City Council - Regular Meeting

Council will call this meeting to order. For the record, it is March 3rd, 2026 at 4:30 p.m. We'll begin this afternoon's work session with roll call attendance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Cavar, here. Councilman Taylor, here. Councilwoman Strader, here. Councilman Whitlock, here. Councilwoman Little Roberts, here. Councilman Overton, here. Mayor Simpson here. First item up is adoption of the agenda. Mayor. Councilman Overton. We adopt the agenda as public. Second. Have a motion second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Post. Nay. Have it. And the agenda is agreed to. First item up is the consent agenda. Mr. Mayor. Councilman Overton.

Approve the consent agenda for the mayor to sign the clerk to second. Have a motion, a second to approve the consent agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Those nay. You guys have it. And the consent agenda is agreed to. And Lizzie, we just approved that your appointment reappointment on the consent agenda. So, you're welcome to stick around, but I know you're get there's a party getting ready upstairs. So, okay. There were no items moved from the consent agenda. So we'll move on to item 11 which is discussion to add return payment fee to fee schedule. Turn this over to Jenny.

Good evening mayor and members of the council. I don't have a presentation tonight. Um this item I'm bringing forward is regarding a housekeeping item um associated with our fee schedule. So, historically, we have a $20 return payment check fee that is included in our city clerk's city fee schedule, but during the most recent update, we inadvertently have removed this fee. Um, upon discovering that MUBS still uses Oh, sorry. um our utility billings um department still utilizes this fee and access this fee to um for our customer return payments. So tonight there's no action item requested formally u by mayor and council. We are simply asking to proceed with a public hearing uh notice to our citizens and bring back a resolution to add this back to our um public works fee schedule where it aligns with the current operational practices and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you guys have.

Council questions mayor Cavary Jenny thanks for the update in the memo pretty much tracked with along with what you're saying. Just a couple questions either now or during the public hearing. I remember like as a kid always like you're in a at a grocery store or whatever. $20 fee for returned checks. So it tracks with what I've kind of seen, but can you either tonight or at the public hearing, what's that $20 fee set to cover? Is that a pass through cost that comes from the banks to us? The bank is charging us 20. Are they charging us 18?

Uh it's a combination. So, we do have a a a rate that the bank charges us. Um, it is not $20. There's also staff time that's allocated to it because we have to inquire and reconcile with the customers. And then the utility billing team also has to add this back to the bill. So, there are staff time allocations and administrative costs associated with. So, the $20 is not a straight pass through. And then, Mr. counter. Do do we have any other do other departments encounter this? Recognize MUBS probably experience it more than than most, but are we seeing this in other departments and are we being consistent in how we're charging this?

Um, we have surveyed other departments. The only reason why it was removed because city clerks no and other departments are no longer using it. So like parks and rack no longer uses it. Um, building department does seldomly use it, but the hightraic one is our utility billing. Mr. Mayor, just one last one. Council me, how do we handle or do we encounter um situations where fee payers um via credit card do a chargeback and say I didn't authorize that and and are we enforcing kind of a consistent process if we're not receiving funds for a service that we've delivered regardless of the payment method?

So merchant um credit cards are different than via where we receive a check or uh direct deposit. So merchant like credit cards the um our third party provider uh merchant services I don't remember the vendor name um but they actually do do all of our um checks. So like if a customer said hey this is a a fraudulent charge they work with our third party um vendor and get that reconciled. Okay great thank you Jenny welcome council any additional questions Mr. Mayor, just a real quick one.

Council, Jenny, I I like the idea that we're putting this back in, but whenever we look at a fee, I just want to make sure that, as you've stated with Councilman Cavender, that when we're looking at this that we're making sure it covers all of our administrative costs. Correct. We are adding this into our public works fee schedule in the future. So, every time we assess each of the fees in the public works department, we will be looking at staff allocations. Is the uh financial institution like our banks still charging this rate? All of this is going to be calculated. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. We'll see you back

in the near future. Yep. Thanks. With that, we'll move on to item 12, which is fiscical year 2025 financial results. Good evening, Mr. boy or late afternoon.

Good evening or afternoon and mayor, members of the council, appreciate you uh giving us an opportunity to present to you your fiscal year 2025 uh fiscal results. Uh the presentation that I have for you today is the same data that I provided two weeks ago. No data has changed since then. So the data is still uh the same. uh the data that I present to you. Um again, if you have any questions that I can't answer on tonight, I I'll work with your subject matter experts. Again, these are the results that your departments have executed over the last 12 months for the fiscal year 25. I'm showing you what their actuals did with the budget that you provided us for that budget year. So, tonight what we'll do is we'll go uh through the two major funds, which is the general fund and the enterprise fund. Those are the two funds. And then the third fund by state statute, I must report to you the impact fee results as well. So we do pull that one little piece out to meet the state statute that on an annual basis, your impact fee administrator provides to you your financial results for the impact fee fund itself. And then we'll also talk about uh what we'll present to you at the next quarterly financial update. At any time, please let me know if I can answer any questions. Uh so we'll start off with the general fund. We'll start off with the revenues for the general fund. Uh in total for all the revenues, we collected 92% of what we projected and we thought we would collect for fiscal year 2025. These are the major revenue sources that we kind of track in buckets. Uh the most important one on this slide is our property taxes. That makes up about 50 to 60% of our revenues and we missed the target by 1% or 1.3 to be exact. uh license to permits you can see 78.6% we collected uh intergovernmental 73.4

and so on. The largest percentage difference that you can see here is going to be at the very very end at 185%. Uh this was due to the fact that our investment income is still stronger than we projected and we also got a $1.5 million one-time influx from the rural fire district. So again, that one we didn't really have on the budget, but it came in. So that kind of threw us off a little bit there. Um largest the revenue generated um for the intergovernmental, you'll see we kind of missed the target there. That one's uh because of the $7 million ARPA funding. And it's all about timing. So we will get this money spent, but you'll see that we had a budget, but we haven't returned to got the revenue yet. That's that that's just a timing issue. So those are your two biggest things from a percentage and from a dollar value. Those are your two biggest variances for the general fund uh that I wanted to point out for you. Again, we collected 92%. Development uh permit revenues and permit activity throughout this presentation you'll see are lower than we uh projected. They came in lower than we thought they would. So you see the revenues are lower, the expenses are lower. That will be a recurring theme that you'll hear from me. Development X was lower, hence why we missed the targets. As we go through the revenues, again, the most important revenue stream for the general fund is the property taxes. That is our largest. Um, that is our most consistent and we always want to do what we can to protect that revenue source. But again, we missed the target by 1.3% on that one.

Mr. Mayor, oh, sorry, going back. Welcome. Um, is it okay, Todd, if we dig into this a little bit? Let's do it. Okay. So, because I was just kind of curious and I think it's hard to tell where each of them is a percentage and you don't really understand the dollar amount magnitude. So, if you look at it, you're saying 82% of our projected revenue was collected. Is that 92% 92% from a totality? So if you look at the whole thing that is what it consolidates to. Yes. And out of that let's say 8% that's like a gap

right? Then how material are those three items you just mentioned? Like so if if I'm looking at um we think one of the biggest drivers was ingovernmental because of ARPA. What percentage of that 8% gap does that map back to? I was just and if you don't have it that's fine but I was just kind of curious out of those three items how material are those to that I do have that data on a spreadsheet and I'm happy to show you how each percentage collect or accumulates to that gap of 8%. I have all the data for you so you can see how material or not material it is. I'm happy to do that for you. Okay. Thank you.

Oh thank you. So staying within the general fund, we're just going to touch on some of the larger um revenue sources that we talk about. Uh sales tax again for sales tax revenue sharing. Again, this is uh controlled by the state. The state tells us what we get. In this case, year-over-year from 24 to 25, we generated 766,000. No, we didn't generate. We received $766,000 more than we did the previous year. And you can see historically since the 2021 large influx that is when the state of Idaho changed the legislature and changed the rules and how they did the math again we got a large influx but then you see what happened after the math they decided to lower our annual income accordingly. So but again this is the uh annual additional income on an annual basis from uh the revenue sharing from the state of Idaho. Uh liquor revenue which is again controlled by the state they give us a proportionate share of the revenue that they collect and manage. This is the second year in a row we have lost money yearover-year. So now we're uh two years in a row this year we lost 43,000 or we generated 43,000 less revenue dollars than we did in 2024. And you can see 2024 generated less revenues than they did in 2023. So we're on two years of a declining uh revenue stream for liquor revenue. Again they tell us what portion we get. And same with franchise fees. Franchise fees are controlled by the corporations. Uh we have for 2025 we generated $12,000 less than we did the previous year. And this is two consecutive years in a row that the franchise revenues from the payments received by our corporations are less than they were the previous

year to that. And that sums up the revenue side for the general fund. Uh now we'll talk about expenses for the general fund. How did we do? You gave us a budget. How did we do executing your budget? General fund. In total for personnel, we spent 95.7% of the total budgetary dollars that you provided us. Our historical average uh since we've been tracking this, I think for 10 years is 94.1. So, we did better than our historical average. The largest percentage gap that you can see on the screen is 16.7% which is the comm dev team. We didn't quite make the 100% mark, but we expected this cuz we decided to hold some vacancies and keep some positions open. So, we budgeted, but we said let's not uh fill those vacancies. And the same thing with the police department, the largest gap, which is 1.4 million. So, when you look at the police department, the blue bar is higher than the red bar by 1.4 million. And that is because of vacancies as well. we have not we budget 100% of all your staff members but if they don't have the ability to fill them then we quote unquote leave some money behind and that is your largest dollar value gap um from a personnel standpoint operating so for the whole all your governmental funds operating we ended up spending 66% of what you provided us for 2025 our historical average is 80.5% and I I think there's one bar bar graph that you're looking at that stands out. Uh that is your administration group. That is because we were provided 5 million for the ARPA fund. We only we didn't spend it all. We just need time to get that done. It will be all spent by this uh fiscal year or calendar because we had to by law 2020 December 20th December 31st 2026. We must have that spent. So again, that is a timing

issue. That is just we put the budget in. We haven't spent it yet. Uh we also had an $ 1.56 $6 million 9mm creek project. Um we didn't we only spent $100,000 of that timing issue. We just need to be able to spend that. And then we also had some transportation projects. Half a million dollars there. We spent zero of that. Again, timing uh of that. So that is why there's such a large uh variance in the admin. We had large projects that just did not get finished from a percentage standpoint. We also had comdev. You can see we left a percentage there. Just like revenues, if we don't sell the permits, we don't need to outsource the um services. So therefore, we didn't need the services. So we spent less than what we thought we needed to.

So those are your operating expenses. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Todd, can you just give me a sense of what those ARPA funds were dedicated for or budgeted for that we have not yet spent but will spend? Oh, you're testing me on what the grant team did. I mean, that's a chunk of change. Yeah, the fire wasn't the fire department. Uh, oh, is it is that the fire is this in the bio solids? Well, that would be enterprise fund. Okay. So, then here comes Mr. Miles. He can fire station. Yeah. So, reimbursement is to fire station. So, we just need to expend it on our books so that we can complete the project in total.

Yeah. It's just a timing thing. We will get this spent for you. Yeah. Thank you, Dave. That now moves us into the other component that we track, which is our capital expenditures. For 2025, the city spent 45.6% of their total budget that you provided us for fiscal year 2025. Um you can see that the general fund um we did leave um 10 million on the books. We did request six of those 10 million to be carried forward in 2026. We just couldn't get the projects done in 2025. So we carried the 20 2026. 3.7 represents of the 6 million 3.7 is for engines just timing of engines. We need them to be delivered. 1.1 for your our workday project. uh this HRMS time card payroll. We need timing to get the invoices to us and we'll pay those off. And then parks has $1 million associated to some parks projects. Timing issues, we will spend it. They asked us to carry the money from 25 to 26. So again, um of that $6 million will be spent in 2026 um for to finish up the 2025 projects requested. So in total your departments for 2025 for the revenue we spent or we collected 92% of what we thought we would personnel we spent 95% 95% of what you provided us we spent 66% of what you provided us and capital we spent 45% of what you provided us for fiscal year 2025 in summary. So now what does all this mean? Um for the general fund when you take all your revenues and all your expenses you get to what we call net income. For the general funds all these

represented here we increased our general fund fund balance by 1.6 million. The impact fee fund which operates on its own generated 3.9 million. The community development, a little over half a million of net income. Capital improvement, almost half a million in net income. Public safety, about 266,000. Grants fund is a a break even. For every dollar we spend, we get a dollar back. So, it's it should be broken even. Then the general fund itself, we lost 3.6 million. So, when you add up all those numbers, it equals a net positive position of $1.6 million to the general fund. Mr. Mayor, Council Mater,

and then just as we're thinking about um to the extent that we have had I'm always fascinated by the property tax results just because that shows additional operating ongoing revenue that's coming in above what we projected, right? Understanding there are still other factors that come in. If we have ongoing revenue that comes in, for example, through property taxes, if we budgeted a certain amount and we end up with 1.3% more property tax revenue coming in than we budgeted, how does that play into the next budget cycle as a source of ongoing revenue? Then does that just get added in as we're considering our operating costs and help walk us through that?

Sure. Fair question. So you did, you are correct. We did collect 1.3 or 1.3% more than we thought. That 1.3 is a onetime ex revenue. Okay.

Every year the state tells us or the county tells us how much revenue you get to collect for property taxes. They don't even look at the past. Well, they do. And to an extent they go, what is your highest three years of collection? That is now your base property tax. They don't look at whether or not we collected 1.3 because that was so last year. they're going to tell us what our new number is regardless of what last year was. Um, so the 1.3 is not a factor of what we look at for in this case 2027's budget that because that was what happened in 2025 or 26. Those might be outstand we don't collect 100% of our property taxes every year. So those might be outstanding payments from 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020 because we finally collected them for whatever reason. So that extra 1.3 isn't ongoing new revenues. County will tell us what the new ongoing revenues and I present that to you. Go your revenue stream is X. Hopefully we collect it. We collect about 99% of it, right?

So it's usually pretty consistent, but the 1.3 is not a factor unfortunately that we get to play with. Yeah. And this always fascinates me be Mr. Mayor if you don't mind. as the trader because out of that 1.3% I've always been really interested to see a breakdown of that and understand if if there is any component of that that is actually ongoing new revenue or if to your point the vast majority of it is just like one time past collections people that um maybe they had a lean against their house or something and so they finally decided to pay their property tax bill or

do we ever get into that 1.3% and try to get a more granular breakdown to see if out of that amount there's any piece that is ongoing that we can now capture or does it just get averaged in eventually under the the formula that we get from the county? It's the math. You're 100% correct. The letter we eventually will build a budget. We'll say hey county we need $56 million. I'm just making up a number here. They go, "We'll collect it for you." And they will do their best with an amount of properties that they have on their part on their parcel list and collect us $56 million by dividing it into the number of parcels. I think the differences are going to be the late payments and other adjustments, things like that. Yeah.

So, every year they reset the algorithm. They reset it and they go, "How much do we need?" Well, we actually tell them how much we need and then they go, "I'll build you a levy rate and then we'll collect it on your behalf." Yep. Yeah. Thanks. I just think it's helpful for everybody to understand that because we in the past we have thought oh look we didn't budget enough and we're actually collecting more than we thought. So it's like is that a source of new ongoing revenue because our projections are not aggressive enough and that's not the case because these are like one-time collections is what you're saying

correct because the county resets our number they tell us what the number is every single year. You're you're 100% correct. I appreciate the questions. So, as you can see, the general fund, these are the results. In totality, the general fund is currently sitting at $99.9 million to give you guys an answer of what you currently have in your fund balance for the general fund. With that, we'll jump into the enterprise fund. Follow the same format. We'll talk about revenues then go into expenses and tell you what happened to the um fund bounce at the end. So for the enterprise fund we ended up at 95.6% of what we expected. Um you can see here the water this water sales and sewer sales those are the two most important revenue sources for the enterprise fund. Those are our ongoing operational uh revenue sources. Again they came in higher than we expected uh by five to six five to 7%. the assessments is where we um kind of saw the reduction. No different in the development on the permit activity. These are all driven by permits. So, it's not surprising to see these lower than we projected. Hence why we didn't quite make the 100% mark. We ended up at 95.6%. Um but again, as you can see, the development's lower as expected because everything within the development community for us last for fiscal 25 was lower than we projected. uh the water and sewer sales. Again, those are our most important things that we need to manage. We need to make sure we are coming to you every year with inflationary adjustments, which I think was already has occurred for the enterprise fund earlier a few months ago. So, with that, I'm going to talk about some of the um major revenue sources. Again, most important one is water and sewer. Again, we generated 1.9 million more this year than we did last year.

Again, as we continue add homes, that's more additional revenue sources. As you continue increase the rates by an inflationary factor, that's more opportunities. As more people use more water, that's income to you as well. So, this is your annualized year-over-year additional income from our water and sewer sales uh for the enterprise fund. And we use these funds to cover your ongoing operational needs at the uh in enterprise fund. And then this is your water connections as we've talked about. Um again development is slowing down and you can see that our year-over-year not income well it's net loss now. Uh for 2025 we generated 1.6 million less than we did in 24. And then you can see in 24 we generated $6 million less than we did in 23. So if you add the six and the the six million plus the 1.6 6 million that's 7 to8 million less than we did in 2023. Um so this is all just one one-time revenue sources. That is what the water connections do for your uh enterprise fund. Uh personnel expenses for the enterprise fund. They spent 95.5% of what you provided them and you can see almost every department was about 95%. very um very simple uh very clean, very you know great results there. Um their historical average is 91.4. So we're building on making that more uh or executing that at a better uh clip every year. Your operational expenses, they ended the year at 89.5% of what you provided them. Uh their historical average is 83.5%. So again, better than their historical average. The largest gap in value you can see in is in the wastewater department. Uh about a million bucks. The $1 million was associated to unspent programs at the plant maintenance and

repair section. So again, we just didn't get to them in time, but again, that's where the money was left. We asked for the money. We just didn't spend it in those two uh fields. And then the utility billing, you see we spent 4% more than what you provided us. I apologize, but again, that was all associated to the postage and mailings of the invoices to our customers themselves. The rates went up. We didn't budget enough in those factors. We're making an adjustment 27, trust me. Um, but again, that's what those are from is the paper mailings and all the mailings that we do for those. And that was about $40,000. We missed the target on postage mailings and printing and binding and all that stuff. Uh, that was operation. Now we get to capital expenditures. Your capital expenditures, your enterprise funds spent 49.6% of what you provided them. The value gap that we're talking about here is $55 million left. We carried 52 million into next year. So it's all timing. It takes more than a year to do lots of their projects. So they asked us to carry 52 million of the 55 million that was not spent in 2025. and they'll get those spent in 26 27 and 28. So in summary, the enterprise fund we collected 95% of what we thought we would collect in revenues. We spent 95% of personnel. We spent 89% of operating and we spent 49% of capital of what you provided us in 2025. So what does all this mean again? The enterprise fund, we reduced their fund balance by 27.8 million. The water division consumed 1.9 million. Wastewater consumed almost 20 million. Public works consumed 3 million and utility building added 32,000. So with

all that put together, you currently have about $84.9 million in your fund balance for the enterprise fund. And if you recall, I mentioned that you carried 52. So of the 84, 52 is already spoken for. We we can't touch that at all. Um so but we'll get into the more of that when we do the 2027 budget and explain how all that works. But you currently have 84.9 million inside the enterprise fund. So with that, we will talk about the impact fees for the fund itself. revenues. We again they're all lower than we thought. Impact fees are generated by the development. Every time you pull a permit, that's when we get the revenue. So, this follows all the other uh trends. We did not quite make the mark on our projects because the residential and the development was a little bit lower than we thought. Uh fire department, they collected 77% of what we projected. They spent a few dollars on some design work in 2025. Uh again, it's a save before you spend model. we're saving before we can get into that um community center is what they're kind of building and also station number nine. So, you'll see some expenses later on, just not right now. They're just doing some uh design work and things like that. Uh for your parks department, again, they collected 71% and they spent 91% of what you provided them in uh 2025 for their parks projects. And then for the police department, we did not budget any dollars to be spent. um they're saving before they spend. Uh same model they have that I think the next big project is over at the um um station is an expansion on their um training facility I believe. So again, we're just saving before you spend. So you'll see some expenses in the future on their line items. So in total, we collected 90 73% of what we thought we

would collect in revenues and we spent 91% of what we would expect to spend in our capital. any unspent monies in capital were carried forward in 2026. So over the two years, you have 100% of what we thought. So what does all this mean? Revenues minus expenses. We added $3.9 million to the impact fee fund balance at the end of the day when you add up all the revenues minus the expenses. So in recap, we talked about 2025 actuals, we talked about the fund balances, and we talked about the impact fee uh results for fiscal 25. Um the next quarterly update you'll get from us, we'll do some like more demographics and statistics. And with that, I stand for any questions.

Thank you, council. Any questions? Mr. here. Councilman Shrader, um my probably my biggest question, which is sort of related to this, but a little bit of a rabbit hole, is just do we have a sense yet, I hadn't heard, what is the CFP process going to look like this year? Uh is there going to be an effort to do like a balancing act like we did last year? I know we didn't get to a five-year balance, but I was just sort of hoping to to hear on that. I hadn't heard from the city council president or from finance on what we're doing. Do you want me to get John me? Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton,

straighter. Um, didn't have a chance to speak with you before the meeting started this evening, but looking at a small change from what we did last year in the fact of not presenting the five-year CFP from each of the directors. Um, I've had conversations with a few of the other council members about looking at having that done maybe every two years or not requiring it every year. We have the same team sitting up here right now that we've had before. Um, I think we we both look at this a little bit differently on what this tool is. Um, I think some of that CFP tool was initially designed to be a long range planning tool for our directors and our departments. And I have a lot of respect for them using it that way and not using it as a tool we have to completely rely on because it changes depending on situations. We certainly couldn't have looked two years ago at what we were doing with our CFP and seen a drone program rolling our way. So, out of respect for our time and trying to make us more efficient this year as we move through the budget process, I'm asking Todd to not do the same process that we did last year. But at the same time, any questions, and Todd has agreed, any questions that any individual council members have on any part of that data is completely made available to them at any time. So, nothing is hidden from them. Anything that's wanted will be provided to them at any time. We just won't ask for that to be a public presentation.

Mr. Council,

thank you. I appreciate that reminder. It's tough with the mic, so they turn themselves off now. Um, respectfully, and it's not personal. I just want to publicly express my deep disagreement with that approach. Um I feel that presenting a five-year balanced CFP and trying to achieve that and having the departmental presentations from directors has been an important tool that has made our city financially successful. Um and I'm very uncomfortable. So I just wanted to to say that again. It's not personal. philosophies may differ and you're certainly driving the bus, but um I don't agree with that at all. Thank you,

Mr. Mayor. Councilor,

I I may encourage us. I appreciate that's kind of the intention where we're headed right now, but I do think it is worth maybe taking a step back because I I think we as a team, as a body of seven, I think have an opportunity to create some consistency when it comes to how we want to look at the CFP. I think my perspective over the last four or five years it's kind of evolved kind of like a river. This year we're going to be really involved and other years maybe not. I also recognize that the departments and our directors, mayor and council are all using the CFP much differently than it was when it was first launched. So I if if the plan is to not provide a presentation this year, I think that's that's fine. I would expect probably then a little bit more thorough um budget requests coming into this year. So I understand what these requests look like compared to um what I can see in the CFP, right? We all have access to the CFP and there's certainly some data there that's beneficial. The context of hearing from the directors I think are always helpful. So I just think if we're not going to head down that path, directors need to be prepared as part of the budget process to probably receive some additional questions about CFP requests. My recommendation would be is us to take a step back and build a predictable schedule and approach about how we want to use the CFP moving forward so we're all kind of rowing in the same direction and we know this is what we're going to do whether it's every year, every other year, every five years, every time we have a new mayor or a new council member. Let's let's build some rules of engagement so that we can plan um what that looks like. Um I think that's important for us. I think it's important for the directors and I think it's important for the the taxpayers to have that consistency. Mr. Mayor,

Councilman Overton,

followup. I spoke with Council Kavanaaugh before and one of the other influencing decisions for me was that we're the same team of six as we were before. We don't have a new council member this year. This is a council that's gone through this budget process multiple times now. We're comfortable with this process. um absolutely agree that if we get new members of this council that's all part of the education process and how this city works and I think it would be very important to go back to that at that time as again I'm not trying to say we won't do this again just looking at can we just do this every other year right now and see how that process moves through and how it compares to last year. Any other questions for Todd on the presentation? Mr.

Mayor Councilman Wlock, I just real quickly and I like how you portray year-over-year and this much more than we got last year, which was this much more than we got the year before. But you use the term a net loss when in in those bars. Is it truly a net loss or are we I mean if we just did a a line graph sure would it all be positive? So I'm I'm I'm stuck on the on the term net loss when we're talking about revenue. Did we?

So I apologize if I confused and I did use the word net loss from financial statement that I guess I was using net loss from a year-over-year standpoint. You are correct. You are generating revenue. We are not we are in a positive position that the state is still giving us revenues. So if you look at it from that standpoint, yes, you are net positive in revenue. I use the term net loss over year-over-year. So I apologize about that. You are generating less revenue than you did. We are collecting less revenue than we did the year before. I apologize, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Whitlock. I I made that assumption but I sure when I'm talking to my wife about net loss

little different. Nope. Understood. I apologize about that. It may be taught from you I don't have the numbers on the top of my head but if I look at three categories um sales tax um liquor revenue and franchise fees. Yes sir. net positive but not as much as we have been because the other two we had two of the three were down. The third was up a little bit but not up that much.

Agreed. If you netted all three of them you would be in a positive position of those three. We're just starting to see a new trend with those liquor and franchise. A new trend for us is we're not making we're generating less revenue than we did the year before. That's what I was trying to highlight in those slides. But you are correct. If you netted all three of them, I think it was $700,000 profit, more money in sales tax would offset the losses in the other two. You are correct. You're you're still positive when you add the three together. It's just the other two now we're lo we're not generating as much income as we once were, which is unfortunate. Yeah. Did I get that answer right? That's that's what my Yeah, mathematic you're correct.

Yes. that when I when you get three emails from Todd and two of them are negative, you're like you got to you got to look for the positive out of the three. There was one. Yes, there was one. Yeah. So, council, any additional questions? Okay, cool. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Todd. Okay, next item up is item 13, 80 highway district 5year plan prioritization follow-up discussion. Mr. Hood.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. members of council if it's okay. I think I'll just stay here that way after get you back up to speed real quick. I can take some notes if that's all right. Um so again, quick refresher. I was myself and Brian were here a couple weeks ago. Uh had a a pretty good discussion I thought about the list of priorities and some of the draft letter that we're preparing uh to send to ACD. 18th of this month is the target, but we do technically have until the end of the month. They said they they would still accept it. um did share with you just earlier this afternoon via email. So hopefully maybe you all checked your email sometime today. Um but ACHD sent to us last week the uh compilation of comments they received from their website on Meridian projects and requests from the public. So we've scanned through those, shared them now with you. Um just at a very high level summary, nothing that really jumped out that we weren't generally already tracking or already aware of. nothing that I feel like I need to bring to your attention today, but you have that information uh as of today. So, um and then another thing that's new over the last couple of weeks, we did get confirmation. We talked a little bit about the transportation commission moved the Linder Road overpass project from one down to four. There was conversation, I think the mayor brought it up, why are we splitting the baby? Let's pull it off the list. I did get confirmation from them that that project can come off. It's moving forward irregardless essentially. Um, so we'll move those to the top of the list as with completed projects. So I like that comment. So we'll update the the list with Lindro overpass. There's one on Ustick and maybe one other project that was uh complete this year. Um, I didn't receive any additional comments from any of the council. So don't really have maybe we'll just pick up where we left off last time. Uh, those are the kind of the new items. Um, I will just a reminder there are two lists. So, we didn't really talk about the safety and compliance too terribly much last time. If you want to spend a little time there, if you're good with what the

transportation commission recommended, I think that's fine. Um, the other thing that I have in my notes is we will make some uh in our cover letter. We we we historically put together a cover letter on top of our priority lists. Um, but we'll talk about Locust Grove and maybe even Meridian Road and the importance of those corridors. Um, but also this upcoming bridge project and the design that way too. So, um, not to bury the lead, we need to get through the priorities, but if you have any other, um, talking points for the letter, I would be open to taking those, I typically work with the mayor, uh, on drafting that letter. But, um, if you have anything else you'd like us to highlight as we thank them for the work they've done and do and then as we, you know, explain that there's still a lot of work to be done and and highlight a couple of those projects. If you have anything along those lines, again, I'll take take those types of uh, notes uh, today as well. So, with that, um, if you want to refresh, Brian has got the the draft from the Transportation Commission up there again, priority number, um, four. So, if you look at the far left hand column, 2026 priority draft list, um, priority number four, the lender wrote over overland to Franklin. That one is coming off. So, anything below that, we'll actually move up one. Um, other than that, heard some I don't want to say conflicting comments, but just no consensus on where uh, priorities should be. So, with that, hopefully that you all recall that and we can just go from there.

Thanks, Caleb. And yes, I do everything I can to take all of Caleb's comments or compliments out of the letter each time each year I get it. I mean, it kills them. Um, but with that, uh, I council, I know that there was some conversation last time, uh, specifically around connecting some of the road projects and intersection projects and where some of the if Locus Grove is going to be the priority, where some of those projects should end up on the list. I think that's my recollection of what were some of the main uh, outstanding items on this list with that information. Um, so personally I'd love to get that and any other components that you think need to be addressed or modified.

Mr. Mayor Council Sher,

um, I I recall in our last meeting I did think we had some consensus that number one should at least move down a couple of spots. Um, I I'm happy though with the corridor approach generally and highlighting Locust Grove kind of on this list obviously very clearly in the top 10. So, I don't know if I have a lot of energy around that, but I just I do recall us kind of nodding along that maybe we were going to rep prioritize that one. Um, other than that, I think just generally this approach is fine. I don't know if anyone else has any comments about that one specifically. Yeah, I I think I'll share the com I don't remember if this was a conversation with Kale, but I think it was with the council president around that one. I guess this comes from living in that area. Um, you know, the intersections are what really make these improvements. We know why this one got put up there was because of the bridge. I think that focusing more on the bridge and the letter and getting them to do that correctly as compared to the road itself. But I think that the Locust Grove and Amity intersection has greater value than this section of road project generally. And I think that that's what we've seen uh at least in South Meridian is the roundabout at Victory in Locust Grove has solved a large portion of the congestion issues in that area. But it it's now not the road width, it's the next intersection which is creating the challenge. So I I would be supportive of moving this one down to maybe back where it was and rep prioritizing the others or the intersections in a in a better way, but focusing on getting them to do the bridge to the appropriate um width that we'd like to see long term because it's not that far away. Seven and if it went back to seven, it's not that far away on the list.

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cal,

I hear what you're saying. I numerically there's not a big difference between two and seven when it comes to how the highway district looks at things. There is a giant disparity in priority between two and seven. And so that's I think that's where my hesitation is. Um, we also recognize I think our conversation two weeks ago is very prudent and fruitful about just the cost of these types of projects and the length of time it's going to take to um accomplish them. I would foresee that if we move it to seven, we're going to be having a conversation a year from now about moving it back up. So, I I'm more comfortable leaving it where it is. I I don't disagree with the points that you're trying to make, but I I do think it is an important priority that that needs to remain, especially as as Eagle and Amity continues to be built out as a commercial and and retail epicenter. Um all the roadways that connect over to that area are going to continue to see increased traffic. I think going back if that's the case and I would move five to number one. I'd put the intersection at a higher priority than the road widening itself and at least to combine the two.

Mr. Mayor together. I I think that part I'm in agreement of if you want to move five up to number one and then the roadway is number two. To me that's I I recognize the highway district separates them out. I I certainly I think most people look at them as together. So I think that would be consistent with what our conversation has been. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton,

I'm good with that. I mean, there's two sections of Locust Grove we're looking at, and it's a matter of which is which. And the more I look at it, the more I can flop either way. But the bottom line is I think we have to do the intersections especially when we're talking about Amity and Locust Grove has to be a higher priority than the road itself because you just can't you're building a road into a four-way stop that is dysfunctional if we don't take care of that intersection first. So I think Councilman Kavanaaugh had a very good point. If we move five to the top and make no other changes with the four coming off of

sorry I'm good with that change trying to figure out how to look at this and make the fewest possible changes. I think a lot of work has gone into this getting a little bit of head nods. Any other Mr. Mayor? Councilwoman Lil Roberts.

Um I've had the pleasure lately of being at that intersection and so would of Amity and Locust Grove and would definitely concur that I think that we can make the biggest impact in especially in that area um that is growing like mad if we move that to number one and still focus on getting the bridge to five lanes. Mr. Mayor, if I can, I don't know if you got a head nod from everybody as you're sort of visually pulling everyone. I I just want to call this to to everyone's attention then. Uh, Councilman Kavar's comment, I think, is a valid one. I really like grouping the intersection and the roadway on Locust Grove and and Amity there. Um, and that also keeps the Locust what is currently the second and third listed projects still together. I just want to call it out. does cuz the top three especially matter two and seven and all but it does push your Fair View and Locust Grove out of the top three which is the ones. So just we only have three and everything there's a lot of priorities. I just want to state that that that bumps it out of the top three. So, um I

I've got so much faith that their their new impact fee numbers are going to give us top four. Okay. To work on anyways.

So, if if can I just restate it then so everybody's tracking. Is that okay, Mr. Mayor? If that's where it seems to be headed or I can wait if there's more changes. I'm just going to read the top seven as I have them listed. Uh if there's other changes we can So I've got the new number one then is Amity and Locust Grove that intersection which is currently number five. Number two then is what's currently number one on the 2026 Locust Grove Road AM to Victory. Number three then is Locust Grove Fair View to Eustic. Number four is Fair View Locust Grove. We're going to skip the next project which is Lindro Road overpass. Um, number four then becomes number five, Victory Road, Locust Grove, Eagle Road, and then number six is 10 mile cherry, Eagle Overland, and so on and so forth. Does everyone that track, right? Yeah. And we can even point out that but for them talking about this bridge, it wouldn't have been number two. It wouldn't have even been brought up on our list and it's on their future. you know, I still not understanding, you know, their how their rationale for them doing this work. So, we can blame them for uh for how this ended up because of that conversation, but we're not really other than really adding that one item that was in the future into that list, everything else already has a design row uh year essentially moving forward um on these. So, it's not like we're really they may not be in our top three, but they're still generally moving forward. Is there anything else for the letter then? Obviously, we'll talk about Locust Grove and some some of that um in the cover letter. Is there anything else that anyone's hoping that we address? We have it down pretty well, I think. I

just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything in particular. So, and then, oh, Brian might have something.

Mayor Council, before you move past the five-year plan, just a reminder, I get a lot of comments from uh council persons about the community programs and the projects on that list. So, if you if you guys have preferences, this is the time where ACD likes us to move those forward. Um, not sort of outside of it. Pull that up. I I will just also me mention I don't know if you want Brian to scroll through, but there were quite a few that were added. Um 47 through 58 um were added this year. So, you know, their their home is currently at the end of that list, but maybe even particularly scanning those to see if any of those tend to rise up to be something that's in a top 10, say Mr. Mayor,

Shader, um Caleb, when people are done looking at this, could you just go back to like the top 10 of the community program priorities, please? I will just say if you want to look at the the new ones that were added and the top 10 kind of simultaneously, it is in your packet. Um you could pull that up too. So, we can't do split screen or picture and picture here, but if you want to pull that up and you do have access to that, too. Mr. Mayor,

Council Mater,

I I I think that I think we've got this one pretty close, at least on the top 10. I can appreciate the um the new ones. I just think if something's actually number 40 or number 50, I think that the chances of them taking it seriously in the near term are low. Um, but I I was happy to see kind of a continuation of this. I appreciated the elevation of the um Goddard Creek and Wild Goose project at McMillan and Linder. Uh, that area is a complete mess. So, that that makes a lot of sense to me. Um, I know that the Black Cat Railroad crossing has been a huge priority for us just given the pedestrian situation and the school children. I I know it's not efficient for them to do this to then eventually redo it when they widen the road, but I think it's just so important from a safety standpoint. I support that. I think this makes sense to me, at least at this point.

I'm getting all head nods. Okay, thank you. All right. Well, we will uh get these transmitted to ACD forth with. Thank you team. Appreciate it. Council, we've reached the end of our agenda. Do I have a motion? Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn the work session. Motion second journ. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Post nay. You eyes have it. We are adjourned.

Starting to realize I'm out of Zoom again. Council will call this meeting to order for the record of March 3rd, 2026 at 6:01 p.m. We'll begin this evening's record city council meeting with roll call attendance.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Kavana here. Councilman Taylor here. Councilwoman Strader here. Councilman Whitlock here. Councilwoman Little Roberts. Councilman Overton here. Mayor Simmonson here. Next time is the pledge of allegiance. If you'd all please rise and join us in the pledge. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all.

Our next item is a community invocation which tonight will be delivered by Mick Armstrong. If you'd all please join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Nick, good to see you.

Father, we thank you for the liberty and justice we enjoy. We thank you for the prosperity of our community. We thank you for the blessings you've given us. And I thank you for these people that uh serve in the matters of of our safety, public services, uh property decisions, development, and things that we don't always all agree on. And father, I just pray that uh we can have civil discussions even when we are vigor vigorously disagree. And particularly t thank you for the work of our police force in resolving a matter where one of our buildings was attacked. And uh God, just something we didn't really expect in this community. and just uh just pray for continued safety, vigilance, and uh just that we can continue to be a good place for families and good place for businesses in Jesus name. Amen.

Thank you, M. Next time up is adoption of the agenda. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, there are no changes to the agenda. I move we approve it as published. Have a motion, a second to adopt the agenda as presented. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Oppose. Nay. The eyes have it. And the agenda is agreed to. Council, anything under announcements and recognition? Okay. Mr. Anyone signed up under public forum? Mr. Mayor, there is no signups.

Okay. Then with that, we'll move on to item one, which is a resolution number 26-2572. This is the appointment to of Aaron Turner to C8 of the Meridian Arts Commission. Uh, council, in your packet, you had uh Aaron Turner's uh application. I'm sure for many of you, she is uh no stranger uh to yourselves. Um she has been with the Meridian Library Foundation. uh most recently and has been doing a lot of work uh with them and in other ways throughout the community. But um she has been I' I've gotten to know her through that through that effort and she's just was looking for a way to uh get engaged um with our community and further than the way that she was already doing that. And um I'm happy to answer any questions about Aaron, but um she's a lover of all things art. Uh does has a wide variety of what she does for hobby uh and a patron. And so I think she brings a great um you know, non-professional yet uh semi-professional um with watercolor being her favorite thing, but it's not her profession because she does do another job full-time. So with that, happy to stand for any questions or in action. Mr.

Councilman Overton move that we approve resolution number 26-2572 establishing the appointment of Aaron Turner to seat 8 of the emerging arts commission. Second. have a motion, a second to approve resolution number 26-2572. Uh, is there any discussion? Mr. Mayor, as Cavender,

real quick, want to commend you. I feel like, man, we've had a really great crop of um committee members and I just I really want to appreciate your efforts in vetting those candidates. Uh, I just feel like each time that we get some of these appointments, I'm continually impressed with the level of talent that is interested in serving our community and just want to appreciate your great work on bringing these great names forward. Thank you. We have got a lot of great talent in the community. So, it's sometimes it's a little difficult um telling other people no. Okay. If nothing else, all those in favor signify by saying I I

oppose. Nay. Guys have it and the items agreed to. And uh Aaron is not here. Um but one one thing I failed to mention and it'll be interesting to see. We didn't want to do this specifically and now that she's appointed she can't back out. Um Erin has a lot of grant writing experience in her day job and I think that's something that our arts commission was really looking forward to uh is maybe looking at applying for grants for further work but uh we we won't hold her to doing grant writing all her her time on the commission. So appreciate that. Okay with that we'll move on to uh uh well it says department reports there nothing under department reports. Okay. Then we'll move on to uh item two which is public hearing or H2025-000049. Were you opening this public hearing, Missary? Okay. So, we are not going to open this public hearing. Uh but uh would staff like to make any comments on this item?

Good evening, mayor, council members. the applicant just didn't post the site correctly and requested that um March 10th be their next hearing date. So, and staff is okay with that. Okay. Any questions from council then? Do I have any motions? Mr. Mayor, Councilman Overton, I move that we move public hearing for Tong H2025-0049 to March 10th. I have a motion second to move this item to March 10th. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I.

Oppos? Nay. Guys have it. And that item will be moved to March 10th. So, next item up is item three, which is a public hearing for 1725 West Pine H 2025005 continued from February 10th. We'll continue this public hearing with comments from staff. Good evening, mayor and council. Um, so tonight we are here, the applicant is proposing to modify an existing development agreement to revise the requirements uh for the required cross access. This pro property is located at 1725 West Pine Avenue. It consists of 0.76 acres of land and it's zone CN. Um no with the modification to the development agreement. They are um asking that no cross access um be proposed on the east side of the property uh which will we hope to eventually connect with Linder Road um with future redevelopment of this area. This is a site plan showing the um parcel um right there off of Pine across from U Meridian High School. Again, this is the modification that they're requesting to remove that cross access from the east side of the property. So, a little history on this property. In 2009, um this property was approved for um this area was approved for annexation

um and changed to the future land use destination on about 2 um.05 acres. It consisted of three tax parcels from medium density residential to commercial. This also included um annexation and zoning for the property in question and to have it zoned with CN. Uh a concept conceptual development plans were approved with this proposal. Um to retain the existing structure and construct a 70 foot by 81 ft addition to accommodate a flow aquatics um that's a business specializing in learning to learn to swim lessons for beginners. And then in 2016, um there was a zon and verification letter requested by the property owner which talked about um the single family dwelling on there because they wanted to rebuild on the property. But again, the single family dwellings are not permitted in CN. But because this resident was still there and still being in use um and the use had not ceased for 12 consecutive months, it is considered uh non-conforming and it can remain as long as um it is not ex um expanded or extended without um following the provisions of our code for alterations or extensions. And then in 2019, um, city council approved, um, another application for this property which, um, removed the previous, um, development requirements for it and but it still kept that provision for the cross access in there.

So, we met with the applicant several times to review his requests regarding this cross access um with the understanding that we would not be supporting that because um our code requires cross access um our UDC 11-3-3 access to streets um talks about cross access and then UDC 11-3A-19 the site design and circulation which also um talks about um providing cross access um to provide better mobility and um maneuvers for uh vehicles um throughout um development areas. So although the the applicant did provide us with several um illustrations um regarding what future cross access could look like on the property, um we still found that the removal of this condition is premature and it should be requested through a development application um so we can get a better understanding of where that cross access should We also provided some um accident data there. Again the table there it summarized report the reported vehicular accidents in the vicinity of this subject project. So this data indicates approximately 18 reported accidents this area by various uh factors. Um, and so we we believe that this data supports the need for the improved cross access beyond what is currently proposed by the applicant. In talking with um our police

department, they also had concerns regarding um this property and not providing the cross access. Um, as you can see here, uh, they stated that Pine is heavily traveled during several times of the day because of the high school. Um, again, they recommended being required to have the cross access. Again, um, this is a commercial business. It's a commercial property even though it still just has a residential unit on it. But once it's the applicant u determines what type of business he would like to put here, the traffic would be increased from what is there for a single family home. Um again with this staff is still just recommending we we we are recommending denial of this application. Um again as we said we feel that his request to remove that cross access point is premature um because the applicant has not submitted any kind of development proposal. I'm not sure if the applicant is sure of what they want to do on the property yet with the number of iterations that we received. And so once the applicant has determined how he would like to develop his property and maybe work with the neighboring properties to determine how that area may redevelop because it is commercial, the future land use for that area is commercial and so we would want it to go to the east and not to just to the west because you run into the residential areas there. So that doesn't benefit anyone. Um, and with that, um, I will stand for any questions that you may have.

Thank you, council. Any questions for staff? Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor,

do have a question. Um, directly to the, um, east of that property is an identical building, which I think has an existing business on it, or it seems to appear that it does. I'm just Yes. Uh, it would be 1705. I'm wondering does that have a cross access agreement on already? Do you know the status of those properties? Because what I'm wondering is if we're looking at requiring a eventual access to Linda Road, what of the other properties may or may not already have those access agreements? So currently these are still residential. So they may have just a residential use on it and not a commercial use on it. So at that point they would not be required to have that. But when these when they do redevelop they will have that requirement but there Oops. There are commercial uses here. This is a daycare and I'm not quite sure what this is. Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Will the app come forward?

Yep. You say your name and address for the record. Be recognized for 15 minutes. Yes. My name is William Velo and address is 1725 West Pine Avenue, Meridian. Um, and Oh, perfect. Presentation is already pulled up.

The keyboard's going to be your best bet.

Oh, cool. Thank you. Just going to try. Perfect. Cool. Um, mayor and council, thank you for your time this evening. Um I'm here regarding a requested modification to the cross access um provisions within the existing development agreement. And I'd like to begin by saying that I support the city's long-term goals here uh for connectivity, access management, and reducing driveways along Pine Avenue to increase traffic safety. Um my proposal doesn't increase any access points here. Under both the existing development agreement as well as my modifications being proposed, the total number of approaches on this block will ultim ultimately be reduced from 7 to2 eventually when the other properties do redevelop. Um and just for context, this block consists of several small um commercially designated parcels along Pine. And just for complete clarification on the westernmost property um at 1785 Westpine there is an existing bit uh business that's uh Zimmerman Auto Body Shop. Um and then 1705 West Pine referenced in the last question is called Launchpad Ministries and they are a church service where um students from the high school can cross over for something similar to a seminary period, a religious release period. Uh and then 1625 West Pine is a limited office use and 737 North Linder is that daycare. Um, I'd like to begin by clarifying the existing uh parcel configuration. Um, staff's position is that preserving that eastern cross access may allow future redevelopment to ultimately create connectivity toward Linder. Um, I understand that objective. However, based on the existing parcel configuration, current access spacing standards, and surrounding development pattern, I haven't been able to identify

a realistic access compliant pathway that would achieve that outcome without speculative multi-partial redevelopment. Um, and so here, um, effectively the eastern stub out I I provided at that, uh, southeast border of the property. And after that, you'll find a dash line going on to the next properties. If you follow both of these, these are the only direct paths to the two properties that do have frontage to lender. One of them involves going through LLA Preschool, that daycare that currently exists and operates as a business, and the other one reaches 1625 West Pine, uh, which is significantly close to the intersection there, um, a place where approaches are generally not recommended due to traffic safety. So obtaining that cross access to linder eventually is is effectively the big question here of how that will occur. Um any future connection to linder requires or relies entirely on frontage parcels redeveloping redeveloping coordinating access and receiving agency approval. So even with cross access extended across that eastern parcel um access to linder would still depend on the frontage parcels there restructuring and compliance with access spacing standards which is the primary difficulty here. So the impact of the requested modification that I'm making which is removal of the eastern cross access provision is that um it well realistically the requested modification removes the eastern stub requirement entirely. This does not eliminate the possibility of future redevelopment. It does not prevent parcel consolidation and it does not prevent internal cross access among the western parcels. What it does recognize is that this eastern stub is not what determines whether future access to linder ultimately occurs. If comprehensive redevelopment were proposed in the future, circulation

would be evaluated holistically at that time. Um, my request simply acknowledges the physical realities of the existing parcel configuration while still supporting the city's long-term circulation goals. I respectfully ask that council consider whether maintaining this stub meaningfully preserves the future access to lender or whether the requested modification still achieves the intent of the city's access management policies. If council believes this issue is better evaluated in conjunction with a development agreement and proposal, I respect that and will proceed accordingly. However, I respectfully ask that you just consider whether the existing cross access language is proportionate to the realistic redevelopment potential of this block under current conditions. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Yeah, council. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Taylor,

um can you talk a little bit about um your anticipated possible uses in terms of a business? Like what type of uh traffic that you might be expecting? I'm not sure if you know exactly what that would be. Just kind of curious what what we're looking at because I I was familiar with Launchpad. I wasn't sure what it was, but that makes sense. I mean, you're talking about kids who can walk from the high school, so you're not looking at a lot of traffic. How is yours different? Oh, that's a you know, that's a fair question. Um so realistically the point of evaluating the potential for the modification to devel the the development agreement at this time is realistically to understand what the options are um and whether this will be approved before investing the financial resources required into developing a a development plan. Um but if that's something the council would like to see in conjunction with this application, I'd be happy to present that. And

Mr. A quick followup Taylor.

So these this is kind of an interesting part of the community which was clearly residential and now with we're looking at some kind of a transition potentially to it is commercial but what does it look like in 5 10 20 years? Um they're small parcels. Um, how do you envision? I mean, I'd be kind of curious to know if you're envisioning something where you're taking the building down potentially and building something bigger based on the decision we have tonight or if our decision tonight determines, you know, entirely what you decide to do with this property cuz it's just it's kind of tight. It's kind of congested. I would think that there's some limited options unless they're these parcels are combined. an owner comes in, buys up multiple parcels, redevelops more than just what you're looking at. So, can you give me a better idea what your your thought is in terms of the options available to you, what you're interested in, and like the possible constraints with if it only stays a single pol single parcel for you, what you can do with that.

Yeah, absolutely. That's a really good question and I think you hit the nail on the head there. Um, all of these parcels are small and they're independently owned and several of them are already developed. We have Launchpad, we have Zimmerman Auto Body, we have that limited office use at 1625, and we have that daycare already on Linder. And so, realistically, the chances that someone is going to come in here and scoop up all of the parcels and kind of knock everything down or do one comprehensive plan seems speculatively unlikely. Um, especially given the existing nature of the current businesses. So, it seems to me that it's most likely that each of these properties will develop independently. Um, and that said, your question was mostly related to what my vision is for this. And I would say that given the size uh, and the location, it's simplest to convert the existing building into a commercial use that may involve an addition or something else, but I don't envision like knocking it down and rebuilding something from scratch at this time. Council on visual questions.

I think you're good for right now. Thank you, Mr. Clark. We have one time to provide testimony on this item. Mr. Mayor, first yes. First is Julian Ashcroft. Good evening. If you say your name and address for the record, you'll be recognized for three minutes. Okay. Julian Ashcraftoft. I live at 2044 West. If I can get you right in front of that microphone.

2044 West Pine Avenue. So, I'm just west of the LS Seminary building. So, I get the experience of all of that traffic on Pine. And in the mornings, you can't make a left-hand turn to head towards Meridian High. I have to go all the way around the block to 10 mile down Fair View if I want to go to the other end because of the traffic. And if you look at where any access to Pine, the only from where that is on there, you've got the kids coming. There's two direct lanes right out of Meridian High. There's not a wide enough center lane for anybody to make one one way or the other. So, the only really safe way is either a only a right-hand turn in and a right-hand turn out from Linder. And, you know, there's no there's a crosswalk, there's a bus stop there, and you've got kids coming out and in the evening 2:30, you can't make a left-hand turn. I mean, it is really a nightmare from really from the driveway of 2150 West to Linder. And there is no break. There's nothing breaking the traffic up. So you've get a kid turning right. I mean kid turning east out of Meridian High and you've got that access right there. You've got them turning. There's no that's not wide enough road for a center lane and it's a disaster waiting to happen more so than what's already happened. So if you look at Linder Road where that daycare is, you got two lanes, you got two lanes and you got a wide center lane. So you can get in that center lane. You can make that left-hand turn and get in that center lane. You can make that in and out. Easy access. You cannot do that on Pine. And the traffic. I challenge you all to come on by and drive up and down that street anytime you want. 7 to 8, 10:30 to 11. Come and hang out at 2:30 and see. You

cannot do a lefthand turn. I mean, and it's not just the kids at the high school because I call it Meridian Pine as your speedway. They slow down from Locust Grove because you got the sheriff's department right there. And then you don't have a light until you get to Maine. Then you have Meridian. And then you don't have another light until you hit Linder. And then once you hit Linder, it is a speedway all the way to 10 mile. So it's pretty heavily traffic all times. And realistically, I just I I think we should be proactive on this, but we don't need to be reactive and wait until there's tons of more wrecks, more kids deaths. Linder is the safest way to take this because we don't even know what businesses he's going to put in there. You don't know what kind of clientele, how much traffic, and if it does have to go on Pine, the only way you could do it realistically is safe is where probably I walked up and down that street many times with my dog. And so I would just say maybe only a right-hand turn and a right turn turn in and out. But Linder, you've got the four lanes, the the designated turning lanes. You don't have that on Pine right there. You got a crosswalk and you turn and there's those kids. And there's not a ACST doesn't have one of those crosswalk lights across like they have on Linder. So, I really think that you really need to think of the traffic and the safety of anybody on that road with a bus stop and all of that right there. So, I highly oppose anything else going on Pike.

Thank you. As an access road, thank you for your time. Council, any questions mayor? Councilman Lock, Julia, thank you for your testimony. Um, I'm just, you mentioned the crosswalk and I'm just trying to envision in my mind where there is a crosswalk from Meridian High.

It's just about right. So, you've got um there's the one the main one where they're coming out and the crosswalk is kind of like right there. So, the kids all lined up because they they can't park them down. The parents line up just uh west of the seminary building all along there. But there is a crosswalk on that main road. It's not lit up and it's dark in the mornings and parents speed in and out. People, trailers, trucks, they don't they don't even acknowledge that crosswalk there. And kids will stand for a long time waiting to get across that road. So, it is really a safety trap. And you got a bus stop right there. And then you got kids coming out of high school and then you got from 10 mile traffic over to Linder and there's no break anywhere through that whole stretch of the road.

Followup. Councilman Willock.

Thank you. And and I appreciate that. I've already accepted your invitation and driven that at 7 to 8 in the morning and 2 to 3 in the afternoon or parked there on Pine Avenue during those times of the day because traffic doesn't move. Um, and I was curious about the crosswalk because again I think you have people either coming out or going in right there at the crosswalk to the school. Then you've got Tall Pine Place to the south which you would have people exiting plus all the cross traffic on Pine. Correct. And on from Linder on the high school side, and I honestly I apologize. I don't know what that building is right there, but the buses is where they pull in there and that's only allowed for the buses.

So they make the left, they make the right, and then that center lane goes like this and it's gone. So then you So you have then the kids come out and you see that line and you know sometimes they get impatient. They're kids, right? I've been there too. So, I'm just saying there's no light. There's no break anywhere in the traffic once you hit. And so, a lot of times you'll I'll drive down the road and pull in the subdivision and have to do a UI and come back and you'll wait a long line in the light. So, you're going to back traffic up on Pine to the Linder light if somebody's waiting to make a left-hand turn into an access there cuz there's not that it's not wide enough for turning lane or vice versa. But, you know, to me, um, I just ask that we relook at this and we take a a proactive approach to the safest approach on this and not contri not not compound and contribute to the problem. Thank you,

Anyone else up? Yes, Mr. Mayor. Bill New House. Are you Bill? Yeah.

You say your name and address for the record.

I'm building house. I own the house on 1665 West Pine. It's about an acre. Uh she's right. Ever since they widen that road and your school's over there now, it's terrible. It is just plain terrible. But I agree with her about being proactive. That means you want to take piece of my property then back. I want to build another house back there for me. I want to tear down the house I got now. I want to live there until I die. I used to live there years ago and there's horses walking up and down the street. Obviously, that's not happening no more. It's just horsepower. That's it. So I believe a gentleman that owns a piece of property should be able to be able to do what he wants with his property, but I don't know how to do it. That's your job. So that's all I got to say. You know, if it comes to the point where my understanding from him is that he has to black top, he has to furnish a road, he's got to pay for all that to for these new accesses for everybody to use later on. I can't get I can't figure that out. Why is it going to come out of his pocket? Adah County is going to take it over, right?

I see all red here. That's all commercial property you guys are planning on down the future. That's where I live. That's my home. Council, any questions? Okay, thank you. And Mr. Mayor, that was everyone that signed up. Okay. Um, any questions or would you like to have the applicant come back up? Mr. Mayor, Council Sher,

maybe just to kick off um some discussion. I just like to be upfront before you do your final comments and everything. And there could be more questions and I don't know where the rest of the council's at. Um, I'm a big believer in cross access. I don't think that we are solving for the existing conditions today. I think we're making 50-year decisions into the future. And without um a development agreement or sorry, a development proposal, I think it would be really hard to get comfortable with removing the cross access agreement. I also think just generally we we will need cross access eventually. um whether it's 10 years from now, 20 years from now, that interconnectivity is important. It's hard to know what will happen in the future. No one has a crystal ball, but certainly there could be creative land assemblage here. There could be um a variety of iterations that there could be a cross access road that could run, you know, just barely north of the daycare at some point. We don't really know. So just based on what I've seen on the council in when we have um in the rare occasions where we've eliminated a cross access we've been very careful when we've done that uh very thoughtful and I I just think that's a decision we don't normally take. I've never seen it in this kind of a circumstance without a specific development proposal. So for me it's a non-starter. Um I don't know where the rest of the council's at. I would encourage you to withdraw the application. uh as opposed to getting a denial if that's where the council is going to go. Uh but that that's just initial feedback. I just wanted you to have that before you uh you know do your closing comments. I I would just really struggle to eliminate the cross access requirement. I think the councils were wise in uh including it in the past.

So I I've got a question for Linda, Bill or Mindy. Um, can you is this a static picture that's up? Are you able to move at all or because really my question is about the property to the south. There is a road extension that goes into the south property uh on the east and you know and there's a curb cut on lender. Do we know is that a planned future road extension? Yeah, I no idea when when that property to the south was developed, if it will redevelop, if that was the intention, if a road would ever be required. Um any any thoughts, input, understanding? we phone phone Mindy and ask her to speak in.

Uh, mayor and council, I think you're you're I one first of all, I want to commend the applicant. I think he's done a great great job articulating kind of what he's his desire is for his pro property. And um I I I'm happy to see that he was well prepared tonight. Uh but ultimately, as you all know, that storage facility, I would imagine, will redevelop at some point in the future. we won't have all of this vacant land on the outskirts of Meridian forever and in it will be will be more and more valuable and and we'll be dealing with that in the future. I don't know if it's 10 years, 15 years, 20 years to Councilwoman Strader's point, but uh that's some some of the conversation I had with the applicant when we preapped with them is I could see that storage facility redeveloping in the future and potentially that road being extended, but we don't know that until it happens. They get re that storage facility has been there since I would I'm guessing the 70s.

Yeah.

So, it hasn't done anything since then. So, I don't know when the right time will be. Um, but I think as Councilwoman Strader mentioned, cross access is a premium these days. I know council is getting more and more concerned. Um, and that's the conversation we have with the applicant. If you throw too many different scenarios at us, then in our opinion, it may not be the right time to do anything with your contract or amend your DA. Um, so we were very forth for forthright with the applicant and informed him that that if you come with a lot of information, it's it's hard for us to say whether or not that's the right decision without having more of those pieces. So going back to your comment, mayor, I could see that getting extended. Um, again, the intent for cross access is to to minimize access points to ours. We're not trying to preserve lender or get an access out to Linder through cross access. We all know Linder Road will be another 10 mile. Um, it will have an overpass. It will it it connects Eagle all the way down to Kuna. So, we know it will be heavily traveled like Locust Grove. And so, going forward, this stub street may be that that road that we need to provide that backage road for this commercial development. But again, we don't know because we don't have any development applications in front of you to say that will happen. But I can tell you if someone came in and talked to us about redeveloping that, that's probably a conversation we're having with them is what are you going to do with that stub road because it needs to terminate some way either in a culde-sac or you need to punch it through the lender and you need to work with the highway district on where that where that connects into Linder Road. Yeah, that and that was just kind of you know without a development application to know that what you want to do is prohibited by that cross access currently you know eventually you see the crossaxis want to just go to the south because I agree I mean unless

someone comes in and buys up everything at the east west cross axis I the ROI value and where you're going to connect and how and why um it's all so close you you you want to push that further back if you can, but um yeah, I'll leave it at that. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor,

um Linda or Bill, do you know um what the plans for Pine Avenue is in this segment? Because it is a very congested segment of road. I I have taken my kids, dropped them off at school, they go to Meridian High. It's awful to go in and it's dark in the morning. It's dark and I worry I worry more that my 17-year-old son is trying to get out of the parking lot in the afternoon and pretty sure one of these days it's going to it's going to get get in a wreck. But what's the the the plan with Pine for widening it? Uh is it on the the list for ACD? Is it what what are the plans? Mayor Council, I'd probably defer that to Mindy if she's on the on the line with us or ACD rep

and she's unmuted. So yeah, Mindy, do you want to give the official answer? Yes, I'll give an official answer. So um unfortunately I can't pull up my master street map um while I'm doing this to look at what we're preserving right away for a long time. Um, but I did look and we don't have any projects programmed in either the 5-year plan or the CIP for that section of Pine. And I made a note to check to see if the West Data School Districts made any requests for additional illumination or enhanced pedestrian crossings in that vicinity. So, that's definitely something that we can look into and then get back to Bill with that information.

And I'm 99.9% positive on the master street map, it's only designed for a threelane. three. That's kind of what I was thinking. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, that's something else you may want to consider is requesting an increase as part of the update. Any other questions for Mindy while she's unmuted? Thank Council Lock.

Not for Mindy, but maybe Linda Arbell. Um just give me some perspective on the fact that it appears that both to the east and the west of this subject property there are commercial entities an auto body and then I don't know if you consider the the launch ministries a a commercial entity or not was there cross access agreements required on either of those residential parcels that turned into commercial parcels

yeah mayor members of the council Councilman Whitlock, I looked into those for you before I came to the hearing because I I anticipated that question coming from council. Uh so certainly anything R2R4 which is along the east, we're not going to get cross access. There's there there are no records of those being converted. They're residential. It's residential zoning. Uh we're not going to require that. As Linda mentioned, the property to the east or excuse me to the west, we did do a development agreement with that property owner in 2018. Um uh looking at the staff report, uh staff said uh indicated in that staff report that there were no change of use at the time cuz currently the owner was operating a auto body shop. It's not your traditional auto body shop. He does it as a side business and he lives in the home. So, uh it's not like people bring a bunch of wreck cars there for him to do a lot of work on the site. Uh so at that time staff made a note in the staff report that there was no change of use and so there was no requirement for cross access at the time. So what that means is we won't be able to reciprocate cross access to anybody in the future until they do a change of use or expand the site. Um so currently there is no other cross access to this property and that's why staff is why we've recommended denial. We think we need to stay with the current contract, hold it at East and West until we know what others are doing in the future. Um, I think Mr. Ner could probably correct me, but this is a DA mod. It's a contract between the property owner in the city. So, even if council, if he was going to withdraw it or deny it, he could come back at any time and process another application. It's it doesn't follow the the traditional rules like a like a land use application where they have to come back with a substantial change. So, I just want council to be aware of that as well.

Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavender. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Bill, just a quick maybe follow-up question. I recognize where it's located, recognize its current zoning. If this fell into the Oldtown zoning, would we be requiring the same cross- access agreement?

Uh, Madame Mayor, Madame May, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, u Mr. Cavner. Uh, Councilman Cavner. Uh, yes. I mean, that regulation applies to any property that's on our arterial collector roadway. So, a lot of times though, we also um will defer to ACD on how they approach. What we can't do is close off anyone's access, but we have the authority in the UDC to say consolidate access. And currently he has an existing curb cut for the home and then if he goes to redevelop he's going to have to abandon that one and develop a new curb cut that others can share including the existing home. So there's some work he has to do. That's the difficulty with infill when you try to keep existing properties. Gets monkeys the water a little bit too trying to make trying to figure out how that piece of the puzzle fits in with all of it as well. And um that's why when this application came back to you before you in 2008, they had a very specific development plan. They were going to put another building on the site. So it made sense to require that cross access. Again, as Linda mentioned, that concept plan was removed to to allow this property have more flexibility to redevelop. But again, tonight we're talking about I want to change a contract, but I don't have a plan on how to do that. So that that's again that's why staff is saying let's pause let's not approve this and then when you're ready to do something or you have another property owner adjacent to you let's have a conversation and see if we can figure that out uh together moving forward because it is a long-term solution. It's something that we don't want to make a short-term decision on

Councilman Overton. So, I I sympathize with the traffic concerns. I was part of those traffic concerns back in the late 70s and early 80s. That was a four-way stop and it's just as busy now. The roads improved. It was two lanes. Now, it's three lanes. These were all residential. And I know our job as city council members is to look and try to look into the future on what the safest routes and decisions are going to be for what this land use will become. And I don't sure that I'm looking at this different than a few others, but I'm not sure why this substrate isn't required to the south considering we have one coming from Tallpine out of the next subdivision coming to the east. That seems like a whole lot more likely to have that one major lot redeveloped than it is to have all of those other lots redeveloped that much closer to the intersection of Linder. I'm just we're trying to make the right decision for how this land looks in the future. But I got to believe that that one and of course it is I think the oldest storage in the city. It's I mean that's how you get called Meridian Storage. You were the first. Um, it's been there as long as I can recall being in this city. I'm not apt to approve this request tonight. I think more work needs to go into this and more planning needs to go into this. What the smartest decision is in the future. I think it has to have some cross access that would eventually get it out to Linder Road, but I'm not convinced that making it go east from this parcel is the smartest decision. I think if it went south that other parcel and hooked up with whatever tall pine becomes. That might eventually be the smartest decision moving forward,

putting it farther away from the intersection at Pine Street. Yeah. Council any before we invite the applicant up any further comments or questions. Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and close? Comment, respond. You choose however you want to do that.

Sounds great. Thank you so much. I just want to say thank you to everyone for the amount of discussion that's gone into this. Um, realistically, I'm incredibly aligned with the goal to make sure that this is safe and really future planning and and looking toward the future to make sure that this it becomes a a non-hazard for everything from traffic to the kids that are nearby. Um, I live here currently. This is my home and I know just as well as anyone exactly how much traffic occurs and at what time of day. I don't leave my house between 7:16 in the morning and 8:04. It just doesn't happen. and I don't do it from 2:35 to about 3:15. Um, I make sure that I do other stuff and if I'm out and about, I find something else to do. Um, I it's just not worth it. I have to back out on the pine as it currently exists and it's not particularly fun. Um, and so I just want to say that um, I think at this point the most likely situation and that I'm hearing is that I need to come back with a development proposal and that this needs to be evaluated in context uh, for a future development plan. And that is my intention at this point. I do want to just remind everyone, including the concerns that have come up tonight, um, that realistically the goal here is there are existing commercial properties. Period. This is a commercially zoned property and there is a development plan and agreement in place for it that currently allows development with cross access provided to the east and west. Um my goal is to make sure that we find something that's mutually compatible for everyone and that's really looking 50 to 100 years down the line. Um, but it I think that we have to compare to what's currently being asked for the property and ask ourselves if the proposed modifications are better or worse or how they compared to that, not to the other hypotheticals that are coming up. I know that there is a lot of other traffic if you had 500 ft to the west and I'm sure

that there could like everyone could benefit from a couple more sidewalks and at least a signalized sidewalk somewhere here. Um, so there's a lot I think going on here and I look forward to addressing it in the future with you guys. Thank you for your consideration tonight. A question for you. So are you would you like this to be continued for 6 months to give you a time to come up with a development plan? Are you looking for an up or down vote tonight and then you come back in two years with a development plan? what what's kind of your time and thought process?

That's a really good question. Um, I think the six-month continuation seems the wisest that would give me ample time to bring materials and work with the planning department um, pretty thoroughly on this to figure out what the future of access looks like for this area and what's best. Yeah. Well, and I I'll just, you know, I brought it up and I I think that there would be some good talking with your neighbors and even if it was determined where where a stub to the south would be, you know, I mean, I look at this and I think, well, if you look at the where the um current storage units are, you got a row right there. seemed like you would come split your property and connect up to the others and just have a access point for three of the properties right there into that future North Tall Pine. But maybe work with your neighbors and say, "What would what do we think this would look like long term for your individual the best outcomes? Even if they don't ever change, build a new home, but you want to get out and you don't want to go out pine. What does that look like?" um if there's another opportunity for each property, that's what I would encourage you. At least have some of those basic conversations with those immediately that might be impacted um or want to help solve their own property in the next few years if they were given the opportunity.

Just a quick clarifying question on that. We have had quite a few discussions with every property owner on this block and several of them weren't able to attend tonight unfortunately to present their voices on it. um how would how would their support look to council in the future? Is that something that you'd like to see a petition in writing sign that kind of says everyone's in agreement on X plan with Y contingencies or is that something that you'd like to hear from them in person during the next hearing? Council, do you have a preference? Mr. Mayor,

that's what I'm sure. I mean, for sure if you were able to get the neighbors in this immediate area aligned on a plan in writing that would be really over. I mean, that would be phenomenal. That would give us something solid that I think then our planners could really work with the highway district and try to marry that up that vision for this kind of fledgling commercial and residential area and and figure out how that would all work together. I mean, that would be amazing if you could do that. I would say um more powerful for sure to have a plan in writing that people have kind of signed on to. We would also we always love to hear from people in person. So I would say all the above is great. Um whatever you can get is phenomenal.

Thank you. And one other follow-up question on that just so that we're kind of all on the same page with the context of the neighbors. Those who are developed um at least as it's been presented to me have no interest in redeveloping anywhere in the near future. Those who are not developed enjoy the current lifestyle that they're living and have no interest in continuing development in the future. However, they are interested in ensuring that their properties have the ability to develop in a favorable way for them. And so I would not be able to get everyone on the same page to say, "Hey, we're willing to all build a road through this part or this is exactly what I'd But I can get them on the same page with regard to what cross access looks like to them and what benefits them the most that they would be willing to put their name behind. Is that something that you think council would find useful still?

Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mr. M council, maybe before you get too far a field, I mean, I'm a little concerned on the record that you're making for this project and this application on a future project, which is exactly what planning had already asked the applicant to do, which is bring forward a project, follow our process, do the neighborhood meetings, have the process go through our normal review as we normally would, and I think you'd get the answers or at least the input that you're seeking. And what I'm concerned is if you leave this open, you have an open application that's still pending, and now you're going to have him do a new application on top of it, pay a different fee, no fee for this, fee for that, trying to keep both records open. And if we don't have a satisfactory result at the end, it's very confusing for a court to address it. So, it really would be cleaner if you did get to a final decision on this application and then if the applicant would do what has been suggested by the planning staff as well as what the council is saying is bring forward his application, go through the process, submit the required documentation that's needed, contact ACD, contact the neighbors, do all of the process. I think you'd have a cleaner record going forward for court if there isn't a consensus ultimately with your neighbors. I think if you try to piece it between this current one and something in the future, it's going to get very difficult for a district court to determine which one are we deciding on. So, I I'm afraid it's going to get too far a field because I think everything he's asking, everything the council has been um suggesting all makes complete sense, but I don't think it's going to make complete sense in two different applications. Mayor Council Taylor, I could

just ask Bill. So, are you recommending that we vote on the project or are you recommending the applicant withdrawation?

Uh, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Council customer, I I think either one is is certainly preferable for going forward. I mean, if he wants to withdraw this application today, we can then, again, I don't think it impacts him one way or the other to deny it, but it's certainly not going to impact if he wants to withdraw it and then go through the process and bring it back with all of it because I think it's going to need a development uh or modification of the development agreement. It's going to need whatever the the application is, all of that's going to be done. that either of those outcomes, either a resolution to this from the council or withdrawal by this to then bring forward another would be cleaner for the future. Mr. Mayor, Council Taylor,

Bill, I appreciate that because I started started to feel like we were having a meeting that should be had in community development about the feedback back and forth instead of a public record hearing like this. So, I think I think we're all aligned. I I was also in agreement with not thinking that this was a project that I could support at this time and we had a just down the road a little project where we had the same discussion kind of a residential turning commercial and cross access and if we don't have cross access we have real problems down the road with how we might want to develop that. So, I I actually think we should um you should just let us know if you want to withdraw it or if we should make a motion just to deny it because I think that's where the majority of council is tonight. And then a lot of these questions seem like they could be answered uh more informally with staff as you're working on this without having a six-month date certain on it. And I I really appreciate Bill kind of flagging sort of the the challenge we have with this being on the public record and this being part of the record for um this application. So, I guess I would maybe suggest to you if we should do one of two, which would be either you just withdraw your application and then start over or we'll take an action on this tonight officially that has the same net effect.

Thank you. Um, just to clarify, so the two options would be to make the vote tonight and that would be final and theoretically I would resubmit another application either way or withdraw and resubmit another application. Is that correct? If we're all aligned on this being premature without a development proposal in place, right? Okay. Um, then I would like to formally withdraw my application and I appreciate your time. Thank you for clarifying that. Mr. Mayor, do we anything we have to officially do or is that sufficient? We do. You need to accept to that. Yeah. Do you want to make a motion to accept? Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, do we need to close the public hearing first?

Yes. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'd move that we uh close the public hearing on Let me get my file. File H 2025-000050. Second. Have a motion second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I. I. Those nay. The eyes have the public hearing is closed. Mr. Mayor, I Taylor, thank you. I move that we accept applicants withdrawal of uh file H-2025-0050. Second.

Have a motion, a second to accept the withdrawal. Is there any discussion? If not, in favor signify by saying I. Hi those nay guys have the item Mr. Strong thank you look forward to seeing what you can work with staff and come up with to solve your issue and hopefully even your neighbors long-term needs. So thank you

thank you so much. Okay, with that we'll move on to item four, which was a from our um Bron Police Department legal department report on proposed updates to Meridian City Code section 63 2A2 public camping and sleeping 632A4 loitering and 636 noise. Uh and I think we have Tisha online. Yes, I'm here. All right, we will turn this open for staff comments.

Um, Mr. Mayor, I'll just put a comment on the record uh that these have been previously presented. We put them on the record in case there was any public feedback or input or if the council had any additional questions prior to approval. They are on your um agenda is 5, six, and seven that can be approved tonight if the council wishes. And again, I don't know if anybody else was wanting to testify and then Tisher is here if she had any or if you had any questions for her specifically. Okay. Thank you, council. Any questions for staff? Mr. Crook, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item?

Mr. Mayor, we did not. Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to provide uh comments on this item, either in the room or online? You can raise your hand. See no one raising their hand who are just staff online or in the room coming forward. Uh do a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Mayor,

Councilman Overton. Move that we close the public hearing on Meridian Police Department legal department report proposed updates to Meridian City Code sections 6-3-2 A2 6-3-2 A4 and 6-3-6 have a motion second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying I opposed nay. The eyes have it and the public hearing is closed. Okay. So, with that, we'll move on to item five, which is ordinance number 26-2115. Ask clerk to read this ordinance by title.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance amending Meridian City Code section 363, sorry, Meridian 6 Meridian City Code section 632A4 regarding qualifying behavior for disorderly conduct, loitering, and providing an effective date. Thank you, council. You've heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Counciloman Miller Roberts. Move that we approve ordinance number 26-2115. Second. Have a motion, a second to approve ordinance number 26-2115. Is there any discussion? If not, clerk, call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Cavender. I strader Whitlock. I Little Roberts Overton.

Hi. All eyes. Motion carries. It is agreed to. Next item up is ordinance number 26-2116. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Thank you, Mr. May. It's an ordinance adding Meridian City Code section 631 regarding public camping, sleeping, amending Meridian City Code section 632A2 regarding this orderly conduct, repealing any conflicting ordinances, and providing an effective date. Thank you, Council. You've heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Counciloman Lil Roberts. that we approve ordinance number 26-2116. Second.

Have a motion, a second to approve ordinance number 26-2116. Is there any discussion? If not, cler call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Cavender. Hi. Mer. Hi. Strader. Hi. Whlock Roberts. Hi Overton. Hi. All eyes. Motion carries. Sam is agreed to. Next item up is item seven which is ordinance number 26-2117. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance repealing and replacing Meridian City Code section 636 regarding noise, creating public disturbance, and providing an effective date. Thank you, council. You've heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Council L Roberts.

Move that we approve ordinance number 26-2117. Second. Have a motion, a second to approve ordinance number 26-2117. Is there any discussion? If not, clerk call the role. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Cavar. Hi. Hi. Strader. Hi. Whedlock. Hi. Little Roberts. Hi. Overton. All eyes. Motion carries. Sam's agreed to. Those may be the three shortest ordinance readings that Chris has ever had to do in his life. Uh, with that council, we're at the end of our agenda. Do I have a motion? Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Second. Motion second. All in favor signify by saying I. I. Those nay. The eyes have it. Weird.