[0:01] Welcome, and good afternoon to the regular council meeting in the Mayor and the city council of the city of some valley, and call the meeting to order at 4 p.m. on September 3, 2026, the roll call, council President Griffith, council member of the dearest.

[0:22] Here.

[0:22] Come to the back, here.

[0:24] Come to the bridge.

[0:25] Come on, here.

[0:27] Pleasure to lead you.

[0:29] I'd like to call on Sergeant Sean O'Brien,

[0:33] who is visiting us from the Corvus case course,

[0:38] and light in the occasion that we will just have after this.

[0:41] Sergeant, could you lead us in the plate, please?

[0:43] Yes, sir.

[0:51] in the state of America, and in the state of the Republic for which it stands,

[0:56] the formation of your God in this world, with every and in this world.

[1:02] Thank you.

[1:06] In light of our great attendance,

[1:08] I'm going to move things up a little bit in the agenda.

[1:12] Chief Orchard would you come forward please and talk to us.

[1:24] Thank you, Mayor and Council.

[1:27] First off, we'll start with some promotions.

[1:30] within the Police Department. We've had some officers work very hard and one of those officers

[1:38] has achieved the rank of Corporal, which we know entails over a thousand hours of training,

[1:44] including the Emergency Medical Responders course, which has been very beneficial to the

[1:53] as we move forward. To start off with, I would like to call up Kyle Bryan.

[2:07] I could recognize him as one of our newest corpus and his brother, who was a sergeant

[2:14] with Clovis PD and he is going to go ahead and pin him as a new corpus.

[2:20] I

[3:00] think she's taking with her, but as usual, I'm standing up there.

[3:05] I'm marching in there.

[3:08] Don't take the, you know, not below the base.

[3:12] I believe it's all.

[3:14] Come on, one.

[3:18] Oh, this is another one.

[3:20] Hi, Mom.

[3:22] She should be in the room.

[3:23] How about one with just the brushes in Mom?

[3:26] Yeah, can I have Kyle's leather or rather come up?

[3:31] I'm sure.

[3:35] Yeah, the leather is so strong and I'm retired.

[3:37] I'm going to tell him when you hired a patrol.

[3:39] Wow.

[3:40] Thank you all.

[3:52] Okay.

[3:53] Now I would like to recognize.

[3:56] So within the department, once you promoted to Corkhole,

[3:58] you have the opportunity when we have those openings

[4:00] to promote the sergeant.

[4:02] Since we had our Lieutenant's retire after 29 and 32 years,

[4:07] We did promote. We had a rigorous testing process and an interview process where we did end up promoting

[4:15] two over our officers, two sergeants, and I would like to have Austin Hafer, and Brian Davis come up with their wives,

[4:26] because they are going to pin them as the Arneus sergeants.

[5:47] Okay,

[6:01] I'll say I have one more award issue.

[6:06] As I said, part of the EMR program has been very beneficial to this city.

[6:11] As a result of that, I would like to recognize Corporal O'Brien to come up.

[6:18] Again,

[6:26] so on July 17th, 2026, Corporal O'Brien responded out to Trial Creek Caton, where

[6:31] The medical emergency had occurred where an individual had sustained a substantial hemorrhage

[6:43] and arterial bleed.

[6:46] Kyle was able to keep a level head, apply a turnicate, and direct pressure as a result

[6:52] of his trainings, and as a result of that, the physicians were able to do some corrective surgery

[7:05] and make the statements that, because of his quick action, he was able to keep the individual

[7:13] from extanguation and preserve his life.

[7:18] So, I would like to present Kyle with a life-saving award.

[7:22] Thank you.

[7:51] Going through the mundane things.

[7:55] Let's start with council comment.

[7:57] Michelle?

[7:58] Nothing.

[7:59] Thank you, Mayor.

[7:59] Congratulations.

[8:01] Thank you all for your service.

[8:03] Thank you.

[8:04] Nothing for me?

[8:05] Keith?

[8:07] Yes.

[8:07] I just wanted to reiterate something I brought up.

[8:09] As of October we were considering the Oklahoma Secularists and that is the field of the very beneficial to the city, both from the cross-saving standpoint and from the north, from the safety standpoint.

[8:27] To consider at the next council meeting a discussion only on banning through every choice on the board road.

[8:38] Thank you.

[8:39] All right.

[8:40] Look.

[8:41] Look on it.

[8:43] City of Minnesota, Connet.

[8:44] No comment, Mr. Mayer.

[8:46] Thank you.

[8:47] Then it's my turn.

[8:49] I do have an announcement to make.

[8:53] Just a while ago, a very valuable and long standing employee.

[8:59] Or the City of Sun Valley, a retired man.

[9:02] I'm going to talk to you about Karen Stavich from the Street Department.

[9:06] And he served in the city for 37 outstanding years of service.

[9:15] The plaque that we have presented to him, or we'll give him, says your dedication has made

[9:23] a lasting impact on the city, enjoy your well-deserved retirement, to the State Department

[9:29] in 1889 to 2026, so a little note, thank you, Terrence, for your service and please enjoy

[9:38] your retirement.

[9:40] Thank you.

[9:42] Okay, let's go right into the agenda then.

[9:47] Item number one, and this is the public hearing, recommendation to hold the public hearing

[9:53] and approved resolution 20, 20, 26, ZF-Z.

[10:00] Order 9, a resolution of the city of Sun Valley, Idaho, reserve in the foregone amount for fiscal year 2027 for potential use in subsequent years as described in Idaho Code 63-802 at all. Mr. Keating.

[10:21] Thank you Mr. Mayor Jim Keating City Administrator, City of Sun Valley. You will recall, council from our 2427 budget process.

[10:31] Council approved a budget to property tax that did not take the full 3% increase allowed under

[10:36] Idaho code. That difference between what we could take versus what we did take quates

[10:42] to about 87,651 dollars, which can be considered for, quote, reservation under the same code as

[10:52] forgong revenue. A final resolution and a public hearing is required by Idaho code to make

[10:58] that reservation of dollars in any given budget year.

[11:02] That resolution for consideration is before you

[11:06] as resolution 2026-09.

[11:10] Our staff recommendation is to hold the public hearing

[11:13] and approve resolution, pending that hearing,

[11:17] approve resolution 2026-09,

[11:19] preserving the stated four-gun amount

[11:21] for fiscal year 2027.

[11:24] Thank you, comments or questions by Council before I open up the public hearing.

[11:31] Okay, I will open up for that for public comment on this agenda item number one if you would like to say anything.

[11:38] Please approach the podium, tell us who you are, and try to keep your remarks to each three minutes or less.

[11:45] We have anybody online for me that has indicated interest.

[11:50] We do have fellow people online, if somebody would like to comment on this item, the resolution

[11:55] of reserving the floor on a map, please raise your hand.

[11:58] I do see one person with their hand raised, so I will unmute you.

[12:06] Never mind, they have taken their hand down.

[12:11] Okay.

[12:12] I will close the public comment section of this agenda item.

[12:17] Council, deliberation, comments.

[12:20] Question or motion.

[12:21] I move through a proof resolution 2026-1989, the resolution of the City of Somnalia.

[12:30] I don't know what you're referring to for no one in the night.

[12:33] On the first of the year, 2027, from potential use in the subsequent years,

[12:38] as described in the night of a COVID-19,

[12:40] second and 63-8 or two without.

[12:45] Second and second.

[12:46] You have a second?

[12:47] I have a discussion.

[12:49] Well, yes, Michelle.

[12:51] Yes.

[12:53] Thank you.

[12:54] Thank you.

[12:54] If you'd like to begin, I have a number two.

[12:59] Recommendation to hold a public hearing, hold the first reading by Title Loli, and in fact

[13:04] ordinance number five, nine, zero, an ordinance of the City of Sun Valley, Idaho, amending

[13:10] the Sun Valley, Official Zoning Map by changing the Zoning District designation of T.L.

[13:16] eight six six nine zone four are one two RES one and assigning an R S one zoning to the current

[13:25] that comes on the parcel TL eight six seven zero and TL eight six seven one associated

[13:32] with ZMA 2026 dash zero one.

[13:46] Thank you mayor for the introduction I will try to project my voice towards the owl as well

[13:53] for the people on Zoom, but I know that that is not a strength of mine.

[13:58] So as noted, this first application is the rezoning application.

[14:02] There are actually two items on the agenda tonight,

[14:05] both related to the same parcels of land.

[14:09] This is the rezoning application following this is the application,

[14:13] as a preliminary plot application for a subdivision

[14:16] to reconfigure the parcels that you can see up there

[14:19] on the screen as well as long as soon.

[14:21] So, first and foremost, I want to note that our own zoning code here in Sun Valley,

[14:28] we require land that is zoned OR1 in old like a seasoning district to be re-zoned prior

[14:36] to or concurrent with any other land use application effect being land.

[14:41] So, that is one of the reasons why this application is before the council.

[14:44] The other reason is that the land or the parcels you can see on the map on the screen that

[14:50] shaded in yellow, the majority of that consists of, if not all, consists of old, right of

[14:58] way, so public right of way.

[15:00] In the city of Sun Valley, we do not assign zoning to rights of way. When this land was vacated through two different city council actions in the 2010s, zoning was not applied to this land at that time.

[15:15] And so, because these parcels, these tax lots are part of the application and under the same ownership that is associated with the preliminary plot, it is necessary to apply zoning at this time.

[15:27] So, Zaland that's in yellow is currently in zone, Zaland that's in red, that I would say

[15:34] a small portion of the entirety of the subject parcels is currently zoned OR1, and then

[15:40] everything shown on the screen and green is already zoned RS1, which is for single family.

[15:47] So, as these two applications are related, I'll kind of touch on the everyone as well,

[15:53] But, essentially, the largest parcel you can see there in green currently has a single

[16:00] family home on that piece of land and the two kind of irregular shape larger parcels

[16:07] behind that, those are actually two plated lots of record that were plated by the city.

[16:14] I believe in 1972 as part of the prospector subdivision number two.

[16:20] So those already have the RS1 zoning on them and those three parcels are eligible for single-family home development.

[16:29] So with all of that, from the staff standpoint and from the Planning and Zoning Commission standpoint,

[16:35] because they did review these applications previously and recommend approval unanimously.

[16:40] are S1 zoning is the appropriate zoning district to assign to both the vacated right of

[16:47] way as well as that smaller section in red that's currently zoned OR1. Ration off for

[16:53] that is part because it really isn't a best practice to split zone parcels and by that

[17:00] I mean it's not a best practice to apply multiple different zoning districts to the same parcel

[17:05] land. Two, all of the other development in this area, aside from the golf course. So all of

[17:13] the residential development in this area is residential single family. So again, it makes sense

[17:18] to stay consistent with that. As the proposed subdivision action is to have that action

[17:25] result in two loss eligible for one single family has each. I do know there has been some public

[17:32] comment related to perhaps other zoning districts that could fit here.

[17:37] I do want to note that the OR-1 zoned parcel that kind of surrounds the outer boundaries

[17:45] of these parcels.

[17:47] That's one large contiguous parcel that is owned by Sun Valley Company.

[17:52] Part of it is developed as a golf course.

[17:54] And part of it is the steeper hillside that rises up to the east.

[17:59] They've never as a property owner come in and subdivided that and parcel that out.

[18:06] It's Zoned O R1, which is the legacy zoning district we no longer have on the books here in Sun Valley,

[18:12] and it stood for open recreation.

[18:14] So essentially it was one zoning district that combined both open spaces uses and recreation.

[18:19] We as the city did away with that zoning designation I believe in 2006,

[18:24] and we now have one zoning district for open space, one for recreation.

[18:28] at some point in time in the future that property may need to get

[18:33] rezoned to something different but at this point in time the subject

[18:36] applications are requesting RS1 zoning and through the staff analysis that

[18:40] is found to be the appropriate zoning designation for this land. So since it's

[18:47] concurrent applications I know that we can cover both together and open the

[18:51] public hearing and have comments address both so I can move to this

[18:54] subdivision application next and I will go change the image on the screen

[18:58] really quickly.

[19:37] I'll start with this one although the other I think really

[19:40] pertinent images the topography map below this but to talk specifically about

[19:45] the proposed subdivision. As you can see on this screen there are kind of two

[19:49] large black outline parcels. Those are the two proposed new parcels that would

[19:55] become the big well subdivision.

[19:57] Lots one would contain the existence.

[20:00] Sting home, and that is the parcel where you can see the outline of the footprint of a structure within the pink box, which is the proposed building envelope.

[20:09] Lot 2 would be at the rear, and that lot would have its access come from the dead end of the existing prospector road right away.

[20:19] And as you can see on the screen, in kind of the shaded darker gray color, that is where the proposed new private driveway,

[20:27] and fire apparatus turn around or proposed to be constructed.

[20:31] That would serve that lot in the back and ready it for future development, perhaps at some point time in the future.

[20:40] So, in going through both the subdivision and the preliminary plot process with planning and zoning commission.

[20:48] As the council saw, we did receive quite a bit of public comment.

[20:51] And I also want to note that we've received two new public comments in the past 24 hours related to these applications.

[20:57] which have been transmitted to council.

[21:00] So as noted in the staff report, it's really the subdivision application that has more,

[21:05] I would say, analysis and special conditions recommended for consideration by council,

[21:10] so we'll cover those now.

[21:12] So first and foremost, the planning and zoning commission did recommend two special

[21:16] conditions that were approval.

[21:17] They're noted in the staff report.

[21:20] One was in response to public comment, and it was a recommended condition from the commission

[21:25] that the driveway access and fire apparatus turn around that will be installed as part of

[21:31] this subdivision option that those have an asphalt surface at this time.

[21:36] The applicant is currently proposing to have that surface and gravel.

[21:40] So it's a discretion of the council to require that to be paved now or not impose that

[21:46] mission or perhaps the place, some other, some other alternatives such as a plot note

[21:53] stating that shall be paid in the future at the time that building permit, or design

[21:59] review rather, or design review, building permit or saw.

[22:01] So I just want to note that the recommendation of P and Z was to have a condition that

[22:06] required it to be asphalt, correct?

[22:08] And how did the asphalt now?

[22:10] So it's part of the subdivision application that the driveway in the dark proportion,

[22:15] as well as the spur for the fire apparatus turnaround. Those will be constructed. They've then

[22:21] designed to withstand the weight of fire apparatus and because it's a private driveway,

[22:27] not a private street, it's a private driveway, it can be a gravel surface with no need for a special

[22:32] condition. So some of the public comment brought up the potential for kind of like dust and impacts and

[22:38] things like that with future residents using that driveway, delivery, trucks, etc.

[22:45] So, paving it would mitigate that impact and that is especially, that's why the commission

[22:49] recommended that.

[22:50] But again, I just want to note it is discretionary and it's up to the council to decide

[22:54] whether to impose that now or at some future point or to let that be discussed at some

[22:59] point in time in the future if a design review application comes forward.

[23:03] So those are the options there.

[23:05] The second recommendation from the planning and zoning commission, which staff also supports and discusses in the staff report,

[23:13] is that we utilize the existing topography to establish record grade for the property.

[23:20] We are our scope specifically allows for that.

[23:23] Our definition of record grade states that through a plotting exercise or plot action,

[23:29] record grade can be reestablished.

[23:31] So, due to limitations with the 1964 survey, both with how that survey was conducted, plus land

[23:40] alteration that's occurred over time.

[23:43] On the staff side, I don't recommend using that as record-grade going forward.

[23:47] I think there's too much room for uncertainty there, but we have current topography, and I

[23:53] think it's appropriate to use that now because we have a very granular one-foot contour interval,

[23:58] So it makes it a lot more objective to establish where the contours are and use those going forward as a baseline.

[24:06] So the Commission recommended did that as well.

[24:08] And so that is also the staff recommendation and that's included in the draft by news effect.

[24:12] So those were the two main recommendations that came out of the planning and zoning commission process.

[24:18] Other things I'd like to touch on are

[24:21] Disturbance of 25% or disturbance of slopes, record grades, slopes,

[24:26] greater than 25%. So our code definitely speaks to this. We are all very aware of our

[24:32] hillside ordinance and the intent behind that to protect our hillside from disturbance and

[24:37] to just generally protect our lands from development and sensitive areas. So again, one of the

[24:45] challenges was trying to rely on the 1964 survey is kind of dispute over record grade,

[24:51] wasn't altered before 1964, you know, how much can we rely on those

[24:56] topography lines to show 25% slopes, etc.

[25:00] So, staff's recommendation, when we use the current topo, then we can clearly see where 25% slope is, and then we can evaluate that against our code.

[25:12] So, due to a tax amendment, a couple of years back, we now have specific allowances, where disturbances to record grade 25% slope can be permitted.

[25:23] There are two that I find to be applicable here, one allows for the disturbance of slope that are the toe of a slope.

[25:34] So if you're familiar with the typography of Fairway Road and this general vicinity, the hillside rises at behind.

[25:41] And so I would characterize this area where the road, not roadside.

[25:44] Driveways proposed to be the toe of a slope.

[25:47] So our code specifically allows for some minor encroachments into that area, provided doing so doesn't push development further up the hill.

[25:56] So when you look at this proposal here, the just the way the land is in the ownership where that land, the lot at the back isn't up hill from where the road is, up hill rises this direction.

[26:10] So I find that to be an applicable allowance for that disturbance.

[26:14] The other applicable allowance is specifically to construct access that needs to meet

[26:21] fire code standards.

[26:23] So we are aware from earlier after Title VII that drive ways cannot exceed a 7% slope unless

[26:28] there is special approval from the fire chief and that it cannot exceed 10% at all under any

[26:34] circumstance.

[26:34] So, again, this is already a previously disturbed flat earth section of the land that is subject

[26:44] to this application.

[26:46] So, using that existing flatter road bend and grading it appropriately to truly attribute those

[26:52] slopes and the necessary widths and then install retainage and things like that.

[26:56] So, the hillside state stable does require some encroachment into some 25% slope as indicated

[27:02] of the applicant's plan. But again, it's for access. What will point out as well is that

[27:08] any subdivision application, any time you establish a building envelope, the building envelope must

[27:14] contain no greater than 50 percent or no greater than 50 percent of the square footage in the

[27:21] envelope can be above 15 percent. 50 percent of the square footage has to be between 0 percent

[27:28] low and 15, no percentage of the building on below can contain 25% slope.

[27:34] So neither of these building envelopes contain 25% slope, and they both exceed that requirement

[27:39] that at least half of the building on below has slopes 15% or less.

[27:45] So these subdivision application is not proposing to facilitate in any way a home being constructed

[27:52] on a steeply sloped area.

[27:55] furthermore in the staff report, I characterize as areas as mid-slope, fairly wrote as further

[28:02] downslope, back payway in established plated subdivision area is upslope above this and

[28:09] then the hillside goes beyond that.

[28:11] So in terms of other aspects of our hillside ordinance, visibility, homes being located on hillside,

[28:19] ridge lines, ridge tops, summits, et cetera, these neither of these two lots meet those characteristics.

[28:29] So I just wanted to note that because that was heavily brought up in public comment.

[28:34] The other couple of things I'd like to point out are a special condition recommended by the

[28:40] commission as well as staff that, and this is kind of what goes without saying, but sometimes it's

[28:45] to include these for redundancy. But part of the grading plan as proposed currently includes

[28:53] some grading within the right of way, the prospective road right of way, some grading on

[28:57] some valley company property. We as a city don't issue permits for people to do work on land they

[29:02] don't know. So we included a special condition of approval at the PNZ level that permission from

[29:09] on Valley Company needs to be obtained prior to disturbing land that they own, and then through

[29:16] the city's process, prior to issuing a grading permit for that construction and encroachment

[29:20] permit would also be necessary.

[29:23] I had kind of an old holdover stating that perhaps getting that permission from Sun Valley Company

[29:31] to do the grading permit prior to Council's review of this application should occur at the

[29:39] This is a holdover in the staff report, so I just wanted to note that really what's appropriate is to have permissions from the landowner prior to the actual work occurring.

[29:50] It's also possible that the applicant team could kind of send us some of the alignment and not need to make those encroachments.

[29:58] The civil plans have been reviewed by the city.

[30:00] And our found to be achievable, meet all code standards, et cetera, but they aren't the final construction plans, so that would come at the time of a grading permit application.

[30:11] So the other thing you want to touch on is, again, kind of a need for a retaining wall or an easement. This one's a lot more minor, because all of the land is controlled by the property owner, but it is a recommended special condition of approval that,

[30:25] But, either, again, the grading kind of gets the nest so that the fire apparatus turnaround

[30:30] does not need potential future maintenance as access from lot one, or that there is a

[30:38] spring easement put in place so that at such time lot two would be sold and easement would

[30:43] go into effect that would allow future maintenance of the retaining walls that are necessary

[30:49] adjacent to the fire apparatus turnaround.

[30:51] So this one's kind of a detail, but I think as we've learned recently with other applications,

[30:55] it's really important to have those easements in place, because although there's one owner

[31:00] of all this land today that may not be the case in the future, and since the fire apparatus

[31:04] turnaround is necessary, from the fire code standpoint, being able to maintain that in the future

[31:09] is also necessary. So the last thing I'll point out because this is also come up in public comment.

[31:16] I didn't touch on it in the staff report, but in terms of access, this is the preferred

[31:22] recommended access from the fire department in the city engineer.

[31:27] Because it's the flatest access to that rear lot.

[31:31] We actually on the staff side even suggested to the applicant early on to explore coming off

[31:37] of the back payway up above.

[31:39] We thought perhaps there would be gentler grades or just a shorter distance.

[31:43] We also asked them to explore trying to work with some valley company to come through.

[31:47] Look, of course, those were suggestions that we cannot require people to go out and obtain land they do not own.

[31:54] So this applicant owns this land here and because of the relative less steep nature of it,

[32:04] this is the access that staff recommends.

[32:07] The other piece to know about, gosh, I'd one more thought on Access, but I just lost it.

[32:13] But essentially, that was a really important piece.

[32:16] The other thing, which I just remembered the point, was that when city council

[32:21] vacated the lower section of Prospector Road, within our warehouse clause and that ordinance,

[32:28] we acknowledged that the public right of way was being vacated

[32:32] So, that in the future, whoever owned those two lots could install a private driveway through that land to access them.

[32:41] So, we, the city, did that in the memorialized that back in 2013 through the action that turned the public land into private land.

[32:51] So, it's been known for decades from 1972 when the two rear loss were plated, that that's where access would come from.

[33:01] and it was reaffirmed in 2013 that that be where a driveway goes.

[33:06] Now, granted, applicants can always find a explore better solution.

[33:09] We're happy to entertain it, but from the staff side, we feel the applicants did that,

[33:13] and that this is the best point of access.

[33:17] So, with that, I think I've covered all of the pertinent points of the staff report.

[33:24] I hope I'm not missing anything, but we do have the applicant team here who will present as well,

[33:29] And then I'm happy to see them for any questions.

[33:31] Nice to have a question now.

[33:34] So the back two lots were contemplated

[33:38] to be accessed off of the vacated public right of once.

[33:44] What was the contemplated access for the other parcels?

[33:47] So the other parcels are, I would call them

[33:53] remnant lots.

[33:54] They're essentially land-locked tax-lot parcels

[33:57] that over the course of time, the subject property owners acquired, I think I believe largely

[34:04] from Sun Valley Company because that's what surrounds them.

[34:07] Those tax lots never went through a plotting process with the city.

[34:12] So aside from the larger tax lot that has the home on it that obviously the city reviewed

[34:18] and approved and allowed that home to be built, the other smaller pieces have never been

[34:23] put forward to the city to be developed and there would be a different process, should

[34:27] someone want to or try to, let's say,

[34:30] bill it on that, 4500 square foot,

[34:33] part that's owned over one.

[34:35] Cities generally go through a process

[34:37] of determining how did that tax law come to be,

[34:40] was it through a legal purpose,

[34:42] or was it parceled off by deed?

[34:45] Sometimes cities will make a ruling that,

[34:48] that tax law was created in a way that isn't valid,

[34:51] and so you can't put a home on it.

[34:53] Other times, and the softened comes into play

[34:55] with like mining claims,

[34:57] It existed as its own parcel for a very, very long time.

[35:00] On time, hundred years, and so the city recognizes, okay, you can build something on it.

[35:05] And the large parcel with the house that's shown there was always contemplated to come off of the, yeah, off of the Colta Sack.

[35:14] Okay, thank you very much.

[35:17] I'd like them to take in a motion, have their antenna motion, to respond any action on these two items for a reasonable amount of time not to exceed 60 days.

[35:34] The reason for that is I believe there are a lot of loose energy here.

[35:38] This morning, we received a very detailed objection from one of the neighbors, which is not a subject of being adjudicated at this point.

[35:51] We've got letters from attorneys to deal with.

[35:55] I don't feel comfortable and making a decision on this until I had an opportunity to consult with our city attorney to guide us on what the proper course of action is.

[36:08] to many of this seems like a very complicated issue, and if we should do it right, not to

[36:17] conclusions, what they swayed by the volume of the letters in opposition. I think we have

[36:24] to reasonably take any opposition into account. And at the same time, we shouldn't be swayed

[36:33] letters or comments in favor of, I think we need to have the opportunity, as I said, to consult

[36:43] with our attorney and give this reasonable amount of time to adjust everything that's before

[36:52] us now, rather than just jumping in and making a decision now, they don't need to not be

[37:02] such that you can change it.

[37:05] Is there any counsel support for key stocks for you to postpone this?

[37:10] We're not asking for the form of information.

[37:19] I don't hear any support for that, so can I conclude then we're able to proceed with these

[37:28] Matt or what we're stepping on a year, it keeps us making much of our eyes a second to do.

[37:36] We'll be going all the time of later to you, you're still in the midst of your public hearing.

[37:41] So, Brittany, what are you looking at?

[37:44] Yes.

[37:45] Other gravel roads in the sort of fairway area?

[37:49] Gosh, I did not do an analysis, but I'll just mention again, I know, road driveway.

[37:55] Sorry.

[37:57] Yes, I did not do in analysis of that, but yes, strike way, not right.

[38:07] No trouble.

[38:08] Other questions with us for ripping?

[38:12] Yeah.

[38:12] I have a couple of it, but I understand this correctly.

[38:17] You said that way back when there were two parties?

[38:20] Yes.

[38:22] Two parties lost.

[38:24] So, they could have been built on.

[38:27] Correct.

[38:28] So, this is, if I understand this, you're actually taking a bunch and you're just

[38:34] making too bad.

[38:35] But so, you're almost lessening the density.

[38:39] That's correct.

[38:40] And that's how staff looks at it.

[38:41] I look at it as three existing, I'd say, buyable development parcels.

[38:46] And that's a, and then consolidating those three down to just two

[38:49] through the subdivision action.

[38:52] Okay.

[38:53] 10 to the second. I guess I, what is this black stuff here? What is that?

[38:59] Yeah, so the black indicates where the private driveway will be constructed more or less.

[39:07] Then what is this?

[39:09] Yep, so then the black, the spur, is the fire apparatus turnaround, which is required due to the length of that driveway.

[39:15] And then kind of the little offsets, those represent the proposed retaining wall.

[39:19] And then beyond that, there's kind of a hash mark that gets closer to the building on

[39:23] below.

[39:24] That is not proposed to be constructed at that time at this time, remember?

[39:28] It was drawn in there to show it's viable to reach that proposed building on

[39:34] below, and also that there's adequate space to build a second fire apparatus

[39:38] turnaround, which would be necessary at the time of construction of a home, again, due to

[39:43] the length of that road.

[39:45] It's driving, driving, driving, sorry.

[39:47] I also read a number of the letters that we received regarding this issue mentioned open space.

[39:57] And I remember way back when we talked.

[40:00] What about O.R.1? O.R.1 is not open space. O.R.1 is open recreational. And I think we went through this when we talked about this, everybody said, well, don't be noticed. It's not, and it was a little meant to be open, recreation and with certain nuances and certain requirements and certain restrictions.

[40:25] But the fact that it was too flat a lot back there for an awfully long time, it shouldn't

[40:33] ever have been considered or recognized as a built-in space.

[40:36] I think they're talking about the pink one, but even on our one has allowable uses among them

[40:42] a campground.

[40:44] You could do a lot on that lot.

[40:47] The other thing on the RS1 zoning district, the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet.

[40:53] So even if there was a strong feeling that the 4,000 square foot plus minus section should be zoneed open space or recreation going forward,

[41:03] that would not preclude want one or lot to from being constructed.

[41:07] There's about, and again, rough numbers, about 200,000 square feet here.

[41:13] So if zoning was the way the city wanted to go, that could happen.

[41:17] The home sites, as you can see, the building on the looks, would be outside of that OR1 slash potentially other zone at the end.

[41:25] And then the former vacated, right of way, currently has no zoning on it.

[41:33] So, it's not a matter of going from OR1 to something else, it's a matter of applying zoning.

[41:37] That could have been done back in 2010 and 2013. It didn't happen at that time.

[41:42] So this would be establishing zoning for that area, at this point in time, and since it's proposed to be a driveway to serve a single family house lot,

[41:50] RS1 zoning is the most logical appropriate zoning district for that.

[41:57] Matt, can I open up the public comment?

[42:02] On agenda item number two and three together or do we need to open them separately, you can allow people to comment on this.

[42:12] Okay, so we would, I'll say thank you very much.

[42:17] We'll say we will open public comment regarding agenda item number two and three.

[42:25] And take note of that and then we will come back to council for the deliberation.

[42:30] You want to do that before the applicant?

[42:32] Yes.

[42:32] Oh, would the applicant like to?

[42:34] We was.

[42:36] Please step forward.

[42:37] I apologize.

[42:38] Thank you.

[43:00] Good afternoon.

[43:01] Mayor and city council.

[43:03] I'm Elizabeth Kécritz.

[43:04] I'm land use council.

[43:06] On behalf of the applicant,

[43:08] my dress is 601.

[43:09] Banic drive, voice the Idaho.

[43:11] I'm with given's personally.

[43:14] I'm also with me today is Tom Pregustus.

[43:17] He is representing the owners of this group.

[43:20] of these properties, as well as Dave Patrie, our land use planner, they will be able to answer

[43:27] the questions I cannot, including if you have any specific questions on how these

[43:32] parcels came to be all under one ownership, what that history is, and then maybe some of

[43:37] the more specific details about setbacks, that sort of thing. It's been a while since I've been

[43:45] So I'm really happy to be back here in front of you guys. I do want to start by saying thank you to Brittney

[43:51] She has been a really helpful to this whole process. It's so nice to come here and have land use planners that call you back

[43:59] He may be back the really help walk you through this and so you guys are really lucky to have her here

[44:06] What we believe we are here is on a fairly simple

[44:11] Resown and preliminary platt.

[44:14] We're taking essentially three, as the mayor just noted,

[44:18] three buildable locks and reducing them to two buildable locks.

[44:23] One of them already has a lot on it.

[44:25] With that, there are in total eight different

[44:28] remnant parcels that came about through

[44:31] a long confusing history,

[44:34] but they are all now and have been since 2014 under the ownership

[44:39] of the dump key family or their company, ECD.

[44:44] And so at this time, we are in agreement

[44:46] with all of the recommended conditions of approval,

[44:50] except for the one about paving, which we'll discuss.

[44:54] And let's go on with this.

[44:57] So here is the rezone.

[44:58] Brittany already covered this.

[45:00] This in really good detail. The family's underlats since 2014. There's 10 parcels in total. It's hard to tell, but just even that drive is three separate parcels.

[45:13] And so now they really want to just clean up these lotlines and turn it into the parcel where the house currently exists.

[45:20] And then one second parcel instead of having 10 separate lots floating around out there.

[45:27] There has been recently the argument when it was made previously, too, that the property needs to be

[45:33] zoned to recreation because that is what conforms to the future land use map.

[45:40] I would submit that is absolutely not correct. The code simply requires that the zoning

[45:49] be consistent with the future land use map, not identical, and that Idaho courts have also

[45:56] recognize the consistency with the future land use map and with the

[46:00] comp plan is all that's required. It also just from a practical standpoint

[46:05] does not make sense to have some sort of recreational split zones

[46:10] property here. Here by zoning the property the whole property

[46:15] everything RS1 it doesn't change that specific little corners properties

[46:21] recreational and open space character. It creates no additional density. It has no traffic.

[46:29] There's no utilities. There's no grading. There's no environmental impacts. And the building permit,

[46:35] the building envelopes just don't go into this small triangle of red OR property. The property,

[46:44] It's not developable, and so the RS zone is consistent with the recreational designation

[46:50] in this place, this case, as applied to this particular development.

[46:57] And then, throughout with the rest of the comp plan, one of the big things of resounds

[47:00] is compliance with the comp plan, and there is ample support throughout the rest of the

[47:10] really just less development equals less impact on the environment. There's less grading,

[47:17] there's less materials use, there's just all of the things that come along with going from

[47:22] three lots to two lots. It absolutely fine support in the comp plan. Then the preliminary

[47:29] plat, Brittany also did a really nice job of covering this. We are asking for a straight up preliminary

[47:35] We are not asking for any special waivers, we've not requested any variances, we're not requesting any sort of special exceptions.

[47:45] Fire has looked at this and engineering has looked at this and they have approved these plats.

[47:52] Everything is absolutely totally just a city code.

[47:56] Um,

[48:00] yeah, the hydrants will go in at the time of building permit, this, the fire access

[48:05] road.

[48:05] It's only being paved.

[48:06] I think Brittany did touch on this a little bit.

[48:08] It's only being constructed to the end of the darkest shaded area, which then allows

[48:15] if and when this property is sold, it allows whoever purchases it to decide how that's

[48:21] going to look going in at the last little bit, but it doesn't make sense to put in a drive

[48:26] it may not be in the final location of the people who would ultimately potentially own this

[48:31] property.

[48:34] One of the questions that has come up throughout is access in slopes and there's been

[48:41] a lot of talk about this 25-foot slope.

[48:46] The approximate limits of disturbance for the driveway, it's currently about 22,000 square feet

[48:52] And the disturbance above that 25% slope that's shown there in the yellow, and that only comes

[48:59] to about 1,000 square feet, which is only 4.7% of the total area above the slope line,

[49:07] which really does fit in with those code provisions that Brittany was talking about.

[49:16] We do agree with all of the conditions of approval, which she did mention that one change

[49:22] to condition of approval 1B, where we have to, of course, show that Sun Valley has provided

[49:29] their approval for us to go on to their property if we have to for grading, except for

[49:36] the Paving Condition. There's no immediate plans to sell this property at any time, any time

[49:44] soon, and it will be held in common ownership, potentially now and for some length of time.

[49:51] We don't want to have to pave and then repave in the future.

[49:55] This sort of the pavement on these driveways.

[49:58] I mean they're not getting used.

[49:59] It's just a tear.

[50:00] We're reading out in the open air. And there are also, at this point in time, gravel makes sense, because

[50:10] there isn't going to be, there's no, there's not going to be any dust, because there's not going to be any traffic.

[50:16] We are proposing that it get paved at such time as someone by, you know, purchase the property, comes before you for a designer view, goes to get their building permit.

[50:27] that's when you would do it and then they can do the whole thing all at once and to us,

[50:33] if no one's building, it's a private drive. There should be absolutely no traffic on this road,

[50:41] so it shouldn't be an issue until such time as it does go to that get developed at some point in the

[50:47] future. And with that, we would request approval of the Big Well's

[50:53] Reson and the preliminary class. Can you go back to the

[50:59] diagrams so this one? I know the one that shows the proposed

[51:03] second lot. So the expectation is that the private

[51:07] drive is part of the newly developed or the newly created

[51:13] Yeah, it's a great question.

[51:17] It's a really long flag lot that includes that whole drive.

[51:21] It's all part of that one lot.

[51:24] It's a really long flag.

[51:25] So really long flagged with the currently unveiled proposed new parcel.

[51:30] Yes.

[51:30] Thank you.

[51:31] Okay, I have a question for you on that shaded area.

[51:34] What is the current condition of the roadway?

[51:42] It's a private, it's a dirt, what is it like that?

[51:47] It appears to be speed, and the owner can speak more to this, just sort of unused, it's

[51:53] been used in the past, it's disturbed sort of too track, like what you have going on through

[51:57] the woods, that occasionally someone drives down, but not very often, it's relatively flat,

[52:03] and it just sort of goes along the hillside there, but with lots of grass and flowers and things.

[52:08] It doesn't have any improvement in the underlying surface, is that right?

[52:14] So there was, if it was a dirt road to the...

[52:16] There has been.

[52:17] This is still a dirt road.

[52:18] I'd ask Mr. Pichita to respond to that.

[52:23] I haven't been in up there in a long time,

[52:25] but one night I was up there.

[52:27] You're used to being told that.

[52:29] Actually, I don't know.

[52:30] I don't know.

[52:31] I don't know.

[52:32] I'd like to.

[52:36] David Pageary with Glean to Benchmark Engineering.

[52:39] The answer is for there's some very degraded pavement there for a portion of it and then

[52:48] it does become more of a two track.

[52:51] So it's a mix of possibly have been improved at some distant point in the past and really

[53:01] just kind of have been driven over and a new to track roadway has been made.

[53:09] Would you define to track or I think that it would be repeated traffic from vehicles that

[53:18] are able to navigate non-improved roads.

[53:24] Repeated use of that to access the area.

[53:28] Okay, thank you.

[53:36] Any other questions or comments for the panel?

[53:46] Now, I can open up to the public comment section

[53:50] for agenda item number two and number three.

[53:54] Setting rules of five, please.

[53:56] If you're from the podium, tell us who you are.

[53:59] And please give me three minutes or less.

[54:05] And written in your field review, online people

[54:11] I'd like to comment on this item or these two applications, raise your hand above

[54:18] due.

[54:24] Thank you.

[54:25] Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Council.

[54:29] My name is John Lee, Mr. Stewart, and I live at 205, Prospector Row.

[54:34] So you will see it just to the west of the yellow line there.

[54:41] Would you mind bringing up the next, the previous screen, that one?

[54:47] I would like to even start here because the planning and zoning changed the surface of

[54:55] that proposed road from gravel.

[55:00] And polarized walk to a solid surface on my comments, because as you see, we're talking my properties here, the world is right here.

[55:11] Which property is yours, man?

[55:13] The red one.

[55:17] Thank you.

[55:19] Thank you.

[55:19] You're welcome.

[55:21] And yeah, if you can bring that down.

[55:22] Okay, so you can see that the edge of my property is right there.

[55:27] Now, as you go down,

[55:29] where the upgrade for Prospector Road,

[55:34] that rises up to a point just about even with my property.

[55:39] the north east line of my property and so that rises the proposal initially was a gravel, dirt,

[55:48] or a gradual up row. I had great concern about that. I lived right there, it's going to be right here over my head,

[55:56] and they're going to build it up. And so I requested that it become a solid surface.

[56:03] This would be the only way that I could live there. Otherwise I would have sell my property.

[56:09] And I don't want to have to do that.

[56:12] It's not to be a solid surface.

[56:15] I've heard that it's discretionary,

[56:19] but the planning and zoning recommended

[56:21] after listening to my remarks.

[56:23] They requested that it be solid surface.

[56:28] And I asked them also to carry that solid surface

[56:31] beyond my property line so that I don't have dust and gravel,

[56:36] which is at first to my health.

[56:39] It's adverse to my enjoyment of my property.

[56:43] I paid millions of dollars, I've been invested millions of dollars, and I want to live there in peace.

[56:50] I'm opposed to the entire road, because I believe that it disturbs an enormous amount of hillside.

[57:00] I know that they are going to bring in bulldozers and excavators.

[57:04] They are going to move time, after time, after time.

[57:08] of soil off the earth. Now that foothill is very steep. It is alluvial soil. It's not compacted.

[57:18] It's not firm. It's alluvial soil. And when they come in there excavated to get this

[57:25] road in there where it really doesn't fit to begin with is to me absolutely astounding. I would think that this

[57:39] would be in violation of your city ordinance regarding hillside disturbance.

[57:46] We're talking about about 600 to 600, the defeat of drive and 600 to 650 feet of excavation

[57:57] of that material. This seems impractical, geological to me.

[58:05] Thank you. And so I believe that the applicants could easily access and get access to their proposed

[58:19] lot, by going through 204 big wells rub. They already have the drive in place. Initially

[58:30] they said they didn't want to disturb their spring, they could build a bridge across

[58:38] that spring. And then beyond the house to the proposed property is a short distance, not

[58:48] Thank you.

[58:55] Anyone else in the room?

[58:58] Let's take a comment.

[59:00] Online if we can.

[59:01] Okay.

[59:02] I think Stephen Coying your hand is raised and won't let me in you.

[59:19] We can hear you.

[59:21] Okay.

[59:21] Thank you.

[59:22] I want to continue to reiterate that there are

[59:24] other alternatives for this Broadway extension,

[59:28] which you may consider just trying to sleep with.

[59:31] Hold on.

[59:32] Second please.

[59:33] Could you identify yourself?

[59:34] I apologize, Stephen Coyne, resigned at 204 Prospector Root and send that up.

[59:43] Thank you.

[59:49] Thank you.

[59:50] Council Member Satch for attempting to postpone this until you all agree with me.

[59:55] I hope you've solved the more with some of the what we consider to be incomplete information with you.

[1:00:00] On occasion,

[1:00:02] on occasion, on occasion to accessing this law, and there's been a lot of discussion about zoning and open space and disturbance, ratios, and I disagree with a lot of them because I've taken my own measurements on this road. And the applicant who got up and said that the disturbance was only going to be so large is not telling the full story, because the new bit of this driveway requirements, especially with

[1:00:31] the higher the permanent crew was,

[1:00:33] and it'd be much larger than the existing

[1:00:35] but slightly more than 10 feet

[1:00:37] that the asphalt dilapidated asphalt

[1:00:39] and dirt fits with it.

[1:00:42] So we have that, we have the alternative studies

[1:00:44] for accessing this lock through the big levels,

[1:00:48] property of lock ones, and then we also have the impact

[1:00:52] and the public sentiment that was put in

[1:00:55] the letter that you received, where we have,

[1:00:58] not one person being supported with this,

[1:01:01] yet there's, you know, one applicant that benefits in this to all of our detriment.

[1:01:09] And I'm showing the sewer basically at the name on the head, with there will be so many trucks

[1:01:15] for excavation, for installation on the grid, grading, and under land and base work.

[1:01:23] And asphalt work and concrete work, it's going to be an absolute war zone for the duration

[1:01:32] And I just don't think that it's appropriate to approve this on the application because

[1:01:40] there are two of the dates that are more environmentally friendly and less impactful to the neighborhood.

[1:01:48] And I don't think that it has been very well caught out.

[1:01:51] I can come down to a little bit for a month and break it as well.

[1:01:54] So with that, I'll read a review.

[1:01:56] I'm going to start to read the first issue.

[1:01:59] Do you deny this or at least postpone it?

[1:02:01] Do you get more acquainted with the facts that can.

[1:02:04] Thank you.

[1:02:06] Thank you.

[1:02:18] Good afternoon.

[1:02:19] Good afternoon.

[1:02:20] Good afternoon.

[1:02:21] My name is David Stride.

[1:02:23] I'm with the Back Payway, Homer's Home Owners Association.

[1:02:27] And I reside at 12 Back Payway.

[1:02:29] This project, this development is directly in front of my home, I know I only have three minutes, I'm going to keep to it.

[1:02:40] Yes, you're welcome.

[1:02:42] It seems like there are three issues here.

[1:02:45] One is the legality of this application under the hillside ordinance.

[1:02:50] The second is the impact on the neighborhood and then the third is the precedent you're going to set for public policy going forward.

[1:02:57] I want to speak primarily to the second issue, which is the impact on the neighborhood.

[1:03:04] But first, just quickly on the outside ordinance, it's clear me when I read that document.

[1:03:11] That number one, there must be a regional, a regional topography map that is used.

[1:03:16] In this case, we have that.

[1:03:19] And there's no reason to dismiss it.

[1:03:21] And second, that there shouldn't be a majority of construction on a slope that exceeds 25%.

[1:03:28] In this instance, we had an analysis done by the IDOL survey group.

[1:03:32] You'll probably hear something in verbal about this.

[1:03:35] They conclude that 80% of this area of the new driveway would be on topography that exceeds a 25% slope.

[1:03:43] That's an clear violation of the letter and the intent of the hillside ordinance.

[1:03:50] So this is not a diminimous impact on the hillside and it's not a diminimous impact to the neighbors.

[1:03:56] Let's be clear. This is a 600-foot long road that's going to be way over 20 feet wide.

[1:04:03] And after all the construction is done, the disturbance will exceed 20,000 square feet.

[1:04:07] So the visual impact will be 20,000 square feet.

[1:04:11] The alternative going through big wells would be less than 10 percent of that.

[1:04:17] Secondly, all the folks in the homeowner association at BackPayway are going to be negatively

[1:04:24] impacted, because we're going to be looking down the barrel of a road.

[1:04:28] This is right between us and Valdi, and currently it's a hillside, and we will have

[1:04:34] headlights beaming into our living rooms that diminishes our quality of life, and it impacts

[1:04:39] our copy values in a negative way.

[1:04:42] Third, you will hear from other folks that the construction of this road is going to destroy

[1:04:46] public access to a hiking trail, which is right on the border of this road.

[1:04:52] There's been no solution to the public safety issues associated with that.

[1:04:56] There's going to be drop offs fire truck turn around.

[1:05:00] Not great. And there's a simple alternative that does not harm the applicant. It's simply accessing this property through another route, through their own land, through their own existing lot by extending this driveway on either side of the existing house.

[1:05:18] So I'll wrap it up there, thank you, I appreciate your work on this and your attention to it

[1:05:24] and your reading of all the public comments.

[1:05:28] But if you balance, if you're doing a balancing test here, on the one hand you have 26 public

[1:05:34] comments opposed to this, who are going to be harmed by this.

[1:05:39] You have 20,000 plus square foot visual impact, and three million pounds of earth, if you do the math, that's going to be removed from this hillside, which is in excess of 36,000 cubic feet.

[1:05:54] That's extraordinary, so this is not just some little drive way, but there's an alternative that would not be harmful to the applicant.

[1:06:02] And I hope that you take that into consideration and deny this application.

[1:06:09] Thank you.

[1:06:10] Thank you.

[1:06:20] Eric Council member.

[1:06:21] My name is Matt Moriarty.

[1:06:23] I'm an attorney for the adjacent homeowners and neighbors here.

[1:06:27] My address is 675.

[1:06:28] So I'm about to road.

[1:06:30] First, I just want to have you acknowledge,

[1:06:34] kind of on the front end that the way applicants are discussing.

[1:06:36] talking, there's not a rush here. Their plan is to eventually sell this law and for someone else to buy this

[1:06:43] lot, so there's time. Second, on the rezoning issue, I want to be clear what Sun Valley code says,

[1:06:50] you're looking at it, Sun Valley code 9-bb-9, and what that requires is consistency with the future of the

[1:07:07] section of land that is the old right away is not soaked. What is immediately next to it

[1:07:12] on the right is the open space designation. So you should be looking at that and I

[1:07:18] will acknowledge to the left is the residential. That is there but if you look at this

[1:07:24] as a whole what you're really looking at is how that will enable the construction of

[1:07:35] I would also say that the tax law up to the North that is and the flume considered for recreational use.

[1:07:44] Quickly, because we are short on time.

[1:07:48] I do want to say that historical facts previously have been considered by the Commission.

[1:07:53] Apparently we are bringing them up here now.

[1:07:55] I will note that this is part of a subdivision where it requires approval by the design committee of the

[1:08:02] Somalia Elcorne Association. We would add a minimum asset requirement be a special condition that they get

[1:08:10] that before they can start. I would also say that the alternate route here that's been discussed at large is a huge issue

[1:08:18] could especially considering everything that's going on.

[1:08:23] So the topographical map that staff is asking you to consider is brand new.

[1:08:27] And they're saying in acknowledging that it is based off of manipulated land.

[1:08:33] The 1964 map has been able to, they've been able to pull the topographical map from that,

[1:08:40] that is page 48 in your packet that exhibit as part of the letter.

[1:08:45] And it shows where the 25% grade would be.

[1:08:49] It makes way more sense to consider the hillside ordinance

[1:08:53] and the importance of this 25% slope

[1:08:56] that's supposed to protect the natural environment and views.

[1:09:01] I don't know why you would assume that a topographical map

[1:09:06] that was created a few months ago

[1:09:08] was better than one that you can be based off

[1:09:10] of a 1964 survey that is able to be used

[1:09:15] and shows that this plan, this private driveway that 600 feet is not in conformance with

[1:09:21] the hillside plan, with the 25% slope, at a minimum, there's a number of things that are required

[1:09:27] in the preliminary plaid soil studies, hydrology studies, a number of things they haven't

[1:09:33] been done, they're required.

[1:09:35] We should be requiring some of that, you should require some of that so you can know without

[1:09:39] it doubt that if this is the only option you know without it doubt.

[1:09:45] I would say for those reasons, Adam Minimum, the alternative route should be explored.

[1:09:53] The only evidence on the record about fire approval says that he approves the plan that is in front of you.

[1:10:00] Today, not that there is no viable alternative. That is the only thing on the record. So when they say otherwise, I don't know what that's based on. Thank you.

[1:10:40] I'm going to see you working on a lot.

[1:10:42] I believe we are some value companies.

[1:10:45] Seconds are just customer behind Alan and company

[1:10:48] and bring over 800 people a year to some value.

[1:10:51] I have lived in 200 prospector roads since 2014,

[1:10:56] and I've been coming to some values since the 19th week.

[1:11:02] I would like to comment on a couple things.

[1:11:05] First, the attorney for the dumb keys

[1:11:07] mentioned that this is a day straight forward proposal.

[1:11:10] This is in no way a straight forward proposal.

[1:11:13] The attorney for the Duncan's mentioned,

[1:11:16] they are asking for the change in zoning

[1:11:19] to try to limit the environmental impact.

[1:11:22] There is nothing they are doing as far as this post-road

[1:11:26] to limit the environmental impact.

[1:11:30] Brittany mentioned that the Sun Valley Fire Department

[1:11:33] approved this road.

[1:11:35] If you look at the amount of environmental impact

[1:11:38] to bring the equipment up prospector road,

[1:11:42] past houses and many people who have spoken today,

[1:11:46] and to build a retaining wall up on top.

[1:11:49] Versus A and Down low,

[1:11:51] and they're going through big wells,

[1:11:53] or going to the back of the heat party,

[1:11:55] to access this property,

[1:11:57] neither of those accesses changes elevation,

[1:11:59] or back of the envelope,

[1:12:01] numbers on building this road,

[1:12:04] and across the bridge of the vehicles

[1:12:06] of that elevation to where my house sits is somewhere in the room of 103 or 105 extra tons

[1:12:14] of carbon emission. The final thing is the white week of the road. There was talk about previously

[1:12:21] of what the road looked like today. I loved my dog on that road and it is impossible for me

[1:12:27] and my dog with a pair of boots on. There is no road there today. It pears out and turns into

[1:12:33] So the concept that this is just, let's come through and just lightly upgrade the road that is not that they're proposing that's not that they're asking for and so for all of those reasons as well as the widening of the existing road and the environmental impact, I would ask the council to deny this application.

[1:12:54] Thank you.

[1:13:01] Anybody in the room?

[1:13:06] Anybody on the line?

[1:13:27] Elizabeth Kekkerett, six-on-one Banic, Boise Idaho, for the applicant.

[1:13:35] This is a simple application.

[1:13:40] This subdivision was originally plated in 1972, all of the people that live on prospector

[1:13:48] drive, purchased their homes, built their homes, and moved into their homes, while this

[1:13:54] is what the plot showed with this access,

[1:13:59] with an additional lot, with two extra lots.

[1:14:03] Here, we are simply trying to reduce this

[1:14:07] and get rid of one of those two lots.

[1:14:10] So we're left with just one additional building lot.

[1:14:16] Going through here, this lot, it does have public,

[1:14:21] this is the access that makes the most sense.

[1:14:24] It has direct access to a current public right of way.

[1:14:29] It doesn't require going up the hill,

[1:14:31] it doesn't require going through other directions.

[1:14:35] It was looked at originally to, let's see,

[1:14:41] there's no Bible-artornative access

[1:14:43] through the current house that exists there.

[1:14:46] Those accesses were looked at by Commissioner Daniel Hollis,

[1:14:51] And by with fire and it is simply too steep, there's just no way to do it through there, to get an access through there.

[1:14:59] And so that...

[1:15:00] That's why this is the most viable access, and it has direct access to a public right of way, which is something you're really looking at when you are plating these lots.

[1:15:14] There's also within your papers. Towards the back of the application, there are some visual impact analyses that were done.

[1:15:25] specifically was one done for 12 back payway as well as others and if you go to those,

[1:15:32] if you're looking at this one of back payway, you see the house marked there with the yellow right there,

[1:15:39] and then looking sort of off to the right, those are the two lots that we're talking about today.

[1:15:47] The green is what you can see from back payway, the brown that it hasn't been colored,

[1:15:53] is what you cannot see. And so if you go through each of these, you can see that there really

[1:16:00] is very, very little impact on these homes from back payway. And once again, it's only one

[1:16:10] lot.

[1:16:19] A couple of other things. If we could go back to my slideshow, perfect. We have a slide here

[1:16:28] Where we talk about the record grade.

[1:16:31] One of the questions was, why don't we use that Janskorp.

[1:16:37] Use this old survey.

[1:16:42] Well, if you look at the survey, they had a more recent surveyer look at it,

[1:16:47] and he specifically, before he would stamp this as a survey,

[1:16:52] wrote, this map certifies only the results

[1:16:56] of a digitized historic map and does not certify the precise location of any feature boundary

[1:17:02] coordinate or elevation, all locations and dimensions depicted are approximate.

[1:17:07] This map is provided for planning purposes only and shall not be relied upon for design

[1:17:12] and engineering surveying legal boundary determination or construction purposes.

[1:17:17] That is why we are not looking at this map.

[1:17:22] It's old, there was a lot of difficulty when they were looking at it and when working with staff is determined that the new survey is what makes sense.

[1:17:33] With new technology, being able to, I don't even know how they do service anymore, I assume drones and walking around and with all the new, with all the new technology that the new survey does now make the most sense and in working with staff, that's what was decided.

[1:17:49] And further, this survey does not show that 80% of the road is going to be onsloafed

[1:17:56] hillsides, even assuming that you're using this survey.

[1:18:02] One other thing that's been brought up is about talking about the Covenants.

[1:18:08] This property originally was burdened by Covenants from Sun Valley Company.

[1:18:13] We recently went out, talked to Sun Valley Company, and they have at this point in time terminated

[1:18:20] any of the real property covenants across this property, and so that is no longer an issue with this.

[1:18:29] And with that, we do believe this is a pretty straightforward, essentially, like a lot

[1:18:37] consolidation and a resound, and we do ask for your approval for this tonight.

[1:18:44] Yeah, I'm not sure to whom it should be addressed.

[1:18:48] So Mac mentioned Sun Valley Elcorn Association.

[1:18:51] Did you mean the Sun Valley Company?

[1:18:53] And it was this that you were talking about?

[1:18:54] It's the Sun Valley residential area association.

[1:19:00] And Sun Valley Jans Company, but really sorry for this,

[1:19:05] it was designed to set SD code.

[1:19:07] But it is still running with the land as far as I know.

[1:19:10] except for this agreement perhaps.

[1:19:14] I haven't seen it.

[1:19:15] I was just trying to make sure that I was like kind of to be a gift the whole way over there.

[1:19:19] Okay.

[1:19:20] Thank you.

[1:19:24] Do you have any questions?

[1:19:26] What's that?

[1:19:26] Can you disclose the public hearing?

[1:19:28] Yeah.

[1:19:29] You have any questions?

[1:19:35] You're representing the office where you had to terminate as a couple.

[1:19:39] Yes.

[1:19:40] Because it's not a little familiar.

[1:19:41] Right.

[1:19:42] I think that.

[1:19:43] Okay.

[1:19:44] Thank you.

[1:19:45] Thank you.

[1:19:46] At this time, I will close the public comment section of the agenda items number 2 and 3.

[1:19:55] Turn out to Council for questions, deliberations, or more.

[1:20:02] Well, I would like to renew my motion to postpone any kind of action on this on these two agenda items to a future date based on the reasons I expressed previously.

[1:20:16] We have a motion, we have a second.

[1:20:19] I'm coming around to that, but with time of delay, are you thinking a month, two months?

[1:20:25] And at least a month, perhaps 60 days, because it is a complicated thing.

[1:20:31] I don't feel comfortable voting on this until I can consult with my intern.

[1:20:35] Our attorney, one-on-one, and be comfortable with that.

[1:20:39] What I'm doing, pro-okan, is the correct thing.

[1:20:42] Keith, would you be okay with that holding in the second and third meetings?

[1:20:46] And that way in?

[1:20:47] Well, that has a chance to go through the information.

[1:20:49] No, no, I would not.

[1:20:52] Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

[1:20:55] What's the time that we're continuing to?

[1:20:58] I would say sixty days.

[1:21:03] Then November meeting?

[1:21:05] Whatever it comes out to.

[1:21:09] This is...

[1:21:10] Say it's an November meeting.

[1:21:13] November fifth?

[1:21:18] I'm asking if you'd make the motion to...

[1:21:21] Continue this discussion, and then my motion to specify 16 days possible.

[1:21:28] Better will you with this?

[1:21:30] You will be in the most kind to continue the matter to the certain number of death of two thousand six.

[1:21:38] Yes. That's your motion?

[1:21:40] I had doubt that.

[1:21:41] Do we have a second?

[1:21:42] I will second that.

[1:21:43] We have a motion in a second for the discussion.

[1:21:47] Let's vote then.

[1:21:49] Do you? Yes, Michelle? No.

[1:21:52] Right? Yes. Yes.

[1:21:56] Three, yes or the one, no.

[1:21:58] We will continue this until November.

[1:22:02] Okay.

[1:22:03] Second.

[1:22:04] Oh, okay.

[1:22:05] Okay.

[1:22:07] What do I have to do, Matt?

[1:22:08] Well, Mayor, if I could, just since it's continued,

[1:22:11] it's about time.

[1:22:12] I understand you constantly know your thoughts about your thoughts,

[1:22:14] about your thoughts, about your thoughts, about your thoughts, about your thoughts, about your thoughts.

[1:22:17] of the new major, but is there any particular information that the council wants to direct

[1:22:22] to your staff where they will not be able to have a mail over your information?

[1:22:26] Yeah, the degree or not to which the lawsuit over Lane Ranch North and the access to private property might

[1:22:36] or may or may not influence this decision.

[1:22:40] I

[1:22:45] would like to comment that should be any other council member, or the mayor, desire to

[1:22:52] consult with that, perhaps perfectly fine, and I think it's advisable.

[1:22:58] Thank you for letting me teach you.

[1:23:01] I'd have a question for Brittany to get our view of a grade between the two lots.

[1:23:08] I'd like to know the grade between personal one and personal two.

[1:23:12] Like great, great change, like elevations change.

[1:23:17] Okay.

[1:23:18] I would suggest if we do have further questions of staff

[1:23:21] or our attorney, we submit them,

[1:23:24] and we move this over for the deliberation,

[1:23:29] and then we'll call you in the session.

[1:23:31] I'm November.

[1:23:32] Good for that.

[1:23:34] Okay.

[1:23:35] Okay.

[1:23:37] Moving on to agenda item number five,

[1:23:40] because, again, the item number four has been built.

[1:23:44] The agenda item number five is the discussion and

[1:23:47] possible action on link, can't wait for emergency communication

[1:23:50] center.

[1:23:52] This will year 2027 funding request.

[1:23:57] Clerk, let it in.

[1:23:59] County administrator,

[1:24:04] I should ask, is anybody

[1:24:06] need to take a break right now?

[1:24:08] One person on my team just took a break, four minutes ago we had to do a bio break.

[1:24:19] We'll

[1:24:22] be rolling, I think we're fine, hopefully I'll join you guys this second.

[1:24:46] Okay, all right, you want to wait for us, either?

[1:24:51] He'll catch up.

[1:24:52] I'm sure I'd certainly hope.

[1:24:55] So thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council, for...

[1:25:00] Having us back, I am Kurt Flanagan, County Administrator for Blank County, and I want to start with some introductions of our team and Kathy, you want to introduce yourself.

[1:25:12] Hi, I'm Catherine Thomas, and I'm the Director at Blank County Emergency Communications.

[1:25:20] So about two weeks ago, we can have to go. I shared three documents with Mayor and the Council and the City Administrator.

[1:25:26] And about a four or five days after that, I shared another document to provide a little more context to the information.

[1:25:34] So I would like to with Kathy and with Ozzy walk through calls for service.

[1:25:43] Speak to some financials. We sent some actual from 2014 to 2025.

[1:25:48] And then I want to speak to real costs, changes that we're seeing from fiscal year 26 to 27 speak very briefly to the funding matrix that determines the percentage of what jurisdictions and fire districts put in and then very quickly with next steps and we will go through this at a good pace

[1:26:12] So we won't be talking too long and I'd like to turn it over to Kathy to talk about the calls for service.

[1:26:21] Okay, so I ran some statistics from our CAD and RMS software that we use for dispatching and logging calls for all of the emergency response departments in Blankham.

[1:26:39] Then, I filtered these calls by calls that occurred within the city limits of Sun Valley.

[1:26:53] And I also filtered out a few call types that were test, fire test, and duplicates,

[1:27:05] because those do not reflect actual calls from citizens for service.

[1:27:15] So in 2022, calls occurring within City Limits of Sun Valley were 2,133.

[1:27:24] In 23, they were 3,591, 2024, 3,637, and 2025, 2,766.

[1:27:41] I did run a total calls for service with those call-co filters, but removing the Sun Valley

[1:27:52] city limit filter so all of the calls that came in for all county and that was

[1:27:59] 3,000 I'm sorry 38,888 that was 2,000 yeah and that was 38,888 for which you 225.

[1:28:24] Okay Brittany if you could get it over to that PDF spreadsheet we're not going to do the

[1:28:30] graph, and I know that's really hard to read.

[1:28:32] Ozzie, are you available? Can you hear me?

[1:28:43] Yeah, Ozzie, if you would interview yourself and then briefly

[1:28:45] describe what this spreadsheet speaks to.

[1:28:49] So, what do you

[1:29:12] see are the revenues on top? Those are all of this

[1:29:18] empty space in the big building. It's the economy.

[1:29:21] You'll spend in there some refunds of reimbursements.

[1:29:26] I don't want to talk

[1:29:30] about it.

[1:29:30] This is a real property taxes.

[1:29:33] That is the funding.

[1:32:29] Okay, thank you, and I'll wrap it up, and I think this relevant, this phrase, she's relevant,

[1:32:33] want to show you the picture, but the 2027 contract and the bill, so to speak, that we have

[1:32:41] sent out to Sun Valley, is based on the 2025 Actuals plus 6%. So I also want to mention it was,

[1:32:52] I can have, obviously, speak to that when I'm done. So it was asked of me last time that I was here

[1:32:59] of Kathy was kind of changed between fiscal year 26 they were earning going into 27 and I

[1:33:05] shared this in the letter that I sent. It's just that with the employee fluctuation. I said in the

[1:33:11] letter we had four vacancies Kathy reminded and we have five. So we have two permanent full time

[1:33:17] that can sit at the consoles without any supervision or guidance or fully trained. Those are vacant

[1:33:24] and then we have three trainees that we've lost

[1:33:27] unfortunately since the first of June.

[1:33:29] It takes about eight months from when a trainee walks

[1:33:32] in the door before he or she can be left alone,

[1:33:36] answering the console, so to speak,

[1:33:38] but the call is coming in.

[1:33:40] So that's a real call that we're gonna see

[1:33:42] when we try to fill those positions in 2027.

[1:33:47] In addition to that, we do have a 3% market rating crease

[1:33:51] at the board approved when they passed the budget.

[1:33:54] So that is a real cost that we want to see

[1:33:57] with the additional personnel cost.

[1:34:00] Transitioning to the next topic,

[1:34:03] we talked briefly the last time I was here about,

[1:34:06] what's that funding model?

[1:34:07] What makes up the percentages?

[1:34:09] How is it determined back in 2012?

[1:34:12] What each jurisdiction and fire district

[1:34:14] can trip you?

[1:34:15] So I did a lot of digging, working with Kathy

[1:34:18] in the former director Robin and I pulled up what we believe is that funding matrix and it

[1:34:27] is made of addresses that are within our parcel data system, hotel units, fire, EMS, and

[1:34:36] law enforcement units and then it was determined that blank county on its own would fund the

[1:34:41] first six dispatchers and then the other agencies and jurisdictions would fund the remaining

[1:34:47] six dispatchers. And then lastly, we know this model is dated. We are committed.

[1:34:54] We are meeting internally next Wednesday or Thursday to kick off how.

[1:35:00] We bring in some valley, the other cities, the fire districts, and reevaluate the model going forward so we can update this and do we turn it over to calls for service, do we keep it as it is.

[1:35:14] So I talked about that last time I was here and we are committed to do that so it would be on Jan. A. McLeary myself, Kathy and Aussie that will be on that committee and then we'll bring everybody else in.

[1:35:25] So, that's what I have, and we are here for questions.

[1:35:30] What is your ask?

[1:35:32] The ask was what we submitted back on April 15th, and I have that number right here.

[1:35:41] It is 146-934-83.

[1:35:47] And you were going to explain why it was 6% or more?

[1:35:51] Yes, so, as you can speak to this, I'll start it.

[1:35:55] So if you look at, it's in your fiscal year 26 contract, it's already executed and signed.

[1:36:00] It is in the document that I sent over on April 15.

[1:36:05] So we use the actuals from 2 years prior plus 6% when we send out the billing contract.

[1:36:14] So as you can you speak to this, think you can do it much clearer than I can.

[1:36:18] The actuals of what we were billed plus 6% you're basically taking the 3% that a county

[1:36:24] could take to increase taxes.

[1:36:26] How is you going to speak to it?

[1:36:37] I'm sorry, I'm

[1:38:50] sorry.

[1:38:50] Thank you, I see.

[1:38:57] How is it?

[1:38:58] Can you speak to that off the top of your head?

[1:39:01] What?

[1:39:02] How is it?

[1:39:03] Your organizational reserves at the moment are how much?

[1:39:08] 25% but I don't know what.

[1:39:10] Will a city or a bungalow?

[1:39:12] Yeah.

[1:39:13] Yes, please.

[1:39:15] Yeah.

[1:39:17] I'll tell you where I'm going with this.

[1:39:19] I'm trying to get to whether or not you have enough money to pay for next year without the

[1:39:31] increase and giving everyone time to do what Kurt suggested will happen, which is everybody

[1:39:38] sits down and agrees a reasonable way forward with respect to the allocation of costs.

[1:39:45] I'll let Aussie speak to that, but I remind Council on the Mayor we firmly believe when this was agreed to and granted it was years ago, there were percentages that were agreed to in some dollars.

[1:40:00] 9.93%, that number has stayed static. I believe since 2013. So we're trying to get closer to that number.

[1:40:10] We were going slowly. We were going to reach that number in 2030. We're stepping back. And we're going to reevaluate, like I just said, starting next week internally. So do we want to share that?

[1:40:20] I get it, but if you have enough money to get through a year, I would rather keep things

[1:40:26] as they are, not pay for an increase and come up with a more reasonable allocation, because

[1:40:33] right now, based on the numbers that you've presented, it looks as though the calls, you

[1:40:39] know, this is this page that you gave us here, are 7% of total calls, we're paying 8% of total

[1:40:48] costs, and when you base things on property value, rather than population, it particularly negatively

[1:40:58] impacts the high property value jurisdictions, which actually also have lower individuals

[1:41:06] so quite possibly fewer calls and then there was something else and then also remember

[1:41:16] that property valuations and property valuations also lag. So if you're going on property

[1:41:25] valuations the reason that you're having that gap quite possibly be that while your costs are

[1:41:33] going up for your employees, right, those costs increase quicker than the property valuations

[1:41:40] go up.

[1:41:42] I will say I understand that.

[1:41:45] Blank County is already carrying almost 62 percent of this already.

[1:41:51] Our agreed to rate was 56.93.

[1:41:55] How we calculate these formulas is, again, parcels in the data system.

[1:42:00] I don't know if they're looking at the ASS value.

[1:42:03] associated with that. So, and I've been told so many times, a call with someone tripping and

[1:42:10] falling over the toilet is one thing, a call going to the fourth floor of the line like

[1:42:14] hotel is a totally different thing. So, it's not just apples to apples. Last week when we had

[1:42:20] the fire down in Carrey, one call for service was almost eight hours. So, it's not apples for apples.

[1:42:26] And we assisted with that.

[1:42:29] And we so much appreciate it.

[1:42:31] Not like you were all on your own.

[1:42:32] No, I just found out this batch as far as circle.

[1:42:36] And I would also point out that Blaine County's revenue is derived by property taxes.

[1:42:43] So we're already paying the Blaine County percentage or fair share if you will.

[1:42:48] Already includes taxes from this jurisdiction.

[1:42:54] What

[1:43:00] we have put in our budget on a 30-something.

[1:43:05] Until we get a better feeling as to how this allocation looks now, whether it be property taxes,

[1:43:14] or new things bringing it up to date from 2013 to 2016, with those figures in line

[1:43:22] and using your reserves to fund the difference between 26 and 27.

[1:43:31] And then justifying, if in fact, it is all justified

[1:43:36] that we do pay more, or other people pay more, or whatever

[1:43:41] did, it's more up to date.

[1:43:45] I think we should consider that.

[1:43:47] and wait for further information as to how the allocation of cost should be.

[1:43:54] That's the new school, right?

[1:43:57] Can you scroll down on this post, we bet, did we get, I'm sorry, I wanted the other one

[1:44:03] where it showed whatever jurisdiction was paying, maybe it's wait the top, right?

[1:44:07] Point 20 chart?

[1:44:09] Yeah, so you're saying go, no, right there, you're saying going from 1, 23, 3,

[1:44:13] I want to 1, 30.

[1:44:19] What did we pay last year?

[1:44:20] 1,2,3, 0,1.

[1:44:22] Hold up, I have a contract with Stan Ly.

[1:44:26] This year, Jim Keating, sitting in those chair,

[1:44:30] the actual number in our existing contract is 133,811.

[1:44:36] And do you want to be here with one of that correct?

[1:44:38] Yes, yes.

[1:44:39] Will be here before, is that right there?

[1:44:41] It should be that right there.

[1:44:42] 1,2,3,3,0,1.

[1:44:43] Yes, that is correct.

[1:44:48] And tell me again who's going to be in the working group to determine a more current approach to financing this?

[1:44:58] Yeah, and my understanding was of working.

[1:45:00] Groups, so to speak, back in 2013, 2012, took about two years in mediation. So, how quickly we can get through

[1:45:07] this and come back as questionable. My advice to Commissioner McLeary would be to start it. This is right

[1:45:13] shared with her early this week. Like we did the aim of the District of Levy. We bring in the

[1:45:17] elected, the mayors, and then we bring in the fire commissioners. And we have this conversation

[1:45:23] about how we want to move forward. And then we bring in staff and start this working group, so that would

[1:45:29] city of catch-em, Sun Valley, Hayley Bellevue Carey, and the Fire Districts.

[1:45:35] So it would be an inclusive. You envision an inclusive.

[1:45:37] It has to be because they're going to be build.

[1:45:40] Or yeah.

[1:45:41] I would encourage, instead of staying flat, going up to 3% because we do have that real market rate increase for all of our employees.

[1:45:54] I would encourage the full amount, but to meet in the middle, going up that 3%, and how do you how do we justify having been good stewards of our citizens money when we're already paying 1% more than the calls?

[1:46:15] Again, it's not based our allocation model, it's not based on calls from the other.

[1:46:18] I'm sure the allocation model is wrong.

[1:46:20] I think you should start from that, right?

[1:46:22] I get it, you have a model, but it's clearly broken.

[1:46:25] And you, by the fact that you're willing to look at it again,

[1:46:29] are probably accept that.

[1:46:30] So, irrespective of the allocation model, we're already paying 1% more than...

[1:46:36] We're...

[1:46:36] You want to speak to it.

[1:46:37] Drawing on the system.

[1:46:38] And we also pay in, again, it's based on property taxes.

[1:46:42] We also pay in a substantial proportional amount to the county through our valuation of our properties.

[1:46:51] I can't speak to the property tax value piece of it, but you should be careful in making a direct correlation in number of calls for service to impact and needs from the dispatch center.

[1:47:12] Because a call for service is a very, very, very, very,

[1:47:17] a bold thing, a structure fire versus a traffic stop.

[1:47:21] You know, a paper service versus a multi-vehicle traffic accident.

[1:47:27] It is one measure, but I wouldn't say it should be a primary measure.

[1:47:34] So, just because Sun Valley is has 7% of the calls for service doesn't mean.

[1:47:42] What will you say the right measure is?

[1:47:44] I don't know that it's a very good question.

[1:47:48] Do you have time?

[1:47:51] Do you have time?

[1:47:52] Do you have time?

[1:47:52] Do you have time associated with those calls?

[1:47:54] So, could you do...

[1:47:55] I don't expect it right this in a second.

[1:47:57] But, could you do an analysis that showed how much time was associated

[1:48:03] with the numbers of calls that you've already done?

[1:48:08] You mean how much time from when the call

[1:48:10] open to when it closed?

[1:48:13] If that's the right measure.

[1:48:15] Like if you're saying that there's a difference

[1:48:17] between a call, I'm not going to use the line like

[1:48:21] because that's not our problem.

[1:48:23] Yeah, I'm going to say the large.

[1:48:25] There's a difference between the top floor

[1:48:27] of the lodge behind a locked door versus somebody just saying,

[1:48:33] I saw a guy speeding behind me, you know,

[1:48:36] there's a different amount of time associated with that.

[1:48:39] Are you able to associate the amount of time spent

[1:48:44] on the calls on these 25 calls of 2,766?

[1:48:52] Can you tell us how much time it was versus the time

[1:48:55] for the total number of calls, which was 41,654?

[1:49:02] I could try, and that would take a little bit of time.

[1:49:06] I don't know that even that would be completely reflective of the impact on dispatch.

[1:49:12] Because some calls take a lot of traffic, a lot of radio traffic, a lot of phone traffic,

[1:49:20] a lot of coordination, and some calls might take a long time, but don't necessarily take

[1:49:27] as much of a dispatcher's focus.

[1:49:32] One thing that you should know,

[1:49:33] I know this is a little off topic,

[1:49:35] but our dispatchers are certified

[1:49:38] and do apply emergency medical dispatch protocol

[1:49:43] and emergency fire dispatch protocol.

[1:49:46] And so that is a series of internationally approved questions

[1:49:50] that they ask the caller in an effort

[1:49:54] to gather information for the first responders

[1:49:56] also to code the call properly.

[1:50:00] And to occasionally offer CPR, um, second party CPR, or just tell me where there's it on the line.

[1:50:08] Yeah, yeah. So, um, certain calls take a dispatch, a hundred percent of a dispatch.

[1:50:16] They're right there with the, yeah, I've been talking to them about that.

[1:50:18] Yeah, and they can't really be pulled off of that to take this next call and take this other, and I'm on call and deal with the radio traffic.

[1:50:26] So it's very complex about what the impact is on dispatch per call.

[1:50:34] But I certainly, I believe there is already coding in place that tells me

[1:50:41] length of time spent from when a call opened to when it closed.

[1:50:47] And I could pull that.

[1:50:48] I think our ask is, we are more than happy to pay our fair share.

[1:50:52] We're just looking for the best way to figure out.

[1:50:55] Yeah, and that is a really, really good question.

[1:50:59] I was part of, I've been in somewhat in this role for quite a while, and this ever since

[1:51:06] we consolidated.

[1:51:07] It's been a question, and it's very, it's difficult.

[1:51:12] Because partially, I think, it's very difficult for cities, because ambulance districts

[1:51:18] are don't coincide with city boundaries and even fire districts often don't.

[1:51:26] There's also a lot of auto aid agreements that go outside of your city limits, but your

[1:51:32] first responders are participating in those.

[1:51:37] So it's hard.

[1:51:38] It was hard.

[1:51:38] How fast to make it easy for us to see.

[1:51:41] Yeah.

[1:51:43] Yeah.

[1:51:43] How, you know, if you're trying, I think that you have to look at it a little bit from

[1:51:49] beyond your city borders and go, how do we, how do we as a consolidated, where this

[1:51:55] is my perspective? It's a consolidated dispatch center. Our first responders go between

[1:52:04] boundaries. Your citizens move between boundaries. You know, your citizens may go to the hospital,

[1:52:11] They make over Goline a pass, drive to Boise, and they have an emergency outside of you.

[1:52:17] Yeah, and Hayley, and vice versa, and your workers who don't live here, but commute here every day to work,

[1:52:24] may have an incident while they're in some valley.

[1:52:27] So it's, you can try to quantify what some valley citizens should pay for, but it'll never really be perfect.

[1:52:38] But I do think you have to do it. You have to, I mean, one, I think that I don't, I really don't know how you divide it. I almost think.

[1:52:47] I think that's probably what we're looking for from Curtin the future to say, how do you do this?

[1:52:54] We understand it's not going to be perfect, but we need to have a better confidence level that is fair and it's reason and it's defensible.

[1:53:06] Well, yeah.

[1:53:08] Right now, I don't think our council has that feeling.

[1:53:12] So in light of the fact that we have allocated $133,000 towards the Dispatch Center, perhaps

[1:53:22] the question is, do we consider Kerch's informal request of a plus 3% on that or do we

[1:53:32] hold at this level and look over to what really sounds like a robust advisory committee which is

[1:53:43] a relatively new concept in the county. To look at how everybody would be cooperative

[1:53:51] into coming up with some sort of funding for a consolidated dispatch center.

[1:53:59] My way of looking at is the key is to come up with a formula that can be applied to determine

[1:54:08] what the share of each municipality will be. Once you have that formula, which certainly

[1:54:16] I couldn't construct that, but I hope to count again. Then we just apply that across the

[1:54:24] Can you answer the question about the flunged balance?

[1:54:29] I don't, basically, the reserves.

[1:54:32] What do you have available as a reserve at the moment?

[1:54:35] Aussie, can you speak to that amount?

[1:54:39] Well, remember the systems.

[1:55:38] How much

[1:55:48] cash do you have in the bank?

[1:55:51] Can

[1:56:05] I talk about the staffing expenses, so it looks like you guys are paying now a lot

[1:56:09] and over time in 2025, and it sounds like you're missing a few people in the current year,

[1:56:16] so I'm guessing that there will be a lot of other times as well.

[1:56:19] It's what steps are you all taking to make sure that you have a high effect,

[1:56:22] that's what we're doing, so that we're going to reduce that over time.

[1:56:25] Sure, I'll start with that. Kathy can fix what I mess up, but what we're doing right now,

[1:56:32] what we're doing right now is we're doing exit interviews with the three training

[1:56:36] And determine why they left because we've heard health reasons from, I think, a couple of them.

[1:56:42] So we want to know what's going on.

[1:56:44] Is there something within the center that is causing folks to leave?

[1:56:49] And then just last week, this week, we got approval from the board to hire a firm to help us on board applicants and help us get them through the training and the background checks.

[1:57:02] So, that will help add capacity for you, Kathy, and the Deputy Director Melissa, that.

[1:57:09] Yeah.

[1:57:10] And we did just sign an agreement with a hiring skills testing network that is specifically designed for first responders and emergency communications officers.

[1:57:25] and so that will help us get a better quality applicant through and also help.

[1:57:33] Actually, do you have them currently?

[1:57:36] We have nine dispatchers and the deputy director.

[1:57:41] She is a qualified dispatcher and so she has been covering.

[1:57:45] So we have ten.

[1:57:46] Do you have shifts like our fire department has?

[1:57:50] Do you always have somebody on duty?

[1:57:51] We always have two.

[1:57:53] We always have two.

[1:57:54] and they were at 36 hour a week, 12 hours today shifts. So...

[1:58:03] And what's optimal?

[1:58:05] 12.

[1:58:07] Would be good to come or pay time off at a certain time.

[1:58:10] And so you are doing the optimal with 12.

[1:58:12] Where do you...

[1:58:14] Where is the likely place that you would be able to hire people from?

[1:58:19] Are you trying to recruit people to the county?

[1:58:22] or are you trying to find people who are already here and can be trained or?

[1:58:27] We are doing both this new hiring skills agreement that we have part of their service

[1:58:36] is recruiting so they post on college boards and you know like digital college boards and

[1:58:44] LinkedIn and Hamshake, I think.

[1:58:49] And so we are hoping that we, that will reach, say, CSI, the one that's over in Idaho

[1:58:58] Falls or Pocatello, Boise, even up north and Moscow.

[1:59:05] So we are increasing our recruiting on really, I'm really anticipating that that will help

[1:59:11] us.

[1:59:12] also we do word of mouth, which is actually surprisingly we've gotten quite a few candidates

[1:59:19] that way. What's the starting salary? It's about. It's about, it's about, it's about,

[1:59:26] so 3% above $28 an hour. So it's good and then they do have an opportunity they increase

[1:59:36] fairly quickly when they go to being a fully trained dispatcher. I don't

[1:59:41] think it's a take to get turned. Almost nine months. There's a lot of

[1:59:45] certifications. They have to achieve. Let's see if we can wrap this up. I'm

[1:59:50] certainly willing to consider the 3% increase. It's a $4,000 increase. That's

[1:59:54] reasonable. This is not going to solve the gap that's going on.

[2:00:00] I agree on time. If there is, in fact, it's 440,000 in savings or in the 444,000, 444 in the piggy bank, that's not

[2:00:14] helpful. And so I would also be in favor of looking at that number that we said, 133 percent. And

[2:00:25] actively, actively, encourage us and other entities to get involved in this thing.

[2:00:33] This is obviously, Kathy, as you said, with down three, we have three trainees, and

[2:00:40] they only have something wrong, and we need to address that, and we need to do that.

[2:00:46] So let's take a little bit off then we're going to take one, say 133 plus 3%, and we want

[2:00:52] get involved and we'll love to hear back from you.

[2:00:56] We go with that, can we need?

[2:00:58] OK.

[2:00:59] I just have a more question about your applicants.

[2:01:02] Do you have more applicants that you could actually hire?

[2:01:09] Yes, we have several applicants that

[2:01:12] are awaiting taking the hiring skills test.

[2:01:15] OK, thank you.

[2:01:17] We need a lot to do that.

[2:01:19] You do not formally need a motion if there's

[2:01:21] consensus, at least from 3 of you, that the 3% increase on top of the 133 at 11 makes sense.

[2:01:30] I will take that guidance, work with our friends at the county, and bring back a contract

[2:01:35] that is prepared also for consideration by the commissioners, and that will come at the

[2:01:40] next meeting.

[2:01:42] Good.

[2:01:43] Good.

[2:01:44] Thank you.

[2:01:45] Thanks.

[2:01:45] Thank you.

[2:01:46] Thank you.

[2:01:53] We

[2:02:03] are back in session. We are looking at now again item number 6 update and recommendation to approve one of the option presented by

[2:02:13] and see associated with Saddles,

[2:02:15] for our sunbellies, and we did intersection.

[2:02:19] Just to keep you on our start off.

[2:02:21] Absolutely, thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Merrick,

[2:02:24] to introduce, show no one from S&C Associates,

[2:02:28] but I just want to do a quick recap for Council.

[2:02:31] You'll recall Council will approve a contract with S&C Associates

[2:02:35] earlier in the year to develop the engineering plans

[2:02:39] for a four-way intersection.

[2:02:43] with significant improvements in throughput and bike-ped infrastructure being primary targets.

[2:02:49] Happy to report, sharing, and our team been hard at work since that time, and they're

[2:02:55] here today to largely present the first milestone in that process, which is concept designs

[2:03:00] for your guidance and input.

[2:03:03] Share is here, but next steps, pending kind of your input today, would be to continue to develop

[2:03:10] one of those concepts for final design over the next six months.

[2:03:14] And where does this all go as the final question?

[2:03:17] And that is still our overall schedule for 20, 28 construction going forward.

[2:03:23] Utilizing these grant dollars.

[2:03:25] So with your approval, Mr. Mayor, I will bring up Sherry from Essency.

[2:03:31] Thank you.

[2:03:38] Mayor, council members.

[2:03:40] Nice to see you.

[2:03:41] Thanks for having me.

[2:03:43] I'm sorry, new ones, I'm here.

[2:03:47] All right,

[2:03:51] I know, this is the real exciting stuff.

[2:03:54] As a picture.

[2:03:58] They say a thousand words, so hopefully we can limit what I have to say.

[2:04:03] All right, as we know, as you all have been part of this journey,

[2:04:06] we're going on almost four years here with this project.

[2:04:09] And as Jim mentioned, in January, the direction was to move forward with a four-way stop and

[2:04:19] always stop improvements.

[2:04:23] So we, what you have in front of you are four options, and they're concept design.

[2:04:30] So concept design is like 10%, you know, it's just, it's really just getting some things

[2:04:35] on paper looking at some grades, but no detail design.

[2:04:39] And I figured I'll just walk, we'll talk about each one, and hopefully spend a minute or two.

[2:04:46] And then there's feel free to interrupt and ask questions at any time.

[2:04:50] I did have Nancy.

[2:04:52] You'll see there's an updated one-pager-ish that Nancy put on in front of you before the meeting.

[2:05:00] And that just updated the cost. At the time when we submitted this, we didn't have, we took a guess at the pavement section, and in talking with the design engineer and team, we decided to increase the cost, which hence there's about a 30% increase in cost to compensate for a full pavement section, reconstruction.

[2:05:22] And again, these are all just really preliminary, and it also comes in significant, not significantly,

[2:05:30] but under what the grant had allotted.

[2:05:35] All right, option A, if you want to move.

[2:05:38] Yeah, just suggest that the options are very clear.

[2:05:40] There are the options that we want to focus on to just get the ones that we like.

[2:05:45] I'd like to focus on C and D.

[2:05:50] What are you talking about?

[2:05:52] If that's D.

[2:05:55] D.

[2:05:55] I'm the number sky high.

[2:05:57] Interbus.

[2:05:58] Interbus.

[2:05:59] You took your whole body into numbers.

[2:06:01] You put your body into code.

[2:06:05] C and D.

[2:06:08] C and D.

[2:06:11] Fantastic.

[2:06:11] So let's move to options C, so it should be the third one in there, okay, this option is always

[2:06:22] stopped and we've added right turns at all of the approaches. Northbound, southbound, eastbound, westbound.

[2:06:30] And one of the things that I brought up in this was this maximum queue length. So what that means is

[2:06:37] how deep are your car is going to, to wait.

[2:06:42] And it's 135 feet, and it's on, the worst case is going to be on that West Bell

[2:06:48] dark turning movement, so coming from community school, and trying to make the last

[2:06:52] onto your seat, right?

[2:06:54] Yep, that one.

[2:06:55] Yep.

[2:06:56] Just kidding.

[2:06:56] I have the right one.

[2:06:57] Okay.

[2:06:58] And it should be.

[2:07:00] So that's the queue length.

[2:07:03] So still acceptable.

[2:07:03] Well, this is a level of service C, so very acceptable in design standards.

[2:07:11] How many feet again?

[2:07:12] 135.

[2:07:14] So about 13 cars?

[2:07:16] 10 to 13 cars, is it?

[2:07:18] I love it.

[2:07:18] It's a trailer with a...

[2:07:20] Yeah.

[2:07:22] Yep.

[2:07:23] Yep.

[2:07:23] That's a fairer.

[2:07:25] A couple of the...

[2:07:27] There's definitely some pedestrian improvements we're showing here.

[2:07:30] You'll notice that the crosswalks have been more aligned to be straight and pulled closer to the intersection as well as on the westbound side.

[2:07:44] You can see we did provide a little bit of separation between the roadway and the path and made it directional.

[2:07:51] Again,

[2:07:54] this, this provides a little bit more of comfort for pedestrian, and the turning

[2:08:00] radius also has been adjusted.

[2:08:03] You're coming to a stop, but the turning radiuses are a little larger to slow down vehicles

[2:08:07] as they go around.

[2:08:08] Yes.

[2:08:09] Thank you.

[2:08:10] Thank you.

[2:08:10] I went out and took a look at the intersection, so I can see it in real time, so I speak.

[2:08:17] And it looked in me that currently we have right-turned-a-lings at all of the intersections

[2:08:26] except the solid road intersection going, I guess it's a east.

[2:08:33] Now, is there going to be any particular change in the existing turn-lings on the other intersections?

[2:08:40] That will happen.

[2:08:44] And I think it option D, and I'm just, and you were trying to A, B, and you're just

[2:08:51] the partnerly C and D.

[2:08:52] No option C, and option C, the way I look at it, the principle difference is putting it

[2:09:01] or I can turn the lighting from sound row going, I guess, on sound.

[2:09:08] Yeah.

[2:09:08] Towards the protection.

[2:09:10] Yeah, you're currently at the end.

[2:09:12] Yes, yep.

[2:09:13] If you look at sound row, soundly going east of sound.

[2:09:19] I hear a snow turning light at the present time.

[2:09:23] And it's just, it looks like it contemplates.

[2:09:26] This is contemplating that a right-try lane heading toward, yes, there will be right-turn lanes on all four lanes.

[2:09:37] Right, but the key point is the difference in this one is we're adding a right-turn lane on that east-bound movement from south or road.

[2:09:47] Yes, absolutely.

[2:09:48] Looks like it exists already in the way of turning lanes.

[2:09:51] Exactly, exactly.

[2:09:53] Okay,

[2:09:57] is there anything that...

[2:10:01] What's a luminary at transit stop?

[2:10:04] Oh, just a light, a light, an actual street lamp, kind of thing.

[2:10:11] Exactly.

[2:10:12] Well, I think we might, we probably have some flexibility, what to choose,

[2:10:16] a need me dark sky compliant, but definitely lighting that bus stop.

[2:10:21] And then what possibilities exist to really move the pedestrians to the portions of the intersection

[2:10:36] where they're safe crossing, as opposed to having someone stranded over here at the corner

[2:10:42] of Sun Valley Road and Dollar Road, where we appears at, you know what I mean?

[2:10:48] Well, I would say we definitely made these directional, right?

[2:10:52] We only have the two crossings.

[2:10:54] So on that Southeast corner, is that what you're talking about?

[2:10:59] Because we have a nice new wide road, a pretty big space here.

[2:11:05] You wind up with people stranded here, trying to go places.

[2:11:10] There shouldn't be there.

[2:11:11] I know that, but what can we do to discourage them out of that?

[2:11:19] I mean, the only thing I think that's a good point, Michelle, I think the only thing we could do is there's going to be, we're showing curbing gutter there, so there are some improvement, there are improvements there.

[2:11:31] We can take some obstructions.

[2:11:41] We can take, we can look something minor.

[2:11:46] We can take a crosswalk.

[2:11:50] Those crosswalks to my recollection exist of the wreck.

[2:11:54] We have people across now.

[2:11:56] Correct.

[2:11:57] What we took away is on the southeast corner.

[2:12:00] There is no other that existing ADA ramp there to know where it just fits there.

[2:12:07] So that's gone and it's designed for a WB67 truck to make that right-hand turn movement.

[2:12:14] So that's kind of what that's why you see that round. It's a ruled curve.

[2:12:18] So there's big trucks going for Allen and Company Air to Sun Valley Company.

[2:12:23] Yep, exactly. The WB67's make that turn.

[2:12:27] And that's where that ADA crossing is.

[2:12:30] It's gone.

[2:12:31] Yeah, but what are the reasons that people stay there?

[2:12:34] Yes, yeah, it's a random.

[2:12:35] So that is completely removed.

[2:12:37] One of the things I would caution about C.

[2:12:43] If you'll notice, because of the right turn lane on the west found,

[2:12:51] right turn lane on the westbound movement, yep, that right turn lane.

[2:12:55] It pushes the bike the bike path into some valley property.

[2:13:00] It impacts an irrigation, a historic irrigation feature, and that will greatly impact the project.

[2:13:16] Scheduled.

[2:13:16] Is that also the case on D?

[2:13:19] No, that is not the case on D.

[2:13:21] So, that is one of schedule schedule-wise because of the environmental impact,

[2:13:28] which we understood, I know it seems very minimal,

[2:13:31] but when we get into federal funding,

[2:13:35] it can be very lengthy.

[2:13:37] So between C and D,

[2:13:40] the big difference is that I know that instead of having

[2:13:43] a more core than having a right-turn lane,

[2:13:47] sorry, two of those would be eliminated,

[2:13:49] and we would have a left-turn lane

[2:13:52] from south of the world going,

[2:13:54] because it's no way,

[2:13:55] So we would also put in a left turn lane, so we would lose, I think, two right turn lanes and gain two left turn lanes.

[2:14:16] Yes, yes, and one of the things too, and with that change, the maximum QV call.

[2:14:25] So it's just traffic-wise, it drops down to 85 feet, so it's a couple.

[2:14:30] Now we're down to, you know, eight copies of these, that's it, exactly.

[2:14:36] So, and it becomes the northbound buff term movement.

[2:14:41] Turning left that.

[2:14:42] It's going to keep the CND, make substantial improvements to the pedestrian access and safety.

[2:14:49] The bus stop has moved.

[2:14:51] D is the more efficient for what traffic, and the biggest reduction in that maximum.

[2:14:57] Exactly, and does not have.

[2:15:00] Environmental impacts. So does that have the environmental impacts and costs 80 grand more than C?

[2:15:08] Yes.

[2:15:09] So, is it best practice to have symmetry in terms of whether you have, is that why you did with the crossings to align those?

[2:15:24] Yeah, no, to have either right turn lanes across from each other or left turn lanes across from each other because you don't get that.

[2:15:35] It seems like you get more traffic going from saddle road toward catch them.

[2:15:42] So let's look at the saddle road going to catch them and make that right in turn.

[2:15:52] Okay, let's put a right hand turn lane in there. You don't put a left hand turn lane in and on the other side of the street on the

[2:16:01] The resource side of the street you keep that left hand turn lane because everybody does that everybody goes to capture

[2:16:08] Yeah, I don't tell people anywhere else where there's a backup

[2:16:12] So let us be putting right hand turn lane in on that one and a luck. Yeah, that's why I was asking is it best practice to have them

[2:16:22] That trickle or could you do it?

[2:16:23] Because that's what I think what you want to do is to try and go then, is the sea?

[2:16:31] Yes.

[2:16:31] Can you go to the sea?

[2:16:32] I think what you want is what?

[2:16:34] Yes.

[2:16:36] It is not this.

[2:16:38] Leave this the same.

[2:16:39] If that's like an allowable thing to do.

[2:16:42] Why not?

[2:16:43] I think that makes sense.

[2:16:45] Well, being a simple man, being a traffic down the most.

[2:16:50] But it will, I didn't have it down even more.

[2:16:54] But I think what will happen again now is a hybrid between a C&D.

[2:17:00] Okay.

[2:17:01] Yes.

[2:17:02] But I want to ask that.

[2:17:03] As it relates to this.

[2:17:05] To eliminate that.

[2:17:07] Turn way in.

[2:17:08] And make it a right.

[2:17:09] To keep it as a right.

[2:17:13] Turn way in.

[2:17:14] To work.

[2:17:15] I'm certainly immunable to the options.

[2:17:18] But the question to share is, is D optimized to get the lower traffic, is that why the way out is, wouldn't it?

[2:17:25] Exactly.

[2:17:27] Even, exactly.

[2:17:28] Even though most, so you still do things more efficiently by doing this.

[2:17:34] I don't know hardly any cars that turn left from Saddle Road.

[2:17:39] And they have their own links to everybody go straight and turn right.

[2:17:44] What I'm saying is...

[2:17:46] I think people would say this.

[2:17:48] I think they're stopping so what they're going through or turning right, they're still stopping.

[2:17:55] Right, they're still that movement of stopping and turning right.

[2:18:02] I think that what you end up with because of the left-term line there is a whole lot of empty space where you could have cars.

[2:18:12] Did you look at this option?

[2:18:13] is you look at the option of keeping everything on option D exactly the same except for making

[2:18:21] it a left turn from saddle road going forward catch them as opposed to a right turn line.

[2:18:28] We did not, I would say we did not and we can look into that and report that but we can

[2:18:34] So with the most optumized, yeah, my instinct is it is, but I don't know, so if that proves

[2:18:44] to be more efficient than that would be my choice, otherwise D, as presented.

[2:18:52] Okay, so just to summarize what I think I tried to express before on D, I'm suggesting

[2:18:59] we eliminate the left or the left leg and the saddle going north, and the place it will

[2:19:07] break, yeah, replace it with a life-term leg going against itself. I think that's a good suggestion.

[2:19:21] And so as we look at it, it would be in a very, it would be in a, we'd have to look at that we might have to offset

[2:19:27] some things because right now if we left it in the same configuration as we are, right, we're

[2:19:32] going to have to go across. You're going to have a judge. Yes. So we just have to look at that way,

[2:19:40] lay out so that it could just be striking. Yeah, I'm not looking at angles. I'm looking at number

[2:19:53] I was going to suggest I'm just drafting it in my head but a motion to support option D to approve.

[2:20:00] Looking at how to best optimize for overall traffic, as well.

[2:20:05] Can you consider that?

[2:20:07] I'm just excited.

[2:20:09] It's kind of a way where we have it depicted clearly in front of us that if that right sort of

[2:20:16] I mean, sadly, heading east could be subject to,

[2:20:23] do I say right away, I mean, the left are like,

[2:20:26] could be substituted with the right sort of way.

[2:20:30] We hopefully approve that that way.

[2:20:32] And if that doesn't work, that sure we can come back to us and say,

[2:20:36] it doesn't work.

[2:20:37] But this will work.

[2:20:39] And I think that's totally worth the ball.

[2:20:46] I think if your motion includes preference for option D, with a request of staff to work

[2:20:53] with you to investigate that option, the very one you mentioned, Keith, we will take

[2:20:59] that based on your motion and move forward.

[2:21:04] Does it need to be even even motion?

[2:21:05] You don't formally need a motion.

[2:21:09] So if there was discord at this moment, I would say, give me a motion.

[2:21:12] But I think I at least, and I believe you

[2:21:15] think as well, have enough guidance and counsel that

[2:21:17] we're anchored around option D, and that we are

[2:21:20] going to take the action to go and test the very

[2:21:23] scenario that you just posted.

[2:21:26] Great.

[2:21:27] Thank you.

[2:21:27] Yeah, I'm sure you talk about safety for pedestrians.

[2:21:32] If you have to, lanes going one direction at the same time.

[2:21:36] You bet that if you're first making a left or going straight,

[2:21:40] and two cars and how to sort of coordinate with the other

[2:21:43] around the full way.

[2:21:47] You, but one of that's a great question.

[2:21:52] And one of the rules of the road or the rules of the right way

[2:21:56] would apply right, whoever gets their first goes first.

[2:22:00] If there's somebody who gets their, they get at the same time,

[2:22:03] they arrive at the same time, then I had to look this up.

[2:22:06] It's good.

[2:22:07] The person to the right gets the right away.

[2:22:09] with two people to the right, yeah, to the right gets the right away.

[2:22:15] So, two people are there at the same time with the safety of the crosswalks being at the intersection.

[2:22:27] People are visible now, and then it stopped the position.

[2:22:31] So, we don't have flashing, it's just going to be, we looked at adding in a rectangular,

[2:22:38] or we did evaluate adding a rectangular rapid flashing beacon, but per

[2:22:43] muds it or a METCD, you cannot put those at a always stop intersection. We

[2:22:49] also looked at pulling those away and maybe having them for their way from

[2:22:54] the intersection, we have a hill on one side, and then environment where

[2:23:03] Sun Valley is this did historically, so there's environmental things with fashion lights, which, again, would flow or skin tone.

[2:23:13] It's kind of the mean.

[2:23:14] Yeah, so yeah.

[2:23:16] But, according to the engineering standards, it's safe and out.

[2:23:21] Exactly, and one of the things too, we are going to look at as we proceed into the design.

[2:23:27] We talked about lighting and looking at the cross we can look at the crosswalk lighting,

[2:23:32] something in the crosswalk to provide better lighting for the pedestrians to call it front lighting.

[2:23:40] There is lighting out there, there's lighting on the big, those big mass arms, but it'd be crosswalk lighting

[2:23:46] too, it's something that an inviting you as we proceed to, it's just like that.

[2:23:50] Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

[2:23:54] Good job, Sherry.

[2:23:56] I didn't have the same discussion for right now.

[2:23:59] My organization has left me.

[2:24:02] Is this all cool?

[2:24:03] Is it me?

[2:24:08] I will do this discussion from here.

[2:24:11] That's okay with the council.

[2:24:12] Let me open up the priority matrix.

[2:24:17] I can't remember the old one.

[2:24:18] It's been so long.

[2:24:21] Let's see.

[2:24:23] So,

[2:24:29] Let's say three items of priority, and then we'll get through those in one of three

[2:24:35] items that we get through them.

[2:24:38] What would be the top three you go ahead for me?

[2:24:41] So I didn't include the original one from 2025 through reference.

[2:24:46] Visually it looks very similar in green and blue blocks.

[2:24:49] And it's in your packet and on the screen and then the updated version was the second attachment to the staff report.

[2:24:56] So I'll focus on that and as we can see we did complete.

[2:25:00] Eight items, one, two, and three from our last prioritization. So it's great for making progress. And then we did jump

[2:25:08] down and do some partial updates to Title 7. So originally Title 7 had been our 7th priority.

[2:25:17] Circumstances kicked that a little bit up the chain. So that has been completed.

[2:25:23] The main things I want to express are that previously, we had code penalties and nucences

[2:25:31] as numbers four and five together, and I do recommend we tackle that topic next.

[2:25:39] J2V, just because occurrence in the amount of time it currently takes for staff to work

[2:25:45] through code violations, both on the land use side, as well as things that are not

[2:25:50] found in the land use code.

[2:25:52] So what I've done, so this one,

[2:25:55] so that they look very visually similar.

[2:25:57] But one, yeah, but one with the yellow bar,

[2:26:00] that'll probably help it stand out.

[2:26:02] This is my recommended version going forward.

[2:26:04] So I now have, you can see here, a larger block of number four,

[2:26:08] where I've grouped three ordinances together,

[2:26:11] due to similarities and overlapping content.

[2:26:14] But essentially, I recommend tackling the procedural,

[2:26:18] So how do we process code enforcement violations, which is found in Title 1 in applies to

[2:26:25] then every other chapter in code, I recommend tackling that concurrently with the discussion

[2:26:30] about nucenses, as well as, and this is more of a minor detail part of a chapter, but

[2:26:36] it's noisy construction equipment and construction hours, because they all kind of relate.

[2:26:41] The only time people call us to talk about construction hours is if it is somebody violating

[2:26:45] them.

[2:26:45] So I recommend doing those four together from there, number five, I didn't quite put it together because it tracks a little bit differently.

[2:26:53] But that would be folding into the land use code, updated references to this general penalty section.

[2:27:01] So I recommend be tackled how we're going to classify new senses, how we are going to administer penalties and that kind of thing first

[2:27:11] and then folded into the land use code,

[2:27:13] since the land use code section requires going to P&Z

[2:27:17] in that hearing process.

[2:27:18] So it doesn't track as smoothly with Council.

[2:27:22] So that's my number one item to tackle as that topic.

[2:27:25] After that, this is a new topic that's come up recently.

[2:27:29] I think it's indicative of essentially

[2:27:33] property owners working with what they have in Sun Valley.

[2:27:36] So we're seeing an increase in condominium owners wanting

[2:27:40] to expand their condominium units.

[2:27:43] Historically, a couple of condo associations

[2:27:46] have allowed these kitchen bumpouts and window bumpouts

[2:27:52] through, I would say, less formal procedural means.

[2:27:56] But really, when someone is expanding a condominium unit,

[2:27:59] when you own a condo, you own the airspace.

[2:28:01] It's different than owning a townhouse

[2:28:02] where you own the structure in the land.

[2:28:05] So when somebody wants to bump out their kitchen,

[2:28:07] or they want to expand a ground floor on to and existing deck, they are going out of the

[2:28:13] bounds of what they own into the HOA common area. And that alone is its own kind of sticky

[2:28:20] procedure. We've been working with Matt on how to process these applications in a way where we

[2:28:26] have shorty that the homeowners have the permissions from the HOA to do that. A letter from the HOA

[2:28:33] not sufficient, we want an easement and then as a follow up to the easement we want a

[2:28:38] plat amendment. We are getting significant pushback from condo owners and associations

[2:28:43] and everyone. So we really just want to on the staff side tackle that quickly because of the

[2:28:50] prevalence there. The other thing on note there and I have been communicating this out to the larger

[2:28:54] associations is that it is also possible that when Idaho does eventually adopt updated building codes

[2:29:02] that some of these condo associations do to their age and lack of things like virus sprinklers.

[2:29:08] We may not be able to expand.

[2:29:11] So there's also kind of a question of, as from a policy standpoint,

[2:29:14] does the city even want to create a formal route for these condo units to do this?

[2:29:19] Some of these condo buildings do not need snow load.

[2:29:22] They do not have virus sprinklers.

[2:29:23] We know they have access issues.

[2:29:25] So coupled with, you know, how do we help homeowners improve what they have?

[2:29:29] There is also this larger discussion of, do we, is that in the best interest of public health safety and welfare?

[2:29:35] But we are getting, I would say, a bit of pressure from, from condo unit owners,

[2:29:40] one because the neighbor across the way did it in 1989 or 1996 and so now they want to do it.

[2:29:47] And so for us on the planning side, it's one that we had to muddle through three or four of these this summer.

[2:29:54] and if we could adhere to this schedule more or less.

[2:30:00] In my perfect world, we'd have something like next March that I could ship out to all of the condo associations in the big property management companies that they could disseminate to the ownership and then everybody would be on the same page and it wouldn't be staff spending 40 hours on an 80 sort of what edition.

[2:30:19] like it has been the summer where are the condo associations themselves on this issue because I feel like they

[2:30:25] yeah governments even then we do they are a bit all over the map some associations have like kind of a

[2:30:31] standard template where everyone's allowed to bump out their unit this much some associations have

[2:30:36] attorneys that understand all of these issues when I explain the city's vantage point and they they are

[2:30:41] 100% on board of what the cities trying to do other associations are looking at the city and me as a

[2:30:48] roadblocks, you homeowners, improving things, and, you know, so it's kind of all over the map.

[2:30:54] Well, one thing perhaps to consider in terms of not wasting city time, staff time, might be to require before we entertain any such application.

[2:31:12] First, they have to have the approval of their particular condo association and secondly

[2:31:18] of SBEA if the condo is within SBEA before we tackle anything.

[2:31:26] And largely the applications come to us with that because they are needing some level of approval

[2:31:32] from the HOA to build on the common area land. And so another issue we've encountered is the applicant,

[2:31:39] the architect, the homeowner, they say,

[2:31:41] I have my HOA's approval, they're allowing me to do this,

[2:31:44] and then we say, yes, but do you have an easement?

[2:31:47] Like, okay, so, yeah, sure.

[2:31:49] So when you have the race, I agree with your top three.

[2:31:52] Okay, so those are the top three from there.

[2:31:56] I don't believe I reordered this too too much,

[2:31:58] but we have signs that would range everything

[2:32:00] from construction signs, not regulated by content necessarily,

[2:32:05] but what signs of signs are appropriate

[2:32:06] and where can they go?

[2:32:08] We do know that construction sites largely don't adhere to these and the signs we see during elections and for real estate agents often don't either so it just needs a refresh in a way that is on board with

[2:32:23] We're going to go for you to talk to you.

[2:32:26] Okay, one, thank you.

[2:32:27] Moving on.

[2:32:34] Discussion, number eight.

[2:32:36] Discussion and approval of resolution 2026.

[2:32:40] 10 authorizing in America to actually keep contractors

[2:32:43] versus the outside contractor.

[2:32:45] Of course, fiscal year 2027.

[2:32:48] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:32:50] I wish before you today outlines your crew's funding

[2:32:52] services with the contractors that are listed in the resolution.

[2:32:56] Yes, today at a mountain that's listed in the day at the speed of proof in the

[2:33:01] proof.

[2:33:03] It's good.

[2:33:03] Contract are largely the same that been in our curriculum at a speed of 20 and 30 and

[2:33:08] 30 and 30 pass.

[2:33:08] Send to the cliff down.

[2:33:10] So unless you have any questions, I recommend a motion to prove the resolution.

[2:33:14] So, move.

[2:33:15] Second.

[2:33:17] Uh, vote point.

[2:33:19] Yes.

[2:33:20] Yes.

[2:33:21] Yes.

[2:33:21] Thank you.

[2:33:22] Thank you.

[2:33:25] General, item number nine important.

[2:33:27] I'm going to the Chancellor Council.

[2:33:28] Make sure that the City Assembly makes a future member to Assembly Economic Development

[2:33:33] Board continuing in efforts to involve City Council members more directly with outside

[2:33:40] boards and commissions.

[2:33:42] I'm nominating City Council member.

[2:33:45] My much more to be the City of Assembly's ex officio member of the Assembly Economic

[2:33:51] he's replacing Jim Keating.

[2:33:53] Our city has ministering in this position.

[2:33:56] Like a motion to confirm my appointment

[2:33:58] on my approach more to the Sunder Economic Development Board.

[2:34:02] Second.

[2:34:03] Boone 2nd?

[2:34:05] Boone?

[2:34:06] Yes?

[2:34:08] More at the stage.

[2:34:09] Yeah, I see.

[2:34:11] Yes.

[2:34:13] Forgell?

[2:34:14] Yes, yes.

[2:34:15] Good. Thank you. Consent agenda.

[2:34:20] Okay. The Finance Committee of Met has passed Monday. The committee puts it in myself.

[2:34:28] And Council President Puppet. We went through everything in the packet.

[2:34:35] And we were satisfied with whatever the questions we had.

[2:34:39] And we would recommend the approval of the all packet of payables to the city council.

[2:34:50] Can you send it in Tokyo?

[2:34:51] In Tokyo?

[2:34:52] In Tokyo?

[2:34:53] In second?

[2:34:55] Wait?

[2:34:56] Yes.

[2:34:57] Yes?

[2:34:58] Yes.

[2:35:05] We do have two people online.

[2:35:10] If you'd like to comment, you can raise your hand and I will let you.

[2:35:21] Public comment, I will close the public comment section on the meeting agenda and look for a motion. Second.

[2:35:33] Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, thank you, thank you, thank you very much

September 3, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript