[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.

City Council Meeting 09/02/2026

Transcript