[0:02] Panda's
fast.
[0:18] That sounds better. All right. Why? Oh,
there we go.
[0:24] [laughter]
I thought
[0:26] » that's dinner. [laughter]
[0:42] All right, Megan, you can still hear us.
Okay.
[0:46] » Yes, I can.
>> Yeah, everybody went to go get theirs
[0:51] Panda.
So,
[0:56] » that sounds good. [laughter]
[1:14] any back to don't get yourself.
>> Seriously,
[1:17] » I had such a thick lunch.
>> Okay.
[1:20] » Was genuinely not hungry. Why did you
[1:26] back here?
>> Oh, no. I'm good, thank you. Appreciate
[1:29] that.
>> Hey, how are you?
[1:30] » How are you?
>> Good to see you. Good. Thanks for
[1:32] coming.
>> How are you?
[1:34] » Good. How are you? Good. Good to see
you. Nice to see you.
[1:36] » Yeah.
>> Great. Well, that was quick.
[1:40] » Would you like me to go back and get you
a plate?
[1:42] » No. No. I I'm good. I'm just I want
this, but I don't want to kick this
[1:46] person out, but I kind of do.
[1:52] » I just decided Yeah.
[1:56] » How you doing?
>> Good. How are you, sir?
[2:09] All
[2:16] right, Bill. So, is that your serving or
is that the buffet?
[2:20] » The buffet.
>> Put it all in one plate.
[2:28] » Go back and get some.
[2:35] All
right.
[2:40] This one.
[2:57] » Oh, yeah.
[3:01] » You sure?
>> Yeah. Help
[3:04] yourself.
[3:09] When it comes
[3:21] I was going to say
[3:35] » I was the
administration section and a after
[3:42] Not
[3:47] just
[4:10] [laughter]
>> that good
[4:20] That's awesome.
>> On my way here.
[4:28] Um,
>> I need
[4:37] a car.
[4:48] » Good for you. Yeah.
[5:05] » I surprised my wife. Expect me home.
>> You guys are making me feel bad like I
[5:09] don't have a good selection.
[5:13] » Okay.
[5:19] We made it to
>> think I brought one.
[5:26] » Which one?
[5:33] » Maybe then
>> I've got a link that I need to bring up
[5:36] for a map.
[5:45] » Beautiful country. Yeah,
>> it's an aspect of the GIS system.
[5:55] » No, that's okay. We want to have all
[6:01] » Greg. Greg sent me the link.
[6:09] » We can log me in that better.
Not like
[6:22] our first trip.
[6:29] » Oh, this is We don't Yeah, we don't want
[6:38] » Okay,
>> it's always good.
[6:45] volunteered to come in for help. So
probably
[7:05] » all the hotels are gone.
It's got a nice spark to it.
[7:09] » You expended any money.
>> Are you backing out?
[7:16] » Go to
the bots.
[7:20] » Yeah. What's the Microsoft? special
[7:24] or fire
edge or not edge but um
[7:31] [clears throat]
[7:40] » how bad do you want to go?
>> Say which way you can tell.
[7:54] push it.
[8:02] » You know what? We can type in the link.
I don't think it's that big.
[8:07] » Katie,
it is kind of big.
[8:16] a retreat.
[8:22] Yeah, I'm open
[8:42] associated with this
>> just the overall login.
[8:45] » Yeah,
you guys had been to
[8:49] » I said I'm not sure
how many
[8:53] little extra.
[9:03] [clears throat]
[9:06] » Well, even some of them go up and says
[9:15] terrible.
They're trying
[9:20] right now.
[9:29] » [clears throat]
>> here. I'll try to type it in.
[9:33] » Had a discussion last.
>> Great. Hey, welcome everybody. We're
[9:37] glad you're here. I've asked
Spencer to just take a quick minute
[9:42] before our meeting starts just for both
of us. Maybe a little just a little
[9:46] quick training. We should have done this
a long time ago right after the
[9:48] elections just for anybody that's new,
but but we didn't get it done. So, we're
[9:53] going to have him just just real quick
on, you know, what our meetings kind of
[9:59] should look like and just some of those
nuances that I think are
[10:04] » even going to be quicker than that
today. But just a couple things. So, um
[10:09] I think that uh the mayor and I talked
about this. I think there's value in
[10:15] having order and decorum in these
meetings just because there's just
[10:20] inherent value with that. I think it it
[clears throat] shows that they're
[10:23] professional, that they're well
organized. Um, and I think it reflect
[10:27] well on the city to have it that way.
And then number two, from a practical
[10:32] standpoint, um it really helps uh
members of staff who are doing minutes,
[10:38] particularly now that AI, the
proliferation of AI,
[10:43] uh if we can identify speakers prior to
um questions being asked of staff or
[10:52] things like that, they can utilize some
of these programs to really cut down on
[10:59] their workload with that. And so, um,
Idaho code 5602, the mayor presides over
[11:05] council meetings and sets the order of
business subject to the rules the coun
[11:11] that the council prescribes. Okay, so
the big one is get recognized before you
[11:16] speak from a practical standpoint. Uh,
for instance, if Matt or Keith, we'll
[11:22] use Keith. If Keith's here and say,
"Hey, Keith, I have a question." And
[11:27] then you just ask your question.
I can't tell you how many times Mariana
[11:31] and others will say, "Hey, come in. Tell
me who this who's asking this question
[11:36] or who does this sound like or is that
you speaking there?" And they have to go
[11:40] in there and manually do those things.
If you said to the presiding or to being
[11:46] recognized by the presiding officer, you
say, "Hey, mayor, may I have I have a
[11:51] question?"
And then the mayor would recognize you
[11:56] and say we'll hear next from uh council
member Ericson.
[12:01] » I'll try to do a better job of asking.
Okay. Yes. Go ahead. Council member
[12:05] Johnson.
>> And from that end, I mean, number one,
[12:10] it makes it easier if they're doing
those things manually. But then in some
[12:13] of those AI programs, it should be able
to identify because if you're if you're
[12:18] essentially describing who you're
talking to every time, um that helps
[12:23] with that process. Number two is more of
a nitpicky thing for me. We get in the
[12:28] habit. I don't because it drives me
nuts, but we say who wants to testify or
[12:33] neck to testify. We don't testify in
city council testifying if you are sworn
[12:38] under oath. We're not swearing anybody
under oath. So, who wants to make it a
[12:43] comment? We will take public comment,
not public testimony. So, we're going to
[12:47] take public comment. Um or we're going
to take comment from city council,
[12:52] deliberation from city council, those
types of things.
[12:56] » Um
there's some certain things. And so, uh
[13:00] see Devon here. She sent me we do have a
section in the city council handbook
[13:06] that goes through kind of our rules of
procedure. in reading through them.
[13:10] There's a couple already that I need to
update and change a couple things. Um,
[13:18] but I'll have her send that out. That's
a good refresher from that standpoint.
[13:24] Uh, in some of that, uh, you'll be
reminded on some of the things that we
[13:28] we really don't talk about much, but
even just like the order of debate, uh,
[13:32] maker of the motion speaks first,
members who have not yet spoken get
[13:36] priority.
and some of those things. I don't think
[13:40] we have those issues here in city
council, but in some places when
[13:44] somebody is hijacking a meeting and
letting you know the mayor or or uh the
[13:50] residing officer, it's supposed to
regulate some of those things where
[13:53] there are two opinions, not have one
just take over the entire meeting, uh
[13:58] give balance and do those types of
things. Um okay. And the last one is
[14:05] um I would ask that we don't entertain
and this is more of a this is more of a
[14:09] planning and zoning um issue because
planning and zoning they are the public
[14:14] hearings um
more and more common we're kind of
[14:19] getting call outs from the crowd from
the seats and that just turns into a bit
[14:26] of a mess because even before I can step
in then there's this back and forth that
[14:31] goes with somebody uh and again from a
record the first the first thing that
[14:37] happens when uh there's litigation that
comes from a decision that a governing
[14:42] board makes is the court's going to go
through record. See that
[14:48] it makes it really hard to get that
record um when we're just taking call
[14:52] outs from the crowd. If somebody wants
to speak even if it's small one they can
[14:56] come up they can state their name give
their address and then pose their
[14:59] question. A lot of the time it's when
the public hearing is already closed. So
[15:04] I'll typically step in. Um it's becoming
more and more common in public and
[15:08] planning and zoning. Two weeks ago I had
somebody I said, "Hey, we're not taking
[15:11] comment." Talked over me again. Just
trying to pose his question. I said,
[15:15] "Hey, we're not doing that." Rushed me
off
[15:19] and I had to act like Colin and get real
nasty with him for a second and and not
[15:24] nasty, but I just said, "Hey, we're
we're not doing this. the time for that
[15:28] the time for this discussion is over and
then this is what the record won't show
[15:33] is then for 25 minutes afterwards Allan
and I meet with them after and we talk
[15:37] about every single question we have
staff is is absolutely willing to talk
[15:41] through those questions um but have to
keep good record later on that so the
[15:46] big ones again the big three takeaways
um get recognized before you speak so
[15:52] defer to the mayor at permission or the
presiding officer I have a question
[15:58] called on so we can get clarity in the
record there. And then again, never
[16:01] hurts to have to quum. Number two is
we're commenting. We're not testifying.
[16:06] And then three is uh kind of controlling
crowd and not taking call outs from the
[16:12] crowd. And again, I'll have Deb send
those things out and then we can have a
[16:16] bigger discussion on this later, but I
thought uh the mayor asked me today just
[16:19] to kind of talk on a couple of those
things.
[16:21] » Thank you. And I the reason I did that
is I don't know if you've ever been to a
[16:24] legislative hear but you know there's
just this decorum there when they ask to
[16:29] be recognized and even the speakers who
are coming up they'll say Mr. Chairman
[16:34] and senators blah blah blah you know and
it's just it's just really nice to have
[16:38] that decorum and I think it helps to
keep meetings more orderly and stuff. I
[16:43] will try to make sure I'm looking both
ways. I know sometimes when the
[16:47] discussion is with somebody over here, I
tend to get focused there and I don't
[16:51] look down this way as much as I should,
but I'll try to remember to look down
[16:55] there down here have questions. You guys
have been pretty good about, you know,
[16:58] raising your hand and helping me to see
that. So anyway, so that's really all
[17:04] we've got for that. Let's just go ahead
and jump into our
[17:08] uh this is a combined work meeting with
Mass County and
[17:14] City Council. And the first item is uh
we've added an item to talk about surf
[17:20] support. So I'm going to go ahead. This
is a a request by the count. You guys go
[17:25] ahead and take that. I'm gonna go
>> appreciate you adding that to your
[17:30] agenda. We talked about a few weeks ago,
but I'll let Commissioner I'll talk on
[17:35] it. That's all right. You're prepared to
talk about that. Yeah.
[17:41] But given the circumstance that happened
down in Jordan
[17:46] fire
[17:49] was instrumental setting up
refuge places
[17:55] they're here they're citizens
sugar even out
[18:03] [clears throat] volunteer organization
and they they're trying now we donated
[18:09] fire
[18:13] a trader to it. They're trying to out
that trader.
[18:18] They outshined down fire out there. They
outshine cross not with the donation of
[18:25] blood
preparation for service by like four
[18:29] hours
and they were there. So what we're
[18:35] looking at
city council we do give to them
[18:43] » thousand
>> yeah it's not a large amount they don't
[18:46] need a large talk not talking about
annual
[18:51] talking about their level of activity
right now is increasing their membership
[18:55] ro they have a teen camp
teenagers prepared first aid emergency
[19:03] purposes that come
here for you to consider a donation to a
[19:12] certain
response.
[19:16] » Well, I'll I will
I I won't say second motion motion, but
[19:21] I will second that idea. Uh sir, they
they really are first class going to be
[19:26] a lot of really dedicated leaders and
they help us out with some of our city
[19:31] events, too. A lot of times they're
there at the marathon and different
[19:35] things providing support for medical
teams and things like that. So I
[19:40] personally I
support them and help them out what we
[19:45] can.
>> Mr. Mayor,
[19:46] » yes.
>> Mayor, can I have
[19:49] » I'm sorry. Just again, we're talking
about procedure and policy here. We need
[19:54] a motion to amend agenda to talk about
this topic.
[19:58] » Okay. It was on our agenda but not
theirs. Yeah. Before we go to that,
[20:02] » before we talk about that,
>> I was worried that Mr. Ram was making
[20:05] all this presentation because the
commissioner
[20:09] » nervous about
>> that that was intention. No, I'm just
[20:12] kidding.
>> This is Yeah, this isn't God. This is
[20:16] their rules in
>> No, no, just kidding. Um, yeah. So, uh,
[20:22] I guess we'd probably need to, uh, make
a motion to amend the agenda to include
[20:27] item number one as per Idaho State
Statute 74-2044B.
[20:33] And, uh, I would imagine we got vote on
that. So, I will call the city council
[20:37] to um
to uh, I would entertain a motion in
[20:41] front of a city council to amend the
agenda as per this state statute. Is
[20:46] there such a motion? That motion would
be that
[20:52] item.
[20:55] » Okay. Thank you, Council Member Ericson.
Is council present. Is there a second to
[21:00] that motion?
>> Seconded by council member Rian.
[21:05] » Any further discussion on that? Besides
besides Siri.
[21:12] [laughter]
All right. All in favor? I of amending
[21:16] the agenda. Any opposed?
All right. Thank you.
[21:19] » We don't need to amend the agenda
because we already have it on our
[21:23] All right. So, so anyway, we've uh we
won't go through the U information
[21:29] again. We'll just uh take that where it
was. So, I don't know if there's any
[21:33] other discussion on that that anybody
would like to put forward just to put
[21:37] forward to you.
We would suggest and encourage this to
[21:42] go back to the city council uh and you
determine amount is they were at the
[21:51] 350 concert I believe.
>> Yeah,
[21:54] » they're there.
So if city council feels like there is
[22:01] up to
donate to them, send to them.
[22:08] » Okay. Well, that certainly will merit
some discussion. we'll put it on the
[22:11] agenda for a future meeting and and have
some discussions about it and uh decide.
[22:17] So, I appreciate you guys bring bringing
that up and uh we will make that
[22:22] determination and then
just Mr. Mayor.
[22:26] » Yes.
>> Just a a question. Uh is certwide
[22:32] or nationwide
organization? It's just something that's
[22:37] just developed here locally or
>> I think it's nationwide.
[22:42] » I think it is. Yeah, I think it is. John
Cartman been heavily involved in many
[22:46] years and really does a good job trying
to get he invites anybody to take that
[22:51] course to be part of that just be more
aware of
[22:55] how respondencies
there's if you go online there's an
[22:59] online course you can you can take your
family through and uh it just helps
[23:04] teach you and your kids how to how to be
prepared for an emergency, how to help
[23:08] yourselves and others before the actual
first responders can get there because
[23:14] sometimes
>> it is a nationwide. So, do they receive
[23:18] funding either fally or state lines?
>> They don't think so. I think it's all
[23:26] » local all
>> I was in served down at Utah. So, is big
[23:31] enough that it was down there. So, it's
not
[23:35] » they do most of trades up at the
hospital now. They use their conference
[23:38] room which gives them a nice place to do
it.
[23:42] » They do a twoe course in the summer.
That's cheer high.
[23:48] That's the camps.
>> John has has grown it.
[23:53] » My first introduction to it
about seven years and they helped an
[24:00] exercise at old seminary.
[clears throat] That gave me an insight
[24:06] that seminary
not historic
[24:11] structure. And uh they uh
they they were small and he has grown it
[24:20] was very
way up. He's like I think he's a region
[24:25] director.
>> Yeah.
[24:27] » He's grown with somebody. Yes.
>> Yeah. I learned on one evacuation in
[24:33] Thornton. They said their job was to be
there first, get it set up, have
[24:39] everybody there until until Red Cross
could take over. And as commissioner and
[24:43] all mentioned, Red Cross was about four
and a half hours late. So, it was pretty
[24:48] much done by the time they got there
with their trailers. And when they
[24:51] opened this house
big rock fire
[24:56] there weren't very many people that
stayed there but there were certain that
[24:59] remain there
[25:04] to make sure
[25:10] yeah it's a good organization. So, well,
thank you for bringing that up and we
[25:14] will definitely in fact it might even be
worthwhile to have John or the other
[25:19] gentleman who's in charge of the local
chapter to come and and just do a quick
[25:24] presentation for us.
>> I would I would like that
[25:27] » suggest that and just get some more
information of I've seen it.
[25:31] » I've seen the you know different places
but I really don't have any idea of what
[25:36] they do. Yeah, I think it'd be good for
us to understand it better. Yeah, we
[25:39] don't understand it as well as the
county commissioners do. So, that'd be
[25:42] good. All right. Well, thank you very
much. Take that under advisement. All
[25:47] right. Item A then is review of the West
Highway Urban Renewal District Plan. So,
[25:53] we'll turn the time over to Is that
Scott?
[25:56] » Yeah. So, I'll kind of kick things off,
but we're going to turn turn it right
[25:59] over to Megan who's joined us remotely.
She's in Boisee. Um she's our attorney
[26:03] for urban renewal. um and has drafted
the plan for the West Highway District,
[26:10] uh the proposed district. And so, um in
fact, with that, I will go ahead and
[26:14] turn the time over to Megan right now.
So, Megan, can you still hear us? Okay,
[26:20] » I can. Uh thank you, Scott. Thank you,
uh commissioners and council members. Um
[26:27] can you guys hear me? Okay.
>> Yes, we can.
[26:30] » Okay. when you all were talking earlier,
it was a little bit difficult to hear
[26:37] some of the speakers in the room. Um,
but I couldn't I couldn't tell you which
[26:42] side of the room is having the
technical. [laughter]
[26:45] So, um, I'll just let you know if I
can't hear if that's okay.
[26:50] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Uh, my name is Megan Conrad. I'm an
[26:54] attorney at Elim and Burken Boisey.
address is 251 East Front Street, Boise,
[27:00] Idaho 8372.
Really appreciate the opportunity to
[27:04] present to both the city council and the
Madison County Board of uh county
[27:09] commissioners
um this urban renewal plan for the West
[27:13] Highway urban renewal project.
I do want to make it clear that what
[27:19] you're reviewing today and what we're
going over continues to be a draft. We
[27:25] want to make sure as we move through
this process that to the extent there
[27:30] are any questions that pop up that we
can address them on the front end as
[27:36] once we kick off the plan approval
process and start moving through all the
[27:41] public meetings. It just makes it a
little bit more challenging to uh
[27:46] address any substantive changes. Not
that we can't, but I think also having
[27:53] early meetings and and just making sure
everybody understands the framework and
[27:57] the scope and the purpose of the plan,
it will just help as as we move this
[28:02] down the road. Because it's in a plan
form or a draft form, there may be uh
[28:07] you may have received a draft with some
drafting comments in there. And I think
[28:11] it's important that as we work through
it, as we finalize the boundaries to the
[28:17] revenue allocation area, and as we
finalize the project scope, that we're
[28:23] making sure the plan narrative is
properly incorporating in a narrative
[28:28] format a representation of the economic
feasibility study and the projects that
[28:34] are identified in that document, as well
as providing a little bit more
[28:38] background on the current conditions. is
pulling from the eligibility study that
[28:43] was adopted in 2025.
So we expect there will be some changes
[28:47] to this plan but in terms of the
substance of the plan and the purpose
[28:52] moving forward um that is what we will
be addressing today and it is it is
[28:58] pretty firmed up but just want to have
this opportunity for everyone to offer
[29:03] some feedback and ask questions.
The goal of this and and I recognize
[29:08] many of you have been through this
process before, but is to move this plan
[29:12] all the way through city council
consideration of an ordinance so that
[29:17] the plan is established by or before
December 31st of 2026.
[29:24] So that's the the target of where we are
headed. So before you you have the map
[29:30] of the project area. This is overlaid on
the zoning map. So, you can see that the
[29:37] majority, and it is a little bit hard to
see, but it's this um there's a blue
[29:42] boundary line that that tracks around
the district. And
[29:47] um it's 840 acres as of right now, and
it does include a mix of current land
[29:53] uses. It's generally bounded by 1,00
south on the southern end, US Highway 20
[29:58] on the east, 30,000 west on the western
side, and 2,000 north on the northern
[30:04] boundary. Um, the mix of uses in the
project area do include mixed uses, uh,
[30:10] residential of varying densities, some
public uses as well as commercial.
[30:17] The majority of the parcels are mostly
located within the city and or the area
[30:22] of city impact, but we do know there are
a few parcels that are located within
[30:28] the unincorporated county that are
outside of the area of city impact. Um,
[30:34] as we discussed and as we talk a little
bit um through this process, the
[30:40] boundaries are getting closer to final,
but we are expecting there could be a
[30:46] few changes. Although it does appear
that any changes that will occur to the
[30:51] bounty boundary are not likely to impact
any of the identified projects that u
[30:56] Mr. Kramer will go through when we get
to that section. And that's a a great
[31:02] reminder to me that uh the AY's
consultant perspective planning and
[31:07] consulting Brad Kramer is in the room
with you all. And as we get to the
[31:12] portion of the presentation that
specifically addresses the economic
[31:16] feasibility study, we will be
transitioning those pieces of the
[31:20] presentation to Mr. Kramer and then I
have a couple more slides to finish up
[31:25] with. Um, but as indicated, it's not
expected that any of these changes to
[31:32] the parcels included in the district
will have any significant impact on both
[31:36] the revenue generation as part of the
study or the plan projects, but
[31:42] certainly that's uh something that we're
continuing to monitor as we file the
[31:45] boundary.
[31:49] » So, next slide. So, where have we been
to date? Um, as you recall and in
[31:55] general as we talk about urban renewal
planning efforts, we do take it in two
[31:59] phases. The first is the eligibility
phase. And eligibility is where you take
[32:06] when a third party consultant looks at
the conditions on the ground and makes a
[32:11] determination as to whether or not the
statutory conditions are met that would
[32:16] warrant establishing an urban renewal
project. So the agency retained a
[32:22] consultant perspective planning and
consulting to prepare the study and that
[32:27] study the West Highway District
eligibility report was reviewed by the
[32:31] agency board and was accepted by
resolution on October 15, 2025.
[32:37] Because of the fact that there are
parcels that are located outside the
[32:41] corporate boundaries of the city, that
meant that the eligibility study also
[32:47] had to be reviewed by the county board
of county commissioners
[32:50] um and to make the requisite findings
that uh or confirm the findings that
[32:57] were in the eligibility study. That
action occurred on October 27th, which
[33:03] set it up for city council consideration
of the eligibility study at the time of
[33:09] its November 18th, 2025 meeting. And at
that time, the city council did choose
[33:14] to adopt a resolution making the
findings and directing the agency to
[33:19] prepare an urban [clears throat] renewal
plan. So since that time efforts have
[33:24] been undertaken uh primarily to identify
the projects to be undertaken during the
[33:30] life of the plan because as you know the
statute changed and there has to be
[33:34] greater specificity on the front end of
project identification. And so that that
[33:39] action has been very thoughtful in terms
of coordinating with both I believe city
[33:44] and county uh to to make sure that those
projects make sense.
[33:49] Um and also as part of this there are
statutory requirements concerning
[33:56] agricultural operation properties.
Any parcel that essentially
[34:02] has an a exemption requires prop within
the last three years requires the
[34:08] property owner to consent to be included
in the district. And to the extent
[34:12] consent is not granted by the property
owner then those agricultural properties
[34:17] are out. they're not going to be
included within the revenue allocation
[34:20] area. So, that's a fairly lengthy
process and having conversations with
[34:25] the parcels that have been identified as
agricultural operations
[34:29] um uh meeting with folks and providing
them with the information to make
[34:35] informed decisions as they consider
signing consents.
[34:39] So once we finish uh the eligibility
phase and move into planning, next
[34:45] slide, we are officially in the plan
approval process phase. And so what has
[34:53] been outlined is the next steps of what
I would call the much more public facing
[35:01] piece of the plan approval process.
So, at the agency's meeting last week,
[35:07] there was review by the agency board of
the draft plan. Uh, just making sure
[35:12] we're going in the right direction and
to prepare a bit for this meeting today.
[35:17] after this meeting uh and based on
feedback received here, the goal is to
[35:23] present a final product to the agency
board on September 16th for that body's
[35:31] consideration of plan approval. And if
approved by resolution,
[35:36] uh the plan would be directed to both uh
the mayor and city clerk to process the
[35:42] plan on the city side and then also
transmitted to the board of county
[35:45] commissioners to take the necessary
steps to uh process the plan on that
[35:50] front.
to the extent um the parcels within the
[35:56] area of city impact certainly when those
are developed uh coordinate with the
[36:02] city planning and zoning but to the
extent there are parcels and there are a
[36:07] few that we've identified that are
outside the area of city impact and
[36:10] within the unincorporated county um it
is possible that we need to jump through
[36:16] the hoop of a check-in with Madison
County planning and zoning for a finding
[36:23] that the plan for those parcels is
consistent with the county's
[36:28] comprehensive plan. These uh meetings
before planning and zoning both at the
[36:34] city and or the county are not uh public
they're not established public hearings.
[36:40] It's just a an agenda item on a regular
meeting. And uh the finding is very
[36:47] limited. it is limited to whether or not
the proposed plan is in conformity with
[36:53] that entity's comprehensive plan. And
typically what we'll see is a resolution
[36:58] is signed that has a staff report that
says yes this is consistent with the
[37:03] comprehensive plan and then it moves on
because of the county parcels in general
[37:12] and uh this body has been through this
step before but the county will be asked
[37:16] to consider an intergovernmental
agreement which is actually between the
[37:21] county and the city and then there's a
transfer of powers ordinance that that
[37:26] would be considered for adoption by the
county board. Um and so tenatively
[37:34] looking at around September 28th for the
board of county commissioners to not
[37:38] only consider the plan but also that
intergovernmental agreement in the
[37:42] transfer of powers ordinance.
The tenative uh date for the city
[37:49] planning and zoning meeting or I
shouldn't say tenative. I believe that
[37:52] that is pretty firm is uh again like
discussed it would be uh for that body
[37:59] to consider the plan's conformity with
the city's comprehensive plan
[38:05] and then following that there are two
publica so following that it's really
[38:11] teed up for city council public hearing
on the plan and uh prior to the city
[38:18] council public hearing at least 30 days
in advance. There has to be a notice
[38:22] published in the paper providing notice
to all of the upcoming public hearing
[38:27] and then also a copy of the plan, the
agency resolution, the notice of public
[38:33] hearing and uh other information that we
have available in including concerning
[38:38] the final map and legal. That's all
transmitted to the overlapping taxing
[38:43] districts uh for their review. And then
there's a second publication notice of
[38:49] the public hearing. And then the again
the public hearing is contemplated for
[38:54] to be held November 18th. And then we
follow the city's ordinance approval
[38:59] process.
[39:02] Next slide.
[39:07] So these next two slides uh specifically
call the attention to the overlapping
[39:12] taxing districts of the proposed revenue
allocation area. So these are the taxing
[39:19] districts for city parcels and you'll
see at the bottom that Burton cemeteries
[39:26] in italics. So some of the district
overlays the Rexburg Cemetery district
[39:32] and some overlay the Burton Cemetery
district. And Mr. Kramer will speak a
[39:37] little bit more about this in terms of
the revenue generation projection, but
[39:41] for that purpose, the levy rate for the
Rexburg Cemetery was used because
[39:45] there's just more affected parcels. Um,
so for purposes of a projection, that
[39:50] smaller levy was not used, but certainly
it's an entity that we have to give
[39:55] notice to as part of this process. So
that's that's just why it's in italics.
[40:00] Um, Idaho code 50-2908
identifies with specificity what levies
[40:07] generate revenue for an urban renewal
area. And uh so voter approved levies
[40:14] and bonds have already been subtracted
out of these total levy rates. And to
[40:20] the extent there are any voter approved
bonds during the life of this district,
[40:23] they will not generate revenue for the
agency.
[40:26] There's also been a few statutory
changes that have some impact here. So
[40:31] for example, uh the ambulance and fire
districts now for new plans moving
[40:36] forward. Those districts have to consent
by resolution to be included within the
[40:41] boundaries of the revenue allocation
area. It's not automatic
[40:46] to be conservative in the revenue
generation revenue generation model. the
[40:52] it has not been contemplated that there
will be a consent resolution requested
[40:57] from the ambulance district and so
that's why you'll see a zero there. It's
[41:01] not contemplated that this area will
receive revenue from those levies.
[41:06] The school district, the only levy now
that drives revenue to the agency is
[41:12] from the tort levy. Um and you'll see
that's that's a pretty small levy. And
[41:17] if there's no tort levy, then there's
there's no levy that generates revenue.
[41:23] Uh next slide.
[41:27] So these uh just to separate them out,
these are the taxing districts that
[41:34] overlay many of the county parcels. So
it's the same discussion we had with
[41:39] regard to the city, but you'll see a few
different uh taxing districts,
[41:44] specifically the fire district. And so
based on the conversation on the last
[41:49] slide, that's why there's the zero there
is for purposes of of the model. It's
[41:53] not contemplated that there is going to
be any revenue from the fire district
[41:58] levy. Next slide.
[42:05] From a legal perspective, Idaho code
section 50-2905
[42:11] identifies what information has to be
included within an urban renewal plan
[42:18] and that it also indicates uh based on
legislative changes I think in 2016 that
[42:24] that information must be included with
some level of specificity. So uh what we
[42:29] have here on this slide is the factors
that are identified by code the eight
[42:34] factors and then underneath it provides
information as to where in the plan
[42:40] andor the attachments you can find the
information that supports this specific
[42:45] factor of code. Um from a I I'll just
run through them quickly because I I
[42:51] think it's important to understand how
we have broken this out. Um when we talk
[42:56] about the urban renewal plan, the
economic feasibility study is really the
[43:02] driver of the revenue allocation area.
That's the uh work product and
[43:08] deliverable that includes the
identification of the projects as well
[43:14] as the revenue generation and the cash
flow which shows that ultimately the
[43:19] project is feasible. So a number of
these requirements
[43:24] are met by that document alone. But
starting with factor one, the statement
[43:30] describing the total assessed valuation
of the base assessment role of the
[43:33] revenue allocation area and the total
assessed valuation of all taxable
[43:36] property within the municipality. That's
what's referred to as the 10% test.
[43:42] And um so in that case
um we are looking at the combined base
[43:51] assessment role of all of your uh
existing revenue allocation areas. And
[43:57] so long as the base assessment role does
not exceed 10% of the total taxable
[44:02] value of the city, then you have met
that threshold. And because we have both
[44:08] city and county parcels, uh we're being
more conservative by using the total
[44:13] taxable value of the city
um because it's a smaller number.
[44:18] Uh the statement listing the kind number
and location of the proposed public
[44:23] works or improvements. Um we find that
in attachment five, which attachment
[44:30] five is the short form reference to the
economic feasibility study here. But
[44:35] you'll also see it in section 301 of the
plan narrative. And that's one of those
[44:41] sections that is flagged for continued
review because as we move forward, we
[44:46] really want to make sure that the
narrative language in section 301 really
[44:51] matches the intent and purpose of the
projects identified in attachment five.
[44:57] We've talked about the economic
feasibility study. Um
[45:01] uh factor four is a detailed list of
estimated project costs. You'll find
[45:06] that in attachment five, a fiscal impact
statement showing the impact of the
[45:10] revenue allocation area both before and
after the bonds are repaid and upon all
[45:14] taxing districts. You'll find that
information on impact in the narrative
[45:19] form uh in section 502.8
as well as the economic feasibility
[45:25] study. And just a few comments on the
impact of revenue allocation on the
[45:31] overlapping taxing districts.
When we talk about impact, what we're
[45:36] really talking about is the overlaid
taxing districts
[45:42] deferred benefit to a budget capacity
increase from the value that's occurring
[45:48] within the boundaries of the revenue
allocation area. So the taxing district
[45:53] themselves are able to establish their
budget and subject to and increase
[45:59] budget subject to the statutory
limitations
[46:03] and then levies to meet that budget
need.
[46:07] The what happens though to the growth
within the revenue allocation area that
[46:13] isn't available for budget capacity
increases from new construction until
[46:19] the revenue allocation area terminates
and then that 80% of the increment value
[46:24] flows to the new construction role for
that budget capacity increase.
[46:30] So um there's more explanation in the
narrative on that in 502.8. Eight. When
[46:37] we talk about the method of financing
the project costs, that's factor six, we
[46:42] really get into the multiple ways that
this that the agency has to fund
[46:47] projects. So, one is pay as you go where
funds are acrewed over time and saved
[46:51] for that purpose. There's also the
opportunity to advance funding for
[46:57] projects through developer and/or
property owner or other third-party,
[47:03] public or private, taking on that
project and seeking reimbursement from
[47:10] the agency for identified eligible
projects in pursuant to a reimbursement
[47:16] agreement. And then the third is the
agency does have the ability to issue
[47:20] debt um to again advance fund some
projects where they might have had to
[47:27] wait until they had acrewed the funds.
And so any bond issuance certainly has
[47:33] to establish the proform requirements of
a lender and has to jump through those
[47:38] hoops to move forward. But all of those
methods of financing projects are
[47:43] contemplated in the plan in the plan.
Excuse me.
[47:47] Then there's a the termination date.
This is a statutory change that has
[47:51] occurred over time, but for quite a
while now, a plan's duration is 20
[47:56] years. So to the extent the plan is
established by year end, then the plan
[48:02] termination date would be 20 December 31
of 2046 and the agency would be eligible
[48:09] to receive the final year revenues in
2047.
[48:14] Um, and that's defined in section 800 of
the plan. And then to the extent the
[48:20] agency has or retains owns any assets at
termination, those assets may be
[48:26] conveyed. Uh, and how those will be
conveyed is also identified in section
[48:31] 800. Um, and there is an opportunity for
the agency to retain assets
[48:38] posttermination
so long as there's funding sources other
[48:42] than revenue allocation proceeds to be a
source for those uh assets that are
[48:48] retained. So, next slide.
I just wanted to show the 10% test here.
[48:56] It's uh also in the plan document but
this shows that the taxable these are
[49:03] using the 2025 data because um at the
time of preparation 2026 hadn't been
[49:09] fully confirmed. Um but you'll see that
the base values of your existing revenue
[49:15] allocation areas total about 115 million
which uh 10% of the total taxable value
[49:22] of the city is about 273 million. So,
it's about 4.2%.
[49:27] So, well under the 10% even if there
were going to be increases in value for
[49:32] 2026.
Uh, so with that, I um,
[49:37] commissioners and council members, I I
would like to hand it over to Mr. Kramer
[49:43] to talk about the economic feasibility
study.
[49:51] » Thank you, Megan. kind of front of them
or whatever whatever is doing it.
[49:56] » Okay,
>> I may bounce back and forth. Okay,
[49:58] » so if it's okay, council and
commissioners, I'm going to speak to you
[50:02] from behind because I'm going to
navigate the slides a little bit back
[50:05] and forth. Um although if you'd prefer
me to come up there, I'd be happy to. Um
[50:11] [clears throat] so my name is Brad
Kramer with Prospective Planning
[50:14] Consulting. As Megan's already
mentioned, I wrote the economic
[50:18] feasibility study. What I'm going to do
uh this evening is just give you a a
[50:22] fairly quick and high level overview and
then to the extent that you'd like to go
[50:26] into more depth, I'd be happy to do so.
Um but just so you're you have a sense
[50:32] for what this is for. Um really the
purpose is to determine if the tax
[50:36] increment revenue um generated from uh
private investment will be sufficient to
[50:41] cover uh the anticipated costs of public
and other eligible projects. And so the
[50:47] way we get there is we we have to do a
little bit of looking into a crystal
[50:50] ball uh to look at all of the vacant
sites within this area and determine in
[50:55] partnership with the city what the
anticipated development looks like, what
[50:59] its value should uh look like um once
it's completed, how it grows over the
[51:05] years. We look at historical uh le levy
rates and changes and and valuation
[51:10] changes. Um and then we look at we
identify all of the potential public
[51:15] projects and their anticipated costs.
[51:20] So the spoiler alert is this is
economically feasible. Um the tax
[51:25] revenues are anticipated to cover the at
least the priority projects and many of
[51:29] the um additional projects within the um
within the district boundaries. And we
[51:35] did look at multiple scenarios and I
have a slide that summarizes that. We've
[51:39] already we've already covered the fire
district, so I'm going to skip that
[51:43] slide. So, one of the things that we did
with the city, um, I I I wanted to
[51:47] understand how fast these, uh, vacant
sites within the proposed area would
[51:52] develop. And initially, the city had
suggested a 10-year buildout. But
[51:57] because um the agency is anticipating a
bond to pay for some of the public
[52:03] infrastructure and because uh we're all
development subject to changes uh in the
[52:10] economy, prices um uh demand, we wanted
to I wanted to take a more conservative
[52:16] look. And so it really broke it into
four scenarios. a 10 year, 12 year, 15
[52:19] year, and even a 20-year buildout to
make sure uh we understood um how how
[52:25] that bond would be affected and how
overall revenues and expenditures would
[52:29] be affected if things didn't build out
as quickly as as hoped. So, when you
[52:35] look at the revenues for all of those
scenarios,
[52:39] there's an anticipated 43.5 to 68.5
million in revenues over the 20 years.
[52:46] And I won't walk through all of these
assumptions, but they are based on
[52:49] historical data. And so I'm going to
skip, keep those numbers in mind, the 43
[52:54] and 1/2 to 68 1/2 because as you look at
this list of projects, um the ones on
[53:01] the top are the um
the the priority projects identified by
[53:08] the city. They're they're they're listed
with more specificity. Uh specific
[53:12] intersections, you know, widening 12th
and 33rd, for example, a specific lift
[53:17] station, and those anticipated costs,
those were those priority projects came
[53:21] out to
$27.3 million. And so in all revenue
[53:26] scenarios, those priority projects um
are anticipated to be covered with the
[53:32] revenues. Then if you look below, um
there's a couple of things happening.
[53:36] there is um one because the statute
requires that you identify things that
[53:41] you might do. We we include lists of
more generic things that the agency may
[53:47] tackle if there are enough funds uh that
would also benefit the district. And
[53:52] that list, although these are very very
much estimates and placeholder numbers,
[53:57] came out to $24.2 million. So a total of
51.5
[54:01] million in total projects. And so in a
20-year buildout, maybe not all of those
[54:06] uh non-priority projects get covered,
but all of the priority projects should
[54:11] be covered and the bond is able to be
serviced. Um
[54:16] I've already made this statement, so the
cash flow is uh sufficient. I know that
[54:20] was that was a really quick look through
the finances. If you have questions
[54:24] [snorts] or want me to go in more depth,
uh I would be happy to do so, but
[54:28] otherwise, I'm also happy to turn it
back over to Megan.
[54:31] » Mr. Mayor, if I may. Um, so was you
anticipating bonding for the 27 million
[54:36] only or bonding for more than that?
>> Uh, I'm ask question, I guess.
[54:42] » Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[54:44] » The the bond that I that I plugged into
the model was only for $6 million.
[54:50] » That just do the revenues.
>> Yeah.
[54:53] » Yeah. I thought that would be alarm. So
that's what
[54:56] » I think the idea is to get started
projects
[55:01] revenue to cover up
>> otherwise you have to wait three or
[55:05] four.
[55:09] » Thank you.
>> Yes, council member Johnson.
[55:11] » Sorry I just said I never heard of the
bond part before. Have we done that in
[55:14] other verticals? Yeah, because a lot of
times you have to you have to go sell a
[55:19] bond to get the cash to get a start to
put it in pipes.
[55:24] » We we have one in the district out by
Walmart right now.
[55:34] » That's that's one of the things that
you'll kind of hear some legislators.
[55:38] They're they're kind they're opposed to
they'll say, "Well,
[55:43] you know, businesses should just pay for
that." And sometimes the businesses will
[55:47] say, "Well, that's a lot of money that
is going to benefit kind of this whole
[55:52] area, not just us." And if you make them
pay for it, a lot of times they'll say,
[55:57] "Well, we'll go somewhere else." Because
that's just a lot of additional cost
[56:05] is necessarily always, you know, total
amount of it's not beneficial.
[56:11] So yes,
>> is that a general election?
[56:15] » No, no, it's a it's a go out and you
sell a bond to a somebody that will buy
[56:24] » election which is good.
>> Yeah, that would be a tough that would
[56:28] be a tough
[56:32] » Any other questions? Mr. Craven, one of
the other things that I will point out
[56:35] that uh I just thought of while we were
doing this and I was thinking, you know,
[56:39] a lot of times because I've been having
conversations with some legislators and
[56:44] uh and one of their big things is well,
you know, cities and counties are losing
[56:50] all that revenue for 20 years. And as I
thought through this and all of our
[56:54] projects, I thought, yeah, sometimes
there is a project that will get done
[56:59] right at the start, but or often the
projects happen kind of towards the
[57:03] middle of the of the thing towards the
end. I mean, like our downtown project,
[57:08] we're hustling to try to get the project
done before that district ends. So, in
[57:13] that case, it'll be a pretty big
project. it will produce a lot of tax
[57:16] revenue and we'll only have to wait
probably one year for it because that
[57:21] district is going to end. And so if you
think about it, you know, most of the
[57:26] time when we we we get a district in
place, it takes a while to start getting
[57:30] projects done in there. So it's really
not most of the time 20 years. It's, you
[57:37] know, 10 years, eight years, six years.
Sometimes it might be 15 or 16 years,
[57:41] but it seems like most most often or
quite often the projects start happening
[57:47] more towards the middle to the end,
especially bigger
[57:52] really makes a difference.
Any other questions for Mr. Kramer?
[57:58] Okay. Thank you, Brad. We appreciate
your time and efforts on this and uh
[58:03] it's a lot of really good information.
So,
[58:07] » all right. Thank you.
That basically is just uh it's just
[58:11] information that you saw the timeline on
the things have to do here on now. Megan
[58:17] » Oh, Megan, did you have a couple more
slides to show us?
[58:21] » Oh, thank you, commissioners, council
members. I just have two to whip through
[58:25] really quickly here. We've already
talked about the ad consents and so that
[58:30] is going to drive finalization of the
map but um you know we are actively
[58:35] pursuing the few final um a consents and
if those aren't obtained then those
[58:41] parcels will be removed. The other piece
of it is um next slide just a reminder
[58:47] this is a post July 1 2016 plan. So that
means the base reset provisions are in
[58:54] place and what that means is if there's
a plan modification by city council
[58:58] ordinance then um there is a risk that
the base will reset to the current
[59:05] equalized assessed value of the district
which essentially uh removes the revenue
[59:13] stream for the district. There are
exceptions in that code for uh what is
[59:19] not considered to be a modification and
it's your one-time plan amendment to add
[59:24] area deanexations,
ministerial uh type amendments and then
[59:32] for existing commercial and industrial
project expansion. And I I do want to
[59:37] point out, you know, a lot of agency
budgeting is based on assumptions as to
[59:44] levy rates and uh revenue. And so up and
down the agency's budget annually uh is
[59:51] dependent on what those actual numbers
end up being. So there's always little
[59:56] uh flex in the schedule. So with that,
um happy to stand for any questions.
[1:00:02] » We have a question from council
president. So Megan, if I understand
[1:00:07] that then if there is any modification
during the 20-year period of time
[1:00:13] except for a few of the exceptions,
then the the base would reset to the
[1:00:19] current valuations at that time.
>> Yeah. So it's any modification. Thank
[1:00:26] you, Mr. Council President. um if to the
extent there is an amendment by a city
[1:00:34] council ordinance.
So a properly
[1:00:39] uh processed plan amendment that goes
all the way through the process. If it
[1:00:45] doesn't meet one of those four
exceptions, then there is a risk of a
[1:00:49] base reset.
[1:00:52] So, we can't expand it really. We can't
expand it in the future,
[1:00:58] but it it is what it is for the 20-year
period of time.
[1:01:01] » Would it be worth going those four
exceptions real quick just to
[1:01:05] » Yeah. So, the first exception actually
is you have a onetime amendment to add
[1:01:12] area and you can add area up to 10% of
the existing revenue allocationary
[1:01:19] acreage. So for example, if this
district stays 840 acres, the uh parties
[1:01:26] would have one time to extend the
boundary an additional up to 84 acres.
[1:01:33] So that would not constitute a
modification. That would trigger a base
[1:01:37] reset. That falls within the exception.
But if you did a second one to add area,
[1:01:43] that would trigger a base reset.
>> Okay. Any other questions?
[1:01:52] Anyone?
>> Okay. Thank you, Megan.
[1:01:56] » Thank you.
>> Thank you, Brad.
[1:01:59] » Appreciate you being here. And um if
there are no other questions or
[1:02:04] discussion on that, we will go ahead and
move to the next item on our agenda.
[1:02:09] » Please move on. Mr. Miller, is that on
our agenda for the 28th? Did you say
[1:02:13] » it is not yet? So I will contact um your
office and get that get that on. So
[1:02:21] » yes, go ahead.
>> I have
[1:02:24] very new to brand new urban fuel
districts.
[1:02:28] What is a transfer power transfer?
>> Megan, is that something you can help us
[1:02:36] answer? Did you hear the question?
>> I didn't. I'm sorry. Thank you,
[1:02:41] » Megan. This commissioner mentioned Uh
there's a couple of terms in there that
[1:02:45] I I'm not familiar with. Transfer of
power at the top. What what are we
[1:02:50] transferring? What what is involved with
transfer?
[1:02:56] » Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Um
council members and commissioners. I
[1:03:02] don't have the statute up in in front of
me and certainly um we'll get you a
[1:03:06] better answer but in general what the
transfer of power ordinance does is
[1:03:10] acknowledge that the revenue the
increment revenue from those county
[1:03:16] parcels is going to be allocated to the
agency to perform
[1:03:22] uh the implementation of the plan. So
it's essentially recognizing
[1:03:29] uh that the revenue allocation area
exists and that those dollars will flow
[1:03:34] to the agency.
>> Okay. Then Megan again as a followup
[1:03:40] Mike the intergovernmental agreement
what is involved in the inter agreement?
[1:03:45] What are we agreeing to?
>> So same I same same idea Mr.
[1:03:51] Commissioner. It's it's recognizing
between the county and the city that
[1:03:57] this is established and that uh there
will be the administration of this
[1:04:02] agency by the agency board and the
dollars will be implemented pursuant to
[1:04:07] the plan. It's all kind of part and
parcel of uh and and I apologize that I
[1:04:13] don't have it in front of me right now,
but I I believe the intergovernmental
[1:04:16] agreement is often the exhibit to the
transfer of powers ordinance and the
[1:04:20] specific statutory reference to that
language is in 50-2906.
[1:04:27] So the statute requires anytime you do
have these multi-jurisdictional plans
[1:04:32] that there just is an acknowledgment by
the county that uh you know this plan is
[1:04:39] in place. It's multi-jurisdictional and
recognizes that those dollars from the
[1:04:44] increment are not going to be captured
by the county but will flow to the
[1:04:47] agency is generally the purpose and
intent.
[1:04:54] So it's that's right this Commissioner
Smith. It's all about the money. It has
[1:04:58] nothing to do with land use zoning.
That's right. It's all about where the
[1:05:01] money goes.
>> That's right. Any specific land use. So
[1:05:05] to the extent a property owner in the
county wants to develop their property,
[1:05:09] they're subject to the the overlay of
the revenue allocation area doesn't
[1:05:13] change the process that that property
owner would have to go through to
[1:05:17] develop their property. you'd have to go
through your standard uh permitting and
[1:05:21] design consideration.
Um the overlay of the revenue allocation
[1:05:26] area doesn't change that and it doesn't
change the nature of if it's valued as a
[1:05:31] it will remain valued as a until it's
not.
[1:05:36] » That's one thing people get afraid of is
they think it's going to raise their
[1:05:40] taxes. Doesn't change them at all. That
that does to my last question noted
[1:05:46] earlier
the
[1:05:51] how it influences impact areas versus
annexation where this is there are
[1:05:57] people who resist. They don't want to be
a part of a city. They want to have
[1:06:02] their rural land. If we put this into
urban renewal and we cross those lines
[1:06:08] of the impact area, does that make it
easier for a city to annex properties or
[1:06:15] does it have no
>> easier?
[1:06:20] I I don't think it makes it any easier.
Uh but am I correct on that?
[1:06:26] » Uh yes, thank you and commissioner and
council members. So the overlay of a
[1:06:32] revenue allocation area has no impact on
how a city annexes property. The
[1:06:38] annexation of property is uh driven by a
statutory scheme and all of those tees
[1:06:45] have to be crossed and eyes dotted and
the overlay of an RAA doesn't impact
[1:06:50] that one way or the other.
>> Thank you.
[1:06:54] » Just just for context, um this is
Highway 33 right here. Um, and the the
[1:07:02] county properties or parcels that are
not in the impact area are these five
[1:07:07] right here.
So, um,
[1:07:13] » Council Member Johnson has a question.
>> Yeah, sorry. I just want to make sure
[1:07:17] I'm understanding right with that
transfer of power. Um, is it also
[1:07:22] included that? Um, so like there's a
list of all the projects that would be
[1:07:27] included in this and then like for
example, one of them is widening west.
[1:07:31] Typically that would come through the
council um to decide on timing um and if
[1:07:37] that's appropriate. But if we approve
this district then we give the district
[1:07:42] the ability to make that decision on
timing, right? Because then it doesn't
[1:07:46] come to the council anymore after that.
It goes to the originality. Is that
[1:07:50] right?
[1:07:53] Um,
madame councilwoman, can you please tell
[1:07:57] me what the project is specifically that
you're talking about with regard to
[1:08:01] timing?
>> Oh, I was just giving an example like I
[1:08:03] saw on the list. It says wing 12 west.
That was one of the one I one of the
[1:08:07] ones I remembered. But then if this
becomes if we approve this agency, then
[1:08:11] the council no longer is the one who
triggers doing that. It would then be
[1:08:14] the urban renewal agency. Right.
>> So I would add right there um because
[1:08:19] that's that's city streets. That's um I
mean the city still has to be involved
[1:08:24] in in that piece of it. We as urban
renewal we would contribute to making
[1:08:30] that happen. So financially we would
support it but we would not be the ones
[1:08:35] um executing any kind of work done
there. There are different types of
[1:08:39] projects where you where potentially
we're not dealing with city
[1:08:43] infrastructure directly, city assets
where where the city could be out of it.
[1:08:48] But um but in in the case of of like
you're saying with the city street,
[1:08:53] that's we we don't come in and take over
that. Um if that [clears throat] makes
[1:08:57] sense.
[1:09:00] » Matt has something to add.
>> Well, I was just going to say I'll just
[1:09:03] tell you how we've done it in the past.
I mean, it always pretty much goes
[1:09:07] through the city budget because the way
that we've been doing those is the
[1:09:11] projects really are engineered by the
city engineers and it goes through the
[1:09:16] city budget and then urban renewal
reimburses for their proportionate
[1:09:20] share. And the other thing to remember
on these big projects like this, it's
[1:09:24] generally multiple funding sources. And
so you're talking city money, you're
[1:09:29] talking federal money, you're talking
urban renewal, and so so you all kind of
[1:09:33] have to come together and put it into
your respective budgets.
[1:09:37] » Thank you.
>> Good question. Okay, any other
[1:09:40] questions?
[1:09:44] » Commissioners, council members, just a
reminder, the North Central had a
[1:09:48] transfer of powers and an
intergovernmental agreement as well. And
[1:09:53] you know, when we talk about the
transfer of powers, the first section of
[1:09:57] the authorization in the transfer of
powers ordinance just reaffirms the
[1:10:01] findings that are more applicable, I
would say, to the county or just
[1:10:06] acknowledging that the adjusted base
values of the revenue allocation areas
[1:10:09] within the city don't exceed the 10% and
that the project is financially
[1:10:14] feasible, the consents have been m
obtained, and that the city of Rexburg
[1:10:19] has the authority to proceed with the
creation. But the most important finding
[1:10:23] is that the revenue allocation area
proceeds from the areas lying within the
[1:10:29] unincorporated area uh shall be devoted
the revenues from that TIFF to the
[1:10:34] statutory purposes as described in the
plan and the law and the act. So it's
[1:10:39] it's just really acknowledging the
ability to establish this plan and how
[1:10:45] the dollars will then from the increment
flow to the agency to implement the
[1:10:50] plan. But in terms of development
timeline, I mean those factors are
[1:10:55] really determined as they occur. It
doesn't necessarily impact timing unless
[1:11:00] there's the opportunity to advance or
partner in funding. Um so anyway, hope
[1:11:07] that helps.
>> Okay. Thank you, Megan. Well, we uh we
[1:11:11] need to move on for a couple of other
items. So, thank you very much.
[1:11:15] appreciate that information and all the
work that both you and Brad have done on
[1:11:19] this for us. And uh thank you for being
here with us tonight.
[1:11:24] » Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
>> All right. Okay. With that, let's move
[1:11:29] on to item number B on the agenda, which
is the review of the America 250 event.
[1:11:34] We'll turn the time over to Matt that
[1:11:40] I might not have for everybody, but
double pull it out. Cheers.
[1:11:46] Okay. So, as I jump into this, um, keep
in mind that that this this report is
[1:11:53] not just the concert event. Uh, so this
is this is all events that were part of
[1:11:59] Independence Day. And I'll kind of point
out some of the differences there. Um,
[1:12:04] so what I've done, I didn't give you
obviously the full detail. I I broke it
[1:12:09] down into categories. And so as you look
through this report on the left you'll
[1:12:14] see the where it says row labels you'll
see the description and then as you move
[1:12:19] to the right you'll see a column for
expense a column for revenue and then a
[1:12:23] grand total and then we net that down at
the bottom. So, as I go through this, I
[1:12:28] mean, obviously the big big expense was
the we paid 195,000 for the artist that
[1:12:34] came to the concert. And then I did want
to note um on the contributions, which
[1:12:40] are revenues, right? Those um I wanted
to put the just the name of those
[1:12:45] businesses that supported that because
that was a a substantial amount. There
[1:12:49] was 70,500
basically donated to help reduce this
[1:12:54] subsidy. And so we're grateful for those
community partners. Um and some of them
[1:12:59] were specific donations for, you know,
one was for the drone, one was part of
[1:13:03] the fireworks, and then some of them
were just use it however you need to.
[1:13:09] And then uh you can see the uh I'm just
going to hit the biggy the big expenses
[1:13:14] and revenues, but then you see the drone
show, you know, was quite expensive. Um
[1:13:19] it was 35,000
and um we did get a little grant for
[1:13:23] 2500. The fireworks was really 30,000.
Uh the portion at the concert itself was
[1:13:32] about 5,000 and then it was about 25,000
for the other two locations the
[1:13:36] following night. And um and then we did
buy a flag display. So, if anybody saw
[1:13:43] the the flags out at Porter Park, we
left those out for probably four days, I
[1:13:48] think, or five days. And we will
continue to be able to use those um you
[1:13:53] know, for hopefully decades to come. And
then, um we did buy insurance for that
[1:13:59] concert. We just felt like it was just a
little too risky not to. So, that was
[1:14:04] about 9,400 bucks. Marketing came in at
about 18,500.
[1:14:10] And the marketing uh really was, you
know, we tried pretty much all outlets.
[1:14:17] Uh a lot of it was social media. You
know, we had banners, we had uh
[1:14:21] electronic billboards, um we did some
Google stuff, we did radio, uh you name
[1:14:28] it, we probably did a little bit of it.
And um parking, security, and staff, I
[1:14:35] kind of lumped quite a few things there.
That came out to about 10,000. And then
[1:14:39] another really expensive cost was
production cost. So when you think of
[1:14:44] production um some of the big costs was
the obviously the biggest one was
[1:14:48] running the stage. Yes.
>> Question. Yes. Go ahead.
[1:14:53] » Where it says staff is that just staff
that night or is that
[1:14:56] » that there was just a little bit of
part-time wages that got allocated in?
[1:15:01] Not very much. It was almost it was very
very minimal. And so um and then but
[1:15:09] honestly that's a great question because
most I would say like 99% of the labor
[1:15:16] is not our it's not in these numbers.
These are all direct revenues and
[1:15:20] expenses, right? And so, so when you
think about this, um, you know, if we
[1:15:25] were to track all of our time into this,
it would have been a lot of time. I
[1:15:30] mean, there was a lot of time and effort
at both the city, the highest level at
[1:15:34] the city obviously, but I mean, school
district had a lot, county had some
[1:15:38] things in it. So, and then the, uh, the
last line that I'll just hit real quick
[1:15:45] uh, is the ticket sales. So that's net
of sales tax. So we brought in about
[1:15:49] $200,000.
We sold about 5300
[1:15:54] 5,339.
Uh we believe that we had close to 6,000
[1:15:59] people in there because you have to
remember a lot of tickets were given out
[1:16:03] uh like through radio and so we would
give out, you know, hundreds of tickets
[1:16:07] that they would give away as promotions
and that did not come into this 5,339
[1:16:12] number. And then of course there was
lots of volunteers. We had, I think,
[1:16:16] over a hundred volunteers there. Uh, you
know, we had a ton of employees there,
[1:16:21] lots of, uh, public safety people there.
So, when when you drill it all down, um,
[1:16:27] grand total subsidy that I'm estimating
at this point, because I mean, I even
[1:16:32] got another invoice this week. And so,
you just you continued to see them for
[1:16:37] many months after, but I'm estimating
about 98,600
[1:16:42] subsidy. So county's half would be 493.
Now you guys have already paid us 50,000
[1:16:48] and um you know when you look at it uh
total what we budgeted at the city side
[1:16:55] we had budgeted a subsidy of around
48,600
[1:16:59] and so we're really close we're right
right fairly close to that. Uh we had
[1:17:04] hoped that it would have been you know a
little smaller subsidy than that but um
[1:17:10] you know I think it was a great event.
Um, it's up to you guys whether you want
[1:17:14] to do it again. I think it was a
tremendous amount of effort. So, but
[1:17:19] anyways, that's the report.
[1:17:24] » Any questions? Can I be in charge this
time?
[1:17:28] » Too soon, Mayor. Too soon.
>> 300.
[1:17:32] » Is there any questions or comments? We
don't have a lot of time, but
[1:17:36] » we appreciate this, Matt. This is great.
>> Okay.
[1:17:40] » Good advance. I know. I think we would
have been much more successful, but
[1:17:43] there was one thing that we didn't
anticipate, unfortunately, and that was
[1:17:47] we were thinking, "Oh, Friday night
before the 4th, that'll be great." Well,
[1:17:51] it turns out that Friday night being
night before the 4th made for a really
[1:17:56] long weekend, and all of the college
kids, not all of them, but a big
[1:18:00] percentage of hightailed it out of town,
so they weren't here. And that I think
[1:18:04] we would have sold way way more tickets
if that had been the case. But, you
[1:18:08] know,
So, okay.
[1:18:14] All right, let's go ahead
and uh move on to item number C, which
[1:18:19] is the uh regarding parking at the
nature park. So,
[1:18:23] » can you bring that up on the map?
>> [clears throat]
[1:18:37] » go right in by the the nature park. The
little triangle piece there.
[1:18:41] [clears throat]
Yeah, that one right there just below
[1:18:45] your cursor. So, I think as you guys
know at the county, that's part of the
[1:18:50] fairgrounds, that bottom part down
there. And you can see that uh our
[1:18:55] fairground supervisor put some rocks
along there. He's left that open on the
[1:18:58] west side for the city or for the park
parking as well as I think that's your
[1:19:04] only access to that shop.
>> That's your county parking lot.
[1:19:09] » So the problem we've been having is when
we
[1:19:12] a year ago we decided to close that off.
I haven't wanted to close off because we
[1:19:16] just had so much trouble with vandalism
in that parking lot. Kids going in just
[1:19:20] flipped them. There used to be a big but
hole there if you remember. Right.
[1:19:23] » Oh yeah. Yeah.
>> They they love that.
[1:19:25] » Yeah.
>> And they just tear the parking lot up
[1:19:28] like crazy. Um
>> so we fenced it off, put some rocks so
[1:19:32] they can't get on. The problem is now
all these neighbors on the bottom here
[1:19:36] who have freely used that for years and
years are upset. And apparently since we
[1:19:42] told them no, they've started calling
the city. Um
[1:19:46] » Thank you.
>> Yeah. Natalie called me one day and I
[1:19:50] said, "Natalie, it's not open to the
public." And she says, "Well, anyway, I
[1:19:56] won't go into all that discussion." But,
but our take on it is that it is closed.
[1:20:00] You know, we apologize those people can
no longer use it. Someday this is going
[1:20:04] to be sold to a private developer. There
is no legal easement for those people to
[1:20:09] use it.
>> Um,
[1:20:11] which brings up the question, isn't
there an easement?
[1:20:15] » Not there.
>> Along the backside,
[1:20:17] » not there. in the park.
>> There is. There is on the park
[1:20:20] apparently.
>> In fact, Evan told me today, if you'll
[1:20:24] scroll over a little bit,
>> apparently somebody over here owns a
[1:20:27] skid loader and every once in a while
goes over and moves the rocks for the
[1:20:30] neighbors. Um, but he says he went right
across your park with a skid loader.
[1:20:35] » Oh, really?
>> Um, to hit the path going out because
[1:20:39] they do have some easements along there.
So that's
[1:20:43] » So that's an easement to nowhere. Yeah,
>> there's no star and
[1:20:47] » pretty much
>> that's probably understand.
[1:20:51] » No,
>> it's one of those situations where it's
[1:20:53] difficult because they they've accessed
it for years and they just assumed that
[1:20:58] there's
>> if you look at it motions come into play
[1:21:02] a lot. See those faces store their
campers only access they have to get to
[1:21:08] that. There are gates back there on that
almost every fence and that's where they
[1:21:13] have stored it. probably when they sold
their homes, they told her, "Oh, don't
[1:21:17] worry. You got a nice parking."
>> Yeah.
[1:21:19] » And it's now become
[1:21:23] so I mean too often we are even you know
you got the rocks off there.
[1:21:33] You kind of want to put them straight
across so that would even that guy's
[1:21:36] access. But I don't know. We we have no
formal agreement with the city on the
[1:21:42] use of that up there. We're not gonna
shut that off. By the way, I told Evan
[1:21:46] Mates I don't public use public uses
that for those that's not that's not our
[1:21:52] issue at all. Um, you know, we open up
twice a year for parking during the
[1:21:57] fair.
>> Other than that, we don't really need
[1:21:59] it. Uh we have plenty of parking lots,
but as we get closer to moving the fair
[1:22:05] grounds,
um
[1:22:08] we would like certainly entertain that
it would I would assume you guys want to
[1:22:13] buy.
>> Yeah, I think I think we would
[1:22:16] definitely be interested in it.
>> So, you know, we don't want to sell it
[1:22:19] off to a private developer.
You guys have no access to your shop.
[1:22:24] » Yeah,
>> because it is a great parking spot for
[1:22:27] the parking. Anyway,
so just something on your radar. So if
[1:22:32] you get calls, please tell them it's not
a city issue that to call the county.
[1:22:37] » We'll be happy to do that.
>> I mean, you live right along there. Is
[1:22:41] that Do you have any input on that or
anybody else?
[1:22:44] » I think it's just a lot of
>> just not knowing
[1:22:48] » information, right?
>> Yeah. Like I I've lived in that area for
[1:22:52] 20 years and I didn't know that that was
count.
[1:22:54] » So I think it's just part of information
and figing it out.
[1:22:59] the easement part. I have heard about
that and I know who it is who's doing
[1:23:04] the trailer.
>> Um, so yeah, again, I think it's just
[1:23:08] information.
>> Trailers are kind of captive right now.
[1:23:12] If they want to be able to get those out
to do them, can they call you?
[1:23:16] » Absolutely. Yeah. Well, yeah. Call on
which day, but we'll make sure they get
[1:23:21] out. But
>> yeah,
[1:23:22] » but yeah, but so while it was open
during the one of the traders showed up
[1:23:25] back in there, it was out.
>> Oh, yeah. But as soon as it was opened
[1:23:28] up, trainer came back in. So So they
they know. I wonder if it would be
[1:23:32] beneficial to produce some kind of an
official document from the county that
[1:23:37] distribute it to those people that
explains and
[1:23:42] he just says just kind of explains the
realities of it and just so that they
[1:23:47] know
>> and from what we understand from what
[1:23:50] our attorney has said there is no you
can't I mean the one guy that called and
[1:23:54] said well I have a you know prescriptive
ease but are right by use but apparently
[1:23:58] you can't do that with county property
That's not a pain.
[1:24:03] » Got two legal minds in here.
>> Two and a half. I saw Steve walk in. I
[1:24:07] think [laughter and clears throat]
[1:24:12] » but he says [clears throat] you can't do
prescriptive ease money against so you
[1:24:16] can't exist. So
>> okay.
[1:24:18] » Anyway, so just
>> No, because I I I kind of wondered that
[1:24:22] myself. It seems like I had heard that.
I think we had that going around city
[1:24:26] hall that they have sectors. We didn't
>> mayor.
[1:24:30] » Yes.
>> There was some discussion on this a few
[1:24:33] years ago and I believe whoever owned it
at one point gave them verbal permission
[1:24:39] to use that, but I don't think it was
ever an established easement. It was
[1:24:44] just, hey, we're not using it. Go ahead.
We're talking 20, 30 years ago.
[1:24:48] » Yeah. I don't how long the countyy's
owned it, honestly.
[1:24:51] » Yeah. As you guys know, our our current
fairgrounds manager is very OCD about
[1:24:56] his stuff and he doesn't like
>> he does.
[1:24:59] » He doesn't like it messed up.
>> No, he does.
[1:25:02] » Kids go in there.
>> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[1:25:07] » I was over there just the other day and
and I saw and I and I I was I thought
[1:25:12] that I thought I wonder if we move three
of those rocks.
[1:25:15] » Oh, yes.
>> He's probably got a measure probably see
[1:25:20] you on camera. Rotate him and see if he
notices.
[1:25:24] » All right.
>> So, it's just mostly information. And I
[1:25:27] I don't know that we need I say we have
no written you guys on that.
[1:25:33] » I I'm fine with it, but then continue
using it. It's public use. I I have the
[1:25:38] issue with that.
>> Well, we appreciate that. That's that's
[1:25:41] good access people that want to use
park, which of course are people that
[1:25:45] live in the city and the county and
other places as well. So,
[1:25:49] » and we have no problem with that. Yes.
>> Okay. Well, thank you. We appreciate
[1:25:53] that information. It's always good to
understand those things a little bit
[1:25:56] better, especially when we start getting
calls about it.
[1:25:59] » Yeah.
>> Right. Well, we already talked about
[1:26:00] search, so we won't go with that one.
So, thank you everybody for being here
[1:26:04] and we will go ahead now this part of
the meeting and we'll move into our next
[1:26:09] part here in a few minutes.
>> This city
[1:26:23] All right.
[1:26:47] That's it.
[1:26:55] I can
[1:27:03] If I eat
[1:27:24] All right, let's see who
[clears throat]
[1:27:32] council member.
[1:27:37] Thank you.
[1:27:49] Sorry.
[1:27:54] Council member Rigggins, would you lead
us in the pledge? Sorry, I was off.
[1:28:18] All right, welcome everyone. We'd like
to call this meeting of the Rexburg City
[1:28:22] Council to order. Um, we're glad to have
a fairly full house here. Either we've
[1:28:29] got a lot of young people that are
interested in uh the civic affairs of
[1:28:33] Rexburg or you've got a homework
assignment due tomorrow. I I don't know
[1:28:38] which, but we'll we'll take the positive
thought and think. We've got former
[1:28:43] Well, we've got future city council
members and mayors right here in the
[1:28:47] room. So, thank you for being here to
see how your local government works.
[1:28:51] It's great to have you here. We'll have
some interesting conversations and
[1:28:56] things that uh that hopefully will be of
interest to you. I would like to start
[1:29:00] this meeting with a um with an opening
prayer and the pledge of allegiance to
[1:29:06] our flag. And I've asked Council
President Ericson to offer the opening
[1:29:10] prayer for us. After which I've asked
Council Member Rigggins to lead us in
[1:29:14] the pledge of allegiance. So Council
Council President Ericson.
[1:29:21] Our father in heaven, we are grateful to
be met here this evening as city council
[1:29:27] citizens to uh discuss the affairs of
our great city and community. We're
[1:29:34] thankful for the um blessings of living
in this uh wonderful part of the world.
[1:29:42] uh for the blessings of freedom and
liberty that is afforded to us as
[1:29:48] citizens of this United States and of
the state of Idaho and the city of
[1:29:54] Rexburg.
We are thankful for the um for all the
[1:29:59] blessings that are ours as we u live and
work together uh and do all that we can
[1:30:06] to make this community uh the a
wonderful place to live and work. We uh
[1:30:15] ask thy blessings to be with us this
evening as we deliberate the affairs
[1:30:19] that are on the agenda this evening. We
pray that we'll be open in our
[1:30:24] discussions, that we will listen
intently to concerns and needs, and that
[1:30:31] uh that everything will be conducted
with civility and with a desire to
[1:30:39] improve this our community. We again uh
gratefully acknowledge thy hand in all
[1:30:45] that we do and do so in the name of thy
son Jesus Christ. Amen.
[1:30:49] » Amen. Thank you. you please stand and
join me in the pledge of allegiance
[1:30:56] to the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
[1:31:02] stands. One nation under God,
indivisible with liberty and for all.
[1:31:10] » Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
All right. At this time, we'd like to go
[1:31:16] ahead with the roll call of our council
members. We'll ask Mariana to do that
[1:31:20] for us, please.
>> Here.
[1:31:24] » Council member Johnson
>> here.
[1:31:25] » Council member Ericson
>> here.
[1:31:29] » Council member Colin Ericson
>> here.
[1:31:32] » Council member Reer
>> here.
[1:31:34] » Council member Rigggins
>> here.
[1:31:36] » All right. Thank you very much. We have
a full quorum, so we'll proceed with
[1:31:41] business. Um,
first item or the item item number four
[1:31:46] on our agenda tonight is to welcome uh a
new employee to our city family, city
[1:31:54] team. And we have Elise Rasmmanson back
here in in the back. We'd like to ask
[1:31:59] Elise to come up and uh to the podium
and just tell us a quick little bit
[1:32:04] about yourself and introduce yourself to
the council members, please. Yeah,
[1:32:08] that's fine.
>> It's nice to meet all of you. I'm Elise
[1:32:11] Rasmmanson. I'm originally from Las
Vegas, Nevada, and I came up here for
[1:32:14] school at BYU Idaho. I just graduated,
well, I graduated about a year ago. I
[1:32:19] did business supply chain management.
And I kind of worked with a few
[1:32:24] different things. I did insurance. I
worked at Enterprise, the rental car
[1:32:27] place, for a little bit. And now I'm
here with the city doing planning and
[1:32:30] zoning as an admin assistant. So, I'm
really excited to just learn and get to
[1:32:35] know all of you guys better.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate
[1:32:39] it. and we're glad to have you. So,
welcome to our city of Rexburg team.
[1:32:44] » All right, let's give her a hand.
[1:32:54] » Okay, and Elise, appreciate you've
jumped right in and uh and gotten right
[1:33:00] with things. So, thank you very much. We
appreciate you. All right. Okay. We
[1:33:04] would like to uh move to item number
five,
[1:33:08] which is a public hearing. This public
hearing is to annex property in the
[1:33:14] impact area at approximately 80 East 7th
North into the city of Rexburg. This
[1:33:19] item would be designated as ordinance
number 1351. If motion passes and
[1:33:24] considered first read, uh we are going
to turn the time over to uh our city
[1:33:31] attorney, Mr. Spencer Raml to uh just
give us a little information on this
[1:33:35] item before we proceed forward. Mr.
Raml,
[1:33:38] » thank you, Mayor. Had a good line of
communication with Basic American Food
[1:33:43] uh and their uh legal counsel. Again,
there's two representatives from Basic
[1:33:48] American in attendance tonight. Uh they
reached out last Friday with a proposed
[1:33:53] resolution. Um, I think it's uh worth uh
discussing and there's uh it would be
[1:33:58] worthwhile to uh engage in some of that
negotiation and that discussion with
[1:34:02] basic American and their legal counsel.
So, I am making a recommendation uh to
[1:34:07] city council to table this tonight. I've
discussed it with uh other members of
[1:34:11] staff and they are in agreeance and so I
would make that request at this time.
[1:34:15] » All right. Thank you for that
information and welcome representatives
[1:34:18] from Basic American. We're glad to have
you here with us tonight. Um, so given
[1:34:23] that information from staff, uh, I would
entertain a motion to move forward with
[1:34:30] tableabling this item if that is the
council's desire. Is there such a
[1:34:33] motion?
[1:34:36] » I I would move to table this um, action
item that is to um, consider annexation
[1:34:43] of the property as stated.
>> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Johnson.
[1:34:46] Is there a second to that?
>> I'll second that.
[1:34:49] » Second by Council Member Teen. Any
further discussion or questions hearing?
[1:34:54] None.
>> Mr. Mayor.
[1:34:55] » Yes.
>> Is there President Eric to which this
[1:34:58] one would be tabled or are we
>> at this point? We're just it just be
[1:35:02] tabled indefinitely until we decide to
bring it back. Okay. All right. Any
[1:35:08] other questions or comments? Hearing
none. All in favor?
[1:35:12] » I.
>> Any opposed? All right. We will table
[1:35:15] that item until further notice and we
will be glad to have more uh talk and
[1:35:22] communication and uh negotiations with
the our basic American uh folks and
[1:35:28] appreciate you being here tonight. All
right. Uh at this time we have item
[1:35:32] number six which is a time for public
comment. This is a time for things that
[1:35:37] are not on the agenda tonight. If
there's anything that anybody would like
[1:35:40] to make us aware of, uh, we invite you
to come to the podium, state your name
[1:35:45] and address, and, uh, tell us about
anything that you'd like to. Is there
[1:35:49] anyone that would like to make a comment
at this time?
[1:35:54] All right, seeing none, we will move on
to item number seven, which are our
[1:35:57] staff reports. And, uh, we will start
with our parks and recreation uh, report
[1:36:03] from our parks and recreation director,
Mr. John Lewis. This is regarding
[1:36:07] resolution 226-12,
which is to amend the Eagle Park camping
[1:36:13] use policy.
Yeah. So, uh,
[1:36:19] pretty much, um, over the last couple of
months, we've gotten a bunch of
[1:36:23] interesting reports out of Eagle Park
and people having interesting, uh,
[1:36:28] interactions with individuals back
there. And um I've been back there quite
[1:36:32] a bit the last several weeks just kind
of monitoring some things and we've kind
[1:36:36] of come to the termination that we uh
need to make some changes uh in terms of
[1:36:41] how we operate that park uh to make it
safer
[1:36:47] uh just to make it safer for for people
to be able to go down there. Um, I've
[1:36:51] talked to a number of people who have
said they would never uh walk down there
[1:36:55] by themselves and, you know, we want our
city parks to uh to to really feel safe
[1:37:00] and that people can go down there and to
be able to use them the way that they're
[1:37:04] intended. So, uh we're recommending that
uh we make some adjustments to the uh
[1:37:10] camping procedures out there at Eagle
Park. uh namely uh changing it to where
[1:37:15] instead of having the opportunity to
camp every single day of the week, we're
[1:37:18] going to limit that to uh Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday on the weekend. Uh
[1:37:22] which will make it a lot easier for uh
PD and our staff to be able to monitor
[1:37:27] it. Uh as well as requiring people who
do want to camp to uh display uh their
[1:37:32] permit to be able to be there. So, it's
a lot easier uh to determine who's
[1:37:36] actually supposed to be there and uh you
know, who who isn't supposed to be
[1:37:40] there. Um but essentially um we just
want to make it a lot safer and we think
[1:37:44] that uh these changes will help us to be
able uh to accomplish that and monitor
[1:37:49] that park in a way to where um you know
we don't have to expend a lot of
[1:37:55] resources to be able to do it.
>> Okay. Thank you for that explanation. Is
[1:38:01] there any questions or comments from
council or Mr. Lewis? Council member
[1:38:06] Johnson.
>> Um yeah, thank you John. I just wanted
[1:38:09] to say I' I've talked to John about
this. We kind of ran it through our
[1:38:12] parks committee and I think it's a
pretty fair balance because there are
[1:38:17] problems happening there. I think the
park's just too secluded. Um and so this
[1:38:21] way residents can still use it
sometimes. Um but we have some
[1:38:26] restrictions to hopefully keep it safer.
So that was the hope.
[1:38:30] » That's good com. I like that comment
about a a good balance because you you
[1:38:35] don't want to be too restrictive, but we
do want it to be safe and those kind
[1:38:38] » and I I will say this, uh, you know,
when we talked about a lot of these
[1:38:42] things, a lot of this is, you know,
obviously you want the situation back
[1:38:46] there to kind of improve and as
improvements kind of come along, you
[1:38:50] know, maybe we can become slightly less
restrictive as we get a better system in
[1:38:53] place to be able to handle that. So,
it's not necessarily meant to be
[1:38:57] forever, but I think this is what's
needed now to be able to correct what's
[1:39:00] going on down there.
>> Okay. Council President Ericson.
[1:39:03] » Mr. Mayor, um the the permitting and the
payment of for a permit, is it is it
[1:39:11] clearly marked and clearly signed down
there so that there's no confusion as to
[1:39:17] whether a permit's even required or not?
So, as of right now, in regards to what
[1:39:21] we're trying to do, it is not, but I
will change that if you know you guys
[1:39:25] agree to go ahead and proceed with that
and everything will be clear. Um, and
[1:39:30] uh, go ahead.
>> There's no system, you know, when you
[1:39:33] talk about
the people that use campgrounds are
[1:39:38] accustomed to, you know, pulling in and
paying their paying for paying right
[1:39:43] there for their spot. Um, is there is
that is that part of the system? It
[1:39:48] looks like they're going to have to
either come to the city hall or or made
[1:39:54] electronically through the payment
system. Is that payment system in place?
[1:39:59] » Yeah. So, we do currently have that
payment system uh ready to go uh to be
[1:40:03] able to utilize, but really we're going
about it this way to just make sure that
[1:40:07] people are checking in with us because I
think the the real issue is how we have
[1:40:11] it currently is it's kind of on an honor
system and a lot of people don't pay uh
[1:40:15] when they go back there. We do have
people who do pay uh for it, but it's,
[1:40:20] you know, far and few who are actually
doing that. And it makes it a lot easier
[1:40:23] for us to be able to really keep track
of what's going on in there. Cuz like I
[1:40:27] said, I'm just really concerned about
the safety aspect. The last couple
[1:40:31] weeks, we've had a group that's been in
there that I've gone down with PD, I
[1:40:35] think on two occasions, uh to try to get
them out of there, uh just because they
[1:40:39] had been there way longer than they were
supposed to. And uh you know, they had a
[1:40:43] lot of items just kind of scattered
everywhere back there. So, I'm just
[1:40:47] wanting to really just really control
that as best as we can. And I know it
[1:40:52] might might cause an extra step for
people who want to camp, but I just feel
[1:40:55] like, you know, it's the safest option
for us to proceed with at this time. I
[1:40:59] think to council president's um point, I
wonder if with the signage and stuff
[1:41:05] that we have, can we have maybe like a
QR code where like if they pull in and
[1:41:10] they can just pay on the spot rather
than having to come to because maybe
[1:41:14] they pull in after hours or what?
>> Yes. Go ahead.
[1:41:17] » They have to have a permit. So, they
would have to have a ability to print
[1:41:20] that.
>> Well, they wouldn't necessarily have to
[1:41:22] print it, would they? They could have it
on their phone, right? Right. Well, it
[1:41:25] says it has to be
>> We would like for them to display it so
[1:41:27] it's easier for the police department to
be able to verify
[1:41:31] » if they've been there or not because
instead of having to get out at the
[1:41:34] patrol car and ask every single person,
they'll be able to look at the post that
[1:41:37] we'll put out there and immediately see
it.
[1:41:39] » So, if people are wanting to reserve
those, they're more than willing to go
[1:41:44] ahead and do it online. Um, but they'll
just need to either a print it
[1:41:48] themselves or b come to city hall and
grab their paper to be able to display
[1:41:51] it. And I I think this will help to
deter the wrong kind of visitors um down
[1:41:57] in there. And like I said, I understand
it creates an extra step, but I think it
[1:42:00] will help to uh you know, dissuade some
of those people from wanting to go back
[1:42:05] there to do things.
>> Mr. May,
[1:42:08] » yes, council teach.
>> I love this idea. My only concern goes
[1:42:12] back to the printing of the permits
because we're only open till 12:30 on
[1:42:15] Friday. And so most people if they're
going to they they won't have ability to
[1:42:20] get a permit if they are driving here to
camp.
[1:42:23] » That was one of my concerns.
>> So how do we
[1:42:25] » so typically with most of our
>> So they have to have it printed.
[1:42:28] » Our registration system you're actually
supposed to reserve it I want to say at
[1:42:32] least two days in advance is technically
what we have set up.
[1:42:35] » That's
>> a lot of people do come uh on the day of
[1:42:37] and we have people in office who are you
know more than willing um to be able to
[1:42:41] help with that. Um but typically they're
supposed to do it in advance.
[1:42:47] against prison.
>> Yeah. My only concern it as long as we
[1:42:50] have very clear signage down there
>> so that it's very clear and and not you
[1:42:55] know they they know that they've got to
that they they can't just pull in there
[1:43:00] and and grab a spot and spend the night
without going through some sort of
[1:43:04] permitting process
>> and and and notifications on our social
[1:43:08] media and things like that too. Council
member Riggins.
[1:43:10] » Thank you. Uh John, well there are uh
what are you doing as far as prices are
[1:43:16] concerned? Is it going to change? Is
going to as price
[1:43:19] » prices will be what they are now
currently which I think is $10 a night.
[1:43:22] So we're not we're not worried about the
money necessarily. I just want it to be
[1:43:27] a better process.
>> No, no, I I like the process. Question
[1:43:30] number two, though on here, um
any reason as to why only Friday,
[1:43:36] Saturday, Sunday? Um, you know, last
year I I was there for with with my
[1:43:43] grandkids, right? We were there
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday.
[1:43:47] Um, and so why why only Friday,
Saturday, Sunday?
[1:43:51] » So, part of uh that thought process on
our end was to to make it just a lot
[1:43:55] easier to determine who's been there for
what amount of time because currently I
[1:44:00] want to say seven days is the limit uh
that we have and we don't have a system
[1:44:04] to where we're requiring people to show,
you know, that they've paid. So every
[1:44:08] time we go back there, we have to get
out and ask staff. So I think kind of
[1:44:11] the way that we looked at it was we
limit the days and we go down there with
[1:44:15] PD or we our department goes down there,
we know if we see tents on the incorrect
[1:44:20] days and they're not supposed to be
there. So it's a lot easier to be able
[1:44:23] to police that and either ask them to uh
you know vacate the area or you know
[1:44:28] come back on a day where we can uh or we
actually offer it. So that's kind of
[1:44:32] what we were thinking with that. I don't
know if that makes sense, but
[1:44:36] » So, are will you uh will you kind of
study that? I mean, as you go, you know,
[1:44:42] if we put this into uh into motion, um I
would like to just make sure that you're
[1:44:48] looking at it as you're getting a lot of
people that are saying, "Wow, we would
[1:44:52] really like to be there Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday or Thursday,
[1:44:54] Wednesday, right?" Um I I I hate to It's
a beautiful place to be. It's especially
[1:45:00] in the summertime when it's hot, the
river's there, you I mean, it's just um
[1:45:05] to to to close out the other days.
>> Well, it's not completely closed.
[1:45:10] » No, no, no. I mean, I it does say that
it's open until it's it's until 11. It's
[1:45:14] day use, right?
>> Yeah.
[1:45:16] » But again, if I'm um you know, if I'm
camping and and and
[1:45:21] my only days off are are between Monday
and Friday. Uh the only day I've got is
[1:45:27] Friday.
>> Yeah,
[1:45:28] » I think that's a good point. We probably
need to maybe discuss that a little bit
[1:45:32] more because I kind of had that same
concern a little bit. Council Council
[1:45:36] member Erikson's got a another
suggestion.
[1:45:38] » Yes, Mr. Mr. Mayor, I I agree that maybe
we need to do something get a little
[1:45:43] stricter on that and make up some rules
to figure out what we're doing down
[1:45:46] there. But I would like to see exact
same thing. I don't know why we just do
[1:45:50] it Friday, Saturday, Sunday. I think we
need to re-evaluate this in maybe a few
[1:45:55] months and say, "Okay, let's let's get a
handle on this. Let's figure out what we
[1:45:58] can do." and then broaden that back out
to maybe the only day we don't have off
[1:46:02] is Monday. So, they can have one day to
go in there and say, "Hey, there's
[1:46:05] nobody here in Monday. We can do all the
work down there or whatever it might
[1:46:08] be." But, I like the idea of being a
little restrictive and then open it back
[1:46:13] up and let's use our parks. Council
member Teen,
[1:46:16] » I also like the idea of it being
restricted, but u just a suggestion
[1:46:20] would be if people are asking and
wanting to come on Monday, if we have
[1:46:24] complaints or different things, we could
log that and then we can revisit that
[1:46:27] and see how many people we actually
have. If it's a significant number, we
[1:46:30] can look into doing that. But if not, I
mean, I I live over there and there's
[1:46:34] not a lot of people who are down there
except on the weekends. And so, I think
[1:46:38] that's kind of the idea. And so I'm I'm
sure that that the the rec department
[1:46:43] will keep a log of that for us and help
us build to track that and to see if we
[1:46:47] do need open up more.
>> And then maybe you might have some kind
[1:46:49] of a special permit or something.
Council member Johnson.
[1:46:52] » Yeah. I just I think um the biggest
reason for limiting it is because I
[1:46:57] don't think our police department can
patrol it every single day. Um and so I
[1:47:01] think this was one way to hope that we
could have more police presence there
[1:47:04] because there really are some things
that just shouldn't be happening there
[1:47:08] that are happening there. and then we
can revisit it and see if it helped. Um,
[1:47:12] and I really like the idea of logging it
to see, you know, how many residents
[1:47:15] actually want to use it um during the
week and are they actually residents or
[1:47:20] are they all from out of the city? Um,
and try to find out more of who's using
[1:47:24] it and when.
>> Yeah, I I do expect that number to uh
[1:47:30] increase as we get it back to a a spot
to where people feel safe enough to
[1:47:34] where they want to be back there more
regularly. And as I said before, more
[1:47:38] than welcome to to revisit this as we
kind of go through it and track, but uh
[1:47:42] I said I just really want it to be safer
back there. And that's my biggest
[1:47:45] concern.
>> Okay. Well, it sounds like
[1:47:50] u from the comments here, the council is
is mostly in favor of this, but with
[1:47:54] with the idea of tracking it and trying
to, you know, watch it so that because I
[1:47:59] think council member Rigggins's point is
good. I think if there are, as council
[1:48:03] member Johnson said, if there are local
residents that would really like to camp
[1:48:06] for three or four nights and it's
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or whatever,
[1:48:10] and that's the nights they have
available, I I I hate to make our parks
[1:48:13] too restrictive that our residents can't
use them. So, I think we'll need to
[1:48:18] really watch that and pay attention to
it and see if we can make some
[1:48:20] adjustments if we need to. Does that
sound fair? Okay. All right. With those
[1:48:25] comments then and suggestions from
council, I would entertain a motion to
[1:48:30] approve resolution number 2026-12
to amend the Eagle Park camping use
[1:48:35] policy. Is there such a motion?
>> Mr. Mr. Mayor, I I would make the motion
[1:48:40] to um
to
[1:48:45] approve resolution number 202612
amending the Eagle Park camping use
[1:48:51] policy with the
direction I guess to to the parks
[1:48:57] department to revisit this um and in the
future for further amendment.
[1:49:05] » Okay, thank you. Is there any uh any uh
sorry, is there a second to that motion?
[1:49:11] » I'll second it.
>> Second by council member Eric Eric Colin
[1:49:14] Ericson. Any further discussion or
questions?
[1:49:18] Hearing none. All in favor?
>> Any opposed? Right, that motion passes.
[1:49:23] We will go ahead and [clears throat]
put that policy into use. Thank you, Mr.
[1:49:27] Lewis. We appreciate your time here. All
right, item B is our finance report with
[1:49:32] our chief finance officer for the city,
Mr. Matt Nielsen, we are going to talk
[1:49:38] about reviewing and approving the fire
department fiscal year 2027 budget.
[1:49:44] » Yeah, thank you. Um, so probably to
start, I'll give a little background so
[1:49:48] the audience understands this.
>> Good idea.
[1:49:50] » Because this is pretty complicated, but
the way that our what we call public
[1:49:55] safety in terms of ambulance and
fireworks in our county is we actually
[1:49:59] have a joint venture agreement. And so
when you think about that, there's three
[1:50:03] taxing entities that are paying into
that. There's the ambulance district,
[1:50:07] which every resident of the county pays
into with the property tax. There's a
[1:50:12] fire district, which is only paid by
residents that live outside the city of
[1:50:18] Rexburg. And then the city of Rexburg
general fund, which is property tax and
[1:50:25] sales tax primarily, has to come up with
their proportionate share for fire
[1:50:30] services. And then to add another
element to that, there's a fire board
[1:50:35] that administers that joint venture
agreement, but that board is made up of
[1:50:40] a representative from each of those
entities. And so as we go through this
[1:50:44] budget process, you know, we have to to
bounce these things back and forth
[1:50:49] between
all three of those entities plus the
[1:50:52] fireboard in the mix, right? And so it
can get pretty complicated. So what this
[1:50:57] is is this is just really kind of a
summary and and really all I'm showing
[1:51:02] you here is is the what we call the JPA
budget, which is essentially the
[1:51:08] operating budget of those functions for
ambulance and fire. And then in addition
[1:51:13] to that, there's multiple other funds uh
for equipment replacement, wildland,
[1:51:19] etc., etc. And so originally when we got
the original proposed subsidy for these
[1:51:25] three entities, it was about 6.69
million. And you can see that the city
[1:51:30] fire portion was about 2.2 million. And
I believe that is uh what we passed in
[1:51:36] our budget currently. And then as we
continued to meet with them in budget
[1:51:42] work meetings, uh some things changed.
Uh there were some minor changes and
[1:51:47] then eventually they also proposed a new
position. It's called the fuels
[1:51:51] reduction shift coverage which is a
position that can help manage the fuels
[1:51:56] reduction that happens in the kind of
fourmonth timeline in the summer
[1:52:01] primarily. And then when they're not
doing that, they can actually cover
[1:52:05] shifts, which which is beneficial to the
department. Now, the good news on that
[1:52:10] one is there's a federal grant that
covers about 48,000 of that. Um, and so
[1:52:16] that was an addition. And then over the
last maybe six weeks, um, uh, the city's
[1:52:22] probably pushed the hardest here. We had
been pushing them to do line item
[1:52:26] budgeting in their wildland because we
felt like it was missing some expenses a
[1:52:32] and some revenues as well. And so the
fire board met and said yes, we want to
[1:52:37] do line item budgeting. Let's get those
details. Uh they added those details and
[1:52:43] and Chief
Troy Mskin sent me back on um well I
[1:52:49] can't see the date but uh 82626
I think it was. He sent me back the
[1:52:54] proposals and and it looked great. I was
very grateful that they line item
[1:52:58] budgeted in wildland. Uh but there was a
couple things. Um they showed the
[1:53:04] expenses in wildland but they didn't
reduce the expenses in the operating
[1:53:07] budget was the biggest thing. And so so
I'm recommending that we reduce those
[1:53:12] because now they're being paid by
wildland. And then um there was a few
[1:53:16] other things like they hadn't shown the
equipment reimbursements that come in as
[1:53:21] revenue and then go out as expense to
the respective entities for so for
[1:53:26] example uh we have when we send out a
fire piece of fire equipment that's
[1:53:31] owned by 50/50 by the city and the fire
district we get those revenues back. Uh
[1:53:38] but they wanted to collect those through
wildland and then distribute them back
[1:53:42] to the wild or to the joint um fund for
fire which is basically a big savings
[1:53:48] fund to buy and replace fire equipment
um which is not cheap as you know and uh
[1:53:55] so anyways there was a couple things
like that and um
[1:54:00] I also went through just some
recommendations that I know the
[1:54:02] [clears throat] auditors are going to
hit them up with when they do their
[1:54:05] first audit and I met with uh Chief
Child and Chief Mskin. We went through
[1:54:10] these. They felt like these were
reasonable. Um and so hopefully this is
[1:54:16] what they'll present to that fire board.
But uh what I'm looking for from the
[1:54:20] city council is your recommendation that
these things happen. if they do happen,
[1:54:25] you'll see that um overall the increase
of that subsidy from fiscal year 26 to
[1:54:32] 27 uh it actually goes down about 82,000
because they found some additional
[1:54:38] revenue for ambulance. But when you look
at fire district, they would go down
[1:54:44] about about 51,000
and then the city fire would go down
[1:54:49] about 71,000.
It would still give the city fire about
[1:54:53] a 3.3% increase in our budget. Um, but
this this would also, if they adopt
[1:54:59] these numbers that we're recommending,
it would allow us to put about 15,000
[1:55:03] back in the general contingency, general
fund contingency. So, so I think they're
[1:55:08] all good things. Um, the meeting I had
with them, I think that they're they're
[1:55:13] I think they felt like they were
reasonable. So, I'm just looking for
[1:55:16] your recommendation to to hopefully make
sure this happens when they meet.
[1:55:21] Okay, thank you. Is there any questions
from council
[1:55:26] mayor?
>> Yes, sir.
[1:55:27] » A general question on the It looks like
from the numbers that we're paying about
[1:55:31] a third, which it, you know, makes
sense. We're one of three entities in
[1:55:37] this organization. I'm curious though as
to how that was decided. Is it because
[1:55:41] we're one-third or is it based on the
number of households? Is it based on the
[1:55:45] number of money that's brought in from
the tax different taxing entities? How
[1:55:50] did that kind of get uh formulated?
>> Yeah. So there so within that joint
[1:55:55] venture agreement, there's a series of
of ways that things will be broken out.
[1:56:00] So so the biggest thing is any of the
building improvements that are in
[1:56:05] downtown here, we split 1/3.
Uh any fire equipment is split 50/50
[1:56:12] between the city and the fire district.
Ambulance doesn't pay for that. any
[1:56:16] ambulance equipment is paid 100% by
ambulance. And then the biggest thing
[1:56:22] is, as you can imagine, um personnel
costs are kind of your biggest expenses,
[1:56:28] right? And those we have an agreed upon
amount of 48% is paid by ambulance
[1:56:35] district and then 52% of that is split
between fire district and city fire. And
[1:56:42] then there's a formula that um basically
takes the assessed values for fire
[1:56:49] district and city of Rexburg with a
grand total and it takes the population
[1:56:54] for those respective with a grand total
and then we derive a formula that splits
[1:56:58] it out. So it's really like to figure it
all out. It takes a giant spreadsheet
[1:57:03] with lots of different calculations.
>> Quite probably quite an Excel
[1:57:07] spreadsheet you got going on there. So
thank you that there.
[1:57:10] » It's an impressive P. It's kind of like
artwork for accountants, right? Yeah.
[1:57:14] Council member Ericson.
>> Yes, Mr. Mayor. Matt, just like I've
[1:57:18] talked to you before on several times, I
I like this. I finally come up with a a
[1:57:23] budget, and that I've said this several
times. I want them to live within a
[1:57:26] budget.
>> Yeah.
[1:57:27] » We're not open-ended bank here. We can't
just keep fork out money. And I like how
[1:57:31] they're spelling it out and saying,
"Okay, we're going to set down a budget.
[1:57:33] We're going to try to save money. We're
going to try to do the things out there
[1:57:37] and what the city can put in for it. We
only have so much money to be able to do
[1:57:40] that." So, thank you for doing this.
Thanks for getting the information that
[1:57:43] we can finally see some avenues of what
we can do here as a city to help out
[1:57:48] that on our third.
>> Yeah. And I one thing I'll add is we we
[1:57:53] drafted a new addendum, right, for the
budget. Um, and part of that, a critical
[1:57:58] piece of that is that whatever you
budget, we put into this joint operating
[1:58:03] fund. And then they take that amount and
if they have if they manage their money
[1:58:08] really well in one year and they have a
carryover, they actually keep that in
[1:58:14] that budget. And so it it kind of
incentivizes them to to use those
[1:58:19] dollars wisely and then that carryover
can be utilized uh you know for adding
[1:58:25] positions or other things. And so that's
the approach we've taken. And and then
[1:58:29] what we do, our standpoint from
budgeting is we really watch the dollars
[1:58:33] and the percentage increase because we
know what our our general revenues are
[1:58:38] that are coming in, right? And so that
allows us to to control that to some
[1:58:42] level.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for
[1:58:46] Mr. Nielson?
>> All right. Hearing or seeing none, uh I
[1:58:52] would entertain a motion to re to um to
approve the uh fire department fiscal
[1:58:58] year 2027 budget. Is there such a
motion?
[1:59:02] » Mayor, I'll make that motion to approve.
>> All right. Motion by council member
[1:59:06] Ericson. Is there a second?
>> Second by council member Reer. Any
[1:59:10] further discussion or questions?
Hearing none. All in favor?
[1:59:14] » I.
>> Any opposed? All right, that motion
[1:59:17] passes. We will go ahead with that
budget item. All right. Thank you, Mr.
[1:59:21] Neielsson. We will move I will move to
item number C, which is our public works
[1:59:25] report with our public works director,
Mr. Keith Davidson. Item number one is a
[1:59:30] local improvement district uh committee
report.
[1:59:35] » All right. Thank you, Mayor. Um so
tonight we are reporting on our L
[1:59:40] committee. Um bringing back the
suggestions uh that came forth from that
[1:59:45] committee. Um,
got
[1:59:51] Oops.
This
[2:00:05] go that way. Um, so we met six times as
a committee. Um, and we started out back
[2:00:11] in January. Um, and we went through a
series. We gave them kind of the
[2:00:15] background information where streets
were funded from, the different revenues
[2:00:19] that come in. Um, and then we had them
come back and we brainstormed different
[2:00:24] ideas, went through the pros and cons of
different ideas of of where maybe
[2:00:29] funding could come from on those ideas
and then reviewed those and then came
[2:00:34] back u put together the presentation and
then reviewed that presentation uh back
[2:00:40] on August 6th.
Um and so some of the considered options
[2:00:44] that we looked at permanent levy
override obviously is one of those.
[2:00:49] Another one is start looking with the
state petition for an increase in the in
[2:00:54] the fuel tax. So there could be extra
revenue coming back that way. also
[2:00:59] petitioned for a local option sales tax
and these some of these right are long
[2:01:04] way out to make it would be difficult to
do but we were trying to explore all the
[2:01:08] different potential options um out there
also adjust L frequency or cost sharing
[2:01:15] distribution was another one of those
increase allocation for street
[2:01:19] reconstruction
um within the budgetary process um and
[2:01:24] then also looking at sidewalk
replacement different options there. Um,
[2:01:28] another one that just
>> Keith, just sorry to interrupt, but uh,
[2:01:32] I think Council Member Teen's idea. Um,
just maybe explain just briefly for the
[2:01:38] audience what what an L or a local
improvement district is.
[2:01:42] » Yeah. No.
>> Yeah.
[2:01:43] » Thank you. We'll back back up. So, an
Local improvement district. So, what uh
[2:01:49] the city does those it gives the city an
opportunity to go out and allow
[2:01:54] residents um and the city to fix like we
mainly use it for there's lots of
[2:02:00] different ways you can use it. We mainly
use it for sidewalk replacement, curb
[2:02:04] and gutter replacement um in front of as
we do street reconstruction projects.
[2:02:08] So, we want to bring those up to a
certain standard. Um and so we do an
[2:02:13] what's called an Local improvement
district with that. And so the property
[2:02:17] owners are responsible. The city council
just recently voted to take over the
[2:02:22] Kerman gutter. So that property owners
are responsible for the sidewalk as well
[2:02:27] as if we're have to redo their sewer
connection because on these street
[2:02:31] reconstruction projects, we won't be
back in those neighborhoods for probably
[2:02:36] 30 to 50 years. Could be. And you'll see
later on in the in this presentation
[2:02:43] kind of how far out the budget takes us.
Um, and so we want to make sure those
[2:02:47] sewer lines are going to last that long
because the last thing you want to do is
[2:02:51] have a sewer line fail and then you have
to dig a brand new road. That's the
[2:02:56] worst thing you can do with a brand new
road. Um, and so so [clears throat] the
[2:03:00] LI also allows for the city to allow for
funding so those property owners don't
[2:03:07] have to pay that bill right up front.
The L actually allows the city to go
[2:03:10] out, get funding, and allow the property
owner to pay for those improvements in
[2:03:15] front of their house over a 10-year
period. Um, and so there's there's a a
[2:03:21] benefit and con, but the the con is,
right, a lot of people aren't excited to
[2:03:25] pay for sidewalk in front of their house
to get it fixed. It's not one of those
[2:03:28] things like a new boat or a new
motorcycle or car that they're excited
[2:03:32] about. Generally, sidewalk is not a lot
of excitement to to fix that.
[2:03:37] » Thank you. Okay. Um, and so we went
through those series, but one other one
[2:03:42] that just I when I was down at the ITD
meeting um that they just had, was that
[2:03:48] a week ago, two weeks ago? Um, one of
the ones as I was visiting with them,
[2:03:52] one of the another option that came up
and obviously we did discuss this uh
[2:03:56] with them is is counties can opt to
through a vote. It would have to be a
[2:04:02] vote through the county kind of like a a
permanent levy override, but you can opt
[2:04:06] to increase
um your yearly registration fees, right?
[2:04:13] Your licensing fees on on your vehicles.
So a county can actually go in and and
[2:04:19] vote on that and you can increase that
up and to increase the street budget to
[2:04:24] go in and and then pay for different
things on street. So that there's a
[2:04:28] there's another option that just came
forward that that I just heard about. So
[2:04:32] that that's a new option. So there's a
could be other ones that maybe we
[2:04:35] haven't even thought of before. But
yeah,
[2:04:39] » Mr. Mayor.
>> Yes. Go ahead.
[2:04:40] » Just a question. Have you have you
checked into what what the possibility
[2:04:46] how much that would raise?
>> Yeah. So, you would set how much you
[2:04:50] wanted to increase that, right? On top
of the the typical registration fee, you
[2:04:55] would set that through the vote. You
would say, you know, if we wanted to do
[2:04:59] 35 additional dollars on that and then
you could look and see, okay, what
[2:05:03] revenue would that bring in? What would
that do for it? So, so through that
[2:05:08] vote, you just set what that price is.
But I but I we you really haven't had
[2:05:12] time to
be right.
[2:05:14] » This is I just barely found out about
it. So I was just throwing that out as
[2:05:18] Hey, there's other options sometimes
that come up that maybe we're not aware
[2:05:22] of.
>> Council member Reer,
[2:05:24] » real quick, I don't know if you found
this out because it's brand new. Would
[2:05:26] that be a countywide vote or just
residents of the city?
[2:05:31] » Um I think it's countywide. So I think I
think you have to do it wide and I don't
[2:05:35] know how that split would work. I know
they did it in Ada County. The mayor
[2:05:38] sent me over an article uh just barely
on that the Ada County, but Ada County
[2:05:43] is a little bit different because they
have a highway district that covers the
[2:05:46] county.
>> And then one kind of followup is would
[2:05:49] that require a twothirds vote like many
of the other things that we need or a
[2:05:54] simple majority?
>> That's that's what I have to look into
[2:05:57] and see if what that would require. But
we can I can find out that information,
[2:06:00] bring it back if if the council wants to
>> look at look at that option as well.
[2:06:05] » Yeah.
>> So,
[2:06:06] » okay. Okay. Was there anybody else
>> for the questions before we continue on?
[2:06:10] Okay.
>> All right. So, we looked at those and
[2:06:13] then uh the committee kind of narrowed
it down to four four options uh
[2:06:20] potential options, right? One was set
aside a budget for sidewalk repair, a
[2:06:24] sidewalk cost sharing split. So, take on
on more than just the curb and gutter.
[2:06:29] Do a a cost sharing split and then
permanent levy override. And then um
[2:06:34] sidewalk cost sharing split with a
permanent levy override were the four
[2:06:39] options that we looked at. And so the
that first one budget item for sidewalk
[2:06:43] repair and replacement, the city of
Caldwell sets aside $150,000 a year uh
[2:06:49] just for sidewalk replacement. So um the
budgets that you would look at for that
[2:06:55] would either be the general fund or the
street budget. So no additional revenue,
[2:06:59] it's just you're just taking
>> money from the
[2:07:02] » money from the budget and then using it
for that. So So there is that option. Uh
[2:07:09] » mayor,
>> yes, Council Member Johnson,
[2:07:11] » I just wanted to [clears throat] clarify
on that one. And that would be doing it
[2:07:13] different than we do now. Um because
Caldwell doesn't tie it to street
[2:07:19] reconstruction. So it would be saying
this is when we do sidewalks, this is
[2:07:23] how many we do a year. We have 150 grand
a year to do it. We don't do it when we
[2:07:27] reconstruct streets anymore. Just to
have it make sense because I don't know.
[2:07:30] It needs a little background there.
>> Yeah. No, thank you.
[2:07:32] » Yeah. Y
mayor.
[2:07:34] » Yes.
>> Member Wiggins.
[2:07:36] » Keith U $150,000
uh um doesn't do very many feet of
[2:07:42] sidewalk.
>> No.
[2:07:44] » No. With the cost. So that that was an
amount. So we
[2:07:47] » Yeah. Which is I mean it's interesting.
It's interesting that they set aside
[2:07:50] $150,000, but $150,000 doesn't do very
many feet of so it, you know, I mean,
[2:07:58] uh, it still wouldn't really help us
much as far as what we're what we're
[2:08:03] trying to do, I think.
>> Yeah. So, and that was just saying
[2:08:08] 150,000. So, it could be depending on on
what the city council wanted to put in
[2:08:13] at that.
>> Council member Johnson,
[2:08:14] » sorry, I just want to add one thing to
that, too, to help it make sense, too.
[2:08:17] We could break down all that. I think if
you look at it, it helps you make sense
[2:08:19] if you break down like this is how much
of the total LI is for street
[2:08:23] reconstruction. This is how much for
curbon gutter, this is how much for
[2:08:25] sidewalk. And then it helps that
150,000. It puts it in perspective for
[2:08:29] you because it might not be as much as
you're thinking. I'm not even saying
[2:08:33] that that's the best option. I'm just
saying that we went through and looked
[2:08:35] at how like this is how much we spent on
this, this, and this. If you break it
[2:08:38] out, it helps you understand it better.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
[2:08:42] » Okay.
>> Okay. All right. Continue.
[2:08:43] » All right. So the the next one, right,
would just be doing a little bit more on
[2:08:47] the sidewalk uh replacement cost
sharing. So we the city would pick up uh
[2:08:52] 30% and then the property would pick up
70%. So that was an option. And then
[2:08:58] same type of thing, right? Just comes
out of the general fund or the street
[2:09:02] fund.
>> Okay. Council member TJ,
[2:09:04] » that is on top of the curbon gutter.
>> Yeah, on top of the curb gutter. This
[2:09:07] Yeah, thanks for that. So that would be
on top. So picking that up. Um, and then
[2:09:12] the next one, uh, would be a permanent
levy override. So that'd be right. And
[2:09:17] this is just looking at sidewalk, right?
So we still have sewer lines and things
[2:09:22] like that, but um, so that that would be
funded by a levy override. Uh, basically
[2:09:28] be looking at $10 per 100,000 of
assessed value on that. Um, I'll have
[2:09:33] another slide that kind of shows what
that breakdown on different um,
[2:09:38] properties would look like. Council
member TJ
[2:09:41] » and that would be uh a vote, right? And
it had two/3s
[2:09:44] » two/3s supermajority for that. So any
permanent levy override requires a
[2:09:49] supermajority vote. Um and then the last
option is kind of a a modified with the
[2:09:55] permanent levy override would be to look
at doing the permanent levy override
[2:10:00] with a a 7030 split, but this is 70%
paid by the city through that permanent
[2:10:07] levy override. the 30% paid by the
property owner. So, it gives a little
[2:10:11] bit more um onus for the property owner
because they got to to pay in. I mean,
[2:10:17] one of the concerns with the 100% would
just be everyone would be coming in
[2:10:20] saying, "When are you going to do my
sidewalk? I'm paying into this. When are
[2:10:23] you going to come through do my
sidewalk?" This has them have a little
[2:10:27] bit more skin in the game, if you will.
>> President Eric,
[2:10:31] » Mr. May Mayor, um, so this kind has sort
of morphed a little bit into just
[2:10:38] talking about just sidewalks. Uh, I
thought we were going to look at
[2:10:43] possibility of like trying to replace
LIS, but this will not replace an L,
[2:10:48] right? We still have to have for sewer
connections
[2:10:54] » and I don't know what else, but
>> it it's really would be the sewer
[2:10:58] connections, right? if you if you did
the 100% le levy override and that was
[2:11:03] going to pay for all the sidewalk and
there's going to be times when we have
[2:11:07] more sidewalk and there might be times
when we have less sidewalk right just
[2:11:11] depends on the street what's happening
what we have going on so so that this is
[2:11:16] kind of looking at an average on that
and as costs go up the permanent levy
[2:11:22] override I believe you can probably
increase it by 3% a year
[2:11:25] » would would this also cover uh driveways
if if necessary during a rec pre
[2:11:31] reconstruction.
>> Uh if you're talking about the driveway
[2:11:34] approach that
>> approach. Yeah,
[2:11:36] » I believe we're just looking at sidewalk
but then looking at ADA uh requirements
[2:11:41] with that. So
>> so not necessarily the driveway approach
[2:11:45] on that.
>> Now some of them are the sidewalk and
[2:11:48] the driveway approach right when it's
against the curb are the same. So but
[2:11:53] when you have it offset then it's it's
different that way. One of the uh
[2:11:58] negative things that that would happen
if we if we got rid of LEDs is
[2:12:02] sometimes, not not often, but sometimes
we have people that will decide, you
[2:12:06] know, if their driveway is all cracked
up and stuff, they'll they'll replace
[2:12:10] the whole driveway and they want to put
that on the Luh, too, because they can
[2:12:14] spread out over 10 years.
>> So, if we get rid of LEDs, you know,
[2:12:18] they'd have to pay that cost all up
front, which might be tough. I mean,
[2:12:21] that doesn't happen a lot, but it does
happen from time to time.
[2:12:24] And with the sewer line replacement, we
we can't get rid of LEDs. I mean, that
[2:12:29] would still be a a portion of it.
>> Council member Johnson, that I think
[2:12:34] this is an important thing to point out.
A restraint that we have is that um even
[2:12:40] if we did the permanent levy override
and even if it passed, it would only be
[2:12:43] for replacing sidewalk. Yes. Because,
you know, if we if we did all new
[2:12:49] sidewalk, we'd have to do it for like
all new developments and everything.
[2:12:52] just be totally out of control. So, that
is one thing to remember is that if you
[2:12:55] don't have a sidewalk, even if we passed
that um levy override, it's not going to
[2:13:00] help you. Um it's only to replace
sidewalk. And I think that's something
[2:13:03] really important to remember. So,
>> yeah, thank you for that, Clar.
[2:13:06] » If we passed it real quick, then I
wouldn't have to pay for my sidewalk.
[2:13:10] » It's going to go in here pretty soon,
>> Mr. Mayor. And as as I remember on all
[2:13:14] the LEDs, those that were con
constructing new sidewalks, those were
[2:13:20] the ones that were having to pay
>> Yeah.
[2:13:23] » considerable amounts of money, right?
The others were fairly small. I mean,
[2:13:27] because piece little pieces here and
there.
[2:13:30] » Yeah. Depending on how old it was. Now,
there was a a little bit, right, when
[2:13:33] you get into the 88 requirements, right,
where we have that cross slope. But but
[2:13:37] yeah, for the most part, depending on
how old it is or condition like that,
[2:13:42] obviously the older it gets, the worse
condition, the more that has to happen
[2:13:46] on that. So,
>> um, so we had those. So, if you look at,
[2:13:52] so this will give you an example of the
permanent levy override analysis,
[2:13:58] right? So, this would this would give us
a budget of about $230,000.
[2:14:03] Um, and that's that $10 per 100,000
assessed value. So, if you look down at
[2:14:08] the bottom, it kind of covers over a
30-year what their cost would be on
[2:14:14] that. So, if you look at like a large
apartment complex, right? So, you look
[2:14:18] at a something that's valued in the
neighborhood of $28 million, right? Over
[2:14:23] that 30-year, they're going to pay about
$135,000
[2:14:28] over that 30-year period. uh you look at
a a townhouse, right? Assessed value of
[2:14:34] 323,000,
you're going to be about $1,500
[2:14:38] on that. So you can see a single family
home is going to be about 1,600.
[2:14:44] Um so that's a a smaller single family
home, a larger single family home,
[2:14:50] right? You're going to be about 4,000.
So it all depends on that assessed
[2:14:53] value. Um, and then you look at like a
large big box, once again, like a $21
[2:14:58] million store, uh, they're going to be
at 103,000. So that just kind of gives
[2:15:03] you an idea of how that breakdown looks
when you do a permanent levy override.
[2:15:10] Um, and so it just kind of once again,
you've you guys have seen this with our
[2:15:17] our street budget. Um, past fiveyear
average, we've been doing about $2.5
[2:15:21] million. That puts us on track to do our
roads every 60 years about. Um we're
[2:15:29] seeing that decrease going down to about
$2 million. Um so that puts us on track
[2:15:34] every 75 years. Right. So it's it's one
of those things that that budget is a is
[2:15:40] a big player and how often we can get to
different places. Now obviously we try
[2:15:44] and go after grants. We've been
successful in those to to help fund
[2:15:49] other reconstruction projects.
Um and then if you look at kind of our
[2:15:55] street operating revenues, um we're
seeing that decline um happening in our
[2:16:02] revenue. So,
so it's never an easy decision. It's
[2:16:06] it's a lot easier when you have revenues
going up and you can can do more. But um
[2:16:12] the idea tonight was just to kind of go
over the the options that we discussed
[2:16:19] in the LED committee meeting. We're not
looking for an action item from concert
[2:16:23] tonight, but what we'd like to have you
guys do is to think about it. You know,
[2:16:28] maybe talk with community members and
and see if they have other things, but
[2:16:34] then uh we'd love to get back together
and then kind of have a discussion of
[2:16:39] what direction the city council would
like to go with that. And I don't know
[2:16:43] um how soon you you guys would like to
get back together. If you want to have a
[2:16:48] month or a couple months um to get back
together, we can we can do that. We
[2:16:53] could set up a work meeting or we could
do another council meeting. Just looking
[2:16:57] for council's direction.
>> Any preference uh council members who
[2:17:01] were on that committee? Council member
Johnson and who else was on that
[2:17:04] committee? Did it just Oh, both of you.
Okay. All right. Any preference? Would
[2:17:09] you want do you want to think about it
for a while and get together in a while
[2:17:13] or do you want to try to get together
pretty soon? Council member Tia,
[2:17:16] » I would uh prefer to do a work meeting
probably next month and just really sit
[2:17:20] down and and figure out which way we
want to go and then put it to a vote.
[2:17:26] » Okay.
>> And I think if we wait longer than a
[2:17:27] month, we might lose our
>> momentum.
[2:17:30] » Yeah. [clears throat]
>> Okay. Yeah. And I just actually sent you
[2:17:32] you'll notice on your phone I that deal
Keith was talking about. I I just saw
[2:17:37] that I think yesterday and I thought,
"Oh, this is interesting." I don't know
[2:17:41] if it's something that would work here
or not if people would vote for it, but
[2:17:45] I guess it's it's another option. So,
we're always just trying to keep our
[2:17:48] eyes open for other options and things
that might work uh in that in that
[2:17:54] direction. So, yes, Council Member
Rigggins,
[2:17:58] » Keith, do you have any idea what uh
what what what kind of time span it
[2:18:04] would take for if we were to go uh and
plead for the state to raise their gas
[2:18:09] tax for for the
>> it would be a big undertaking.
[2:18:13] » Here's here's the reasoning behind it.
Uh and and I think we all understand it
[2:18:18] is that um all of those are all great
options. Actually, you guys have thought
[2:18:23] up some good stuff, but it's still all
coming from our own community. A gas
[2:18:29] tax, if we were to get gas tax, it's
coming from all over, right? And so,
[2:18:34] you're getting you're getting money from
outside of Rexburg, outside of Madison
[2:18:41] County. You're getting money from
California, Montana. I you know, people
[2:18:44] that are traveling through are filling
up gas here. And so it it's taking some
[2:18:49] of the pressure off of the taxpayers, us
within the community for that to happen.
[2:18:56] That that's
I mean whatever it takes to figure out
[2:19:01] what it would that would be. I think
again from my perspective, it's bringing
[2:19:07] outside anytime you can bring in outside
money, it it's going to help the the the
[2:19:14] community. There you go. And council
member teaching has volunteered to take
[2:19:18] that to the state.
>> No, I have not. That is not why I'm
[2:19:20] raising my hand.
>> Go ahead. Comment.
[2:19:23] » Um I just uh do we know what kind of
timeline if we did the permanent levy
[2:19:27] that we would be looking to putting that
out? Is that something we could probably
[2:19:31] just discuss at the work meeting or
>> Yeah, I think we've discussed in the
[2:19:34] work meeting when would be the best time
to push that out, right? Obviously, it
[2:19:37] would just fall on whatever election was
was coming up that we'd want to push
[2:19:42] that out. Now, I would highly recommend
that we make sure we have plenty of time
[2:19:47] to get information out to all the voters
of how this would work, what the levy,
[2:19:52] permanent levy override would do, where
the money would be allocated for, make
[2:19:56] sure we're very clear on that. Um
because I think I think that's important
[2:20:01] when anytime you're going out to vote is
to make sure we're clear on how that
[2:20:07] money will be spent.
>> Yeah, that's true. Okay. Council member
[2:20:10] Reer. Yes. One quick question and and
maybe it's not the appropriate time to
[2:20:14] ask it, but did the committee have a
favorite option or were they more like
[2:20:20] let's just look up all the options and
let the city council decide what they
[2:20:24] think is best?
>> Council member Johnson,
[2:20:27] » I would like to answer that because I I
think it would help the council members
[2:20:32] if they could have been in the the
meetings. I went away not knowing I
[2:20:35] didn't feel like there was one. I don't
know if I don't know how you felt that
[2:20:38] were in the meeting.
Yeah, there was a variety. I feel like
[2:20:42] every like business owners were not a
big fan of the 100% because you saw on
[2:20:47] the breakdown that they would pay more,
but residents that we talked to were in
[2:20:52] favor of it. Also, I don't think we had
one meeting where we had every single
[2:20:56] committee member there and that made it
a lot more difficult to come to a
[2:20:59] consensus. But I think if you asked any
of the committee members like they each
[2:21:03] had one that they preferred, which makes
I I think that shows how hard this issue
[2:21:07] is. I think it's pretty difficult. So,
>> good information. Yes, council.
[2:21:12] » I would add to what um council member uh
Johnson said that I would I would think
[2:21:18] that they would lean towards one of the
levies is probably
[2:21:21] » res the residents. That's that's what
they were either the 100% levy or the
[2:21:25] 7030 split levy.
>> Yeah.
[2:21:27] » Okay. All right. Any further questions
or comments? Well, thank you those of
[2:21:32] you who participate in that committee.
We thank you for your time and efforts
[2:21:36] there as well as the citizens who were
on that committee as well. That's a lot
[2:21:40] of a lot of work and time devoted to
trying to figure out a way to to do
[2:21:46] things in a better way. Um so I guess we
will leave that at that and uh Can I ask
[2:21:53] one more question? I'm sorry.
>> Yes, Council Member Johnson.
[2:21:55] » Do you think it's a good idea to decide
on a date for that work meeting now so
[2:21:59] that people can put it on their calendar
so that we have all the council members
[2:22:02] there? Like is that something we could
do?
[2:22:04] » We could. Yeah, we could do that.
>> Um, [snorts]
[2:22:08] but yeah, keeping in mind we probably
are going to try to
[2:22:14] Well, I was going to say we probably
want to have like our the C people come
[2:22:18] like we talked about and make a
presentation, but I don't think we need
[2:22:20] a work meeting for that. I think we
could just do that.
[2:22:23] » Is the second council meeting in October
>> a good one? I just think of the first
[2:22:28] one.
>> Let's let's look at our calendars.
[2:22:30] potato harvest going on. That might be a
little more difficult, but I was
[2:22:35] thinking maybe the second one.
>> Second second meeting in October.
[2:22:39] » Yeah, second council meeting in October.
>> Okay, which would be the 21st. Yeah.
[2:22:44] Um, looks okay. Does how how is
everybody for that meeting? October
[2:22:51] 21st. You good? You good?
All right, let's go ahead and schedule
[2:22:57] it for October 21st.
and uh we'll put that on the agenda. And
[2:23:02] Deborah, would you please uh send out a
an invite to everybody for that? Okay.
[2:23:09] Thank you very much. October 21st.
Yeah.
[2:23:17] Just make sure that double check. Okay.
All right. Thank you for that
[2:23:22] information, Keith. We appreciate it.
Let's move on to item number two, which
[2:23:26] is to approve an ITD local professional
services agreement for Forsrren
[2:23:30] Associates to design the Teton River
connecting path and pedestrian bridge
[2:23:35] project.
>> That sounds exciting.
[2:23:38] » Yes. So, if you recall, we received a
grant. Um, and so this pathway is on the
[2:23:44] north side of the Teton River, kind of
there by Albertton's heading east. Um,
[2:23:49] and then with a pedestrian bridge coming
across the river there. So we kind of
[2:23:53] make can make like a little loop if you
will there. Um and so what we're we're
[2:23:58] recommending that we enter into this
contract
[2:24:01] um with for Associates
um and the the contract is is stipulated
[2:24:07] not to exceed
>> Is there a map so we can see where
[2:24:10] you're
>> um yeah we can bring up the
[2:24:13] » Sorry I meant to recognize you before he
stepped up.
[2:24:16] » That was council member Teen by the way.
>> Council member Teen. Yes.
[2:24:22] Okay. So, we are looking with that
grant. So, we have an existing pathway
[2:24:26] that you can kind of see right through
here um coming up and then this grant
[2:24:32] would take that pathway and then we
would run it along the river
[2:24:38] corridor. Originally we're looking at
the bridge here, but we're trying to see
[2:24:42] if we can push it a little further and
get the bridge over to this side. But
[2:24:46] the pathway would go follow along the
river all the way down to this location
[2:24:51] where we have uh property, the city owns
property with that for that pathway and
[2:24:56] then would come across and then
this location is the new part that we're
[2:25:01] just building right now. So,
>> Council Member Tun,
[2:25:05] » would there be access for those homes
like on Tangled Wood?
[2:25:09] » On Tangled Wood. Would they be able to
access that pretty easily, the the path
[2:25:14] or?
>> Yeah. Yeah, there's a there's a spot
[2:25:18] through here uh that this development is
putting in that they could access Okay.
[2:25:22] » access the path.
>> That would be up to the development
[2:25:24] though to
>> Yeah. for that portion.
[2:25:26] » Connect it. Yeah.
>> Okay.
[2:25:28] » It' be a pretty good spot though. Um
Okay. One of the things that we have
[2:25:32] talked about council uh that you know
you ought to maybe weigh in on or just
[2:25:38] or just give me your opinion and we'd
probably refer this to our parks and
[2:25:41] trails uh committee to to discuss as
well. that is
[2:25:46] uh we've looked at uh internally we've
looked at the possibility of maybe
[2:25:50] instead of doing an asphalt path we just
do what they call a crushed granite path
[2:25:56] that uh they'll take crushed granite put
it down and then put a a small gravel
[2:26:01] and and pack it down really good and and
in a lot of places they're doing that
[2:26:05] because well we've got to look at we got
to have them look at it the expense and
[2:26:10] see you know how the expense compares
but in my mind it seems like over time
[2:26:16] you would have less maintenance. You
know, you just have to spray some weeds
[2:26:19] once in a while, but you wouldn't have
as much asphalt maintenance. So, so
[2:26:23] that's something that I don't know if
you've got any opinions on if you do.
[2:26:26] Let's let's hear them. Yes, Council
Member Teen.
[2:26:28] » Um, would it be ADA accessessible for
people with wheelchairs or or would that
[2:26:32] make it more difficult for them?
>> Uh, most of the ones that I've seen like
[2:26:36] in London, they do a lot of those in
even in the city and uh they're very
[2:26:40] solid. Yeah. Yeah, they're really
>> That would just be my only concern is
[2:26:43] trying to make sure that it's still
accessible that way.
[2:26:46] » Yeah. Yeah. And uh you'd see a lot of
people pushing strollers along on those.
[2:26:49] And you know, they make them so that
they're packed. They're really almost
[2:26:52] like concrete, but they're but you know,
if you you can dig into it if you if you
[2:26:58] » if you needed to or wanted to, but it's
it's pretty solid.
[2:27:01] » Follow. Do they become muddy with rain?
>> Maybe. What?
[2:27:04] » Muddy? Do they get
>> uh It drains pretty well. Yeah, because
[2:27:08] it rains a lot in London.
>> Hey, Mr. Mayor. Yes, Council President,
[2:27:11] » I agree 100%. We've got to do something
different than asphalt because all of
[2:27:16] the trails are they're falling apart
that come up underneath them. They're
[2:27:20] cracking.
>> I mean, when you talk about ADA
[2:27:23] accessible, I'm not sure I could you
could take a wheelchair down any of the
[2:27:28] » paths that we have without rattling
somebody to death. So, I would I think
[2:27:31] we should look at alternatives.
Absolutely. And good news, just so that
[2:27:34] you know, we did get a $15,000 grant
from AARP and we just barely uh found
[2:27:41] out that we also got was it 10,000 from
uh uh Rocky Mountain Power or 10,000 or
[2:27:47] something in that. So to be able to make
some trail repairs in Nature Park. So a
[2:27:52] lot of that asphalt that's going like
this, we're going to go and cut it out
[2:27:55] and replace it. Uh, unfortunately the
$25,000 probably won't do it all, but
[2:28:00] we'll add to some of that from our parks
money or our trails money that we have
[2:28:05] and try to improve those trails that
have gone kind of bad. So, but we'll
[2:28:10] when but so can we when the uh let's see
who is it? Uh, Killer or Fors when Fores
[2:28:17] uh takes a look at this, can we have
them
[2:28:19] » evaluate both of those options? And
>> yeah, we can have a discussion on it. My
[2:28:23] one concern would just be plowing it in
the wintertime if we want to keep that
[2:28:27] pathway open. I'm not sure how well
>> how well that would plow.
[2:28:30] » I don't I don't know on that. That would
be one one concern. I do like the idea
[2:28:34] because the roots coming up through uh
raising up the asphalt. I know kids on
[2:28:40] bikes like to jump them. So that I mean
there is a plus side.
[2:28:43] » Yeah.
>> But generally it's it's not nice.
[2:28:45] » You lose that water.
>> Okay. All right. Well, thank you. Uh is
[2:28:50] there any other questions or comments on
uh approving this particular item from
[2:28:54] anyone? If none, I would uh entertain a
motion to go ahead with this um
[2:29:00] professional services agreement. Is
there such a motion?
[2:29:04] » Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we
approve the ITD uh local professional
[2:29:08] services agreement for Forest GR
Associates for the Teton River
[2:29:11] connecting path and pedestrian bridge
project.
[2:29:13] » All right. Thank you. Is there a second
that motion?
[2:29:15] » I'll second.
>> Second by council president Ericson. Any
[2:29:18] further discussion or questions? Hearing
none. All in favor?
[2:29:22] » I.
>> Any oppose? All right. Motion passes. We
[2:29:25] will go ahead with that contract. Any
other questions for Mr. Davidson before
[2:29:28] he before we let him off the hook here?
>> Second East is open now, Lisa. On
[2:29:35] » Oh, Second East is open. Good news.
>> Yes. So, that that sewer line connection
[2:29:40] is is completing paved back now. North
Second East still has construction going
[2:29:44] on, but
>> All right. Thank you. Oh, council member
[2:29:48] TJ has one more question.
>> I do have a question. So, when are we
[2:29:51] starting the construction on university
for the light
[2:29:56] » for the It's going
>> It's It's already up there now. Okay.
[2:30:00] » Yeah.
>> For the light.
[2:30:02] » Seven South.
>> Yeah. On South University.
[2:30:04] » Well, not University.
>> Oh, sorry.
[2:30:06] » Seven South Center.
>> Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. I
[2:30:09] was confident on University.
>> You're right. Um Yeah. So, it's under
[2:30:14] construction right now. Okay. Um,
unfortunately there were some delays in
[2:30:17] getting the materials in. Um, so they're
trying to get the underground in right
[2:30:22] now and then they're going to shut down
for that when the students come back for
[2:30:25] that week and then they'll start back up
after that.
[2:30:28] » So will that road be open when the
students are here next week?
[2:30:31] » Yeah, it's it's open right now.
>> Okay.
[2:30:33] » Um, right now they're just putting in
the basis for
[2:30:36] » have cones along the sides. Yeah.
>> Okay.
[2:30:39] » Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Davidson. I appreciate that. All right.
[2:30:43] Item number eight is mayor's business.
Uh we do have a proclamation, but before
[2:30:48] we go there, I will just give you a
little bit of information on some of the
[2:30:52] things Keith and I actually attended. Um
Oh, boy. You guys don't want to leave.
[2:30:57] The exciting stuff is coming up
[2:31:03] for now.
>> All right, we'll let you go. We can't
[2:31:06] keep you here. We can't force you to
stay. Thank you for coming. It was fun
[2:31:10] having you. We appreciate you being
here. All right. Um, yeah, as I
[2:31:14] mentioned, Keith and I, we actually
hosted right here in this room what they
[2:31:18] the Idaho Water Users Association, which
is a statewide association. We hosted
[2:31:23] what they call the water college. Every
year they do they do a a a water
[2:31:28] college, which is an educational thing
specifically designed for legislators to
[2:31:33] come to to learn more about water and
all the water issues we have. So, we
[2:31:38] spent about an hour right here in this
room uh talking about the different
[2:31:41] water issues and Keith gave a really
good presentation along with some other
[2:31:45] folks from rural water and different uh
organizations and help we we help try to
[2:31:51] uh really let the legis the future and
current legislators know things about
[2:31:56] water and help them to understand the
issues and how we can try to do things
[2:32:00] better as a state. So, anyway, and then
we got on a couple of buses and we took
[2:32:04] them on a tour. We went over to the
Walters Pond where we do our recharge
[2:32:08] and showed them how we do that. And then
and then we traveled up around St.
[2:32:13] Anthony and Ashton and looked at some u
updated uh irrigation project things
[2:32:18] that the state has helped to fund and it
was really helpful. I uh I was
[2:32:23] interested because a lot of the water
meetings I'm in, they always talk about
[2:32:26] how we can be more efficient with canals
with automation and things and I've you
[2:32:31] know you kind of get automation but I
didn't really know exactly what they're
[2:32:35] talking about. And we were able to see
some of these big headgates that
[2:32:38] normally the the water masters would
have to go out and literally physically
[2:32:42] pull boards out of the canal to let
water go by. And uh now they've put in
[2:32:47] these automated stainless steel gates
that they can control with their phone
[2:32:52] from their home and it'll automatically
open the gates and close them. And one
[2:32:56] of the examples they gave us was last
year or maybe not last year but before
[2:33:00] they put in these automated ones up on
the canal up by St. Anthony. They wanted
[2:33:05] to do some water recharge to send water
out to the sand dunes out there to the
[2:33:09] eegan lakes because they just let water
go out there and it sinks into the
[2:33:13] ground into the aquifer. But it took
them so long to go down and pull all the
[2:33:18] boards by the time they got that done.
It was like 13 days and they're they're
[2:33:22] they're limited on the time that they
can do that. And so by the time they got
[2:33:27] them all pulled, the time limit was
over. So they weren't able to do any
[2:33:30] recharge. So now they've got these
automated ones in there where the guy
[2:33:35] can actually just sit in his homers in
his truck and he can he can say open and
[2:33:39] they all just open up and the water just
flows. And so a lot of things like that
[2:33:43] that were really interesting to see and
learn about that uh that can help us be
[2:33:48] more efficient with our water and and
that's what we got to do because uh you
[2:33:52] know if if we don't have a big snow year
this year, we're going to kind of be in
[2:33:55] trouble with our water supplies next
year. So pray for snow, especially in
[2:34:00] the mountains, right? Okay. Um, let's go
ahead with U.
[2:34:05] Proclamation number 2026-04
is Constitution Week and it's something
[2:34:13] that happens on September 17th to the
23rd. So, we are going to go ahead and
[2:34:21] read this proclamation and then if you
feel like it, we will uh we'll ratify
[2:34:26] it. All right, let me find find it here.
I think I opened my envelope from the
[2:34:32] wrong side. Okay, here we go. This is
proclamation number 2026-04
[2:34:38] proclaiming September 17th to the 23rd
as Constitution Week. Whereas September
[2:34:43] 17th, 2026 marks the 239th
anniversary of the drafting of the
[2:34:49] Constitution of the United States of
America by the Constitutional
[2:34:52] Convention. And whereas it is fitting
and proper to afford official
[2:34:56] recognition to this magnificent document
and its memorable anniversary and to the
[2:35:02] patriotic celebrations with which will
commemorate the occasion. And whereas
[2:35:06] public law 915 guarantees the issuing of
a proclamation each year by the
[2:35:11] president of the United States of
America designating September 17th
[2:35:15] through 23rd as Constitution Week. Now
therefore, I, Jerry Merrill, by virtue
[2:35:20] of the authority vest vested in me as
mayor of the city of Rexburg, do hereby
[2:35:25] proclaim the week of September 17th
through 23rd as Constitution Week, and
[2:35:30] ask our citizens to reaffirm the ideals
the framers of the Constitution had in
[2:35:35] 1787 by vigilantly protecting the
freedoms guaranteed to us through this
[2:35:40] guardian of our liberties, remembering
that lots lost rights may never be
[2:35:46] regained. adopted by the city of
Rexburg, state of Idaho on the second
[2:35:50] day of September of 2026.
All right.
[2:35:55] Given that proclamation, is there any
discussion or questions about this
[2:36:01] before we move forward with the
ratification?
[2:36:04] Hearing none, I would entertain a motion
to ratify this proclamation.
[2:36:09] » Mr. Mayor,
>> yes, Council Member Reer.
[2:36:12] » Um, well, as the one government teacher
on here, maybe I should do this one. Um,
[2:36:17] I propose that we ratify proclamation
2026-04
[2:36:21] recognizing September 17th to the 23rd
as Constitution Week.
[2:36:25] » All right. Thank you. Is there a second
to that motion?
[2:36:27] » A second.
>> Council.
[2:36:33] » Seconded. I think I think I heard her
just beat you by Barely. So
[2:36:37] » seconded by Council Member Teen. Um, any
further discussion or questions? You're
[2:36:42] welcome to You're welcome to make any
comments about this proclamation if
[2:36:46] you'd like. If there are none, I would
entertain a or sorry, we've got a motion
[2:36:51] and a second on the floor. Uh is anybody
in favor?
[2:36:57] » All in favor? Sorry, that wasn't a good
way to put that. All in favor say I.
[2:37:01] » I.
>> All right. Any opposed?
[2:37:04] Thank you. That that motion passes. Boy,
I'm starting to trying to go too fast
[2:37:10] here. All right, let's move on to item
number nine A, which is the planning and
[2:37:16] zoning recommendation to approve a
conditional use permit for a cell tower
[2:37:21] and regional business center located at
approximately 1450 North Second East in
[2:37:27] the city of Rexburg. Mr. Parkinson, what
can you tell us about this?
[2:37:31] » Mayor, council members, thank you. The
tower will be lo will they're requesting
[2:37:35] to locate it right in this back corner.
This is the Walmart store. They want to
[2:37:41] put it right in that back corner and it
is a three row cell tower. They've got
[2:37:47] FCC approval, FAA approval. Um, one of
the challenges we come up against was
[2:37:54] how do we keep this from landing on
buildings because it was located within
[2:37:58] that landing distance. They have an
engineer that has signed off
[2:38:02] guaranteeing that this will fall upon
itself and not land outside that zone.
[2:38:07] And so after that then we uh approved it
as staff took it to PNZ and they are
[2:38:14] recommending it to you for approval.
>> All thank you. Is there any questions
[2:38:18] about that for Mr. Parkinson?
Hearing none, I would entertain a motion
[2:38:23] to move forward with this uh conditional
use permit. Is there such a motion?
[2:38:30] » I'll make a motion. Mayor,
>> council member Wiggins,
[2:38:33] » there we move forward with the
recommendation to approve the
[2:38:36] conditional use permit for the cell
tower uh the regional business center
[2:38:41] located approximately 1450 north.
Second, city of Rexburg.
[2:38:45] » All right. Thank you. Is there a second
to that motion?
[2:38:47] » I'll second.
>> Second by council member Johnson. Any
[2:38:50] further questions or discussion? Yes,
Council Member Reer.
[2:38:53] » Uh one quick question. Uh will this
improve the sale coverage my home on the
[2:38:59] northeast corner?
um northwest corner of the city.
[2:39:03] » Well, that I don't know
>> because I I can pretty well almost see
[2:39:06] it across.
>> I'm like you. I'm hoping it approves it
[2:39:09] where I live.
>> Put it up on the tower of the
[2:39:12] » Mr. Mr. Mayor.
>> Council. Yes. Council member
[2:39:15] » when we over the city meetings just
bring up some information. I sat down
[2:39:18] and talked to Verizon I guess area
manager and that was one of the biggest
[2:39:23] thing is they they had to find some more
location to put a Verizon tower in city
[2:39:27] Rexburg and they said we need some help
with that. So they were asking for that
[2:39:32] there
>> the one I was talking city meetings over
[2:39:34] in Boisey. So this should be a good
thing for a city to bring up Verizon and
[2:39:39] I think they talked plans T-Mobile and
>> well Verizon has signed there are two
[2:39:44] others they are trying to
>> AT&T but Verizon
[2:39:49] » the other thing I I I do like is it's
located in a commercial area rather than
[2:39:53] in the middle of a residential that
seems to fit a lot better too. So that's
[2:39:56] nice. So yeah. Okay. All right. Uh, at
this point then, is there a motion to
[2:40:03] » approve? Did we already have a motion
and a second? Oh, that's right. And then
[2:40:07] we had question. Okay. All right. So, at
this point in time, all in favor of this
[2:40:11] action.
>> I
[2:40:13] » Any opposed? All right. Thank you. We'll
go ahead and get that cup approved or we
[2:40:20] will get it noted. All right. Thank you.
Item B is the to review the committee
[2:40:26] recommendation of the police station
facility options. So we're going to turn
[2:40:30] the time over to Mr. Matt Nielsen and
Chief Rhodess for this review.
[2:40:38] Thank you for being here by the way.
>> So appreciate your time. Okay, Josh and
[2:40:43] I are gonna kind of tag team this a
little bit and then um just so you guys
[2:40:48] know when we say internal committee on
this um you know the people that were
[2:40:53] there so the mayor council member Reer
was there uh we had our attorney myself
[2:41:00] as the CFO and then we had Josh and Gary
so the police chief and assistant police
[2:41:06] chief and then we did have we also
invited a few of our consultants I guess
[2:41:11] you would say to to one of those
meetings as well. And so so anyways, as
[2:41:16] this comes forward, just that was the
the committee that we're talking about.
[2:41:21] And so and so we're going to we're going
to jump in. Deb's going to pull the map,
[2:41:25] too. So if we need to pull up and show
locations, we can. Um but do you want to
[2:41:30] jump in?
>> Yep. So, first I would just like to
[2:41:33] thank the support that we've had from
the council um and from the city as
[2:41:38] we've looked for different options and
we went through the process
[2:41:42] this last last year and and all that we
went through in the planning and
[2:41:47] approvals and trying to to work through
that. Um as the city continues to grow
[2:41:52] everywhere we look, there's still more
and more growth with apartments and
[2:41:55] buildings. And as that that growth
continues, our our need for
[2:42:01] a facility to accommodate the the needs
of the people and for our ability to do
[2:42:06] our job continues to increase. I I
believe most everyone toured the police
[2:42:12] department. Um we we outlined just a few
of the the main things that we are
[2:42:18] really in a in a critical spot for
timing. So, as as this continues and we
[2:42:23] aren't quite sure which direction we're
going and as as those years expand out,
[2:42:29] um the need continues to to be more
critical. The the biggest things we we
[2:42:34] face right now are are evidence. Um it
is in the basement of our current
[2:42:39] facility and we continually run out of
room and we're trying to uh relocate
[2:42:44] some of that evidence to our secondary
facility over at the training facility.
[2:42:50] Uh but those those needs continue as as
we take more calls, more cases, we get
[2:42:55] more and more evidence that we are
processing
[2:42:59] the the technology.
We're at a point too with cameras and
[2:43:04] updating uh some of our just the main
technology that we're we're struggling
[2:43:10] financially to keep up with the the
updates. Uh but the the biggest things
[2:43:16] too right now is our our space. Uh right
now we have multiple detectives
[2:43:23] married up in the same room and it makes
it difficult as they do investigations
[2:43:28] and they they're working on privacy with
victims and witnesses
[2:43:34] usually. Well, it it delays a lot of
their
[2:43:37] their interviews. They have to plan to
be in a separate room. Um with that is
[2:43:43] our our witness um interview rooms. We
don't have an actual witness and victim
[2:43:50] interview room. We have a kind of a we
call it a hard interview room and we
[2:43:56] have a multi-use conference room that we
use as an interview room right now and
[2:44:01] we make it work. Um, but as we we get
bigger cases and have multiple suspects
[2:44:08] or multiple victims, we're having to use
other facilities to do those interviews.
[2:44:13] So th those are some of the the bigger
things. And then um obviously that that
[2:44:18] future planning as we continue to to
grow as a department and we add more
[2:44:23] personnel.
We we are running out of that space for
[2:44:26] everything from parking to to the office
space and and I know we've we've a lot
[2:44:32] of you have toured and come through and
here next week when the students start
[2:44:37] coming back um probably September
14th is the Monday you can drive by the
[2:44:44] police station. you'll kind of see the
overflow.
[2:44:47] » We'll [clears throat] we'll usually have
anywhere from 30 to 50 people stacked up
[2:44:52] um lined out the door getting parking
permits. And so we one of one of the
[2:44:58] other last concerns we have is uh like
fingerprints. They're working right on
[2:45:03] the the top of each other in our front
office uh lobby area. And so those are
[2:45:09] some of the bigger concerns that we
have, some of the critical needs that
[2:45:12] we're facing as we we look for timing,
as we we look for different options for
[2:45:18] the the police station growth. Um, as as
you all know, we we did the general
[2:45:24] obligation bond in November 2025 and
then again in May 2025 or 2026. Uh, both
[2:45:32] those measures failed. After the first
one,
[2:45:35] appreciate you working with us. We we
had the survey that we put out and we
[2:45:40] had a lot of good feedback from the
community. We made some adjustments on
[2:45:43] that bond measure to reduce the cost. Uh
that was one of the bigger concerns and
[2:45:50] location was was one of the concerns. We
we did all that we could to to adapt and
[2:45:56] adjust to what the public recommended
and wanted. Uh and then with that second
[2:46:01] attempt on the bond, uh unfortunately
our percentage of voters did go up and
[2:46:07] the percentage of our yes votes went
down. Um and so that was that was a
[2:46:12] concern we had as we created the
committee to review what our best
[2:46:18] options were moving forward. Uh like
Matt mentioned, that's where we we
[2:46:22] pulled together and we've started
looking at different options through
[2:46:26] throughout the city. what's what's best
for for us for this for the public. Uh
[2:46:32] we've taken a lot of uh comments,
opinions that we took after that second
[2:46:37] bond. We didn't do another survey after
the second bond. Uh but one of the
[2:46:42] biggest concerns, the feedback that we
got back was the location of our
[2:46:47] proposed location during that the first
two bond proposals. So, I'll let Matt
[2:46:53] kind of explain a little more of the the
options that we went over as a
[2:46:56] committee. Right. Thank you, Chief.
>> All right. And then as we go through
[2:47:00] these, we So we we have three options
that we show here. It's not to say that
[2:47:07] there's not other options out there. Um
and so I mean, by all means, if if
[2:47:13] council members feel like there's
another better option, then let's
[2:47:16] discuss those, right? And so, but these
are the three that we felt like were
[2:47:21] real options. When you look at um you
know, where this could be built, how it
[2:47:28] could be built, how much it would cost.
We looked at analysis of down payments.
[2:47:33] Uh could you come up with a down payment
and reduce the burden of how much you
[2:47:37] borrow? All of those things were kind of
taken into consideration as we looked at
[2:47:40] these three options. And then of course
we also looked at funding sources which
[2:47:45] will be a topic that we we continue to
repeat tonight because you know really
[2:47:50] you you have to look at your funding
sources right because it it really kind
[2:47:55] of goes back to what options are
feasible financially.
[2:47:59] Um I'm not saying they're always the
best option but financially they may be
[2:48:04] the best option. And so as we looked at
it, here's the three we we zeroed in on
[2:48:09] and we'll take you through a individual
analysis of each. So the first one was
[2:48:13] we said, do we wait a few years and try
to pass another general obligation and
[2:48:18] I'll say go forward go bond uh which of
course takes a super majority and just
[2:48:24] build a new police station facility
because I mean ultimately a new police
[2:48:28] station facility would great in
addressing all of those concerns, right?
[2:48:32] The second thing we looked at is we
said, do we look at purchasing
[2:48:36] purchasing an existing building in town?
Um, and you know that we looked at uh a
[2:48:43] couple sites. Um, one of them the
individual asked us not to disclose. The
[2:48:48] other one we kind of analyzed the BMC
site because we'd had some people say,
[2:48:52] "Well, what about that BMC site?" And
honestly, I don't even know if it's for
[2:48:55] sale. We don't know how much it costs.
Uh, but we did our best analysis that we
[2:48:59] could. Um, and so as we did that, we
looked at existing buildings, buying
[2:49:05] that, and then renovating slash possibly
having to add some additional space
[2:49:11] that's new space because some of those
buildings would be too small right from
[2:49:14] the get-go. Um, and then of course the
third option we looked at is do we
[2:49:20] consider, and we've discussed this over,
if you look back the last six years at
[2:49:25] council minutes, we've discussed this
option. And so we said, do we look at
[2:49:28] the building of a new city hall office
building um and then renovate this
[2:49:34] current city hall into a police station
facility. So really those are the three
[2:49:40] options. Um and so we will take you
through option one. So you know option
[2:49:47] one if we were able to wait a few years
and pass a general obligation bond
[2:49:52] there's some positives like we already
own the land. Um there is still that
[2:49:57] concern of where that land's located. Um
obviously it's not located in the
[2:50:02] downtown, but you know some of the
positives are that the police could
[2:50:06] really have all of their facilities
there. They could have their training
[2:50:09] facility, they could have their offices,
they could have public gathering space.
[2:50:13] Those are positives and they could
address really all the concerns that
[2:50:17] Josh covered from safety to security,
technology, etc.
[2:50:23] Um it would be a new construction and um
it would be you know we could design it
[2:50:30] in a way that down the road 20 years
from now we could do additions and
[2:50:34] expand that building right and
particularly on that site because it's 5
[2:50:39] acres. The biggest issues though were
that there's fewer funding sources
[2:50:45] available when you pay for that. And so,
and you've got to think of those funding
[2:50:50] sources as how much can you come up with
upfront for a down payment and then how
[2:50:55] much can you come up for for an annual
payment if you were to borrow money. And
[2:51:00] then the of course the biggest thing is
the timing is unknown. You know, we
[2:51:04] would have to go back out to vote. Um it
may not pass again. It may never pass.
[2:51:09] You know, we don't know those things.
And so that was that was kind of our
[2:51:13] analysis of that first one. Um, and then
the other thing that I I will mention is
[2:51:19] that we did and when I and not in this,
we actually looked at it as we went
[2:51:24] through and considered putting the
police station new police station on the
[2:51:27] the bond or the ballot. Remember, it's a
while back, but we actually already did
[2:51:33] look at a alternative funding through a
lease appropriation
[2:51:37] and it came back at I think it was 800
and something thousand a year that the
[2:51:41] general fund would have to come up with.
And so it just was not something that
[2:51:46] financially we could afford to do. And
so that's important to remember as well.
[2:51:51] Um so then we
Any questions on option one before I
[2:51:55] jump to option two or am I good to just
keep moving through these?
[2:51:59] » Yes, Council Member Teen.
>> And I'm I'm I'm um assuming that option
[2:52:04] one is based on the the 14 million that
we were asking before, but that prices
[2:52:09] could go up,
>> right? And so
[2:52:11] » that's part of like if it takes 20
years, it could also increase.
[2:52:14] » Yeah. And what we did when we get down
to that section where we look at
[2:52:18] estimated initial construction costs, we
took everything we had come up with and
[2:52:23] we added 10%. To kind of create a range.
So um Okay. So I think there was there
[2:52:29] another hand or are we good?
>> Uh nope.
[2:52:32] » Okay. Option two. So purchase an
existing building in town and renovate
[2:52:36] it into a police station facility. So
this one was um you know one of the
[2:52:42] challenges is you would have to locate a
building that actually exists is for
[2:52:47] sale and meets those needs, right? And
so so it's kind of it's a very difficult
[2:52:53] one because sure there's some buildings
available that may be severely undized
[2:52:58] and require a lot of additional cost to
build not only new square footage but
[2:53:03] renovate as well.
And then um there are some some
[2:53:08] buildings that are a little bit larger,
but I'll tell you the second location
[2:53:12] that we looked at was primarily it was a
primarily a steel building to kind of
[2:53:18] give you an idea of what it looked like.
It I mean it was a good-looking steel
[2:53:23] building, but there was a lot of
renovation cost that would have to go
[2:53:27] into that facility. And so so that's
that's the biggest X factor is we don't
[2:53:33] actually have someone coming to us and
saying buy this. Uh we would have to go
[2:53:37] out and search for that and there's some
unknowns. The other thing is is that
[2:53:42] option may not address all the current
police facility challenges as well. Uh
[2:53:47] because until you know what you're
buying, you you don't really know what
[2:53:50] the potential issues that are going to
continue are. And then this this one was
[2:53:55] also an issue because of fewer funding
sources available for that down payment
[2:53:59] and annual payment. And once again, as
we looked at this option, we saw that
[2:54:05] you you really wouldn't be able to come
up with enough funding through the lease
[2:54:09] appropriation process. So it would
probably take a general obligation bond
[2:54:14] as well. And so so the timing was very
unknown. And so so we looked at that. Um
[2:54:22] Deb's going to roll that for us. So then
we looked at this option three of
[2:54:27] building a new city hall office building
and then renovating the current city
[2:54:31] hall into a police station facility.
And and I I'll just say and we kind of
[2:54:38] hit this on the slide a few down. You
know, we've had a lot of people say,
[2:54:42] "Well, what's wrong with city hall?"
We're not we're not saying that there's
[2:54:46] anything wrong with city hall. City Hall
is great. City Hall would serve uh city
[2:54:51] hall's purposes for probably decades to
come to be quite honest. Um but there
[2:54:58] are reasons why um we feel like this is
a good option to to build a new city
[2:55:04] hall and then move them into this
current city hall and we're going to
[2:55:07] cover those. So one is is that the
police if they were to move into this
[2:55:13] city hall it's in a central location in
the downtown right which is great. Now,
[2:55:19] they would have to still have some of
their functions at their training
[2:55:22] facility, which is down by the shop on
Fifth West. But in talking to Josh and
[2:55:28] and Gary, they felt like they could move
some of those trainings into this
[2:55:33] building, that this building could serve
some of that. But you're still going to
[2:55:37] have those two locations.
Um, this [clears throat] option provides
[2:55:41] the most funding sources. So from a
financial standpoint, this is the best
[2:55:46] option in terms of coming up with the
largest down payment, which then reduces
[2:55:51] your your borrowing and which reduces
your annual payments. it uh creates the
[2:55:57] least amount of interest to be paid back
and it also creates the least amount of
[2:56:02] financial burden to the general fund and
to the taxpayer if you don't have to do
[2:56:07] a general obligation bond because then
you're you're not asking them to
[2:56:12] increase their property taxes.
>> Yes.
[2:56:14] » So what are those funding sources?
>> We're going to hit them. So that that's
[2:56:17] coming up. Yeah, we'll go we'll we'll
dive in. Um the other thing is that um
[2:56:24] as we looked at um so this is where Deb
I'm going to have you zoom in by the
[2:56:29] library. So so we had to look at well if
we were to build a new city hall where
[2:56:34] would it be? You know what's the pros
and cons of that? So as you know um go
[2:56:41] ahead and just highlight it. So, right
across from the library here, this this
[2:56:45] 1 and a half acre parcel has been
purchased by the city of Rexburg in
[2:56:50] Madison County. They bought it from the
school district. Um, there's been a
[2:56:56] little confusion. Some people have said,
"Well, no, Urban Renewal bought that."
[2:56:59] That's not true. Urban Renewal bought
the 4.2 acres that's down below that
[2:57:05] where the where the building is. And one
of the strengths to this location is
[2:57:10] Urban Renewal has agreed to come in and
put in public parking. And when you look
[2:57:17] at the layouts of that public parking
just for flat surface alone, I don't
[2:57:22] remember the exact number, but it's like
140 something public parking stalls. And
[2:57:28] so, so that makes this a very attractive
location for any municipal building,
[2:57:35] city or county. because there would be
public parking there that would not only
[2:57:40] serve buildings here that are new, but
also the existing buildings such as the
[2:57:44] library, the tabernacle,
etc. The other thing that's advantageous
[2:57:49] about this parcel is you'll notice on
the west and the north, no, I probably
[2:57:55] got that wrong. Did I get that right?
The west and north side, um, there's bus
[2:58:00] lanes. And so that's that's another
positive to these locations. And so as
[2:58:04] you think about formbbased code,
formbbased code requires you to build um
[2:58:11] certain number of stories. And so we in
this location we would have to build
[2:58:17] three stories. And so you would probably
have somewhere between a 9 to 12,000
[2:58:23] square footprint times three. And so
that is a positive because you're taking
[2:58:28] a very small chunk of ground out of
potential tax generation if you will for
[2:58:35] redevelopment, right? And so so and I
mean you got to remember all of this
[2:58:41] acreage has not been taxable for who
knows how long, probably a hundred
[2:58:46] years. And so so that's one of the
things that's encouraging is if you did
[2:58:51] build a city hall here, you're taking a
very small footprint out of it. your
[2:58:55] downtown. Um, okay. So, I'm going to
jump back to the slides real quick.
[2:59:01] Let's jump back to the slides. There's a
few other points I want to hit. And so,
[2:59:06] so I already mentioned where I mentioned
that there's parking that urban renewal
[2:59:10] will be adding. That's all benefits. Um,
the other thing that's nice about this
[2:59:15] option in general is it allows for a
transition of the police department to
[2:59:19] the old city hall once this building is
complete. But it also allows us to plan.
[2:59:26] » I just have knowing where they're both
has a question.
[2:59:30] » That's supposed to be first north.
>> Wait till we get
[2:59:32] » Sorry, what?
>> That's supposed to be First North.
[2:59:34] » Yeah, it is supposed to be First North.
Good catch.
[2:59:37] That's my bad. Um, it's the piece we
just looked at. So, but the other thing
[2:59:42] that this does is that allows us to go
to plan really for both, right? It
[2:59:47] allows you to plan for a new city hall
and it allows you to plan for a
[2:59:51] renovation in phases for this current
city hall to a police station facility.
[2:59:57] Um the other thing that we talked about
which could happen right now is we have
[3:00:01] this empty space upstairs. It's been
empty for quite a while now and uh as we
[3:00:07] talked through that uh the chief felt
like there was some functions that they
[3:00:11] could move over there right away that
would help alleviate some of the
[3:00:14] pressure that they feel. Um and and we
he can talk more about that if he wants
[3:00:18] to, but that would be something we could
probably do right away.
[3:00:23] um as you build out this new police
facility, if you go with this option in
[3:00:29] the old city hall or the current city
hall, you know, you have to really look
[3:00:33] at it as a phased approach, which is not
a bad thing because as you think about
[3:00:39] uh continuing to collect impact fees for
police, those impact fees could build up
[3:00:45] over time and then every few years you
could look at a different project and
[3:00:49] bring in phases of redeveloping this
building and expanding this building.
[3:00:55] The other thing that's a positive this
building is um one of the
[3:00:59] recommendations and this is getting a
little deeper than I probably want to
[3:01:02] but one of the things we talked about is
the possibility of this this wing over
[3:01:08] here could potentially continue to be
used for governmental services that are
[3:01:13] not police and then maybe transition in
three to five years to being police if
[3:01:19] that makes sense. So you can kind of
phase into it as monies become
[3:01:23] available. Um okay, did you you did flip
it to the next one. Okay, perfect.
[3:01:29] Thanks. Um the one thing that a lot of
people don't know is square footage. So
[3:01:34] this this this building all in is like
28,500
[3:01:40] which is is um larger than what we would
have built on Pioneer Road for both the
[3:01:47] the the offices and the training
facility by like 4,000 something ft. And
[3:01:54] so it's actually a pretty big building
that they could grow into. Now obviously
[3:01:59] it's less acreage and so that's one of
the things that that would be a little
[3:02:02] more challenging. Um
so if this was to happen this third
[3:02:09] option obviously once all this happened
we could sell off well we could sell the
[3:02:14] land on Pioneer anytime that you guys
decide to. Now keep in mind that the the
[3:02:20] person that sold that to us has first
right to purchase that back. if he
[3:02:24] doesn't want to purchase it back, then
we can put it out on the open market and
[3:02:27] sell it. The other thing is is you could
sell off the current police station on
[3:02:32] Main Street once all the transition has
occurred and also put that into the
[3:02:37] funding. Um,
you know, with this as a city or police
[3:02:43] facility, one big thing is is that you'd
have to make some parking improvements.
[3:02:49] uh because one of the one of the key
things is um we're trying to create a
[3:02:55] secure entry and parking area for the
police. And so you you want to kind of
[3:02:59] think think about that. So there may be
some some cost to potentially expand
[3:03:04] this parking and and create that. Um the
other thing that was attractive to the
[3:03:11] committee was that we knew that a lease
appropriation purchase option was
[3:03:15] available if we were to build a new city
hall. Um, and the other thing that's
[3:03:21] attractive too is you can also consider
alternative financing such as a public
[3:03:26] private partnership. I'm not as
comfortable with those because the um I
[3:03:32] mean they're an option, but the the
lease appropriation is a proven model. I
[3:03:37] mean, that's actually how the they built
the Idaho Falls Police Station. It's how
[3:03:41] they built the Chubik City Hall and
police station. So, it's a very proven
[3:03:46] model. cities can use it without a a
vote. Um, and then you can borrow money.
[3:03:53] Typically, you're going to borrow
between 20 to 30 years.
[3:03:57] Um, so roll this down. I think actually
roll it up for a second. I think one
[3:04:03] thing that I didn't mention and keep
rolling up right there. So if you were
[3:04:09] to renovate the current police or sorry
city hall into a police station
[3:04:13] facility, these were kind of the three,
hey, we got to do these in phase one.
[3:04:19] Address these issues is secure entry in
the front. Adequate evidence space and
[3:04:25] secure parking lot. Those were kind of
the got to do those right from the
[3:04:30] get-go, if you will. So that'd be kind
of wouldn't you agree those are kind of
[3:04:33] your your big need. and a lot of the the
office space internally
[3:04:39] when we look at meeting the needs of
those interview rooms uh secure having
[3:04:44] multiple areas the the current setup of
the building could be used and without a
[3:04:50] lot of renovation
obviously we have to do some security a
[3:04:54] lot of the
>> Chief would you move over the microphone
[3:04:57] yeah thank you
>> a lot of the buildings already set up
[3:04:59] with the security cameras that we we
would continually just use u But
[3:05:04] specific offices for interview rooms
would have to
[3:05:09] really we just have to put cameras and
mics for those interview rooms. But
[3:05:13] current space that's already here could
be utilized for those those interview
[3:05:17] rooms that would solve that that
problem.
[3:05:22] » Uh yeah, we had a question right here.
Council member Higgins,
[3:05:27] » do uh in in thinking about this uh
would we need to to to build a a uh new
[3:05:36] city hall? Um we don't need we don't
need a vote of the from the public on
[3:05:42] that.
>> Not if we use this option that Matt's
[3:05:45] talking about.
>> Okay.
[3:05:48] because we can do a lease appropriation
which we we'll explain where that
[3:05:52] funding will come from so that you
understand that better but uh we don't
[3:05:56] it doesn't come from property taxes
which is what you know people were
[3:05:59] really opposed to on the
>> general obligation. Did you have a
[3:06:03] question?
>> I do
[3:06:04] » or a comment. Yes.
>> Are you going to explain to us why we
[3:06:07] can't use the lease appropriation to
build a new police station?
[3:06:10] » Yeah.
>> I'm still not understand.
[3:06:12] » We can we can use it. We just can't
afford it. That's where I said that the
[3:06:16] payment came out to close to822,000.
>> So, but you're going to show us why it's
[3:06:20] a cheaper payment to build up the deal.
>> Yeah, I will.
[3:06:23] » Yeah. Um, so just so you guys know, I'll
just let me just cover a it's called a
[3:06:28] certificate of participation if you want
to get formal, but it the lease
[3:06:32] appropriation. And essentially what it
is is the the local government owns the
[3:06:36] land and then what happens is is the the
improvement is developed and essentially
[3:06:45] I'll just give it the basic term. It's
basically owned by somebody else that
[3:06:49] building for the term of that. But what
happens is every year you have to
[3:06:54] appropriate in your budget process to
pay that lease. And when you appropriate
[3:07:00] that, then you pay it to that that
person that built that building. And
[3:07:05] then the term is is at the end of that
term, you own that building.
[3:07:10] » So the local entity owns it. So it's a
basically a lease to own. Now, now if
[3:07:14] you guys, you know, say we got down the
road 10 years and somebody says, "Hey,
[3:07:20] we're going to give you a new city hall,
you know, like the ice rink." And we
[3:07:23] move in there. We can actually move in
there. you can say, "Okay, we're no
[3:07:27] longer going to appropriate this in our
budget." And then whoever built that
[3:07:32] building has the ability to essentially
rent it out through the rest of that
[3:07:38] lease term and then we still own it at
the end of that term. But what's
[3:07:43] attractive to people that develop those
and fund those is there's very little
[3:07:49] chance that we're not going to
appropriate that each year, right? I
[3:07:53] mean it's there's very little chance
somebody's going to come to us and say
[3:07:56] hey we have a better option for you and
it's free and so so anyways just keep
[3:08:01] that in mind. So let me let me go
through this. This was a huge question
[3:08:05] that kind of we discussed as a committee
is we said well why is the new city hall
[3:08:11] building being considered you know
because we need a police station
[3:08:15] facility.
So, we looked at it and we said, "Well,
[3:08:18] this is the possible best option to the
taxpayer because we can use that
[3:08:23] alternative funding like a lease
appropriation and it likely does not
[3:08:28] require a general obligation bond which
increases the taxes of the of our
[3:08:34] residents. Um, the other reason why we
liked it that I kind of already
[3:08:38] mentioned is it's a smaller footprint
where you would build the new city hall
[3:08:44] and it would be in the formbbased code.
It doesn't take other buildings off the
[3:08:49] tax role. It's located near other public
services as I mentioned. So, the
[3:08:54] library, the tabernacle, etc. And if the
county was ever to build their building
[3:09:00] there, it would be located there, which
if they choose not to, the city has
[3:09:05] first right to buy that property back as
well. And so, um, the other thing is is
[3:09:11] it's close to those that public parking.
Another major factor is as we went
[3:09:16] through our analysis, the cost per
square foot of construction for a
[3:09:20] three-story office building um should be
substantially less than what we were
[3:09:25] quoted to build a new police station
facility. And we're talking at least a
[3:09:31] probably about a third less.
And so so that's a very substantial
[3:09:37] factor as well. And then of course this
offers the most funding sources which
[3:09:42] we're going to hit I think on the next
slide for the down payment and the
[3:09:45] annual payments. So let me just show you
that. Hopefully it's big enough.
[3:09:52] So So going across the top there you can
see column one's a description. Column
[3:09:59] two is option one. Column three is
option two. And then option three. And
[3:10:04] and I was going to mention um if anybody
wants to pull these up, they're they're
[3:10:08] online as well. The whole slide
presentation's online. You can pull it
[3:10:12] up. So um so as you look at the funding
sources here for all three of these
[3:10:18] options, general obligation bond is
totally on the table for all three of
[3:10:23] these options. You could go do a general
obligation bond for a city hall. I don't
[3:10:27] think anybody would pass that. I
wouldn't recommend it. Um and then the
[3:10:33] the other thing that we can use of
course is the general fund and we can
[3:10:37] use any savings that we've set aside. So
you guys know we have a fund where we've
[3:10:43] been setting aside dollars for a
municipal building.
[3:10:48] So those are all on the table for all
three options. Impact fees could really
[3:10:52] be used for all three of these options.
And then um grants CDBGs
[3:10:58] um anytime you're doing public buildings
or parking, CDBGs are are pretty
[3:11:05] attractive. Like that's what we had for
like the HVAC at the tabernacle. We used
[3:11:09] a CDBG for this parking lot, that
parking lot. We've used them a lot. Um
[3:11:16] and so those those could potentially be
um awarded. You know, you could also
[3:11:22] look at contributions. Like we've had
people approach the police and say, "Oh,
[3:11:26] I donate money to help you build a
police station." And we might be like,
[3:11:29] "Well, this is your opportunity." Um,
and then the revolving loan fund. So,
[3:11:35] let me talk through that. So, as I went
back and I looked at the history of how
[3:11:40] municipal buildings have been built in
the past. So, I looked at this very
[3:11:44] building. So, this building, I think we
moved in in 2009 if I remember right.
[3:11:50] And so, you know, we've been in this
building, I can't believe it, but we've
[3:11:53] been in this building 17 years. It's
crazy to me. Um, and we, you know, even
[3:11:59] if we went with this option, we would be
in this building for at least 20 years
[3:12:02] or close to it. But with the revolving
loan fund, what that is is, um, there is
[3:12:09] a portion of that that was it was a
grant. Um, and so what happens over time
[3:12:14] is we invest that revolving loan fund.
So, we invest it in two ways. If it's
[3:12:18] cash, we put it into an investment and
we make a return on it or we lend it out
[3:12:24] to a business, right? And then a
business pays us actually a higher
[3:12:29] interest rate than when we invest. And
so, you know, every couple decades,
[3:12:34] we're able to build that fund up quite a
bit. And so, as I looked at that in
[3:12:39] 2009, that was actually a pretty big
funding source for this building. And
[3:12:45] when we built this building, when they
looked at all of these funding sources
[3:12:49] that I'm going to show you, they were
all a part of that plan. The only
[3:12:53] difference is they did not borrow money.
They paid it all with uh down payment.
[3:13:00] And and so so the RLF um I believe there
would be approximately 400,000 available
[3:13:08] that you could put into a down payment
from that. That could work for any of
[3:13:12] these. So then we get into the what I
call the we're going to we're going to
[3:13:17] say the departments that pay an overhead
rate. Um so as you look at those you
[3:13:24] have building safety you have
engineering shop streets sanitation
[3:13:28] water wastewater
um treatment and collections GIS airport
[3:13:33] and golf. So, as as as we go out every
year, as you think about those core
[3:13:39] services that are being provided,
um you know, we don't we don't just have
[3:13:45] an accounting department to have an
accounting department. We don't have a a
[3:13:50] legal team to just have a legal team.
We're there to service these these
[3:13:55] departments, divisions that are out
there. I must have wrote it somewhere
[3:13:59] else. But as you think about who that
is, um Oh, thank you. She said it right
[3:14:05] there. So, as you think about those
expenses that we're able to bill out as
[3:14:09] an overhead, some of that is executive,
that's city council expenses. Some of
[3:14:15] that is human resources, information
technology,
[3:14:20] customer service, finance, legal, etc.
And every year um we bill out for those
[3:14:28] services
that we're providing to those
[3:14:31] departments. Now, we don't go out and
bill it to the police department or the
[3:14:36] recreation or the parks because we're
we're all operating in the same fund.
[3:14:42] We're all being they're being subsidized
by the general fund. So, sure, I could
[3:14:47] go bill it. Um, but it would just show
up as an expense and you'd basically be
[3:14:52] billing yourself and taking it out of
one pocket and putting in the other
[3:14:55] pocket. Um, so as you think about these
overheads, there's there's these
[3:15:01] departments. We could go out to, for
example, um, building safety.
[3:15:08] We could go out to sanitation and we
could say, "Hey, this is the cost to
[3:15:12] build a new city hall and your share of
a down payment is this amount."
[3:15:20] And then we would have to come up with
what we have to borrow and then whatever
[3:15:25] we borrow that annual payment, they
would pay that through their overhead
[3:15:30] rate each year. So, for example, as I
went through um I worked with Mike
[3:15:38] who was our municipal adviser at Zans
and I came up with the scenario. So, for
[3:15:43] example, let's say that we built a new
city hall and it cost $11 million. If we
[3:15:50] came up with a down payment of $6
million
[3:15:54] and we had to borrow $5 million, I had
him run it through today's rates and to
[3:16:01] to do an appropriation lease, annual
appropriation lease at 20 years, it's
[3:16:08] about 4.13% interest. Comes out to about
$380,000 a year. Well, of that $380,000,
[3:16:17] I can charge about 69%
of that that annual amount to these
[3:16:24] various departments. And so 31% of it is
being covered by the general fund. So in
[3:16:31] that scenario, that's about $118,000 a
year. Well, we can come up with $118,000
[3:16:38] a year, not 800,000 a year.
>> Yes.
[3:16:41] » Question, Council President Ericson, and
then
[3:16:45] I understand that, but where does where
does the department get the money to pay
[3:16:49] it?
>> So, you would have to you'd have to go
[3:16:52] in and you'd have to see if they have
enough money in reserves to do that or
[3:16:58] as you plan over the next two three
years that becomes a a budgeting part of
[3:17:02] your budgeting process. Um,
>> we can only raise the the tax base a
[3:17:08] certain percentage every year. I mean,
>> would it be from fees? It's not like I
[3:17:12] mean the money doesn't grow on trees.
It's got to come from somewhere.
[3:17:16] » Yeah. Yeah. And to be specific, I would
go look at building safety and I would
[3:17:20] say we're going to pull this out of your
reserve. I would go look at
[3:17:24] » So they've got to do more with less.
>> Yeah. Or but I mean the thing you got to
[3:17:31] remember is they have a reserve to pay
these overhead costs as well. And so
[3:17:37] » do they have a reserve to pay an
additional amount? Yeah.
[3:17:41] » Yeah. And that that would be the process
we go through into their budget for each
[3:17:45] year,
>> right? But then but then that budget
[3:17:47] comes to us and there's only so much
budget
[3:17:50] » available to these are mostly coming
from fees, not taxes.
[3:17:55] » Raise the fees
>> and and some of them some of them are a
[3:17:58] difficult decision, right? Streets, for
example. Like you guys may look at it, I
[3:18:03] may come back to you when we go through
these scenarios and I may be like, "Hey,
[3:18:07] you've got to have um streets, just as
an example, come up with $600,000 for
[3:18:14] this down payment."
It's it becomes a budgeting question at
[3:18:18] that point. Like, is that something that
you feel like is of value to the
[3:18:23] community to budget that out of their
reserves? And so I mean it all becomes
[3:18:29] part of the budget process, right?
Council member Johnson has a question.
[3:18:33] » Um, so I mean to me the council could
accomplish the same thing, not with
[3:18:39] every one of these because I understand
like wastewater has its rules and
[3:18:42] things. The council could say we're
going to shrink all of these budgets and
[3:18:47] we're going to increase what we give to
the police and we could accomplish the
[3:18:50] very same thing with some of it.
>> You're wrong. H
[3:18:53] » how could we not? because you're you're
saying you're going to charge them an
[3:18:56] additional amount of money and we just
got through saying we don't have any
[3:18:59] more money for streets, but now you're
saying you're going to charge them more
[3:19:02] overhead.
>> You can you cannot charge people that
[3:19:05] are getting water or sanitation or
wastewater services to subsidize the
[3:19:11] cost.
>> That's what I just said. Some of them
[3:19:12] you can't, but some of them you could.
We could say we're going to shrink the
[3:19:16] streets budget and we're going to
increase the police's budget. We have
[3:19:20] the ability to do that. So I I'm just
saying that that what you're saying I
[3:19:25] agree with it, but part of it we could
accomplish the same thing. If the
[3:19:29] council said we want a new police
station, we could lower some of those
[3:19:33] budgets. We have that ability and we
could increase the police's budget. And
[3:19:37] that's something that you haven't said
yet. And it is something that we could
[3:19:39] do. And I just wanted to point that out.
>> And you could.
[3:19:42] » Yeah.
>> I will stand here and tell you
[3:19:45] financially, politically, good luck.
>> Well, politically, good luck for
[3:19:49] building a new city hall, too. Sorry.
The problem that you have is you would
[3:19:54] be looking at basically taking it from
these these general fund departments and
[3:20:00] you better be prepared to cut out a lot
of department services to be able to
[3:20:05] come up with the cost. And I'm just
telling you from a financial standpoint.
[3:20:09] » You just said that we have to you just
said that we have to reduce um their
[3:20:14] budgets to pay that overhead.
>> Well, they have to build it into their
[3:20:18] budget.
>> That's the same thing. That's the same
[3:20:20] thing.
>> Not really.
[3:20:22] » Yeah, it is.
>> Yeah, they got to take
[3:20:23] » That's the same thing. They're not
getting somewhere else
[3:20:25] » somewhere.
>> Yeah. So, they got to produce some some
[3:20:28] services.
>> They have to figure
[3:20:31] into their fees. So, they'd probably
have to bump the fees out, but
[3:20:34] » I I mean I I'm open like if you can come
and present that to the city council and
[3:20:38] how it's going to work financially.
Let's look at it.
[3:20:42] » Yeah. I don't know how you work, but
>> what you're saying I agree with. Just
[3:20:47] there's those things that you're not
pointing out.
[3:20:50] Well, it's because they don't really
work. And did you have a comment,
[3:20:54] council member Action?
>> Are you going to keep going through the
[3:20:57] presentation? I can't.
>> I do have some comments, but I'm going
[3:21:00] to wait till you finish
>> till the end before I
[3:21:02] » Okay.
>> Yeah, sure.
[3:21:04] » So, as you look at Let me roll that.
>> Can you make that smaller, Deb?
[3:21:13] So, and I and I will say like
there's a lot of political decisions
[3:21:20] that are part of this process, right?
And there's a lot of financial decisions
[3:21:24] because if we go through this process
and the city council's like, "No, we
[3:21:30] need to have more square footage for
this department, this department, this
[3:21:33] department. No, we don't like that grade
of construction. We want the highest
[3:21:37] grade." This option could potentially
also be too expensive. I'm not saying
[3:21:42] that it will for sure work. We have to
go through a process to determine that,
[3:21:47] but I think it's worth looking at
because I think it is a real option that
[3:21:53] does not require potentially a general
obligation bond. Um, so here's the
[3:21:58] initial construction cost analysis. So
obviously these are estimates um and it
[3:22:05] would require further analysis. Option
one is probably the closest thing
[3:22:11] out of all of these options to be quite
honest because we have already went
[3:22:15] through a planning process for that. And
so option one would be something like
[3:22:20] 16.5 to 18 million. Option two, we
believe as we looked at the two sites
[3:22:26] and went through the analysis, we
believe that would be probably your
[3:22:30] second most expensive option, probably
in that 14 to 16 million range. Option
[3:22:36] three, we believed would be between 13
and 14 a.5 million. Um, and as I said,
[3:22:44] that could change based on opinions,
people's opinions on how much square
[3:22:50] footage each department should have, um,
where the funding should come from, how
[3:22:55] much down payment we can come up with.
We'd have to go figure all that out. So,
[3:22:59] here's the internal committee
recommendation.
[3:23:03] Um, so we we're saying uh pursue option
three to build a new city hall office
[3:23:09] building on First North. I'll correct
that. Um, west of the library and then
[3:23:16] renovate this current city hall into a
police station facility. So if you guys
[3:23:22] as a city council are in agreement,
um, you know, next steps would be to we
[3:23:28] would recommend that you form two
committees. uh one to look at a new city
[3:23:32] hall, one to look at the renovation of
this building that's the current city
[3:23:36] hall to a police station facility. And
then we would enter into a planning
[3:23:41] phase that would then determine that
square footage need um the potential
[3:23:47] amounts for funding sources from down
payment to annual overhead pay uh
[3:23:55] amounts for those borrowings, what you
borrow. And then we would look at
[3:24:00] options for financing. And so we as we
mentioned lease appropriation option is
[3:24:04] a proven model that we know of. Um we
have had consultants say that other in
[3:24:10] other states they're seeing alternative
financing such as a public private
[3:24:15] partnership. We're just don't have a lot
of examples of that in Idaho. And so I
[3:24:22] think I think that's the last slide,
right?
[3:24:25] So so that's it. Obviously, I'm sure
there's questions, more questions, but
[3:24:32] » that's what we
>> council member. Yes. Council member
[3:24:34] racer and then council member Erikson.
you know, as the member of the city
[3:24:37] council that was on the on the committee
and going to all the meetings and stuff,
[3:24:41] um I still firmly believe that the best,
let me rephrase, well, my preferred
[3:24:46] option would be to build a new police
station, but we've tried twice and
[3:24:53] that's the process of a supermajority in
the state of Idaho and that's the
[3:24:57] process of a democracy. the citizens
have said no and I don't think it will
[3:25:01] be advantageous or it would be likely to
pass if we were to try it a third time.
[3:25:07] So that kind of sent us, you know,
again, just to give you my perspective,
[3:25:11] it kind of set us on uh okay, well now
what can we do? And the most likely
[3:25:17] option was to find a city building that
could house the police station. And as
[3:25:23] far as I know, this is the only building
that the city owns that could
[3:25:26] realistically house the police. And so,
unfortunately though, obviously, it's
[3:25:33] going to look from the outside like we
just want to build a new city hall. We
[3:25:38] don't want to build a new city hall. I
don't want to build a new city hall.
[3:25:41] Problem is that the that all of the city
employees are going to be homeless if we
[3:25:47] turn this into a police station. and
it's the only building that we've got
[3:25:51] that we feasibly can turn into a police
station. So, if we do that to get an
[3:25:57] adequate police station to fill the
needs of our police force now and into
[3:26:02] the future, we got to figure out
something else to do with city hall. And
[3:26:06] I don't know of any building that the
city already owns that can be a suitable
[3:26:10] city hall once we move the police in
here. And that means then that we got to
[3:26:16] kind of sort of figure out what we're
going to do with city hall. And the best
[3:26:19] thing that we could come up with the
committee was, well, we're going to have
[3:26:22] to build one, but at least we've got
some land that we can do it on. It's
[3:26:26] never been on the tax role, so it's not
going to affect the tax uh um rates that
[3:26:31] are brought in by the city.
And so, and so we've we've looked at
[3:26:35] that. And then of course with these
alternative uh uh funding things where
[3:26:40] we can do the lease to own and we can
use some of the reserve funds from all
[3:26:44] these different departments with their
uh uh charging them overhead. Maybe we
[3:26:50] can get then we should be able to get
enough for that down payment and then be
[3:26:54] able to make the rest of it with our
general fund.
[3:26:58] I don't see another way of doing it. Is
it my favorite way? Is it my most
[3:27:01] preferred way? No. because I was all for
going for a general obligation bond to
[3:27:08] build a new police station to get our
police force what they needed. It didn't
[3:27:13] work and this is the only backup plan
that I can see that is feasible and so
[3:27:20] it I I I don't think it's the best
option but it's the I I believe it's the
[3:27:25] best option that we have left for us. So
that's why I uh was uh uh uh glad to be
[3:27:32] on the committee and that these are all
the things that we looked at and and
[3:27:36] that's my recommendation at this point.
But if but if somebody else can find a
[3:27:40] better place to put the police
department, I'm in. If somebody else can
[3:27:44] find a better place to put city council,
if we do decide to put the police
[3:27:48] station here, let's look at it. But from
my perspective, this is what we've got
[3:27:53] at this moment to look at. And that's
why the committee has recommended uh
[3:27:59] this to go forward. But I agree there's
going to be some political challenges.
[3:28:03] There's going to be some perception
challenges. Oh, they just want a new
[3:28:06] city. I want a
functional,
[3:28:11] proper place for our police. Everything
else is dominoes.
[3:28:17] But I don't know how we can combat that.
Look.
[3:28:19] » All right. Thank you, Council Member
Ericson.
[3:28:22] [clears throat]
>> Okay. First of all, hopefully I can get
[3:28:25] out what I want to say and what I have
um in my mind and my heart here. Um as
[3:28:32] I've sat through all this trying to get
the bond and going through this and I
[3:28:36] see it as an action item tonight, I
don't think we're even close to getting
[3:28:39] an action item to come up with what we
presented right here. First of all, we
[3:28:45] was told that we need three to five
acres for a police department flat out
[3:28:48] right now with our size of the city. As
we look to this and and as of 35 years
[3:28:55] of being here in this city, 30 years
being law enforcement,
[3:28:59] we've pieced and patched
buildings for our police department. And
[3:29:05] that's that's wrong to me. I mean, a lot
of the walls and stuff over there and I
[3:29:10] helped put in and and and I would wish
the public seen this because I think
[3:29:16] their mind frame be totally opposite of
saying and go maybe we need to look at
[3:29:20] this a little bit different. Maybe
there's other things we need to really
[3:29:23] look for a police department.
You know, chief said it himself.
[3:29:29] Yeah, we can make this work. So, are we
settling for a second or third or fourth
[3:29:33] down here for a police department just
to make an office building? I don't
[3:29:37] think we should do that. We need to make
a police department for a police
[3:29:40] department. This building is never going
to be a police department. It's going to
[3:29:43] be a remodeled office commercial
building slapped together. And you're
[3:29:48] not going to be able to put all these
windows, all these walls in there to
[3:29:51] make them safe in any way or any shape
form unless you put millions and
[3:29:55] millions of dollars in this. Overall,
like I say, this building is not a
[3:29:59] police department. It's a remodel. It's
a patch job to make it work. And I feel
[3:30:04] very strongly that we need to look at
other options. Maybe get this out to the
[3:30:10] public. Say we're in a corner here. Our
police department needs another
[3:30:14] building. They're functioning so crammed
in there in a building that's not
[3:30:20] working for them. And then you look at
the square footage. 28,000 ft of office
[3:30:24] building is 28,500 ft of police
department. It's not even the same as
[3:30:30] you look at as you go through this. the
cost of remodel. And I think we need to
[3:30:34] really look at what's it going to do to
cost to remodel this as a police
[3:30:37] department. If we're going to look at
that direction for the next 20 to 30
[3:30:39] years, what's it really going to cost to
remodel this police department as a
[3:30:44] police department? Making it secure in
every way, shape, or form as a police
[3:30:48] department. It's going to be many
millions.
[3:30:52] And then I don't mind going back and
looking at what Idol Falls did. Maybe we
[3:30:57] need to readress that where we can come
up with different things. I just think
[3:31:00] there's other ways we need to look at
right now before we make this step to
[3:31:04] jump up for new city hall.
>> Just a few thoughts.
[3:31:09] » Member Johnson.
>> Does anyone else want to speak?
[3:31:13] » Yeah, I'll take Go ahead.
>> She can go first.
[3:31:16] » Council member T.
>> So just for my clarification, this
[3:31:20] option three is what we're ask what is
exactly what we're voting. What's the
[3:31:24] action item tonight? Is it to start
planning to come up with a plan that
[3:31:30] will then be presented to city council?
Like what what are we vote are be voting
[3:31:35] on for sure tonight? Like what is the
action?
[3:31:37] » Basically this so we would we would
enter a planning phase to determine
[3:31:41] square footage needs, potential amounts
for funding sources for down payment,
[3:31:45] annual payments. And then we would also
have these two committees.
[3:31:52] Um, so one for the police station
facility, they'd be looking at how much
[3:31:56] is it going to cost to do these
renovations to make this work in the
[3:32:00] beginning and then maybe look at a
phased approach as those impact fees
[3:32:04] continue to come in to what we could do
down the road
[3:32:06] » and then that would be presented to city
council to go forward for another vote.
[3:32:11] So this is not saying that this is what
we're actually going to do. This is just
[3:32:15] we're going to pursue the idea of
planning this
[3:32:18] » planning planning this option and if if
if if through those plans
[3:32:23] » it doesn't doesn't pan out or doesn't
work it doesn't look like it's going to
[3:32:27] be good then then yeah we're not going
to go forward
[3:32:30] » I just that council member Council
President Ericson
[3:32:34] » okay um well I I I agree with Council
Member Ericson
[3:32:43] in that
we've
[3:32:48] [clears throat] we we are trying to kind
of peacemeal things. But but I I've got
[3:32:53] to I've got to trust in the committee
and Chief Roads in his recommendation
[3:32:58] that this this building could be
renovated into a functional police
[3:33:04] department. I I I got to trust that
they've that they've looked at it and
[3:33:09] they've they've they've decided that's
the case. I really doubt the financing
[3:33:16] option. I mean, this lease appropriation
thing, all it all it does is it it moves
[3:33:23] the burden onto the different
departments which then are going to have
[3:33:26] to find some way to either reduce
services or rate raise fees. So, one way
[3:33:33] or the other, the citizen the citizenry
uh takes it takes it in the you know,
[3:33:41] » there's no other way. Yeah, I know.
That's what I'm saying. But
[3:33:45] » it's a better option.
>> It's a It's a better option, but I I
[3:33:48] just don't I just don't know how we can
um we can rob from Peter to pay Paul.
[3:33:55] That's my That's my concern. Um,
and I'm just going to throw this out
[3:34:01] there, and I know it's not popular, but
I've I had two or three people in the
[3:34:07] very in the first initial uh round of
the bond ask me why we don't try and do
[3:34:15] something cooperatively with the county.
I know that the county is looking at
[3:34:20] expanding their sheriff's department.
They bought property behind the
[3:34:24] courthouse to to look into that. So
they're they're going through the same
[3:34:29] things we are. Have has that even been
considered at all having some sort of a
[3:34:36] joint uh law enforcement facility?
>> Yes, we've we've considered it. We've
[3:34:41] looked at it. We've we've met with other
uh jurisdictions that have gone through
[3:34:46] that process. And one of the issues
always comes back to
[3:34:51] a sheriff is an elected position. It's
every four years. in other entities when
[3:34:57] the continual growth it becomes a battle
between who's growing on which which
[3:35:02] side. Um one of the one of the big
factors that I look at in this building
[3:35:09] um as we listen to the public
the other the property that we looked at
[3:35:14] that we have purchased it is
outside of town and it's another one of
[3:35:19] those we could make it work. We we can
function. We're we're going to do our
[3:35:24] jobs. we're going to respond from
wherever we're at. Um, the one thing I
[3:35:29] do like about this location above any
other location, even even the school
[3:35:36] district property, it does take us a
little farther away. Right here, we're
[3:35:40] across the parking lot from the
prosecutor's office that we're going
[3:35:43] back and forth frequently. We're across
the street from dispatch where we go and
[3:35:48] and they sign and they they do a lot of
paperwork for us when we're doing
[3:35:53] warrants and paperwork. They're across
the street from us for the jail. So, if
[3:35:57] we have an interview and we are
we arrest somebody here, uh we bring
[3:36:03] them in for interview and we have enough
to arrest them. It's across the parking
[3:36:07] lot. Um,
so we have the prosecutor's dispatch and
[3:36:12] the sheriff's office right across the
parking lot. Um, having city hall at the
[3:36:18] school district property. It is also we
do a lot of daily paperwork exchange
[3:36:24] with city hall that it's it's a block
away. It's within walking distance if we
[3:36:29] needed to. Um, location
for me is there's there's no doubt this
[3:36:35] is the best location. totality of the
total city budget. That's what we looked
[3:36:40] at as well. What would cost the
taxpayers the lowest amount overall?
[3:36:47] Th those are the things that we consider
too. Of course, I would love I would
[3:36:50] love a police station with every new
bell and whistle that we could. Idle
[3:36:56] Falls facility is amazing. Um but even
in their facility on the back side of
[3:37:01] the building, the sides of the building,
they they had to cut costs too. So, they
[3:37:06] don't have bulletproof
glass on the back sides. I'm not trying
[3:37:10] to put that out there for anybody. Um,
[laughter] but but when we've met with
[3:37:15] our consult with the consultants, um,
there's different safety measures that
[3:37:20] we could do to fortify this location
just with
[3:37:25] raised flower pots and ballasts up front
for no, you know, nobody could drive
[3:37:30] through. It is a a solid structure. I
know it's not perfect. Um, my biggest
[3:37:36] concern is as if we continually I think
someone mentioned in a previous meeting
[3:37:41] just kicking the can down the road, we
will continually get into a bigger
[3:37:46] bigger pinch and the cost is going to
continually increase. We as a police
[3:37:52] department want to be fiscally
responsible for the citizens and make
[3:37:57] sure we're doing the best we can uh with
the resources we have. and we we are
[3:38:03] doing the best we can. Um and we'll
continue to do the best we can. This
[3:38:08] building, it is not perfect. Um
but I I look at well as we've looked at
[3:38:16] the planning, one of our our goals is to
do more community outreach, more
[3:38:21] community education. This room right
here is that room. Um also could be used
[3:38:26] as a training room. um most of the
office space could be utilized and we
[3:38:33] talked about this the difference between
safety
[3:38:37] this building would be safer immediately
than the building we're currently in and
[3:38:42] so I'm not I'm know there's apples to
oranges and um but as far as the the
[3:38:49] growth we still have different areas
that we could grow into this building.
[3:38:54] Those are the things that we looked at
as we tried to consider the totality of
[3:38:59] the total cost of square footage for
city hall compared to what it would cost
[3:39:04] to build what Idol Falls has with all
the bulletproof glass and and sure some
[3:39:10] of it will have to be part of that
building process as we built an entryway
[3:39:14] that would protect the employees,
a gated [clears throat] area for
[3:39:19] vehicles and and parking that's a secure
parking location. And then the biggest
[3:39:23] thing uh was we met with consultants
there. There are a lot of entities or
[3:39:29] agencies throughout the the state that
have renovated um core construction is
[3:39:35] one of the consultants that we've worked
with. They built for with Bule out of an
[3:39:39] old grocery store. Pocutello Police is
out of an old uh they share a building
[3:39:44] with their city hall. Um so I of course
I want a new building. I would love a
[3:39:50] new building. Um, the reason we focused
on option three was totality of cost for
[3:39:57] the city, what it would cost the
taxpayers and the functionality of what
[3:40:03] we could immediately move into. Most of
the office space here could immediately
[3:40:07] be used without any renovation. There
would obviously be some for interview
[3:40:11] rooms that would have to be renovated.
Um, but th those are the options. I
[3:40:16] don't think we do have a perfect option.
But when you talk about location
[3:40:22] downtown, I don't think they I don't
think we have any other options. We I
[3:40:27] mean in the beginning process, we were
looking at property north of town on
[3:40:30] Second East,
which there could be some availability,
[3:40:34] but it takes us farther away from the
university where highest threats are for
[3:40:40] the some of the schools and some of the
areas that we want to have a quicker
[3:40:43] response. We did a response analysis
from Pioneer Road and and there's a give
[3:40:49] and take um at all of those. And so I do
like our response time from downtown
[3:40:55] area to be able to get to most
[clears throat] of the elementary
[3:40:58] schools, the university. Uh still we're
a distance away from the high school,
[3:41:03] but we do have school resource officers
there. Um and our our goal is to always
[3:41:07] have our officers out and about anyway.
But um that's those are kind of my core
[3:41:15] factors that we took into consideration
when we were looking at the different
[3:41:18] options.
>> And just last thing, yes,
[3:41:23] » I agree. Also, I I don't think we're
ready to make a decision tonight. I
[3:41:27] think this has got to be something we
got to talk we got to at least I've got
[3:41:31] to mow over as to and I got to
understand this lease appropriations
[3:41:36] thing better. Uh because I I I just
don't know how that works. So anyway,
[3:41:42] that's my that's my
>> Well, that's that's definitely an
[3:41:44] option. Yes, Council Member Johnson.
>> Um I am really happy that I think every
[3:41:49] person here wants to have a nice police
station and um maybe we [clears throat]
[3:41:54] might disagree about how to accomplish
that, but I think that's a really good
[3:41:56] thing to know is that we all support the
police. Um, but I just I guess I have
[3:42:02] concerns because throughout the process,
like the last two years we've been
[3:42:05] talking about this, I mean, there were
things that were brought up. Um, and I
[3:42:09] know like Chief Road said, this is a
safer option, but there are still I
[3:42:14] think it would cost so much money to to
renovate it. And um, I'm sorry, I don't
[3:42:19] care how you slice it. If you charge
overhead to departments, you are
[3:42:23] essentially shrinking their budget.
There isn't more money to put in there.
[3:42:26] So, it's just another way to say it. Um,
and so I would like to see, you had all
[3:42:32] the revenue streams that were available
for those different options. I'd like to
[3:42:36] see a new police facility. Um, just how
much it would cost after you added all
[3:42:41] those other revenue options. Um, and see
how much we'd need that you were going
[3:42:46] to take from the overhead. I'd be very
interested to see how much we're talking
[3:42:49] about there for the lease appropriation
for a new police station. That's just I
[3:42:53] just would like to see that. for new
building on the property that we bought.
[3:42:57] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[3:42:59] » Right. Council member Ericson.
>> So hopefully I can just say the rest of
[3:43:04] First of all, I I appreciate what the
chief's doing. I appreciate what this
[3:43:07] committee has done. They have worked
very hard and I don't want to undermine
[3:43:10] that one bit. But I think there's so
many unanswered questions. That's what
[3:43:15] I'm trying to say. I mean, we we need to
get that consultant in here that came
[3:43:19] down with the headarters and talked to
us and say, "Look at this building. Walk
[3:43:23] through it. you tell me what it's going
to really evaluate costwise to make this
[3:43:26] a police department. We need to have
those figures and is it going to be way
[3:43:31] higher than we really guess? In my
thinking, it probably will be. Uh, you
[3:43:36] know, as you look at square footage, the
school district's looking at about $450
[3:43:40] to $480 a square foot to build a new
district office building. We was looking
[3:43:44] at 600 and something to build a police
department. Police departments are going
[3:43:47] to cost more money. Plain and simple.
They will cost more money to build. Um,
[3:43:52] but like bottom line is I I just feel
very strongly that it's time in our city
[3:43:57] to build a police department from ground
up working here 30 years and all the
[3:44:03] stuff we did at the police department to
make it functional
[3:44:07] to provide the service we did for our
citizens because we cared for this
[3:44:11] community. And that's bottom line we did
and they'll continue to do that because
[3:44:15] they care for the community. But
shouldn't we give them what they need to
[3:44:20] to do their job if we can in a way?
That's what I'm trying to say.
[3:44:24] » Yeah. Don't seem to teach you.
>> Um
[3:44:30] I just I just want to point out again
that this is just to pursue planning.
[3:44:36] This is not saying this is what we are
going to do. This is just to give them
[3:44:39] authorization to make that plan to
answer your questions to say this is
[3:44:44] what the overhead would look like. This
is what the all the renovations would
[3:44:48] cost. And they could include I'm
guessing Matt that we could include to
[3:44:52] have include sister um councilwoman
Johnson's
[3:44:56] um option. Sorry, I'm like getting
tired. My tongue is all tied. Um option
[3:45:01] of of looking at that, right? Can like
when we do a presentation, could we
[3:45:06] include that?
>> Can I Yes. Go ahead, Chief. So, so
[3:45:11] during this process the the last meeting
that we met as a council or as a
[3:45:15] committee um that consultant was core
construction and they they've gone
[3:45:20] through all the initial phase with us.
They are one that they've been the
[3:45:26] liaison with other construction
companies as they've done other
[3:45:30] remodels. So, they they have been here
and and they were in support of this
[3:45:35] plan to make it feasible as a police
station. We didn't dive into all the
[3:45:40] details. They did offer in this this
planning process to do all of that
[3:45:45] upfront analysis and planning for free
that doesn't cost the city anything to
[3:45:51] present.
I I don't know how in depth they go, but
[3:45:56] we we would have to find out from them
more detail, but they have worked
[3:46:00] through this process in the beginning
phases that they would do some of that
[3:46:05] analysis and planning for us at at no
cost and no risk to the city. Um,
[3:46:11] another thing that we didn't mention and
and it again it's not the the solve all
[3:46:18] um but the impact fees
there may be some areas in here that we
[3:46:24] initially may not need need right now
that that I'm okay if we as a as a
[3:46:32] committee as a as a city we would like
to see a sally port off the side of the
[3:46:37] building a secure area that we can pull
then that we can use those um those
[3:46:42] impact fees two years down the road,
five years down the road. That those are
[3:46:47] monies that aren't coming out of any of
these other uh departments in the city,
[3:46:52] but those are impact fees that are set
aside specifically that we have been
[3:46:56] able to use or allocate towards the
improvement of the building.
[3:47:01] » Yes, Council Member Reer,
>> you know, I I think uh and I I
[3:47:04] appreciate all the concerns Whoops, I
probably got to be on here. Yeah. Um, I
[3:47:08] appreciate all the concerns of the other
members of the of the council, but I
[3:47:11] think this this uh recommendation here
that's on the slide actually does
[3:47:16] address that. Uh, for Councilman
Ericson, Eric Ericson here, he needs a
[3:47:20] little more time to mull it out. Well,
this isn't locking us into anything, but
[3:47:24] what it's doing is these two committees
would actually bring back more
[3:47:29] information about funding, what it's
really going to cost, and how much
[3:47:34] square footage is going to be needed
back to this council before we ever make
[3:47:39] a binding decision to actually move
forward and start renovating anything.
[3:47:45] and and uh same thing with uh uh council
uh member uh Johnson who's again needs
[3:47:52] to see those numbers. That's what one of
these committees would do. If the city
[3:47:56] council agrees to move forward, staff
would need to enter a planning phase to
[3:48:00] determine square footage needs and
potential amounts for funding sources
[3:48:03] for down payment and annual payment. So,
I think that's what that committee would
[3:48:07] do is they would have to go to work,
roll up their sleeves, and really get
[3:48:11] into the funding and give us some pretty
hard numbers that we can then look at as
[3:48:16] a council to decide whether or not we
want to continue to move forward down
[3:48:21] this road or if we realize, you know, we
didn't consider everything that needed
[3:48:26] to be considered here. This really isn't
a good option. I don't think this locks
[3:48:31] us into anything uh anything that we're
not ready to go to yet. I really think
[3:48:38] that if we do agree to this, even if we
agreed to this action uh item now, all
[3:48:44] it does is it frees us or or directs us,
I should say, to gather more information
[3:48:52] both financially and otherwise so that
we can come back and get a better
[3:48:57] picture of whether or not this is the
best plan that we can come up with right
[3:49:02] now. So you you know anyway I I kind of
think that that that going ahead with
[3:49:07] this might actually help us make a
decision.
[3:49:10] » Yes, Council Member Ericen and then
Council Member Johnson.
[3:49:14] » And I have no problem with that. I like
that idea, but I think I just don't want
[3:49:18] to just channel us down a path. There's
there's way too many questions out there
[3:49:23] for me right now on do we look at a what
we looking at city hall? The same thing
[3:49:28] with the police department. Do we look
at is there other things we can look at?
[3:49:31] And I think there is I think there's a
lot more things we can maybe look at if
[3:49:34] that will do it. I don't have a problem
with that. But I don't want this to
[3:49:37] channel us down a road that is really
going to dead end us down to a place
[3:49:43] where we really don't want to be.
>> Those are good concern. Yeah. Council
[3:49:48] member Johnson and then council member.
>> Yeah. I just I wanted clarification on
[3:49:52] that because I thought our action item
was to um go down the road of option
[3:49:57] three and my like what I wanted to see
is not option three. It's not even on
[3:50:02] the options. So I don't want it limited
to only option three. So if you're
[3:50:06] telling me that you'll look at these
other ideas and help us see how much
[3:50:10] after we bring in those revenue streams
it would cost to build the new police
[3:50:14] station, I'm I'm all for that. But if
you're telling me that that action item
[3:50:18] is only to pursue option three, then I'm
not in favor of that.
[3:50:22] » Okay. So, Higgins. Oh, sorry.
>> Sorry. I was just gonna answer that. So,
[3:50:27] as we look at the funding sources for
the down payment and the ongoing
[3:50:32] payments,
>> I have no problem saying these are the
[3:50:35] funding sources that we're recommending.
Here's option one. Here's option two.
[3:50:40] Here's option three. So, you could see
that. That's not a problem. And then we
[3:50:43] can back into those annual amounts
through a lease appropriation.
[3:50:48] » And that was not mine wasn't an option
though. So what do you do about that?
[3:50:51] You're going to add it. You're saying
because it wasn't one of option one,
[3:50:54] two,
>> I thought your option was to build a new
[3:50:56] one.
>> Yeah.
[3:50:57] » That option,
>> but not with the general obligations.
[3:50:59] » Yeah. And so we can we can just what I'm
saying, right, is I'm saying we can go
[3:51:03] through the same funding option for
option three
[3:51:06] » and then we'll put it align it for the
three options.
[3:51:09] » Okay. Council member Riggins.
Um, I've just been sitting here just and
[3:51:15] all I can think about is my civics class
in 8th grade and that was a long time
[3:51:19] ago, right? A long time ago. But I went
in and I asked AI just a few minutes ago
[3:51:25] and said, "What's what's uh what are the
principal responsibilities of city
[3:51:29] government?
Maintain public safety number one."
[3:51:33] Right?
We may have to get rid of the pretty
[3:51:37] stuff. But the reality is we have to
decide if if if we don't like this
[3:51:43] option, we got to look at it and say,
"Let's pay for one. 16 million bucks.
[3:51:48] Let's take it out. Let's take it out of
parks. Let's take it out of this. Let's
[3:51:52] take it out of that. Let's get rid of
the pretty stuff and do what we're
[3:51:56] supposed to do, which is maintain public
safety."
[3:52:01] That's the that's that's the other
option we have. I mean, if we're going
[3:52:04] to let's let's just let's sit down and
take a look at it. Let's have let's have
[3:52:08] Matt take a look and say this is where
money can come and we it's going to cost
[3:52:13] $16 million to build that new facility
because our number one responsibility is
[3:52:18] to maintain public safety and our
officers need a new place. The the
[3:52:24] people told us they want a new police
station. They don't want to pay for it.
[3:52:30] So, what they're saying is you figure
out how to pay for it out of the tax
[3:52:34] money that we're already giving you.
Let's show them. That's what I say.
[3:52:39] Let's let's show them.
>> That's what these three options. Let's
[3:52:42] get rid of the pretty stuff.
>> Trying to figure that out. I will point
[3:52:44] out one thing and I and I I understand
everything you guys are saying and all
[3:52:49] of you are saying. Um, but I will point
out that and I know it's a little
[3:52:53] different, but this building was a J C
Penney store. And you know when you say
[3:52:59] it's a patch job, I have people come in
and I'll say and go, "This is a
[3:53:03] beautiful city hall. I mean, it's turned
into a great building and it's
[3:53:08] functioned very well." And I have no
doubt that we can remodel it and yeah,
[3:53:13] is it going to cost a couple million?
Probably. So, but we can use those
[3:53:16] couple million to make it safe, to make
it secure. It's in a perfect location.
[3:53:22] I mean, to me,
it can be a beautiful police station for
[3:53:28] the next 30 or 40 years, and it'll be
the best economic option we've got. It
[3:53:33] really is. So, I mean, I guess you know
where I stand, but uh I I just think if
[3:53:38] we vote no on this, we're just pushing
the thing down the road and and it just
[3:53:42] puts our police in a worse situation
because then we're not going to be able
[3:53:46] to move forward with anything. So, I
don't have any problem evaluating the
[3:53:49] other options like you're saying, but uh
I think we've already evaluated it
[3:53:54] pretty heavily and uh I really think we
need to do something to move forward to
[3:53:58] get going on getting a new police
station. I mean, a new remodeled police
[3:54:03] station for the police because I think
this can be turned into a very nice
[3:54:07] police station and we can make it very
secure and it can it can have the
[3:54:11] functions that we need right here. Um,
so anyway, that's that's the my thought
[3:54:16] and I that's that's why I would
recommend that we move forward with this
[3:54:22] option, but maybe if you want to add the
words to this this option of, you know,
[3:54:28] looking at what it would cost to do
these to do the financial things for the
[3:54:32] other ways, I'm good with that. I think
that's great. But but I think we've got
[3:54:37] to move forward and and get going or
else we're just going to be pushing the
[3:54:41] can down the road even further. So um so
if there's any I mean if you want any
[3:54:48] any other discussion that's fine but uh
at this point I would I would entertain
[3:54:53] a motion to uh consider this and you can
word it however you want if there's
[3:54:58] somebody who wants to make a motion to
word it a little differently than than
[3:55:01] just what we got here. But uh I'm I'm
open to a motion at this point in time.
[3:55:06] I think we're I think we've visited
about it enough.
[3:55:10] I' I'd like to make a motion on this
that that we that we pursue the study of
[3:55:17] option three, right? I think this is
what I think that that's our concern is
[3:55:21] we're is we're not committing to
anything, but that we pursue
[3:55:25] what is being asked here, right? That to
let's take a look at let's see what it
[3:55:31] would cost. Let's see what the the the
the financing sources are. Let's let's
[3:55:37] take a look at let's let's get a report
back
[3:55:41] and uh
>> we need to find out more like Cohen says
[3:55:44] what is it really going to cost to
>> to remodel this into a secure successful
[3:55:50] » I mean just as it's it's it's laid out
let's we're not committing to anything
[3:55:55] so we're asking bring back information
so that we can make an intelligent
[3:56:00] decision.
>> Yeah I think that's reasonable. Yes.
[3:56:04] Just to clean that up, could the motion
state that we or I can even say I move
[3:56:09] that we enter the planning phase to
determine square footage needs and
[3:56:12] potential amounts for funding sources
for downtown for um for a potential new
[3:56:17] police station.
[3:56:20] » Is that was that a motion that he made
or was that
[3:56:24] » was yours a motion?
>> I was motion
[3:56:28] you second that motion. I'm just not
clear what the his what exactly what
[3:56:33] happened to it. What did you say?
>> Like I just read that sentence.
[3:56:36] » Yeah, that's fine.
>> Okay. Okay.
[3:56:38] » Just to make it easier. [laughter]
>> Okay. So, is that good?
[3:56:43] » I don't I don't know what I don't know
what the motion was. I'm
[3:56:46] » So, okay. You want to restate your
motion?
[3:56:48] » I move that we enter the planning phase
to determine the square footage needs
[3:56:53] and potential amounts for funding
sources for the police um for the police
[3:56:58] station. looking at all options
presented.
[3:57:02] » Okay. Is that is that clear?
>> So, we're looking at all the options and
[3:57:06] not only option three.
>> I think that's what Matt said he would
[3:57:09] do.
>> Well, what the way I would do it, let me
[3:57:12] clarify.
>> So, so what we would do, right, we would
[3:57:17] go into a planning phase to determine
square footage of a new city hall. We
[3:57:22] would go into a planning phase to
determine costs to renovate this
[3:57:25] building into a police station. Right?
But then what Brianna wants is she wants
[3:57:30] me to go through as we identify those
funding sources for both down payment
[3:57:34] and ongoing payments. If there's a loan,
she wants me to look back at all three
[3:57:40] options and take out the option of a
general obligation bond. We won't
[3:57:45] consider that. We'll just look at those
funding sources and say yes, you can do
[3:57:50] it on this option. No, you can't on this
option. No, you can't on this option.
[3:57:54] Does that make sense? And then I can
with that I can back into okay how much
[3:58:00] are we needing to borrow and um we can
kind of show you the cash reserves we
[3:58:05] have how much we think we can come up
with and then we can come up with an
[3:58:09] annual amount that it would cost for
that lease appropriation.
[3:58:13] » All right.
>> And there's a lot of moving pieces to
[3:58:17] understand that that's going to take
some time. And uh and actually I will
[3:58:20] remind the council too that we're not
talking that you know we're going to
[3:58:24] commit to something in particular
tomorrow. This is going to be still a
[3:58:28] fairly long process that we're going to
be going through to do a lot of
[3:58:31] evaluation. Council member Erikson.
>> Yes. As long as it that lease option is
[3:58:36] also with the police department too.
>> Yeah.
[3:58:38] » So it's the same same figures of the
city hall police department all that
[3:58:42] involved. I know it's a lot. I mean
>> Yeah.
[3:58:45] » Okay.
>> Yeah. And that and that's fine. And and
[3:58:47] I I think in some ways, right, as you
think about the police bonds that we
[3:58:51] already tried to pass, um we came up
with a pretty substantial down payment
[3:58:57] on those options. And so, so we can do
the same thing here. Um I think there's
[3:59:03] some additional ones as we look at all
of our options like the RLF that I
[3:59:07] brought up where we could show that on
all three options. And so I think what
[3:59:12] we would do, I mean to be honest, the
committee for a new city hall, I think
[3:59:16] you would have to essentially start with
here's the departments that would be in
[3:59:21] that new city hall. Here's their square
footage need. Here's how much space we
[3:59:25] would need for public spaces like this
or an entryway, bathrooms, etc. And then
[3:59:33] some of one of the components to this
that we haven't even talked about
[3:59:36] tonight is as you look at this, one of
the critical things is that we're going
[3:59:41] to do an analysis of does recreation,
for example, need to be in the new city
[3:59:47] hall? Does cultural arts need to be in
the new city hall? We're going to look
[3:59:50] at all of our spaces. We're going to
look at the new ice rink and say, is
[3:59:54] there a better role that that can play
for recreation? Can cultural arts just
[3:59:59] go back into the tabernacle? Those are
all questions that we have to go through
[4:00:03] a process to answer and this analysis
can help us do that.
[4:00:09] » Okay. Does that make sense?
>> So, so are we committing to Oh, excuse
[4:00:14] me.
>> I'm sorry.
[4:00:15] » Yes.
>> Are we committing then? I mean, it
[4:00:19] sounds like there's going to need to be
some consultants. I mean, we're we're
[4:00:23] going to go to get to get to where we
need to be. That's going to cost us some
[4:00:26] money.
>> Yeah. and and if there are consultants
[4:00:30] um we we put some money in for hired
work into that reserve fund for a
[4:00:36] municipal building and we can come back
to you guys and and we can let you know
[4:00:41] hey analysis if you want to kind of take
it to the next level it's going to cost
[4:00:45] this for example if Josh goes out to
core and core comes back and says you
[4:00:49] know we can give you a basic idea but if
you really want to dial in those costs
[4:00:54] we're going to have to have a little bit
of a fee we could come back to you and
[4:00:58] say that and you could approve that. And
so I think initially we would try to do
[4:01:03] it, you know, with with our own staff
and with the consultants that have
[4:01:08] basically stepped forward already and
helped us for free. And you know,
[4:01:13] Headwaters has been great. They've
helped us out on a lot of this stuff.
[4:01:17] Core has been great. And so, and then,
you know, the other one as we dive down
[4:01:23] deeper into it all, if we get to a place
where you guys are like, "Okay, now I'm
[4:01:27] seeing how this could potentially work."
Um, you would definitely want to hire a
[4:01:33] municipal adviser. And so, for the
police bond, we hired science, uh, which
[4:01:38] was Michael, if you guys remember
Michael. Um, and so those are kind of
[4:01:42] the consultants that you have to kind of
keep in mind, but we're not going to
[4:01:45] just go hire those people until we get
some approval to do so.
[4:01:50] » Okay. Okay. So, so just I I I was not on
board with pursuing the city hall option
[4:01:59] because I don't understand the
financing.
[4:02:01] » Yeah.
>> And I don't I I I just don't see how
[4:02:04] that will work.
>> Okay. If if this motion is general
[4:02:08] enough to pursue all those, you know,
get all that information before we, you
[4:02:15] know, head down that path,
>> then I'm on board again. I'm back.
[4:02:22] » Okay. I think that's where we want to
go. I think, you know, like like all of
[4:02:25] you have mentioned, there's a lot of
unanswered questions and there's things
[4:02:28] that we want to know more about on a lot
of the different things, but we I think
[4:02:32] if we if we go with this, we can we can
get started on that and and and
[4:02:37] accomplish a lot of those things. So, so
that's what we'll do. So, we do have a
[4:02:41] motion on the floor.
>> Want me to restate it?
[4:02:43] » I think it want to restate it.
>> Do I need to? [laughter]
[4:02:46] » No, I think we're good. I think we I
think we got it.
[4:02:52] » You're good.
Okay. Sounds like you get a restate.
[4:02:57] » Okay. I
mayor, I move to restate my motion two
[4:03:02] that we enter the planning phase to
determine square footage needs and
[4:03:07] potential amounts for funding sources
for options
[4:03:11] one, two, and three to build a new city
hall and police station.
[4:03:17] » Okay. Does that make sense to everybody?
>> Does that make sense to you, Matt?
[4:03:22] You're the one that's going to have to
in agreement with these two working
[4:03:26] committees. I we would like to know that
as
[4:03:28] » adding that we work within the two
working committees.
[4:03:31] » Okay. Two committees to start the
planning process. Right.
[4:03:34] » And we're happy to take your input on
who you want on those committees.
[4:03:38] » Okay. Okay. We have a motion on the
floor.
[4:03:41] » Is there a second to the motion?
>> Second.
[4:03:44] » Second by council member Reer. Any
further discussion or questions?
[4:03:50] » Hearing none. All in favor?
>> I Any opposed? All right, that motion
[4:03:54] passes. We will go ahead and start our
planning process.
[4:03:58] » We got there.
>> And uh certainly don't worry about
[4:04:01] asking any more questions because we are
happy to try to figure out everything we
[4:04:07] can and make things work the best way we
can. So, did you have a
[4:04:11] » I just wanted to ask really quick. So,
the committees then when will we hear
[4:04:14] who's going to be on those committees?
I'm assuming Council Member Reer is
[4:04:17] going to stay on the police one. So,
it's really just the other one.
[4:04:20] » Yeah. I mean I mean we can we can talk
about it right now if you want or I
[4:04:24] don't know.
>> Is there is there anybody that would
[4:04:26] that really has a burning desire to be
on that committee
[4:04:29] » or you can put it on another agenda?
>> Councilor President Ericson says he
[4:04:35] would like to be on the city hall
committee planning committee so so that
[4:04:39] we can we can all understand the funding
better.
[4:04:43] » Citizen raised her hand out there that
she wants to be on the committee.
[4:04:46] » Oh, you want to be on the committee
Melanie?
[4:04:50] a lot of experience in what you're
talking about. I was a manager for three
[4:04:55] years off campus. I was a dorm mom for
four.
[4:04:59] » We're happy to have a citizen member of
the committee. So, if you're
[4:05:02] volunteering, let's let's write that
down and we'll maybe after the meeting
[4:05:06] if you could give Deborah your contact
information would be great. Okay. Thank
[4:05:11] you. We appreciate you being here and
sitting through this whole meeting.
[4:05:15] » It has been fairly entertaining. I was
chief
[4:05:18] » and then the rest is going staff and
things like that for the committee.
[4:05:21] Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
[4:05:23] » Okay.
>> Um can I also
[4:05:25] » Yes. Go ahead. Council member teach.
>> Um if I would just ask that like like we
[4:05:31] did before with the police station that
if if council member couldn't be there
[4:05:34] that is over there that they try and
find another one to substitute for them.
[4:05:38] » Yeah, that's a good idea that if if for
some reason you can't be at a committee
[4:05:41] meeting, see if you can uh have a
substitute come in for you. Yeah. So if
[4:05:46] we can do that like after four,
Councilman Reer would really appreciate
[4:05:52] that. [laughter] He's back to work.
>> Oh boy.
[4:05:56] All right. Sounds good. We
[clears throat] Yeah, we'll do what we
[4:05:59] can. Yes, Chief. I just lastly want to
say thank you for the support you guys
[4:06:04] continually give us and I mean all the
the kind words and we do appreciate
[4:06:11] all the options all I mean the the
effort and time and we know that it's
[4:06:15] been thousands of hours in the past
several years and so we we appreciate
[4:06:20] that
>> and whatever decisions are made moving
[4:06:24] forward. So thank you.
>> Thank you. appreciate you and all you
[4:06:27] do. Your police department, you do a
great job and we appreciate all of you
[4:06:30] and we we want to get you set up the
best we can. So, thank you. All right,
[4:06:36] let's move on. We've got uh item number
we're on item number 10. A well, a we
[4:06:43] don't have any second readings. We do
have a third reading which is ordinance
[4:06:47] number 1355, the final assessment role
for local improvement district 54. Uh we
[4:06:53] have talked about this a couple of
times. Uh, unless there's any questions
[4:06:57] on this or conversation, I would
entertain a motion to consider ordinance
[4:07:02] 1355, third read. Is there such a
motion?
[4:07:05] » Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt
ordinance number 1355.
[4:07:10] Uh,
but and consider third red.
[4:07:14] » Yeah. Thank you. All right. Council
President, is there a second to that
[4:07:17] motion? Second by council member Reer.
Any further discuss? Oh. Oh, sorry.
[4:07:24] Um any further discussion
hearing? None. All in favor?
[4:07:29] » I.
>> Any opposed? All right. I will consider
[4:07:32] that third red. Item number 1356 is the
amendment of the fiscal year 2026
[4:07:38] budget. Uh is there any questions or or
or comments on this before we move
[4:07:43] forward hearing? None. I would entertain
a motion to consider orange 1356 third
[4:07:48] red
or number 1356
[4:07:55] 2026 budget third.
>> Thank you council member Rigggins. Is
[4:07:59] there any second to that motion?
>> I'll second it.
[4:08:02] » Second by council member Colin Ericson.
Any further discussion or questions?
[4:08:06] Hearing none. All in favor.
>> Any opposed? All right. We'll consider
[4:08:11] 1356 third red and get them entered in.
All right. The consent calendar is uh
[4:08:18] the minutes from the August 19th, 2026
meeting and the approval of the city of
[4:08:22] Rexburg bills. Is there any questions
about any of those or or or uh
[4:08:28] corrections to the minutes or anything
like that? Hearing none, I would
[4:08:32] entertain a motion to approve the
consent calendar.
[4:08:36] » I'll make a motion that we approve the
consent calendar.
[4:08:38] » Thank you, Council Member Johnson. Is
there a second?
[4:08:41] » Second by Council President Ericson. Any
further discussion? Hearing none. All in
[4:08:46] favor?
>> I.
[4:08:47] » Any opposed? All right. Consent calendar
will be done. Uh item number 12. We have
[4:08:56] a executive session as per Idaho State
Statute 74-2061F
[4:09:03] to communicate with legal council for
the public agency to discuss the legal
[4:09:06] ramifications
of and legal options for pending
[4:09:10] litigation
or controversies not yet being litigated
[4:09:14] but imminently likely to be litigated.
Um, we do need to move into an executive
[4:09:19] session for this. Is there a motion to
move into executive session? Mayor, I'll
[4:09:24] move to move into session per Ericson.
Is there a second to that motion?
[4:09:30] » I'll second that.
>> Second by council member Teen.
[4:09:33] » Uh, we need a roll call vote for
executive session. Mariana, please.
[4:09:37] » Council member Johnson.
>> Yes.
[4:09:39] » Council member Ten.
>> Yes.
[4:09:41] » Council member Colin Ericson.
>> Yes.
[4:09:43] » Council member Reer.
>> Yes.
[4:09:45] » Council member Riggins.
>> Yes.
[4:09:47] » Council President Eric Ericson.
>> Yes.
[4:09:50] » All right. That motion passes. we will
move into executive session which means
[4:09:54] that we do have to ask the audience
members to clear the room and we will
[4:10:00] deliberate after which we will come back
into session uh to adjourn so you're
[4:10:05] welcome to come back for that if you'd
like
[4:10:08] at this point in time we will move into
executive session
[4:10:14] I think we can just
Okay.