[0:00] We caught that.

[0:05] Okay.

[0:08] So we call the order, call the meeting to order.

[0:15] So on your agenda,

[0:18] the first thing is the introduction of new committee members. So let's just start of the

[0:24] end will reintroduce yourselves.

[0:33] So if you don't have your little light on, you're not

[0:36] being recorded and they like to have it recorded. So not that light, this light.

[0:46] Brad Willes.

[0:47] Chad to be. Andrew DePetro. Nathan Bishop. Colby Ricks. Okay, so this has our terms.

[0:57] So we are all here for at least two more years, not more.

[1:04] So every year we reaffirm, we choose new officers or reaffirm the existing officers.

[1:12] And we need a motion for that, is there anybody that would like to be the chairman?

[1:23] I make a motion, we leave it the same.

[1:27] Okay. Okay. So any more discussion?

[1:44] Nathen made the motion and Roth's seconded correct, Roth's seconded

[1:55] correct, Roth's

[1:55] So the motion is to reaffirm myself as Chairman and Gerald Martin's vice-chairman.

[2:05] Any

[2:06] one favor, C.I.

[2:09] Opposed?

[2:17] Okay, so we have to approve the minutes.

[2:24] And I'm not sure if they got to.

[2:26] The minutes were not part of the packet.

[2:27] They ended up being a separate.

[2:29] We got two bigger, so Lisa tried to separate them out.

[2:32] But she emailed them to everybody.

[2:34] Everybody got the email.

[2:36] And we have one copy.

[2:39] Sharing names.

[2:40] One or two copies.

[2:41] No, we need to look at them.

[2:43] I know Ross wasn't even at the meeting so I didn't get a copy.

[2:47] He didn't got a copy of the minutes either way.

[2:49] I saw the email and I thought he didn't want to turn it.

[2:52] Yeah.

[2:53] Okay, I need a motion then to approve the minutes.

[2:56] I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

[2:58] So Chad, to be made the motion.

[3:01] Second.

[3:02] I'll second.

[3:03] Jennifer Jensen.

[3:08] Any more discussion?

[3:10] All in favor say hi.

[3:12] Hi.

[3:13] Opposed the same?

[3:15] A minute's pass.

[3:18] All right.

[3:19] Jonathan?

[3:20] All right.

[3:21] Now we get to the discussion part.

[3:23] That's kind of the meetings right here.

[3:28] So we've got a financial report for the details on attachment one.

[3:32] You can look at that or we can just walk through the meeting.

[3:36] I've did just a brief summary of each of those separate impact fee accounts.

[3:43] First, when they came up, in general, I'm going to start actually with, we have to adjust

[3:50] the fee table.

[3:52] At our last meeting, we reported that the MCI was showing at a 0.84 increase in this

[3:59] body, elected to let that increase remain.

[4:02] Basically, we have a part of the impact, as we have let it increase per the MCI automatically

[4:07] in order to decide.

[4:08] Explain what the MCI is again.

[4:10] Very good.

[4:10] The MCI is the municipal cost index.

[4:15] Everybody's hopefully familiar with the consumer price index.

[4:17] It's basically how much it costs for consumers to buy certain things.

[4:23] The MCI is the same thing for cities.

[4:25] How much does it cost the city to operate?

[4:26] How much can you buy with our $100 or $1,000?

[4:31] As certain things increase like the price of oil, steel, in our case,

[4:37] asphalt and pipe is a lot of it.

[4:39] As those things increase, those costs increase to cost the city more to do business to replace pipe and put rot in.

[4:47] In the case of the impact fees, it's the cost of the projects that we have listed in the CIP.

[4:52] So as that NTI increases, the cost of those projects has to increase.

[4:57] In the last meeting, Lori had no-

[5:00] The numbers that were the increase is going to be less than 1% and it jumped up from that number in September to January jumped up to an increase of 3.4%. At the time this body, it said we're going to elect to let it increase that amount for that percentage. Then on March 27th after we got the numbers for the full year at DCM, a deputy city management,

[5:25] Benjamin Chumble went to the City Council and shared with them the increase that went what we thought was going to be around 1% up to 3.4.

[5:33] And the City Council elected to allow that automatic increase to take place.

[5:36] This body doesn't have to do anything about that increase.

[5:40] It's merely reporting the increase of it and then I've included the table that show the old impact fees and the price and the new impact fee price and that table looks

[5:57] like that.

[5:58] And that, the old was 1994, single family dwelling, the new one up over 2000.

[6:06] So an increase of $80 per single family home, then the corresponding increases per each

[6:14] category, multi-family retail office, industrial institution.

[6:21] So those are the increases and we actually implemented this April 1st, I think.

[6:26] Yeah, that's what the table says.

[6:28] The table says the attachment.

[6:30] Yeah.

[6:31] So we've already made the increase in people starting

[6:33] to pay that new amount.

[6:36] Do you know if you got much comment from anybody?

[6:40] I have not, as I've sat by the front desk, I haven't got any comment there.

[6:44] Yeah.

[6:44] Probably one person of a few that actually deal with them.

[6:50] So it's summarizing these.

[6:52] I didn't go along with this table because I didn't have it at the time.

[6:56] I think it goes backwards almost.

[6:58] but I started with parks in the Agenda. It goes with parks. The impact fee account shows

[7:04] at the printing of this 870,000. However, we have previously budgeted 800,000 for construction

[7:11] of the trail section across the store property. That's that project that the Mad Tech has done to

[7:17] get basically finishing that section from evil cannibal over to the existing Canary Room trail by

[7:24] basically by the mall or bridge view over in that area at the corner of

[7:28] Eastland and Poland. So we spent a portion of those funds on construction plans

[7:33] and the remaining portion of the budgeted amount will be spent after the

[7:36] contract is awarded and the construction begins in May. So it's it is almost

[7:41] there. I know we had a bid opening and the bids came in right on track with the

[7:48] amount that's been budgeted so we're right there. I don't know if it's been awarded

[7:52] get, so I can't report on that but I know that it's written and they were right on

[7:56] trying to provide a hearing.

[7:59] The fire summary, the fire impact fee totals 1.6 million a little over.

[8:05] The dispatch and expansion project is taking place this year that's part of the safety

[8:11] complex.

[8:13] That project shows a total of 375 grand within that CIP.

[8:17] that cost is shared between the fire and police accounts on a 34% 66% split so

[8:24] that will be coming out of that fire amount. Hey Jonathan. Back up just for a

[8:30] minute and explain the capital improvement plan again just briefly is in

[8:37] why that's important to us. So I don't know if I have a list of all of them and

[8:42] and there, could you bring one more?

[8:44] She's great.

[8:44] She's the finance staff.

[8:46] Capital improvement list identifies the projects

[8:50] that we can contribute to growth

[8:53] for the different areas.

[8:55] So we're collecting parks, fire, police and streets

[8:58] with each of those, this is the police one specifically.

[9:04] We're collecting impact fees for police,

[9:07] to collect those fees.

[9:08] You have projects that you put on the Capital Improvement Plan,

[9:11] and the CIP list is what we ended up calling it.

[9:14] On here, you can see there's the type of capital

[9:17] infrastructure on the far left facilities.

[9:20] We put in this, and so we start collecting money

[9:23] for these projects, additional police station space

[9:28] to accommodate officer necessitated by 10 year growth.

[9:33] So we have to prove that these projects are going

[9:35] to be necessitated by the growth in the community.

[9:38] That's where the impact comes in when people move in. We need more officers, so we need more space.

[9:45] There's a host of criteria to get things on this list and go through that briefly, or

[9:51] I just repeat of kind of the whole theory that behind what we

[9:57] How you determine what the money goes for?

[10:00] So I can't go towards new employees or old maintenance or anything growth-related infrastructure. That's true for every single category. It has to be growth-related. And in order to actually collect the money, we have to put it on the list. So if there's something that's not on the list, we're not collecting for it, wouldn't be spent for those things either. That's what I was just just a repeat of that.

[10:29] Since we don't meet a lot here and so these the police one up there's an example. We have that police

[10:34] Growth area. We have

[10:36] Communication Center, which is the dispatched one. I was talking about

[10:39] They've got some of these other equipment that they have

[10:43] They have to mean certain criteria to be on the list and that's what yeah, okay. Thank you questions on anybody else on those

[10:53] so the fire one

[10:55] We are seeking a recommendation to use funds for land acquisition of an amount that

[11:00] And 68,000 that amount comes from a comparables for residential land in the area for searching

[11:08] for land for a fire station number five, which is part of that fire station study we just

[11:13] completed with our comprehensive plan identifies the need for additional fire stations in certain

[11:18] spots.

[11:18] One of them is in the northeast part of town.

[11:21] So we're seeking a recommendation from this body to use funds for land acquisition for

[11:28] that fire station.

[11:30] Curiousity where is where's the land or it's not it's not currently identified. Yeah, it's not identified

[11:37] We just know there's comparable land up there. It's gonna be approximately a couple acres two acres of residential type property

[11:45] So that amount came out of

[11:47] comparable land values sales recently for you can get two acres of land for

[11:53] $68,000 in the city limits

[11:56] You're doing well

[11:57] I don't know.

[11:58] I'll leave that up to minstance for that question and I'll put it in there.

[12:05] We haven't begun collecting fees for fire station number five but it's identified in the list

[12:09] and Fritz has said it's a legitimate request to use available impact fees for that property

[12:13] acquisition.

[12:14] Fritz won't elect the city attorney that it's not here, so I can say it and he did say that.

[12:24] So at the end we'd actually ask for a recommendation to use that 68,000.

[12:32] So on our thing here is we currently have a purchase sale agreement for property.

[12:50] We don't need, we don't have to prove the details of it, we just the idea of it and so

[12:55] that's fine.

[12:57] Yeah.

[12:58] And you said at the end or at the end of this discussion here.

[13:02] If there's any further discussion on the fire, we can finish that and you can have a recommendation

[13:06] to do that now.

[13:08] Or we can wait till the very end after the whole report and go through it.

[13:12] I'm going to do that.

[13:16] On to the police.

[13:17] When the police fee account totals 60 for $600,000, $43,000, $683,000.

[13:26] Basically, that entire fund is budgeted as part of the police expansion.

[13:30] There won't be any money left in that one.

[13:33] And what we end up actually having is that project may actually exceed that amount a little bit.

[13:39] So we'll be collecting the fees for the next couple of years until we redo the CIP list

[13:43] Those fees will pay back the city's reserve account and then once the new CIP is listed that we'll just drop off

[13:51] We will no longer collect fees for any police expansion at that point in time.

[13:57] I have a question. So

[14:00] So we didn't do that on the fire part of the

[14:03] safety campus

[14:06] No, because we're not expanding that because of growth. We're just remodeling because it needs to be remodeled.

[14:12] Yeah, the fire portion, if you're talking about the dispatched center fire portion.

[14:16] Well, so we're spending all of the police funds towards the new safety campus.

[14:21] Right.

[14:22] Why aren't we spending, why aren't we being asked to spend more on the fire since we're affecting that too?

[14:30] Yeah, the fire went in and I believe is expanding necessarily they could stay in the same

[14:35] The former city hall building is entirely being occupied by police department personnel

[14:45] And so in a sense the entire remodel for that project is is the police department expansion

[14:52] The remodel of the current police space is not new is not creating new space except for in the communications

[15:00] The location center, we're doubling the size of the communications center. So there's half of the communication center is growth related expansion. We're not doing anything to the fire department at all. Okay, so that's why we're not spending, in fact, few money from the fire department, except for their portion of the expansion to the dispassion. All right. Thank you. And when you say that it's going to drop off what the fee will drop off.

[15:29] Yeah, so what happens is the list that Laurie had for those capital improvement projects it will no longer be on it

[15:34] And so when that's no longer on it the amount of tribute to growth that we're collecting won't be on the list

[15:40] We will stop collecting money for it because it won't longer be a project. We need in the future

[15:45] Not to say that something won't be added in several years. That's possible. Yes

[15:49] It's this next addition of that particular thing will drop off me and if you don't have it on a list you can't

[15:55] collect that, keep it on there and collect.

[15:58] That's right.

[16:00] Why wouldn't you think about the future and put something on the list?

[16:04] They will.

[16:05] They will.

[16:05] We'll probably.

[16:07] They have a couple of years to think about it.

[16:09] Yeah.

[16:10] And it's one of those, there's a sunset on the money.

[16:14] We can't collect this money and keep it for 50 years.

[16:17] We have to collect and use within a certain amount of time.

[16:20] So maybe the police department doesn't need expansion

[16:23] in the next five or ten, and we have to keep that sunset type of timeline there.

[16:32] So we add also that if you all remember in October 14, we adopted a new CIP basically,

[16:39] changed up all our fees. We're required by state law every five years to review our CIP.

[16:44] And so the current one we've got in place now is two and a half years old.

[16:48] So when I do an offer, so more years we'll update that again, we'll work through the process with this committee

[16:54] We'll get staff input one of the fire chief in here in the police chief, and they'll be all part of that process

[16:59] Looking forward for the next day to 10 years on what capital needs they might need due to growth and we'll adjust all those CIPs

[17:08] The fires or the police station will come off, but very well something could take its place

[17:13] And and that'll be a very public open process involving you guys

[17:17] city staff and who knows who else, public at large.

[17:21] A

[17:24] question in regards to the police expansion.

[17:26] So what was the amount that we approved for that?

[17:33] Finance, she's going to say.

[17:34] Did it hurt the amount being out of the countable improvement plan?

[17:38] Well, so did we approve the amount originally

[17:39] that this body approved that amount?

[17:41] Because I guess my question is you said it may go over that.

[17:44] Yeah, the body approved to use the total amount,

[17:46] basically $6.43 or whatever was in the account necessarily.

[17:51] Go ahead.

[17:51] A

[17:58] million or number that I have there is for the additional space and the discussion.

[18:04] So that's a year mark of those funds.

[18:06] And we only have about 640,000 right now.

[18:10] So the count is less than what we had put on the list originally.

[18:15] So we just approved to use all that we had in there.

[18:18] So does that just extend as we continue to collect?

[18:20] We don't have to approve that.

[18:22] That's correct.

[18:23] The other thing I would add to your question is, if back a couple of columns, you'll see the CIP value of the Communications Center's $388,000.

[18:31] The police portion is the 256.

[18:34] We're using basically all of our police money that we had in the bank is going to the police station and

[18:39] the only impact fees we're spending on the communications center is that portion from the fire department, which pays for about a third of the expanded space.

[18:50] And so, yeah, the rest of that has been covered with the general fund mostly because we didn't collect as much money in the last six or eight years that we were thinking we would when we started this program in 2009.

[19:03] You

[19:09] kind of see this is when we first started and these are the different fees and how much we collected.

[19:14] The sub total for, like these are the each yearly amounts.

[19:18] So the first four years, we only collected up to about 80,000 bucks.

[19:24] And the total amount to be for foresaw and meeting was that 1.4.

[19:29] So we just had to collect it and the amounts just hadn't been coming in.

[19:33] And it's all growth related if there's no growth and you don't need as much.

[19:36] So it's

[19:47] Anymore on the police

[19:48] Streets is where it gets a little bit more interesting

[19:52] The street impact fee toll is 1.3 or almost 1.4 million the fund splits money between traffic signals and

[20:00] Roadway expansion projects, the CIP list possible signal locations and the roadway project and the city engineer in terms of timing of signal placement in which roadway project undertake. So we are currently collecting money. So we have the CIP list for roads has a large number of possible signal locations. We're not collecting for every single one of those. We collect for five possible locations and then we also collect an amount

[20:29] for projects, and this is the list.

[20:32] These are the streets that are on there currently.

[20:35] This is the value, and then there's a growth portion.

[20:39] And then this is the amount we're actually collecting.

[20:43] We don't want to collect for this much, because your impact fee would be, I don't know how much a lot, I don't give you a number, but right now-

[20:54] 12 times more?

[20:55] Yeah, 12 times more, because that's what difference is.

[20:57] We're only collecting for 1.5

[21:00] Based on the growth numbers we have so we collect proportion to that

[21:04] There any questions on that

[21:08] And this is this concludes kind of the summary of all the finance portions

[21:23] So in regards to the fire

[21:25] motion, okay

[21:27] So you need a recommendation

[21:30] So we don't make a decision. We just make a recommendation to the city council

[21:35] So the question is whether

[21:37] We as a committee want to recommend the city to expend around 68,000 acquire a future site for a new fire station.

[21:47] That's correct.

[21:48] So I would need a motion for that.

[21:50] Mr. Chairman, I need to go on record as abstaining on this vote.

[21:56] Okay.

[22:02] So I need a motion to recommend.

[22:07] I make a motion that we recommend it to the city council.

[22:12] Seconded Chad to Ross Connellan with the motion and Chad

[22:16] Seconded so any more discussion on that

[22:24] do you want to roll it doesn't matter if we roll call phone all in favor say aye

[22:30] Pose

[22:32] Nobody posed

[22:34] Make sure that you put down the journalism statement all

[22:43] right

[22:44] So next the next part portion is a street expenditure so this will be choice

[22:50] deal.

[22:54] As well as a CIP addition discussion on traffic signals and choice going to take

[23:00] over, but I'm going to sit down. I'll probably have to say a few things and help tray

[23:04] out because it's kind of attack teams. Jackie was on the way here.

[23:14] So should we go to attachment three?

[23:36] So Jackie put together, well I'll be back out here.

[23:41] This here is a list of traffic intersections, CMP values for lights, you can see how

[23:48] many needed there are, of that we only fund a small portion of those lights, but these

[23:54] are all eligible to be installed, depending on what the city engineer chooses to be the

[24:01] first priority.

[24:02] So most of these, as you're well aware, are growth related, and she looks at these signals

[24:08] individually and says where where are their accidents and where's their

[24:12] growth and where's a necessity right away. If she determines one of those and

[24:18] that's where she will focus and where the money will try to be allocated. So

[24:22] while it's on the list it doesn't allow us to go off and run away and just do the

[24:26] light. Before we ever get to that point we would come before the group here and

[24:29] say we believe that this is responsible use of this money. We would like to use the

[24:34] impact fee to fund all or a portion of this signal at this location. You can choose to

[24:42] accept or deny that and then we have to figure out under other funding sources for that.

[24:47] But she doesn't do this in the vacuum and it's well thought out. But when we did some

[24:55] of these signals. There's been an additional growth, especially on the south side.

[25:00] In your packet, you have a request for two signals. One located at the corner of Harrison Street,

[25:07] 3,600, and another one at Meadowview and Pulling Road East.

[25:15] Dry? So those streets don't intersect.

[25:22] Two separate signals, sorry. One, one located at 3,600, South and Harrison Street, and one

[25:30] Okay, I meto view and pulling road east up there in kind of northeast corner.

[25:36] So that is mountain view

[25:40] No, no, I understand that go to the other one

[25:46] It's bound to be yeah

[25:55] Staff report it was our intention to get this on the list because we can't do anything with these signals

[26:01] unless they're on the list, we can design them or anticipate.

[26:04] Well, the one's, the school related anyway, in a sense.

[26:08] That was her thoughts that there's going to be.

[26:11] There's a large subdivision in southern South York

[26:13] and completely growth related.

[26:15] There's going to be a lot of kids part of that.

[26:17] They're going to probably cross at this location,

[26:19] which is a half mile road perfect for this.

[26:22] What she originally drafted this staff report,

[26:25] this was what we've always done and what we plan to.

[26:28] and then we started thinking about it. There's always going to be an opportunity for growth

[26:33] and where we're going to put signals. So Jonathan, I, Fritz, all kind of had a discussion

[26:43] and it was kind of determined that maybe instead of having exact specific, we needed the original

[26:49] numbers so we had a total value there but for locations of the CIP plan we're more progressing

[26:57] in towards the idea of arterial arterial collector or collector collector. All these locations

[27:03] would be eligible for this to be used in the CIP and we had to identify as such and before

[27:11] we spent any money on them we would come and identify that individual intersection and say we

[27:16] believe this is where the money should be spent on this project and ask for approval from you guys

[27:21] at that point. So Harrison and 3600 would meet that arterial collector standard and

[27:27] then mountain view and polling roadies would meet the arterial collector. So

[27:32] explain what an arterial collector are. An arterial is based on a one-mile

[27:37] roadway. The old grid sections based on the old county roadways. Every mile we

[27:43] consider that an arterial and every quarter-mile we consider that

[27:46] collectors because they collect off of the smaller residential roads. They feed

[27:51] the collector and that eventually feeds out to the arterial where it's designed to have fast

[27:55] moving vehicles to get you to across large distances faster not like a residential neighborhood

[28:01] road and primarily where we have our our lighting right now our signals. So rather than have a big

[28:10] go with like that. So it just gets bigger and bigger.

[28:13] Just add add add adds everything we would prefer to come back and you know the the

[28:18] amount we need is 11 million dollars that continues to grow you know if we got

[28:25] back to where it was less than five signals remaining we probably should have a

[28:29] list because then we need to actually have a value yeah that's that's a long

[28:35] time's up. Okay. We would request that the impact your group authorize staff to go forward with

[28:45] to council with the idea that we the CIP plan identify those types of intersections arterial

[28:51] and arterial collector collector collector. Troy could you talk some more about how the mountain

[28:58] One view on qualifies right now, why it's so important?

[29:02] Okay.

[29:05] Is there significant amount of traffic that the Bishop's Store House has created?

[29:10] Five, six cars a day.

[29:11] All of us.

[29:13] When Canyon Village came through and developed, there was a requirement, believe part of the PED.

[29:21] It was in there, actually it was identified on the bicycle facilities plan that there was a bike facility.

[29:31] generally in this area. So they they constructed a 10 foot wide deep tap

[29:36] pipe path along the east side of this mountain view roadway right here that

[29:41] comes up to here. As I think most of you know our our canarym trail starts

[29:46] here goes off there's also another access point right here and then you can

[29:49] eventually access the rest of the canarym trail system. The goal here is to have a

[29:54] safe crossing separated from bridge view which is the other signalized

[29:59] intersection.

[30:00] To allow people across at that location, as they come around the corner, those vehicles are moving fast. Even with a preemptive warning light, we still fill it's an unsafe condition. And probably necessary for this subdivision and South to kind of have access to those newly areas. And that would be our goal to put out that location. So right now. So right now that light is going to be a four-way intersection.

[30:29] section? You stop on pull line?

[30:33] This is the possibility of that. So before we have a project, we put on the CIP list,

[30:38] we would go out and do engineering. That engineering would make a recommendation of how

[30:42] to how to signalize that. It very well could be a four-way stop intersection. My guess

[30:47] is it probably is. We the city have control of how those signals run once it's developed

[30:56] we can and we would make pull line the primary on that so metal view would be the

[31:02] mountain view would be the minority road and otherwise it would rest on

[31:07] pull line traffic so we've also had input from the transportation master plan

[31:15] people the trucking community to live at how many signals are through this

[31:19] corridor because they don't like to start stop trucks so it makes a lot of

[31:23] we would try to work with them to signal, to tighten that signal to where they don't have to stop.

[31:29] But if somebody comes up there, pushes the head button, yeah, eventually will change.

[31:34] So let me add a thought or two on this topic here.

[31:37] So the request today is, should we amend the CIP to list these differently?

[31:46] And not necessarily are we going to go build Mountain View and poll line.

[31:52] We've spent money on two traffic signals,

[31:55] impact fee money on two traffic signals

[31:56] since we've had the program going.

[31:58] The last one was Hankins and Stadium,

[32:02] which when we adopted the list wasn't on the list.

[32:05] But nobody could foresee that that would be a signal for us

[32:08] and then a couple of years later,

[32:09] the school districts decided to go, they decided to go.

[32:11] And we come back and we amend the CIP

[32:14] so that we can add stadium and Hankins

[32:17] so that we could spend impact fee money on it.

[32:19] So, one for two, right, we guessed right, one for two.

[32:24] Here, nobody thought in 2009 that Mountain View and Poline would be something we would consider,

[32:30] nor Harrison 3600, but something we would be considered.

[32:33] So, I don't know what the other one is that we're not thinking about right now, you know?

[32:39] And so, the thought is just to say, we're going to fund traffic signals,

[32:44] we're going to fund five traffic signals,

[32:46] And an arterial arterial, arterial collector or collector collector intersection where the need happens to arise

[32:53] That we don't have to keep coming back and amending our list

[32:56] Every time one comes up that we hadn't thought about before and to me that seems like a really good idea

[33:03] So again to avoid this amendment process whenever we build one we're going to come back and we're going to talk about it

[33:10] Why why it's needed we're going to ask for recommendation from the committee that committee is going to get a chance to weigh in

[33:16] I don't know if Mountain View and Poline is that location or not.

[33:20] I can see on the list several others that I still think will happen before Mountain View and Poline,

[33:25] but there's a reason for Mountain View and Poline to at least be considered that it didn't use to be.

[33:30] And there might be reasons for others to be considered in a year or two from now that we don't know about right now.

[33:35] And that's I think why we're presenting maybe we changed it in this way.

[33:40] We're still only going to collect money for five signals.

[33:44] You know, there's still $430,000 a piece and so it shouldn't, it should not affect our fee at all.

[33:54] It just gives the city engineer and her team a little more flexibility on where the need comes up to address those needs a little bit more expeditiously, I think.

[34:06] And so that's the request here.

[34:08] So we need a motion.

[34:12] I just like to say, if I could, signals will always be a reactionary action, okay?

[34:22] Unlike the street improvements themselves, there's mechanisms for getting the streets

[34:26] improved.

[34:27] But signals will always be a reaction, because until the war is there, you can't do it.

[34:33] And then when the war needs to be done, and nobody can guess in one order, you're going

[34:37] to reach a warrant on that list.

[34:41] So I totally agree that my concern when we started this discussion as you were going

[34:46] to increase the number, but as long as you lock the money in for five, but don't identify

[34:54] those five and allow traffic warrants.

[35:01] I think we could never question that, you know, because traffic warrant is directly related to safety, and I don't think anybody up here in this group was going to ignore the safety element of it. And we just can't guess what a big box or a school lands on a corner, there's going to be a warrant. Until that happens, you don't know.

[35:30] Well, and to that point, if a big box or something does go in, you have the option

[35:34] of not charging, then the impact fee, but making them put in the signal, right?

[35:38] Sotomayor Which is exactly what we do with the school district.

[35:41] Sotomayor It's absolutely not.

[35:42] Sotomayor It's a killer false element fee.

[35:43] Sotomayor Okay, so we do use impacts fees for a portion of that, of that, and then the district

[35:48] pay for the balance.

[35:49] Now, one thing I also want to clarify, when you talk about a signal warrant and capitalized

[35:55] you know, there's, that has a meaning to it, and that's not what our, what our language

[36:02] says, what our language says is that the city engineer will review and, and determine, and

[36:06] then come ask.

[36:07] It doesn't say she's going to do a warrant analysis, and I think that's important because

[36:12] stadium and Hankins would not have met a warrant analysis at the time.

[36:17] It was where, it was one where we got a little ahead of the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

[36:22] the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

[36:25] the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the,

[36:25] to an exact confirmation by warrant analysis.

[36:29] But the little W warranted is where we're going with that.

[36:34] So this isn't a signal warrant analysis.

[36:37] This is where the city engineer believes

[36:39] it's necessary for a variety of reasons.

[36:42] And very well, that could be from a warrant

[36:44] that comes from accidents and fatalities

[36:47] and those kinds of things.

[36:49] True.

[36:49] Hopefully we're going to try and get ahead of them

[36:51] where we see the need coming in as like Hankins and Stadea.

[36:55] Right. Well, I was going to say we're going to have high schoolers making a left hand turn onto a 50 mile an hour street.

[37:01] You're going to have some warrants probably.

[37:06] Different kinds of warrants.

[37:09] So, so I need a motion to recommend this idea.

[37:14] You can say as presented.

[37:18] I still move.

[37:26] No, I can't take it. I was going to say it in a second.

[37:31] Okay, any more discussion? Any more discussion? All in favor?

[37:38] Aye. Opposed? The same?

[37:42] Hi David.

[37:47] For the second portion of this this

[37:53] has to do this is North College road

[38:00] well west from Kriegsfahead the Sunway so Sunway Soccer Complex anybody up

[38:07] kids there is a pseudo roadway in there that comes off a Sunway in and acts more

[38:16] like a driveway, not a roadway, that feeds the parking area for this development out there.

[38:23] And in this generalized area, we feel that connection of North College Road along here

[38:31] and then reconstruction of the rest of it to meet the current roadway standards is kind

[38:36] of unnecessary need out there, and the idea is to use impact funds to do that.

[38:47] So previously we came before the commission, Jackie came before you guys and got approval

[38:52] to add that to the CIP list that was already discussed.

[38:56] So it is on the list, but this time we would like to go forward with design dollars to use

[39:06] We're asking for the impact fee to pay for the design of that roadway and then in the subsequent year we'll come back with actual numbers and a better estimate on how much the roadway actually costs.

[39:18] They estimate the roadway about a million dollars until we get out there and do more analysis and there's some large irrigation in there.

[39:25] we have to look at and control and then so that that will return to you but right now there's

[39:32] investment of about 200,000 or less for engineering services associated with putting that roadway

[39:39] and so we're coming for the commission actually has for authorization to spend up to $200,000 of

[39:45] impact these towards us.

[39:50] Any questions?

[40:02] What percentage of this is growth related?

[40:13] We're thinking it's 100%. Well, I'm no engineered study, but when

[40:20] I started coaching soccer 10 years ago, it was not a need. And last year, it was a need

[40:26] several different times where you have 100 cars getting parking tickets for overflow in the

[40:33] for you. I know that was the thing all by itself, but I was, I was coaching Travis Rathweiler's

[40:38] boys at the time. That was real funny.

[40:40] No, we understand.

[40:43] No, I agree. It's needed. I guess, you know, I think we just got to be

[40:49] careful that impact fees are growth-related. And what, you know, I think it's needed.

[41:01] I just

[41:02] There's cautious how you, how far we go down the road.

[41:09] Well, and to that point, though, is there any, as that agricultural land gets developed?

[41:14] Is there any developer reimbursement that would be part of the conversation of when those

[41:20] get developed, that now the developer doesn't have to put in that portion of the road?

[41:24] So we are the developer and the owner of the south side of the property, and we do not

[41:31] retain paybacks the city has examined from that and when you guys put on the other hats

[41:37] one I'll do that but so he will not owe the city any funds that doesn't say that he

[41:44] will have responsibility the northern property have responsibility for additional real

[41:48] whitening at that point too so there will be a minimum row without their identified and the

[41:55] the engineering report, and it may fall when that developer to the north has to develop the other half of the road way or something.

[42:03] So you're suggesting it might only be a half road based on a million dollar estimate?

[42:08] Yeah, it'll be two lanes.

[42:10] So the collectors are a four lane width.

[42:13] We'll build the south two lanes when the property on the north side develops, they'll build the north two lanes.

[42:18] They'll probably immediately get striped when that happens as a three lane section.

[42:22] or maybe just a two-lane segment parking on the street we probably wouldn't

[42:25] strike it as four lanes right away but the width is there for four lanes and so

[42:30] we're just talking about the south half two lanes for quarter mile. Is that a

[42:34] quarter mile? It's a half mile to start. Sorry, short half. So it's essentially a

[42:40] lane mile of construction work we're proposing. I'd like to request a little

[42:46] clarification in regards to what determines whether it's growth related or not, you

[42:52] We have young children and we're active in a lot of the sports in the area and we're not suckers

[42:56] Not one of them, but we've been out there a lot of time

[42:58] So I understand it's saying it's needed but where's the line of

[43:03] Inneeded and growth related. How do we determine that? I think the way she so this came for your group

[43:09] Last time was a time before I can't remember the exact conversation, but the way she presented it was as those

[43:16] Santerra and WSNV and let it do 42 Phil Stone most develop out there. There is a

[43:23] need for the rest of that roadway to go through and we be in the owner or

[43:27] subject to that that development to make that tie and put in those quarter mile

[43:32] collectors.

[43:35] So if none of that development happened there would be no need for

[43:39] the roadway, right? There's no they're not coming out and meet up with us and by

[43:45] that that Sun Terror has actually attached there now at the northeast corner of

[43:50] our property. This is really just a continuation of that. As the school develops

[43:56] to the south, some future time crease side will have to be developed. That's

[44:01] that's far out there. We don't see that need right now, but if the school did

[44:06] develop, that's 100% growth rate at that point. I would say the west side of the

[44:11] roadway, our portion of it would have to be them out as well.

[44:15] And I don't think this is just about soccer.

[44:19] This is about the first federal park that's out there.

[44:21] I mean, that park is always busy.

[44:24] No, it's needed.

[44:26] I agree that it's needed.

[44:27] And I agree with Troy that there's some growth out there

[44:30] in that area that is contributing to this.

[44:35] But this park with soccer serves the entire community.

[44:40] And that need was there long before this most recent growth, and I guess my concern

[44:51] is not this one, it's just we're starting to in my mind stretch the rules of growth related.

[44:58] I realized

[45:00] It's needed, and there's some money in the fund. And you'd like to get started, but that date was there. If we wouldn't have any growth in this town in the last five years, and nobody paid a fee, there still need for improving that road, because it's substandard. So we

[45:25] have a couple. I think this, I think this is some we're going to struggle with on a lot of projects in the future,

[45:32] So, we have a couple choices. One, we can not recommend it and it will still go to the City Council.

[45:42] We can recommend that a portion of it is growth related. So,

[45:53] what would the committee like to do?

[45:54] I also recommend the engineering portion and when she comes back with the final members because we will come before you with the road construction costs.

[46:02] We can either.

[46:04] But the politicians, two bets in.

[46:06] I think the council would submit what significantly benefit by your professional guidance on an approximation of growth.

[46:17] Gerald raises a valid question.

[46:19] The council is less qualified than most groups to get out of their own comfort zone.

[46:25] And I think we need to have your guidance if that is helpful.

[46:33] I'd also add a thought too on the whole growth related thing that we don't have districts

[46:41] or areas in our street impact fee. Our entire street system is being evaluated with our

[46:48] growth related conversation. So a new home that happens exactly the opposite

[46:55] corner of town from up here has an impact on the system and in fact where this facility

[47:01] is drawing cars from all over the whole city to that area. The growth in the whole city

[47:08] affects the need for this road just like it would affect the need for a signal at Mountain

[47:14] View and Pull Line.

[47:17] And so I kind of agreed with Chad Statement earlier that you know, a

[47:22] few years back, the traffic going to and from that area was not what it is today. And there's

[47:28] a need for a new road, it's non-existent road at all right now, and so any road is going

[47:33] to be new road and growth road. This is different from two lanes of

[47:38] Eastland that are already there, and we're talking about resurfacing two lanes or adding two

[47:42] more lanes, right? Then you have non-growth, take care of your road that you have, or new

[47:48] capacity. We're talking entirely new capacity for this half-mile-ish of road, and it's

[47:55] taken traffic from the whole community to that area because it happens to be a

[48:00] destination spot. And we don't have a developer that we would typically rely

[48:07] on to build arterials like happens with development. So like will happen on

[48:13] the north side. So we're only talking about half of this road. To me, I think these are

[48:17] the reasons why six months ago was it when we added this to the CIP is why it got

[48:24] added the way it did and I think it's probably a legitimate expense here but

[48:31] obviously we're putting it for you guys for your thoughts on it and then and

[48:36] then another body of seven will give their thoughts on it as well and also the

[48:41] soccer complex didn't used to be all of that that it is now right it's grown over

[48:46] the years it used to just be a couple of soccer fields and now it's taken up that

[48:51] whole, all that grass area. So I agree I think it is a growth thing.

[49:01] Just with the houses

[49:02] that are down the street and you've got to have more. I live on Canyon Rim Road that's

[49:10] about two miles away and I can hear stuff that goes on and all the crowds in that and if

[49:17] the wind is just right and I just can't imagine all those people coming out of one, one

[49:24] approach getting onto that road and how that has to back up there so I think it's, I

[49:31] think it is needed.

[49:32] You know, it's interesting about this too and I'll just talk about one more comment and

[49:35] then I'll try and be quiet.

[49:38] I live, I live a quarter mile from here and if I drive to the soccer fields I drive two

[49:43] miles and I live a quarter mile away.

[49:46] So a road, a road here will actually reduce a lot of trips on other roads, falls and pull line and sunlight.

[49:54] I think it will increase the traffic on North College significantly.

[49:58] And I think if we build it, it will be...

[50:00] We've been talking about a traffic signal at Grand University College in no time, but I also think it's a necessary improvement in its time.

[50:12] When I think what you said is a good reminder, I guess, when I was originally thinking about it, talking growth related, we're not necessarily talking growth related in the subdivisions and things right there in that area. We're talking the traffic and everything that is going to this destination because of the growth of the whole community. There's even been a lot of people

[50:31] going to that park because it is ADA accessible from outside of Twin Falls.

[50:37] I mean, there's people from Jerome, there's White Off, and there's people from Berlin.

[50:41] And it brings people from all over this region because it's the only ADA accessible park.

[50:48] Sure, and it's more than just Twin Falls Parks and Recreation that uses it too.

[50:51] I mean, it's their regional soccer teams or tournaments there as well.

[50:56] But I think it's also important to point out that we're talking about the street budget,

[51:01] not the park budget, even though it's directly related to the park and and the traffic of that park,

[51:06] we're not talking about pulling from park budget, we're talking about pulling from street budget

[51:11] to build the street. And it's just the design part, right? So we're not talking about a million

[51:19] dollar approval, it's just the designing it correctly.

[51:24] So the

[51:30] way this works when if you make

[51:33] make a motion and it doesn't pass then you can entertain a different motion of something

[51:40] that could pass. So what's the committee want to do is anybody want to make a motion

[51:46] anyway with any conditions or a recommendation.

[51:54] I'd make a motion to approve it as it's

[51:56] then presented. Recommended. Recommended? I second it.

[52:09] Any more discussion?

[52:14] Let's take a real call, vote, and this one.

[52:19] Can we add to the recommendation another, then you make another motion.

[52:26] You can amend the motion.

[52:28] I, I would like to make a recommendation to amend the motion to include that we

[52:36] suggest it would be evaluated the percentage of the project that is being directly attributed

[52:42] to growth versus just a need that was there before the growth.

[52:47] Good.

[52:49] Good.

[52:49] Could I clarify?

[52:50] Are you saying that?

[52:51] You did it.

[52:51] Are you saying this design piece or for the future discussion piece?

[52:56] I'm suggesting we leave the motion to suggest the same in that we proceed with the design,

[53:05] but prior to the project, we've at someone evaluates

[53:10] and there can be some discussion

[53:11] of what percentage of it was related to growth

[53:15] versus an existing need.

[53:16] So I can, before you second it.

[53:19] How about we make a commitment as staffed

[53:22] before we present the project?

[53:25] We've determined that.

[53:26] So we will go forward with the 200,000 design,

[53:29] but we won't come back with the other one million

[53:31] until we have those numbers

[53:33] first to present as part of the project that your motion that is what I would like

[53:38] to make you feel a lot more comfortable. So I don't know because we have an

[53:43] ask you for the other one million do you guys want to leave that offer not? I can't

[53:48] leave it alone. I'm not going to tell you. I think it's a non-issue at this point until

[53:57] it becomes an issue. Are you asking if we're going to approve the one million

[54:02] No, I'm not asking for that.

[54:04] Yeah, that's the message.

[54:06] Before I come to you with the rest of the million,

[54:09] we will present that as part of our.

[54:14] So you think leave the amendment to the motion off for now,

[54:17] but no, when you remember six months from now,

[54:21] that's what you promised.

[54:22] Yes, sounds good.

[54:24] So you need to.

[54:25] So I think your motion and Troy are saying the same thing.

[54:29] To me, I would go ahead and put the amendment in place

[54:33] So you kind of hold us to it.

[54:36] It'll remind us of what we would.

[54:39] Okay, so there's an amendment to the original motion.

[54:43] And so we would vote on that first.

[54:46] And then we go, when we vote on the first one after that.

[54:50] So here's only one chance.

[54:55] So the current motion that's on the table right now is that

[55:00] We would recommend to move forward on the design, but before construction began, there was an analysis of what percentage of growth related that this actually is.

[55:18] Right, so you have to have two votes. The first vote you'll have is on chance that yeah

[55:23] When we present the project in the future that there'll be an analysis with that

[55:29] Okay, so you have to vote on that one first. Okay, so let's vote on that. Any more discussion on that? All in favor say aye

[55:37] Any opposed?

[55:40] So on the region on this one

[55:49] Right, all right

[55:51] So on the original amendment, does it go away?

[55:59] The original motion, we still have the vote on it.

[56:02] The original motion is up to 200,000 spent for design.

[56:08] Okay.

[56:10] When we're going to vote for it.

[56:14] Okay. Yeah.

[56:16] Let's just forget the roll call vote.

[56:18] Are you saying then that that would supersede the vote we just had?

[56:22] No, your vote's at place.

[56:23] It's as amended.

[56:27] So, the clarification.

[56:29] The original motion was to recommend to the council that we spend $200,000.

[56:34] We amended that motion, so now it says, we're recommending the council we're going to spend $200,000.

[56:39] And we're going to evaluate the growth aspect of it before we spend anymore than that.

[56:45] Okay.

[56:50] So,

[56:54] so what do we need to do there?

[56:56] Just a motion.

[56:58] Okay.

[56:58] Just a motion.

[56:59] All in favor.

[57:00] Sir, roll call.

[57:01] Roll call.

[57:02] No, no, no.

[57:04] Roll call.

[57:05] Roll call.

[57:05] Go ahead, Sharon.

[57:14] Okay.

[57:15] Brad Wells.

[57:16] Yes.

[57:21] Gerald Martin.

[57:23] Yes.

[57:25] Colby Ricks.

[57:27] Yes.

[57:29] Nathan Bishop.

[57:31] Yes.

[57:32] Chad DeBee.

[57:33] Yes.

[57:35] Jennifer Jensen.

[57:37] Yes.

[57:37] Yes, Andrew D. Petrio.

[57:41] Or DePetro.

[57:42] DePetro.

[57:43] Yes, sorry.

[57:44] Yes.

[57:45] And Ross Conlon.

[57:47] Yes.

[57:58] Okay.

[57:58] So then.

[57:59] Yeah, that it.

[58:00] We're done with that.

[58:01] Number seven.

[58:03] So.

[58:04] Now you guys.

[58:05] Put on our improvement reimbursement committee.

[58:08] Right.

[58:10] Okay.

[58:10] portion of this.

[58:17] It won't take long.

[58:19] Yeah.

[58:20] So I need to recuse myself and Gerald will you take over?

[58:24] Because this doesn't, you're not involved in this one.

[58:27] No, I think I'm involved in either one.

[58:30] Three applications here, Brad, we'll discuss them all.

[58:32] That's what it needs to be.

[58:38] Okay.

[58:39] The first improvement reimbursement committee item is federation road extension.

[58:46] That's a lot of quick elementary school.

[58:56] I guess our job here is to approve the reimbursement amount.

[59:12] So it's your attachment for following the street one we just did.

[59:29] That is Federation Road Extension right in the middle of the page.

[59:34] I can't read it, Brad.

[59:36] You're gonna give me a good number.

[59:38] I forgot my glasses.

[59:41] There's no page.

[59:42] I'm gonna go back.

[59:45] Is this the one that I'm gonna live like that?

[59:47] Is that the one that I'm gonna live like that?

[59:47] So, I'm gonna go back.

[59:48] Okay.

[59:50] We keep, oh!

[59:54] Wait there.

[59:55] Yeah.

[1:00:02] So what this one was, is this is just an amendment to an existing one that was approved before, because in conversation with the person on the other end, we discovered an error in the payback calculations. And so just a quick reminder of how these works. So basically, arterials are your one mile road, collect

[1:00:32] or your quarter mile roads, so when an improvement goes down a roadway, typically if you end up

[1:00:42] improving the neighbor's property, you're eligible to be reimbursed at your cost plus 15%.

[1:00:50] In doing this one, if you go to the...

[1:01:12] so what we did is we had the original amount

[1:01:14] And what we had, we had a contract, a change order based on when the school went in,

[1:01:20] this is Federation Road, which is where the new Rock Creek Middle School is.

[1:01:26] We had to extend Federation to the east to tie the school to the existing subdivision.

[1:01:37] So this figure didn't change at all, but what happened is this D-Duck did change.

[1:01:43] So

[1:01:51] what happened is that part of that original change order is 170,000 was included in that

[1:02:00] were 5 ADA approaches that got changed from a single approach on an angle to two individual

[1:02:10] approaches, and they ended up being $1,500 a piece, so there was an additional $7,500 that

[1:02:17] That should have been deducted from the original, but wasn't so, go back to this.

[1:02:26] So that reduced, this figure ended up being $7,500 more, which reduced this down to $130,000

[1:02:37] plus the 15% or $350,000.

[1:02:41] dollars.

[1:02:44] This school district is negotiating with Northern Passage and want to use these

[1:02:51] numbers but just to keep the numbers clean and it's because it's a public entity, everything

[1:02:57] needs to be open to the public. So we're just asking for you to allow us to amend this

[1:03:06] It's an existing improvement of application to the lower amount, that's all I need.

[1:03:14] I will take a motion to approve the amended amount.

[1:03:20] I'll make the motion, and we approve the amended amount.

[1:03:24] Is there a second?

[1:03:26] The motion is second to approve the amended amount, as presented, all in favor, say aye.

[1:03:33] Aye.

[1:03:36] That one's taken care of.

[1:03:38] Okay.

[1:03:40] All right.

[1:03:41] Thank you.

[1:03:41] So the next one, if you'll go to this sheet, just go about 8 more sheets, says

[1:03:48] Cheney Drive West extended Philstone Professional subdivision.

[1:03:57] So this is

[1:03:58] the narrative,

[1:04:05] so this is St. Luke right here, this is the parking lot, this is

[1:04:10] Cheney Drive West, this is Grand View Drive, so this is the Twin Falls Reform

[1:04:20] So when, so part of a redesign of this whole area to help the traffic into that area, to open up this away from the North College Grandview intersection,

[1:04:35] we proposed to have just completed a drive west extended. There's an offset intersection here.

[1:04:44] and it actually keeps going over to Cric site at this point and there's construction going

[1:04:49] on here of a transition center, a memory care center, and there's department complex.

[1:04:55] in putting this road through.

[1:05:00] It was a joint venture with the city on this part, the Mobile Home Park on this part, I owned all this part, and then there were owners here. City paid for their part. I'm paying for this, but as the road comes and becomes on to the Reform Church, the road swings one more time and then splits the two properties. The center line, the road is the property line between

[1:05:28] Twin Falls Reform Church in this division. So what happens is this

[1:05:38] roadway right here that's on their property becomes eligible to be paid back

[1:05:45] once it's complete. And

[1:05:51] so we have we have this payback in place and when the

[1:05:55] Reform Church decides to do more construction here, that's what triggers it.

[1:06:00] But nothing else, if they don't ever do another expansion or anything on their church, that

[1:06:06] will just sit out here, may never be paid.

[1:06:10] But if they ever do develop and then they're liable to pay for their portion of that road

[1:06:18] that was placed on their property, and they'd already granted a ride away there for the road

[1:06:25] to go in.

[1:06:25] Is that limited to construction on that side or is that any construction that takes place on the property?

[1:06:34] So again, the eighth mile rule is that in this case, it's a collector.

[1:06:40] And so everything that went down here from the center line to the south is this guy's responsibility.

[1:06:48] Everything that's from the center line north is this guy's responsibility.

[1:06:53] But water lines are put in a grid system, meaning that we have major lines go down our

[1:07:01] terminals.

[1:07:02] We have a little smaller lines that go down collectors.

[1:07:06] That regardless of how you develop, this person and this person are going to have to have

[1:07:13] a water line going down those common collectors.

[1:07:15] So we take that water line and we split it 50-50.

[1:07:19] This property takes 50% and this property takes 50%.

[1:07:25] Same with sewer if there's a sewer line that benefits both properties,

[1:07:33] then it becomes but there's no sewer line in this point.

[1:07:36] So the only improvements,

[1:07:58] I'll walk you through the pages in just a minute.

[1:08:01] So this is the street that goes in.

[1:08:05] So there's new curb and gutter that goes along on the church's property.

[1:08:13] There's no sidewalk because it wasn't required until they developed down the road.

[1:08:18] And then there's 17 or a point and a half feet of asphalt roadway.

[1:08:26] And this is a little bit heavier duty depending on the traffic on this road.

[1:08:32] whether it's how much gravel I this something get up to 20 inches of gravel and

[1:08:37] someone get to a four inch mat of asphalt so the only two improvements that

[1:08:44] were eligible were the roadway work and then the water line that went through

[1:08:49] here

[1:08:53] so

[1:08:57] to clarify it's you're doing both sides of the road so I'm the whole

[1:09:01] road got improved but it's only the portion that would end up being on their

[1:09:05] property that's eligible. So in your application we do a narrative showing a

[1:09:15] ridden narrative of it which is the kind of start flip over.

[1:09:25] So then I go

[1:09:26] through and show what area of benefits. So the yellow area here is the area that

[1:09:30] benefited from those improvements and that is entirely owned by the Reform

[1:09:34] church.

[1:09:41] So I included in there the contract for the improvements of all of

[1:09:46] Cheney. It was $1,000,000, $70,000 to prove the whole half mile of Cheney. But

[1:09:55] what I, you get reimbursed, you need to know what the unit cost.

[1:10:06] So, this is just the prices that I paid to have it done. So, when I get reimbursed, I get to be reimbursed for the cost and what it cost me to have it done. Not some inflated value that I think would be worth later.

[1:10:26] So, basically, these are the improvements that were in. There was a water line in the state of the government.

[1:10:33] their, their, their South property is 664 feet.

[1:10:38] These are the unit pricing based on the contract from Jeff Lidle.

[1:10:43] So we put in one gate valve, there was one fire hydrant that,

[1:10:48] that was split between the two of us in fittings.

[1:10:52] In a system, collect is when they, when we collect,

[1:10:56] we connect into an existing water line, we have to be,

[1:11:00] We have to sanitize the line, it's a process, so it's a line item that's on the estimate.

[1:11:07] The transportation portion of it is, an excavator comes in, digs out the existing roadway,

[1:11:14] puts it to proximate rough grade, with $664 feet of curb cost $17.50, a lineal foot,

[1:11:23] but we had a three inch asphalt mat.

[1:11:28] So the asphalt's three inches thick.

[1:11:31] And that's priced on a unit pricing.

[1:11:36] And then there's gravel.

[1:11:39] And so you do calculations of how much gravel goes in there.

[1:11:43] And there were 440,000 cubic yards.

[1:11:49] And then every project like that has a storm water prevention,

[1:11:56] pollution prevention plan and in this case I just estimated the cost of the

[1:12:03] overall project was close to a million dollars and this is 75 so that was about

[1:12:09] 8% of the swim plan. So my cost to put that improvement on top of their

[1:12:16] property cost me 65,000. There's a reimbursement fee of 15% to cover my soft

[1:12:25] cost, engineering, inspection, and it really doesn't cover all the cost.

[1:12:33] So, and that's just a one-time fee, if this gets paid back in 20 years, that's all you,

[1:12:38] you get paid back, is this amount?

[1:12:41] So, that total is $75,000.

[1:12:48] So I have a, for this application, EHM was the engineer on it.

[1:12:54] But I have a third party engineer take the application and certify that all the numbers

[1:13:04] and everything makes sense.

[1:13:05] So the city doesn't have to go through that expense of doing that.

[1:13:09] So in your package here on the last page of the application,

[1:13:23] it's actually very front of

[1:13:25] it.

[1:13:34] So,

[1:13:45] the second page of this application is Hayley Barnes is a license engineer and she

[1:13:52] certifies that the numbers are right.

[1:13:57] She can't certify that it's eligible, that's your job, if you agree with what that's.

[1:14:03] Her job is just to look at the engineering part and confirm that.

[1:14:09] The

[1:14:18] only thing that's different on this one is you're I'm asking you to approve it without

[1:14:25] the final letter that the city grants once the improvement is totally finished, inspected

[1:14:35] and accepted for perpetual maintenance and all the improvements are done.

[1:14:42] But my portions a quarter mile and it was a half mile overall project and

[1:14:51] The engineering department

[1:14:52] One to wait till the whole road was done this spring before giving me that final letter

[1:15:00] Because we only meet twice a year, and rather than ask you to come back before that, it's legal that you guys can approve this on the condition that I submit to the city that letter of acceptance. So Fred said that was okay to do on this one. Because there's some sidewalk that needs to be done on the on the other off from my part.

[1:15:33] So is there any question?

[1:15:35] So can I ask, what would be the trigger for them to have to use this if they pull a

[1:15:43] building permit of any kind on the property, even if it has nothing to do with the south's

[1:15:50] half of the property?

[1:15:52] Okay.

[1:15:52] So they want to install a fart fan in a bathroom, they have to, they said $5,000.

[1:15:58] I believe, you know, certainly there's more conflicts of interest to this room right

[1:16:04] now than you can imagine, but there's been a lot of discussions out there relative to

[1:16:14] the church, but basically any improvement that would otherwise normally require them

[1:16:18] to do improvements on their frontage would trigger it, okay.

[1:16:22] Now, a remodel of the bathroom would not, repaving to the parking lot would not.

[1:16:28] In addition to their sanctuary wood, they're in the process, they have a three-year plan to expand and add a bunch of classrooms.

[1:16:38] So that will trigger it?

[1:16:39] That will trigger it.

[1:16:40] Yeah.

[1:16:41] And I, in support of, I guess Brad here,

[1:16:47] we did EHM, I'm no longer EHM, but awful close to it, awful close to this project.

[1:16:52] The I've reviewed the process, the numbers, the calculations, the way he's allocated the costs, I think it's correct.

[1:17:02] I think it's been checked by a third party.

[1:17:04] So I think what we need to do today is approve this payback calculation of some 70, whatever that number is.

[1:17:14] It's here, but I think it should be subject to the city's ultimate acceptance of the road.

[1:17:23] So I think a motion to that effect is what we need to move this off, move this on.

[1:17:28] Sure, and go ahead.

[1:17:30] And so it sounds like you're kind of going ahead of maybe what is typical.

[1:17:37] Is there a reason why?

[1:17:38] This is the first time I've done, yeah, because we don't meet twice a year.

[1:17:44] And I did this last time I had one that Troy and I decided the last minute that it was wrong.

[1:17:52] And so I withdrew it and waited for six months to redo it because they're in the process of doing

[1:18:00] Planting their improvements. I would like to have this done now rather than next fall and so we talked as a city attorney Fritz

[1:18:09] Wonderleg

[1:18:10] Whether this is proper and he's had no problem with it

[1:18:14] City Council a lot of times will approve something with condition

[1:18:18] So they don't have to revisit it again, because it's something that staff can take care of.

[1:18:24] And now, and they gave, did they give up property?

[1:18:28] Or was that an easement, or does it?

[1:18:30] They gave, they gave the city the right away.

[1:18:34] And does that benefit it to them at all, or does that?

[1:18:39] So part of when they, when you develop any property in Twin Falls,

[1:18:45] You always have to give up right away if you're on a collector or an arterial street

[1:18:51] That's just to give and they won't approve any more approvals on that property

[1:18:56] So there's like the school district when they put the school in over on

[1:19:02] Till or falls they had to give their right away for all of Hankins and all of

[1:19:09] And finally, because that was their parcel.

[1:19:12] And that's just, that's a fundamental thing that we needed.

[1:19:17] I think if you're concerned about any development,

[1:19:20] had this not happened and the church came in next month

[1:19:23] with their project, they would have to donate the land then.

[1:19:27] And do the improvements and the improvements will all assure you

[1:19:31] would cost significantly more to do it later because they got

[1:19:34] this number is in the benefit of the larger project.

[1:19:38] So it's, you know, the churches, well represented in their negotiations on this, they're just,

[1:19:46] it's a good deal for the church when they move to get those improvements in.

[1:19:51] It's cost them more to do it later.

[1:19:54] And they're getting the benefit of it in the meantime, and Brad financed it.

[1:20:00] And he's carrying the cost. His work, Brad's work has all been approved. It's just some of the work outside the scope of this area has not been all completed and approved. It will be. But I think it is important. If we have an approval, just keep it clean that it's conditioned upon ultimate city acceptance for this project. Well, I think it's important to note that although it is a church and very likely a nonprofit organization.

[1:20:28] and should they decide to split off that south half,

[1:20:32] they will significantly benefit from that improvement

[1:20:34] having been added.

[1:20:38] Therefore, it makes it for them to pay for it.

[1:20:41] I have a quick question.

[1:20:42] I just want to make sure I understand correctly.

[1:20:44] So once they pull that curve in,

[1:20:46] they're responsible for this reimbursement.

[1:20:48] Is there a timeline of when they have to pay that back

[1:20:50] or is it with the first project?

[1:20:52] So the city is the gatekeeper on the funds,

[1:20:55] but they don't they don't want to be involved in the financial part. So all they they this the

[1:21:01] Church will need a letter from me releasing them before the city would give them a final

[1:21:07] occupancy. A building permit. Well, the initial permit.

[1:21:11] Yeah, I for a building permit and and and that permit will not be issued until there's a letter from

[1:21:20] The other party in the payback provision, if I wanted to donate that to the church.

[1:21:28] If they wait twenty-one years, obviously they get a letter from the city of the letter.

[1:21:33] The city doesn't care.

[1:21:35] Gerald's done these and he's just traded people stuff.

[1:21:38] He's improved something else for him.

[1:21:41] The terms are up to the person requesting the reimbursement.

[1:21:46] Yeah, the church would go to Brad and negotiate the best deal they can just

[1:21:55] so you saw on the school this week

[1:21:57] We would rather have the money now rather than wait till it was triggered down the road so we might have that

[1:22:06] Conversation

[1:22:09] hi Dan if it gives you guys any comfort level because you haven't done this before where you're conditioning approvals

[1:22:14] But we do it all the time the planning zoning commission. It's a regular occurrence and sometimes you'll see seven or eight or nine

[1:22:21] conditions, so Council does them all the time. It's totally appropriate. Essentially what will happen is if that roadway is never accepted, your approval never happened.

[1:22:32] And so it's just as if we never voted on it. The condition is an absolutely appropriate way to go on this. And I would, along with Gerald, I would recommend we do that.

[1:22:40] Any if they if they put a soccer field out there, is that

[1:22:46] Soccer field wouldn't require a building permit. No, I don't require a permit. Anything it requires a building bill that would

[1:22:53] I'm cautious when I say that any

[1:22:56] Significant improvement out there requiring a building permit

[1:22:59] I think if they got a permit to do a renovation inside the building that didn't create additional square footage

[1:23:06] I don't think it would trigger

[1:23:07] But it certainly would if they expand their facility

[1:23:13] Okay.

[1:23:16] I would take a motion to approve it with a condition.

[1:23:20] I would make that motion with the condition that, what was the condition?

[1:23:28] On city approval?

[1:23:29] Yeah.

[1:23:30] City approval.

[1:23:31] Second.

[1:23:32] I second it.

[1:23:33] All in favor?

[1:23:34] Say aye.

[1:23:35] Aye.

[1:23:36] All opposed.

[1:23:37] Same sign.

[1:23:38] Prove unanimously.

[1:23:43] I motion.

[1:23:44] Second.

[1:23:51] So, are we putting anybody in hardship right now by doing one more thing?

[1:23:58] Not if you do it in 15 minutes.

[1:24:01] Okay.

[1:24:02] You get 15 minutes and it will be a hardship.

[1:24:06] Over time.

[1:24:08] Okay.

[1:24:10] So, this ordinance was written in 2010.

[1:24:14] And I authored it.

[1:24:17] It was a collaboration between the different developers,

[1:24:21] but it was a head scratcher on actually how to put what

[1:24:26] we want to do in writing.

[1:24:29] We want to change a couple things.

[1:24:32] We came to you last meeting with the idea of changing

[1:24:37] the definition of an initial developer or private developer

[1:24:42] to include school districts, nonprofits, different things.

[1:24:47] And so last meeting we came, the city came to you and asked you to

[1:24:54] to recommend this change to the City Council, like Chris, just to come.

[1:25:01] Describe that the city council can't be experts in everything. We're more experts than the city council as far as they back so. So there's a couple things triggered some changes. One of them was their south of Twin Falls.

[1:25:20] There's kind of been a moratorium, so to speak, of not having the property infrastructure to building more new homes. So really for the past eight, nine years we've been working on.

[1:25:33] trying to overcome those obstacles and the city has gone a long way to eliminate

[1:25:40] all of them but one and when that one was where the water tanks are south of

[1:25:47] town on Washington Road, cities just completing a four million dollar pumps

[1:25:55] booster station replacement.

[1:26:00] That was one of the final pieces to open up this

[1:26:04] entire basin, everything south called the south basin, to development.

[1:26:10] But a water line needed to be put down 3,600 and that's the road that becomes the highway.

[1:26:17] So it's the water tank road that goes east and west.

[1:26:21] So we needed to run a water line, 24-inch line all the way down toward the Harrison which

[1:26:28] where the new middle school is.

[1:26:31] So by putting that line in, that opened up a large area of the south part of town to

[1:26:41] have the proper fire flows and water pressure.

[1:26:48] So, so aiders, so developers are funding a million dollar water line.

[1:26:56] They're splitting the cost, basically, almost 1,000 lots, so everybody's paying about a thousand

[1:27:03] dollars to put this line in. We have a boundary on that. There are people outside that boundary

[1:27:09] that don't want to participate now, but we need to have a way that they can at a later date.

[1:27:17] So the way that the current resolution was written, only talked about water lines that split

[1:27:27] two properties were went across the property. This waterline opened up a whole area of properties

[1:27:33] that are not even adjacent to that line but they were now able to develop because this line

[1:27:42] went in and the line didn't go in they would not be able to develop. So we needed to amend this portion

[1:27:51] in here and Troy pointed out there's an error in a previous part that will have to fix

[1:27:59] but it won't affect what you're doing.

[1:28:03] So I rewrote this part to talk about for all reimbursements except for water distribution

[1:28:10] systems of lines greater than 12 inch that require additional water capacity for service

[1:28:17] area greater than 160 acres. Full compensation be determined by the cost plus

[1:28:27] 15%.

[1:28:34] So all water distributions accept the ones that are larger than 12

[1:28:38] inches. 12 inches is usually the line that goes down an arterial road. Rarely do

[1:28:45] we get bigger than that unless we have a real water need and then that's got to be

[1:28:50] funded by some mechanism. In this case they're put a 24 inch line down and it's you know it's

[1:29:00] costing close to a million dollars. So what I'm asking we're asking you to recommend to the

[1:29:07] city council that you allow us to split this up a little bit for lines that are beyond the standard 12

[1:29:16] inch line and serve a bigger area that's a half mile square the full

[1:29:24] compensation is the cost of it plus 25 percent the reason it it's more is

[1:29:31] there's a tremendous amount of engineering water modeling and a lot more

[1:29:36] costs that go into this and the payback on something like this is really long

[1:29:41] So we're asking to increase that to 25% on those and the other change is

[1:29:50] 20 years sounds like a long time, but if you're familiar with Twin Falls

[1:29:57] Where Addison and Carage Lane

[1:30:00] Shane St. Luke's has a clinic there. And Carish Lane goes north from Addison with fields on both sides before you get to the housing project. Gary Nelson put that in 18 years ago with the idea he would hopefully get paid by those land owners. That property is not developed yet. And we have probably four properties that are going to turn out here pretty soon, but they really still

[1:30:29] deserve that payback. So I'm asking to be able to extend that from 20 to 25 years after

[1:30:37] the acceptance.

[1:30:40] So that those people still do get paid back. When we picked 20 before

[1:30:47] it was an arbitrary number, it just seemed like a long enough number but it isn't. So that's

[1:30:56] That's the change in that portion to

[1:31:06] make that same language work in the water portion

[1:31:10] of the pay back.

[1:31:13] A little bit of change had to be made here.

[1:31:19] I added for the properties that benefit within the defined area before I never dealt with

[1:31:25] the idea of a defined area that a water line here would benefit this whole area.

[1:31:30] And so the other part of it is for developments that the water distribution system requires the installation of a major distribution line larger than 12 inches that provides sufficient water supply for an entire defined area that's greater than

[1:31:49] and 1.5 mile square or 160 acres,

[1:31:54] all undeveloped properties within that defined boundary

[1:31:57] shall be the responsibility,

[1:32:00] shall be responsible for their share of the cost

[1:32:02] of the water line.

[1:32:05] So there are people within the boundary

[1:32:07] of this water line has benefited

[1:32:10] that don't want to pay,

[1:32:13] works out about $3, $4,000 maker.

[1:32:16] So, you know, some of me own 40 acres there, but they don't want to participate at this

[1:32:23] point, but they eventually down the road for that land to develop, they're going to

[1:32:27] need to buy into this water line.

[1:32:29] So this gives the people that are financing it up front now, the ability to get paid back

[1:32:35] for their investment into this water line.

[1:32:38] The

[1:32:41] last change is

[1:32:48] taking this whole idea, so we do transportation, pressurized irrigation

[1:32:55] which is a pump station and canal water pump into a pressurized system within the subdivision,

[1:33:04] the sewer lines and the water lines.

[1:33:07] So we also have the Twin Falls Canal Company water distribution system.

[1:33:13] So all these canals that you see, there's a 1903, there was a law that when an irrigation

[1:33:23] ditch gets all placed, then there's an implied right away there, and you can't move that

[1:33:28] ditch from now on, it always stays in the ownership by the Twin Falls Canal Company.

[1:33:34] So there are lines piped, unpiped, that go throughout this whole city.

[1:33:39] There are situations, we just got done putting in a big line that was about 700,000.

[1:33:54] This won't really affect it, but what we're trying to do is go down to the drawings because

[1:34:21] because a canal line meanders follows gravity, I put three examples, so if there's a,

[1:34:31] we have parcel A, parcel B, this is their property line, and we have an open canal line

[1:34:37] that goes here then meanders onto their property and goes back.

[1:34:42] If that guy develops here, they're going to make him pipe this whole thing.

[1:34:48] And so this portion here ends up getting moved up here, but this guy is benefited by this guy eliminating that.

[1:35:00] So, that portion is eligible to be paid back by parcel B to parcel A.

[1:35:08] Because the canals have, the small ones have a 15 foot right away from the toe of the bank, and that's where the bank curls around, that line may go down in the right away, maybe on parcel D's property. But the actual line is not. In that case, just because the right away is on that property.

[1:35:32] He's not liable to pay for that line.

[1:35:37] It has to be that line being on his property before it triggers in being eligible.

[1:35:45] Go to example three.

[1:35:53] Another situation that happens is parcel G's been developed and that pipe has been piped.

[1:36:02] to open ditch, meanders, parcel E decides to improve his property. The canal company

[1:36:13] will not let you just all sudden go back into pipe and leave this open. They'll make this

[1:36:19] property, this developer go back to this point and run it all the way across. So this portion

[1:36:27] here would be eligible for the payback whenever parcel app develops.

[1:36:34] If parcel app doesn't develop, you know, for 20 years, he doesn't have to pay anything,

[1:36:41] but once he does develop, you would have to pay that.

[1:36:45] So we ran into that that we had a property here and the pipe here, and we had to go across

[1:36:50] some else's property and the canal company used few down filer on the south side

[1:36:58] of filer you'll see open four foot wide canal lines going across and that's they

[1:37:04] don't ever want that to happen so other than the technical parts of it which

[1:37:10] I wouldn't expect you guys to understand that's the that's the gist of what we're

[1:37:15] were adding. When we wrote the original ordinance, we talked about doing the gravity irrigation

[1:37:22] and decided that it was probably too complicated. We weren't sure how to do it, but now that

[1:37:29] we've had eight years or seven years of the reimbursements, I feel confident that I was

[1:37:37] able to accurately make this fair.

[1:37:44] So what we're asking you to do is make a recommendation to the City Council to approve

[1:37:51] this amendment to the resolution.

[1:37:58] Being involved in this every day, and listening to it every day, I mean this document is evolving.

[1:38:05] it's getting better and getting fairer and we keep finding some of these things

[1:38:12] that brought on these changes that Brad has just gone through that need

[1:38:16] refinement from the development community I think that I strongly support it. I

[1:38:25] think we need to make the recommendation. What really happens this is this is the

[1:38:33] guideline but as Brad mentioned earlier at least half of the time the two

[1:38:39] property owners end up getting together and working it out anyway but if

[1:38:44] they can't work it out then there's a procedure by which one guy puts the

[1:38:49] bell and the other guy pays a share later but the two property owners could

[1:38:53] always get together and work it out not only the payment percentages but when

[1:39:00] that's paid and how it's paid or a lot of times as Brad alluded to you end up doing something

[1:39:06] else for the adjacent property owner rather than rather than recovering funds from them or vice

[1:39:12] versa. And so I strongly support these amendments, recommend them. I will wonder

[1:39:25] whether I should

[1:39:26] abstain. Just because I am one of the property owners involved in the one the big line,

[1:39:36] the big 24 inch water line and just to be careful I probably should abstain. But I think

[1:39:42] that this the only on that particular one all it does is it makes everybody that benefit

[1:39:49] share in the cost equally.

[1:39:53] I will abstain. I was going to ask if I should do the same.

[1:39:56] being indirectly involved.

[1:40:00] Should I abstain as well?

[1:40:07] I have a canal company, kind of ditched behind my house. Should I? No, no, I'm not. So,

[1:40:18] class, that big improvement to the water tower out there on Washington, that's pretty much wrapped up with

[1:40:25] And the, the, the D tour with the road work going down 3,600 is that this upgrade that's

[1:40:31] going on right now.

[1:40:32] Okay, and then it's going to end about where the D tour sign ends right now.

[1:40:38] And it'll be able to go north into all that area.

[1:40:41] Yes.

[1:40:42] And then also, whatever farmland within a half a mile of that going east if somebody else

[1:40:47] gets.

[1:40:47] All the way to Blue Lakes, the Northern Lakes.

[1:40:49] Yes.

[1:40:50] is in this, everything all the way to the lakes and north and everything north and

[1:40:55] quite a bit south will benefit from this line, it is sized to serve that area.

[1:41:03] So this, all these will serve letters and all this, to hold off on developing on

[1:41:07] the land, on the south side, and the sewer, the way to follow this, puts it all in.

[1:41:13] Okay, this is pretty fascinating.

[1:41:19] I have a quick question, so if we're changing it from 20 to 25 years, if there's somebody in the last year or so that is

[1:41:26] de-weighted for their 21 years, can this go back, and would they have to take a decision?

[1:41:32] So what this status is, this changes the time from the original or step to the letter, because there's a point when you finish all the improvements

[1:41:43] in the city says we'll take him on now for the rest of the

[1:41:47] eternity. So we're saying that was 20. Now we're going to make it

[1:41:53] 25 if somebody's waiting for that 21 years. They're going to have to

[1:41:57] wait for 25 years. So we do affect that. But that's that's happens

[1:42:03] with codes when we change building codes. You know, somebody's

[1:42:07] maybe waiting to build something under this code, but the code's

[1:42:11] going to change and cost a lot more money. I can see what you're saying, but yes, and

[1:42:17] what you're saying is true. If somebody's waiting, I don't, if somebody waited, they're

[1:42:21] 21 years old.

[1:42:23] That's impossible. This, this policy hasn't been in effect 21 years. So that's impossible

[1:42:28] for anybody to be in that position. So it wouldn't need to be retroactive. Retroactive.

[1:42:33] What's the 18 years of Gary Nelson that that was brought up? So, so Gerald's right. This,

[1:42:38] this is not that older code. They had older paybacks that were eligible and they could have came in and reapplied and

[1:42:46] resubscribed to you and then we would have kept track of them with GIS of those. We have about 10, maybe 12 of these that have been before the commission.

[1:42:57] Those are the only ones we're tracking and all of them are far less than 20 years.

[1:43:01] I don't think there's anybody that can fall into that situation.

[1:43:04] That's either a 20-year-old who wants to want about Gary Nielsen where he's he would qualify he would qualify

[1:43:10] but he hasn't submitted so we have no way of tracking so you'd have to submit and it would be

[1:43:17] at that point he would know of right now actually this benefit is Gary because just Gary's not well he's

[1:43:26] one that's receiving the money, not paying the money.

[1:43:28] All right.

[1:43:29] Okay.

[1:43:30] Okay.

[1:43:38] So we need to make a motion to prove this amendment.

[1:43:43] I think you're right.

[1:43:44] I'll make a motion to approve the amendment.

[1:43:46] My second.

[1:43:47] That.

[1:43:59] I'm going back in charge here.

[1:44:01] Oh, okay.

[1:44:03] No, you could be running this.

[1:44:04] Okay.

[1:44:04] Anyway, we've been moved and seconded to approve the amendments to the payback ordinance.

[1:44:11] I would recommend approval.

[1:44:13] I think the commission will do that.

[1:44:14] I think Jennifer should make the.

[1:44:16] Yeah, you're abstained.

[1:44:17] You're abstained.

[1:44:18] Well, I'm not going to vote.

[1:44:19] No, but I think you're abstained.

[1:44:25] Okay, so there's been a motion.

[1:44:26] It's been seconded.

[1:44:27] All in favor?

[1:44:28] Well, this, this is the a roll call vote.

[1:44:30] Just because we had two abstains.

[1:44:48] Rick, are Colpy Ricks?

[1:44:51] Yes.

[1:44:52] Nathan Bishop?

[1:44:53] Yes.

[1:44:55] Ted DeBee?

[1:44:56] It was Stain.

[1:44:58] Oh, sorry about that.

[1:45:22] All

[1:45:31] right, so looks like our next meeting is scheduled for October 26th. Put that on your calendar.

[1:45:42] And there's no other business than work concluded.

[1:45:51] Seriously.

[1:45:56] Don't bother me at all.

Impact Fee & Improvement Reimbursement Committee - Apr 26th, 2017

Transcript