City Council - Regular Meeting

The City Council will come to order at the regular meeting. The time and place is advertised. I'll throw in again, Councillor Spickelmeyer. Thank you, Clerk Brockie. Councillor Spickelmeyer will not be joining us. I think he's home tonight and we don't have a Zoom link for him, but he requested and received an absent. Excuse me. Please stand and join us in reciting our pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag

Of the United States of America, and the Republic for which it stands. 1 nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you counsel and next we'll move to citizen comments. This is an opportunity for individuals pushing to. comment on agenda items or other matters they wish to bring to the council's attention excluding those scheduled for public hearing which we do have tonight as there may not be another opportunity to comment once the agenda item is just addressed individuals are encouraged to speak at this time individuals are encouraged to discuss operational issues are you red I think you're red oh okay they still can't hear you can you hear me Tonya can you hear me Well, we'll try both of them. Okay. You don't want me to go back to the beginning, do you? Oh, okay. Assisting comments. Individuals are encouraged to discuss operational issues in advance with the mayor in consideration of others wishing to speak. Commentary is limited to three minutes. Also, your Lewis and City Council pledges to practice and promote civility within the governing body, advocating for civil engagement, respecting others and their viewpoints, and finding better solutions. City of Lewiston. So with that, I'm going to open it up for any citizen comments that we might have. There's a microphone in the middle of the floor. All we need is your name and city of residence. We do not need your physical address. Welcome.

My name is Brian Schmidt I live in lewiston i'm part of our PL development we're one of the developers that develop residential lots and Canyon crest. For the last couple of years we've been working on a plan to extend 18 street and the orchards down to Lindsay creek road when we started the project, we had a estimate from my engineer that made sense for us to proceed. We went through the planning and approval process, and by the time we got the final estimate from the engineer and the contractor, it went up more than 50%, quite a bit more than 50%. So I told the engineer we weren't going to proceed. It didn't make sense at this time. The engineer talked to the city, and they put together a road development agreement that you have before you. John Potter, It would allow us to finish the project this year, and it would be really great for the neighborhood. John Potter, A recent traffic study estimated that half the traffic in and out of Canyon crest would use this access road on the Lindsay creek. John Potter, Instead of going out through burl so there'd be a lot of traffic, the red rather than running through the orchards. When it doesn't need to, it would just drop right down on the Lindsay Creek and be on their way. The other thing I'll mention is we aren't required to put this road in until we put in a certain number of homes, and we're over 100 homes away from that. So if we don't do it now, it could be over a decade before we do it. So I'd really encourage you to consider this. We'd really like your help. We'd really like to get the road put in this year and contractors ready to go. We could start next month if you approve it. Thank you.

Thank you, Brian. Thank you.

Welcome, Dan. Good evening. My name is Dan Mader. I actually live in, my address is Genesee, Idaho, but I'm part of RPL development here Mayor Johnson City Council just to encourage you for an approval of item D on your active agenda Adding to what Brian said He's kind of going over all the costs and and that kind of a thing It's this the way I view this at this point. It's kind of a win-win for one of our neighboring developers with the city's participation getting the road in Many, many years ahead of when we would do it if we were doing it all. At our own cost. And so I think it's a great time to do it and get it done before we really have as much need for the road as we will by the time we get more fully developed. And I just want to compliment the staff. We made some adjustments to try to reduce the cost of this road. It still ended up being extremely high. But we changed a little bit in the and. The engineering staff and the planning staff helped us quite a bit to pare down a few things to try to keep the cost a little bit lower. And now with our still carrying the bulk of the cost and city's participation and the developer agreement we have, it all works for us to get it done at this point. So appreciate your consideration. Thank you.

Thank you, Dan. Okay, further citizen comments. Okay, we'll move on. Thank you. Next up. We have presentations item a monthly financial report. Financial reports for June 2026 in accordance with Idaho code 50 dash 208. our finance director city treasurer Amy Gordon is here to give us a report. Welcome Amy.

Good evening mayor members of council, Amy Gordon city treasurer. I'm here tonight to present to you the quarterly financial for the city's 3rd quarter of fiscal year 2026 at this point in the year. We're about 75. well, we are at 75% of our fiscal year. I'm going to start off with general fund revenues. We read down that list there. 1 of the top items you'll see is the intergovernmental revenues. I just wanted to highlight this tonight because we, we talked about this during our final budget work session this year. About how these are our revenues that we. Collect from the state or state shared revenues. They are on a decline. So we had talked during that work session about making some adjustments in our budget to. Kind of tighten the gap between where those revenues are coming at and where we have the budget currently existing. Um, I do also want to remind council that any time you see other, um, in your financial reports throughout the entire report, there will be 1 for every fund that exists. That is where we'll budget use of reserves. So, if we're using reserves to support. Our current year budget. It falls in that category and so that's why those percentages will be really low because you don't actually collect your reserve. So we're collected at a prior year. You're just using them to balance your budget and to fund your budget in that year. Property taxes, we will be in excess of 75% when we post a check that we received today from the county. We get our 2nd, installment property taxes are large installment in July. So, next month, when you receive your July financials, you'll see that really close to 100% at that point in time. And then interests us trending a little bit behind, but we're pretty much right at budget on that 1. So, when I review these reports, I'll kind of go through and I'll look department by department to see how the departments are tracking to where they should be at that point in time in the year. There weren't any areas throughout this report that were where their expenditures were exceeding 75%. There's 1 area, which we'll talk about here in a couple of slides. So I thought tonight we would focus on revenue line items. So, these 2 departments I pulled up for specific reason, because you'll see sometimes where departments are performing better. Than budget that, you know, they're providing a service, there's a fee for that service, but what you can't predict is how much of that service you might provide in that year. So, you can see here community development hit, um, they were at 100% budget at the end of 3rd quarter. So that's all driven by development, the amount of development that's going on. So we take this into consideration when we're building out next year's budgets, but we're also really conservative because we don't know how the development trends will be next year. Development declines that revenue would likely decline as well. Um, and then recreation, I wanted to highlight this 1 because they're exceeding where they should be at this time of year on revenue in their programs. That if you guys have gone through and reviewed all of your budget request, you'll see that the director Glenn made a specific request. He increased his revenue and he asked to have that revenue. Offset some increases and expenditures so that he could. Put that money back into his programs. And that was 1 of the budget that was funded because. The hope is if we can give them the tools and resources he needs, he can bring those programs back to what they were. Several years ago when recreation was. Less supported by property taxes. I'm also highlighting police and fire because I also want to remind council that when you see a department that is. Far in excess of some of their revenue line items that we have to remember that there might be a reason why. And even though the expenditures don't currently show it, they will likely. Um, be in excess of what their original budget was. So, if you recall, police received a large seizure. Earlier this year on 1 of the investigations, they've come to council, they presented what that seizure amount was and how they intend to spend that money. That will be on your budget amendment list. So right now the revenue is showing up. But we haven't amended the budget and spent the funds yet. So you'll see an increase in police's budget for this new revenue when the amendment list comes and then they'll spend the money. The same is for fire they received. Grant funds, emergency response team grant funds, which council approved the receipt of those funds and they plan to spend the majority of those funds this year. So we have an amendment for that as well. So, I just want to caution you, like, sometimes we see these really great revenue numbers. It doesn't necessarily mean you're going to end up with this large. Unexpected surplus, because there's usually an expense tied to those revenues. This is the 1 area where I was saying, we're far in excess of budget. This is also on council's amendment list for this year. These are our opioid funds. And those funds are very have a very narrow scope and how they can be spent. We've been receiving. Funds through the settlement for a few years now. We just didn't really have a vehicle on how to on spending the money because this. The scope is so narrow that ways of money can be spent. We don't typically provide those services. So, what the city has done working through director grow and her departments, they've developed a grant program. We serve as a grant or. Agencies within our community who do provide those services services can then apply. to receive these funds to support the causes that these funds are allowed to be spent on. So this year that really got up and going and we were able to get the funds dispersed in the community, but we'll need to amend the budget for that expenditure. These have their own reserves. So this is money that's been collected from these opioid settlements for the last few years. They've gone into their own account. And so now we're amending the budget so we can spend it where it needs to be spent. Workers compensation, um, it's performing very well. It's doing very well this year with very few claims, really low cost claims. Um, it's a nice turn of event from previous years. I wanted to bring this 1 up this year because although it's performing really well, we're far below where we would be at this time of year on budget. This is still going to be on the amendment list this year. We have, um, 2 high claims a lot past several years. Um, both 1 of which has already hit their stop loss threshold. We have another 1 that will, um. Come to a close this year, meaning we're going to settle the claim out. And once we settle that claim, it will hit the stop loss threshold. The portion of the claim that is in excess of that will be covered by the stop loss carrier, but we'll cover up to. That stop loss threshold, so I'm going to make an amendment for that. Portion that will be covered by the stop loss carrier. It'll take us close to where we have our budget set. I mean, it was kind of a gamble. We maybe didn't need to amend the budget, but I would hate to not have amended the budget for the funds that we'll get from the stop loss carrier. And then find out we have a high claim or some. Some sort of reason why we would then be spinning out some.

Dollars this year, Amy, let me see if the counselor has any questions so far before we get. Further into the report. Nope. Thank you.

I think we're almost at the end. Cemetery is the last fund I wanted to highlight tonight, similar to recreation. They're performing really well compared to how we originally budgeted. Their revenues are likely will exceed budget this year. Director Glenn has built into his next year budget. He's increased his revenue. He's asking that. He'd be allowed to then increase his expenses. Likewise the next year's budget. So he can put those dollars. Back into continuing the development of the cemetery. So, I just wanted the council to see where it was trending here today. This is really great news. You know, we worked at putting the columbariums in, which helps increase inventory and then gives a new revenue possibilities to the cemetery. And then that's all I have this evening unless you have questions for me.

Council. Doesn't look like it, Amy. Thank you. Thank you. Counselors next up, we have a Roman rule by public hearings and related action items. Item a public hearing on 24. Dash 5 accepting testimony in a proposed up zone of approximately 704 parcels of real property. Generally located on the side of 21st street between East main street and this 1st drive. and the West side of 21st Street between 19th Avenue 11th Avenue from the low density residential are to shown and medium density residential are 3 shown to the medium density residential are 3 shown the higher density residential are 4 shown the general commercial see 4 shown and the regional commercial see 6 shown and amending the official zoning map of the city of Lewiston accordingly this is an action item we have our assistant city planner with us here tonight is Katie Hollings head. I will open the public hearing after that we will have the staff presentation from Katie will accept the testimony if there is any tonight. Council as a reminder no additional evidence or testimony may be received once the public hearing is closed so this is the time to ask any questions you might have of the public and our staff and I would encourage you to do that and I will close the public hearing and after that we will A move to draft a recent statement if that's your intent. So, with that, I'm going to open the public hearing and turn it over to Katie Katie. Welcome.

Good evening, Mr mayor and counsel Katie hauling said assistant planner tonight. We are talking about our zone. What is the intent of the proposal? Um, a couple of things. Um, so 1 is to reduce the number of nonconforming lots. You'll see that I have brought some visual aids for us tonight. So, 3 of the maps have black, red and blue on them and the. Great out areas are not part of the zone areas. Those parcels are not included. The red areas are areas and our parcels within these neighborhoods that do not meet the standards of the zone that they exist in. And then the blue parcels are ones that do meet the standards. So, um, a nonconforming lot is a lot that does not meet. Some sort of standard of the zone that it exists in that it either doesn't meet the width, the depth or the total lot square footage. So we'll see this later in my slides, but so for the R2 zone. It's a minimum width of 60 feet, a minimum depth of 80 feet minimum lot size for a single family dwelling of 7500 square feet. So, number 2, the intent is to align the existing zoning with our comprehensive plan, future land use map, and to help create a buffer area between existing commercial and lower density residential. And then 3rd, to allow for future infill development in a scale appropriate way over an extended period of time. So, 2 items there would be scale appropriate way. And so I just told you what those minimums are for the R2 zone and a little later in my slides. We'll talk about how big some of these lots really are and what that actually means for the ability for any additional development to be made. and then over extended period of time so our comprehensive plan envision lewis in 2044 is a 20-year plan so it's a long-range planning document okay so speaking of our comprehensive plan so envision lewis in 2044 is the comprehensive plan and it was adopted by city council in july of 2024 and that was after an 18-month um Experience will say where we had lots of public outreach, several public meetings. We had open houses. We were at the farmers market. We were at different events within the community. We were at different meetings within the community. We pulled several online questionnaires all driving to the creation of this comprehensive plan. Comprehensive plan is a policy document that is required by the state of Idaho. So, as part of that plan adoption and action plan was developed and a work committee comprised of city council members planning and zoning commission members and city staff was formed to work on the goals and objectives that are outlined in that action plan. So that's how do we get where we want to go in the next 20 years? So part of that is land use goals and objectives. And that's what I do as a land use planner for the city land use goals and objectives. So three of those land use goals that we that that committee focused on were optimizing zoning alignments. So aligning incompatible zoning and land uses and development regulation with the future land use map to establish a consistent and compatible growth pattern. to conduct a comprehensive review of the land use code to identify and modify zoning regulations that do not align with desired development outlined in the future land use map and land use categories. And as council knows, you've been seeing a lot of items coming to you and making amendments to that zoning code. And then three to balance land uses. So to establish land use patterns that accommodate various land uses in proportions to the needs of the community. So, what is an up zone and up zone is a change to a property to a higher density zoning classification. So, in city code, our 2 is considered a low density residential zoning type. Our 3 is a medium density zoning type and then our 4 is a higher density zoning type. There are also a couple small spots that are identified for commercial and we'll go through those specifically because those are more kind of just weird outliers that. I felt should be included given the breadth of, um. Work that was put into this project that we should fix. Um. Those those little weird ones, so why these properties and 58.8% of the identified properties. So that's 414 out of the 704. so remember my color coordinating. On our maps over here are considered nonconforming. So that means they don't meet either a lot size minimum of 7500 square feet or a lot dimension of 60 feet or a lot with or a lot depth. Sorry of 80 feet. A lot of these properties were platted. So that's a subdivision process that creates lots were plotted either in the 19, early 1900s up until, like, the 1940s and a standard lot size. Back then was 50 feet by 142 feet. 7,100 square feet. A lot of these lots are 7,100 square feet or potentially smaller. Some of them are bigger. There is plenty of blue over there. Um, but almost 60% do not meet the current zone. So, again, a review of, um, those 2 zones. So the R2 has a 7,500. Square foot minimum lot size and that's for 1 house. There are. A number of properties within these neighborhoods that have a duplex or a triplex and they're also on too small of a lot for that. Um, but 7,500 is the minimum for a single family dwelling minimum width is 60 feet minimum depth is 80 feet. So then you would need 10,000 square foot for a duplex. A duplex is allowed by right as long as it meets that 10,000 square foot minimum. You can cover 40% of the lot in an R2 zone with buildings. So that's your house, garage, shop, gardening, shed, any sort of building. So 40% of the lot and then multifamily. So that's anything more than two units. So a triplex or larger requires a conditional use permit from the planning and zoning commission. In our R3 zone, so this is our medium density residential zone, you have a 6,000 square foot minimum lot size. Minimum width is 50 feet, minimum depth, again, 80 feet. You need 1,500 square feet for each additional unit. So for a duplex in the R3 zone, you need 7,500 square feet. You can cover 50% of the lot with buildings in the R3 zone, and multifamily is allowed by right. If you meet the size requirements, so you don't just get to have multifamily on a 5000 square foot lot. It's not the way it works. You would have to have the minimum lock size. So, um. We're going to look at some maps and then we're gonna look at some pictures. Okay. So this is 1 of our areas. Um, so this, uh, matches up with my, uh, poster board in the middle. So, red area is East main. At the top right here, this is East main give 21st straight over here. And so this is the area of East main 8th. So, like, uh. Donald's is right here in this bottom corner. So 8th is going this way. So, in this area, South of East main class, we're done in the early 19 hundreds. Majority of the lots are 50 feet by 125 feet. So there's 6,250 square feet. So, reminder, so our 3, this medium density residential has a minimum lot size of 6,000. Minimum lot with the 50 minimum loss depth of 80. so. A majority of these lots at their 50 by 125 will fit into that medium density residential zone. Additional housing on these existing lots would be limited to accessory dwelling units. A majority of them are not big enough to add to be a duplex. You could do a size limited accessory dwelling unit. Those are allowed on all residential lots that only have a single family dwelling, but they're size limited. and still you would have to follow that 50% lot coverage. So if you're already at that 50% lot coverage, maybe you can't have additional dwelling unit because you've already filled up the lot, right? Those are photos. So this is 8th Avenue on the south side of it. So properties along this stretch are 60 feet wide and 115 feet deep. So they're 6,900 square feet. The built up area, I'm standing in the one area that's not built up. There are some water access, um challenges um that would have to be solved by a whole lot of water pipe before that particular area could be further developed um but a majority of these properties are that 60 by 115 they're 6900 square feet so then moving a little farther south so this is going into that Sunset Park area so you can see Sunset Park hanging out right here this little green boy Kirby, everyone's favorite place to go on Halloween and Christmas, Candy Cane Lane. So the Sunset Edition. Sunset Edition is a series of plats called the Pinewood Plats, and they started in the 1930s. And they are a mixed bag of lot sizes. And there is some topography going on there. There is a ravine. So lots along 8th Avenue, like the picture before shown, 9th Avenue and 11th Avenue. Don't always meet that 7,500 square foot minimum. Um. A few of them, they're like, 7495. They're very close. Um, but lots on the interior that sunset drive will drive do meet that square foot. Um, minimum and the dimensional standards. But they have a lot of topography and so there is a ravine that goes along most of those people's backyards. So their house is built up to the front, probably to the maximums of, um. What they can cover in the front to allow for the side yard setbacks that are required in each zone and then have a lot of backyard with a majority of it being sloping away from the buildings. And so those lots that do exceed that minimum lot size have a sloped grade. So, adding additional dwelling units would probably be difficult for those folks just because of that topography in their backyard. And ultimately, like, that's where you would have to put. An additional building, because they've built it out to. 7 and 8 feet side. Oh, let's look at some photos around there. So, this is a 9th Avenue on the north side. So property showed here are either 60 by 115, which is at 6900 square foot much like the ones on 8th or they're 65 by 115. those are the ones I mentioned that are so close. So, 7475 square feet. Area is nice and built up and has sidewalks around majority of it. And then this is Sunset Drive. So again, these are going into those properties that are larger in size. And then these ones specifically would be the ones that have that topography in their backyard. Here, I'm farther west on Sunset Drive. So again, built up neighborhood, has sidewalks, not really any open properties. And on Sunset Drive, So, then my 4th, 1, you'll see in the packet that the way we did the noticing, we have these maps. And there are 8 of them that identify the different areas and outlined in the black. So this is the R2 to R3. so this contains both that more northerly portion and that sunset park area. With all of this going to that are 3, medium density residential zone. Then, um, a little farther up. So, east of 21st street, west of sunset park, that kind of middle area. Um, we do a combination, so there would be a section of our 3. A couple of blocks in a nice little row, and then there would be a section of R4 and the R4 would about the existing commercial zone that exists along 21st street. So, it would serve as a transition or a buffer zone between commercial uses and the major arterial 21st street and the residential districts. So minimum lot size is 5000 square feet and a majority of the properties, we identified for the our four zone are on developed and there is a city owned ravine where we have some stormwater stuff going on and and then some there's a couple of houses and a church. Um, but really, it just kind of creates that step down. So you have more intense commercial uses and then you go to the higher density residential and then a medium density residential and then your lower density residential. So you're kind of stepping it down. And then we'll talk about our split commercial zones. My fun little half a parts of half a parcel. So, this is that area, so all the red is commercial. You have this dark red, which is our C6 that goes along the 21st Street corridor. So we have like Rogers Motors, Hull, Ford up here. And then we have, you'll see kind of have this zigzag situation going in, right? So the idea would be that you would bring your R4 out to your roadway here. R3 would start here and would push all the way over. We have some parcels in here where a road was vacated, 21st, 24th Street was vacated a couple of decades ago. And so there's several parcels that are half and half. So they're half commercial, half residential. They are being used for commercial purposes. They are parking lots in most cases for the businesses that exist over here. And then same thing, you have this weird little finger of residential and you actually have a building this is a state of Idaho building that half the building is commercial half of the building and its parking lot is residential and then you have a church and their parking lot over here that are also residential zone that we would recommend going to the commercial zone to make this So when the Planning and Zoning Commission had their public hearing, the original plan had been for both these areas shown on the map for this whole section to go R4. And they recommended the amendment for the part outlined in red to go R3 instead of R4. So you would have your R4 start here on 20, I think that's 23rd. Like, I said, most of those parcels, there's a couple parcels that have houses on them. There's a church down by 11th, but a majority of those parcels are vacant land and there's some serious for being and stormwater stuff going on there. And they recommended that this neighborhood, these, like, 4 blocks would all go to our 3, like, the folks to the east of them. And then these are those other maps, those areas I kind of showed you. So this is the split zone parcels and that would go to the R6 and then there's this one and that's the one that's adjacent to the state of Idaho building where half of the building is one zone and half of the building is another zone. So we would correct that inconsistency also. So this area, so this is, I'm on 13th Avenue on the south side. So the properties over here are that 50 by 102, so 7,100 square feet. Again, very built up neighborhood, nice sidewalks. That's very nice. So now we're going to move to the other side of 21st Street. So that was all my east side. Now we're going to go to the west side. So Westside is my first big board right there. So this is 21st Street to 17th Street. This is called the Blanchard Heights and Yantis Editions. Blanchard Heights was actually done in the 1890s. And at that point, that was the heights. That was the high point of Lewiston in the 1890s. And then the Yantis Edition started in the 1920s. So this would connect existing R3 zones. So below, north of 11th Avenue. is currently zoned R3 and then that cruises down to like Idaho Street. And then south of 17th Avenue, same deal, already has a section of that R3 that borders the commercial zone. So in this area, there are lots as small as 4,800 square feet. There is a series of lots that run along 17th that are 48 to 5,000 square feet. They're all very, very small. So they will not be brought fully into conformance, right? Because our minimum lot size in the R3 is 6,000 square foot lot size, but we're a lot closer. So that's this area. So again, our red is the 21st street corridor, 17th is over here, this whole area. And then you can't really see it because the color is just slightly more dark yellow than the rest. But down here there is that R3 and up here there is an R3. Again on my maps, so you can see my block of R2 to R3 and again a block of R2 to R4. So the R2 to R4, this section abuts the commercial corridor. Exact in and out of that built area. But allow for again, that buffer zone going from the more intense commercial use to a higher density residential to a medium density residential. Moving into low density, and then our specialty zones are normal Hill, North and normal South zones. And then same thing, we have a couple of little, um, commercial fixes. Um, so this is a salvation army building up here and their property, which is currently our 2. so that our 2 extends all the way to 21st street. So, we'd like for that corridor to be here with it being a specific commercial use. Um, we have a little lone ranger here, um, that is. House that is surrounded by C6. And then again, a little section here, this is where Lewis Park Early Childhood Development and Riverside Recovery exist. And they both exist in that residential zone under conditional use permits. One that's from like the 70s and one that's from like the late 90s. So they've been in existence for a really long time. Under that section, there are two houses here along 17th Street. Those can exist as residential into perpetuity. Photos of this area, so these are those really small lots that I was talking about. So I'm standing on the West side of 17th street, looking across on the East side of 17th street. These properties are 50 by 100 or 60 by 100, or in a couple of cases, 48 by 100. And so 5,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet, et cetera. Then I'm at Jennifer Junior High right across the street. So again, looking at these ones, same size. These are all those properties, those real small properties along 17th. And then working my way into the neighborhood, I'm on 18th Street on the west side. So the properties shown are 50 by 142. So they're 7,600 square feet. And on 14th Avenue on the north side, these properties are again that 50 by 142, which was that kind of standard lot size. So 7,100 square feet and 14th Avenue on the South side again, 50 by 142, um, 7,100 square feet again, a very built up neighborhood. Um, sidewalk connectivity is more patchy here. So, like, some folks have it installed and some folks don't see sidewalk here and then it goes right to grass. Then 11th Avenue on the south side. So I'm standing at the crosswalk where you go down to Whitman Elementary School. So where I'm standing is R3. And then across the street, what I'm looking at on the south side, those are currently in the R2 and they are that 50 by 142. So they're 7,100 square foot lots. So, what about adding dwelling units? So, lots of public comment has been received with people being very concerned about more houses being pushed in. So, the reality of it is, as the pictures show, it's a very built up neighborhood. There is not a lot of open space. And honestly, if you look at the lot sizes that exist, it is a medium density neighborhood. It's not a low density neighborhood. So that R3 zone requires 6,000 square feet for one unit. And to make it a duplex, it requires an additional 1,500 square feet. So just like that 60% of lots don't meet that R2, that 60% of lots also aren't going to be able to have a duplex, a true duplex under the R3. Now, both of those in its current R2 state and in the proposed R3 state can have an accessory dwelling unit, which is that smaller, Dwelling units, everyone can have those. That's not, um, that's just residential zone dependent. If you have a single family dwelling, you're allowed. And that our 4 zone requires a 5,000 square foot minimum. Those areas are much more limited right from the maps. Um, and then for an additional unit, it's 1600 square feet. So you need 66 have a duplex. And then accessory dwelling units, like I said, are allowed on any lot in a residential zone of at least 5,000 square feet that only contains a single family dwelling. They can already do that. And then total lot coverage still applies. You have a house and a shop and you've already covered 40%. Currently, you would not be able to put another dwelling unit unless you somehow added it in the interior of your already built house or put it on the interior of your already And then, um, so we talked about the comprehensive plans beginning, um, so part of the reason statement that gets developed with any sort of zone change request is accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan. So I pulled the section directly from the city code. And this is the, the wording is specific to, um. commission so the planning and zoning commission that makes a recommendation to you guys and so the commission shall evaluate a requested amendment to a zoning district to determine the nature and extent of the requested change if it is in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan the commission may recommend and the council may adopt or reject requested change the commission may request documentation of land use impacts both existing and proposed through studies presentations documents and may require said documentation to be stamped inside by professionals deemed qualified by the commission So, in the packet that you were provided, I did provide all of the different zones. So, the existing are 2, what its uses are the proposed are 3, what its uses are. Are for what its uses are, et cetera, et cetera. The proposal is in conformance with the future land use map of the comprehensive plan and those identified action items from that action plan. Then, for that reason statement, so, um. The planning zoning commission does provide you guys with a reason statement that they have developed after the public hearing that they held. And it includes their reasoning for each of these criteria. So. I like to review them with them, and so I will review them with you guys also. The council should consider the following relevant criteria and standards when considering a request for a change in zoning their proposed rezone is, or is not in general conformance with the comprehensive plan. The subject land is or it not at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district. The proposed rezone does or does not present foreseen and minimal impacts of incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity. And the effects of the proposed rezone are or are not anticipated to place undue burden upon delivery of services provided by any political subdivision within the planning jurisdiction, including school districts. So that's like water, sewer, et cetera. And then the size and intensity and density of the development expected to occur in the subject property as a result, which is or is not suitable for the area and will or will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure or environmental resources. And then I did go through, um. There's 704 properties. In the areas identified 72. Of those properties could have a triplex. based on their size. Now that's not saying it's physically possible. That's just saying that their lot size meets the standard. With that, I would stand for questions.

Thank you, Katie. Counselors, do you have questions for Katie? Counselor Forsman?

So, if I'm understanding, because it sounds from the comments and concerns from citizens with majority around congestion increased and apartments being able to be put in when it changing to, I believe there are 3 zone. Um, or is there a 4? No, either of those would allow either of them if they met the minimum lot size requirements and R2 doesn't currently allow apartments, but allow.

It would allow multifamily with a conditional use permit in the R2 and they would go to so they would meet with staff. We would make sure that their lot is big enough. For whatever they're trying to do, and then they would file a conditional use permit with the planning and zoning commission and public hearing would be held.

They don't need to do that with our 3 and our 4 correct?

They still have to meet the minimum lot sizes though.

Yeah, and you're saying there was how many that actually even met that 72 out of 704. And then what what conditions do you feel like possible? Like, what could make it not possible even if they're meeting their lot sizes?

Because you mentioned something about so most of the lots that would be actually big enough have topography. So, like, way down. In the back, so those would be like, the properties that are along sunset drive and willow drive. So they're much longer. But it's like, at an angle. Okay, um, and then I think the 1 other 1 that, like, would come into play is, um, there is a large. Um, field on, like, 8th and 29th. Um, but like I mentioned before, um, there is a water. Availability challenge there that is very, very expensive to solve.

Okay, sorry additional mayor, the other, I think the, some of them in here to the reasoning for changing was due to current homeowners. Not even be able to make any kind of improvements and that could be like. A bigger garage or expanding their home, adding a room. Is that correct?

Yeah, so that lot coverage, um, so if you have a small lot right and you're only and you're in there too and so you're only allowed to cover 40% of it, um, that limits a lot of folks with being able to add another bedroom or add another bathroom. Um, because they're already at that maximum. Um, so reducing that lot size, and then increasing that lot coverage, um, in the R3 zone would alleviate some of that for certain homeowners who might want to add something on there. Another problem that this is staff that I've run into is I get phone calls when people go to sell their property or go to reinsure their property or go to refinance their property. And when an appraiser goes out, they look at that code and they're like, okay, do you meet this? And so we don't meet that. It's called a non-conforming lot. So they'll call and they'll be like, hey, this doesn't meet one or two or three or whatever it is. Um, is it, is it a legal lot? Like, what's the deal? And so normally there are what's called a legal nonconforming plot and that can be problematic for people when they go to. Reinsure and refinance, or, you know, even go to sell. Those can be problematic things for them.

Yeah.

Another concern that I didn't find any answer for was the people's concern for their, uh, their taxes going up their property value going up.

My understanding from the conversations I've had with the assessor's office is zoning is not 1 of the factors that they look at when they do the assessments. So they're looking at use of the property. They're looking at improvements of the property. They're looking at market value. So what other houses that are similar to that property have sold for they're considering those types of factors. The zone itself. Is not a determining factor.

Yeah. 1 of the concerns from citizens as well is that if a developer was to come in and do a development, what would what would stop them from doing that? And as I understand, if they come into come into a neighborhood, and they buy up several home or several lots that are joining, they can do a conditional use. Change or apply for his own variance to do that. Anyway, is that correct?

So say someone went in today and got convinced three adjacent neighbors to all sell their properties at the same time to one person. They could comply for a conditional use permit to build something more than a duplex on those three adjacent lots that they bought from three separate property owners and then combine. Yes. But that would be a conditional use permit under the current R2 zone. And would require a public hearing. So, yes, if it went to our 3, it would not require a conditional use permit. Public hearing a developer would still have to find. 3 adjacent property owners or more or many adjacent property owners they would need for whatever size they wanted to be to all sell to them all at the same time.

Thank you.

Counselor, right? Thank you. The tiny homes is that done the same way as the duplexes?

No, tiny homes fall under chapter 23. so there's a different, like, standard if you're going to do a tiny home village and there are spacing requirements there is, um. It's just a different set of code altogether where they have to provide extra things and that's all outlined under 23. so it's kind of like a manufactured home park. Right? Yeah. Where they have to do additional things rather than like, a person could put. A single tiny home on a single lot. Yes, because we would just consider that a single family dwelling. Um, but if they wanted to do a tiny home village. then there's still lock coverage, there's spacing requirements, parking requirements, those sorts of things.

Gotcha. And can they do that conditional use in R2 and then no conditional use in R3? And that's kind of what I was getting at. Is it similar? Hold on. Let me pull up that code. Apologies.

Okay, so under R2, both the manufactured home park and a tiny house village would require the conditional use permit, and they would be limited to a density of nine units per acre. And then R3, manufactured home park or a tiny house village would be allowed by right. with a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. Council an acre is 43,560 square feet. And the majority of these lots are 7,100.

Perfect, thank you. Just wanted to make sure I had that covered in my head too. Appreciate it.

Mayor.

Councillor Forsman.

So with the reason statements and maybe I'm just missing it in this packet. So it's like us as a council right now wanted to go through the reason statements Obviously, we'd have to, you know, say the proposed rezone is there's or not in general performance with the conference and plan. We'd have to give a pretty good description of why we feel that way for underway. So that the commission give that what why they felt these meet that.

Yes, so in the packet page 41 through. Sorry, that is the reason statement that they provided and going through. all of their reasoning for recommending approval of this.

Okay, thank you.

The Council could choose to, you know, after public testimony is received, If testimony is different from what is included in this reason statement, because you'll see that there are, um, detailed statements that were provided by the public at that meeting included in the reason statement. If council received additional information that they wanted to include, if you wanted to basically add to this reason statement. And expand on things, um, you would be able to do so. And if you wanted to go through the criteria each individually after public comment and and make your own reasonings and findings, you're able to do that.

Okay, thank you. Why don't we see if we have any citizen comments tonight? And, um. We'll hear from them, give the council an opportunity to ask questions. If we have individuals from the public tonight that would like to provide comments on this, please approach the microphone and I'll just need your name and city of residence you'll have. 3 minutes to, uh, share your concerns with us and then just as a reminder council. That no additional evidence or testimony may be received once the public hearing is closed. So this is the time to ask any questions you might have public and or the staff. So, welcome.

Hi, I'm Mike Stovall and my question is, this seems like a. a pretty detailed and involved process to spend money on. What's the end game here? I'm not really sure I understand.

Council?

Is that something that staff can answer for him?

I think the end game is to bring these lots into conformance with the current city code.

Okay, so, um, it's not going to affect us in any way as far as. Existing homes living there that I'll defer to.

This is all I had. City planner, um, no, um, so you would be a residential use to a residential use. It stays the same. It's, it's, um, ultimately intended to bring. Like, Mr cleaver said more of the lots into conformance since. Like, I showed 60% ish, um, are not. Um, and so we would like the built environment to match the zone that it lives in.

Thank you Mike.

I'm just going to hang out up here later.

Katie, for clarification, if a home is located on a lot that doesn't meet minimum requirements now, and it burns down more than 50%, and it has to be totally rebuilt. Would a permit be issued for that if under the existing.

Yes, so the way the nonconforming code works is if your home is destroyed more than 80%, um, it would have to be rebuilt to current standards. So. say you're on a really small lot and say maybe your setbacks don't currently meet the code standard, to put a house back on the property, you would have to meet those setbacks. So a 20 foot front, a 20 foot rear, a five foot side yard setback minimum with 15 combined. But yes, you would be allowed to rebuild.

You would just have to- You may just have a smaller home.

Yes. You would have to fit it into a slightly different box perhaps.

But with the proposed zoning. That would mitigate or eliminate a lot of those problems.

It might not solve every problem. You know, like I said, there are some lots that still won't be in conformance and I can't. No, change to zoning is going to change if someone's built too close to a property line. Or covered too much of their lot with buildings. You can't zone your way out of that, but the idea is to get as many properties into conformance as as possible to make that built environment was already there when it has been existing. Meet the code so that if bad things like that happen. We can provide answers for what they can do. The closest we can to what they currently have.

Okay, thank you. Thank you counselor.

I have a comment.

Councilor Klein.

So we have a, we have a triplex not in this in this up zone. Um, and we were told by insurance that if it burned down, we could only build a duplex on it. So it reduces housing availability in that instance.

Yeah, and so that's, I mean, that's an existing situation now where there are. Duplexes on substandard size lots. Yeah.

Did you raise your hand, Jennifer? Oh, okay, sorry. Alrighty, are there further citizen comments tonight?

I do highly encourage if there are people here that are in the affected zone to provide comment, please provide your comment now, or you will miss your opportunity to provide that comment. Because once the public hearing is closed, no new additional information will be received. So if there's anyone here that would like to say anything. For the council to consider when making their decision, please do so now. Well, if you have a question that you'd like to ask, please use this as an opportunity to ask a question as well.

I just had a question. If you have a small lot and you can't go this way, how does zoning affect people that go another story and maybe block the view of neighbors or become unsightly?

Katie, can you help us with that?

I can't. I can't. Okay. So zones all have type limitations. So we can't necessarily the zoning can't necessarily. Um, undo bad neighbors, right? Um, but there are height limitations. Um, so in. In the artisan building, height limitation is 35 feet. That's 3 stories and in. And in the R3, it's 45 feet, so 4 stories. There are not a lot of 4 story houses in the city of Lewiston. Just going to say, I think most of the time we see 2 story houses, but there are limits. These particular neighborhoods don't have any HOAs with view corridors or anything like that. There are areas in town that do, and they limit how tall buildings can go. But otherwise standard zones just have a maximum height.

Hey, we're accepting citizen comments if there are any.

Do our city councilors have any questions or would we would they like to take a moment to look at these maps that are down here as a part of the public hearing process and ask any questions that might arise by looking at these.

I plan to put them at ease and for to take a look at those.

So, sorry, I did read the recent statement. I think it was the way it was. Laid out, I wasn't looking at that. That was the reason to name it, but I did read it. So I read through it again just so refresh my memory. Um, it seemed and from what I got out of it, the reason this whole thing started was due to residents. Currently current residents calling and, uh, concerns of wanting to do any upgrades. Uh, insurance issues, like you said, is that where it stemmed from? Because that's kind of what I got out of the reading.

Sort of for me, that is where that stemmed from. Um, but that, um, work plan committee had been formed and started to go through, um, the different action items, um, in the action plan that goes along with the comprehensive plan. And when they were talking just about, like. looking at the zoning maps and doing zoning alignments and stuff like that, I brought up, hey, I'm getting a lot of phone calls in these areas saying these sorts of things. And I have started looking at the lots in these areas and have noticed a pattern that they don't meet the standard of the zone that they live in. And so I brought that to them as something that I had noticed just in the course of my job and the kind of phone calls that I get from folks. Because I talked to a lot of realtors, I talked to a lot of homeowners, a lot of appraisers and insurance people, stuff like that. And so it was a pattern that I had noticed. And so it was an idea that I had brought to that committee if it was something that they wanted to pursue Um, as they were going through that action plan and thinking of of things they wanted to tackle.

Thank you. Uh, 1 additional question. Um, if a neighborhood 1, and you might not know this, but if a neighborhood wants to create an, and they do that, and it might not be within.

That's not within my scope. The city is has nothing to do with homeowners associations, but I believe they could, and they would just have to file that with the county. But that's a county thing, not a city thing.

Okay. The only reason I asked that, as you mentioned, some neighborhoods have with restricting the heights. Limit that they created aside from city code. So, my question was, if this neighborhood wanted to rally together and create.

Possibly an for their restrictions that a couple that I know of that have the height limits. They're usually tied to a planned unit development and not necessarily just an. So, it is actually. City code, because it's a planned unit development that has like a view corridor established and height limits for each lot within that corridor.

Yeah, absolutely right. Thank you. Do we have max density rules at all or size?

It's kind of that. Um, so we do, you know, recommended density levels and called out in the comprehensive plan for each of those feature land use designations. Um. And that's kind of, um, but ultimately it's kind of, um, limited by your lot size. Right I mean, you don't have enough lot space and you don't get 4 units.

No, it makes sense. I was just curious if we have had things like that and that, you know, when looking at at this neighborhood that it more meets the density makes more sense based on its density due to lot size that it's an R3 zone versus an R2 zone.

Yes. Um, I would say, yes, I would say that because of the lot sizes, and because of the built out nature of the neighborhood that it. These areas are more medium density than low density.

Thank you.

But yes, there are density, you know, kind of guidelines within that comprehensive plan for each of those land use designations.

Perfect. I'm going to put us at ease for just a couple of minutes before we close the public hearing and ask that you go take a look at the maps down there. They're actually pretty good. Um. At least they're easier for me to read than what I have online. So if you would please just go take a quick look and if you have questions on the map or questions on the zoning, we can ask that of Katie, see if there are any more assistance and comments, and then we'll move towards closure. So we'll go to these. Thank you. Council come back to order. Council had a chance to review the maps. If you have any questions for. Katie please ask them now. Citizens to have had a chance to look at them. So if you have questions or. I would like to speak to the council please. Uh, Mayor Council enforcement.

Or as I'm reading of 1 of the concerns is, um. Was like increased traffic and parking noise impacts like that. That was basically addressed because of the fact that they cannot create, you know, you can't go in and create a bunch of apartments or add a bunch of housing and you're really only up sizing your house. You only really have the opportunity to size your house. By a couple 1000 square feet, I think if I'm correct, so it's not going to put a massive amount of traffic increase or noise ordinance or. Effects the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. Wait, I'm understanding the reason statements I have that.

Yes, that was the determination by the planning and zoning commission. As in general, it is a built up neighborhood and so for a developer to go in there and. Build apartments, you know, something more than 3 units, they would have to buy multiple houses together, demolish them and then, you know, go in and. With housing prices currently and interest rates, I don't think that that's. Reasonable made that change in 20 years. Sure. I, I unfortunately do not have a crystal ball and I cannot see into the future. I really wish I could. Um, but the current situation is probably not. Going to introduce a lot, if any additional housing.

Honestly, here.

And even if they did by, say, someone did have the money to be able to buy 3 or 4 houses and they wanted to turn into an apartment or something like that, they'd still then have to go through different zoning amendments and. Kind of conditional use permits for that. Right? Because now they're combining lots into 1.

They're not, they wouldn't have to. So, no, um, well, no, so in the R3, they would not have to do a conditional use from it. And the property still like a proposal for a building permit would still get reviewed. Right? So it still gets reviewed by myself. We're planning and zoning and still gets reviewed by city engineer. Um, in public works, um, if it is over a certain number of units, you know, there might be traffic impact that's required. Um, still gets reviewed by the building officials still goes through a process. It's not like it just magically appears. Um, so there's still steps. Um. This would for that particular type of use would eliminate 1 step, which would be that conditional use permit.

Is there something when you're trying to combine individual lots, though? Not combining them.

If you're dividing them, if you're doing a subdivision, if you're creating new lots, yes, that requires a subdivision. And that does go in front of planning and zoning. That does come in front of city council. But combining lots does not. That's just a lot combination.

Okay.

Okay.

Councilor, further comments, questions?

This is your last opportunity.

All right, I'm going to close the public hearing. Thank you, Katie.

Thank you.

Thank you. Jennifer, I want to make sure we walk through this. Appropriately so. Council at this time could make a motion directing staff to approve or deny the recent statement for CNC 24-5 that they need to also address the relevant criteria.

That is correct, Mayor. Typically what I recommend as a part of this process is for the council to go through each of the relevant criteria and standards that were identified and maybe Katie could put those standards back up. And address each 1 and. And identify what information was presented to them. As far as in making their decision that it, for example, is, or is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan and identify any of this, the criteria that was provided in the packet, any testimony you received, or any other other evidence that's in the public packet that supports that. And go through each 1 of those, and then once you're done with that, then you make your motion directing staff to draft a reason statement. Approving or denying your discuss your discussion.

Thank you, Jeff for counseling questions counselor horseman.

You have 2 options if I'm correct, right? We can also adopt the reason statement from. Planning and zoning and not go through them individually. That is correct.

You could also do that, but you still want to identify the specific information as far as, you know, whether or not new or different information was presented today that might change what the PMC recommended or. No new or additional information was presented and that your findings are going to be consistent with the recommendation from planning and zoning. But it would still be good to kind of discuss a little bit, because in adopting their decision, your discussion is also included in that reason statement.

Going over and ask you a question counselor.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Mr. Mayor. Councillor Wright.

I'll start it out. Number one, the proposed rezone in general conformance is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan. I believe that to be is in general conformance. And that's based on the testimony that we received today. We're trying to line up a neighborhood, a couple different neighborhoods, with based on the density, the lot sizes and our three lines that up as we're hold to do in the comprehensive plan.

Counselors, um, I'm just gonna try to throw some of this back out and help. So we can get through this, uh. Counselor right, uh, referenced, uh, relevant criteria standards. Uh, the 1st item on there, but the proposed resource in general conformance with lowest and comprehensive plan, and he provided his commentary. Do you have other comments to add to that council? Please do so now counselor enforcement.

No, I would just, uh, going through the reason statement that the, um. Planning and zoning provided, I would agree with their assessment as well as the. Counselor right and how he summarized that that we're attempting to come in performance with the lot sizes and there are several being outside of the conformance. Um, and being making it difficult for them to possibly do any kind of upgrades or improvements and additional insurance issues. I think that this is in conformance with our comprehensive plan.

Counselors for the comments, we also had public testimony. Uh, the concern was how it would affect the current homeowner. So if you have any ideas or comments to share on that, with regards to the preschool counselors, please include those in your rationale. Mr. That's all right.

Thank you. I'll just I'll run through them here. Uh, the, the subject land is at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district. I believe that is true. And that's also based on testimony and the maps that we saw in those neighborhoods. It's mixed size lots. So you, you might have a lot. Your lot might. be qualified for the are too. But right next to you or a couple houses down, you've got our three and with the volume of our three in that area that currently meets our our three zoning code. This this makes sense to me that it is at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district.

Okay, counselor, thank you. I'd like to ask other counselors to comment on that. If you have a thought on the subject properties, at least as well suited or better suited for the proposed zoning district, then the existing zoning district. Again, we heard from Katie Hollings head tonight, and we had a couple of public comments. So, council, if you have some other comments to share with us on that, please submit them now.

And now enforcement with the amount of lots that were not in conformance. I think that it shows that the rezone is well suited for what we're zoning it to.

Thank you. Counselor Council President Kleeberg.

I think it's a good move to bring a lot of lots into conformity with our comprehensive plan.

Thank you council counselor right.

Thank you number 3, the proposed rezone does present foreseen. Excuse me, does not present foreseen. Admitted admit double impacts or incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity. I. I don't believe that it does have any incompatibility impacts. Based on this rezone, the current homes that have the larger lot sizes, based on the testimony, I don't see any negative unforeseen impact or incompatible use to those properties based on this zone change or with the lot sizes that are are 3. In addition to that also the commercial because we are making some commercial changes and smart for changes.

Thank you counselor, we heard comments to on potential conflicts with the heights of the building and appeared that those were addressed.

Fair I believe so the with the heights of the building the the r3 being up to four stories the testimony is that that is rare in Lewiston to have up to up to four stories Believe that is addressed Thank You councillor other comments council now six five

We also went over the likelihood of somebody coming in and buying up a bunch of lots and demolishing beautiful houses. I know you guys are a really nice neighborhood and nice houses that are assessed for a lot. And so the likelihood of somebody coming in and bulldozing your houses to put in an apartment complex is very likely.

Thank you counselor.

in addition to what Councillor Klein said with even if someone did in the event want to come and tear down a bunch of houses rebuild they still have to get the building permit which requires an extensive review and they could run into issues with possible infrastructure demand issues water issues and as well as traffic impact so It might even run into issues, even if it can in the instance that it does so.

Thank you counselor counselor, right?

Thank you number for the effects of the proposed rezone. are not anticipated to place undue burden upon delivery of services provided by any political subdivision within the planning jurisdiction, including school districts. We had direct testimony that this would not cause undue burden on the delivery of these services. And we also had in, in the documentation that the water and sewer can sustain this rezoning. There were no concerns given by infrastructure or public works. So I believe this proposed rezone are not anticipated to place undue burden.

Thank you, Councillor. I think we heard that in East Lewiston there might be one neighborhood where there's a concern

potentially but probably not a result of this region it's it's the way it is today other comments counselors that's all right thank you number five the size type intensity and density of development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of this rezoning is suitable for the area and will not unduly burden the neighborhood, public infrastructure or environmental resources. I believe that to be true. We also received testimony to this fact that there wasn't going to be Undue burden to the public infrastructure or environmental resources and there is a section in the paperwork where that gets documented. If there was any foreseen unduly burden for the neighborhood.

You counselor other council comments, please.

Counselor Maury also to this point. There's 58.8% in the affected area that medium density residential or three zone would actually bring those nonconforming locks into performance. Many cases allowing homeowners to rebuild their homes or make improvements that they would wanna make to their house without adding an additional burden to the services. Thank you, counselor.

Further council comments?

Um, Mary, in addition, the current neighborhood is high density, I believe was the verbiage. The verbiage that was used, uh, being that there's not a lot of vacant lots or spaces to, um, add apartments or a bunch of additional, uh, buildings that could then cause any kind of burden on the infrastructure, uh, or water resources. makes it unlikely and so it is suitable due to it being a high density area, already built neighborhood.

Thank you, Councillor. We did hear that some parcels would remain subject to existing limitations. We heard one example of that with the long drawn out lots. Councillor Wright.

Yeah, that thank you. Mr mayor that brings us to the end of the reason statement. So, I would make a motion counselor.

There's actually a 6 standard. That's not on Katie slide. Oh, and it's the proposed rezone is, or is not in conformance with Idaho code section 67 dash 6537. use of surface and groundwater. I would note that there was no information received related to this. And there was no comment from any of the political subdivisions that received the notice associated with this. And that's particularly because there's no specific development that's being proposed. And so all standards related to the use of surface groundwater would still apply. And so I would make a recommendation that you would say that the proposed rezone is in conformance because no testimony was received that it would or would not be.

Let me write this down. Councillor Schumper 6.

Page 12 with a recent statement. Oh, I don't I don't have it in front of me here. Hand that down to him. Oh, thank you. The proposed rezone is in conformance with Idaho code 67-6537 use of surface groundwater. And I believe this is true and for the reasons given no testimony was received. Regarding the use of service and groundwater from political subdivisions that received notice or the public as a result, the commission had determined that there was no credible information to indicate that the proposed areas would not be affected. Would not be in conformance with Idaho code sixty seven dash sixty five thirty seven. And this also is already a developed area. So we're not looking at development.

Thank you. Council counselors for the comments questions.

Thank you, Jennifer.

That's the right. Did you have a motion?

Yes. Thank you, Mr Mayor. Motion to direct staff to draft the reasons statement from planning and zoning approving ZNC 24 dash five.

Second.

And moved by Councillor Wright, seconded by Councillor Portsman, to direct staff to draft the recent statement approving C&C 24-5. Those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Council. Also next up we have item B first reading ordinance forty nine sixty nine considering implementing the city council's decision and CNC twenty four dash five. Up zoning approximately seven and four parcels of real property generally located on the side of twenty first street between east main street and this first drive in the west side of twenty first street. between 19th and 11th Avenue from the low-density residential R2 zone and medium-density residential R3 zone to the medium-density residential R3 zone, the higher-density residential R4 zone, the general commercial C4 zone, and the regional commercial C6 zone, and amending the official zoning map of the City of Lewiston accordingly. This is an action item. Our Assistant City Planner, Katie Hollingshead, is here with us. If you have any questions, counsel, otherwise I would entertain a motion.

Council President Kleberg make a motion to approve the first reading of ordinance forty nine sixty nine by title.

The move by Council President Kleberg channel my council morning to approve the first reading of ordinance number forty nine six nine by title only sir discussion amendments. Hearing none those in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed. Motion carries thank you council clerk rocky.

Approving excuse me approving the 1st reading of city ordinance number 4969, an ordinance of the city of Lewis and implementing the city council's decision and 24 dash 5 up zoning approximately 704 parcels of real property generally located on the East side of 21st street. Between East Main Street and as per strive in the West side of 21st Street between 19th Avenue and 11th Avenue from the low density residential R2 zone and medium density residential R3 zone. To the medium density residential R3 zone, the higher density residential R4 zone, the general commercial C4 zone. And the regional commercial C6 zone has set forth here in providing that all prior zones applicable to the lands described here in are hereby superseded amending the official zoning map of the city of Lewiston accordingly and providing an effective date.

Thank you clerk rocky Council next been moved to Roman and will 6 consent agenda all items on the consent agenda consider a team by the Council will be enacted by one motion that we know separate discussion on these issues less accounts for some requests in which case Adam will be removed from the consent agenda and considered on the active agenda under items moved from the consent agenda there.

Now, sir Forsman like to remove vouchers table from the consent agenda.

Specter's paper is removed. Councilors.

Mayor.

Councilor Forsman.

I'd like to approve the consent agenda with the amendment.

Second. Moved by Councilor Forsman, seconded by Council President Kleberg to approve the consent agenda. Clerk Brockie.

We were all right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right. This is an action item and counselor this my pleasure to bring to you the nomination of Denise Metz for the Urban Renewal Agency representing the Port of Lewiston. And with that, I would move to appoint Denise Metz to the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Lewiston, Idaho as the Port of Lewiston's representative.

Second.

And move by there, Johnson, second, my counselor client to point Dennis message there, but the new smith's pardon me to their window agency of the city of Lewis and Idaho is the port of Lewis was representative. Those in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed. Motion carries. Thank you, Denise and congratulations. Thank you for your service. Next we have item be our p dash twenty six dash zero zero eight award for field services considering awarding our p dash two six dash zero zero eight field services agreement to Coleman oil incorporated LLC and authorizing mayor to sign the agreement. This is an action item. Council also climb.

Can I can I ask Amy question?

You may. Welcome Amy.

Good evening, Amy Gordon, City Treasurer.

I was just wondering, reading through the contract, it talks about Spokane, using Spokane fuel prices. Is there, with those being Washington, all the Washington taxes and everything that you have to pay for using Spokane fuel, is that really a benefit for us?

Well, that's the, um, that's the wholesale distributor that Coleman oil. But what we, this, um. Does as it gives us the rack price, we pay a margin over the rack price of what. The cost Coleman pays to fill their tanker trucks. So, the regional.

For our region, oh, so so even by paying those prices. Um, we're still, it's still basically. Lewiston prices, because that's the distributor that Lewiston would use regardless.

That's the price that they that's a rack price for that regional distributor. So, I don't know, like, what price ups Coleman does at their for their retail prices. But our price would be fixed based off that wholesale distributor.

Council for the questions.

That's right. Just to follow up on that question. That's a great question. So are we paying Washington tax on the fuel or Idaho tax on the fuel?

I don't know that. I don't know that answer. Um, I don't know. I'd have to find out.

Yes, sir.

More.

In my experience in life as a fuel jobber. Wholesale racks are in Pasco, Washington and Spokane, Washington. Whenever it's delivered to the point of use is where the taxation takes place. So even if it's Washington wholesale fuel, it may come from a Montana refinery or it may come from a Wyoming refinery. It may come from a California refinery. But whenever it's dumped in the ground, that's whenever it gets taxed.

Gotcha.

At the point of use.

That's helpful. Thank you.

I have a follow-up question, too, for that, then. I mean, do we have even other vendor options?

If, like, we were like, no, we don't like the way that... Well, this is an RFP, and this was the only responsive bid we received.

I see.

Yeah, we'd have to go out to bid again. If you didn't approve it, we would go through another RFP process. Yeah. The likelihood we would get more than one responsive bidder would be unlikely. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Amy.

Counselor Klein motion to award RFP dash 26 dash 0 0 8 fuel services agreement to Coleman Oil Company LLC and authorizing the mayor to sign the agreement.

It's been moved by Councilor Klein, seconded by Councilor Mori to award RFP dash 26 dash 0 0 8 fuel services agreement to Coleman Oil LLC and authorizing the mayor to sign the agreement. Clerk Brocki.

Council President Kleeberg?

Aye.

Councillor Wright?

Aye.

Councillor Forsman? Aye. Councillor Klein? Aye. Councillor Morey? Aye.

Thank you, Council. Motion carries. Item C, Resolution 2026-39, considering adopting the East Lewiston Transportation Network Analysis Report. This is an action item, and our City Engineer, Luke Antonich, is with us here tonight. So, Luke, why don't I call you to the stand, and if you can just share a couple of words with us at a minimum, and then we'll see if the Council has questions for you. Thank you, and welcome.

Thank you mayor city council here tonight to talk to you about the East Lewis and transportation network analysis. If council recalls, this is the same plan that came before you in April. As an item then, and you received a presentation at that time, I'm not going to repeat all of those. Um, all of those points, but do want to highlight the project area being between Thane road and 21st street. And then, and then lapway road and Lindsay creek. From East main to powers Avenue, there's a vicinity map in on page 5 of the. Of the report that I handed out to you this evening, my apologies for needing to provide that to you by paper, but a couple of the appendices were left out of the original upload. And so I wanted to make sure that you had the full document to vote on tonight. The primary focus of this analysis was to enable the reservation of right away during the development process. To accommodate future traffic growth that is projected to occur from the project area. So that's a key point. Looking forward to preservation of right of way. There was significant input from committee and the public. There was a steering committee. The public works advisory commission gave input for city council. You saw it on April 20th. The public had the opportunity to review the information during an open house. And the comprehensive work plan comprehensive plan work plan committee also reviewed. Had the opportunity to be presented on this and provided feedback on June 29th. The county commissioners, uh, I presented to them July 20th, they asked some really good questions, but in general seemed in favor of the plan as a whole. And encourage me to talk with some more of their staff and then come back to them so that they could adopt it by resolution as well. Just as a highlight for Council, this project also developed alignments which are surveyable so they can be placed out in the real world so that developers can know where exactly these alignments are proposed to be. And we could also share those alignments electronically with a developer's engineer or surveyor to help with their evaluation. Uh, you also have a memo from the city planner in support of, uh. This plan that reinforces the plan adherence to the comprehensive plan, which is, uh. Excellent that the planner was able to provide that. With that, I will stand for questions on anything that you might have. From your review, thank you.

Counselors a counselor, right?

Yeah, thank you. Great plan. I just got a, I got a question on on drive. So just the, like, the very beginning of this, this is 1 of their says high priority. Do we see this is like, 1 of the main arterial type roads in the future? Is that the long term that this is going to have. A large amount of traffic.

On that road, the expectation would be that drive would continue across. Gun club has an arterial and go over and connect into, um, an additional arterial that comes down the ridge.

Gotcha do speed limits get looked at in this. Because isn't isn't part of that road 25 miles an hour in part 35.

Nez Perce are you yes yes the answer is yes yeah Nez Perce Drive and then 25 all the way I'm not can't remember where it transitions maybe past just past the theater or something in there yes yes so it is 25 on that section through the commercial area the New speed limit would be evaluated at time of design. Gotcha. And I would the recommendation in the plan itself is for arterials and collectors in this area to. Have a 35 mile per hour speed limit, so it would be councils prerogative at the time of construction if they wanted to put in something else.

Gotcha great. Thanks.

Okay, council, I'm going to point to the section 2 on the back side of. This resolution, just so you understand, it says right on the city council here by the out in the report is the official long range transportation blueprint for the study area. A copy of which is attached here too. So by adopting this, you should expect this to come back before you and other planning documents and projects. So this is that you're setting the stage. Counselors, you have resolution 2026-39 before you. Counselor Klein.

Motion to approve resolution 2026-39. Second.

And moved by Counselor Klein, second by Counselor Wright to approve resolution 2026-39. Clerk Rockey.

Council President Kleberg.

Aye.

Counselor Wright.

Aye.

Counselor Forsman. Aye. Counselor Klein. Aye. Counselor Mori.

Aye. Thank you, Tonya. Thank you, Luke, for your work on this. And Director Johnson standing up. Is he up next? Yes, he is. Okay. Thank you, Luke, for bringing this to us tonight.

Thank you.

Else the next step we have item D road development agreement for the 18th street connection to Lindsay Crick road. Considering improving the road development agreement for the 18th street connection Lindsay Crick road between the city of Lewis and our field development. We're an amount not to exceed 200,000 dollars in authorizing the marriage to sign the agreement. This is an action item. We have our public works director, Justin Johnson with us here tonight. Welcome director.

Good evening mayor city council Dustin Johnson public works director as the mayor just said that previously adopted study will come back in a future planning effort or projects. And so here we are. We didn't waste any time. Uh, actually, we didn't plan it like this, but. This will actually both have been going on concurrently. over the last probably year and a half or longer. What is in front of you tonight is an agreement generally between the City and RPL developers. And two of those gentlemen spoke tonight in favor of this. And so if you read through the ELPNA study, Notice there was a lot of emphasis on corridors and improvements and a lot of what the concern is, as we move development going east from kind of where we're at in the downtown core, you get up the land is great for development because it is flat. Unfortunately, it kind of gets out into some areas of plateaus. Uh, and valleys, and so getting, uh, traffic pulled off some of these primary corridors, looking at, say, you know, powers is 1 that we know goes all the way through. But as you start connecting some of these neighborhoods, particularly going north towards Lindsay Creek or South towards Tammany, uh, in a lot of these places, you get, um, clipped out. Uh, and so this is a corridor that is actually. Somewhat constructed currently 18th as it runs all the way from Lindsay Creek. It, uh. It whipsaws its way up to the top of the plateau and then 18th, if you've driven up there in the orchard goes all the way down to rip on. Um, and so currently it is not dedicated right away and it is only for, uh, private, uh, it is actually only deeded as a private fire access road. So we cannot use it for development standards. And so the conversation has been with, uh. This particular developer, but other developers are very interested in seeing this move because it's kind of a pinch point. And so the city in negotiations has offered up 200,000 dollars. To help get this project moving forward, open up that corridor and and kind of lift some of the restrictions we have for development in in that East orchards area. So it was identified in that plan. Knowing generally where progress has been going with development and, uh, this actual even this, uh, agreement in draft form. So, uh, the only thing beyond the agreement itself that I should mention is that kind of due to the timing of this. It was not included in this year's budget and has not been included in next year's draft budget. And we haven't obviously signed the agreement, but. The agreement is we will reimburse the developer upon completion and so we will come back to you when that is ready for an amendment to the budget. For that 200,000 dollars when it is completed. Um, and that is coming out of our arterial reconstruction funds, the reserves. And so there's fun. There was money in there. It just needs to be allocated through the budgeting process. Uh. Luke, the city engineer, uh, put the put the bulk of the work into this agreement as has the city attorney. Uh, and so if you have. Process questions, I think the city attorney could answer the agreement itself and Luke may be able to answer if there's any questions on a specific component of the agreement. So, with that, I can questions.

Counselor enforcement.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, uh, is completion, like, when they've done their reconstruction or, like, added more units. To what do you mean by construction the road?

So when they pave the road and then that storm walk, there's some, you know, because it is a steep road going down there and it switchbacks at the bottom ties into Lindsay Creek. So we're talking about pavement. There is a pedestrian trail. Um, shared use trail on it with, uh, and bulk of it is, uh. Some of the storm water components, because it's got so much energy coming down the hill. So we've been working with and they spoke a little bit about that a public comment. Um, but yeah, it is the road. So, and the developers. Um, they, they are, they have a in their agreement, they. Have a trigger at a certain amount of households or development units up there that would trigger this this, um, road to be constructed. And I think they said they're still 100 units away. So it's it's several years out. But that still that that still is restricting other developers and other development. In that area from for moving forward, plus just the city's general concern about trying to get traffic off some of these other side streets and down. Like they said, you know, Lindsay Creek or off of powers or or grill or any of these other roads up there. So trying to get that traffic disperse outwards in the network.

I'm understanding correctly. We might not suspect we might not have to pay that 200. Thousand for a couple of years.

No, this is so that developer currently does not have to develop it. Build it this will bind us to pay that.

When will we expect to. Like, kind of a general window of when we were expected to pay that.

Jennifer city attorney, uh, council enforcement. I think the, the. The question is hard for the city to answer because what's underlying this is. Has a in that area, um, as a condition of the, that road is to remain as a fire access road and does not have to be just, uh. Developed to the standards of. Um, 18th street until they have built 300 homes in their once they built 3, build 300 homes, then they're required to turn that fire access road into what will become the public right away of 18th street. And what RPL is proposing to do is instead of waiting until that trigger. Do so now, while it's financially feasible for them to not only help their development, because they can do so earlier, but also to help other developers in the area, because that fire access road is limiting future development because it's not creating that 2nd, public right of way into and out of the area that the fire Marshall wants to see and that our city code oftentimes. Sorry, it requires and so instead of cutting in and developing brand new roads, what this road agreement. Road development agreement does is provide that RPL will develop this road earlier than what is required in their. And then upon completion, the city will reimburse them 200,000 dollars that we might have otherwise had to invest through other infrastructure improvements to create new roads, whether it's through buying that right of way or. um making other improvements to existing right-of-way so it's not a matter of when we could have anticipated it because we're entirely dependent on a private party and because this particular pud has been in existence since early 2007 we don't know when they will get to that 300 units and in that roughly 20 years they have only built about 100 to 200 of those units. So they still have I think it's actually closer to 150 units maybe to build out. And it's not likely that they're going to have all of that within the near future. But to improve the transportation network in that area, they have worked with the city and another developer to put this proposal together to develop it earlier and to improve public transportation in that particular area of town. So, for those of us that you've ever taken a Google maps, and it has you go through this gravel road off Lindsay, correct? That's the road that we're talking about and that's going to make that into a paved public right of way.

Yes, sir.

So, in our in our history sheet, it says that they have to do it within 18 months after our approval. So it's a soon thing for the road to get done.

they can request extensions per city code and per this agreement if there were other conditions you know say they had there was you know a particularly rough winter or if there were accident circumstances that they weren't able to do it it could i believe we provide six month extensions to that so um once they start they're able to get it done fairly quickly in most instances um i think the schedule is provided or um will be provided once they have it all locked in, but it's a fairly quick turnaround for them.

Not part of the agreement, but they have a contractor selected and this was expedited to get in front of you. So they are interested in constructing it this construction season.

Mayor.

Councillor Forsman.

So if I understand correctly, we would, I mean, although this is kind of an unexpected expense that we're spending, it also is something that we would eventually have to do Uh, later in order to continue to grow Lewiston, if I'm understanding correctly, um, or it could have been possibly more money.

I don't know if it's I would phrase it that way. We are. Participating in the early development of this road. By providing a cop, you know, by. Contributing to the funding of it because of the greater public benefit that it provides. As indicated earlier, you know, things are more expensive and the costs were a lot more than they anticipated. And to help develop it based on the estimates that they've gotten now. We are proposing to provide some of our funds to help them complete this project. Because the public benefit in the long term, and in general is greater than the private benefit that they will experience.

Thank you.

Do we know how much they're expecting to have to pay for this?

My understanding with the cost, I believe it was around 750,000 dollars. And we are only contributing 200,000 dollars of that. And if there's any overages that they experience, um, per this agreement, that's a cost that they will, um. Have to find the city is not providing anything more than the 200,000 dollars.

Okay, that's all right. How's the money distributed going to win and how.

They will have to provide receipts for reimbursement and then it will be on a reimbursement only basis.

Thank you.

Thank you counsel director Johnson. I'm going to ask you to just brag a little bit more about this because, you know, we hear about the city of Lewiston sometimes is. you know, difficult to work with, or maybe we're slow to respond. And I think this is a prime example of where the city is really out in front on this project. And we encountered, you know, with our developers out there, a bottleneck, if you will, and we didn't have a solution. And public works and community development came up with 1. and so when you think about advancing development, allowing those other developers to continue to put in the homes homes that are needed, by the way, and also develop our transportation network. and provide that infrastructure today. But honestly, it becomes part of our taxing base probably 10 years sooner than it would have. So I think the city is going to get back that revenue in other ways in the long run. But because of our agreement with our PL through the PUD, it was just not ideal for us. We were seeing developers coming in to our Development review process wanting to do things and. Are not having adequate access secondary access, you know, in and out of some of these. Places and I don't know, sometimes maybe that leads even to bad decisions when we try to force things in there. So I feel pretty good about this. We have been in contact with the county too. And understanding is that, you know, they want to be partners with this on this and. It's going to put more traffic on Lindsay, correct? But again, when you look at what you just approved, this is really a critical link to what's going to happen in that part of Lewiston. And that's where the growth is today. So. I think director Johnson and his staff and Jennifer and look to brag a little bit more.

Counselor, thank you. Dustin looking at the site map here and being familiar with that area. That's only going to. Be able to handle a 2 line road up and down through there. Correct? There's no due to the topography. There's no way possible to expand that. Is there any where the hairpin comes back around before it joins back with Lindsay? Is there any. Feasible way that another arterial could tie into that to ease more of that because everything that we're looking at for future development is going to be in that area. Yeah. And then we'd be looking at another tie in point on Lindsay Creek with another road.

Yeah. And that was part of the, the, what the conversation with the, the study is knowing that the, that this 1 is obviously it's. It's there that the road grade is there and we looked at all the different design standards to get that. Corner as, you know, as loose as we can, and it is just not to get that much elevation off and then get down into Lindsay Creek. You're not going to be able to get anything more than a 2 lane road to accommodate that traffic and electricity, water and traffic. It's going to go to that path of least distance. So you're probably going to see some traffic patterns change. Down there, which is going to trigger more conversations, whether it's on Lindsay Creek or coming through on 18th and that was the concern 18th on top. Because it's also wider up on top, but you're going to get that restriction down there. And so we're going to answer this question with a solution, but we're going to create probably through 3 more. Problems that we're going to be talking about here in the next 5 years of just trying to find that other. Preferential if you want to call the collector, come and get back back. Getting that traffic off anything other than that thing corridor.

Okay, 1 more question. I assume it's going to be compatible with all current emergency vehicles, more than compatible with, I don't think we'd need to run a ladder truck up there, but if we were, it would make it without having traffic interference because I've noticed some people don't hear as well as what they should whenever emergency equipment's coming by.

For Greg speaks, I'm just going to sneak in real quick per the that road is a emergency services vehicle access road. So it has to be. Maintained and built to that standard, so making it of the public right away is just going to improve it even further. So, right now, it meets those requirements when it's developed. It'll, it'll further meet that. It'll just be at a better standard.

Good evening. Great great fire chief. It will once it's developed out. Any of our vehicles will be able to access that without any difficulty. Currently, while it meets that standard, it's difficult for them to maintain a washboard and things like that. So they're fighting the elements with that dirt road all the time. And it was the best. Option at the time, but is that we develop that area to get that secure secondary way that people can escape from a community and a, you know, a community scale level wildfire event is really it's a great improvement.

Oh, that's personal experience and family members have lived through that having emergency vehicles going towards people evacuating and going away from. I just want to make sure that we don't have to cross the center line with a fire truck. To get there, that's going to impede people that are trying to leave.

It's a vast improvement over what we have.

Okay. I just in the details. I can't see the road with the base width or anything on there. So. Thank you.

Thank you, counselor. Council further questions. Are we ready for a motion? Counselor client.

Motion to approve the road development agreement for the 18th street connection to Lindsay creek road between the city of Lewiston and development LLC and amount not to exceed 200,000 dollars and authorizing the mayor to sign the agreement jacket.

Moved by Councilor Cline, seconded by Councilor Mori to approve the Road Development Agreement for the 18th Street connection to Lindsay Creek Road between the City of Lewiston and RPL Development LLC in an amount not to exceed $200,000 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. Clerk Brockie?

Council President Kleberg?

Aye.

Councilor Wright? Aye. Councilor Forsman? Aye. Councilor Cline? Aye. Councilor Mori?

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Director, Jennifer, and Luke on that 1 next, we have item a bid award for the dash to 6 or 1 for considering awarding the dash to 6 0, 1, 4 borough Avenue sidewalk infill. Frontier 07, 0, and friend project calls class construction in the amount of 599,862 dollars and authorizing to sign the contract. This is an action item. Welcome director.

Even mayor city council, Dustin Johnson, public works director. So, in front of you kind of the description kind of tells it all it's up there on borough across from fairgrounds. This was originally selected for the carbon reduction grant. Because the, the. It met the criteria as producing, uh, trying to get people more on the sidewalks. In a built environment, unfortunately, uh, at the time, the, the scope of the project out. Uh, weighted the, the, the grant, so it's been kind of hanging out on the shelf for a little bit. Uh, we worked with, uh. And the state of Idaho, and we've since secured additional. Tap funds, which transportation alternative program to get you basically 1, a little over a 1Million dollars. So 1Million, 87,000 dollars. So that's your total. Um, and then the, at this point right now, we've expended 107,000 on administration through the state and then the actual design. As the mayor already said, the McCall's classics bid was. Uh, just short of 600,000 dollars and so that was, um. Interestingly, uh, 30% less than what we thought for engineers estimate. So we have a little bit of wiggle room. Uh, we'll be coordinating with, uh, you always hate to send grant money back. So we may try and, um, cause we were really tight on the scope of this. So we may try to open it back up and do the complete as much as we can through the, um. Grant and get the corridor completed in 1 shot. Um, so you may see an amendment if we can get that to work out between the contractor and the funding mechanism. But that's not on tonight for for your consideration. Just simply awarding the, the contract to cause classic. So I stand for any questions.

Thank you. Director counselors questions. Counselor, right?

Yeah, so I, whenever the fair, some big event is going on, you always see the, like, the don't park here stuff and it seemed like that's gonna be difficult for those folks to do when the sidewalk gets put in. Are we gonna do we have a plan for like, don't park here? Some kind of coloring on the sidewalk.

Yeah, that's a great question because we asked that exactly. And so when we laid out this section, we had. We could we have plenty of right away and so we looked at. Parking or no parking and so we laid it out and and what's interesting about those, those houses that are on that side, they all have pull in large driveways, larger lots. Uh, and when I go through there, excluding the fair time, you don't see a lot of on street parking. And so we actually had an open house up there, invited all the neighbors and we came and I will say doing this for 20 years. We, I have never had a public engagement process where I got 100%. Uh, and they all agree they did not want the parking. They were comfortable with the parking that they have within their own lots and I can't say 100% of those people, the 100% of the people that came to the open house. Resoundingly said, we don't want the park and we want what what this design was and so that will be striped as no parking and it will be sidewalk will be there. So perfect.

Yeah, because we work with the neighbors people parking on both sides of the road during the fair and stuff. You, you just can't get to the cars through anymore.

And so the sidewalk. Will be back will be closer. Well, it'll probably be about where the asphalt ends right now, but it will be no parking, but you'll have. Access to obviously everybody's driveways as they get into there.

Perfect Thank you.

You have.

Motion to award the dash 26 dash 014 borough Avenue sidewalk, uh, TR 070 infill project and the calls classic construction in the amount of 599,862 and authorizing the mayor to sign the contract. Okay.

And moved by Councilor Klein, seconded by Council President Kleberg to award IFB-26-014 Burl Avenue Sidewalk TR070 infield project to McCall's Classic Construction, the amount of $599,862 and authorizing the Mayor to sign the contract. Clerk Baraki?

Council President Kleberg?

Aye.

Councilor Wright?

Aye.

Councilor Forsman? Aye. Councilor Klein? Aye. Councilor Mori?

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Director. Johnson, I think that's it. Huh? I see it still standing there. I can't.

Yep.

All right. Thank you.

Just in case Jennifer wasn't supposed to be here tonight. So I was supposed to do this, but she's okay. So, if you want me to present on the next 2 items, I can, if not, we'll let Jennifer.

Jennifer, what would you like to do? All right. That was my phone. Okay. Resolution. I don't have. Resolution 2026-31, concerning approval of a fiber optic cable easement from the City of Lewiston as grantor to the Port of Lewiston as grantee to install an underground fiber optic cable line, action item. Director Justin Johnson, welcome.

The mayor city council desk Johnson public works director. So, as I said, this is under Jennifer's name. So, uh, the, if you haven't heard the port of Lewiston is working on a fiber project, bringing in fiber outside of the valley, even beyond the valley, but it'll be going through the valley and they needed to clip. Uh, we own 2 pieces of property. It's actually in the county right behind you. Uh, it was originally used as, uh, twin city foods. Uh, brought their process water there back in the 70s and so it's not very usable property because it's on the steep slope up there city owns it as surplus. We may need it someday for wastewater something or other. Um. However, the port needed to just a sliver across to get their port fiber, uh, across it. Uh, and so we were in negotiations with them to try and just get this, um, uh, for them. So that's all. Port fiber easement and then I'll tell you about the next 1. And we're up on that.

Thank you director counselors questions.

I just want to clarify that we're not going to have to tear up anymore roads.

No, no, the, the, the alignment when they, we did give them access, uh, their surveyors probably 3 years ago, and they surveyed, uh, pioneered, you know, the best route that they wanted. And this actually follows an existing dirt road and they'll just cut it through. So there's really, there's nothing that we utilize up there because it's, we, um, lease it out for cattle ranching. And so I'm sure how rancher uses it more than we do, because it's way up on the top end. But, yeah, there's no, no asphalt, no right away to be cut. There's nothing that that will impact our day to day.

Councilor Klein motion to approve resolution 2026 dash 31.

It's been moved by Councilor Klein seconded by Council President Kleberg to approve resolution 2026 dash 31.

Council President Cleaver.

Right.

All right. All right. All right. All right. All right.

Thank you, counsel. Thank you. Clear rocky council. Next item G resolution 2026 dash 32 concerning accepting the grant of an access easement from the portal Lewis and his grantor to the city of looseness grantee to access city on real property. This is an action item. And once again, our public work director, Dustin Johnson.

Even mayor city council, Dustin Johnson, public works director. So, uh, this is an exchange for that easement that we just granted them. Uh, those 2 parcels that we own our land lock. Uh, there is, uh, some property that's a butts highway 128. Uh, that divides our properties from the highway and so in negotiations for that, uh, fiber easement, we wanted to make sure that the city could get access to those properties if there was ever any need for development or anything like that. So. That's what this easement is is just and it is not dedicated right away because the port hasn't developed. It's called the Harry wall subdivision and it hasn't it's not in their current development plans currently. So they didn't want to. Uh, hem themselves into any 1 location. So this is a temporary 1 until. Either entity, whether it's the port or the city moves forward on development at that point, we would lock in the right away. But this does give us access to the, uh, to our property up there from highway 128. Um, and just a appreciation for the work that Jennifer, the mayor, uh, the, the port, uh, commissioners, uh, just trying to, you know, partnerships as we try and try and get some development, uh, moving through our ballot here. So.

Thank you director counsel counselor time motion to approve resolution 2026 dash 32.

2nd, can move by counselor client second, my counselor right to approve resolution 2026 dash 32 clerk rocky.

Council President Kleeberg, right? Counselor right?

Aye.

Counselor Forsman. Aye. Counselor Klein. Aye. Counselor Maury.

Motion carries. Thank you, counselors. Thank you, Director Johnson. Next, we move to Item H, Resolution 2026-41, considering endorsing the City's revised social media policy and supporting the enablement of public commenting on City-owned social media accounts. This is an action item, and we will welcome our City Attorney, Jennifer Tengano, to introduce this to us. Jennifer, welcome.

Thank you mayor council members, Jennifer city attorney. So, the resolution that is presented before you is based off the discussion that we had on. July 1st, I think 1st, the very beginning of this month at our work session, and which we indicated that the city's administrative policy related to its social media policy is going to be updated and it has since been updated. And the intent behind that update was to have public commenting turned back on to our social media accounts. And in doing so, we wanted to make sure that it was clear that the intent of turning on the public commenting wasn't for creating a free for all on the city's website. It's because specific departments wanted that engagement. And they wanted to be able to put out information or. Even do some community engagement without fear that it's going to turn into a space where people will just degrade, you know, ridicule and. Kind of take away from the messaging that they're trying to do. So, what the, what this policy is doing is clearly identifying its social media content as a limited public forum. And in doing so is establishing essentially. Time place and manner kind of restrictions on the social media. Um, comments, and the intent behind that is when we make a post. So, say, we have a parks and recreation post. Um, the intent is for engagement about that parks and recreation. So, if they have an event, like the reopening of pull, the intent is that the comments related to that is about the pool parks and recreation programs, or something related to one way or another. It is not intended to be an area for people to air their grievances or. Call other people, or just advertise their own businesses. Most of those times, those advertisements aren't legitimate businesses to begin with. But what what we're hoping to do is with this particular policy is it provides a means for city staff who are administering these pages to. Hide or delete comments. The city of Lewiston does have a software service that auto archives all of the posts on there. We have responded to, and we will continue to respond to public record requests related to specific posts. Um, we also may or may not consolidate some of our social media sites. So, um, taking some of the different site, uh. Individual accounts that we have and consolidating them all into 1 and then getting rid of and deleting that prior account and then doing so again, we archive all that information and we keep it at the time of deletion. Um, so that, you know, again, if we have a public record request, we can respond to it. Um, but. Again, the purpose of this is because these are not. A public forum, and it's not an area that. You know, that would be the same as standing on the sidewalk and and expressing your ideas. If you want to come to the city hall and stand on the sidewalk or somewhere else and express your ideas, please do that. But the city's social media sites, where we are sharing different events that we're doing, sharing public information, we're letting the public know that is not the intent behind this, but it's a limited means of engagement related to specific events and specific topics that are being addressed in those posts. This particular resolution, what it does, it's not asking for approval of this policy because it is an administrative policy. It doesn't actually require city council consent, but we are asking and it states that you're providing support to the city social media policy and that you're endorsing the public comment policy within the. The public comment policy, the code of conduct within our social media policy that governs public participation on city on social media accounts, which encourages civil on topic, public engagement and supports content moderation consistent with this policy and appropriate time place manner regulations appropriate for limited public forums. So that is what this resolution and I'm available for.

Uh, any questions if you have some, thank you Jennifer Council Council, right?

Yeah, I just want to say, I'm, I'm happy to approve this, even though it doesn't technically need our approval. I'm in favor of this change. And just 1 thing I'd want to say to the public is I. Though any of the people that are looking at it, like, well, we're curtailing their speech or anything of that nature. Um. You know, I would think of it a little differently is there could be kids reading this. There needs to be some civility and of course we want it to be on topic. And over time, you know, everything, everything always changes. We're always trying to improve. So if we find an issue with something in this, we're We're going to find a way to solve it, but but I think this is a great a great entry into getting comments turned back on and having that engagement and the automation options that it gives the staff. To further engage the public, I think it's all in the right direction and I appreciate the work.

Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly, because we kind of have a. Like a re, what do we call this? Sorry it's not like a code. It's a.

Administrative policy.

Administrative policy. Excuse me. Because we have this policy in place, it kind of gives us the ability and the standing when there is people that are commenting on there that are just being inappropriate or putting information on there that doesn't really have to do with their original post. It gives us that ability to be able to delete those or hide those without impeding on their right to free speech. Correct? Is that how I'm understanding that?

That is correct as far as the right to free speech, because this is going to be a limited public forum, kind of like our planning and zoning. Public meetings are public hearings. We accept comment related to the topic. That's at hand. We wouldn't accept comment. We would ask that person to wait until. The general public comment, or to submit their comments in another way, it would be similar here with the city on social media accounts again, using parks and REC as an example, if there was a post that was provided and someone wanted to complain because they tried to get a hold of council or Maury and he ignored them, that would not be the means to do so. And we would have the ability to hide that comment. Um, in the policy, it's or in the, the social media policy itself, the preference is to hide comments and not necessarily to delete them. And that there is a review process prior to deletion that includes a review of, you know, is this are we are we right? Are we. Is staff requesting this be deleted? Um. Based on 1 of the things identified in this policy, or is there something else? And so and then even before then we're. Archiving and keeping a copy of everything before a post is deleted. So that we do have that, you know, what the post was prior to deleting a comment versus after deleting the comment. We're taking the position that because this is a limited public forum, we don't have to publish everybody's comment. But if you definitely want to say something else about the post, you're welcome to share on your own social media and say whatever you want about the post, whatever you want about the city, and essentially use your social media to express yourself.

And we didn't originally, when we had comments turn on, we didn't have any kind of policy in place.

If I remember correctly, we did have a policy. It just didn't provide for a code of conduct and it didn't quite provide for the same. Content regulation related to limited public forums. Also, this policy was drafted with the 2 Supreme court cases that were decided about. you know, who actually has authority to comment on behalf of a city or, um, you know, what information can or cannot be, um, restricted on. Government social media.

Okay, thank you.

That's all right.

Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution 2026 dash 41.

Moved by Councilor Wright, seconded by Councilor Forsman to approve Resolution 2026-41. Clerk Brockie?

Council President Kleeberg?

Aye.

Councilor Wright?

Aye.

Councilor Forsman? Aye. Councilor Klein? Aye. Councilor Mori?

Aye. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Jennifer. Next up item I ordinance is number 1, 2nd and 3rd readings a ordinance 4968 considering amending Lewis and city code 23 dash 9 related to the definition of class a manufactured homes. Amending Lewis and city code 37 dash 3 relating to the definitions of dwelling multifamily. dwelling two family and Class A manufactured home. This is an action item. If you have questions for our city planner, Mr. Joel Plaskon, he's here tonight. Otherwise, I would entertain a motion. You've seen these before, Council. Councilor Wright.

Motion to dispense with the requirement that an ordinance be read on three different days and to combine the second and third readings.

Second.

Moved by Councilor Wright, seconded by Councilor Forsman to dispense with the requirement that an ordinance be read on three different days and to combine the second and third readings. Those in favor please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you Council. Councilor Wright.

Motion to waive the third reading in full of ordinance number 4968 and approve the reading of ordinance number 4968 by title only.

Second.

Moved by Councilor Wright, seconded by Councilor Forsman. wait the third reading in full of ordinance number 4968 and approve the reading of ordinance number 4968 by title only is there discussion amendments well i should ask those in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed motion carries good rocky

Approving the 2nd and 3rd readings of city ordinance number 49 68, an ordinance of the city of Lewis and amending Lewis and city code section 23 dash 9 related to the definition of class a manufactured homes, amending Lewis and city code section 37 dash 3 relating to the definitions of dwelling multifamily dwelling to family and class a manufactured home and providing an effective date.

Thank you clerk rocky council next we move to item one B ordinance number forty nine seventy two concerning repealing loosen city code thirty seven dash forty one point one one and thirty seven dash forty one eight point one one in amending loosen city code thirty seven dash one thirty one point two relating to accessory apartments this is an action item within our city planner Mr. Joe Plaskon is here tonight else I would entertain a motion.

Clear.

Councilor Mori.

Uh, motion to dispense with the requirement to notice be read on 3 different.

And to combine the 2nd, 3rd range counselor. Yes, excuse me. It's been moved by counselor Mori, second by council president Kleeberg dispense with the requirement that in order to be read on 3 different days and to combine the 2nd and 3rd readings. There's a favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Thank you. Counselor Maury.

Motion to waive the third reading in full of ordinance number 4972 and approve the reading of ordinance number 4972 by title only.

Second. Moved by Councillor Morey, seconded by Councillor Cleaver to waive the third reading in full of ordinance number 4972 and approve the reading of ordinance number 4972 by title only. Those in favor please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Clerk Brockian.

Proving the 2nd and 3rd readings of city ordinance number 4972, an ordinance of the city of Lewis and repealing Lewis and city code sections 37 dash 41.11 and 37 dash 41 8.11 amending Lewis and city code section 37 dash 131.2 relating to accessory apartments and providing an effective date.

Thank you clerk rocky council. Next we move to, uh, be 2. Pardon me? I to adoption approval of ordinance summaries. I am a ordinance 4968 and ordinance B ordinance 4972. We'll do the 2 ordinances together.

Sir morning motion to adopt ordinance numbers 4968 and 4972 and approve the related ordinance summaries.

2nd.

And moved by Councilor Mori, seconded by Councilor Wright to adopt Ordinance Numbers 4968 and 4972 and approve the related Ordinance Summaries. Clerk Rockey?

Council President Kleberg?

Aye.

Councilor Wright?

Aye.

Councilor Forsman? Aye. Councilor Klein? Aye. Councilor Mori?

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Council. Next, we have Roman No. 8, Vouchers Payable. Councilor Forsman?

This one is for like police that came, I don't think it's not canine, but it's, uh, employees, private training, private contract, uh, for the amount of 14,000, um, on page four of the vouchers packet four of eight. Um, I'm just curious, what is that like a training, a new employee or those annual trainings or what that, what that is?

If welcome, please introduce yourself for the record. Thank you.

Uh, Jason, chief of police. I would have to double check, but I believe that is going to be the group that's coming to do the full SWAT team, uh, train and put him through a whole week long SWAT school. Oh, that number is what's standing out to me. The. The company name is not bringing about real quick, but I believe that's what it's going to be for about definitely follow up. It's an email, but I believe that's what it's going to be for. Okay. Because they're coming in September to teach the whole team.

Okay. Awesome. Thank you. I did have one more. It was. No. Oh, um. In the amount of 6. 1655 dollars and 87 cents for finance. It's the masters touch LLC, monthly printing and mailing statement. I was just curious is that. Amount every month, or is that fluctuate? And I don't know if that's just I didn't see the pattern maybe from other vouchers payable.

Okay, just that on 7 of 8. But that's our printing a mailing contract, which I know you're aware of that. I think it can fluctuate because, um. The bulk posted rate can fluctuate and I mean, the number of mailings we send out every month should be consistent. But they could vary month to month. Sometimes we will have them do additional work for us, like, maybe insert a flyer or print a special backer on the bill. And so that can alter it too. And then, of course, we're trying really hard to encourage our citizens to go towards electronic statements to cut down on those costs too. So it's never going to be a fixed amount month to month, but it is also that was procured for an RFP. So we have contract pricing for all that.

Okay, thank you. That was my last one.

Thank you, Councillor. I would entertain a motion to approve vouchers payable.

Mayor?

Councillor Forsman?

Make a motion to approve vouchers payable. Second.

It's been moved by Councillor Forsman, seconded by Councillor Klein to approve vouchers payable. Clerk Brockie?

Council President Kleeberg, Councilor Wright.

Aye.

Councilor Forsman. Aye. Councilor Klein. Aye. Councilor Murray.

Aye. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Chief Cusick and Amy. Director Gordon, next we move to room 109, unfinished and new business. Item A, City Councilor comments. Comments shall not be related to an item currently for the Council or an item that may come for the Council in the foreseeable future and shall be limited to comments, not discussions.

I just wanted to highlight Valley vision will be having their annual event. Um, where they will announce exciting news, uh, since the new restructuring of Valley vision and then getting a new, um, CEO, they have announced, uh, exciting news for the past 3 years. And so, um. This is shown their immense improvement and, um. Dedication of wanting to see growth within Lewiston, which is going to ultimately help our property tax base. So I'm just really impressed that we get to yet another annual event. We get to hear exciting news. So that'll be this Thursday at 5. And it's an event that people can pay to go and get a table at and hear the news. Uh, that they have to share the other 1 I have is a citizen's guide to understand private taxes. It's all this today that we got. I'm going to filter through it a little more, but this is another example of Miss Carol Mauer and her amazing work. And I'm sure this also, uh. had a lot of other people to make it happen. I'm not know all names right now, but whoever was a part of this, uh, thank you for that. Cause this is a really good guide for citizens to be able to go through. Uh, so those that are listening, if you are, uh, please pick this up, pick it up at the city hall or do we have it at the community center? I would imagine. Oh, and it's online. Thank you. Um, so if you want to look at it online, like I said, in those other locations, so, um, it's pretty, it's a pretty good, um, organized. Booklet on our property taxes and how they're allocated. So.

Thank you counselor. Um, if I can just ask her rocky, um, if we filled our table. At the validation banquet, is there anything there that we need to take care of?

I believe we still have 1 or 2. It's available pending on whether counselors spouses sit at the table, but there's maybe 1 or 2 seats.

Okay. So if somebody's interested in going and hasn't RSVP to Tonya, you could get a hold of her and she'll tell you what opportunities may exist. Thank you. Other council comments. Okay, city boards and commissions latest on updates.

Thank you. I've got three, but I'm gonna try and be quick. So there was the county airport authority. We had another positive director's report in June. We had more inflamements than we did the previous year in June. That makes the second consecutive month that we've had improvement over the previous year. And you've probably seen the online ads, but there's the TSA pre check group coming to town again. So August 18th through August 21st, you can look on social media, find it. I think it's on the Lewiston city sites too. And New business. It just the normal stuff. Nothing too out of the ordinary. It was just lease agreements for the most part. Well, actually, excuse me. We also adopted the, uh, twenty seven budget for maintenance and capital. So that did get approved. Um, and we've already had that presentation here at the council. The cemetery and urban forestry. We didn't have anything on our active agenda, but we did. We did take some some time to just discuss what speckle Meyer had brought up before with the, you know, are we doing our mission is our does our mission makes sense. So the group is is looking into that and making sure that we're doing everything that that we should be doing. And then on urban urban renewal agency, we amended the f y 26 budget and we approved the f y 27. And I just don't recall who's the draft. I think it was the draft budget. Okay. All right. Perfect. That's all I got.

Mayor.

Thank you. Counselor Council enforcement.

I was out for the past about 2 weeks, so I didn't attend any commissions, but counselor right was there in my absence for the U. R. A. So appreciate that. Thank you. Counselor.

Welcome thank you. Other comments counselors. Or please on updates. If not, I'll move to the mayor comments. I just want to comment quickly on a couple of things. Yes, we did have our official pool opening on Saturday and I just. Once again, I want to say thank you to St Joseph regional medical center for being our sponsor that day. They were handing out little duckies and sunscreen and band aids and stuff like that. Um, but it was good to have them there. And then also, um, director Glenn's not here tonight, but he couldn't say enough about Dave center and his work on getting that pool open. So I just want to give Dave a shout out for the excellent work that he's been doing at the city of Boston. We appreciate all that he does to help us. That moves us to item D agenda topics. See any, so I'm going to ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. And moved by Council President Kleberg. Seconded by Councilor Mori to adjourn. Those in favor please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you Council.