Remarks by David Bills
91 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 4
“Thank you, Mayor. So in response to Councilman Griffin's comments, the affront for me and my experience is your comments are, yes, gee, why not just allow people to do things? If that be the case, then I'd sure like to see the building code thrown out. I'd like to see a few other codes thrown out. Because I'm tired as a purveyor of stuff to get hammered over and over by interpretation of a code. Why aren't we just all free for all? But we've learned food safety and other issues, why we have health departments who check, et cetera. But I think about the restaurant downtown that just recently…”
“We need to address as council and give direction to enclave properties and give planning and zoning direction if we're going to look at our boundary and look at all the enclaves. Enclaves are a real thread-the-needle approach of how people get by with not having to comply with things.”
“First meeting in October is... On the 5th, October 5th, okay? for us to adopt and move this forward.”
“I REALLY APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION TO THAT GROUP OF LEGISLATORS THAT CAME HERE AND SO As far as House Bill 673, the effect of it is one of two-fold. It either was to penalize cities for growing into the ag land, or it was to give commercial industrial properties a great tax break for putting up their buildings when they went forward. The effect is either, or both, so to speak. The motivation is unclear.”
“Correct. And so, therefore, it seems like it was put forward from a penalty or contributions come from the commercial sector. legislative side of life. And so whichever that took place, the effect is really inappropriate to give that kind of a break to the individual.”
“real shift from what the legislature in Idaho did 20, 30 years ago. The idea behind the homeowner's exemption was to give relief to the residential and to shift the tax to the commercial industrial. What's taken place in the last three to five years is the opposite.”
“The effect is, can't determine the motivation, but the effect is has to, we want to reduce budgets in the city, and we want the homeowners to have to pay more. Philosophy-wise, it's the opposite.”
“Exactly. This is just really two bills that are just head-scratchers. Yeah.”
“Some are. And some have those motivations. Okay. Not all. Any name that starts with S we're okay with.”
“So keep in mind what Doug has given us is we haven't collected shy of $27 million over the last four years. So if we had 27 million in our budget over this last four years, could we have helped take care of some infrastructure issues?”
“She's starting to get sarcastic, too. The thing about it is, you know, just on the commercial industrial side, that's the business community and the folks coming in. And so, again, I'm not trying to challenge motivation. I'm just looking at it from the standpoint the properties are being developed, the tractor supply coming into this valley, and the impact of that entity choosing this city to set up their distribution center and what they've put in but also the payroll the payroll that's going to take place in that facility and well and i i just i just look at it and say these these two bills…”
“So Rodney, based on that code and based on all the code that governs planning, zoning, land use, et cetera, it seems the overall of the state of Idaho's code is that some type of growth, some type of action, plan, for what the city, what the counties are to look like is a prerequisite, but it's an assumed issue. What I'm trying to get at is if we say, well, we just don't wanna do this anymore, it doesn't seem the code affords a city to just say, stop, no, we don't do this, go somewhere else. Because even in an emergency deal, it's saying you got six months, you got one year to solve the…”
“Okay. I think it's helpful from the standpoint that of late, a lot of comments have been made. Why don't you just stop growth? Why don't you just quit approving a project? just put it on hold. And it seems our code, at least in the state of Idaho, assumes a regular ongoing process in the land use and the conversion of land use. And that's what you're bringing out to us today.”
“Mayor. Yes. So a follow-up question, Preston is not obligated to annex. However, is there an implied assumption to a certain degree of, annexation and approvals if the applicant and the application meets the ordinance of the jurisdiction.”
“So, Mayor, quick question. So, STARS mitigation fees seems like it's, quote, voluntary. However, I don't know that a project would be approved if the applicant didn't participate in that voluntary. And I'm just hearing the scuttle, haven't applied, haven't done anything in STAR, so I don't know. Trying to get an idea because it keeps being used as the example that STAR's doing it. Why aren't we doing it? Everybody should be doing it. Trying to get just a quick summary wrap up.”
“So then is there any possible repercussions similar to McCall getting into and people coming back after the fact? Dial that's being used in Star, is that possible? possible as well, or?”
“So on the school issue or those type of volunteer deals, in a good market, those volunteers usually come forward. If a market begins to recede or gets excessive and somebody says, gosh, we're just not in position to volunteer any fee. And then they get denied. Now you got a situation of setting, to me, more of a case precedent of was it really volunteer? And my concern is that we get something going in that fashion and it's not well defined.”
“I'll just give one. Thank you, Pastor, very much.”
“Yes, sir. Crystal, the couple that came up and talked about, would you be able to follow up with them?”
“Questions, council? Mayor? Yes, sir. So on... looking at the document. Uh, so six, five dash five.”
“Okay. Uh, at the very end there, it says a speed greater than as reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards. People aren't hazards. And, the way I read that is it's just saying it's more for the benefit of the rider on the bike. It seems like we need to expand that thought just a hair that we're cognizant of hazards are the speed and hitting people on the pathways. So I would just versus, Oh, you got to navigate, you know, for the root growth in the pathway. No, we want to be cognizant of the people of, on the pathway?”
“I just suggest that we expand that a little bit or something in there.”
“One of the things, uh, under six, five, six, it seems like we should add an H where pathways greater than for me, it'd be 10, but you guys have chosen 15 miles per hour. That should also be listed there.”
“Maybe you feel that would be appropriate. We can take note of that. 656.”
“Well, I'm suggesting that we add H and say pathways greater than 15 miles per hour.”