04:56] issues, now I was told when I asked
originally, and I know it has changed
[2:05:00] since then, that there was not someone
available at, you know, 5:00 a.m. to
[2:05:05] come measure the water pressure of my
house. Now, we can hook something up
[2:05:08] 24/7 and we can measure it and see, you
know, is it as is it as bad as I
[2:05:14] perceive when I get into the shower and
the water comes out like this versus
[2:05:18] straight, you know, may maybe it's not
as bad as I think it is. Maybe that
[2:05:22] difference in PSI isn't is
maybe there isn't as much of a
[2:05:26] difference as I think there is.
>> Well, there's a difference between
[2:05:29] volume and pressure, okay? And we're
talking the gallons of usage for you
[2:05:35] know let's say rad or majest golden
spine they used x amount of gallons
[2:05:41] that's volume has nothing to do with
pressure
[2:05:46] can be affected by many different things
the diameter of the line uh various
[2:05:51] other things right like you were just
saying so we
[2:05:53] » hydraulic
>> yeah hydraulic the hydraulic modeling is
[2:05:57] going to identify a lot of this So, um,
understood. So, Chris,
[2:06:04] » uh, Mr. Mayor, I count just quick count
was nine.
[2:06:07] » Nine out of Sorry, how many was it? 39.
[laughter]
[2:06:10] » It's on the front page. I got it. I got
it. So, so nine out of
[2:06:13] » 39.
>> Nine out of 39 were in Brookshire. So
[2:06:16] the so the majority of these in areas
where historically you know maybe high
[2:06:22] water pressure I'm thinking right street
you know where you know
[2:06:26] » what I was getting at though is where
the problems were.
[2:06:29] » So the on the rest of the 30 there was
no problems found.
[2:06:33] » Mhm. [clears throat]
>> But there was low water pressure in
[2:06:36] Brookshire.
>> Yeah.
[2:06:38] » Yeah. That's what good point.
[2:06:43] Was there anything else?
[2:06:48] » No, that's that's all I had.
>> Okay,
[2:06:51] » Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to point out
that if the council were to do an
[2:06:56] ordinance uh for moratorum, we have the
choice to select either an emergency or
[2:07:02] an interim one and they are different.
>> Okay.
[2:07:06] » What are the differences? The difference
[laughter]
[2:07:09] [gasps]
uh
[2:07:10] » the emergency is six months and the
interim is a year
[2:07:14] » is a year
>> although we have the option to make it
[2:07:17] six months if we wanted to
>> and mortoriiums can be extended
[2:07:24] » that's more of an Emily question
>> do it at the end to show what you've
[2:07:27] done and everything else but u I think
there is also a limitation of time
[2:07:33] between the moratoriums you can't just
go from one into the other you have to
[2:07:38] have a time period in between. Without
my legal expertise [laughter] next to
[2:07:44] me, I wouldn't be able to tell you what
that is.
[2:07:46] » Right.
[2:07:50] » Right. So, this is an action item. It is
consideration of adopting of findings of
[2:07:57] imminent peril related to water system
pressure concerns for an emergency
[2:08:00] moratorum ordinance. So, council, how
would you like to proceed?
[2:08:03] » Mr. Mayor, based on what we've been
through tonight in the last several
[2:08:09] meetings and all the information we
have, I make a motion that we deny the
[2:08:14] consideration of adoption of findings of
imminent peril related to our water
[2:08:19] system pressure concerns for an
emergency moratorum ordinance. And
[2:08:25] again, like I said last meeting, let's
wait till we get our water study.
[2:08:31] » Okay. And I have to be sure that I
understand what it is that you're
[2:08:33] saying. You're saying that we should
deny the findings.
[2:08:37] » We deny the consideration to adopt the
findings. We deny We deny what we're act
[2:08:43] our action item is.
>> All right. Motion made. Is there a
[2:08:45] second?
>> Second. All right. 10 seconds.
[2:08:47] Commission.
>> Further discussion. Thank you. Um
[2:08:54] what's the repercussion if it gets
denied? Are we able to bring it back as
[2:08:58] an action item? you can bring it back as
an action item. Matter of fact, Larry's
[2:09:02] motion was to uh until we had the
results of our water study.
[2:09:09] » Mr. Mayor, I wanted to point out that I
did ask JUB engineers about the
[2:09:15] preliminary findings and if they
expected there to be any differences in
[2:09:19] the final report and they indicated that
no, that
[2:09:24] there were not expecting it to be any
different in the final report.
[2:09:33] And I I'll say from my part, you know, I
I totally understand from an engineering
[2:09:37] perspective where Kevin's coming from.
You know, that that data matters. Um you
[2:09:43] know, I think one of the most um
honestly upsetting things that I heard
[2:09:48] from JUB was additional data isn't going
to make a difference in the accuracy of
[2:09:53] their water study and that the accuracy
is 90%. Um I I just feel like in the
[2:10:00] court of law that's just 10% is a big
margin to argue against,
[2:10:06] » you know. So So we my concern is that
that you're that the council is hinging
[2:10:12] everything on this water study when in
reality water studies get picked apart
[2:10:18] every day throughout the country.
So in light of that, yes, we we expect
[2:10:23] the we got a prelim everything again.
We're talking preliminary and I think
[2:10:28] we're preliminary on an imminent barrel
or a moratorum, but September is our
[2:10:35] agreement sometime in September for our
water study. December is where we're
[2:10:42] going to be able to plug in by December,
we're supposed to be able to plug in our
[2:10:46] our modeling and our hydraulic things.
That's where we're going to find our
[2:10:50] answers. We're not going to get our
answers in September.
[2:10:54] » Well, I want to correct that.
>> And I Okay,
[2:10:57] » jump in here.
>> We'll be able to do modeling for our
[2:11:00] current system, which means we'd be able
to model where we could do water towers
[2:11:05] and even in trying to be cautious of our
other thing. It would tell us that even
[2:11:12] we picked anywhere in the city how tall
that water tower would need to be
[2:11:17] because anywhere in the city would work.
We just have to change the height of
[2:11:22] that whether it's 2 ft or 25 ft. But
that's what the model will tell us is
[2:11:31] part and the design factor of that water
tower if I'm not mistaken. Kevin, is
[2:11:36] that accurate? Well, there's
>> it's a little bit more complicated than
[2:11:41] that.
>> I'm dumbing it down in an account view.
[2:11:45] » What I'm I that's what I mean by my
point. We aren't going to know till
[2:11:49] we're able to plug those into the
system. So, we don't have any answers
[2:11:54] today and we're we're not going to have
until we get that study and do that.
[2:11:59] » Mr. Mayor, one
sorry, one second. Let can we let Kevin
[2:12:04] finish his statement and we'll go back
to you. with regards to the
[2:12:09] the whole conversation about the water
storage tank and the you know production
[2:12:13] well a lot of that came from me um and
the reason why is is we're putting
[2:12:19] together operating budgets for the
upcoming fiscal year and I wanted to
[2:12:24] make sure that was on the radar um and
part of being on the radar was just to
[2:12:29] make sure we can start identifying
potential what those costs are and then
[2:12:33] demonstrated to the city council that we
had those funds at things. So, forgive
[2:12:38] me as far as water storage tank. Let me
be clear. Um, I would like to build a
[2:12:45] water storage tank.
Locationwise,
[2:12:48] yeah, that's something that we'll
certainly need to model and make sure we
[2:12:52] put that in the most appropriate spot.
Most appropriate being one, location
[2:12:56] from a hydraulic standpoint. two, uh, if
it's any any in any sensitive type areas
[2:13:03] such as if it's encumbered by, you know,
who knows what or if the land's
[2:13:08] particularly expensive, those type of
things, um, would come into play. But
[2:13:12] the main thing was I just wanted to get
on city council's radar because pretty
[2:13:17] soon you're going to be finalizing an
operating budget. And if I didn't get
[2:13:22] out in front of that um and request it,
then either one you'd have to open up
[2:13:28] the budget during the middle of the year
for a very large ticket item or take
[2:13:32] ticket items. Um so I just want to make
sure I was being clear that I was trying
[2:13:37] to be proactive on that. I'm not trying
to and mayor, I do appreciate what
[2:13:41] you're saying as far as talking it out
both sides of my mouth as far as whether
[2:13:45] or not we have a model says we need it
and here's some potential locations.
[2:13:50] We're not done yet. Um, but we're
getting really, really close. Um, and I
[2:13:55] think we have a very good indication of
where the location's going to be,
[2:13:59] particularly based upon a lot of this
conversations we've had over the last
[2:14:04] six plus months. Um, so confidence level
is going high, but it's not 100% yet.
[2:14:11] So, I just I wanted to throw that out
there for clarification just to make
[2:14:15] sure that we're not hinging any
decisions based upon some of those
[2:14:20] preliminary comments because they were
more from a fiscal standpoint more so
[2:14:25] than anything.
Well, and you know, I think you know,
[2:14:31] also along those same lines, you know, J
Jub did say that, you know, we would we
[2:14:36] would have
current state
[2:14:40] in September.
>> Correct.
[2:14:41] » Right. From a model.
>> That is correct.
[2:14:43] » Um and then it sounded like at the
earliest December for future state.
[2:14:48] » Correct.
>> Right. So, so again, you know, we aren't
[2:14:52] going to be able to tell in September
based on the current number of future
[2:14:58] projects that we have approved within
the city where that water tower is going
[2:15:02] to be the best fit. Right?
>> Do you see what I'm saying?
[2:15:05] » But, mayor, what we'll do is what that
September study will allow us to do is
[2:15:09] identify if we do have deficiencies or
needs. Therefore, is there a capital
[2:15:14] improvement program that would remedy
or provide solutions to those existing
[2:15:21] problems. Next would be the ability to
start plugging in, you know, a potential
[2:15:28] new development here or there and seeing
how it would perform in our water system
[2:15:33] or if it would trigger any type of act,
you know, actions such as mitigating
[2:15:38] factors about, hey, we actually probably
need to go back and increase the line of
[2:15:43] this, you know, this main or tie this
and interop it or those type of things.
[2:15:47] That's what the Decemberish
uh master plan information will have the
[2:15:54] ability to allow us in detail. But
September wise, it's simply going to
[2:15:59] look at our existing distribution
system, see if there's weaknesses or
[2:16:04] deficiencies and what are those, you
know, what do we need to consider to
[2:16:09] possibly resolve those issues. So, as a
city without the ability to forward look
[2:16:16] and knowing that we have
[2:16:20] low low periods now,
um you know, whether it be 22 PSI or
[2:16:26] [clears throat and cough] 20 PSI, how
are we
[2:16:29] or how is the council supposed to make a
determination of as the new houses come
[2:16:35] online?
um you know and and we have
[2:16:39] neighborhoods under construction now
what the what the impact of that's going
[2:16:42] to be how would you make that
determination give a recommendation to
[2:16:45] the council without a model
>> so mayor I think I've mentioned uh a few
[2:16:50] times especially at the last council
meeting I don't believe we're close to
[2:16:54] imminent peril I I think that
short of pounding my fist on the table
[2:16:59] last city council meeting um I advocated
very heavily for u water conservation
[2:17:06] particularly education. I repeated
myself far too many times during that
[2:17:11] meeting and said the same thing over and
over again.
[2:17:15] You're going to hear right now again. We
need to implement some water
[2:17:19] conservation education. I think that
would be the most appropriate step. It
[2:17:24] gets you your biggest bang for the buck.
Um is it immediate? No. Did we adjust
[2:17:30] water rates and then people got a water
bill and did that have immediate impact
[2:17:34] on how they functioned and conserve
their water? It did. I think that we
[2:17:41] have intelligent residents that could
understand um or could benefit from a
[2:17:47] lot of these um water conservation
education tools that we could utilize.
[2:17:52] That would get us
would carry us a long way. But I
[2:17:57] certainly think that's a step that we
need to go down and pursue. And if it
[2:18:00] doesn't work, then we pursue the next
step. And that's because you
[2:18:04] [clears throat] actually start finding
people that are [snorts] violating
[2:18:08] particular rules that may be employees.
Um that's a much more drastic step, but
[2:18:13] education always seems to work. Um, we
talk about educating people on speed
[2:18:18] limits and, you know, traffic safety
incidents and we do, you know, DUI
[2:18:24] increased enforcement because it's
certain times of the year when that type
[2:18:27] of activity happens. Well, how is water
conservation any different than any one
[2:18:33] of those separate stewardship programs?
>> Well, and I think believe it is.
[2:18:37] » Yeah. part part of the problem that I
have and unfortunately without the city
[2:18:39] attorney here tonight, we can't have her
weigh in. But, you know, at what point
[2:18:44] um you know, do fees become punitive and
now we're opening up the city to
[2:18:48] liability? Um I I've said this before
and I'll say it again. Um you know,
[2:18:53] Idaho is one of the greatest states in
the country in terms of property rights.
[2:18:56] Um you know, it's why councils are up
here. It's why we have the debates that
[2:18:59] we have, especially on land use items.
Um you know, I'm able to do with my land
[2:19:04] as I please. Um, and now you're going to
punish me because I have a small farm,
[2:19:10] you know, an agricultural farm. Um, you
know, I provide for my family with a
[2:19:14] garden in my backyard and I can't use as
much water and now I can't provide for
[2:19:17] them. Um, you know, things like that.
Um, that I think that just leads down a
[2:19:23] concerning road from a city perspective
to where now I understand what you're
[2:19:27] saying and you know, I made the
suggestion to Rick Pine earlier, right?
[2:19:31] you know, maybe Brookshshire can reduce
their water window and possibly even
[2:19:37] change it to in the evening. Maybe that
would make a a big difference. You know,
[2:19:42] um I I agree with you. Education is
important. Um I think we talked at the
[2:19:46] last meeting, Leon, about you know, back
of water bill. Um you know, for the
[2:19:51] people that read that, possibly an
article on the website, things like
[2:19:54] that.
>> Do a flyer that goes out separate from
[2:19:56] the water bill. But we have the ability
to do all those different things.
[2:20:00] » Yeah.
>> Uh I just want to point out, mayor, you
[2:20:02] you mentioned like not being able to do
what you want to do. Uh everybody has
[2:20:07] the choice of doing what they want to do
and there are different consequences to
[2:20:12] our actions. If we want to use more
water and it costs more money, then we
[2:20:16] can do that. If we don't want to do
that, we can do that, too. Uh we're not
[2:20:21] shutting off your meter at 20,000
gallons, right? Uh, nobody is saying
[2:20:27] that in a water conservation effort that
we're going to go out and shut off
[2:20:31] meters at 20, 50, or 100,000 gallons. It
simply isn't that. If you want to use
[2:20:36] more power in your home and turn on two
air conditioners rather than one, and
[2:20:41] you're willing to pay the bill for it,
you can. Absolutely. If you want to use
[2:20:45] more water and you're willing to pay for
it, you can. Absolutely. Conservation is
[2:20:50] an educational field. Nothing that I
said is fines or penalties. We don't
[2:20:56] have an enforcement arm on this. Uh
paying for the fact that we need to have
[2:21:02] more infrastructure to provide for
irrigation is realistic.
[2:21:08] It's not unrealistic to say if you want
to use 100,000 gallons, then you got to
[2:21:12] pay a higher premium because we have to
have extra wells and extra storage tanks
[2:21:18] in order for you to be able to do that.
But isn't that typically accounted for
[2:21:22] at the time that the applicants come in
and want to do with their land? I mean,
[2:21:26] isn't that the whole point of title 11,
which we're discussing?
[2:21:30] » No, it's not. That title 11 is water
mitigation to make sure that there's
[2:21:34] water available to those citizens that
live there. Available is one thing as
[2:21:39] how much they use of that water is a
completely different thing that is based
[2:21:43] off of the rates and how much you're
willing to pay for the water that you
[2:21:47] receive. Everybody has that choice in
every single thing that we do. If you
[2:21:51] want to go to the grocery store and buy
donuts instead of broccoli, you can.
[2:21:56] » Yeah. But in the same Sorry, Leon. In
the same argument, the people in the
[2:21:59] city are doing what they want to do
already. They're paying the bills and
[2:22:03] the city is is arguably um having an
issue keeping up at certain times. So,
[2:22:09] so I mean, I think you're just really
kind of saying the same thing that I am,
[2:22:12] that yep, we have a problem now. We need
a master plan. I understand that. Um, we
[2:22:17] need a hydraulic study completed so that
we can actually see what that is. We
[2:22:21] need it refined after that so that we
can see into the future. We can plug in
[2:22:24] new neighborhoods and see what the
impact of those will be. Um, you know,
[2:22:29] Title 11 adds, you know, the the burden
on the developer to do things like that,
[2:22:34] right? Traffic studies. Um, we we'll
talk about it a little bit more later.
[2:22:38] Um but you know at the at the end of the
day that doesn't solve our problem now
[2:22:42] you know and the problem is that you
know I I am concerned in a in a fire
[2:22:49] season we're going into another red flag
warning. Um in fact I think we're in it
[2:22:52] now.
um you know that one fire is going to
[2:22:59] catastrophically wipe out portions of
our city
[2:23:01] » because we don't have the water pressure
to supply the firefighting agencies
[2:23:08] and and I know you know Northern Lakes
has done studies non- peak um I don't
[2:23:13] think any of those studies they've done
are during peak periods is that correct
[2:23:16] Kevin or Chris
>> have they done any fire hydrant tests
[2:23:20] during peak periods
>> the ones we did with JUB
[2:23:24] in the early morning in July. I don't
recall exactly weather, but
[2:23:28] » that was last year.
>> Yeah, that was last year.
[2:23:32] » All right. Sorry, I must have
misunderstood. I thought they said they
[2:23:34] were
>> off peak seasons.
[2:23:36] » They won't they won't flow hydrants
during the adverse weather type winter,
[2:23:42] spring, fall. They typically will want
to exercise those hydrants during those
[2:23:48] summer time. Okay.
>> Which I kind of
[2:23:53] » Yeah.
[2:23:57] » Was that Was that in the packet? Maybe I
missed it when those were done.
[2:24:03] » Don't believe it was in the packet. I
don't think it was any of the material
[2:24:06] we provided on this time. We tried to
answer all the questions from the
[2:24:10] council.
>> There were a lot of them.
[2:24:12] » There were a lot of question.
>> What What did the city pay for that
[2:24:15] water city?
>> Uh Kevin, do you have the answer for
[2:24:19] that? We we contracted with the water
study in March of 2025.
[2:24:25] » Uh I don't remember the contract price.
>> Laura Laura, [laughter]
[2:24:32] » what's the number?
>> It was
[2:24:35] over $200,000.
>> So with that in mind, wouldn't it be an
[2:24:39] injustice to the citizens not to let
that complete the water study?
[2:24:44] » I don't think anybody's suggesting that.
Well, we're we're talking about going
[2:24:47] off their preliminary.
>> Yeah. That they said was not going to
[2:24:52] change between the time they submitted
it and what they've already given us.
[2:24:55] » I don't think
>> And why didn't they give it to us then?
[2:24:57] And
>> yeah, why didn't they give it to
[2:24:59] » I can't from a technical perspective, I
can't answer that. It's just, you know,
[2:25:03] but can I can I interject something?
>> Well, we're we're talking back and
[2:25:07] forth, back and forth, back and forth
here.
[2:25:10] That isn't going to change our our where
we're going to be on our moratorum.
[2:25:16] We've already made a motion. We've
already had it seconded.
[2:25:20] » And this is the discussion on
>> I understand, but what we're talking
[2:25:23] about isn't going to affect that. We've
been talking about that water study that
[2:25:29] » I mean it it may not for you and I I
understand that you made the motion.
[2:25:33] Your mind is set. This is the way that
it's going to be for your motion, right?
[2:25:36] So, sorry Kevin, you had something else.
So, mayor, the one thing is, and we talk
[2:25:40] about completion of the water master
plan, and the consultants made this
[2:25:45] crystal clear to me, is
their their findings are going to be all
[2:25:51] or nothing. So, once they put their
engineering stamp on that that master
[2:25:56] plan and sign it, that is what they're
going to stand by. Um whether or not
[2:26:02] things change between now and then, um
Lord, forgive me. I I haven't heard that
[2:26:08] um from them saying that. Um you claim
that you have. I haven't. Um I work with
[2:26:14] them
definitely more frequently than you do.
[2:26:18] Um so I would tell you that they're
pretty going to be pretty adamant that
[2:26:23] they're not going to make any
presentation with regards to any sort of
[2:26:27] mitigation or representation of
deficiencies without finalizing
[2:26:33] um that report. and then that report
getting accepted by DEEQ. And that
[2:26:40] should be written down in my comments to
you in that long question and answers uh
[2:26:49] memo we have in in your council packet
as well.
[2:26:53] So, I just want to be clear about that
because we we complain to developers and
[2:26:58] contractors is making sure you're
working from the most current set of
[2:27:02] drawings and a lot of those guys will
come out and have a set of drawings if
[2:27:06] it doesn't have that engineering stamp
over and we bang them over the head.
[2:27:11] Correct me if I'm wrong, but uh yeah,
that's kind of what we do. Um,
[2:27:17] » which is why they're not here today.
>> No, they're later. Yeah. Well, if they
[2:27:22] were going to stand by their preliminary
report, then they would be here.
[2:27:25] » Well, there's other reasons, but you'll
hear about that later.
[2:27:29] » Uh, it's out of scope of the contract.
>> What's that?
[2:27:32] » It's out of scope of our contract.
>> And Mr.
[2:27:37] » uh, if we find that there is imminent
peril, we're going to have to fill this
[2:27:41] ordinance out.
>> And frankly, I would look to staff to to
[2:27:46] help. we'd have to fill out section 2F
which states less restrictive
[2:27:50] alternatives. The city council has
considered the following less
[2:27:54] restrictive alternatives. Um if you're
looking on the sheet that we have here,
[2:27:57] it's number seven. Um I'll start with
staff and then I would like to open it
[2:28:00] up to council for it. But
>> so I just got to make sure is this
[2:28:06] directly to the motion that's currently
if we pass if we if I
[2:28:10] » I don't think we're required to fill it
out right now. Uh Leon mentioned that
[2:28:15] we're not
>> well I mentioned that if you if you
[2:28:18] found that there is there's findings
that I would need to schedule a workshop
[2:28:24] » said Mr. Mayor knows not.
>> Okay. And [snorts]
[2:28:31] » but that would be part of the findings.
[2:28:36] » And Lauran, can you restate the motion?
[2:28:42] » Made a motion to deny the adoption of
the findings for imminent peril related
[2:28:48] to water system pressure concerns for an
emergency moratorium ordinance until
[2:28:55] receive the final water study.
>> Okay.
[2:28:59] » Thank you.
[2:29:03] » Any further discussion on denying the
consideration of adoption of findings?
[2:29:20] I'm sorry. I'm really trying to wrap my
head around what this says.
[2:29:22] Consideration of adopting of findings of
imminent peril. So you're saying there
[2:29:26] is no imminent peril.
>> Correct. That is exactly what I'm
[2:29:29] saying.
>> Okay, perfect.
[2:29:31] » Larry, would you be able to Would you be
willing to amend the ending? You have
[2:29:34] until the completion of the water study.
What is the completion? We've got
[2:29:40] September. We've got December.
[2:29:45] » I'll leave that. Kevin, what is your
opinion of the completion of the large
[2:29:49] lead when they like you said when they
sign it or do you feel the hydraulic
[2:29:55] the hydraulic uh computer programming
will help us in determining if if and
[2:30:02] where the problems are
when I have a signed and sealed product.
[2:30:07] That's what I consider
>> and that's what we're going to get in
[2:30:09] September.
>> Yeah.
[2:30:11] » Okay.
>> Again, that'll go to DEQ. Um and they
[2:30:15] will
review it. You know, generally they will
[2:30:18] accept it or if they have questions,
they will require us to
[2:30:22] » I realize everything goes through DEEQ
and right now they're we're not poor
[2:30:28] standing with them. So
>> I can't actually build things without
[2:30:32] DEQ.
>> Yeah.
[2:30:34] » Does that does that help?
>> So So to to simplify it, September
[2:30:39] » when he gets it. Yeah.
>> When you get it, which is which is it's
[2:30:42] expected to be September. anticipated to
be in se September.
[2:30:46] » I'm okay with that. Yeah, about that.
>> Yes, September. [snorts]
[2:30:49] » So, change it to
end of September.
[2:30:54] » No, the completion of our study when he
Kevin said when he gets a engineered
[2:30:59] signed stamp notorized, here is your
contract.
[2:31:04] » Yeah. Well, whatever. [laughter]
Yeah.
[2:31:06] » Yeah. [snorts]
[2:31:12] And once you complete that, if you want
to take the role, Larry,
[2:31:18] » Larry Sanders,
>> yes.
[2:31:20] » Ken Owens,
>> yes.
[2:31:22] » Matthew Surf,
>> yes.
[2:31:26] » Laura F.
>> Yes.
[2:31:29] » Motion passes. Moving on.
First of all, everybody good to keep
[2:31:35] going?
Okay. Um item number eight, new
[2:31:38] business, a consideration of resolution
acknowledging preliminary water concerns
[2:31:43] and directing staff.
>> Mr. Mayor, uh looking at this
[2:31:49] resolution, there is a couple of things
that I want to point out. uh in this I'm
[2:31:54] going to pull it up on the uh
[2:32:01] there's a lot of bookmarks for the
[2:32:09] » I just had it too.
Oh, I'm trying to pull up that.
[2:32:14] » So, on the on the resolution, uh,
initially it talks about what the city
[2:32:19] has done uh recognizing cons uh concerns
weren't prompt attention and
[2:32:26] professional continued professional
review being a primary item on this. So,
[2:32:34] with this resolution, it's something
that they actually can take action now
[2:32:38] and staff can be working on it now. Um
we understand and acknowledge that the
[2:32:43] preliminary information provided to the
city by city's employed and contract
[2:32:49] professionals including the city
engineer public works director and JB
[2:32:53] engineering has identified concerns. So
the following things are the things that
[2:32:58] we're getting direction from council to
do. Completion of the water master plan
[2:33:04] on item two and [snorts] modeling.
Item three, prioritizing and budgeting
[2:33:10] for needed water improvements. Again,
that's what we are trying to do at
[2:33:14] passing budget. Uh reviewing water
capitalization fees. Once the master
[2:33:21] plan is being completed, we'll review
and update our water capitalization
[2:33:25] fees. This helps grow pay for the needed
capitalization improvements.
[2:33:31] uh continue monitoring, monitoring, and
water pressure readings, which we have
[2:33:36] continued to do, coordinate with DEEQ
and the fire department. So, we'll be
[2:33:41] working with DEQ, Northern Lakes Fire
Department to monitor our water system
[2:33:46] needs, water conservation efforts, um
providing education, uh for water
[2:33:53] conservation,
and
[2:33:56] addressing and focusing on education
first.
[2:33:59] um
review of our water rate fee structures.
[2:34:04] Again, this is what we did. We were able
to do this last year and we saw a
[2:34:09] reduction in water use of approximately
500,000 gallons per day. Uh so we could
[2:34:16] review those water fees and see if there
is an additional tier that needs to be
[2:34:20] added.
Education on landscaping requirements.
[2:34:24] So although we do have a lot of green
space in our town, our code does not
[2:34:29] require uh grass on everything. We do
have the ability to do 50% green growing
[2:34:36] material. That does not necessarily mean
grass. It could be bushes, it could be
[2:34:41] flowers, it could be a lot of different
things. Um they also can do other green
[2:34:47] growing material. Uh they can also do a
zero skate plan which we've adopted for
[2:34:53] multiple years but has not had a single
individual present a plan for zero
[2:34:59] skating at this particular point so we
can provide those indications.
[2:35:03] Um this doesn't adopt the moratorum but
it does provide us with things that we
[2:35:08] can do immediately that to help working
on the water conservation effort as well
[2:35:14] as continuing with the water master plan
and other things. So before you mayor
[2:35:20] and council is this resolution for your
consideration?
[2:35:24] » Uh
Leon just for my edification
[2:35:30] what in this resolution are we not
already doing?
[2:35:34] » So we have not looked at additional rate
fee structures. We have not put out
[2:35:39] information on water conservation.
We have not uh we have worked with the
[2:35:45] fire department but we haven't worked
with DEEQ to this level. Um we have
[2:35:52] ordinances on landscaping requirements
but we haven't provided education to the
[2:35:57] public on what those entail. So uh
[clears throat] there are things that we
[2:36:03] have done
uh with monitoring water pressure
[2:36:07] readings and there are other things that
we have not done. So like the water
[2:36:10] capitalization fee is going to come in
next and we're going to have to review
[2:36:14] that and see where there's a majority of
this work is things that we still have
[2:36:18] yet to do.
>> Okay.
[2:36:22] » But things that are currently planned
>> and
[2:36:25] » regardless of the resolution is is my
question. And then um and I know this is
[2:36:30] a question for Emily and
you know I'm I'm
[2:36:35] not trying to direct the council in any
way but you know my concern is that you
[2:36:40] know at some point
um our increase in water fees is going
[2:36:46] to be considered punitive by
probably a business in Rather. you know,
[2:36:52] being a lot of the people that use more
water than than most other people and
[2:36:57] that that's going to leave lead to legal
trouble.
[2:37:00] » Well, Mayor, we're not saying raise the
water fees. We're saying look at them,
[2:37:05] review them, and present them. This
isn't saying that we're going to raise
[2:37:10] them. Okay? That's still up to the
council to decide. and the
[2:37:13] justifications when we come to you with
that if we come to you with that ask
[2:37:21] it's still going to be up to the council
mind you when staff puts together a
[2:37:27] alternate tier we would have to justify
that and we would have to present that
[2:37:32] to you so that would be important to
consider when you're making that
[2:37:37] consideration we have not done yet yet
what this is saying is we will review it
[2:37:43] and we will work on it.
>> Nothing in this resolution says we will
[2:37:47] adopt it.
>> Okay.
[2:37:50] » So, this is more of a guide to steer
steers that direction.
[2:37:57] » Yeah. You better stop saying that what
to do [laughter]
[2:38:00] if I can.
>> I couldn't resist that one.
[2:38:02] » One of the things that Matt said at the
last council meeting is he wants to be
[2:38:06] able to do something now.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[2:38:09] » Correct.
>> And this is great. Yeah. This is things
[2:38:11] that we can start doing right now and we
can start doing this. Again, I'm not
[2:38:16] saying we haven't done anything. We have
been working on this non-stop for a year
[2:38:20] and a half almost.
>> Okay? It's been on council meetings. It
[2:38:24] has been talked about. Staff has
purchased new equipment to help us in
[2:38:29] this process. Nothing is slowing down.
If anything, it just seems to be
[2:38:33] speeding up what we're doing. So this is
just direction to staff of what you want
[2:38:39] us to do. If you want to add to this
resolution, we can add to this
[2:38:44] resolution. If you want to subtract from
this resolution, we can subtract from
[2:38:47] it. We just have to take really good
notes.
[2:38:51] » Mr. Mayor,
>> uh,
[2:38:54] we have questions or you want to make a
motion?
[2:38:55] » I want to make a motion.
>> Can we see if anybody has questions
[2:38:58] first?
>> Oh, okay.
[2:38:59] » Is that all right?
>> Yeah. I thought we
[2:39:01] » Laura, did you have questions about
this? Sorry,
[2:39:03] » I do not. And then Larry, did you have
any other questions or No clarification?
[2:39:07] I
>> I think it's a great idea, Matt.
[2:39:09] » Uh I do have questions. Um
the specifically uh see here
[2:39:16] the last section of the sentence of the
first point here specifically related to
[2:39:21] seasonal irrigation use. Does that need
to be in the resolution or can we just
[2:39:25] notate that we have a uh water system
issue?
[2:39:30] » Can you tell me what line item?
>> Uh it's one one.
[2:39:33] » Okay. Thank you. There's a lot of stuff
in here.
[2:39:36] » Yeah.
>> Um we can scratch that uh
[2:39:44] identified concerning tendencies to
related to the city's water system. We
[2:39:50] could scratch if that's the will of the
council to scratch out specifically
[2:39:54] related to seasonal irrigation usage.
[2:39:59] » Yeah.
Uh so
[2:40:05] sorry any any other questions?
>> I do. Yes. Can we uh add somewhere in
[2:40:11] here uh making sure that we have staff
available to respond during those peak
[2:40:16] usage times? Oh no, we have the uh never
mind. We have the the system to be able
[2:40:20] to 24/7.
Y
[2:40:24] » um
when you're saying education, what what
[2:40:27] [clears throat] type of education are
are we planning?
[2:40:30] » We'll be looking at all sorts of types
of education, whether it's uh on the
[2:40:34] back of the water bill, individual meter
uh individual flyers that go out to all
[2:40:39] of the residents or property owners uh
in the city of Rather. uh website
[2:40:45] information,
uh our news notices, and we putting
[2:40:49] together every single form of
notification that we can do because not
[2:40:53] everybody uses the same thing. Uh the
difficulty, I'll be blunt and honest,
[2:40:58] usually when a letter from the city of
Rather comes to your doorstep, it gets
[2:41:02] put into the waistband. But we got to
try everything we can. And if that means
[2:41:08] and includes that we find that it'd be
essential to even do like a news article
[2:41:12] with quarterly press, we could do that
too. I'm not limiting the way education
[2:41:19] is done. We will look at all areas of
education. Okay.
[2:41:22] » Can we ensure to educate people how to
submit their water pressure issues
[2:41:27] officially with the city?
>> Sure.
[2:41:32] You know, too, Leon, I think word of
mouth will help too when you start
[2:41:36] throwing stuff out there like the where
we're going to do odd days.
[2:41:40] » I already saw on Facebook that uh that
we're doing it even though we haven't
[2:41:43] done anything.
>> Of course. Yeah. So, people will talk
[2:41:46] and people that don't necessarily Yeah.
look at stuff will hear about it. So, uh
[2:41:52] » what was the request to add?
>> Um education on how to submit an issue
[2:41:58] with your water pressures.
>> Okay. I'll put uh we'll throw in a new
[2:42:03] 10 and push 10 all the way down. Um
education
[2:42:13] I can do [clears throat]
[2:42:17] » making a mental note.
[2:42:22] » Is that everything you have? Yes,
>> Ken. So, I have one thing. I don't know
[2:42:26] if it's possible, but in in case of a
fire either outside the city where
[2:42:30] they're they're drawing water from a
hydrant, is it possible to take a water
[2:42:35] reading at that time?
>> Uh, not on the fire hydrant. We have
[2:42:40] » not not on the like the further most
point
[2:42:43] like if they're drawing water, let's say
from Dashco,
[2:42:47] » can we get a water reading at
Brookshire?
[2:42:49] » Uh, we don't have any infrastructure out
there, but we could pull it off of our
[2:42:53] wells.
which fairly part of the part of the
[2:42:57] problem that I I have with that is JUB
was pretty specific that no additional
[2:43:01] measurements at this point are going to
change the hydraulic setting. So to
[2:43:04] » we can do water testing which is part of
this resolution that we continue
[2:43:08] monitoring and water pressure readings.
>> Okay.
[2:43:11] » So we can do water pressure readings
wherever we can. The difference is in
[2:43:15] Canon Deir's scenario is that if they're
pulling water pressure water out of a
[2:43:21] fire hydrant, if we don't have the
pressure log already hooked to a fire
[2:43:25] hydrant on the other side of town, we're
not going to measure that, right? We'd
[2:43:30] have to know in advance that they were
going to pull do that. Now, in a fire
[2:43:34] situation, we wouldn't know any advance.
And a lot of those fires happen, you
[2:43:38] know, in the middle of the night.
However, if they're doing a fire hydrant
[2:43:42] testing and
>> what I'm saying is if we have something
[2:43:45] that happens during the day
>> and they're they're pulling water from a
[2:43:49] hydrant, can we go do a test on the
other side of town to see what the
[2:43:54] pressure is at the pump?
>> We could conceivably do that, but like I
[2:43:58] said, if we knew, you know, even if it
was after the fact, like we had a house
[2:44:02] catch fire and two houses next door, you
know, did it. If I knew what time that
[2:44:06] was, I could look at our scan and I
could see it over four different
[2:44:09] locations areas and the reservoir as
well.
[2:44:13] » All right,
>> that's good to know.
[2:44:16] » And I and I appreciate we're making
every concerted effort that we can as a
[2:44:22] municipality to help resolve problems
and and work on it. We're doing all we
[2:44:28] can. We're working on it and it'll get
there. So,
[2:44:32] uh, now Larry, would you like to make a
motion?
[2:44:36] » Can I throw Can I throw something out
real quick?
[2:44:39] » Mr. Mayor,
>> go ahead.
[2:44:40] » So,
I'm trying to help ease the idea of a
[2:44:45] motion to capture everything that's gone
in here. So, if there was a motion that
[2:44:49] approved the resolution striking
specifically related to seasonal
[2:44:55] irrigation out of section one and adding
a new section on education on submitting
[2:45:02] requests for water pressure testing.
>> Here you go, Matt. It's your it's your
[2:45:08] uh
[laughter] motion.
[2:45:11] » You make your motion. I'll second it.
>> Mr. Mayor,
[2:45:14] » uh go ahead. I make a motion uh that we
first time for everything, right?
[2:45:23] » Okay. I've
>> Can you can Oh, helps if I show you the
[2:45:28] thing.
>> Oh, you got it. Uh no, it's not an
[2:45:31] ordinance.
Next page on the back of it. Nope. On
[2:45:36] the back of that page. There you go.
[2:45:41] I move to approve and adopt the
resolution for uh acknowledging
[2:45:46] preliminary water concerns and directing
staff striking
[2:45:50] the
water irrigation issue and adding the
[2:45:57] new number 10.
[2:46:01] Educating
for submitting requests for water
[2:46:05] pressure testing,
>> which is educating and submitting
[2:46:07] requests for water submission. Water
pressure submission
[2:46:10] » as Leon said.
>> As Leon said,
[2:46:13] » Lauren, did you Sorry. Did you Did you
get that?
[2:46:16] » Are are you okay?
>> You got it. You got it. Thank you. And
[2:46:18] Larry seconded. Um, any further
discussion?
[2:46:24] I'm
>> good. All right, Lauren, you can take
[2:46:26] the role.
>> Matt, sir. Yes. Mayor
[2:46:32] » Sanders.
>> Yes.
[2:46:33] » Laura Fuller.
>> Yes.
[2:46:35] » Owens.
>> Yes.
[2:46:39] » Right. Motion passes.
>> Uh moving on to 8B. This is an action
[2:46:43] item consideration of authorizing the
mayor to execute contract amendment
[2:46:47] number two with Jub Engineers
Incorporated for the water system master
[2:46:52] plan update.
>> Mr. Mayor, um I'll do my best to try to
[2:46:56] articulate what my mineral says and all
her few words. Um we had asked JB um or
[2:47:05] city council had asked for JB to attend
tonight's city meeting and they had some
[2:47:11] concerns. One, scope creep uh the fact
that it's outside of their uh existing
[2:47:17] scope of work. Therefore, it would be
need to be complemented by, you know, a
[2:47:22] supplementary agreement such as what is
in your packet. The next was just um not
[2:47:29] knowing necessarily what the nature or
uh the preciseness of the questions were
[2:47:37] um that city council may have um because
they could come from all different
[2:47:41] angles. Therefore, the preparation that
they would need to do would need to be
[2:47:46] extensive and it wouldn't and we're not
talking about just one person in their
[2:47:51] organization, probably their whole team
that's been working on our water master
[2:47:55] plan.
Um, so that got me to thinking that one,
[2:48:01] if they have to step back and prepare,
and then two, considerable added
[2:48:08] expense, to me, those are two negative
things. And I definitely wanted to make
[2:48:13] sure I point those out to city council
because now you're talking about
[2:48:18] strong likelihood of delay of
deliverables [clears throat]
[2:48:21] um for that which obviously tonight
seems to be paramount concern to get
[2:48:26] that done as quickly as possible um
because the resources is now going to be
[2:48:30] diverted to go backwards um and try to
prepare for a presentation that again
[2:48:36] they're not necessarily [clears throat]
there yet because
[2:48:40] premature they are going to come back
before city council. They'll come back
[2:48:43] before city council once they come up
with all their findings um from their
[2:48:48] deliverable product.
>> And sorry, Kevin, real real quick, I'm
[2:48:51] going to I'm going to ask you a pointed
question. What is the likelihood that
[2:48:55] they would essentially just come back
and say the water study is not done. We
[2:48:58] got to wait until it's done before we
can give you any definitive answers.
[2:49:01] » That's a great point, Mr. Mayor. I'm
actually hoping you deny this one. So,
[2:49:05] because I honestly think that's going to
be
[2:49:08] » that's okay. [snorts]
Council, any questions?
[2:49:14] » I was a question. [laughter]
>> I have a question.
[2:49:18] » If we deny this, it's saying that they
will still have they're expecting to
[2:49:25] come back in late September.
>> September.
[2:49:27] » Okay. But if we pass this, it means they
will come in before.
[2:49:33] But the but the but the completion of
the master plan would be de or that
[2:49:38] hydraulic study could be delayed would
likely be delayed is the way I
[2:49:42] » kind of feels like we'd ask them to come
back and there'd be some questions
[2:49:46] they'd answer and some they plead the
fifth because they can't
[2:49:51] provide exactness to the level or the
type of question that may be asked.
[2:49:56] » So all that preparation one cost us a
lot of money to do. it's I can't
[2:50:01] quantify what that scope of work is and
two uh if they're diverting their time
[2:50:07] and you know their time allocation
towards that and not the actual product
[2:50:13] then we're looking at significant delays
in deliverables. So
[2:50:17] » and and yeah you you hit two nails on
the head there the compensation that
[2:50:21] we're going to have to give them we have
no idea what it's going to be.
[2:50:24] » But engineers aren't cheap number one.
Number two, they want the questions a
[2:50:29] week in advance. So that delays it way
beyond because by the time we can figure
[2:50:33] out the questions we want to do, we're
going to be in the middle of September
[2:50:36] anyway. So why don't we just
>> forgo this?
[2:50:39] » I think I think the mayor asked the best
question and best answer I gave to him
[2:50:43] was I hope you deny it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. [laughter]
[2:50:46] » Laura, go ahead.
>> My question is I don't understand. Does
[2:50:49] this mean they're definitely coming back
or that we have the option of
[2:50:52] » No, this so so
>> before.
[2:50:55] Yes. So, they are definitely coming back
>> when it's done.
[2:51:00] » This gives us an option of having them
come back a little bit sooner, but as
[2:51:03] Kevin said, they're very likely just to
tell us, "Listen, until it's done, we
[2:51:06] can't really give you any definitive
answers."
[2:51:08] » That's about 6 weeks from now.
>> Yeah.
[2:51:11] » Yeah.
>> So, remember last meeting we said we
[2:51:13] want fire department here and all that.
This is what this resulted from us
[2:51:18] asking them to come back to answer
questions and
[2:51:22] » it's going to cost us a lot of money and
I think it's moot. I think we should
[2:51:25] Anyway,
>> is there a motion?
[2:51:29] » Mr. Mayor,
>> Larry,
[2:51:31] » I make a motion that we deny the
consideration of authorizing you to
[2:51:37] execute a contract amendment number two
with JUB Engineers Incorporated for the
[2:51:42] water system master plan update.
>> Is there a second? A second. And
[2:51:47] discussion.
>> Right. Lauren, if you'll take the role,
[2:51:51] please.
>> Sanders.
[2:51:52] » Yes.
>> Matthew Sar. Yes.
[2:51:55] » Can
>> Yes.
[2:51:56] » Or
>> yes.
[2:51:58] » Thank you guys. Are we good to move on
to the next item or do we need a quick
[2:52:02] recess?
>> All right. Uh item 8 C. This is an
[2:52:09] action item consideration of adopting an
ordinance adding new code to title 11
[2:52:14] adequate public facilities.
Mr. Mayor and council, before you is
[2:52:19] title 11. We have had a number of
workshops with both planning and zoning
[2:52:24] and with the city council in putting
this together. This is the code that
[2:52:28] requires developers to study out the
public facilities and the infrastructure
[2:52:35] that is needed prior to the development
of any subdivision. Um they would have
[2:52:41] to check on traffic studies, water, uh
sewer, um parks, all of our
[2:52:49] infrastructure projects and require them
to produce reports so that they could
[2:52:54] then mitigate those if needed or show
the council that we have adequate
[2:52:59] infrastructures available. Uh, I am
limited on my ability to answer the
[2:53:05] questions, but I am here to entertain
any questions that you may have.
[2:53:14] This is an ordinance motion, so it's the
three parts.
[2:53:31] I am sure there are questions and
discussion. Council,
[2:53:35] » oh, it's just so complex.
>> Mr. Mayor, if I could add just a little
[2:53:38] bit to this. Um,
>> sure. [clears throat]
[2:53:43] » To the council, don't expect perfection
by what's in front of you as far as
[2:53:47] code. Um, this is our best effort to
date. Um, this is not going to be the
[2:53:52] first or the last code that you ever
amend. Every time we amend a code, we
[2:53:56] try to make things better um with doing
that from a learning curve type
[2:54:01] perspective. So, [snorts]
I appreciate that you might want to bet
[2:54:05] through a lot of this. We've gone
through it as staff level. Uh but again,
[2:54:09] don't per don't expect perfection.
Expect this especially being relatively
[2:54:14] new to constantly be, you know, upgraded
as we start going through things and,
[2:54:19] you know, running this through the
basically running it through the dollar.
[2:54:23] So
>> the big difference is it adopts
[2:54:27] something that we don't have.
>> It's definitely a step in the right
[2:54:31] direction. Is absolutely right about
that.
[2:54:34] » So that that's a good point, but this
wouldn't be beneficial to table till
[2:54:39] Emily's here to answer questions or do
you think we should?
[2:54:41] » We could just asked to have it on this
agenda because we've [laughter] been
[2:54:46] kicking this can down the road quite a
bit. Emily's Emily's the one that
[2:54:50] interviewed us to get our input on that
and she compiled our answers and put
[2:54:54] this together.
>> Okay. And we also did a workshop with
[2:54:58] council in December. That was the was
the big push to get this done. And these
[2:55:06] all of these came from council,
mayor and council's comments at that
[2:55:12] time um to push forward on this piece of
uh code.
[2:55:19] And as staff uh we think it's important
that we adopt this code so that we can
[2:55:24] start pushing on the developers to
provide adequate studies and act
[2:55:30] adequate uh reassurances to the council
and to the public that the
[2:55:36] infrastructure in the city is not going
to be harmed or detrimented by
[2:55:42] additional subdivisions getting added to
the city.
[2:55:49] Uh, [clears throat]
so Kevin, I think this is a question to
[2:55:53] you. Um, you know, I'm looking at
1115 mitigation me measures,
[2:56:01] specifically municipal water, and it
mentions the water master plan here.
[2:56:07] Um, I can't help but wonder if we should
have some sort of a
[2:56:13] bookmark on how old that master plan can
be um, prior to it being applicable
[2:56:19] anymore. So, I guess for example, we're
we're currently in the process of
[2:56:25] completing a water master plan. Um, how
often are we required by law to have
[2:56:32] that done or are we?
>> Good standard of care as far as practice
[2:56:38] on updating the master plan. So, we try
to turn those over every 5 years.
[2:56:43] » Okay. And have we had a water master
plan completed in the last 5 years?
[2:56:47] » Well, you know that answer. No,
>> I do. But
[2:56:50] » you know that answer, we haven't. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. So,
[2:56:56] » is there is there a legal requirement? I
know you said that's kind of a best
[2:56:59] practice, but there's no legal
requirement to have a master plan.
[2:57:02] » There is no legal requirement unless the
city council adopts a code that that
[2:57:07] puts that legal standard on us. Now, in
things like comprehensive plan, it is
[2:57:14] required by state law to be reviewed
every five years. It doesn't mean that
[2:57:18] it has to change every five years. So,
if the council wanted to adopt something
[2:57:23] like that in a future code amendment,
not necessarily in this one because we
[2:57:27] have plenty of time, the water studies
getting turned over to us in a month or
[2:57:31] so, uh, but if the council wants to
adopt that water master plans, sewer
[2:57:37] master plans, traffic master plans, uh,
park master plans, uh, have to be
[2:57:44] reviewed
every five years, then you could do that
[2:57:49] in a separate piece the code and uh we
could have a code that says that and
[2:57:54] then we could say okay every five years
we come to the council and say we have
[2:58:00] reviewed it we think it's adequate or we
think we need to change or council can
[2:58:04] tell us that we need to change it and we
can do that but it creates a trigger
[2:58:08] point for us for a five-year period to
look at those things
[2:58:13] but it wouldn't have to be part of this
code
[2:58:17] » but if the council wanted to they could
add
[2:58:21] um and I'm I'm looking at the second
bullet under uh
[2:58:26] sorry 1115A municipal water the second
bullet um at the end there or if
[2:58:32] required by the water master plan they
could add verbiage which has been
[2:58:36] completed in the last five years
[2:58:41] and and that would create a requirement
basically from a city perspective that
[2:58:45] the water master plan would need to have
been updated in the last five years for
[2:58:48] this. Mayor, I really like what Leon had
to say as far as at least reviewing it
[2:58:53] uh to make sure that it's let's say hear
me out. Let's say we have absolutely no
[2:58:58] growth whatsoever in the city rather
than zero flatline. Maybe we drop off.
[2:59:04] Are you going to want to spend the money
to go through a water master plan update
[2:59:07] considering that that is the trend?
Probably not. It's probably not a good
[2:59:11] use of financial resources. However,
with what Leon suggested is at least
[2:59:16] we're going to go back and make sure we
check the boxes on reviewing that type
[2:59:20] of information and have that
conversation at that time, but it's not
[2:59:25] a shall occur but type of thing.
>> Well, we could we could that that it has
[2:59:32] been reviewed and approved by the city
council
[2:59:36] » every five years.
>> I I think I'd be fine with
[2:59:40] » Would that cover both of your
requirements there? Number one, it it
[2:59:44] creates a an expectation that it would
be done at least reviewed every 5 years.
[2:59:48] » Yeah. I I think that's identical to what
Leon just said.
[2:59:51] » Okay.
>> Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong.
[2:59:54] » Yeah. And I would I would need to make
sure that the legal mumbo jumbo on that
[2:59:58] is accurate. So, we [laughter] get to
have a motion
[3:00:02] » to add that and we could bring it back
>> so that we have it for you. I'd rather
[3:00:07] make sure that we have it correctly
worded to meet all legal requirements
[3:00:12] because as I've seen over the years, you
change one thing, you've got to amend or
[3:00:18] change other things to match.
>> Yeah.
[3:00:20] » And if there's something in our code
that says differently, we don't want to
[3:00:24] have conflicting
>> codes. So, should we adopt it as written
[3:00:27] right now?
>> If you want to adopt it as written and
[3:00:30] we can propose a new amendment, that's
fine. I either way is fine. where we
[3:00:34] could table it and bring it back at the
next meeting uh with possible amendments
[3:00:39] in the council suggesting tonight.
>> The next meeting is going to be a
[3:00:43] marathon again. I think
>> next meeting is the budget hearing.
[3:00:47] » Lori, you have questions?
>> Yeah, Mr. there. I I did look at this uh
[3:00:52] title and there were a few things that
stood out to me that I felt like I
[3:00:59] wanted to make some recommendations
about for about closing any potential
[3:01:04] loopholes that might be there. I don't
have that information with me right now.
[3:01:08] Um but I at the same time I think it's
important to pass it, but I definitely
[3:01:14] want the option of revisiting it soon.
Well, I mean the council has that option
[3:01:19] at any time.
>> We can always make amendments. Yeah.
[3:01:22] » That's the wonderful thing about
legislation. You make the rules and we
[3:01:26] work on fine-tuning those rules. As
Kevin mentioned before,
[3:01:32] » my my recommend and you know, I think I
already said this, but my recommendation
[3:01:36] would be to add to that section the
water master plan which has been
[3:01:40] reviewed and um approved by city council
in the last five years.
[3:01:45] » Okay. [clears throat]
But mayor, would you want to do that in
[3:01:48] the sewer master plan, in the traffic
master plan? And that that's my point in
[3:01:54] saying take it to Emily. Make sure you
got things right because you don't want
[3:01:57] to say
>> we have a higher bar on the water master
[3:02:00] plan but a lower bar on everything else.
>> Yeah. And I mean being completely
[3:02:04] honest, part of the problem that we have
is that, you know, our water master plan
[3:02:08] has not kept up with the growth of the
city, right? So when when was it
[3:02:12] actually completed? I don't remember off
the top of my head.
[3:02:14] » Just a few months ago. No, [laughter]
>> you wish.
[3:02:19] » That was our water sewer study. I was I
was thinking of
[3:02:26] » so really kind of right at this peak of
the
[3:02:29] » where we're starting to go up, right?
>> Yeah.
[3:02:32] 2008.
>> Yeah, I think it predates Kevin
[3:02:37] » or so.
>> I started in 2008
[3:02:40] later.
>> Correct.
[3:02:43] » Well, I'm not making the motion. So that
is up to but
[3:02:48] » we can I think we can review that later
and add it to it. You know like Leon
[3:02:52] said we're going to have to change a lot
of the wording.
[3:02:56] I I was I was just saying the one my
suggestion was your suggestion
[3:03:00] » um to add to
um 1115
[3:03:06] a the second bullet um or if required by
the water master plan which was which
[3:03:13] has been reviewed and approved by the
council in the last 5 years
[3:03:18] » that was 1115
>> in the second a in the second board.
[3:03:23] » Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question?
>> Sure.
[3:03:28] » Let's just say we didn't have it done.
What would that do to this ordinance?
[3:03:36] Does that mean that they don't have to
do water mitigations because we haven't
[3:03:40] reviewed and approved a master plan?
That's again I would rather legal take a
[3:03:47] look at this and see what the unintended
consequences of that statement is
[3:03:51] » before
we throw it on as a quick amendment to
[3:03:57] this. Because my problem is if you say
well we haven't reviewed and adopted it.
[3:04:02] Does that in in in [snorts]
light of that does that mean well
[3:04:07] because you have it I don't have to
complete this
[3:04:11] » and the unintended consequences and the
other part mayor that I'm struggling
[3:04:16] with is the review and approve process.
>> I'm not sure council is in the approval
[3:04:23] status of that rather the acceptance of
those master plans. it could be yeah
[3:04:29] reviewed and accepted
>> and and again you know
[3:04:32] » that's something that legally can get
cleared up. It's kind of an important
[3:04:37] word. So
>> yeah and the and the council's decision
[3:04:39] is adopt it tonight so that we have
something
[3:04:43] » um and then potentially bring it back at
the next meeting or or a future meeting
[3:04:48] right to make further modifications.
[clears throat]
[3:04:50] » Yeah. Well and and quite honestly mayor
you're talking about a fiveyear window.
[3:04:54] I'm not trying to push kick the can down
five years, but anytime between now and
[3:04:59] five years, we could put that in there
and we'd still be compliant with your
[3:05:03] suggestion.
>> Yeah. And I and I don't know what the
[3:05:05] immediate ramifications of that would
be. And I I agree with you that, you
[3:05:09] know, we should um we should have the
city attorney take a look at it,
[3:05:14] » you know, but I
>> can we approve this with a commitment to
[3:05:19] have a workshop um and make amendments
to it within the next
[3:05:25] month.
>> Well, this is an ordinance, not
[3:05:29] something else. So, basically, if you
pass an ordinance, it goes into effect
[3:05:32] as soon as it's published.
>> The other idea is just
[3:05:37] » as if you want to give a direction to
staff to work on possible amendments
[3:05:43] entailing X, Y, and Z. I'd like to get
that from all of you before we schedule
[3:05:49] something. And then it depending on
workloads because right now I haven't
[3:05:54] done anything but water pressure stuff
for three days not even working on my
[3:05:59] city hall project. So workloads is
important in scheduling that time. So
[3:06:05] setting a time certain doesn't take into
consideration what's on people's plates.
[3:06:10] making a request for those, drafting
them up, preparing them for a workshop,
[3:06:15] may take two weeks, may take a month,
but we can do that at the direction of
[3:06:20] council. And so we need your commitment
to get what you would like to do so we
[3:06:25] can start crafting. That would be more
on you guys to how long it takes you
[3:06:30] guys to put that together. setting us up
with a one month or a six week time
[3:06:35] frame puts us behind the eightball if
you guys don't get it to us until four
[3:06:40] weeks out. Do you see what I'm saying?
So, it'd be better to adopt the
[3:06:44] ordinance as is and work with staff on
corrections and edits and getting
[3:06:49] workshops together, but not necessarily
tying to this ordinance because if we
[3:06:54] don't do it in six weeks,
the ordinance still goes through.
[3:06:58] » Yeah.
So it it doesn't need to be part of the
[3:07:01] motion. The motion would solely be for
the ordinance itself
[3:07:04] » just to approve as is and then
>> Okay.
[3:07:08] » Yes. M
>> um I I have one question. I have I have
[3:07:12] a whole bunch of questions that I I sent
over to Emily and she in part answered
[3:07:15] some of them. But um
if the the simulated hydraulic model is
[3:07:21] unavailable, then traditional hydraulic
modeling may be used. It is unavailable
[3:07:26] as in I it's it's broken, it's down, I'm
in the field and it's not available for
[3:07:32] me right now. I lost my password. What
is unavailable?
[3:07:37] » So, I'm going to ask you in a couple
different ways. One, we're implementing
[3:07:41] a fee. It's a passalong fee for a
developer to pay for those individual
[3:07:47] type water system analysis.
So, that's part of the fee structure
[3:07:53] that we're implementing. So if Chris is
out in the field or if I'm out in the
[3:07:57] field, it's not a oneman show type of
thing. We would hand it off to a
[3:08:01] consultant, which would be a company. Um
beating down means maybe there's a cyber
[3:08:08] attack. Computers are obsolete. AI is,
you know, I don't know. Um but that's
[3:08:15] kind of what I anticipate that meeting.
Um
[3:08:24] You have more questions? I
>> They're not relevant tonight.
[3:08:28] » Okay.
>> I just wanted to ask you what was your
[3:08:31] concern about that that it would be
misused or
[3:08:36] » Yeah, potentially misused um if it's
easier to do one than the other. We can
[3:08:40] utilize the unavailable aspect of things
>> if one is more complimentary to a
[3:08:44] project than the other.
>> I I would much rather not do hand
[3:08:48] calculations. I I went to college a long
time ago and
[3:08:53] I'd have to
>> Well, would it open it up to
[3:08:57] um ability to use a another model versus
hand calculations?
[3:09:03] » No, I mean I could certainly do it.
>> And would that be that would be you that
[3:09:07] that's doing it?
>> Uh you would have to be someone who's
[3:09:11] licensed as a professional engineer.
Yes. It wouldn't necessarily have to be
[3:09:14] me.
So, so again, if that engineer chose a
[3:09:18] more complimentary model to use, they
would have that option based on the way
[3:09:22] it's worded. Now,
>> if I'm understanding your question,
[3:09:26] » more
limited uh because of the amount of
[3:09:30] parameters that you could set with the
actual computer simulated model.
[3:09:34] » I don't know. AI is cracking stuff out
pretty quick these days. I don't know
[3:09:37] that I wouldn't be able to develop a
model in AI, even as a layman at this
[3:09:41] point. Are are you employ the hackers?
>> No, but I'm not I'm not an engineer
[3:09:48] working for a company whose job it is to
come up with the least common
[3:09:51] denominator, if we will, since we're
talking mathematics here.
[3:09:54] » Are are you implying like having your
house appraised and tell the appraiser,
[3:09:57] I need it at 400,000 and it's only worth
350. Are you implying that that that
[3:10:02] could happen?
>> No, I don't I didn't hear.
[3:10:04] » That isn't what you meant. That could be
>> We We don't do We don't do things
[3:10:10] subjectively. No, no, no. I'm just
saying I thought that might have been
[3:10:13] question mark. So, okay.
>> No, not a figures lie liars figure type
[3:10:18] thing. No, not that at all.
>> Oh, I got my figure all the time.
[3:10:27] » Uh, hold on. Uh, any other questions?
>> No.
[3:10:32] » Ken. Laura. All right. Larry, you want
to make a motion?
[3:10:36] » Mr. Mayor,
>> go ahead. I make a motion that the
[3:10:42] um
consideration of adopting an ordinance
[3:10:46] adding new code to title 11 adequate
public facilities be placed on its first
[3:10:51] reading by title only under suspension
of the rules and to wave its second and
[3:10:56] third readings.
>> Is there a second?
[3:11:00] » Second.
>> 10 seconds. Loran, uh sorry, any further
[3:11:04] discussion?
Lor, if you can take the role.
[3:11:08] » Larry Sanders,
>> yes.
[3:11:09] » Ken,
>> yes.
[3:11:11] » Matt,
>> yes.
[3:11:13] » Yes. Right.
>> Uh, an ordinance of the city of Ratham,
[3:11:16] Coupney County, a municipal corporation
of the state of Idaho, adopting the new
[3:11:20] title 11 adequate public facilities of
the Ratham City Code as follows.
[3:11:25] Providing Ratham City Code section
11-1-1 for purpose of authority.
[3:11:30] Providing Ratham City Code section
11-1-3
[3:11:34] for applicability. Providing Ratham City
Code section 11-1-3
[3:11:40] for facilities covered include water,
sewer, storm water, transportation,
[3:11:45] parks, and green/open space and
emergency services. Providing Ratham
[3:11:50] City Code section 11-1-4
for standards of adequacy for each
[3:11:55] facility. providing Ratham City Code
section 11-1-5
[3:12:00] for mitigation measure uh measures
providing Ram City Code section 11-1-6
[3:12:06] for enforcement providing that the
remaining existing sections of the
[3:12:09] Rather municipal code shall remain valid
and in effect providing for severability
[3:12:15] providing for repeal of conflicting
provisions and providing for the
[3:12:19] ordinance to be in full force in effect
from and after its passage approval and
[3:12:24] publications according to law.
>> Mr. Mayor,
[3:12:28] » Larry,
>> I make a motion [clears throat] to adopt
[3:12:31] the ordinance adding the new code to
title 11 adequate public facilities.
[3:12:37] Is
>> there a second?
[3:12:38] » Any discussion?
>> No. Gran, you can take the role.
[3:12:42] » Mayor Sanders,
>> yes.
[3:12:44] » Owens,
>> yes.
[3:12:45] » Ner,
>> yes.
[3:12:46] » Laura,
>> yes.
[3:12:49] » Council,
>> yes.
[3:12:52] » Mr. Mayor
>> Larry.
[3:12:54] » I make a motion to approve the
publication of the
[3:12:58] ordinance adopting new code to title 11
adequate public facilities by summary
[3:13:04] only and incorporate the title of the
ordinance into the body of the summary.
[3:13:10] » Motion made. Is there a second?
>> Ken seconds. Any further discussion?
[3:13:15] » There is not. Lauren,
>> Sanders,
[3:13:18] » yes.
>> Ken Owens,
[3:13:19] » yes.
>> And
[3:13:20] » yes.
>> Yes. All right, motion passes.
[3:13:24] Ordinance passes, I should say. Thank
you. Uh, moving on to item 8 E, action
[3:13:32] item, consideration of authorizing the
mayor to execute a property donation and
[3:13:36] water infrastructure agreement.
>> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I believe there's
[3:13:41] something else before that.
>> Oh, did I miss one?
[3:13:43] » No. D.
>> Oh, I am so sorry. Thank you. Thank you,
[3:13:47] Leon. Uh 8 D consideration of adopting
an ordinance updating Ram city code
[3:13:52] section 2-1-2
to match current Idaho code. Mr. Mayor
[3:13:57] and council, before us on the on this is
the amendment to the uh [snorts]
[3:14:02] qualifications of a planning and zoning
member. So currently we have in our
[3:14:09] statute that each member of the planning
and zoning commission shall have a
[3:14:13] qualified a qualified elector which is
defined as somebody that is registered
[3:14:18] to vote
of the county for a minimum of two years
[3:14:23] at the time of his or her appointment
and during his or her service on the
[3:14:27] commission.
Uh state code however is different.
[3:14:33] State code states, and we took this
straight out of the state code, an
[3:14:37] appointed member of a commission must
have resided in the county for at least
[3:14:41] two years prior to his or her
appointment and must remain a resident
[3:14:46] of the county during his or her service
on the commission. Um, and the reason
[3:14:52] why it's a resident of the county during
his or her service is because there's a
[3:14:57] possibility of being within the area of
impact and not in city limits. uh we do
[3:15:03] have a in that same section of code one
exception for one commissioner that may
[3:15:10] reside within the area of city impact
and that's why the county site is
[3:15:13] important. Um the arguments for and
against this um one to be a resident of
[3:15:21] the city you don't have to vote in order
to have a opinion on what you should
[3:15:27] city should do and how it should act and
and react. Um you are a citizen
[3:15:33] regardless of whether or not you are a
registered voter or not. Um, I don't
[3:15:38] know the history behind why the city
selected the terminology the way it did
[3:15:45] or if the city if the state had a
qualified elector clause at a
[3:15:53] past situation. All I know today is that
the state does not require them to be a
[3:15:59] registered voter. So, the question
before the council tonight is should we
[3:16:05] make this amendment or not?
>> And it's I talked with uh Mayor Hodkins
[3:16:10] about this and he says it's up to the
council. So, we throw it on the agenda
[3:16:14] to see what the council wants to do.
>> And I I I would like to speak a little
[3:16:18] bit more to it as well. Um and and let
the council know, you know, really what
[3:16:22] my intentions are in terms of this. So,
so the reason that this is coming into
[3:16:26] play in the specific Idaho code, um, is
that we have combined our planning and
[3:16:31] zoning and our impact fee advisory
committees. Um, this specific
[3:16:35] requirement, my understanding is, comes
from the, uh, impact fee advisory
[3:16:40] committee state code. Um, my intention
is to split those committees. We can
[3:16:47] utilize the same members
that are on those committees. Um, and I
[3:16:52] believe that by splitting those two, it
essentially makes this ordinance
[3:16:57] modification,
um, in my opinion that we that we don't
[3:17:02] need to do it. Um, you know, I I think
the bigger question is, um, and and the
[3:17:07] intent as I read it in the code as it
stands now is that it takes the burden
[3:17:13] of that residence requirement of two
years in the county. It takes it from
[3:17:19] from someone at the city having to go
backtrack and find out if that person's
[3:17:23] really been a resident or not for two
years and puts it on the elections
[3:17:27] because in order to be registered for
elections, you have to have been a reg a
[3:17:31] member of the county, right? And that's
an easy way for us to go back and say,
[3:17:35] okay, you registered to vote two years
ago, you've been here for two years,
[3:17:40] right? and and then you know whomever at
the city which I mean obviously this
[3:17:45] raises a bigger question as well you
know who is responsible for ensuring
[3:17:49] that you know in vetting the members of
the committees to ensure that they meet
[3:17:53] all of the requirements um we have an
instance where a member did not um and
[3:17:58] was appointed regardless. So that's why
we're in the situation that we are now.
[3:18:03] I think the the most eloquent solution
is split the two committees. um that
[3:18:07] that alleviates some of the requirement
for planning and zoning and opens it up
[3:18:11] to be able to accept more people which I
think um by having that little bit
[3:18:15] looser standard we'd get more applicants
that are interested in being in planning
[3:18:20] and zoning and at the same time also
establishes a separate which is required
[3:18:24] I believe to meet twice per year
committee. Um there is nothing that says
[3:18:28] that we can't use both
sets of people for both committees. It
[3:18:33] could be the same set of people on both
committees.
[3:18:35] » Okay. Mr. Mayor, I I want to make sure
that I heard one of the statements that
[3:18:39] you said clearly. Um this and so I may
be conflicting here. The Idaho code that
[3:18:48] is referencing isn't the impact
committee code to have a registered
[3:18:54] voter. This
>> no
[3:18:56] » portion of the amendment matches the
Idaho code for planning and zoning. It
[3:19:01] does not. the planning and zoning does
not have to have by Idaho law the
[3:19:06] requirement to be a qualified elector.
So this this change of this does not
[3:19:14] come into play for using a development
impact fee committee member. This code
[3:19:20] section that we're using here is
specifically related to planning and
[3:19:24] zoning. nothing to do about development
impact fee because this qualification is
[3:19:31] not for development impact fees. This
qualification is for planning and zoning
[3:19:37] and that's where we pulled the item code
from
[3:19:40] » and and I could have completely misread
that and that is 100% on me. But sorry
[3:19:45] Laura, go ahead. Mayor, I just wanted to
to point out that I believe the purpose
[3:19:50] of having um the code as the qualified
elector of a county for a minimum of two
[3:19:57] years was to confirm the Idaho state
code requirement that the person be a
[3:20:04] resident for at least two years. You can
you can prove residency far easier
[3:20:10] through land records than you can
through
[3:20:14] » the problem is that
uh you there's plenty of people that
[3:20:20] don't own land.
>> That's true.
[3:20:22] » So that makes it a lot harder to prove,
but it's very simple to look up there
[3:20:30] the um if a person's registered to vote.
>> Here's my driver's license. And we have
[3:20:35] a contested
county position that is someone that
[3:20:40] owns homes in two states and
>> and
[3:20:43] » you know can't may or may not live in
their house in Idaho.
[3:20:48] » For instance, again, lots of people
rent. I
[3:20:51] » I'm not trying to argue either way. I
was doing a clarification
[3:20:55] of
>> where this is coming from. It's not
[3:20:58] coming from development impact fees.
It's coming from planning and zoning. I
[3:21:02] don't. You guys are the ones in this.
I'm not trying to make an argument.
[3:21:06] » I'm just doing clarification.
>> I would hope if somebody wanted to get
[3:21:10] involved with city government, wanted to
get involved with planning and zoning or
[3:21:16] whatever would actually want to vote,
you know, and be that responsible. But I
[3:21:22] don't think it should be a requirement
to be a registered voter just because of
[3:21:26] that. I think it's restrictive. Just
have to be a resident of the county. But
[3:21:31] how do you approve that?
>> Well, there's lots of ways to prove
[3:21:34] that,
>> but this is the easiest way.
[3:21:36] » Yeah.
>> And it and it takes that bird. It takes
[3:21:40] » because you can you can confirm the date
that they're registered easily. Look it
[3:21:44] up and see that they have been a
resident of the county for at least two
[3:21:48] years at the time of appointment.
>> I I think there's other ways to to do
[3:21:54] it.
>> There are, but they're going to be much
[3:21:56] more
>> burdensome. Yeah. And then and then who
[3:21:58] are we who at the city are you placing
that extra labor on?
[3:22:02] » I'm going to apply for the planning and
zoning. Here's my driver's license. I've
[3:22:05] lived here for 8 years.
>> That doesn't prove anything. Driver's
[3:22:08] license doesn't prove anything. I I know
a number of people with driver's
[3:22:12] licenses in other states.
>> They could go back to that state and
[3:22:16] say, "See, I've I've been here the whole
time."
[3:22:18] » I I think we're just making a mountain
out of a molehill that I don't know.
[3:22:22] Right.
[3:22:26] » Well, I mean the problem is that per our
city code right now, we had a member of
[3:22:30] planning and zoning that was not
qualified to be on planning and zoning
[3:22:34] and and that is what has necessitated us
having this conversation.
[3:22:38] » How did that get overlooked?
>> Uh who is resp I Leon who is responsible
[3:22:43] for making sure that all of the criteria
>> and we did this all applications went to
[3:22:47] the mayor. The mayor reviewed them,
interviewed the people, and made the
[3:22:52] selection, and the council approved it.
There was no process of staff of
[3:22:56] reviewing whether or not they met
qualifications.
[3:22:59] » Okay. But when I asked for a list of PNZ
applications, I was given one and said
[3:23:03] that all the other ones didn't meet the
criteria. So,
[3:23:06] » no, no, no, no, no. When you were asked,
we said this is the only one that we
[3:23:11] have received within the 12-month
period, and they are a non-resident, but
[3:23:17] and within the area of city impact. All
other applications that we had did not
[3:23:23] select planning and zoning as an option.
There were several that selected council
[3:23:29] member.
>> Okay.
[3:23:30] » Or a parks and wreck but not planning
and zoning.
[3:23:34] » Okay. I misunderstood. Yeah.
>> Yeah. It was not because they were not
[3:23:38] qualified.
>> Okay.
[3:23:40] » Mr. Mayor. Uh, I'd like to make a motion
um denying the consideration of adopting
[3:23:48] an ordinance updating raft from city
code section 212 to match current Idaho
[3:23:53] code.
>> Uh, motion made. Is there a second?
[3:23:56] » I'll second that.
>> Motion made and seconded. Further
[3:23:58] discussion? Uh, Laura, anything else?
Larry, anything?
[3:24:04] » Is it that an ordinance?
>> Yeah, but she's not passing it.
[3:24:08] » She's not passing it. Oh. Oh, she just
Okay. Okay.
[3:24:13] » No.
>> No. Anything else? Matt. Yes, sir. Ken.
[3:24:17] All right. Loren, if you'll take the
role.
[3:24:20] » Fuller.
>> I
[3:24:24] met Sir.
>> Hi.
[3:24:26] » Ken Owens.
>> No.
[3:24:31] » No.
>> We have a tie vote. Mayor
[3:24:35] » I
[snorts]
[3:24:39] I knew that was
[3:24:43] » you set me up, Larry. Is that what
you're saying? [laughter]
[3:24:47] » For everybody's edification there.
[3:24:52] » I wanted you to get that auction. You
haven't had that yet.
[3:24:56] » I I don't want to be. All right. All
right. Moving on to And apologies. So, I
[3:25:02] am I'm going off the paper and I'm going
off the um bookmarks in the PDF
[3:25:08] » that's posted on the website and they do
not match. That's why I missed it and I
[3:25:12] apologize for that.
>> Can I request a brief break?
[3:25:15] » We can break for 5 minutes. Absolutely.
>> Thank you so much.
[3:25:19] » That's almost
[3:25:25] there. Good.
[3:25:31] one of those.
>> Yeah, I'm going
[3:25:36] out.
>> They don't They don't
[3:25:39] That's my That's That's my
Normally. I've been checking to make
[3:25:44] sure before, but I didn't do it tonight.
And
[3:25:47] » I think the meat recipe is going to go
pretty fast.
[3:25:52] » I don't think so.
>> I think we're we're going to set a
[3:25:56] record tonight. I've been having my Red
Bull on my packed up and ready to go.
[3:26:00] » I better get get rid of some water.
[3:26:05] » Sounds like an excellent plan.
>> Except for the get warm.
[3:26:08] » Yeah.
[3:26:14] Every time I get up, I think I'm like I
can't
[3:26:22] [clears throat]
[3:26:25] » It does exchange.
[3:26:38] Oh, we were sitting
[3:26:45] right
[3:26:51] » that higher.
>> Where's Stacy tonight?
[3:26:54] » Out of what?
>> I showed up late. [laughter]
[3:26:58] » Where's Stacy tonight?
>> I don't know.
[3:27:03] » Water,
electricity, and everything else. Okay.
[3:27:18] » [laughter]
[3:27:20] » I I I want to get some point.
>> It's expensive.
[3:27:27] » Yeah. Is
>> I love
[3:27:32] » I'll take you
>> if I
[3:27:36] need
[3:27:41] Well over 50,000 gallons.
>> Yeah. Yes. And matter of fact, when I so
[3:27:45] showed it up there was
>> maybe we'll go a little maybe.
[3:27:50] » Why are the HOAs
being penalized through the city because
[3:27:56] Tan wishes his uh his report was
earlier?
[3:28:01] » No way. I'm saying nobody. But you're in
the same
[3:28:15] house,
[3:28:32] right?
[3:28:35] I'm just
[3:28:39] saying
has targeted HOA knowing full well that
[3:28:46] they would never
>> same and it's not targeted. So, so you
[3:28:51] if you look at now listen this if you
use domestic water for your house yours
[3:28:58] for example in January and December that
is for the water cleaning yourself
[3:29:05] dishes cooking your everything else you
use less than 500
[3:29:13] how much of water
[3:29:17] for the Healthy. [clears throat]
>> Oh, I agree with that. Okay. So
[3:29:23] [laughter]
in the winter
[3:29:30] months
[3:29:36] between the two
>> pressure
[3:29:44] [laughter]
[3:29:49] over
[3:29:52] » for the purpose of irrigation.
>> So
[3:29:56] please
abundance it should be on irrigation
[3:30:01] » not on you as a resident
>> it's beyond the irrigation.
[3:30:06] » Okay. So basically when we got the
20,000 we basically said okay we're
[3:30:12] going to give you5
give you an extra 15 for your personal
[3:30:16] irrigation without having
[3:30:28] » was putting that up there
but after 20,000. It's clearly
[3:30:36] » clearly the reason
[3:30:56] » back to us.
>> We have more things.
[3:31:02] Stop talking so much, mayor.
>> I'm sorry.
[3:31:06] » Can't help it.
[3:31:14] » I used to have a boss that would talk
for like 20 minutes and then he'd go,
[3:31:17] "Do you have anything you want to say?"
[3:31:22] In all fairness, when he interviewed me,
he apologized up front and said, "I like
[3:31:25] to hear the sound of my own voice." So,
ever since then, I've been not I All
[3:31:31] right, moving on to item number 8E.
Consideration of authorizing the mayor
[3:31:38] to execute a property donation and water
infrastructure agreement.
[3:31:43] » Mr. Mayor,
there are two items that are influenced
[3:31:48] by this one item. Not only this, but the
next item on the agenda. So, as I am uh
[3:31:55] describing this, I want you to know that
if if approved,
[3:32:01] item F automatically comes off the
agenda. Okay? It's important to know
[3:32:07] that as we're taking these things into
consideration.
[3:32:11] Um, the Meyer family has met with me
since our last meeting and we have
[3:32:18] talked about the donation of the
property of approximately
[3:32:25] 40,000 square ft, which is shy of 1 acre
by 3,000 uh square ftish.
[3:32:34] Um on that land, Kevin is looking at a
water tower and a water well as
[3:32:43] infrastructure that can be done on that
land. Okay. Um as part of the donation,
[3:32:49] it does give us a piece of land that is
higher in elevation.
[3:32:55] It does give us a a prime location for a
water storage tank in comparison to say
[3:33:04] the west side of town. And why I mean
that is because we know that we have had
[3:33:09] pressure issues on that side of town. It
would put water closer to the pressure
[3:33:14] issues.
um
[3:33:18] as conditions of that land donation
that the city would build the water
[3:33:23] lines up the west side of the property
and along the north side of the property
[3:33:29] which I believe I sent a memo out to the
council that was that that would be
[3:33:34] approximately
$330ome,000
[3:33:38] on the city to put that in. Um, if I'm
remembering my numbers correctly, it was
[3:33:44] $100 per foot. Okay. Um,
I want to point out that a water tower
[3:33:52] without a water line connecting to the
water system serves no purpose in the
[3:33:56] city whatsoever.
We are going to need to do that.
[3:34:02] If the development had a subdivision in
play today, then we could say, "Well,
[3:34:08] you're building it because you're
building a subdivision." We have no
[3:34:12] application for a subdivision. I don't
know when it will come. It could come in
[3:34:18] 6 months. It could come in six years. It
could come in 20 years. As you've seen,
[3:34:23] it could come in a month. Uh, but as
you've seen, there's been land that's
[3:34:28] been annexed and zoned in the city of
Rather that took forever to be. I'm not
[3:34:33] trying to use a crystal ball to say when
that's going to come. And we need to act
[3:34:38] with what we have, not what might be.
[snorts]
[3:34:42] Okay. So therefore, in this land
donation, the other thing that uh is a
[3:34:48] compromise in this is water mitigation.
We limited that to five years because
[3:34:54] anything that would be built within five
years or subdivision submitted within
[3:34:58] five years, this would take care of any
mitigation that they would need on
[3:35:03] water. Water mitigation would be extra
lines and it would be water pressure
[3:35:10] tank
uh sorry a water storage tank or
[3:35:15] pressure pumps in mitigating and that's
my layman's idea of mitigation and
[3:35:22] looking to Kevin um so by donating this
land and allowing us to build a water
[3:35:28] tower on this it would serve the entire
city and not just a subdivision. and
[3:35:34] water mitigation would only have to
serve the subdivision in which they're
[3:35:38] building. It would not have to mitigate
for the entire city. Okay? So, that
[3:35:45] would handle the water mitigation
issues, but again, it's limited to 5
[3:35:50] years. Uh the reason for that is things
change in five years. There might be
[3:35:56] other things that need to be mitigated
in that subdivision besides just water
[3:36:01] storage.
uh if we have you know another 3 4,000
[3:36:08] homes built. Okay. So that's why there's
a limitation of 5 years. The other is
[3:36:15] the green space requirement meaning that
that this will
[3:36:20] be able to be used as part of the green
space requirement. It's not going to
[3:36:24] fulfill the green space requirement. It
would just be able to be counted for.
[3:36:30] That green space requirement is up to
the city planner to determine whether or
[3:36:37] not it qualifies as green space. And the
city planner has already told the family
[3:36:42] that if this was a water a donation for
a water tower that it would meet the
[3:36:46] green space donation requirements. Okay.
So, we're not promising something that
[3:36:51] wouldn't already be given.
>> Sorry, Leon. Yes.
[3:36:55] » Quick quick question about that. Does
the current water tower at Majestic does
[3:37:00] it is it does that qualify as green
space?
[3:37:02] » Yeah, it does.
>> Is there anything planted under it? Is
[3:37:05] there grass or anything
>> or is it gravel?
[3:37:08] » It's gravel road directly under it, but
it's surrounded by grass. Um, it meets
[3:37:13] the green space requirement because it's
not being built on with houses.
[3:37:18] » Okay.
>> It's also in the park.
[3:37:20] » The green space requirement is
[laughter]
[3:37:23] the student observation.
I I I'm and I and I ask because I'm
[3:37:30] trying to define green space in my head,
>> right?
[3:37:32] » And that's why we allow the planner to
define that in the subdivision plans
[3:37:36] that they give because you might also
count sidewalks as green space
[3:37:40] requirement because it's going down the
middle of the swell and the the buffer
[3:37:45] between the houses and the road. Um
that's up for the um the planner to
[3:37:51] review the plans and make sure that they
match. Um,
[3:37:56] so with this we do get property. We can
build a water tower on here. We will
[3:38:02] need to have water lines to connected to
the system as part of the requirements
[3:38:06] of building it. This is funded solely
and it's important that this is funded
[3:38:12] solely with capitalization fees. The
water lines, the water tower, a water
[3:38:19] well, all of it is by capitalization
fees. So, it's the fees that we have
[3:38:23] charged to residential permits and
commercial permits that connect to our
[3:38:28] water system since however long we've
been collecting capitalization fees.
[3:38:35] That is why we have the money to do
this. It's the same money that we used
[3:38:39] to build the okay well. We built that in
2018.
[3:38:44] 100% off of capitalization fees. No
property tax increases, no water fee
[3:38:51] increases. So, it's important to
establish that this is not the citizens
[3:38:55] in their water fees or taxes that's
paying for this infrastructure. This is
[3:39:00] capitalization fees only. And we have
$11 million of capitalization fees for
[3:39:08] water capital projects.
This the water tower was estimated at
[3:39:14] about $7.5 million.
The well that we built in 2018 was
[3:39:20] approximately 2 million. You know,
inflation's increased. And then the
[3:39:25] water lines are about $330,000.
All of it would fit within our 11
[3:39:30] million that we currently have and we're
collecting every single day with
[3:39:34] permits.
So, um,
[3:39:39] it is my recommendation to the council,
and I very rarely make a recommendation
[3:39:44] on any item that comes into the council,
um, that the council approves this
[3:39:51] donation and then we have this land to
build this water tower to address some
[3:39:57] of the concerns that we have. Now, can
it be built in other locations? Yes, it
[3:40:02] can.
They're very limited that we have
[3:40:06] control over. Uh the mayor brought up
the water tower at um Majestic Park. The
[3:40:14] current water lines for that only
connects to the Corbin crossing
[3:40:18] subdivision. Therefore, you'd have to
extend water lines into the main system
[3:40:22] as well. And that what do you give up in
the park to tear down that water tower
[3:40:30] and rebuild a bigger water tower
>> already on a 200 by 150 foot subplot,
[3:40:37] » right? But you can't, you know, do we
want to add a well to that same
[3:40:42] location?
My recommendation is no because you've
[3:40:46] got youth and people that's around that
all the time and you have to have
[3:40:50] wellhead protection programs in place to
protect that water source. That is a
[3:40:56] contaminate [clears throat]
location and if you've got people around
[3:41:00] it all the time then you have issues
with that. Okay. So that those are some
[3:41:08] of the things and that's why I'm
recommending that we do this. Otherwise,
[3:41:11] we have to go on the search and find
land that we have to buy at whatever
[3:41:17] price the owner wants to sell it for. We
don't get the power to set the price
[3:41:23] even if we use eminent domain. And I
know Mayor Hodkins, you are involved in
[3:41:27] an eminent domain case. We can force
someone to sell us their property. Sell
[3:41:33] us. However, there are massive costs
imposed on forcing someone to sell us a
[3:41:41] piece of land. Again, that's why I'm
recommending that we the council
[3:41:46] approved this land donation.
>> I I guess I don't understand that. You
[3:41:51] mentioned the tower or tank, whatever,
and a well. Do you do you do you you
[3:41:59] have to dig a well to build the tank?
Right. So they So could we could we use
[3:42:05] that property and just put a well on it
and then put a tank
[3:42:09] » somewhere else later down
>> if we found a better once the
[3:42:13] » structure come or our hydraulic modeling
came in and said are you better off
[3:42:18] having a tank over in this area
>> or something then we could do that then.
[3:42:22] » Okay.
>> And then what was the point of accepting
[3:42:26] this and building the infrastructure?
>> Well well we could put a well there.
[3:42:31] Well, it still need the water line to
get
[3:42:33] » Well, I understand. I understand. I just
It was just a question. I wasn't sure
[3:42:36] how the process worked. So,
>> my hair just wanted to add I did ask
[3:42:42] Leon. I wanted to know um an estimated
value of um the donated proposed donated
[3:42:52] land for that water storage tank or
water tower. Um he said that his best
[3:43:00] guess, although he is not an appraiser,
is between 100,000 and $150,000 for the
[3:43:07] value of that property.
>> And that is today's value. That's not
[3:43:12] the future value of that property
because again, we're looking at today's
[3:43:17] value. But if they were to turn that
into homes, the Meer Meadows uh
[3:43:23] subdivision sold to a builder at
$190,000 a lot.
[3:43:28] » A lot
>> and four acres, you could fit four
[3:43:31] different lots onto that property. So if
you wanted to look at it in a future
[3:43:36] value of that property, it would also be
closer to $800,000
[3:43:42] to a million dollars depending upon when
it was developed. So today's price, the
[3:43:48] reason why I have it low is because
there's no water lines to it. There's no
[3:43:52] sewer lines to it. It's farmland that's
being farmed. Uh there's no roads to it
[3:43:58] or anything of that matter. That's why
my number is lower than the potential of
[3:44:02] putting houses on it.
I just think that the um
[3:44:11] under this proposed agreement with the
value of the um water main construction
[3:44:18] and infrastructure that the city's
committing to build which is you said
[3:44:24] $336,000
plus whatever water mitigation is going
[3:44:31] to be provided.
um
[3:44:35] » with additional pumps, etc.
>> No, no, no, no.
[3:44:40] » What I'm saying is they still have to
build all of their water lines for the
[3:44:44] entire subdivision. They still have to
supply the water and what it needs to
[3:44:48] get there. We're not doing any of that.
Okay. What I'm saying is the mitigation
[3:44:55] is if it falls lower than just putting
in water lines. Okay. We're not
[3:45:02] committing to doing water lines for a
subdivision.
[3:45:06] Okay? Regardless of what the mitigation
comes out, they still have to do that.
[3:45:10] They still have to put that in. What
we're saying here is that they won't
[3:45:16] have to add additional pumps for
pressure because they're going to have
[3:45:21] a$1 to2 million water tank sitting on
their property that will do that.
[3:45:28] Okay.
that water tank would provide that
[3:45:32] additional pressure asurances in in that
area.
[3:45:37] » It it really there be any other
mitigation factors needed.
[3:45:42] » It just seems like a disproportionate
trade.
[3:45:45] » Why?
>> Because the city's providing the water,
[3:45:49] saving them money. The city's providing
the additional line, saving them money.
[3:45:54] Um, you know, what is the city getting?
>> The city gets a water storage tank. at a
[3:46:00] fraction of the cost
>> potentially.
[3:46:03] » We get it potentially. Yes.
>> But that's what we have to deal
[3:46:06] [clears throat] with today. We have
issues that we just spent I don't know
[3:46:10] how many hours talking about and we have
a potential solution in front of us with
[3:46:17] a potential budget to build it and
need to seal the deal.
[3:46:24] » And if we don't get that, then we have
to go look for property somewhere else.
[3:46:29] So, we might pay $800,000.
>> Well, we already have property. Kevin
[3:46:33] stated that earlier. Majestic Park.
There's already a water tower there. We
[3:46:37] can replace the tower that's there.
>> But is it necessarily
[3:46:42] Mayor? I don't want to argue on that,
but we need the storage and we can build
[3:46:49] this
in this location and provide the storage
[3:46:52] that we need. This is part of the
original ask from Kevin at the very
[3:46:57] beginning of all of this because we need
to get the land and the appropriateness
[3:47:03] of the location of the water tower.
My opinion, not as an expert, isn't next
[3:47:11] to a playground that is being with a
whole bunch of kids and everything else.
[3:47:17] This is far bigger than a 50,000galon
water tower. And you mentioned that that
[3:47:22] water tower only supplies that one
subdivision. We would have to put in
[3:47:26] other lines.
>> We'd have to put in lines as well.
[3:47:29] » Speculate what would that cost to
connect that to the other place.
[3:47:34] » We haven't estimated that.
>> So is that section of town is completely
[3:47:38] isolated from the rest of the city on
the water?
[3:47:41] » That northeast corner of Meer Lancaster
is. Yes.
[3:47:44] » Okay.
We have all the valves closed on
[3:47:50] my road and l the one at Lancaster
railway is closed as well.
[3:47:54] » Why why are those closed? What what's
the advice?
[3:47:57] » Isolate um so that we maximize the
pressure that we can do the booster
[3:48:01] pumps. If not we open up that and we ask
the booster pumps to boost the pressure
[3:48:06] they would eventually fail. Um
>> why why would they fail? Well, they
[3:48:11] » they just burn out enough.
>> I mean, is that
[3:48:15] » cause more water pressure issues?
>> I mean, is that what we're saying?
[3:48:20] » And then you come back to the original
problem.
[3:48:22] » And if we did put a water tower there,
is there any reason we couldn't just
[3:48:25] open those back up at that point and not
have to rely on the booster?
[3:48:29] » Yeah, potentially. Sure.
So again, utilizing land that we already
[3:48:33] own to solve a solution.
The one the one thing, Mayor, um
[3:48:40] » keep keep in mind um for whatever this
is worth,
[3:48:46] » building a water storage tank where
there's no homes
[3:48:51] » would be much more favorable compared to
building a water tank that is going to
[3:48:57] shadow
majority of Majestic Park, especially
[3:49:02] shadow
probably our best park feature. that we
[3:49:06] have being the splice pad. This thing is
going to be huge. Um, you've seen the
[3:49:12] water storage tank that they built at
Highway 95 on the west side of 95.
[3:49:18] » That's the size of a tank we're
potentially talking about. This thing,
[3:49:23] yeah, it's going to be massive. Um,
>> so the the question the question at hand
[3:49:28] though is which neighborhood is going to
get it,
[3:49:31] » right? You're still putting it in the
middle of another neighborhood. Mayor, I
[3:49:34] agree with you on that. But one thing
I'll say it cuz Leon didn't commit to it
[3:49:40] because we don't know when they're going
to develop it. But at least you know
[3:49:44] there's going to be a planned water
storage tank and at least you know
[3:49:47] what's going to be. So it's going to be
buyer beware
[3:49:51] that cards are all flipped over and if
you still want to bet you have a losing
[3:49:56] hand then you're that's what you're
doing. But good example.
[3:49:59] » This thing is going to be huge.
>> Tossic.
[3:50:03] I all the houses that have been built
there are right along the railroad
[3:50:06] tracks from me to you from the railroad
track. I So they know what they're
[3:50:10] getting when they build their house. So
>> you know there's a train.
[3:50:14] » Yeah. So they're going to know when they
build their house there. I'm going to be
[3:50:17] right underneath the water tower
>> or whatever. So
[3:50:20] » Okay,
that's my only two cents worth as far as
[3:50:25] one side or the other. There's hydraulic
things and amount of infrastructure to
[3:50:29] make sure we connect to our existing
piping system. But I I think the the
[3:50:35] element of surprise on holy cow, we got
this big tank that you know I I don't
[3:50:40] know.
>> And if we have we ruled out our current
[3:50:43] site on Rather Mountain, replacing that
smaller tank with a 2 million gallon
[3:50:47] tank up there.
>> We need something in a different
[3:50:49] location.
>> Mayor for 10 years Kevin's been telling
[3:50:51] me we need a tank on the south side.
What what's on the mountain is not a
[3:50:56] little tank. That's a million gallons.
It's big. It's a big daddy tank. Um
[3:51:01] » it's 2,000% bigger than the Majestic
Park.
[3:51:05] » Yeah.
>> Which is
[3:51:07] » And that's not exaggeration. Yes.
>> So if you take that tank down and
[3:51:10] replace it with one that's almost the
same size, it really wouldn't do.
[3:51:13] » Well, it's half the size, but yeah, I
get what you're saying.
[3:51:16] » It's 20 times the size.
>> No. No. If we if we're talking about
[3:51:19] replacing it with a 2 million gallon
tank,
[3:51:21] » I know it'll be it'll be it'll Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. And and again, I you know, I
[3:51:27] want to make sure that we flesh out all
of the options before we really talk
[3:51:32] about one. And I don't think, you know,
I can't ignore also in the back of my
[3:51:35] head that I I've got this recommendation
saying that we can't trust what we've
[3:51:41] got so far from a master plan,
>> but we're basing this on the master
[3:51:46] plan. So, let's tear down or the
hydraulic study.
[3:51:50] » Let's tear down our tower up there to
build another one. And we're going to
[3:51:53] » Kevin has said regardless of what the
master plan says,
[3:51:57] » Kevin has said since I started here in
2016, we need another storage tank. The
[3:52:03] location of it has changed. At one
point, it was near the U
[3:52:10] where KC currently is.
>> Okay,
[3:52:13] » that was one time. There were other
times when it was over by the rather
[3:52:18] power plant
>> since our recent issues with uh
[3:52:23] Brookshshire that has moved closer to
Brookshshire to help service those
[3:52:27] needs. But it has always been a
conversation. It has always been part of
[3:52:31] our capital fee structure as a capital
improvement project for 10 years. So
[3:52:39] this having a water tower isn't based
off of the water master plan that we're
[3:52:44] getting today. It has already been
planned for and prepared for and
[3:52:49] collecting revenue for it since at least
2016 when I started. So yes, the water
[3:52:57] master plan will help us get what we
need in design and height and everything
[3:53:04] else, but the need for that tower in
Kevin's future planning has been there
[3:53:11] since 2016.
>> Yeah.
[3:53:13] » That's why we have $1 million in the
capital uh improvement.
[3:53:17] » Yeah. No, no one I don't think anybody
up here is debating the need for a water
[3:53:21] tower. I I don't think that's it at all.
I I think what's really a question is
[3:53:25] number one the placement of the water
tower. Um you know I think that's that's
[3:53:30] the primary issue that I have and and
that's why I mentioned that you know
[3:53:34] there are other several alternate sites
that would be as good potentially. Um it
[3:53:41] is it is hard to say without a completed
hydraulic study 100%. I can tell you
[3:53:46] that if you wanted to buy the school
district property, it would be a $10
[3:53:49] million ask
because the school district property has
[3:53:53] water and sewer lines on it. It's
developable land and they want something
[3:53:58] comparable to build a
>> school someplace [clears throat] else.
[3:54:04] » Yeah. So
>> if you So what we have is what you've
[3:54:09] mentioned so far. We have the land
that's on the Meyer property. We have
[3:54:14] talked about the the price tag of the
school land which is higher than
[3:54:20] anything possibly
>> more than the land at 150,000 more than
[3:54:25] the land uh price of doing 300,000 plus
in water lines.
[3:54:31] » And then we have the majestic park area
which I have my grandchild that plays at
[3:54:38] that park. Do I want them playing next
to a million gallon water tank?
[3:54:44] » No, but you want to build houses around
it.
[3:54:47] » So, you want to put other people's
families at risk?
[3:54:49] » No. But other people's families have the
option because they know it's going to
[3:54:55] be there. They get to make that choice.
>> Well, we're putting in a new city park
[3:55:00] and you have the option to play over
there.
[3:55:04] I mean, I I understand what you're
saying. I'm just saying that there are
[3:55:07] options and I'm just laying out what
those options are.
[3:55:10] » I feel that this is our best option.
>> Mr. Mayor, may I speak?
[3:55:13] » Go ahead, Laura.
>> I I wanted to speak about some of the
[3:55:17] concerns I had about it.
>> Okay.
[3:55:19] » Um, [clears throat] one, as I feel that
this proposed agreement is definitely
[3:55:26] favors the applicant far more than it
favors the city that they're getting far
[3:55:31] more than we are. Um although I do
understand the value of the the water
[3:55:37] power the land for that. Um but
[clears throat]
[3:55:42] from just a financial perspective
they're getting a much better deal. Uh
[3:55:47] the other thing is the green space uh
requirement that they're wanting to say
[3:55:53] that that water tower acre should apply
to green space. Um that's going to be a
[3:56:00] fence off fenced off area. the public
can't get into that. The purpose of the
[3:56:05] green space is for the public to be able
to enjoy it on some level. Um
[3:56:12] [clears throat] that so I have a problem
with that. The other thing is there are
[3:56:16] other locations that I do think are
still that we should look into. There's
[3:56:22] the um parcel to the south, the parcel
to the west of that area that we're
[3:56:29] looking and the parcels to the north.
Those are all potential areas that we
[3:56:34] could look at as well.
>> So, the parcels to the north is owned by
[3:56:38] North Idaho College and is expected to
be expanded in the future for
[3:56:42] educational purposes.
>> So, that's not a viable location.
[3:56:46] » Okay.
>> The other area is KEK. That is also a
[3:56:51] future expansion area for their program.
>> The other area to the north of the
[3:56:57] property is the Lakeland School
District's high school. No, I meant to
[3:57:02] the um to [clears throat] the west and
the south.
[3:57:06] » It's unincorporated area owned by the
Aristad family.
[3:57:10] » Yeah. And you had mentioned that we
could possibly look into annexing just a
[3:57:16] acre of that land and then offering um
>> if the property owner is willing to do
[3:57:22] that and
>> maybe we should explore that. I have
[3:57:26] talked with that property owner and if
he's going to donate the land, he wants
[3:57:31] the entire thing annexed, not a oneacre
parcel.
[3:57:36] » Um, what about to the south?
>> That is the Meyer families as well.
[3:57:40] » So, have we looked into that?
>> Uh, yes, we have. And
[3:57:46] » they would like to have that annexation
uh as part of the contingency of that
[3:57:52] land as well for the entire 80 acres. So
that was part of the conversation that
[3:57:56] we had with the family uh when we
started to develop this agreement
[3:58:01] » about the uh I mean we and we can play
this game all night, right? I mean
[3:58:06] there's a lot of there's a lot of spots
in that section of town. Um you know,
[3:58:10] one that um has been voiced as a concern
in the past is the um north east corner
[3:58:16] of Meyer and Lancaster that it's going
to be difficult for anybody to build
[3:58:20] there. Um, you know, there's also
commercial land potentially on the
[3:58:25] southwest side of Meyer and Lancaster
that, you know, we could potentially
[3:58:29] negotiate for an an acre of land out of
that.
[3:58:34] » So, same family owned by the same
people,
[3:58:36] » but but would it have the same
infrastructure cost
[3:58:40] since it's essentially on the main?
>> Not, but that's prime commercial
[3:58:43] property. You think about it being right
next to a high school. Would you like to
[3:58:47] have a piece of commercial property next
to about
[3:58:50] 800 to a,000 kids that would like to run
and buy something for lunch.
[3:58:58] I mean, that's prime commercial property
and the likelihood of buying that
[3:59:03] property at a price less than what we're
getting for now is is unrealistic.
[3:59:08] » Yeah, I think they want to for the
entirety of it a little over a million,
[3:59:11] right?
I didn't look into that, but I can tell
[3:59:15] you commercial property, you're talking
at well over $250,000 an acre.
[3:59:21] » Here, here's the here's how I see it.
Okay, and I I appreciate you saying,
[3:59:26] well, the value to them is greater than
the value to the city, [snorts] but
[3:59:31] you're looking at it in dollars. Okay,
let me let me clarify that. Here's a
[3:59:37] family that's done a lot for this area
for a long time. Okay, they're willing
[3:59:41] to give us a piece of property. Donate a
piece of property. We don't have to pay
[3:59:45] for it. Okay, [snorts] they're going to
donate it. That's got a value of way way
[3:59:51] underestimated if if they just want to
annex in their or
[3:59:58] uh do their um reszone of their property
and they're willing to do that for us.
[4:00:05] We need the property. We need the water
tower. Everything's in place.
[4:00:10] I I don't look at it as if we don't do
that, then we're going to have to go
[4:00:14] somewhere else and more than likely more
than likely have to pay for a piece of
[4:00:19] property. Number one. Number two, how
long is it going to take before we find
[4:00:24] another place? There goes our water
tower another year or two years down the
[4:00:29] road. We can start building this water
tower almost immediately.
[4:00:34] And I think it's a big value and a
benefit to the city. And I think we
[4:00:39] should accept it. I Yeah, there's
there's pros and cons either way, but
[4:00:45] darn I'll be darned if I can see
something better right now.
[4:00:53] » Ken,
>> I still have yet to see a con.
[4:00:58] » There you go.
>> The answer to the water problem that
[4:01:00] we've been arguing for years.
Well, I mean what we heard is maybe
[4:01:05] there there may be a better spot to put
it, but
[4:01:09] » okay. It's it's on high ground
>> and it's close to the problem.
[4:01:13] » It it's higher than Brookshshire.
[4:01:18] » I don't know.
>> Which which again would impact cost,
[4:01:21] right? Because the higher you have to
build that, the more expensive it's
[4:01:23] going to be. And so let me ask you the
the funds that are being used, right?
[4:01:27] They're they're being paid for out of
impact fees.
[4:01:29] » Capitalization
>> capitalization fees. Thank you. Um what
[4:01:32] what other projects can that money be
spent on
[4:01:36] » for that water capitalization fee? Only
only water infrastructure items. Anytime
[4:01:40] we you know do a water man that's in our
in our CIP, water tank, water wells. Um
[4:01:48] you can't correct deficiencies
um with that type of thing. You can't go
[4:01:53] out and add more hydrants or anything on
that nature. You're talking about a
[4:01:58] major improvement. Wait, isn't the water
tower correcting a deficiency?
[4:02:03] » No, that's a major capital improvement
that deficiencies like adding more fire
[4:02:09] hydrants. You know, couldn't add a
couldn't add hydrants or
[4:02:13] » you couldn't even take a existing water
line that's 16 in and move it to a 24in
[4:02:18] water line.
That's an existing deficiency. The water
[4:02:23] tower is a capital project that was
[snorts]
[4:02:27] that was
identified and using the correct words
[4:02:32] when we made our capital fee structure.
>> Yeah,
[4:02:35] » it was already identified before there
were pressure issues. It was already
[4:02:40] identified before there was a lot of
growth. It was already identified back
[4:02:44] in 2016 when the city of Rather was
getting about 20 to 30 building permits
[4:02:50] a year. it was already identified at
that particular point in time. That is
[4:02:55] part of planning for the future is to
look at what we're going to need in 5 10
[4:03:01] 15 20 years out and then start reserving
and saving for it. The city of Rather
[4:03:07] long before I got here has been a big
proponent for saving for future
[4:03:13] purchases.
And they've done it with city hall. They
[4:03:17] did it with the Okay. Well, they did
they're doing it with this water tower.
[4:03:22] It's part of the planning structure. And
the other thing, like Larry said, is we
[4:03:28] could pass on this. Okay. Do we know
when we'd have an appropriate location
[4:03:35] for this that is going to satisfy not
only the needs of the city, but the
[4:03:41] concerns of the citizenry. Okay.
We have an opportunity to address a
[4:03:48] concern.
We will if we sealed the deal on this
[4:03:53] today, the design of it won't happen
until the water study is done in a
[4:03:58] month.
We probably wouldn't break down on with
[4:04:03] ground on it until March at the very
earliest because of weather at hoping
[4:04:09] that we get the snow this year. Okay.
But the money is proposed in the budget.
[4:04:17] We have an opportunity today to buy land
and start addressing a water pressure
[4:04:22] issue. The design of which will come in
this fall and winter months to make sure
[4:04:29] that it meets the requirements of our
water modeling and our pressure and our
[4:04:34] pressure issues.
We could be building this starting in
[4:04:40] March and April and we could have it in
place by fall of 2028.
[4:04:46] We pass on this and hem and ha about it.
We're kicking that can down the road
[4:04:53] every month that we do that. And I don't
have another solution that gets us to
[4:04:59] this end today. We have this opportunity
now.
[4:05:05] And the value of it is more way more
than the dollars. The value of it is for
[4:05:11] the citizens and what they are expecting
out of us. That's the true value of this
[4:05:18] project.
>> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion.
[4:05:23] » Go ahead, Larry. like to make make a
motion that we consider you authorizing
[4:05:29] considering the authorization of you to
execute a property donation and water
[4:05:33] infrastructure agreement.
>> Seconded.
[4:05:36] » All right. Made and seconded.
[4:05:40] » Any further uh Ken? Any further
discussion? Laura,
[4:05:46] Larry?
[4:05:50] Okay. I I just have a hard time not
seeing this as the city paying for the
[4:05:56] land one way or another. Um, you know,
depending on which
[4:06:00] um,
you know, which
[4:06:05] I mean, yeah, no matter how how you look
at this, it it seems to me like we're
[4:06:10] giving a lot more than we're getting.
>> You know, I think I think Laura is
[4:06:14] right.
>> Um,
[4:06:18] you're right. I am because I have to be
fiscally responsible with the citizens
[4:06:22] money
>> and and the staff has always had the
[4:06:25] fiscal responsibility of the city's
money.
[4:06:28] » But you're saying ignore the money.
>> No, I'm not. I'm saying the value is in
[4:06:32] providing the water tower to the
citizens. That's the value.
[4:06:36] » You utilizing a hydraulic model that
isn't done and we're not even sure that
[4:06:40] that really is the optimal place to put
it. Okay.
[4:06:44] » Let me [clears throat] ask a question.
What if
[4:06:48] uh 6 months down the road we find a
better piece of property?
[4:06:52] » Can we give that property back to them
[4:06:57] » and not
>> we could work an agreement to do that
[4:07:00] and resell it to somebody else and we
would still have responsibility of
[4:07:05] » the water lines,
>> right? Or wait till they build their
[4:07:09] subdivision and sell it and it'd be
worth the 800,000,
[4:07:13] » right?
>> Or whatever. Okay. So, I mean, there's a
[4:07:16] negative way of looking at everything,
but man, we've been pounding this for a
[4:07:20] half an hour and I and we had it last
week. I just
[4:07:25] » may I I I think that
I would like to see us fully explore
[4:07:30] other locations and I believe Kevin did
bring up that there are other locations
[4:07:36] that they've are looking at and have
deemed that could be acceptable.
[4:07:45] But are they available?
>> That we don't know. We have to explore.
[4:07:49] We have to explore that. But we haven't
yet.
[4:07:51] » How long is that going to take?
>> That's unknown.
[4:07:54] » Okay. I [clears throat] I I think we
have a very good gift here and I think
[4:07:59] we need to take advantage of this.
>> You don't pay [clears throat] for gifts.
[4:08:05] » Matt,
>> Leon, is there any way that we're able
[4:08:07] to delay a decision on this or does do
we have to have a decision today? So
[4:08:13] here's the this the second item on the
agenda has to be addressed today. This
[4:08:18] agreement has within it that if we
approve it, we already have the
[4:08:22] signatures of the land owners on this
that if we approve it, then the
[4:08:26] reconsideration and the takings analysis
goes away
[4:08:31] plus the ability for them to sue the
city. So if we table this and wait for
[4:08:37] two weeks till the next council meeting
then what we have is that we do have to
[4:08:44] address the reconsideration and we do
have to work on that.
[4:08:48] » Um so that is what we have in front of
us
[4:08:52] » and and we can't table item F.
>> You cannot
[4:08:56] » and if we do the reconsideration and we
agree to it then we then the propertyy's
[4:09:02] off the table.
>> Right. Am I correct?
[4:09:04] » It just means they get the reszone
without any condition.
[4:09:08] » They don't get the we don't and we don't
get the property,
[4:09:11] » right? And they don't get the everything
[clears throat] else that they're
[4:09:15] getting with it.
>> Well, sorry. What is the what is the
[4:09:18] value of the 200 by 200 foot?
>> We haven't made um we're just we we
[4:09:27] understand what finished lots have been
selling for in other areas recently. Um
[4:09:32] and
Not cheap.
[4:09:34] » We're not buying.
>> This is not a finished lot,
[4:09:38] » but it will certainly be in that area.
>> Is it Is it Is the value of the land
[4:09:44] more than what it's going to cost us to
put the pipe in?
[4:09:48] » Absolutely. It's right here.
>> Yes.
[4:09:51] » Sorry. Yeah. The value of the land.
>> Oh, again, mayor. Let me back up before
[4:09:55] I quickly answer. Yes.
>> I'm not an appraiser.
[4:09:59] » Yeah.
>> But I happen to buy a lot of right away.
[4:10:02] uh that type of thing. But uh yeah, I
would certainly say it'd be worth it. Um
[4:10:09] I I think it'd be more than the water
main extensions.
[4:10:13] So,
>> and you're basing your judgment off of
[4:10:16] me that says I'm not an appraiser. I
don't buy land. Kevin does.
[4:10:21] » And you're looking at a monetary value
of the land. And then you your question
[4:10:24] was more than is the value of the land
worth more than putting the pipe in? If
[4:10:29] we put the water tower where the
>> the water
[4:10:34] » If we put the if we put it at Majestic
Park, you said we're gonna have to run
[4:10:37] more line, right?
>> Yeah.
[4:10:39] » Okay. So, there again, no matter where
we go, we're going to have to run water
[4:10:43] line. Correct.
>> Hear me out, Larry. My concern about
[4:10:47] Majestic Park is more about the element
of surprise to an established
[4:10:52] neighborhood of an established park with
this huge monstrosity of
[4:10:57] » Well, no, I'm I'm trying to correlate
that.
[4:11:00] » That's my bigger concern. It's not an
engineering or a technical concern.
[4:11:04] Yeah. Pops in. It seems to work. We
could figure out a way to make water
[4:11:08] lines work. That type of thing. Um,
yeah, there's expense to it, but
[4:11:14] to, you know, to put what Leon's and
understand part of this is,
[4:11:21] I thought we had a a land use action
that had kind of an opportunity in front
[4:11:25] of us to try to get something as part of
what we were, you know, what was being
[4:11:30] requested with changing their zoning
back. Um, we do it's
[4:11:36] quote unquote in this potential problem
area. It just seemed to check a lot of
[4:11:42] boxes for what we're doing. And mayor, I
understand it's not a perfect solution.
[4:11:47] Um,
but man, it it ticks a lot of boxes. So,
[4:11:52] on what we're trying to do and
uh we've got a pretty good track record
[4:11:57] on procuring these type of things. Um,
we just built that roundabout at
[4:12:02] Lancaster Meyer and you know, we bought
no rideway for that.
[4:12:06] Uh, we we acquired all that rideway back
when Lancaster Road was a gravel road.
[4:12:12] Who knew it was going to be a two-lane
multi-lane roundabout?
[4:12:17] I knew eventually it was going to be, so
I got the rightway for it. In this case,
[4:12:22] I think yeah, we're making a pretty good
judgment of what we're getting out of
[4:12:27] it. is I I have to agree with you. It's
not a perfect solution, but my goodness,
[4:12:33] it is it is a prime opportunity right
now to obtain something that might
[4:12:40] answer quite a few problems.
Potentially answer quite a few problems.
[4:12:47] » Kevin, you said this ticks a lot of
boxes. What boxes does it not tick in
[4:12:51] your head?
I think the mayor's,
[4:12:55] you know, the one thing he's mentioned
is just the water line uh or the
[4:12:59] location of where the water tank is in
relationship to where our water lines
[4:13:03] are. That distance is probably if it was
right next to our water lines and we had
[4:13:10] minimal amount of pipe to go to it, that
would score higher than what this
[4:13:16] particular site would.
those other sites would score a lot
[4:13:21] lower in the fact that we'd have to
obtain that right away appraise it go
[4:13:27] after try to purchase it listen to that
northeast corner where Copper Basin owns
[4:13:32] that property say no we're not selling
it to you and we go okay would you use
[4:13:35] imminent domain and then we pay four or
five times what the value of that
[4:13:39] property is because of legal reasons and
just bid on the DO min roundabout uh
[4:13:45] years ago Um there's just quite a few
unknowns and this one
[4:13:52] this one feels like a much a lot more
known are out there.
[4:13:57] » And and just to be clear, sorry, just to
be clear, um the the agreement under 1D
[4:14:03] does specifically dictate exactly what
the city can use this land for. It is
[4:14:08] not an option to resell the land if we
choose a better site later.
[4:14:11] » That's quite possibly true. Um I don't
know that.
[4:14:16] approval.
>> So, so sorry. Use the use of water
[4:14:19] facility site. The city may use the
donation site for any municipal purpose
[4:14:23] it deems necessary, including but not
limited to a water storage tank, well,
[4:14:28] pump station, treatment facilities,
telemetry, access drives, security
[4:14:32] fencing, drainage, utilities,
maintenance, repair, replacement,
[4:14:35] reconstruction,
and related public utility improvements.
[4:14:40] and their current intent is to build the
water tower or possibly well.
[4:14:45] » Unless we get the water plan next month
and find out there's a better spot for
[4:14:48] it.
>> I would doubt that that we would have a
[4:14:52] water plan that didn't say you can build
it, but you have to build it either 12t
[4:14:57] higher or 12 feet lower. That's going to
be the difference. It's not going to be
[4:15:01] the location. It's going to be the
difference in the height of the design.
[4:15:06] Go ahead. I I I was going to ask, have
we considered the land that's owned by
[4:15:11] the city of Wrath that's just south of
the new city hall?
[4:15:16] » It's zoned commercial for the purpose of
selling it to replenish our fundamental
[4:15:20] mountains.
>> Well, perhaps we can
[4:15:24] » far more valuable. an acre of it or 200
by 200 site
[4:15:30] » would be about if you were to look at it
the price of that would probably be more
[4:15:34] than lot the water line and the property
itself.
[4:15:37] » Yeah,
>> that is an extremely valuable piece of
[4:15:40] property
>> for each property. Yeah.
[4:15:41] » Oh, what about the back side of the
park?
[4:15:43] » Just an idea
about
[4:15:48] » just just throwing out ideas.
spitball and I don't have a good deal
[4:15:52] for that one, but you might you might be
spot on on something or
[4:15:56] » I mean we were talking about
>> cut cut down all those trees in the
[4:16:00] northeast corner of the new city park.
We can throw a water tower up there.
[4:16:03] » We we can come up with a whole lot of
ideas but there is a motion on the table
[4:16:07] I think.
>> Are you okay?
[4:16:10] » I'm calling the vote.
[4:16:14] » Mary Sanders.
>> Yes.
[4:16:16] » Ken Owens.
>> Yes.
[4:16:18] » Laura Fuller.
>> No. Matthew start.
[4:16:22] » Yes.
>> All right. Motion passes.
[4:16:28] » Um that means
>> item F is moved.
[4:16:33] » Item F.
>> Item F can be removed.
[4:16:34] » Can be removed. Uh do we have to vote on
that since it's a change to the
[4:16:40] » agreement says that it's null and void.
>> I I just Okay. All right. Uh item G,
[4:16:46] action item, consideration of
authorizing the mayor to execute the SRO
[4:16:49] agree. Dan, uh agreement with the
[laughter]
[4:16:53] » Lakeland School District for the 202627
school year.
[4:16:58] » Oh, it should take 30 seconds.
>> State your name and address, please.
[4:17:01] » Yeah.
>> Uh so before you use the an updated
[4:17:05] contract, basically the only change is
the amount. So officer Baker will be
[4:17:09] assigned as the SRO this year. So this
is reflects his pay and benefits each
[4:17:14] month. So that's the only change in the
contract. I've given it to the um acting
[4:17:18] superintendent Jake Massie. He's looked
it over and feels very comfortable with
[4:17:22] it. We'll present it to them next
Wednesday.
[4:17:25] » Will he be assigned to a school or will
he bounce between schools or how does
[4:17:29] that work?
>> Yeah. So the the specific ones that he
[4:17:33] starts out with is the alternative high
school and then two elementary schools.
[4:17:37] um if they are not able to hire someone
at the middle school, he will cover that
[4:17:41] as well.
>> So, as far as the uh armed security
[4:17:44] guard,
>> hopefully that's a good little bump for
[4:17:47] him if that's the case.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
[4:17:50] » Is the high is is Hatcher still going to
be at the high school?
[4:17:55] » Yes. Yep. From my understanding, he's
still at the high school. So,
[4:17:57] » but and he's there full-time all the
time.
[4:18:00] » Yes.
>> During during school time? Okay.
[4:18:02] » Yep.
>> Questions?
[4:18:06] Sorry, Matt. Question.
>> Nope. Ken, question.
[4:18:10] » Is there a motion?
[4:18:20] » Uh, [laughter] Mr. Mayor.
>> All right, Larry.
[4:18:22] » I'd like to make a motion to consider
you authorize to execute the SRO
[4:18:28] agreement with the Lakeland School
District for the 26 27 school year.
[4:18:33] » I second. All right. made and seconded.
Is there any further discussion?
[4:18:40] » Lauren, you take the role.
>> Did you second?
[4:18:44] » Yes, he did. Oh, Matt did. Sorry, Matt
did. It was not Ken this time.
[4:18:50] » It's getting late. You guys are starting
to sound the same. [laughter]
[4:18:54] » Just so we don't start looking the same,
we're okay.
[4:18:59] » Larry Sanders.
>> Yes.
[4:19:01] » Yes.
>> Yes.
[4:19:04] Yes. All
>> right. Uh, moving on to
[4:19:08] 8H, consideration of a resolution
selecting Free Form as the furniture
[4:19:12] company to provide and install furniture
for the new city hall project.
[4:19:17] » Mr. Mayor and Council, I included a memo
on this and hopefully you've had a
[4:19:21] chance to read that, but uh basically we
looked at three different companies. All
[4:19:25] the companies did uh uh have
contract pricing through the state. of
[4:19:32] the furniture is under those contract
pricings. Uh they all had good customer
[4:19:38] service as far as providing us with
information and trying to be helpful. Um
[4:19:43] but when it came down to it, it was the
delivery of the equipment, the furniture
[4:19:49] when we uh they do processes different
than anybody else. They get it at their
[4:19:55] warehouse. They open open it before it's
delivered. They assemble it to the much
[4:20:00] as they can to make it easy to go in and
out of the building with it. Uh then
[4:20:04] they wrap it with blankets and uh shrink
wrap and then they put it on a
[4:20:11] semi-trail so when they bring it to the
city hall they'll be able to have it
[4:20:15] installed within a week's time frame. Uh
the rest of the locations were looking
[4:20:20] at four, six or eight weeks um to
provide the installation. The difference
[4:20:25] being is they would drop off the boxes
at city hall uh after the trades already
[4:20:31] left and then they would unbox it and
assemble it. The big difference is
[4:20:36] damage.
>> Um Reform would [clears throat] find the
[4:20:40] damage before the installation date.
They'd be able to order new pieces and
[4:20:45] get them uh delivered hopefully as close
to the installation date as possible.
[4:20:50] And then that way we don't have to deal
with that. The other ones would find it
[4:20:54] at the delivery date while they're
trying to assemble it and then any
[4:20:58] damages we would have to wait for, you
know, the four to six weeks in addition
[4:21:03] to get those items replaced and then
assembled and put together. This is a
[4:21:08] resolution saying that the staff can
work with free form as the selected
[4:21:12] contractor. There will be a future
contract that will come in front of the
[4:21:17] city council to approve. So we're not
authorizing staff to spend any money at
[4:21:22] this particular point in time. This is
solely to direct staff to work with free
[4:21:27] form as the provide uh accepted
contractor out of the three contractors.
[4:21:34] » Did the contractors provide um
an estimate of how much?
[4:21:39] » Yes, all three all three came at close
to the same price.
[4:21:46] They're a little different in pricing
based off of the um the equipment that
[4:21:53] they're furnishing, but all of them came
in at about the $300,000 price tag,
[4:21:58] which is what we asked us to stay
within.
[4:22:02] » Comparable quality [clears throat]
also.
[4:22:04] » Yes. And warranties are all comparable.
um with Free Form, their warranties. If
[4:22:11] we have any problems with any of the
furniture for the first 10 years, then
[4:22:15] we contact them. They order the parts.
They come and assemble it. They come and
[4:22:20] do all of the work. We don't have to do
any work on the furniture for the 10
[4:22:24] years that the warranty covers that. The
chairs do not have a 10-year warranty.
[4:22:28] No chairs have a 10-year warranty, but
they are willing to work with us on
[4:22:32] staff to also bring what they they
called a chair rodeo where they bring in
[4:22:38] five chairs. Staff gets to pick their
chair and we'll holster them all the
[4:22:43] same. [laughter]
So, so you get what you want in that
[4:22:48] sense, but they look and they fit with
[laughter] what's going on there. So
[4:22:52] that we don't have gaming chairs from
Costco versus
[4:22:55] » you know other chairs
>> like what we have today
[4:22:59] » a mix match of of everything.
>> Was Free Form like the highest dollar?
[4:23:06] » No money.
>> They were not. The highest dollar
[4:23:08] [clears throat] was one of the other
companies that we waited until the
[4:23:12] beginning of August to get that. Their
price range is between 250 and 310. Uh
[4:23:19] the other ones were 300, 310, 315. So
yeah, this is a far better deal in price
[4:23:26] as well as in delivery.
>> Okay,
[4:23:34] Mr. Mayor, [snorts]
Mr. Sir
[4:23:39] make a motion. Okay. I move to approve
and adopt the resolution for selecting
[4:23:44] Free Form as the furniture company to
provide and install furniture for the
[4:23:48] new city hall project as presented.
>> Second.
[4:23:54] » Made by Matt, seconded by Ken.
Any further discussion?
[4:24:01] » Just want to note that the uh furniture
committee seemed awfully PDheavy.
[4:24:07] » You're welcome. [laughter]
Thank [gasps] you.
[4:24:11] » Back on those chairs.
>> Yeah.
[4:24:13] » Yeah. They'll be the most comfortable
chairs, right?
[4:24:16] » They sit on her butt more than
[laughter]
[4:24:20] » Oh, Larry. Uh Loran, if you can take the
please.
[4:24:26] [laughter]
>> Hi.
[4:24:28] » Thank you.
>> Sanders.
[4:24:32] » Uh I probably better say yes. [laughter]
>> Yes.
[4:24:36] » Great. Um, moving on to item 8 I,
consideration of transfer of funds to
[4:24:42] street improvements.
>> Uh, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to give some
[4:24:45] funds from our public works department
under their salary and benefits line
[4:24:51] items because I want to reconstruct
another street. So, that's what this
[4:24:56] pertains to. The other street will be in
your next agenda item.
[4:24:59] » Have any money left at all, Chris? Or
>> I'm trying to whittle her down.
[4:25:03] » Kevin just vampiring it all out of
there. Oh, I got a few of my own. He's
[4:25:07] kind of psyched that we're redo.
>> Yeah.
[4:25:11] » Awesome.
>> Council questions.
[4:25:19] » Motion.
[4:25:31] » Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion
that we consider the transfer of funds
[4:25:36] for to street improvement for the
repaving of Tombstone Street between
[4:25:41] Meer Road and Flagstaff Street.
>> Sorry. Authorize the
[4:25:46] » authorized. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Uh motion made. Is
[4:25:48] there a second?
>> A second. Matt seconds.
[4:25:53] And any further discussion?
[4:25:58] » All right. You can take the role.
>> Sanders.
[4:26:00] » Yes. Matt sir.
>> Yes.
[4:26:03] » Owens.
>> Yes.
[4:26:05] » Yes. [clears throat]
>> All right. Moving on to item 8J. Uh also
[4:26:10] an action item. Consideration of award
of contract with Liberty Landworks for
[4:26:13] Tombstone Street improvements.
>> Mr. Mayor, this is me again as Larry
[4:26:17] Sto. We're looking to reconstruct
Tombstone Street between Myer Road and
[4:26:23] Flagstaff Street. Uh we solicited uh
three different cost proposals. um for
[4:26:31] this work because [clears throat] it was
under the $250,000 threshold which is
[4:26:36] allowed by the Idaho procurement code.
Um from that um Liberty Land Works
[4:26:42] turned in the lowest bid for that. Um
their bid amount was for doing the base
[4:26:49] bid and the alternative bid number one
was lower than my cost assessment. So
[4:26:53] see extremely pleased about that. Um,
and we consider them to be a a
[4:27:00] responsive responsible uh contractor
because they're doing washing street for
[4:27:04] us. So, we have some experience with
them. Um, so with that, I'm looking for
[4:27:10] uh city council's authorization for
Mayor Hodkins to sign the contract with
[4:27:16] Lwood Land Works for the reconstruction
of Tup Street.
[4:27:19] » Stop estimating everything at a billion
dollars, Kevin. Yeah, you [laughter]
[4:27:23] keep making yourself look good. There's
always coming way.
[4:27:26] » I I I
It's
[4:27:32] my trick, mayor. I
>> Yeah, maybe council.
[4:27:36] » Sorry I stole your thing.
>> No, you're good.
[4:27:38] » Nothing from Ken. Matt.
>> Yeah.
[4:27:40] » Larry, any questions?
>> I'm good. Thank you,
[4:27:42] » Laura. Is there a motion?
[4:27:50] Item dies for lack of a motion.
[laughter]
[4:27:53] » Okay, I guess
>> Larry
[4:27:55] » consideration I Mr. Mayor, I'd like to
make a motion that we consideration
[4:28:00] of the award of contract with Liberty
Land Works for Tombstone Street
[4:28:04] Improvements
>> and authoriz
[4:28:06] » authorizing
>> authorizing the mayor to sign it.
[4:28:09] » Okay. Uh made is there a second?
>> Second.
[4:28:13] » Matt seconded again.
Further discussion
[4:28:18] Lauren, you can take the role. Sanders.
>> Yes.
[4:28:21] » Matt sir.
>> Yes.
[4:28:23] » Cowins.
>> Yes.
[4:28:25] » Yes.
>> Great. Uh, moving on to item 8K. Also an
[4:28:29] action item. Election of council
president.
[4:28:32] » Mr. Mayor. Council. Now that we have a
full council, it is time to elect the
[4:28:38] council president. The council president
is elected by the council members only.
[4:28:42] So the mayor doesn't get to break a tie.
Um, we need a council president so that
[4:28:47] in the case that Mayor Hodkins is unable
to perform his duties, whether he's on
[4:28:52] vacation or uh, I don't know, sleeping
at home instead of coming to counseling.
[4:28:58] U,
>> is that an option?
[4:29:00] » Is that an option? [laughter]
>> It would have been for me tonight.
[4:29:06] » But anyway, we need a council uh,
president. So, please uh members of the
[4:29:11] council, if you could, uh select a
member of your body to be the council
[4:29:16] president. Mr. Mayor.
>> Okay.
[4:29:19] » Make a motion.
>> As the most senior member of the
[4:29:23] council, I'd like to nominate Larry
Sanders or council president. You
[4:29:27] » mean you mean the oldest? Well,
>> more ways than one senior.
[4:29:35] » Is there a second?
[4:29:40] I'll second it, I guess.
>> Larry seconds it.
[4:29:42] » This will be a tight.
>> Uh, Laura, any further,
[4:29:49] » Larry?
>> Well, it's really kind of a ineffective
[4:29:54] position. It's just a title more.
>> I beg to differ, but yeah. Um, given the
[4:29:59] position I'm in now, uh,
>> yeah. [laughter] Um
[4:30:05] uh
I
[4:30:10] the consideration that I would give if I
were in your place is stability of the
[4:30:16] council long term. Um to me it is who's
going to be on council the longest and
[4:30:22] the reality is you know I I I think it
would either be Ken or Matt.
[4:30:28] Actually, mayor
council president changes every two
[4:30:32] years. So, it doesn't matter the
longevity of
[4:30:34] » Did we change
>> the council? Yeah, we did. Every
[4:30:37] election we reelect the council
president, the council president can
[4:30:41] same,
>> but every election it changes. It could
[4:30:44] change it.
>> Does that mean it would change um in
[4:30:48] January 2028?
>> Yes. Could be up for consideration in
[4:30:52] January 2020.
>> So, either way, it would be revoted on.
[4:30:55] Okay.
>> All right. Makes sense. You got three
[4:30:57] people for election next term anyway.
>> Yeah.
[4:30:59] » Four.
>> Four.
[4:31:00] » Four.
>> Four.
[4:31:01] » Four.
>> Mayor and three council.
[4:31:02] » Well, that's but by meant for council.
>> Yeah.
[4:31:06] » Uh
Matt, anything?
[4:31:09] » Uh, no. That's my question. The term
length.
[4:31:11] » Ken
[4:31:14] R, you can take the role.
>> Ken Owens.
[4:31:17] » Yes.
>> Larry Sanders.
[4:31:19] » Yes.
>> Laura Fuller.
[4:31:21] » Yes.
>> Matt S.
[4:31:23] » Yes. All right. Motion passes.
Congratulations, Larry.
[4:31:26] » Thank you.
>> Moving on to item nine, staff reports.
[4:31:30] Starting with city administrator.
>> Uh Mr. Mayor, for uh lack of a better
[4:31:35] way to say this, my staff report is in
the packet. Do you have any questions?
[4:31:40] [laughter]
[4:31:42] » Can you read it to me?
[4:31:46] » During the past couple of weeks,
[laughter]
[4:31:50] » I have a question. What's CBA EDC?
Cordelane Area Economic Development
[4:31:55] Corporation. It's uh the organization
within Kney County that works on
[4:32:01] development, our economic development.
Uh we are a member of that organization
[4:32:06] and uh the mayor and myself are board
members. One of us needs to go. I've
[4:32:13] always gone um the meetings at 7 o'clock
in the morning on the first Tuesday of
[4:32:19] every month. and I've asked for an
opportunity to make a presentation to
[4:32:23] them for House Bill 389.
>> You were saying stability.
[4:32:31] » Leon, I I have a question just on your
last bullet point without diving too
[4:32:35] deep. I'm just curious on how long how
much time you spent on it with HR
[4:32:39] issues. So, out of the three weeks
roughly, how many hours did you spend on
[4:32:42] that?
>> I spent three full days on it.
[4:32:45] » Okay.
[4:32:48] » We've had
uh disciplinary
[4:32:52] uh family medical leave act and we've
had a couple other non big items that
[4:32:59] have come up but yes it's been a very
big part of my time in the last couple
[4:33:04] weeks
>> and if the council wanted more details
[4:33:06] that would have to be a future executive
session.
[4:33:09] » Okay,
[4:33:13] any other questions?
All right. Well, let's go ahead and move
[4:33:18] on to parks and recreation. Eric, thank
you for waiting.
[4:33:22] » No, quite use line and [clears throat]
just say my presentations in the packet
[4:33:28] if you guys have any questions.
>> Great. Great job,
[4:33:32] » Terra. Agree.
>> It was probably one of the best I've
[4:33:34] been to so far.
>> Yeah, despite the smoke, it was pretty
[4:33:38] well attended.
>> Do you want to thank Chief Haley and his
[4:33:42] officers? They were there all day and
all night.
[4:33:47] » Thank you, Chief.
>> I never saw him sit down once.
[4:33:51] [laughter]
[4:33:58] [laughter]
[4:34:01] » We ready?
>> Police reporting.
[4:34:03] » Yes, sir.
>> It's in I will say it's in the packet.
[4:34:09] Um, I'd happily answer any other
questions, but uh, two things I want to
[4:34:13] highlight on the part one crimes. We are
coming closer to evening that out uh,
[4:34:18] from that large increase that we had.
Our increases still with our aggravated
[4:34:22] assaults, but our thefts are down
significantly uh, which is starting to
[4:34:25] even some things out on those overall
part one crimes. Part two crimes are up
[4:34:29] because our drug arrests and DUIs are
significantly up over last year. is the
[4:34:35] uh
thefts because word's getting out that
[4:34:38] they're not getting away with stealing
things from super one and
[4:34:42] » I I can't I wish I could say but you
have this amount of proactive work just
[4:34:47] in general it cuts down on the thefts
that occur.
[4:34:50] » Good.
>> So, um so that's the next thing I want
[4:34:53] to point out. Again, we're at a 93%
increase in proactive work.
[4:34:56] » Yeah.
>> So, continuing to to keep up that trend.
[4:34:59] Um it's impressive uh that they're
maintaining that level. So very proud of
[4:35:04] them. Do a lot of great work. Again,
like they were at the taste wrath. Uh
[4:35:08] yes, it was a good it was a good event
and enjoyed myself too. So uh even the
[4:35:13] ash on my boots was good. So
>> yeah, [laughter] a little smoky
[4:35:16] » little smoky, but overall very good. Uh
yeah, the team's doing really good. Uh
[4:35:20] very very proud of what's going on. We
have our drones operational um and
[4:35:24] getting two other guys certified to run
those. So
[4:35:25] » perfect. Another one thing I just want
to bring up talking about drones and
[4:35:29] officer Short. Well, that brings me to I
just uh we have a Bitcoin account that
[4:35:33] just got $21,000 of victim's money back.
Don't into it. So, Officer Short did a
[4:35:38] very good job on that along with some
Spokane County detectives helped us out
[4:35:43] with that. So,
>> I look forward to working through the
[4:35:46] whole legal stuff of getting that back
to the victim. But the money's in our
[4:35:49] account, not the not the suspects. So,
it's a really good thing. Speaking of
[4:35:54] the drones, I understand that the one of
them has infrared.
[4:35:58] » Yep. Yep. We got one with the infrared,
so it'll work at night, the heat
[4:36:01] seeeking as well. It also has a speaker
that uh Officer Short has programmed
[4:36:06] multiple different uh statements uh
towards myself that he played for me in
[4:36:11] my office. So,
>> perfect. [laughter] Nice. Perfect.
[4:36:14] » What's the uh your most
code enforcement? It went up 25%.
[4:36:20] Uh I would I don't actually have a great
answer for you. Uh but just based upon
[4:36:26] what I'm seeing, so code enforcement,
those also include all of our VIN
[4:36:30] inspections. Okay.
>> And we are one of the top places for
[4:36:33] people coming to get their VIN
inspections done because we still do
[4:36:35] them. Um so we handle them within the
city limits. We will actually go out. Uh
[4:36:41] but if it's somebody from outside the
city, if they bring it to us or if it's
[4:36:44] a larger one, we'll meet them at Bart.
Um and we will still take care of those
[4:36:48] on a regular basis. So that is a very
big uh portion of those calls. I do know
[4:36:52] that.
>> Yeah.
[4:36:54] » So officer Vizichite or I can't
pronounce his last name. He he's he was
[4:37:00] a lateral, correct?
>> Uh no, Tyler was a uh an entry level. So
[4:37:05] he went down to our Meridian Academy.
>> Okay.
[4:37:07] » Officer Bassic. Yeah.
>> And and he is he full-blown on
[4:37:11] » Oh, yeah. He's been on his on his own.
>> We do. We have two in the academy.
[4:37:14] » Two. We have two in the field training
right now. They should be done by the
[4:37:19] middle to end of September and out on
their own. We don't have any in the
[4:37:23] academy. We're not able to get a
background done in time to get someone
[4:37:26] in this current academy. I still did go
teach there today. So, it was good to
[4:37:30] see uh you know, we got a good group
coming to
[4:37:32] » North Good deal.
>> Yep. So, still plugging away. We got it.
[4:37:37] The applications are open. So, you know,
anybody away
[4:37:43] » anything. [laughter] All right.
>> I tried to keep it short to ask
[4:37:46] questions.
[4:37:50] Thank you, chief.
>> Me in front of you now, so I can go
[4:37:53] home. [laughter] Eric, are you ready?
Let's go.
[4:37:59] » Item 9D, public works, engineering.
>> Uh, so like Leon said, I also have a
[4:38:06] staff report plus I do email out uh
regular newsletters on major project
[4:38:12] updates. So, if you have any questions
about any of those projects um or
[4:38:18] anything like that, uh feel free to ask.
And
[4:38:20] » is the Meyer Road uh work estimated to
be finished early?
[4:38:26] » Yes.
>> Okay.
[4:38:27] » Yeah. Uh and mayor, I emailed you uh and
said maybe pavement this Friday. It's
[4:38:35] going to be next Friday. Uh Solera's
going to pour their curb and they want
[4:38:38] to have that concrete cure and then
they'll come in and lay the asphalt.
[4:38:42] There was an outside chance that was
going to happen, but it didn't
[4:38:45] [clears throat] end up working out that
way. So, I might correct myself on that.
[4:38:48] » Yeah. And I've been noticing the uh
substrate
[4:38:52] gently rising every day. I jog through
there.
[4:38:55] » Oh, yeah. The stone will be done by
well, tomorrow.
[4:38:59] » Now, instead of jumping off the curb, I
get to step off.
[4:39:02] » We had one car jump into there.
>> Yeah. And then
[4:39:07] » those road signs are optional.
I Yeah. Anyway, um Yeah. And then the
[4:39:15] section that you messaged me about with
the water and stuff. It's good. That's
[4:39:19] » I want to say I bet you Matt knows
exactly where that ponding water is next
[4:39:23] to that car.
>> Yep. I do.
[4:39:26] » Madam,
do those newsletters that you send out,
[4:39:30] they come to our city emails. Are you
able to send those out to a mailing list
[4:39:35] of of the people?
Uh, I can't because I didn't have
[4:39:39] everybody's email address, but I could
talk to Leon about that.
[4:39:42] » I I just heard feedback that no one knew
that the roundabout on Lancaster was
[4:39:46] open early.
>> Oh, okay.
[4:39:48] » And so then that opened up.
>> Kidding.
[4:39:51] » What? I don't know how many people were
driving.
[4:39:52] » They took all the signs.
>> Yeah. Before it was even open. Yeah.
[4:39:55] [laughter]
>> Some of them got the notice like before
[4:39:58] we knew it was [laughter] if you know
what I mean.
[4:40:01] » I I I hear you. I heard it both ways,
but I'm just curious if we put that
[4:40:04] information out.
>> Yeah. Anytime we can enhance
[4:40:07] communication be great. Um some people
don't necessarily like that uh advanced
[4:40:13] communication. We do put all that stuff
on the website and do a lot of social
[4:40:17] media type pushes but and we have been
updating more and more information on
[4:40:21] our website with our city news stuff. So
if you have anybody that asks a question
[4:40:26] say the best place to go look for
anything is the city's website.
[4:40:30] » Yep. Also, they can sign up to receive
email notifications about all things.
[4:40:35] » Okay. Okay.
>> Yeah.
[4:40:38] » Use our website and social media
platform as an extra employee or an
[4:40:43] extra two employees to help communicate.
>> All right. Yeah.
[4:40:48] » Uh I I saw a note Jake is now licensed
for backflow assembly testing.
[4:40:53] » Is there a specific reason for that?
Just so we can do our own or what? Um he
[4:40:58] is the only licensed backflow assembly
tester that we have in the city of
[4:41:01] Raptor. And so now we have our own. Now
we can continue testing our own. We
[4:41:06] don't have to hire a contractor like we
did this year.
[4:41:09] » And Yep. So uh we Yep. We have one other
employee that should be taking his test
[4:41:14] shortly.
>> Okay. Awesome.
[4:41:17] » Any other questions on that one? Because
I was going to talk about money.
[4:41:22] [laughter]
>> Uh the truck search is going good. I
[4:41:25] should have news for you later.
[4:41:29] » What was the truck purchase in the
budget thing? I saw
[4:41:33] » the snow from the snow plow savings.
>> Snowplow savings.
[4:41:35] » Oh, okay. That was that one.
>> Okay.
[4:41:38] » They're in they're in DOT inspection
right now.
[4:41:40] » Oh, nice.
>> Good. That was from Robos, I think,
[4:41:44] wasn't it?
>> Cool.
[4:41:51] » All right, moving on to item 10.
Visitors comments an opportunity to
[4:41:57] address concerns. No formal action
allowed. Three minutes per issue. Issues
[4:42:02] may be placed on a subsequent agenda. No
public comments may be made on land use
[4:42:05] items that we talked about tonight or in
the future. Uh land use items include
[4:42:10] any item relating to a specific land use
application or process that is governed
[4:42:14] by state code. Would anyone like to
address the council? Rick, you have
[4:42:18] anything else?
No, I talked to Leon about it and I'd
[4:42:22] like to talk to Ken afterwards.
[4:42:27] » Joe, you got anything for us? [laughter]
>> Okay. Uh, all right. Moving on to
[4:42:33] uh item number 11, appointments and
nominations. This is an action item,
[4:42:37] removal of appointment of Greg Mezer
from the Planning and Zoning Commission.
[4:42:41] » Mr. Mayor, this is a a removal of
appointment of Greg Mezer. does not
[4:42:46] qualify as a planning and zoning
commissioner per city code. Um, this is
[4:42:52] an appointment removal. So, this is the
mayor's request. Uh, per codes, the
[4:43:00] appointment removal has to be approved
by three out of the four council, at
[4:43:04] least three out of the four council
members, and the mayor cannot break the
[4:43:08] tie on this. The rest of it's up to you.
[4:43:14] So, where does that leave us on planning
and zoning?
[4:43:16] » We will have three people and one
applicant.
[4:43:21] » We do have an applicant
>> that does not live in the city but is in
[4:43:24] the area of impact.
>> Has he been a registered voter for two
[4:43:27] two years?
>> Uh, I have not checked that yet.
[4:43:30] » Okay.
>> Hope so.
[4:43:32] » I would I would [laughter] hope so.
[4:43:38] » Any other questions?
I'd like to make a motion approving the
[4:43:43] removal of the appointment of Greg Mezer
from the planning and zoning commission.
[4:43:47] » Second made and seconded. Any further
discussion?
[4:43:53] » Loren, you can take the role.
>> Could I Sorry.
[4:43:57] » Um,
we I realize he's out of compliance, but
[4:44:02] can we get by with three people? Well,
they only meet once a month, right? When
[4:44:07] when is that? Three is the minimum.
That's right.
[4:44:10] » That's Yeah. I'm just Okay.
>> So, we need to get
[4:44:14] » We need more people.
>> We want five. Yeah.
[4:44:16] » So, when do they meet? Once a month.
>> Yeah.
[4:44:18] » Once a month.
>> On the third Wednesday of every
[4:44:21] » third Wednesday. So, next Wednesday.
Okay. All right. All right. That's a
[4:44:25] good question.
>> If you know anybody, tell them to apply
[4:44:27] on the website, please. Um
>> and I put a notice on the website asking
[4:44:33] for volunteer.
>> Yeah.
[4:44:36] Uh, one one could argue
>> that you would qualify. [laughter]
[4:44:41] Lauren,
>> I could
[4:44:43] » just saying just saying.
>> Laura Fer,
[4:44:45] » hi.
>> Matt sir.
[4:44:47] » Hi.
>> Owens.
[4:44:49] » Hi.
>> Yes.
[4:44:52] » All right. Motion passes. Uh, moving on
to item number 12, council
[4:44:58] announcements. Laura,
>> I wanted to announce that a couple weeks
[4:45:02] ago I met with Eric. Um, we met with a
Ratham resident who has been um very
[4:45:10] into um community improvement projects
with cleaning up the city, providing
[4:45:15] native plants. We met together. Uh we I
had an idea a few months ago about um u
[4:45:23] making improvements at the Chinese
cemetery in Rathum. I had an idea about
[4:45:28] putting up a plaque with historical
information and I mentioned that he had
[4:45:34] some ideas about putting some native
plants in there that were low water
[4:45:39] maintenance
[laughter]
[4:45:41] » and he uh so we're we're working on that
together as as that project and it's
[4:45:47] it's very exciting.
>> I saw that on
[4:45:50] » that's awesome. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[4:45:52] » Working on some other projects.
>> Anything else
[4:45:55] » Laura?
>> Nope.
[4:45:56] Larry,
>> you know, I have a whole list of stuff,
[4:46:00] but I it's in the packet. [laughter]
[4:46:07] » Matt,
>> um, yeah, one thing that I wanted to
[4:46:11] kind of bring up and potentially add as
an item on the um, future meetings is,
[4:46:16] uh, some sort of kind of self-review
system for appointed officials. Uh I
[4:46:22] would love to kind of understand how the
appointed officials see uh themselves
[4:46:27] and and how where they can see
improvement with themselves uh their
[4:46:31] positions and with the city. So I'd like
to add that to a future agenda item.
[4:46:35] » Yep.
Absolutely. I like that idea.
[4:46:40] Um
Ken
[4:46:43] happy to be here.
>> Um I just wanted to thank Eric again. I
[4:46:48] I really think Taste Wrath went really
well. Really appreciate it. I don't
[4:46:52] think I heard any major complaints. I
know we had a couple of vendors pull out
[4:46:56] and we had one vendor just happened to
be my nephew, by the way, parked way out
[4:47:01] on a hill out there, but um he he had a
great time. You know, everybody had a
[4:47:07] great time. I think it it went off
really well. Food was good. We had a
[4:47:10] good um variety of vendors this year.
Um, you know, I've talked to several
[4:47:14] local business owners that would love to
participate, but you know, the problem
[4:47:18] being they don't have trucks. They don't
have, you know, the ability to get out
[4:47:22] there. So, I don't know if there's
something we can do with the pavilion
[4:47:24] that would allow them to have warmers
and things like that in there that they
[4:47:28] might be able to utilize in the future.
But
[4:47:32] » biggest hurdle is we have a lot of power
out there, but that's our biggest hurdle
[4:47:36] is lack of power. Um, it's all kind of
located in one spot. It'd be nice if it
[4:47:43] was spread out around the park,
>> but
[4:47:46] » yeah,
>> that's why the new city hall was
[4:47:48] designed lots more
out.
[4:47:53] » I got one more thing.
>> Oh, go ahead, Laura. Uh I
[4:47:58] I know these this meeting is so long. So
I was wondering if it would be possible
[4:48:03] for the parks and recck reporting or
police reporting in cases that they
[4:48:07] could give their reporting before
everything so that they don't have to
[4:48:11] stay around here.
>> We did talk about that at a staff
[4:48:14] meeting and I [laughter] I think the
general consensus was no.
[4:48:20] I I just felt like it it made sense, but
I I don't know what the reasons for not
[4:48:27] being that way would be.
>> Well, we needed Kevin in almost every
[4:48:31] one of our action items.
>> Unless I move forward.
[4:48:34] » I'm talking about parks and police.
>> Yeah.
[4:48:37] » I I I think it's worth consideration.
Maybe at the next staff we can discuss
[4:48:41] it further.
>> I think we just should have shorter
[4:48:46] meetings and it wouldn't matter.
Uh well, you know, and I I'll tell you,
[4:48:51] Larry, I'm I'm for it, but we're going
to have to have one every week then.
[4:48:55] » I know. I understand.
>> All right. Uh without further city
[4:49:00] business before us, we are adjourned.
>> Oh, and Matt, I just wanted to bring
[4:49:04] your attention. You were appointed. You
were appointed. She was a captain. So,
[4:49:09] I'm going to review. Oh, no. [laughter]
>> Yeah.
[4:49:13] » That's what you get for drinking.
>> You can review me all you want.
[4:49:15] Absolutely. There's one way to get rid
of me and you know what that is. So,
[4:49:20] » good luck getting that.
>> Yeah, exactly.