City Council - Regular Meeting

is being. All right, we'll call the meeting to order and begin with the invocation and then the pledge. Almighty God, send down upon those who hold office in this city the spirit of wisdom, compassion, and justice. Grant that with steadfast purpose, we may faithfully serve our community, seeking the common good, protecting the vulnerable, and promoting the well-being and harmony of all who dwell here. Amen. Pledge. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. All members are present with the exception of councelor PL who is excused tonight. Ceremonies and announcements. I'll read the mayor announcements first. Chameleon Park and Postfall and Falls Park will be closed May 11 through May 13 in coordination with the Vista. The closure is needed for helicopter supported work related to dam safety improvements. And the city of Post Falls is excited to host this year's Postf Falls Festival Parade. Local businesses, organizations, and community groups are encouraged to apply. This year's theme, America 250, celebrates 250 years of American independence. Bring your creativity and community spirit. Apply online at postfalls.gov/parade. Uh, first up for uh, ceremonies is the North Idaho Special Assistant US Attorney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council and staff. Uh, my name is Benjamin Allen. I'm the elected prosecuting attorney in Shoshon County, and I'm here to give you all just a very brief update on the North Idaho Salsa position. As some of you may recall, this position coming to North Idaho is roughly two years in the making. There was a lot of time, effort, and work that went into facilitating the network and collaboration of local partners that was necessary in order to get this program up off the ground. This program is unique in that it is over 90% funded by state and federal funds, meaning our local partnership of cities and counties that form the local collaboration necessary for the SASA has only had to come up with roughly 10% of the compensation needed in order to institute the North Idaho SASA uh program here in North Idaho. After all of that time, effort, and work, we are finally in a position to get this program up off the ground. And the US

Attorney's Office in collaboration with my office, who serves as the host agency for this position, has facilitated the hiring of the first ever North Idaho SASA, and she is here in attendance tonight. So, I want to just take a moment to introduce you all to Miss Julia Zimnney. Julia is uh your North Idaho SASa. So what that means for you all is we have a dedicated federal prosecuting attorney here in North Idaho whose primary focus is simply to address and place an emphasis on combating drug trafficking that's coming through the I90 corridor uh and south down 95. Uh that emphasis is designed to identify drug traffickers who are moving drugs through and into our area in order to remove them both from our communities and from the network of criminal and drug distribution that contributes to those drugs moving back into our communities from larger metropolitan areas. Uh with that said, I don't want to take any more of council's time. Uh, but I would encourage you through your administrator or legal counsel to feel free to reach out to me or my office as well as to Miss Zimny if you all have any questions about the status of the program uh what Miss Zimnney has been up to as your federal SASA andor if you have questions about uh quarterly updates. It is anticipated that each of our local partners will be receiving quarterly updates from Miss Zimnney as the program continues. And as a reminder, this program has been fully funded for at least 3 years. So that should provide us with enough data and information to identify the end result in just the the magnitude or level of impact that this position is having on our communities. If uh similar jurisdictions or salsa

placements are any indicator, it is estimated that the local cost savings to taxpayers by taking cases from the state level and shifting them to the federal level should result in a windfall of roughly $2.5 million a year. So, uh it's a pretty big deal financially for our local communities. We're excited to have Miss Emy on board and we're excited for our partnership with the city of Post Falls and the other local partners that are helping to make this happen. Thank you. Thank you. You You're welcome to come say hello if you'd like to.

Thank you, Mayor Weslin. Uh yes, my name is Julia Zimnney. I am the new special assistant United States attorney that's been selected for this position. I am so grateful to the city of Post Falls and to the other communities that um wanted to contribute to this cause. I'm excited to begin with uh providing those quarterly updates for everyone so we can really track the progress of this position uh potentially have it again as an option in the future um and work with Mr. Allen in the future as well. Um feel free to reach out to me as Mr. Allen already indicated. I'm happy to provide any insight or information about who I am, where I'm from, and um the goals that I have for this position. Well, thank you. We're very happy to have you here.

Thank you. All right. Next up is humanitarian award to Trey Buster.

Good evening, um mayor and council. Mark Brown, captain with Post Falls Police Department. Uh tonight is an opportunity for me to do something that is uh special in in the city's uh uh in the police department is I recognize a citizen that went out of his way during an incident here. So without further ado, I'd like to call down Trey Buster. So, the Post Falls Police Department established a humanitary award on November 15, 2011 to honor police department employees and citizens who exhibit an exemplary concern for the welfare of others as evidenced by their actions that contributed substantially to the well-being of another person and are beyond the individual's scope of responsibility. The specific incident on March 29th, 2025, an adult had a adult male had a heart attack on Fourth Street near Falls Park. A 911 call was made and officers and KCFR were dispatched to the scene. When officers arrived, they found Mr. Buster conducting CPR on the unconscious male. Mr. Buster had been performing CPR for approximately 5 minutes. An officer took over chest compressions, and Mr. Buster assisted the second officer and maintained the male's airway. KCFR arrived on scene and life-saving measures continued until the male was transported to Kney Health. The male Richard survived. Richard later called Post Falls Police Department and spoke to Sergeant Eisman, letting him know that the doctor said without without CPR being initiated so quickly and effectively, it was as it was, he would have not have made it. Mr. Buster, you are an an example of why people are proud to live and work in Post Falls. Uh when faced with with life and death situations, you write you used

the skills that you have learned to jump in and conduct CPR. Had it not been for your actions, Richard may not have survived. You did not know Richard uh before this incident, but you are certainly connected to him now. You are an asset to the community, and I am glad you have chosen to make Post Falls your home. I am pleased to present the Post Falls Police Department Humanitarian Award to Mr. Buster. Thank you for your service and dedication to the community. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks. Next up is the Coupney County Fire and Rescue Temporary Levy information. Mr. Mayor, council, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. This is actually uh fortuitous that we're here uh following the humanitarian award exemplifies what is actually happening in the community on a regular basis. Uh in partnership with Postfalls PD, the city uh and our community. So, um I will be brief uh tonight. I know you have a long agenda. Um as a as a reminder, my name is Pete Holly. I'm the fire chief for Kney County Fire and Rescue. and um here tonight to present uh some information on our 2-year temporary levy override that is being on the that is being placed on the ballot. Um this is all about transparency. Uh we're not encouraging people how to vote. We're just encouraging people to vote and we're providing the information so that people can make as educated a vote as um as they can. Um because there is a lot of information out that need that is out there that we need to uh we need to make sure that we're providing the facts. So um so who is KCFR? So we're a proud organization, missiondriven organization. We we proudly serve of about 70,000 uh residents within our fire district. The fire fire district overlays the city of Postf Falls um among other communities like Dalton Gardens, Fernand Village, a lot of unincorporated areas in the community. Um but primarily we are Postf Falls Fire Department uh in a lot of ways u because this is the majority of where our call volume is. It's where the growth is. It's um it's where we provide most of our service. Uh last year we ran about 9,500 calls uh which is a significant increase over the last 5 10 years. About

10 years ago we were running about 4,000 calls. Um so we're it doesn't get lost on this group that there is a tremendous amount of growth and with that growth comes uh need for public safety. Um like I said at the very beginning, we're mission driven. Our motto at KCFR is service first. We truly do believe that our mission here is to serve the community in any way uh in any capacity that we possibly can. So in 20 in 2025 in November, we did uh put forward a ballot measure for a permanent override uh levy. That did not pass. It needed a two-thirds majority. Um we surveyed the community. we um uh listened and we know that a temporary override is much more palatable to from what we've heard from the community. So, we uh we are listening. We are putting forward a temporary override. It's a temporary two-year bridge that helps us um with operations and making sure we are um uh accountable to ourselves that we are looking at what this looks like over a year-over-year for a number for the time period for this two-year time period. It's time bound. Um, and we're looking for that transparent or we're doing that transparent accountability. Uh, like I said before, we have a record call volume. Um, we have staffing pressures. We have um inflation. These are all things that we're feeling in our own homes. Uh, the the fire district is no different. All of these things are rising faster than we can keep up uh with our 3% cap. uh legislatively we're capped at a 3% uh growth or budget increase and uh we know that inflation itself is is growing far faster than that. Um an interesting fact about this uh with this graph is this these are actual residences that are in our fire district and one of them um or two of them are in post falls and in 2020 uh versus 2025 because that's one

we hear is that taxes continue to increase in 2020 these uh property owners were paying um a little bit more to the fire district specifically than they are today. So uh that's the effect of some legislative efforts that have happened and uh has limited the way that the bud our budget grows. So our our levy continues to decrease. Our taxing authority also uh decreases even though we have this expansive expansive growth. We have that 3% gap. Um the cap let's talk about a little bit about the 3% cap. So, we are um capped per Idaho code at a 3% um at the 3%. However, we uh kind of an example of the things that we're facing. In 2019, we were able to buy a firetruck for about 660,000. Today, that same fire truck, same virtually the same model, uh of course it's got new technology, but nothing uh added. It's not like it's longer. It's not like it carries more water, it carries more hose, none of that stuff. It's all the same. is about $1.1 million and that's just over the six years or approximately seven years we've seen these tremendous costs continue to go up. Our call volume is continues to climb. Um and that gap just keeps widening. In the in the uh in an emergency, there's two things that are really an enemy to our community. It's time and distance. And this this map uh illustrates our locations, our strategic locations of our fire stations. And we want to make sure that we maintain that that we are able to continue to provide this service strategically across across the fire district. The two-year plan uh is a temporary uh temporary bridge. There's going to be zero administrative bloat. It's all going to be to support frontline frontline operations and uh it's a contract with the voters. We're literally putting the accountability back on ourselves to make sure that

we're holding our end of the bargain, that we're providing continue to provide the service that that people have come to expect out of KCFR. The tax impact, of course, everybody would like to know what that what that looks like. Um, for every$100,000 in assessed value, it's a $37.77 impact. So roughly the average homeowner in Post Falls would be paying about 12 to$16 per month in additional uh taxes to support this levy. Uh strong strong staffing uh strong equipment. All of those things also affect your ISRB rating. We're um under a review currently with ISRB. We don't expect anything to change, but we want to make sure that that um that we are able to continue to meet those same those same needs. Again, this uh this 2-year levy puts the county back accountability back on ourselves. Um it sunsets in 2028, and at that point, we have to evaluate what we're doing next. It allows us some time to do some things legislatively at the state level, which we've had some success already this year, and we anticipate that that will continue, but allows us to continue to uh evaluate and see uh where where the needs are and and um and then make sure that the voters have a say in what and what we're doing and how we're doing it. um longer response times, deferred maintenance, reduced crews on major incidents. These are all things that are um a challenge that we're facing. Uh and we're not exclusive. The entire state um fire districts across the state are feeling a lot of these same things and we're trying to figure out how to navigate them. We only have so many options um as a fire district of how we can increase our taxing authority and the primary way is through a taxi or a a tax levy override. So again, I'd just like to reiterate, we're not telling people how to vote. We're just u making sure that we're providing information, which is the purpose of me being here tonight, just making sure that people understand that

they have access to information. Um I'm I'm taking personal phone calls. Literally had one earlier today u with people that have questions. Um there's more information that could be found on our website. Uh we have a great Q&A. Uh we want to make sure that people are informed voters at at um in the ballot or in the uh voter vote voter box on the ballot. Um I've left a few brochures at the front desk. I'd encourage people to um to to get the information so they can make a good decision. Um every every vote will matter and uh we appreciate that. Um and again, just would like to reiterate, thank you for your time tonight. Thank you uh for the partnership that we're we're continuing to build and I would stand for any questions if you had any.

Any questions? No. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Much appreciated. Next up is the appointment of Dana Repen to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Dana,

could you tell us a little bit about yourself and and why you'd like to volunteer for the commission?

Yeah, good evening, uh, Mayor Wesland and council members. Uh, my name is Dana Repan and, um, I'm excited about this appointment. This has been a personal goal of mine. Um, I've been a public servant for 30 years of my career and um, I've served as a planner um, in land use planning and environmental planning and park planning. So, I feel like this is a natural progression for my own personal and professional goals. Um, I'm very excited because Post Falls is a new city for me. Um, my husband and I relocated here to be closer to his parents and I'm just excited about learning all the new parks, um, the programs. I saw the recreation guide just came out. So, I'm excited to get out there and um learn about all the new parks and uh meet the staff and uh just be more uh community member, more involved in my community. Now,

thank you. Any questions for me? Questions? No, just thank you for uh for stepping up. Um you have a lot of experience in this and um I'm just excited to see how you're going to apply that here in Postf Falls. Yeah, looking forward to it. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Entertain a motion. I move to confirm the appointment of Dana Rapen to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Second. Motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Stigler. I Malloy. Hi. Ziggler. I Mosby. I Luca. Hi.

Motion passes. Thank you. Um John Hman was on the agenda but decided to withdraw his name from consideration. So there's nothing to do there. Next up, amendments to the agenda. Amendments tonight. We have none tonight, sir. Declarations of conflict, exparte contacts, and site visits. Seeing none, uh, please present the consent calendar.

Item A is minutes from the April 14th, 2026 city council workshop. Item B is payables from April 22nd through May 6, 2026. Item C is February cash and investments. Item D is donation of city vehicles to Ktech. Item E is park naming policy. Item F is Foxtail 13th edition construction improvement agreement. Item G is G annexation reason decision ANNX-25-1 and item H is Prairie Medical zone change reason decision ZC-25-2. Questions on the consent calendar?

Not a question but just a clarification for the public. the uh donation of city vehicles to kick. Those are vehicles that are slated to be disposed of. So, it's not like we're giving them brand new police cars to roll around in or something. It's they have they have no value to the city anymore. So, I would move to You have anything? Yeah. So, I guess with the park naming, we all agreed on not changing the exemp exceptional community service um definition because it's still in the park naming policy. I believe they made some updates to it.

Yes. In the packet, there were some red line changes to um based on the council's direction at the last meeting, uh to open that up and make it a little bit more flexible. Um and if Warren has anything to add. Yeah. So, um I just pulled it up. So, previously it was an ex

exclusive. I now have to hold the button. So previously you had to have your service had to fall into one of the enumerated categories. We changed that so that um the list is now just examples of what would constitute exceptional community service. It said the definition is now means outstanding service provided to the community in one or more of the following areas. And we added a new subg that is other similar activity showing sustained community service for residents of Post Falls. So essentially any other type of service that the council or the parks and recck commission feels qualifies that qualifies. So it it gives the the discretion back to do if you want to name it for someone that you have the discretion to do something else.

Okay. I would move to approve the consent calendar as presented. Second. A motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Malloy. I. Ziggler. I. Mosby. I. Luca. I stig leader I

motion passes. Thank you. On to public hearings. The first public hearing is the North Chase Place annexation. We'll open public hearing. Well, good evening. My name is Justin Souder. Good evening, uh, mayor and city council. Justin Solder, associate planner here with the city. We have the North Chase Police annexation file number A NX-25-8. The property owner is Donald Smok and the applicant is Van Hooten Van Hutton Consulting and they are requesting the city council to approve a request to annex approximately or almost 5 acres with single family residential R1 zoning into the city of Post Falls. Here is the site. It's on the southwest corner of Chase Road and Fiser Avenue in the red hatched box there. And as you can see, it's not currently within the city and therefore does not have a zoning designation. The properties to the north and west contain single family homes in the R1S zone. The property to the east is farmland and the properties to the south on Coleman Street is another subdivision that is also within the R1 zone. And then just a reminder, they were requesting the R1 zone which would match the subdivision to the south on Coleman Street. Uh the site is currently undeveloped. It's over the Rasten Prairie Aquifer. It would be serviced for water by East Greenacres Irrigation District. Um the waste water would be handled by City of Post Falls and the city does have the capacity uh to provide service and

willing to serve the property at the requested density. Chase Road is a minor arterial. Fiser Avenue is a minor collector and Coleman Street is a local residential roadway. Additional rights of easements would need to be provided as part of this annexation. Now we can get into the zone change criteria. Number one is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and focus area contained in the currently adopted postfalls comprehensive plan. The future land use designation of the subject property is low density residential which encompasses all types of single family residential uses up to eight units per acre. The properties to the north, south, east, and west are all also within the lowdensity residential land use designation and the site is within the central prairie focus area which to date the development trends have been focused on addressing single family housing needs. A key policy of the focus area is to guide development by supporting provisions for a variety of housing types and densities. The proposed single family zone is compatible with properties in the immediate vicinity to the north, south, and west which all contain single family residences. The R1 zone would also be consistent with the focus area which talks about providing a variety of housing types because the properties to the west and north are within the single family residential suburban zone as you can see and the lighter or fainter yellow which have a larger lot sizes. and the applicant is requesting the R1 zone which is consistent with the neighborhood directly to the south on Coleman Street. Moving on to the second review criteria. Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and policies contained in the comprehensive plan? The annexation request is consistent with goal one of the comp plan which seeks to grow and sustain a balanced resilient economy for postfalls providing community prosperity and fiscal health. The R1 zone can deliver single family

homes which make up the majority of the desired housing product in postfalls. Um there are several factors that need to be considered when applying a new zone and we've already talked about the zoning designation being consistent with the future land use map and the surrounding and compatible with surrounding land uses. As far as infrastructure, sanitary sewer is located at the Southerntherly property line at the terminus of Coleman Street and this line can be extended to service the entirety of the site and as I stated before the city does have the capacity and willingness to serve the site. Uh the staff report does talk about how sewer can only be provided to a portion of the site until the Fiser lift station has been completed. However, since the previous meeting at planning commission and since the staff report came out, uh, city staff and the applicants representative have talked and worked out the details. So, sewer is now able to be provided to the entirety of the site. So, I want to make that clarification from the staff report. As far as transportation, trace road is considered a minor arterial and Fiser Avenue is classified as a minor collector. Dedication of additional rights of way and easements would be required on both roads with the annexation. Coleman Street is classified as a local residential roadway and no rights of way or easements would be required with annexation but would be required at the time of the development of the subdivision. The annexation is also consistent with goal 12 of the comprehensive plan which seeks to maintain the city of Postfall's long-term fiscal health. The R1 zone can help with the fiscal health by providing housing and is also consistent with policies of eight and nine of the comprehensive plan which encourages compatible infield development of vacant parcels and annexation of county islands within city limits. Annexation of the subject site with the zoning request would help provide land for future housing needs at a low density in an area that is projected to be

incorporated into the city. and the development of the parcel following the annexation would be considered a both an infill development and it's within a county island and would be compatible with the existing subdivision to the south on Coleman Street. The third and final review criteria does the proposed zoning district create a demonstrable adverse impact upon the delivery of services. There have been no identified demonstrable adverse impacts identified at this time. Here's a list of the agencies that were notified of the project. We received comments back from these agencies. They either remain neutral, will coordinate at the time of development, had no facilities in the project site. Uh one of note is the Postf Falls Highway District had a comment to annex all portions of rightway on Chase and Fiser and the adjacent adjacent to the parcel and that is taken care of in the annexation agreement. There's the site for you. Again, that concludes my presentation. I'm available for questions and the applicant is here as well.

So, out of curiosity, the the change in the availability of sewer to part of the site to all of it. Uh just briefly, what what led to that update? Yeah, it had to do with the elevations, but I'm going to let city engineer cover uh talks about the sewer.

All roads. Good evening, honorable mayor, members of the council. So, city staff met with the applicant and their engineer and actually it was the previous applicant who we met with, but uh the engineer has remained the same. The problem that was originally there was that the north end had a little bit of a elevation drop, so it got too shallow. So, they made some adjustments so they could still meet the city's minimum grade requirements and raise the roadway up so that the lots would work. It was really simple, straightforward, and it was all mainly a matter of timing. Uh, this way they would be able to start development possibly a little bit sooner than the Fiser lift station being online. The other way would have required the fishery lift station to be online and the new gravity sewer that the city is going to be looking at bidding in the in the future to be in place.

Any further questions? Simple. I like it. Oh, I do. While you're here, will there be an entrance onto Before I ask my question, Field, can I state for the record that this part of town is in my like daily just life? I did not specifically visit the site, but I would just say it uh it's nearby, but it doesn't influence your decision.

It does not influence my decision. I just have to drive places. Um so will there be an entrance onto so will Coleman connect to Fiser or is that planned to be like a culde-sac like we see directly to the north? So from the subdivision portion, which is separate from the annexation, Coleman Street in the plans that have been reviewed, would extend all the ways to Fiser Avenue. And the emergency access that currently exists on the north end of Coleman Street would continue to serve not as an emergency access, but as a pedestrian access between Chase Road and Coleman Street. And there would be no road access points from Coleman Street onto Chase Road due to the classification

onto Chase surely. Okay. And that but that it just seemed very close to the Chase Fiser intersection where Coleman would pop out. That was my only thought when looking at this. You got the same issue down on Graange Avenue. Um it becomes a little bit long from a culde-sac standpoint. We also try to reduce culde-sacs. Okay. Thanks. Further questions for staff. Uh quick clarification on the concern from ITD about rights of way. Are we saying that this is both sides of chase or

so uh postfalls highway district made the request. So when we annex in, we will take the adjoining roadway and take the entirety of the rights of way into the city of Post Falls so that you don't have half in this case you don't have half of Chase Road in the city of Post Falls and then the other half of Chase Road in the Post Falls Highway District. It makes it cleaner from a maintenance and operation standpoint. I see. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. So we're not taking the rights away from the property owner on the east side of the road, though. We would not acquire any rights away from them until they annex into the city. Okay. Just keeps it so we don't have to plow half the room. All right.

Any further questions?

I think I think we're good. The applicant can speak. Apologize. All right. Well, good evening, council members. Uh, my name is Merl Van Hton and, uh, thank you for having me here tonight. I'm uh representing uh Donald Smok, the property owner in this R1 request uh for annexation into the city of Post Falls. Um Don Smok is a lifelong resident of the area and very involved in the community. Um his vision here is to bring this in to the city uh as an R1 uh standard subdivision development which would yield about 20 lots. um cons starting with existing conditions. First of all, Justin did a great job of uh explaining the the project and and the intricacies, but um just to kind of walk through it in my own words and and answer your questions at the end. Um I'd like to start with what we have uh as part of this project and and surrounding uh development. Um, as Justin was saying, we've got a mix of R1 and R1S surrounding the subject parcel, which is a part of a infill island. Um, you know, with it being surrounded by the city of Post Falls on all sides, there's really no other option for any eventual annexation in other than into the city. Um and as you look at this image, um you can kind of start to see how the development of this once annexed into the city is more or

less predestined. Um you have uh Fiser and Chase uh serving as the boundary to the north and to the east and then you have Coleman Street uh which has terminus on the south end of the property. So, uh, with, you know, the city's classification of Chason and Fischer, those roadways aren't eligible for, um, you know, driveway access, the only option is to continue extending Coleman up through this development. And, uh, as you were just discussing, it would, you know, punch through to to Fiser. Um and uh and so when we when we do that with Coleman, what we have are, you know, lots um single family lots that will be of identical, you know, size and and uh dimensions to the what we see in the southern development, Northchase Place. Um, so that's why, you know, we're bringing this forward as the Northchase Place first edition because with what's already happened, it seems like this particular 5acre piece of land is pretty pretty predestined and for its uh eventual development. So, um, but we can go through the the requirements of the comprehensive plan just to demonstrate that we are compliant. Um, as Justin pointed out, uh, we are in, uh, surrounded by the R1 and R1s zones. Um and as we look at the future land use map, our designation here is that low density residential which uh considers all types of single family residences. Uh with us being surrounded by R1 and R1s, there is a little bit of a variety of homes. So, so we do meet that uh definition of all types of single family residences up to eight dwelling units per acre and one of the underlying zoning districts is the R1 zone. So, we do have compliance with that land use map. Um the focus area is central prairie. There we are. Um solidly in that sea of orange. Um so development

trends focused on addressing single family needs. Um and land use values increasing. New projects are more likely to integrate higher density housing. We're not we're staying with just what's been established in the R1 zone. Again, it seems like with what the development's already occurred around this parcel, you know, it's wise to just stick with what's already, you know, been been developed out there. Um, and future growth should embrace a variety of housing types and land uses, maintain quality standards, and provide even greater emphasis on connecting neighborhoods. Um and that part as we develop uh Chase and Fiser to their classifications, we're going to see that connection of neighborhoods through, you know, better roadways and pedestrian uh access, which we'll get into here in a second. Uh and there is the the traffic master plan which defines Fischer Avenue as a minor collector, Chase Road as a minor arterial. So um now we have an annexation map and this gets to I think it was your comment uh Commissioner Ziggler about the annexation of the adjacent portions of road. It's a little bit hard to see but this does demonstrate that we are bringing bringing in those adjacent portions of the rightway along with uh the subject property in this request. This is an annexation request, but I thought it would be helpful just to show you what, you know, this looks like since it is pretty much a cut and paste of what the development to the south is. Um, you know, we're continuing Coleman Street on from its terminus here on the left side of the page going through to Fiser Avenue. Uh, these are standard R1 lots with with no deviations, no exceptions. um you know 6,500 square foot minimum yields us four acres per or four lots per acre density um in a total of 20 lots. But what you can also start to see here in this is you know these darker portions of Chase and Fiser are where we're extending those roads to

their full classification. uh we are continuing, you know, the multi-use path, you know, from from its terminus at the southern boundary and extending that all the way to the intersection. We're bringing a standard sidewalk down Fiser because the path is on the other side of that road and we're creating our pedestrian crossing at that intersection. And so we get a glimpse of what what the the buildout and uh connectivity for pedestrians and vehicles will look like you know once this is complete. Okay. And just to to you know further that point we can come back to this but Coleman Street will be built you know just like you know the same section that exists out there today which is the same as the city standard for residential roads. And we have the sections here for a minor arterial and a minor collector uh which will be adhered to during that time of development. Bringing it down to the street level, we're looking at uh the terminus of Coleman Avenue on the left and then um if you just turn 180 degrees, you get to see the North Chase Place development, you know, to the south. So, you know, on the left we have Fiser Avenue off in the background. Um and it's pretty easy to just envision this road continuing all the way through to that point and it developing to look u much like the picture on the right you know identical road section identical you know swailes sidewalk housing density same product for the most part you know

you took your pictures on a beautiful day I'm like distracted by the sky thank you thank you um and moving over to Chase. Um, we can, again, we're looking at the southern terminus where, you know, road improvements at Chase have ended or currently end. Um, and we would be extending these on. Um, so when we looked at that, uh, exhibit or that conceptual plan of of the proposed subdivision and we saw those darker portions of asphalt, what we were seeing was, you know, this widening right here. Um and then you know continuation with curb swale path and um and over here on the right side we have those uh conditions of the annexation agreement for the dedication of additional rideway in the eastment which will be a part of you know what we're requesting tonight. We'll do the same thing over here at Fiser. and not nearly the same width required as we we have on Chase, but again, we're going to be widening it to its full width, placing curb, swale, sidewalk, and creating that pedestrian uh ramp at the intersection of the two streets. And again, you know, these additional rights of way and easements would be dedicated as part of that annexation agreement. Um, we brought this before the planning and zoning commission. They approved it unanimously and sent that re recommendation to you here tonight, but it is your decision. So, I wanted to go through the annexation decision criteria with you just like Justin did. Um, if you read the staff report and the narrative I submitted, there's probably a few dozen of these goals and policies that uh that are covered, but um I just chose a few to to quickly cover. Let's start with the first criteria. Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the land use map and focus area? R1 is an implementing zone, so we qualify there. And that central prairie focus

area encourages single family housing in a variety of types and densities. So, I think we check that box. Uh, number two, is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan? Uh these I just chose a few of them like I said maintain and improve the provision of high quality affordable and efficient community services in postfalls. Um this is an infill development uh for single family homes and it's going to provide an increased improvements in vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. Goal number six maintain and improve postfalls transportation network on pace and in concert with needs and objectives. So as we've discussed those streets will be improved to city standards. And if you look through the staff report, there are comments about, you know, the capacity of those current streets, which I've put on this slide. And so we're those streets are well below their their maximum operating capacities. They our our impacts as part of this development to those roads will be negligible. Um encourage compatible infill development and redevelopment of vacant and underutilized properties. Um, so this is definitely an infill development and it's compatible with the comprehensive plan as we've demonstrated as well as with the surrounding neighborhoods of R1 and R1S. Encourage annexation of county islands. Um, this this is the very definition of county infill. Um, I think we get to, you know, look at developing this piece of land without any extension of city infrastructure, you know, to to reach it. Um and then does the proposed zoning district create demonstraable adverse impacts? Um we have will serve letters from the water district from you know the city for those sewer um we've coordinated with the vista and you saw the list of other u agencies that the city has reached out to without any kind of um you know negative comment. So I feel like we uh definitely you know meet the annexation decision criteria with the proposal we're bringing forward. I

am happy to stand here before you and uh answer your questions. Thank you. Questions for the applicant. Just one question. I want to make sure that I understood this correctly. In the picture that you showed, uh it was on your I think slide number nine. The sidewalk is going to connect from the east side all the way around the corner to the north side finishing that sidewalk. Right. So, we'll have connectivity all the way around that area. Right. So on Chase Avenue, it's going to be like that 10 foot wide asphalt multi-use path and then as we kind of make the turn onto Fiser, it it becomes your standard concrete sidewalk, but it it will result in a continuous pedestrian route. Awesome. I like that. Thank you.

All right. You're welcome. All right. Public testimony. We have none, sir. I sent a letter.

All right. Name for the record.

My name is Frank Pratt and I'm the homeowners association for the association to the south of this development. We currently own the emergency access property and pay taxes on that. There has been some discussion that that will become a pathway. Nobody has approached us as to either purchasing that or asking us if we want to allow that to happen or whether we want to just turn that into a parking lot. So, we are um somewhat disappointed by the less than um cander about what's going on because we don't feel that we've been included in the discussion even though we've sent letters and it has asked to be. So, I'm disappointed tonight that this is going to go through until we get this solved.

So, you're you're saying your HOA owns that parcel? We own the parcel that says emergency access with the access. we pay taxes on it to the county. Okay.

Okay. And so we don't we're not against that becoming a sidewalk and something, but in turn we would like to have some kind of a traffic calming device put in the center of Coleman Street so that traffic doesn't speed up and down like it does on Chase and on the others. And then as I noticed over here, they left off the Graange portion of traffic even though Graange seems to be having more traffic than they had anticipated. And so we're concerned with the amount of traffic and the cut through that will happen. So we would appreciate having a traffic um device put in there somehow and somehow we need to have a discussion as to how that piece of property is going to be used.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other public comment? All right. And if the applicant would like to come address that point and if you could let me know what is this emergency access we keep hearing about. Um looks like a dirt lot to me.

Okay. Um so again, Merl Van Halton, applicants representative. Um so, um the yeah, the area in question is is here um which is currently an emergency vehicle access. Um however, um you know, I'm I'm here tonight before you to request annexation of this piece. Um, I feel like the the the what we just heard, the comments we just heard are, you know, valid concerns, but I don't know if it really um the annexation request is the right place for them. Um, you know, if if I know Mr. Pace is here and he and I have had discussions on this particular piece, if he wants to discuss it as as an issue outside of annexation, then, you know, that's welcome. Um but if there if this is something that you believe will influence um the decision whether or not this piece of land begins belongs in the city um then you maybe we could I could answer the question that you have that you're you know in that regard. Does that make sense?

So this piece of property that we're talking about now is not in the city. It is. So, this piece of the property that we're talking about is right here. Um, it's it's a tiny um Nope. I understand that part. So, it is in the city. Does your client or who you represent own that piece of property? No. Okay. So, then presumably nothing even though you're presenting it, you would not be in control of what happens to it. Correct. Um, right. there's been some coordination between, you know, us and the city as to, you know, how that develops along with, you know, our proposed development because it's no longer needed as an emergency access, but but

but it's just musings because neither the city nor your client own it. Well, and I could let Mr. Paulus discuss that, but I I do believe that there was um some form of, you know, rights granted to the city at the time of that plat. And I don't know that I'm the person who should be talking to that. Gotcha. I just I just I guess my point that I'm making is that truly nothing can be done on that based on the presentation that you're giving because because your um your client doesn't own it. So you could put like pedestrian walkway, but it's not a guarantee that that's what you're going to do with that's what it will become because you don't own it,

right? Yeah. Again, I'll let Mr. Paulus talk to it if you'd like, but but yeah. Okay. Thank you. Good evening again, honorable mayor, members of the council. When the uh North Chase Place originally went in, the city of Post Falls acquired with that plat instead of having a temporary culde-sac at the end of Coleman Street, we acquired an easement which was for emergency access and public access as well. and that was to allow for the eventual placement of that trail. Now, the trail is a track that's owned by the adjoining property, but since we have the easement to it, we would be removing the emergency access so that um vehicles cannot utilize that to get between Chase and Coleman Street and then it would be redeveloped and we would be working with the homeowners association. We I have talked with Mr. Pratt. I forget how long ago, but we met out in the field and discussed it. The problem of moving forward is until it's annexed and then we get into the full design process with the engineer on the project, it's not worth having additional conversations. So once we know whether or not this project's going to be moving forward, then we can and have more um discussion with Mr. Van H Mr. Van Hooton then we can have uh that that conversation with the HOA as well. But when you say it's annexed, the antecedent to the word it is the property is the project, not the emergency access property. Correct. Because that is already annexed into the city.

Correct. It's already annexed into the city. Okay. And then typically what is the process for something like that? Does the city is it deeded to the city and or Well, the tract is deed to the HOA, but the city I mean the emergency access but the emergency access has an easement to the city. So, the city has some control over that emergency access and the public use for a trail for the public access purposes as well. So would would the HOA then deed that to the city so they're no longer responsible for that property or

normally what we do and there's a number of s locations around town where the HOA m continues to maintain their tract and that there is a public use easement which has the sidewalk facility or other pedestrian facilities in there. I think this is pretty standard for having easements like this, right? It it is. Yeah. And it's not technically remain to the question of annexation because we're just determining whether the parcel belongs in the city tonight and then platting and and layout is is the next step. That is correct. Right.

I just want to try to to Mr. Pratt's point like we're not approving that their private property be developed and that's not really on the table. So make sure at this point at this point this is if I'm understanding correctly it's no different than the soil and sidewalk in front of my house. I technically own it and pay taxes on it but it's got city rightway and I'm technically responsible for maintaining it anyway. So this is no different than that. Correct. For the most part that is correct. Yes. And Mr. Pratt, your letter is in our official packet. I just want to to let you know that there's there is where is the um paperwork.

I think if you connect with our our city staff after the meeting, we can help you find that. Thank you. All right, we've had the the um comments and the rebuttal, so I'll close the public hearing and we can walk through the questions. Well, while we get that pulled up, uh, is, excuse me, is the annexation in the best interest of the city?

I would say yes. It's, uh, infill fills a county pocket. It would greatly improve both vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. Um, it's it's a literal continuation of existing development. I think it makes sense. Same reasons. I agree. Likewise. also would like to reiterate um as we've spoken about before, you know, annexation for the sake of annexation is not something that we would generally consider. Um this is one that is particularly fitting because it is a kind of kind of a county island. It doesn't increase the footprint of the city of Post Falls, but it does provide a lot of connectivity in our services. So I think it's perfect

and provides housing without growing our footprint, which is nice. Same. Yeah. So seeing sort of unanimity uh moving on to the uh review and approval criteria for the zoning is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and focus area contained in the currently adopted postfalls comprehensive plan. Yes. Yes. I'd say yes. I think it's already been discussed that that area is targeted for residential and R1 is consistent. And I believe councelor Mosby, you talked about some trail connectivity and continuation of

Yes. And I think increasing uh pedestrian connectivity uh especially along the the eastern and northern sides of the proposed parcel uh to be annexed. I believe that was another item contributed to by this particular requested R1 designation. And the central prairie focus area in this particular parcel particularly specifically calls out for single family housing. So it checks that box.

And I'm sorry councelor Mosby. I was getting ahead of myself on the question on the on the zoning district. So sorry. Um, so question two, is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and policies contained in the currently adopted comprehensive plan that are relevant to the area under consideration? That's where I was getting to the pedestrian connectivity. So, I apologize.

Thank you. And well, then off of that then for the reasons I just described, yes, I I would say yes. Um, I think in postfalls getting to Goal number one, uh, growing and sustaining a balanced, resilient economy and providing prosperity and fiscal health. I think that the R1 single family homes are in really high demand and continuing to contribute to that supply, especially in a situation where we're not increasing a whole lot of burden on our services is uh consistent with review criteria number two. And certainly when you consider that that land is already benefiting from the services that they're just not paying into the tax base, it makes total sense. It's completely consistent. I'd also state priority nine uh priority given to the areas surrounded by incorporated areas and that have readily available services and infrastructure for capacity.

Great. Thank you. Three. Uh, does the proposed zoning district create a demonstraable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services within the city? None were noted by any of the agencies routed. It should be noted that both the uh fire district and our public school district request levies on the ballot due to not having the funding for the current amount of services that they provide. So, I appreciate that they don't report it, but as I bring up every time, seems like a logical inconsistency to me.

All right. With that, I would entertain a motion. I move to approve the North Chase Place annexation, A&NX-25-8, and that it be assigned the zoning designation of R1. Second.

Motion in a second. Further discussion? I just want to say one thing in just as a look counter to what councelor Stigler leader stated. Um if if there's a if these other entities are thought that their levies were directly tied to any of these particular developments, they have the opportunity to speak, we give them the opportunity and they chose not to. So I I think that they would impliedly disagree with you that the levy is not directly connected to providing more services to uh this particular annexation. I'm sure they would. And if only I could take people's uh what they say over their actions as uh being solid. So here we are. All right. Uh roll call, please. Seagler.

I. Mosby. I. Luca. I. Stig leader. I. Malloy. I. Motion passes. Thank you.

Next up is our second public hearing, the Fiser lift station annexation. We'll open the public hearing. All right. Uh, good evening, Mayor Wesland, Council President Malloy, and members of city council. John Manley, planning manager, introducing the staff report for the Fiser list station annexation. File number ANX 26-1. So here the applicant and owner is the city of Post Falls. That's kind of kind of why we're here. Um but the you're being asked to approve the annexation of approximately 0.51 acres with a zoning designation of single family residential R1 zoning. And this is with the intent to facilitate the relocation of the Fisher lift station so it can be properly sized. Location as you see this is right here in the hatch on the northwest corner of How and Fiser. Looking at some of the surrounding zoning you see just off to the east within the city of How Road on the northeast corner that mustard colored that's the R1 and the lighter color is the R1S. I think you've seen those in the last public hearing. You can notice to the east though of how those lot sizes are very similar to R1 even though they are R1S. So looking at this, the East Green Acres irrigation district would be the water provider. The land is currently vacant undeveloped over the rather perographer as cited. This is planned for a lift station. Uh Fischer Avenue is a minor collector and how road is a local roadway. Here are the three review criteria. The

next slides will pretty much cover the first two. I'm not going to have all the goals and policies that are in your staff report, but I will cover a few. You see here the it is in a transitional area that's the blue for the future land use and that points us to looking at the focus area and kind of what is it state to help provide guidance on these kind of requests. So we're looking at the central prairie focus area and you can see the dot and kind of the project location. So looking at the central prairie I kind of bolded a part that may be applicable. Future growth should support a mix of housing types and land uses to maintain quality standards and emphasize pedestrian connections, trails, nearby amenities. Prairie Avenue's role in key east west corridor may also attract commercial developments. So this request isn't directly tied to this bold, but there is an indirect correlation to which I will speak to. So and then on following suit of that grow and sustain a balanced resilient economy for postfalls providing community prosperity and fiscal health. And then you see here on policy two um looking at future land use compatibility infrastructure and service plans which is directly tied to the request. Looking at goal seven plan for and establish types of quantities of land uses for postfall supporting community needs and long-term sustainability. and I cited a a couple that policies that may be considered applicable looking at future housing needs helping serve all residents and plan for uh private and public utilities and that's what's policy 40. So where this comes into play and how those goals and policies could be considered um correlative is here's the current um plan that lined for you see the sewer line and the location is right here at that black star. So, uh, public works was able to locate a site in a really good location to help facilitate

the expansion of that facility up there. Uh, in the comprehensive plan, it does talk about, uh, you services that may go along Prairie Avenue. We do know that Prairie Avenue more than likely will be widened in the near term. And so, with that, you more than likely will get land use actions before you. the area that's in the elliptical. There is a sewer study to look at what's the plausibility for portions of that to gravity flow and tap into some of this as well. So by expanding this, it does indirectly assist meeting some of those cited goals and policies. Any questions for me at this point? Okay. So then the last one is does the proposed zoning district create any adverse impact. We sent the notices out. Here's where you see here the agencies there was of the agencies that responded really no concerns with the proposed request. That kind of wraps that up.

May I ask is this the normal zoning for a lift station or when we put a lift station in do we just like it can be put in in any zone? It doesn't really matter. It's a ladder. We kind of look through public facilities and in our land use table, we kind of make sure those things can be done in all zones. Okay. And so then we just kind of need a zone that's matching for the rest of the area. So like if it was like in a more industrial part of town, we would put it as an industrial zone. Yeah, more than likely would pick something. Okay, cool. Yep. Thank you. Further questions? All right. Do we have any public um testimony on this one? We do not.

All right. So, nothing to rebut. I'll close the public hearing. We can walk through the questions. Is the annexation of the property in the best interests of the city? Yes. Uh it obviously bounds the city. There will be um road improvements with the added easement and it assures that everybody's toilet in the area continues to flush and go someplace sanitary. So, I'm all about it. I think we we do have a an interest in making sure that the sewage travels in the right direction. Yes.

All right. Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and focus area contained in the currently adopted postfalls comprehensive plan? Even though there is no plan to build any homes on it, R1 designation is consistent with the future land use map. and the focus area. Yeah, the focus area also calls for uh emphasis on R1 in this area and there will be improved vehicular uh and pedestrian connectivity as well.

Right. Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and policies contained in the currently adopted postfalls comprehensive plan that are relevant to the area under consideration? I would say yes. I think goals seven and 12 and policies one and two are all supported by adding a lift station. I think it contributes to the quality of services that we're providing. Reduces the load on perhaps other lift stations and um strategically locates uh this one where there possibly could be other new development.

All right. Does the proposed zoning district create a demonstrable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any public political subdivision providing public services within the city? Quite the opposite. None were noted by the agencies audited and and I have no rebuttal. It doesn't m Thank you. All right. I would entertain a motion. I would move to approve the lift the Fiser lift station annexation ANNX-26-1 and that it be assigned the R1 zoning designation. Second. Motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Mosby. I. Luca. I. Stigleer. Hi. Malloy. Hi. Ziggler. I.

Motion passes. Thank you. Our third public hearing, public works annexation. We'll open the public hearing. All right. Yes. Public works annexation file number ANX 262. Once again, the city of Post Falls is the owner and applicant. This time though, we're looking at a request for industrial zoning on approximately 16.04 04 acres and is cited here that about one and a half acres that is just rightway for the west harrave rightaway area and the intent is to facilitate a public works facility and a park site. So here you see here in the this time it's a black hash box and you do see this rightway kind of extend further east to north Corbin that does end though on the west side of Corbin Road. Um that's important because it prevents the request or ask of anything on the east side of Corbin for annexing as it would be considered um a leaprogging or shoring type thing shooting that rightway out. So um it doesn't change anything as far as the properties to the east and south would have still been eligible to request as they've been adjacent. That being said, there is no real sewer and water nearby for these guys at this time or city services. Looking at surrounding zoning, you see here off to the west the mostly undeveloped area that's in the city. It's already zoned industrial. Hence, that was one of the reasons why uh industrial was utilized. We did look at uh requesting public reserve. The public reserve calls on a minimum of 20 acres and this is 15 acres. So it didn't quite

meet that ask for a public reserve. So we went with kind of like the previous what is in the air uh surrounding and what kind of fits within the focus area and in the comprehensive plan. Everything to the north, east, and south are all county properties. Large lot. I submitted this into your packet. I wasn't really want to go into detail, but uh wanted you to look and have the ability to see what kind of uses are allowed or not allowed in industrial. Same with retail kind of what's allowed either through a special use permit or permitted outright office other and in industrial outright. Do you guys have any questions on this aspect of it? All right. So water provider for this is the east green acres irrigation land is vacant undeveloped over the rather prairie aquifer city of post falls wastewater as I cited doesn't have a anything available at this time if development happened prior it could require a septic system um traffic Corbin road is a major collector and hardra is a local roadway connecting Pleasant View Road which is a minor arterial the next few slides just like the last one I'll go over the refers to the focus the future land use map and focus area and the goals and policies and the compatibility with the request you see here in the future land use this is the business commercial area you can I cited out here where the proposed park site would be and the public works site in this you don't see a direct nexus between the implementing zones because industrial is not cited but that was the purpose of our comprehensive plan going to the focus areas is sometimes not everything fits 100% and you want to allow the opportunity when the request is correct to be able to maybe approve something

different such as the case and this is in the West Prairie focus area. So in the West Prairie focus area, it specifically calls out that a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial uses are envisioned between Corbin Road and Pleasant View. And that's where this lies. And that's where that consistency with that industrial ask kind of falls in suit. Looking at the goals and policies, grow and sustain a balanced, resilient economy, providing community prosperity and fiscal health. That's goal one. And where this kind of I would say would align with in policy two mostly is with that infrastructure and service plans. Going into goal seven, plan for and establish types of quantities of land uses and postfalls supporting communities long-term needs. Cited two policies here. Plan for and protect transportation corridors and preserve encroachments. So that Hargrave getting that all the way out does allow the opportunity once it's all in the city for that to be improved and connect those two corridors with um urban improvements within the rightway. 38 planned new development to ensure provision for public service and the current level of service. So by getting that public work site or the parks site at that location would help both those two divisions meet some community needs. one may be before the other, but the park site if and when the the city um grows that way, they would have that location. And when the public services need that to meet whatever needs, they would have that site as well. That ties into the policy 60 and policy 63. Both those are tied to the parks. You can see here policy 60 acquiring park land to meet their level of service and policy 63 making sure that they're some logical

extension for them meeting their future or current park needs. Here's an example here. They do a half mile radius buffer. So they're by getting the well by purchasing the property ahead of time, they can now look and plan for gaps of services that they may with uh to expand their services with impact fees. Any questions at this point for me or any other department? I have a question about sewer if would that be appropriate? I may quickly punt to somebody else, but yeah,

I just um I mean we already own the property, but by annexing it in and when you say if sewer is not available by the time of development um like when uh when a private owner purchases a property and wants to develop it, it's kind of their responsibility to um build out the sewer to that point generally, right? if they need to use it even like down Pleasant View. We're in no way um by annexing this stating that that the city intends to to build sewer like all the way down Pleasant View up to this point. Right.

That is correct. And with talking with the public works department, there is it's conceivable that if the need is there for the city that a we could coordinate and put in because the staffing there a sanitary a septic system from an interim until we can get sewer up that way. Gotcha. I just want to be clear that the city is not committing to like footing the bill for for building all of the sewer all the way down Pleasant View to get here. So, or wherever it would come from. I assume Pleasant View, but I guess I could be wrong about that. Piggy backing off of your answer. I'm sorry. No, you go ahead.

Oh, thanks. Uh, piggy backing off of your answer. Um, you know, if one of the intentions here is to acquire land for a park, how would putting in a septic system impact the utilization of that parcel for a park?

Um, I may not. I mean, I know if you had a septic system for the public work site, I mean, if you had an active park out there, I mean, there are parks with restrooms. Maybe there's a way to work the two together. Um, at this point in time, I did talk with the parks director. There's no plan for that park at this time. It's more or less land banking for at sometime there's future needs. You know, we recently we did have some annexations to the south through time. You're more than likely going to see additional requests uh marching this direction. And so at that point in time, there'll probably be more of a refined plan on how they would deal with that aspect. Further questions?

All right. We have any public testimony? We do not. All right. So, nothing to rebut. We'll close the public hearing. We'll walk through the questions. Is the annexation of the property in the best interests of the city? I would say yes. It's uh it's not exactly a county pocket out there, but it is uh largely surrounded by city nearby. Um it's intent for a expansion of public services for the city of Post Falls, which is a benefit to the city. So I would say yes.

I agree. I think the main benefit doesn't lie necessarily in like where the city lines are drawn. It is in the the better service for the residents of Post Falls. as far as head nods for unit. Agreed. Okay, moving on. Uh, is the proposed zoning district consistent with the future land use map and focus area contained in the currently adopted Postf Falls comprehensive plan?

I would say yes. Both the future land use map and focus area contemplate industrial or business and commercial uses. Uh while where this parcel is isn't uh the industrial zoning isn't explicitly called out, uh the known purpose of this property is very much fits in the business commercial uh type use and those are permitted within the industrial zone. So uh it all seems appropriate to me. Definitely fits with the uh utilitarian and industrial focus of that area. So, yes.

Is the proposed zoning district consistent with the goals and policies contained in the currently adopted postfalls comprehensive plan that are relevant to the area under consideration? It's a West Prairie focus area to provide a variety of general service. I think this could be classified as a general service. part potential future park. I can work with that. Yeah, perfectly.

All right. Does the proposed zoning district create a demonstrable adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services within the city? None were noted by any of the agencies routed and the school district and it doesn't affect school district or KCF and I think postfalls highway district even expressly commented that it would be beneficial.

Thank you. All right. I would entertain a motion. I would move to approve the public works annexationnx-26-2 and that it be assigned the industrial zoning designation. Second motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Luca, I. Stig leader. I. Malloy. I. Ziggler. I. Mosby. I. Motion passes. Thank you. We are on to unfinished business. First up is public works operations center scope modifications.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, and John Beichum, public works director. Um, this is sort of a two-part presentation. So, uh, my first presentation is to talk about the public works operations center sort of at large, where we're going with it. the scope of what we want to build. And then pending the direction of that, we may have a second item for scope modifications for our consultant that sort of reflect what we talk about in this first item. I will note we have a lot of discussion about public works op center tonight between John's presentation on the public hearing and mine. That was not intentional. We rescheduled both of them and accidentally landed on this meeting. So, worked out well. Um, I have an overview. Basically, I'm going to go through the history of this first and then uh for especially for some of the newer council members and then talk about what we're looking at specifically. So, public works facilities consist of uh water u the admin support for all of our groups, the streets department and the fleet department. Uh it also includes the water reclamation facility and facilities. Those aren't really um pertinent to this conversation exactly. Um all of these are housed at the water reclamation facility currently. Water and streets were previously housed at what is now the U. Parks facility on Third Avenue by Black Bay Park. And then they were relocated when the water reclamation facility bought the old Postfalls Mazda dealership which um made some acreage available for the city at that time. Um it was owned still is owned by the water reclamation facility, but it was used by these entities in the interim until such time as the facility needed to expand to get that way. So that's how we came to have everything located on one site. Um that site was purchased with water reclamation funds though. I will note this presentation focuses uh a lot on projections and where we're going. A question was asked to me by council woman stig leader earlier. Um

what is the status of these current facilities? The water shops in pretty good shape. The water admin offices are in okay shape. The streets uh division operates out of a hodgepodge of shops and old Mazda dealership buildings that were never made for a streets department. They work okay. They don't work well. And the fleet department operates out of um so we operate maintaining dump trucks out of a former Mazda dealership. So they're different. Uh we do have a pole building that was built um on the side of the old Mazda shop that kind of facilitates it does facilitate working on dump trucks. Well, it's just a pole building that um isn't as large as we might want down the road. So, trying to preemptively answer your question. Thank you for asking it. So, the situation at the water reclamation facility looks like this. This is our um an overview of the future plans for that facility with an aerial image. So everything that's built, you can see our clarifiers here and um oxidation ditches, that sort of thing. Those things exist today. Everything that's a solid box is projected to exist within the next 20 years. and everything that is a dashed box is projected to exist um within the 50 or so year horizon that they were looking at for planning purposes that our consultants were looking at. As you can see, some of these boxes overlay the streets and fleet divisions um down here in the bottom right of this drawing. Um this is also where we are going to do construction staging for all of the solid boxes. So, uh, many of these tanks are 10, 15, 20 feet deep into the ground. When you dig that tank out to put it in, you have to put all that dirt somewhere. You have to put all the equipment somewhere. So, having space on site saves us literally

hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in construction costs with each project because the contractor doesn't have to haul that soil somewhere else. Um, so this is just uh bubbles of where everything is located. These slides are pretty quick, but this is what the facility looked like in 2005. You can see uh this was the Mazda dealership at that time. 2015 site expanded. This is now Street and Fleet. You can also see our facility expanded. Now maybe it's half the site. And then most recently in 2025, our facility expanded. We're now we are our generators are over here. for all the way to the street and fleet facility with this most recent expansion. So, the proposed solution to this was uh a property purchase and you guys know about this. This is the annexation we just did, but in 2021, the city purchased 15 acres, 10 of approximately 10 of which were slated for a future public works operation center to give street fleet and the water department somewhere to go offsite so that that uh real estate at the water reclamation facility can be used for its original intended purpose. Where we've been with that effort is that a design contract was awarded by city council in 2025 for a starter facility. At the time, the funding we had available uh let us build something that would be about $8 million of a construction bid. We developed the site that is not in a small portion of the cost. It's about a third of the cost actually. Uh we would ex we would build a site that was ex planned to be expanded later. What that really means is we would be building a site that we knew we needed to expand right away because as soon as money came available, we had needs to relocate there and we would build a road in one direction either to Pleasant View or to Corbin Road, but not both. So, in exploring what that looks like

through the through the design process, through conversations with our staff, uh, one of the questions asked at the time the design contract was awarded is what do staff think about this? We we've had a lot of conversations with staff in the intervening months. Um so what that would look like for a starter facility is there's plenty of uh opportunity to relocate water operations. That works well. Streets operations would essentially be still halfway at the water reclamation facility and halfway at the new facility. That in terms of daily operations would not work very well. You'd have your science crew, for example, report either to the op center and then report to the science shop to do their work and then report back or they just go to the science shop, but they wouldn't be connected to the rest of their crew that's doing other work. Um, that's that's a simple example. Storing vehicles is the same thing. If we don't have space to move the vehicles, we're going to leave half of them here. So, you're you're shuttling back and forth. Um, office space would be limited. We could build the admin facilities for um perhaps the people we have on staff today, perhaps not all of them. And um as a result, if we hired a new office person, there's nowhere for them to go. And crew space would be developed. So that was one of the sort of core features we were looking at getting a break room and a modern restroom facility for our street staff so that and and water staff as well. Um their facilities okay street staff not so much right now. Uh that was a a key feature for us is getting someplace that um they can come and have that u support space they need when they're um coming back for lunch for example or um in between jobs. that is also difficult to expand later if you make a break room so big. It's difficult to add on to that in the same way it is to add on offices. So that was prioritized in that starter facility.

Ultimately what we found though is this was creating more issues than it was solving. We were halfway solving some of the problems. It was a true starter facility and that it didn't get you to the answer you're looking for. And in terms of the road, uh there was either limited sight access, uh if we built a Corbin road, it turns out that is not a road. Um the highway district says they have uh road restrictions on that in the springtime. So we couldn't use it all year round. If we go to Pleasant View only, we would need to have more lanes added to Pleasant View to facilitate turning. If we do both directions, it actually works better uh most times of the year. Can I can I pause and just ask

absolutely with what what is the need for the water department to relocate away from the water treatment facility?

That is a great question. I'm going to go back to my bubble map here for a second. So, currently the water reclamation the water department operates out of the shared space with the water reclamation facility. They've got a six-space shop here in the southwest of the facility and then a shared office space and there is an existing need for both more shop space and more office space for the water reclamation facility. So the benefit to them is rather than build a new facility, they just take over the existing shop and and office space. The water department could really live anywhere. They're pretty they don't they don't have a facility a treatment facility like this. So they just need to shop in an office to operate out of. This space was jointly purchased. Um water and waste water went halves on building it back in the day. But the land was purchased but with water reclamation facility money. Does that answer your question? More details. Beautiful helpful. Great. So, we explored with our architects and their um subconultants what it would look like to build a facility that um does meet today's needs that would have daily streets operate daily streets operations all focused out of this facility specifically moving the science shop there and having the storage space so we can move all of the equipment. uh full utilities and water relocation was built in including some space for planned utility staff that would come on board in the next few years is an ad to this. Um we have a moderate allocation for growth. Um I think there if you there's a slide in a minute that looks at about four growth four offices slated for growth and a

little bit of space in the shop. Uh we're not overbuilding this by any means. I would say 10% is actually probably on the skinny side for growth. If 10% growth for the city is like two years, 10% growth for city staff is quite a bit longer. But um this does include the road from all the way from Pleasant View to Corbin. And like I said, in doing that, we don't need to make improvements to Pleasant View Road in terms of adding turn lanes to it because we'd primarily use Corbin except when the um road restrictions are on. It also incorporates a backup generator. This wasn't something that we had in the original estimate, but as public works operations are typically uh most important when there are storms and things like that, we thought it made sense to be able to operate this facility even if there's a power outage. So when I say uh this design, we we we've gone down the road of designing this facility with the architects so that we could get a better cost estimate and bring this information to you to hopefully make a a decision where we go with here. So here are some examples of what this looks like. We've got our admin facility down here at the south of the built um the building pad. Uh when I say admin facility, that's um largely break space. It does have offices for public works and I'll get to that in a second. And then we've got a large shop space to the north. We would build this covered parking structure. Um, but all these other dashed lines are future things that would get built at some other time. Um, there's a floor plan. What I really wanted to show here is kind of the allocation. You've got a water shop, a street shop. This is the crew support space, locker room, break room, that sort of thing. And these are the offices that um would go in there. The gold offices are the future the four future offices I

mentioned. I should note this is still a little bit in flux. Um it's not fully designed. So if you see a name on here, don't assume that's where you'll find that person in 10 years. Here's a rendering. It is not built yet. This is just a a generated rendering. Uh the architects also wanted me to point out that just because it looks nice doesn't mean it's expensive in terms of construction materials and that sort of thing. Said if we start from the beginning designing it to look good. It um it can do that at a similar budget to what it would look like to build something that is just metal siding and um a simple building. So, um, again, break space, uh, fairly simple, but also a nice place for crews to come in and rest between snowplowing operations, that sort of thing.

Mr. Beum, how many people are will be in this building? Sorry. As we're looking at like the pictures of I should know that number exactly. It's around 50. Okay, cool. Thank you. That's helpful.

So, pretty pictures. Now we can talk about the money side of this. Um before we talk about the cost, I wanted to talk a little bit about what's changed on the financial picture of how we're uh funding these these facilities. So this facility as well as other facilities in our uh facilities master plan. At the end of fiscal year uh 25, there were fund balances that roll over per policy into two different accounts. They roll into this facilities account. They also roll into our vehicle replacement account. So all told, that was $5 million that rolled into the two accounts split evenly. So $2.5 million into each account. That is not something that's anticipated. That's when there are um budget funds that aren't utilized. They go into this sort of savings accounts. U so when I say not in the financial model, that's because it wasn't anticipated. It is in the financial model now. Um, there was also a budgeted $4 million transfer from the vehicle replacement fund into the facilities fund. That was just to more properly allocate onetime funds to where the needs were. And again, that was discussed with council during the budget process. Couple other thing or one other thing that came at the last council meeting. I believe our Seltis Way rehabilitation project came in significantly under bid. um like $5 million under on a $10 million bid. Not all of that is general fund money, but there's at least $1 million in um expenses that will not be experienced by the general fund um as a result of that.

Are we sure that we wouldn't be subject to any cost overrun or whatever? Like it's that contract is you will as I recall is you will do this there's only this much contingency and you have to perform to that. It's not like if we spend this million that we could have end up coming back for another million.

Yeah, I I think your point is well taken. Just because the bid came in lower doesn't mean we automatically get it exactly for that dollar figure. When I said there's at least a million dollars of savings, I've taken some uh there's on paper right now more than $1 million of savings. Even accounting for contingencies and things like that, I think we still see that million dollars. So talking about the information we have on the financial for what it would cost to build the facility kind of as the architect has laid it out. They have a third party cost estimator who ran through the plans and came out with a $13.2 million bid uh bid estimate. So that includes um everything in the bid package uh which outlined here in these bullet points. It does not include paying the architect, putting furniture in, putting gates on, um, all the little things that go with building a new facility. If we account for all of those, and we have a pretty good list of what that should look like at this point, the total would come up to uh would increase to $15.9 million. So, we take um here's a summary of how that would break out. Uh, one number to pay attention to here is a general fund number. This is sort of the most sensitive piece of this project. The uh there's a little bit more flexibility in the water and wastewater capital budgets to um to meet the needs of this project. On the general fund, we definitely have a sort of a hard limit of what um cash is even available, let alone what cash we want to prioritize for this.

Can I connect the dots really fast from the money that you were previously talking about? So when you say that there's an extra 2.5 and one and four that were transferred, we would see those numbers reflected in the general fund given this. That is correct. That was all talking about the general fund. That was not talking about water, wastewater. And just in looking at the two scenarios, you have feasibility and recommended design. Is that feasibility? Is that the starter facility you were talking about earlier? a starter facility as priced out in the feasibility study that came before that. So that's the nomenclature there. Feasibility starter facility are

that $8 million bid project that we were um we're trying to build. This recommended design is kind of what we think would meet the operational needs of today. Thank you. So I plugged both the new revenues and should say the new money in the facilities fund. So, this doesn't account for any of the new revenue that came from Seltisway or for the vehicle replacement fund. At this point, this is just the facilities fund with the updated fund balance after that $2.5 million transfer. Um, what this shows is the facilities fund has available cash to fund this project as well as the other projects that are in that plan. And I have those on this next slide. Uh those specifically include a police department expansion coming up next year for $13 million, parks office expansion at their Black Bay facility, uh coming up in 29, and then city hall remodels and 20 uh in 2030. It does assumed continued funding out of the general fund. So we've been allocating an amount of funding each year out of the general fund. The facilities plan has us increasing that uh $120,000 per year just to try to build up that facilities fund to build the necessary um necessary projects. So, so I can go go back to this, but the the punch line is with those projects in there with the new fund balances, the project still does pencil. We're not going negative here. We still have some funds in reserve for contingencies, that sort of thing. So we we can handle this conversation a couple of different ways. The the recommendation from staff would be to proceed with this um sort of the the

recommended design nomenclature. Um doing that lets us build a facility that works today. So we're not building half a facility and promising ourselves that we'll come back and build it again in five years. Uh the other thing it does is it lets us utilize cash we have available today rather than um trying to figure out how to get enough cash in the future to pay escalated construction pricing. So if we waited what the uh facilities model will tell us is we will pay um it's in your staff report. I don't have a slide on it but millions of dollars more in construction costs um because of delaying. We will get the same facility. It'll just be more expensive down the road. with more cash required. The other thing um the other thing I would point out is there are some funding some trueing up of funding that we should probably do um that helps the financial picture and isn't in the model yet. One of those is when the property was purchased, it was purchased only out of the general fund. We think it makes sense to have the water and wastewater utilities sort of buy into that property. That's about $350,000. Doesn't it doesn't buy you a $13.8 million facility, but it's it's one more piece of the pie. Uh it's also possible we could reallocate a piece of the Selttheast way savings. Um and then I I will throw this out here just so that it is um so you kind of see where the facility uh function versus cost lands. Uh, one thing we could do to decrease the cost of the facility is build about uh, twothirds of what's shown here for a street shop. That would save us about a third of a million dollars, but it also requires us to start storing equipment offsite during the winter. So, we would need to find a place to store our uh,

paint truck offsite as the immediate outcome of that. So, we're we're saving a third of a million dollars. we're also creating a future liability in that we have to find that site. So, um what I was proposing, what I would propose is I'll talk a little bit about the fleet option and then we can sort of talk through these decisions one piece at a time and if we decide no at the very beginning then we don't have to talk about the rest of it. So, is that an okay way to proceed?

Can I ask one Oh, sorry. Do you have a question before thumbs up? Oh. Um, the Mazda dealership land that it currently houses streets and fleets, right? What money was that purchased with? Was that purchased with wastewater funds or with general with wastewater funds? With wastewater funds. So, it technically already belongs to them.

It does belong to them. There is a lease payment of about $80,000 a year that is paid from the general fund to the water reclamation facility for that site. And we have then kind of like looking back at the wastewater reclamation fund, we have losing that revenue built into um how we increase our I don't I don't want to say increase our prices. That's not what I mean. But um into our operations to lose that. I do not think losing that revenue will be a significant impact to the reclamation. Oh, 800,000 is a big number to me. But it's 80,000.

Oh, 80,000. Sorry. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. So can I ask is there we know that there's um efficiencies that you've discussed already but are there operational not construction but operational efficiencies that have a dollar impact budget impact by not having people drive from one end of the city to the other or you know or or service level changes that would be realized by having people report to the same building at the same time etc. Yes, I would say they are difficult to quantify. Sure.

But they they're absolutely uh would be that. So let me let me pull up that floor plan for a second. So one thing we would have right now is we'd have our water division and our streets division right next to each other. So those folks would be interacting on a daily basis. the number of times they surprise each other with things in the field, even though even despite our best efforts at communication, is higher than I'd like it to be. This would help to reduce that. Um, having our all of our streets, folks working out of the same facility, having the sign shop here in the shop right next to where we have dump trucks parked and folks coming and going doing paving operations would prevent needing to have half the crew go back to the water reclamation facility to build signs, to do paint striping operations, come back here and get more um information or or confer with the supervisory team, that sort of thing. You say about how how often does that happen now where they

they would have to drive back and forth and hazard guess daily, weekly, monthly or daily for sure. Probably multiple multiple times a day. So even once with a 15-minute drive each way, that's 30 minutes of staff time that

for each staff member that's going that way in addition to fuel and all that. So there there are some efficiencies. Does it add up to another $4 million? Probably not. But but based on that, I would just in the interest of time as we have a full agenda, I would just say I'm in favor of ripping the band-aid off and doing it all right now. I think there are construction efficiencies and operational efficiencies and if and so rather than go through each scenario whereas I think it's very practical to do this unless there's objection from any of the other members I think could we just say yes we're we're all in favor of doing if we're in favor of the project at all we're in favor of doing it all at once

I would say yes I think the old adage holds true I think by once cry once. We know this is needed. We know it's going to be important and we know that if we're going to end up doing it anyway in the long run, it's already going to be more costly as you've already described. So, I I would agree with you on that. Wait, but correct me if my I'm wrong. Is there not a third option that we have to talk about that's greater than 15 million?

I was intending to talk about the fleet portion of it and I I was going to ask a clarif clarifying question if you meant to include the fleet shop with that. That is another call it approximately $3 million. It adds um 100 by 100 foot fleet shop on the north end of this facility. I have slides on this too. I just don't want to uh if you don't want me to go through them, I will not. So, you mean the reader's digest version? Like why would we do it? Why what's the impact? And then maybe we can cut some slides out.

I mean, I'm not in a hurry to spend, you know, millions of dollars. I'm just I think there's a practical reason. The city is growing. We have facilities spread all over the place. We're wasting time and money and operational efficiency by driving around and trying to to coordinate this by sandwiching into the facilities that we have. If we can consolidate that then you know Yeah. So, so what's the short version of putting fleet there as well?

Uh you summarized it really well. We would have fleet right next to streets. streets is probably fleet's biggest customer. So troubleshooting a dump truck, you walk over and look at it. Instead of driving it down three miles away, um if there's a broken loader, you're not loading it on a trailer to get it somewhere. You're walking across the site to look at it. I think that's the biggest operational efficiency. As I mentioned, the fleet facility is not great right now, so this would improve that. Um, it puts most of the public works operations divisions under one roof, which uh just helps with consistency of communication. Um, this is probably the biggest reason not to do it. It would

move the project cost to $18.7 million total. Um, that does without adding some money to the facilities fund, that does um in a couple of years cause us to not have enough cash. So, we would need to move at least $1.5 million from something else to the facilities fund in order to continue funding this project and the other projects we have slated. Do you have a suggestion for what we would be defunding? Yes, I I would say it a little bit differently, but fair enough.

Uh the Salt East way project is probably a great example. I think that is money that could go to a future streets project. I think this in a in essence is a future streets project. So it makes sense to move that there. That's like I said it's at least a million dollars. I think um perhaps I definitely would recommend utilities buy in to the property. So that's um $350,000 and then I would say vehicle replacement fund perhaps makes up the difference that fund. I have the balance here outside of the four that we already talked in addition to the four. Correct. in addition to the mortgage. So those would be my recommendations in that

make should be able to make our vehicles last longer, right? Yes. If we take that much out of our new our vehicle replacement fund, which if my memory recalls, we we were saving very diligently and taking care of our cars very diligently. So we kind of are up in that account, right? Yeah. Um does the 9.8 8 allow us to meet the ex the 9.8 is for the expected ending balance. I guess I don't know what the 9.8 is, but if we take eight out of the vehicle replacement fund, 8 million, will we still be able to meet our like next five-year replacement goals? Yes. Okay, great.

So, uh, annual if we replace everything exactly when it came due book value, it's $2.1 million a year. It's been less than that because we're not replacing everything exactly on a seven-year schedule or whatever. Okay.

Um, so a $9 million balance gets us almost five years. Even if we don't fund anything out of the general fund, which we should be doing, I I would advocate that we do that. Then to councelor Luca's point of brevity, I'm generally in agreement, which is not my my spot on your um huge public works facility at baseline, but could you give me just I think you you met my other two questions that I prefaced you with. I think before I kind of give my overall um um thought process on this, could you tell me in some place where from the feasibility study we have cut something back to help facilitate going more like on furniture or like on pretty but cheap uh exterior um somewhere tangible that I could say we are cutting we're skimming something down to get something better.

So, not in the feasibility study because that was literally so bare bones. So bare bones. But the thing I would point at is we wanted to have a a meeting space where we could put the public works department in a meeting room and do trainings and and that sort of thing. Okay. What we've settled on is the break room is going to be that place. We are going to rearrange tables. We are going to kick people out if they're not part of the meeting or we we'll find another space. Okay. We are not building two 60 person rooms in this facility. Gotcha. That's an easy example. Um

Okay. Sanctasium is what we're going with instead of Right. Is that the like idea? You wouldn't know. You wouldn't know. Okay. It's when a Protestant church builds like a gymnasium that's also their sanctuary. Saint Okay.

All right. Never mind. Um, in which case from your presentation, it sounds like we have a favorable bidding bidding environment as evidenced by having a million dollars extra from our Seltis Way project and Jackson's not here. Many of the things that Jackson has told us recently. So, it is actually a good kind of maybe moment in time to look about look at doing something bigger than perhaps we originally intended since we do have kind of this good bidding environment. Um, and it also sounds like there's a significant amount of construction savings that we'll see at the wastewater treatment facility should we choose to move um, streets and fleets out of that area, to quote you, hundreds of thousands to potentially a million, which is um, less than the amount of money that we're talking about spending just to move them. And primarily for those two reasons, I would be in favor of what you're proposing. I would also argue there's there would be we would no longer have to maintain some buildings down at the water reclamation facility now. Um so that's a savings and those are old buildings so they're they're not cheap to maintain or operate or anything else and they don't operate very well. I mean, the amount of dollars that we're talking about here is probably going to give me nightmares, even though I support this, but uh you know, we I think looking longterm as a city is the best thing we can generally do. And long term, uh this is going to save a whole bunch of money. And I think as councelor Stigler brought up, right now is a unique moment in time, but for the first time in at least a decade, for whatever reason, uh construction bids are coming in low. Um, I don't I'd hate to miss that opportunity and end up getting burned by paying 100% more even five years from now. So,

I'm concerned about materials costs because of the uh price of oil being up so high that maybe we might we we might think that construction costs are going to stay low, but then by the time the bids come in, if if oil prices stay up, it affects the price of everything. So, we would need to move quickly on that to lock in those prices. Um, do we have an opportunity to sell any of these buildings that would we would be moving out of or are they all just future expansion? They're not owned by the general fund. So, um, they're owned by the water reclamation facility. So, probably would move into the fleet shop space. That's the best building that's out there. probably we demo the dealership and the old um dealership shop at some point because it's less expensive than maintaining them to councilman Councilman Maloy's point. U there is a storage facility out there as well that we probably um would utilize for the water reclamation facility like a lean to kind of shed. So I I don't know. We'd have to think through that. I think we should look into that whether it makes sense for that to be bought into so to speak by the water reclamation facility. Um,

but in terms divesting of surplus property, there wouldn't be an opportunity with any of these departments because we're not just moving from the Mazda dealership. It sounds like there's people kind of coming from all over. Is there any facilities left that we no longer need? They're they're coming from all over on the water reclamation facilities property.

Okay. So, all right. And and finally, I would just say I'd ask if there's an opportunity. We talked, you mentioned the meeting room, but when I saw the picture, I was already thinking of this the would this potentially be a larger meeting training facility availability than what's available at the police department or at other facilities? Because I think that's a need in the city to have something that we can rent out. uh you know and could this potentially this space not currently as designed but you know could it be that

potentially we we looked at a future expansion opportunity to the west so it's here on this particular drawing but to build a large training room there. So there's expansion space to the west where we could build that in the future. It's a significant expense and don't see it at this time but we we certainly could I would say two things. Uh I think this project is a question of it's not a question of if but when. Um it's something that we've identified that is going to be a need. Um and one thing we do know about the power of money is everything does get more expensive as time goes on. So I think the opportunity is is kind of right for the picking to to get as much as we possibly can. um now. So I would support the with with the fleet addition, the full meal deal that you're proposing.

Yeah, that's great. I think there's a consensus here. It always gives me heartburn when somebody builds a brand new facility and then a couple years later rips off an entire wall just to add on to it. So I was just going to add I think the two most sensible choices now are to go forward with the full meal deal or to do nothing and stay where we're at. Mhm. Um, and given the current uh, construction cost environment, the full meal deal, I think, makes more sense. Uh, the given the new information we've gotten about doing the phased approach, I think that's just no longer an option anymore. It doesn't make any sense. If you say full meal deal one more time, though, we're going to have to Uber something here. I move for the full meal deal. Hungry. It's a value meal. No. Um,

do we need a motion on this one or are we just taking this as advisement for the following ones? I'm perfectly fine with advisement. I I don't know if anybody on the wings here feels there needs to be a motion, but I if not, I can move into the formal decision we do need to make tonight. So, what do you think, Field? I think we can move to the sub subsequent uh All right. Action item. This will be significantly more brief. So, as a result of the decision we've the consensus we've come to, we need to modify our contract with the architect to uh include the full meal deal of design uh

design duties. Um the cost for that um increases the total design fee from $757,000 to $941,000. There will be construction administration contract coming forward um at the time of bidding. I think it's about half of this just as a preview. So I think we've really covered all of this. I will note um architects typically base their fee on a percentage of what they think the project is going to be. This is a significantly reduced percentage because a lot of the work has sort of been done in vetting these options. So

these increased contract prices were reflected in the numbers that you just gave us for the increased facility. Yes, they were in the total budget. So with that, I I recommend awarding amending the contract to match the guidance you already gave me, which would be the um the full design cost with the fleet additions. And that's second motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Malloy. I. Ziggler. I. Mosby. I. Luca I, Stig Leader, I. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Next up, item C is police department parking lot improvements recommendation to award.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Andrew Arbini, projects division manager in public works. Um, presenting on the police department parking lot improvement project. have a few requests this evening that are all related to the project. So item C is a recommendation to award to interstate concrete and asphalt. Item D is the construction management services with HMH engineers. And item E is a contract with solid rock gate and supply for vehicle access gates. Um all these are separate action items but related to the expansion. Uh so for the uh newer council members included a little bit of project back background. Uh so the police department headquarters was constructed in 2003. In 2021 uh facility needs assessment identified the need for additional parking space. uh that was identified as a current need at that time and also additional parking spaces that would be required for the future expansion of headquarters which is also a separate future need uh for more office space down the road.

The need for was for more secured parking or for more public parking as well?

Yes. Um on both sides of uh primarily so the current need is to expand the secured parking for the police department vehicles. There is a need for additional public parking with the animal shelter and headquarters at that site. There are times where u the current amount of parking is not sufficient. Uh some background actually a year tomorrow um a year ago tomorrow city council approved the design contract with HMH that kicked off the design of this construction project. Uh project location. So the blue rectangle will will be the site of this expansion of the parking lot uh between Mullen and Pston Avenue. I included the green square that shows the future headquarters expansion. Uh so to orient everyone with the location of this uh it's approximately 2 acres is the site size. Uh so currently the facilities house over 100 police department personnel. As I mentioned, there's a need for um more parking space both on the secured and uh public side. When the police department goes to expand the headquarters, that will trigger the requirement for additional parking spaces. This expansion includes those additional spaces that would be needed at that time. So, expanding the parking facilities, expanding both public and secured uh the site improvements. So, um, I'll I'll get into this a little further because I want to answer, uh, Councilman Mallaloyy's question. He had, uh, sent over a question prior to the meeting related to, uh, the CMS services. So I will address that uh a bit further. But u talking on the scope of the the project, this is really a an involved project uh similar to a roadway project where we're doing full-sight improvements, frontage improvements that

are required um including utilities, putting everything in that would be needed in the future and then more or less building a road at least to a road standard. Uh with the addition of the parking lot, it also reserves a space for a future building pad. uh not certain what that will be used for but a 10 to 20 year time frame uh could be a storage facility on that site. So not the entire site will be used for parking but reserved for some future building. And this is the illustration of uh what the design looks like. Um secured parking on the north side, building pad in the middle and public on the south. Uh and then connecting to the campus on the north and and south ends. So, this was a bit confusing to me when I reviewed this. So, the secure parking that's on the east side of the the facility with the animal control facility in between, how do you go from the parking lot to the building

to keep that secure? There is an existing fence that will remain in place from this location with the mouse, if you can see the mouse on the screen. Uh so the fence will remain in place all the way to this location and this will be opened up. So it'll connect all the secured parking. There'll be a gate here at this location and then fencing will run along here. So this this area in black uh the blue and the black space is all secure. There's a fence that runs along that line and then an existing fence that runs along this line.

But but if I park in the north part there along Mullen and I need to get into the police department building, that's a long walk, right? So there would not be an option for public parking on that north lot. I mean, if I'm if I'm a if I'm accessing the secure parking, I'm a police officer or whatever, I come to work, I park my vehicle there, and then how do I get in the building? You drive over or is it just a long walk? Just so I understand your question is, so you're talking if you were to park here in the secure parking. Yes. And then walk

to the building. So um I guess one point the secure parking space is intended for the police department vehicles and not um personnel vehicles. So the there will be an option to walk through and it is connected through this point. There would be some distance to get to the headquarters. Um we're a bit limited on just the layout and the existing layout of the campus. So, in working I I should mention that uh I'm Andrew Orbini with the public works department, but we are working closely with the police department. So, Captain Mark Brenle and we've worked with U Brian Harrison and the layout of this design um to design something that is functional for the police department that would meet their f meet the existing needs. Um so, in conversation with the the police department, this layout did work with them. I I do see Mark Brenle moving. So, if you wanted to add to that.

Yeah. Hey, Captain Brenle, is the idea that perhaps if I'm showing up for work, I would park up there, get in my patrol car, and then use the lower lot than for operational purposes.

Right. So, the the proposed new secure parking lot is really going to be for our uh extra vehicles, our spare vehicles, and evidence vehicles that are not day-to-day use vehicles. Um, so all those that are currently in our back secure lot that are taking up a lot of the available parking for our employees and a lot of our employees end up parking out front of the PD at this point. Um, and so moving all those spare vehicles and we have several evidence vehicles that I mean honestly we're going to have some of them for years. Um, we'll go into the secure lot and not be a daily driver if you will. And so if an officer has to get a spare car, yeah, they're gonna uh walk over to the secure lot, but most of the time they're fit officers and they can make that walk. And so it shouldn't be an issue.

So what I was envisioning was like nobody's going to have to clear briefing running out and then run up to some lot that's way far away to get their patrol car. All the stuff that's in that's operational need would be in the current lot. Yes. Okay. Yes. Unless they had, you know, if somebody had a a vehicle go down at at the start of briefing, right? They they go get a vehicle, get it set up, bring it over into the other lot and park it under the awning for on duty cars. Thank you. Mhm. Mr. Arbini, we're not asphaltting over the future building pad area, right, that we would have to rip out later. We are not. Okay, great. I just ran out of colors.

Thank you. So, uh, no more questions for now. I'll move to most recent phase. Uh, following design, we went out to bid, uh, solicited for construction bids. Opened those bids on April 14th, received nine bids. Uh, had quite a bit of interest on this project. Uh, the low bid was received from Interstate Concrete and Asphalt of about 100 or $81,000. Um, below the engineers estimate of 937,000. Uh the summary of this contract award is for the uh bid amount. We are requesting a contingency of 50,000 bringing the total request for the uh construction contract award to 851,14774. Um and this is budgeted through the public safety impact fees. Uh moving on to the second item that I noted at the at the beginning construction management services amendment. So this is an um added services onto the existing design design phase. Um doing it at this point of the project ensures that um we have the appropriate level of support services needed. Uh getting to Councilman Mallaloyy's question about the amount of scope that we have for this project and um based on the type of project that we're building. So I wanted to touch on that and I added the following slide uh just showing what the tasks were in this amendment. So this is the breakdown um guess making a couple points. I'll start with

I'm sorry before you give the answer can you give me the question that was asked? Sure. So the would that be okay? Sorry that's fine. So yes, I will absolutely do that. Um, so the question was the the amount seems like a lot of money to um that there's there's a lot of services here for constructing a construction or a parking lot and the adjacent facility with the existing police headquarters um that there's staff nearby that could observe and notice anything that may be out of place and um pass that along. So, that was the I guess the crux of the question. Correct me if I

admitting that I don't it's it's more complex than an actual parking lot, but there's that cheap voice in the back of my head. It's like guys, it's a parking lot. So, I was going to ask it for more info.

It's a great question and it gives an opportunity to I think step through um some of the things that we don't that is not always presented that occurs behind the scenes. So, in looking at construction inspection, which is the bulk of that task, that would be your observation. um that is more than just the physical observation of the work going into place. That that includes an observer on site that represents the engineer of record and they are tracking the material. So they're verifying uh material tickets that could be concrete ensuring the correct concrete mix design goes into the thing that they're building. Um same thing with asphalt. they're verifying the ME measurements and those are critical when the contractor submits for a pay application that we have those records that were done in the field to verify that yes this work was completed and this contractor is eligible to be paid for these items. Um they also provide a daily report of the work activities that occur on site. Um so that creates a project record if we ever need to re revisit that and there are times where it's very helpful to to go back and look at what happened on this day and this time. Uh I will say that this particular uh level of CM CMS services was based on uh about 13 weeks of construction which is the contract time and uh they are HMH estimates about 15 hours a week of observation. So that's about three hours a day. Um so it's not a full-time observation. It's it's probably the appropriate amount of observation needed and then it will be tracked as a TNM not to exceed these these amounts.

Okay. Did that I I do appreciate that the level of tracking and so forth and verification materials. I hadn't even thought about that which requires some skill and obviously presence. So I do anticipate that uh personnel at the PD if they see something especially related to safety access concerns that I will hear about that and that's a a resource for us to get those addressed. But we don't have staff tasked with daily observation. It doesn't sound like it's particularly reasonable to try to do it internally. So I I appreciate the clarification.

Absolutely. Uh so that brings me to the summary of the um CMS amendment with HMH. The total amount is $86,60010. Um we are requesting a 10% uh contingency. This replaces the $5,000 contingency that was left over from the design contract. So, uh, this is really replacing that previous authority for staff to spend, uh, with this new updated contingency that reflects, um, this this new amendment 86601 if it's 10% of that,

right? Yeah. And uh, thank you. I'll throw a penny in. You are correct. I think we'd probably drop that off for brevity. I was going to ask if we could have them sharpen their pencil and get rid of that 10 cents. If the contract has maximums, what do we need a contingency for?

So, uh I guess the earlier comment about a bid and and a maximum amount of bid. Uh the contingency covers as a easy example would be an unknown. If we go out and start digging underground and we discover say an abandoned water line that causes a conflict in what we're building, um that was unknown. If it was not shown on the drawings, that would be unknown and per the contract documents that would be justified as a change in the contract. Okay. Um contingency could be allocated to address those types of changes.

So when you said that there were because the slide I think to address councelor Malloy's point is not in my packet. Um though those are the contracts that have maximums like the three hours a day not to exceed however much money. It's not the rest of the Yes, that one. Those are the max. That's what you said, right?

Yes. These are the individual um maximum tasks that all roll up to the 86,600 for for HMH engineering's level of services. Construction inspection materials testing. What in here? None of these are the actual materials and it doesn't look like this is the work itself. This is all like observation of the work. And in these contracts we have maximums not to exceed 68,000. So why do we need a contingency on this

on that? Um so in the case of that unknown water line uh for instance if there was additional design services that may be needed to address that water line that would impact HMH to do that additional design work. um it was unknown to the parties and um having a contingency allows us to make those decisions um within an approved threshold authorized by council. Um so it allows for timeliness in decisions um especially in construction contracts.

Yes, I understand like the basic part of the contingency aspect. My specific question was if they had maximums then what was the point? But you're saying the unknowns will affect these contracts in a way that um negates the maximums that are in the contract themselves. Correct. Okay, great. If something is u uncovered, then it would mean we're changing the design contract and then changing the construction contract and then changing the CMS contract. It has a ripple effect. Yes, it often does.

Okay. I think I covered um again this will this amendment also comes out of the same um same GL code for public safety impact fees. So the third item uh these are for vehicle access gates. So going back to that previous illustration the secured parking lot uh requires addition of two new vehicle access gates. During the design, when that was identified, the city reached out to a local vendor supplier that we've worked with before, uh, Solid Rock Gate and Supply. They've actually supplied gates to the city at other facilities in recent time. Uh, I want to talk a little bit about the process on this and the purchasing process that we went through. So, I will actually start with the the third bullet point here. Um, so we started working with Solid Rock uh, Gate and Supply. They provided us a quote for the gates. Um, I want to note that the current city purchasing policy requires solicitation of three quotes from vendors when you're purchasing uh a product or service between the value of 50,000 to 100,000. Um, the value of these gates are I think it's in my next slide around $70,000 total. However, Idaho state code updated that threshold. So, the solicitation of three quotes is not required um until you reach 100,000 or greater. The city's purchasing policy, as you are aware, uh was presented in a recent workshop, is um being revised and with the intent to reflect those limits to match Idaho state code. So, I wanted to lay that foundation. Um, as a gut check, we did reach out to one other vendor who makes a similar style of gate. Um, a less preferred style and a significantly greater cost about

that's perfect. Um, this is also the the style of gate that we want, the service that we have come to know. Uh, recently the parks project put in two of these gates with the same vendor. um the city procuring these gates separately uh rather than assigning it to the contractor and and putting it in the construction bid. It allows it ensures that we get the type of gate that we want. Um so the request this evening would be that council would um approve this quote with uh solid rock

and and it's not double marked up that way too if we're going directly with them. Are they building that gate from scratch or buying the gate and then installing it for us?

They are building from scratch. In fact, there's some market volatility. I'm sure uh folks may be aware, but some of the metal prices are in flux at this point. So, they are eager to um assuming a an approval this evening would allow them to order materials, lock in that pricing that's presented here and begin fabrication. So, they would fabricate from scratch and then they are responsible to install the gate as well. and we envision that um they would be coordinating with Interstate the general contractor for the parking lot. So if all works out well the timing would be that the gates show up at the end of the project and get installed as one of the final items. So in my day job in the security industry I deal with these. This is a good price and it is the right solution for that being a vertical lift gate especially because of the snow potential and how slow one of those gates opens and closes if it's on a chain and um so and maintenance- wise too on a on a horizontal slide gate. It's just this does appear to be the right solution and and a reasonable price. So the contract with solid rock is for 67,000 that includes the fabrication and installation cost. We are asking for a 10% contingency and again that um we have coordinated to the best that I could think of uh all the elements needed um to install the the gate. If there are any things we discover in the field that oh we need to put in an additional conduit for a camera or a sensor um that contingency could be used to cover any of those additions that are not

I understand the point of a contingency. Sorry I with the two others that we had from the same vendor. Did we have to dip into our contingency on those? Sorry. Could you We had You said we had two other gates that we purchased and had installed by the same vendor. Did I hear you right? Yeah. I think um on the parks project um so in that project they actually Solid Rock installed the gates but it it was included in the general contractor's bid.

Okay. And the reason the city is purchasing these directly is some of those lessons learned that um this route ensures that we get the specific style and brand of gate from this specific provider. Just love to see more of this kind of thinking because contractors going to mark this up if they're doing it and you know so there's another 10% or whatever on top of that that's sort of a hidden fee. So the more of this that we can do ourselves. We've talked as a council before about about uh subcontracting and all of this sort of things. So the more of that we can do the better. So kudos.

You are absolutely right. It does save on that front. However, there's a significant amount of staff time involved in this. So there there is some tradeoff uh to a certain extent. But overall the the overall benefit here was was there and it made sense to go this route with this particular product. Um so summary of the project. Uh next steps following approval um assuming approval of all three items. We'll uh start moving the contract paperwork around. Uh get a construction agreement in place. Uh construction schedule from the contractor. Uh issue a purchase order for the gates, get those um started. And then the overall time frame expecting project completion by fall this year. So with that, I will stand for any questions. All right, I think we just need to go through some motions.

I move to approve the police department parking lot improvements recommendation to award. Second. Motion in a second for the discussion. Roll call. Ziggler I. Mosby I. Luca I. Stigler I. Malloy. I. Motion passes. Thank you. I move to approve the police department parking lot improvements construction management services. Second. Motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Mosby, I. Luca, I. Stigler, I. Mallaloy, I. Ziggler, I. Motion passes. I move to approve the police department parking lot improvements contract for vehicle access gates. Second. Motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Luca, I. Stigler, I. Malloy,

I. Ziggler, I. Mosby, I. Motion passes. Thank you. I move for a fiveminute recess. I was about to offer that. Yes. Let's recess for five minutes.

All right, we'll call the meeting back to order. And next up is item F, um, pole line and highway 41 gravity sewer replacement.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, Andrew Orini, projects division manager. Figure I'll repeat that after the break. Uh this is the polling and 41 highway 41 gravity sewer. Uh these uh this presentation includes two items. Recommendation to award to greedy lands development and item G is the supporting construction management services amendment with Ardura engineers. Uh providing uh similar background as I did on the previous agenda item. Uh so project location this is at highway 41 and pole line. Uh the area in a black rectangle and and gray area is uh reflects the project limits for the gravity sewer work. So prior to 2025 staff identified a deficiency in the existing gravity sewer pipe. was a low point that was causing sir charging in the line and this is a compounding issue as the flows continue to increase and thus increasing the risk to um backups in the line and uh could occur in the service or in the service laterals that come into the sewer main. Uh this original sewer line was constructed around 2006. It was a city project. It was part of um several sewer lines that were installed in this vicinity of town along Highway 41.

When you say it was a city project, do you mean the city did it ourselves? That's my understanding. This was a city contract. Uh sorry. No. Um the city hired a contractor to perform this work.

And was this installed incorrectly? Is that why we have this gravity issue? So, we don't know exactly why there is a low point in this section of line. Uh there's no indication that it was installed incorrectly at the time. Um we don't believe that there's been any impact from the recent construction and improvements that have happened in that area with Highway 41 that just given the depth of the existing line that that would have impacted um had an impact on this. Um, but it appears that there may have been some sort of settling um to cause that that low point, but there's no indication at the time of construction that it was installed incorrectly. Um, the line is 20 years old

or that the ITD work may have caused this because this is a new problem, right? Yeah, it was recently discovered uh 2024. I have a slide that was dated in August uh when the city's sewer camera um we've been in probably the last 5 years we acquired a purchased a sewer camera and we've been doing inventory of the sewer line. So that was discovered that there's a there's a low point and that matches up with some of the searchcharging that we've seen in this area and it's been compounded with the amount of additional flows that have come into that area with development occurring.

Yeah. Just in the interest of brevity, I guess what I'm getting at is is anybody at fault that we can go after for potentially helping to pay for this because or is it just a natural phenomenon as far as we know? Yeah, we don't have a lot of great information that would allow us to to go that direction. I will say that this is not a common occurrence. This is not something we typically see. So the fact that we are doing this is a bit of an anomaly that um it's an issue and we're moving forward in addressing this issue uh because it is creating an increased risk to the city in the event that it causes a backup into a service line

and is there a chance I think this is my last question. Is there a chance when we open this road up that and look at that we might discover that something happened that there would be a potential recovery? Uh yes, additional information is always valuable and I I hesitate to speculate on what that would be and what that would mean. Um but certainly if there is something that we discover that that's interesting. Let's explore this further. Um that that is always a possibility. Okay. Thank you.

So I also had many of the same questions that councelor Luca just uh just asked you. So I guess I'll ask a different one. If we know who installed this particular line, is there a way to look back at those contracts to determine if there is a warranty of workmanship that would extend to this this project that might offset some of this cost if they would they were to come in and warranty their work? I may defer to more of a on a legal front. Um, I can speak from our capital projects and most of the work that we contract for uh in public works, we typically have a one-year warranty for workmanship if there is is something discovered in that time period. Um, but being that we are 20 years, it we're likely out outside of that range to Councilman Luca's question about if we open up the road and we discover something. Um, again, I I think it would be interesting to know what that what that is. Um, something that' be obvious. I don't have a lot of the history of the project other than um it was constructed we have some asbuilts for for the project. Um, it it was constructed at pretty minimal grades in that vicinity which does make it a bit challenging to convey the that slope through that area and get it to the downstream manhole. Um so where this issue has occurred is is near the manhole. Um the solution is replacing 250 ft to realign that and and meet that grade. Um so the project would involve relaying new pipe next to the existing pipe. Uh so last year, February 2025, council approved the design contract with Ardura engineers to design the solution for uh for the section of pipe.

Uh so this is the image that I I mentioned. Uh this is this was taken in August uh when about the time that this was discovered to be an issue. Um mostly just illustrating what the service lateral looks like coming into the sewer main. Probably not the most appealing picture to look at, but especially on Taco Tuesday. Could we get some 8 by10s maybe?

So, the solution and what this project will accomplish is replacing that section of pipe uh 250 ft. Uh this involves quite a bit of coordination with ITD. So, we've been in contact um working with them closely. uh need to protect their I their infrastructure specifically the uh traffic signal is there and they have a rather robust foundation um nearby involves significant amount of traffic control and then we envision doing some temporary adjustments to the traffic signal timing. Uh once the project is once we replace the sewer, we will repave and restore the site to existing conditions. We're not doing any surface improvements or additions um to the site as it is. We'll just restore it to existing. As we were working through the design of this project, there were a couple additional elements of work that was identified in this vicinity and um staff uh elected to include this into the project work. Uh the first project uh first additional work is at 12th Avenue and Highway 41. Uh the city operates two sewer pressure force mains uh along 12th Avenue. Eventually that will be connected to the water reclamation facility. One of those force mains which is currently unused. It's a dry line uh but envisioned to be connected and used in the future coming years. It was discovered that there was a there's a blockage in that line of some sort of some debris. We've been able to isolate it to that area in the dash box. Um we've working with staff we've been able to determine that that's the location. We've included this work in with the larger uh pole line and 41 project. Um similar to your comment earlier, Councilman Luca, about um discovering the situation. We anticipate we'll be able to know a a bit more. Um in this instance, there was some recent

work that had occurred in that vicinity with um the highway 41 widening and we are uncertain what the what the issue is. We just know that there's a block and we need to um repair it. It makes seems to make sense and will likely be a savings to the city by including all three of these additional work um work items with the larger project as opposed to making it individual projects. Um, so that's why we are including it. Has a camera been sent down there to see what that blockage is? Yeah, there it appears to be debris, rocks or um mixed with with dirt material.

So in my previous life in law enforcement, we would call this a clue that all of these are adjacent to the recent ITD work. So, I hope that we have a sharp eye on that as we're going over all of these locations.

Yes, the city had uh two projects in this vicinity followed by ITD and some other entities that were all moving utilities and coordinating um all of the work happening within a two to threeyear time frame. So, uh, the other two items, um, are separate locations. One at Highway 41 and 16th Avenue, and the other one's just south, um, on 41, south of Pole Line. And these are adjustments to the manholes. This by including this work, um, we need to make an adjustment to the manhole. There's an issue with the the grade. It tends to catch the snow plows. As per the city's memorandum of understanding for maintenance requirements with ITD, we are responsible to address that. this will satisfy um that issue that was brought to light.

Mr. Erbini, will there be any coordination? It sounds like we're at is that four intersections, three intersections on the 41 with the 41 mess at um Selti and Mullen? Like are we planning on doing all of these while that's going on as well? What does that coordination look like? So each of uh if I could take just the city's projects. So we have four locations pole line 41 and then these three locations uh the work will will occur so that we're not doing all of it at the same time just looking at just the city's project. um related to other projects in the vicinity, we're working with ITD. They have mentioned um the other work in the area and in times past in recent years, we've coordinated closely to ensure that we're not creating a complete traffic jam. So, we will be working with ITD to ensure that we're able to maintain traffic flow through that vicinity. the the greatest impact that we see at least on paper as it is is the the work to correct the gravity sewer um low point at pole line and 41.

What's the time frame on that and what lanes what will lane closures look like? Uh that's a great question. I did not include the visuals for that.

Would that be at a different I mean if that's part of like a different um contract request then we could talk about it at a different time. Yeah, I can certainly follow up and provide that information um after the meeting of what the traffic phasing looks like. It there's three phases um with the intersection work. I'll pull up the map. Um so it's it's in an awkward spot, especially when the work gets out into the middle of the intersection. That'll involve um a detour is one phase. Uh a large rather large detour around um as much as possible. We are intending to maintain some traffic flow through that intersection. So moving east and west, we'd have a lane in each direction. Uh but there would be limited movements. Total project duration is um about two months of time. We do have some restrictions from ITD of uh over holiday weekends. So three-day hol holiday weekends, Memorial Day weekend, July 4th weekend. Um contractors not allowed to work and have traffic control in place. Um, so we we will need to coordinate following an approval of the contract award. Uh, discuss that with the contractor and what they're thinking for scheduling.

Okay. The intent is that this would all be done by October, end of the end of this year because this is the last request to come to council, right? We did the design. This is like the contract for construction and then go. Correct. I guess it doesn't I guess we can't say no because of the traffic, but oh my brutal for the last 10 years. So why are the manholes not at the right elevation manhole covers?

That is a great question. Um those are so those are city facilities and those were um those are part of the sewer manholes that that are there. Um I don't have the full history on that. I know that that has been an issue um in recent time that it's it's creating an issue with mostly mainly with snow plowing.

Right. These are this is new highway. So this was done in the last three years something like that. Right. So, somebody installed these or somebody paved and didn't pave at the right elevation or someone installed them too too high. Who is that? You know, why are why are now we have to pay to fix it? In other words, seems like somebody didn't do the work correctly. And you know, it it's painful every time we are approving some million-doll construction management uh uh inspection contract and now we find that we're going to have to go back and fix these things. Um, I think that that's something that needs to be looked at and perhaps even if we have a one-year uh warranty on the work to say if this was within the last three years or something, say if you want to do business with the city again and be considered for the future, you fix it because this is recent work. So I I know very little about it other than what you just said here, but it seems like but I have lived next to and with and around and amongst this project for four years because I live right next to it and to find out that work was done sloppily and that now we have to pay to fix it makes me irate. So,

I'm happy to follow up with Rob Paulus after the meeting and um I we had similar conversations going into this and during design. Um I'm happy to follow up with with Rob and understand that a bit more as it relates to it and the city and those maintenance responsibilities.

Thank you. uh including it in this project does address the issue and would would at least get it corrected. Uh so moving on to the construction phase. Uh we did put the project out to bid open bids on April 16th. Uh we received two bids. Uh the apparent lows from Gritty Lands Development in the amount of $579,57. The engineers estimate is for 464,000. Uh so the the bids were above the engineers's estimate. However, uh we have budgeted and we have the available funds in um in the capital improvement project fund related to this. Uh so the funding is available. Uh looking at the the cost, I think some of the the element the the fact that um we opened bids around the same time as the police department parking lot, we have a bit of a gauge to see that um that had a a rather large level of interest. Um we had two biders on this project. I think some of the complexities and the challenges with with some of the sewer work. Um but overall this the low bid appears to be representative of um what the construction cost is

and that's a bid for all three four projects. Correct. If we made them less complex by not doing four would we have gotten a bit like closer would we have gotten more bits or a bit closer to the estimate do you think? I think the complexity is in the uh pole line and 41 gravity sewer, not in the different projects themselves.

That's that's my opinion and based on what we've seen in the past. I think with the gravity sewer replacement, it it requires shoring um trench shoring which is is just really tight spaces. These other three projects are not while they're separate locations, they are not as impactful as the work that will be done in 41 and and pole line. I just didn't know if like they were different skill sets and so we were not like getting as many people to bid because you had to be able to do different things. But that Okay, sounds good.

Yeah, it's it's all within um the wheelhouse of of these contractors. Okay. And these other three projects th those are, you know, days or a couple of weeks in duration. Correct. Oh, each correct. I would say the manhole adjustments are a day's work, right? Um the traffic control is the most complicated and so having a contractor take responsibility for that and set up the traffic control. We looked at doing that inhouse and it it's a significant undertaking. It it looks very simplistic but involving the highway um traffic control to be honest. That's good.

U and then similar to 12th and 41 it's um probably a few days to to dig and and address that work. Um I believe I covered all of this. Uh again budgeted under the reclamation capital fund. Uh so the contract summary contract award to Greedy Lands is for $579,57. Um requesting a 10% contingency uh bringing the total request to 637,457. Uh moving on to the second item, construction management services. Uh so summarizing a bit from the last item, this is the services needed to support the construction work. Uh this was evaluated based on the design and what we have included in the work. Significant pieces of the coordination that will will be needed with ITD. So similar I broke out in a table uh what each of those tasks are. You can see construction admin and observation is a significant portion of of this amendment. Um worth noting this level of services based on full-time observation just given the scope and nature of the work. It's 40 hours a week. Um so that is uh some of the cost difference that you're you're seeing here. Uh so the summary of the contract amendment with ADURA is um 117,940 uh asking for a 10% contingency bringing the total request to 129,734. Uh the design and CMS contract becomes 204,485. So that's the design phase to date and the CMS amendment to date.

Uh next steps following contract approval this evening. Um we'll begin the moving the contract documents around and uh envision getting a preliminary schedule from the contractor. Because of the nature of this project, we plan to have a project page on the city's website and that will provide information there as well as uh city social media. So, trying to get the word out um especially as we have traffic closures and I believe we have a a traffic closure link. Um so, those will all be listed there of when we're switching phases and um where people what people can expect. Project completion is expected by October this year. I will stand for any questions.

All right, I think we're ready for motions. I would move to approve the pole line and South State Highway 41 gravity sewer replacement recommendation to award. Second. Motion in a second. Further discussion.

A comment real quick just addressing what councelor Luca was talking about with regard to going after uh someone who might be liable. I have a slightly different view than councelor Luca. I don't want someone who does bad work to come back out and do make make corrective action. I would prefer to seek compensation for the work being done. I think this is really important and we should be doing it. Um so what I guess I would ask for I guess this is probably more in your house uh field. So the maybe we could look into whether there's a liable party uh perhaps someone who's insured maybe that if there's a cause of action for what we call in my profession damages. Um, I think that I'd like to know if there's an option there.

Yeah, certainly. I I'm not um have not looked into this particular project at all. So, but uh we can certainly get together and and look at that. Thank you.

And I'll say that I'll I'll be voting yes on the motion with the caveat that I would like that process to happen first to see. I mean, obviously, we're not going to know. We can't go through a court process to find out if we're going to get paid first before we start this project, but we could at least look at it and say, is there a potential liable party? And can we say with any sort of certainty that it could have been from like the manholes is to me is kind of seems like lowhanging fruit. We paid somebody to do the work and we paid somebody to watch the work being done and it's not done right. So either it was the people we paid that didn't do it right or it was ITD when they paved it, they paved it incorrectly. And either way, we should not have to pay to do that. Then the um as far as the blockage one, I think that's probably a little more complicated because a lot of people touched that project. But if we could at least just look into the feasibility of that and if we need to prior to contract signing make some sort of modification, then go ahead. I don't know how to put that into motion form because that was a long paragraph, but just what I said is that a friendly amendment.

I think those are two separate issues. So, uh, we we've got identified problems that need to be fixed. So, we got to fix them. Uh, second issue is can we be reimbursed anywhere for making that fix. I don't think we need to hold up the contracts to investigate whether there's somebody else's liability or not. That can be done concurrently. I think I think it's a separate issue. Well, I thought about that, but but then then this is a legal question. If we just go ahead and fix it and then we go after somebody and say and and say you need to pay us for that, could they say, "No, we we could have fixed it, but you went and did it." No. Generally speaking, um I will say it depends. Um no, I was just going to assure that it depends.

Give you the standard lawyer answer. You're a member of the bar, aren't you?

Um certainly it they are two sort of I would see them as two sort of separate issues. Um certainly we can go out and perform remedy and we and you know if again if you are uh find a liable party and are bringing suit against them um your damages um you can you can perform the remedy and say and say um you know you're li this this is what what you did wrong. we went we had to go out and fix it because it was an operational uh type thing. Um and there's are damages that that's what we're asking for in the lawsuit. So, um there are certainly avenues to um uh sort of self-help and and do the project yourself rather than having them come come out. And

is that only if a or does that still apply if there was a remedy in the contract that was specified? Yeah. And I would have to look at all of that. Thanks. I can't answer that. But I I agree with your point that generally speaking, as long as there's no issue with that where later they could say, well, we would have fixed it, but you fixed it, so now we're not liable, then we can move forward. Sounds like for some of these, we'd have to open up the road anyway to see what's going on down there before we could even determine if there is a liable party. Further discussion on the motion to approve. Roll call, please. Mallaloy. I. Ziggler. I.

Mosby. I. Luca. I. Stig leader. I. Motion passes. Thank you. I move to approve the pole line and state highway 41 gravity sewer replacement contract amendment for construction management services. Second. Motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Ziggler. I. Mosby. I. Luca. I. Stig leader I Mallaloy I motion passes. Thank you. Next up is the uh 2025 transportation master plan. This is just a um continuation of deliberation if there were any additional thoughts on that. Um otherwise we can just take a motion and move on.

Well, I do have some additional thoughts. I actually got to read through it. Uh there were a few things that I really liked. Uh in the interest of brevity, I'll just mention a couple of them. I did like some of the crash mitigation proposals that it went over. Um, a lot of these I can skip. Um, this is a a question that maybe the other other council members might be able to weigh in on. Why do we have no even long-term thoughts about connectivity to the south side of the river? Forgive me, I'm new on the council, but I'm just wondering why we're not looking at that at all or being annexed into the city and providing services.

Yeah, I know there's probably an enormous amount of cost, but that's that's the init that would be my initial impression is just it' be extremely expensive. I mean, in my experience, and this is just me, I I haven't really seen a lot of interest from the residents there either being annexed into the city.

Um, as far as location, I think Spokane Street would be obviously the most apparent, but also the most expensive. Um I know Greens Ferry on the south side of the river um is another possibility of providing connectivity there but there's if not zero activity of you know wanting that I think there would also be a lot of push back in even attempting that. So um if that answers your question but another factor is purely e economic too. One there's not a lot to connect to at this point and a big reason for that is because the the geology on that side of the river is totally different. It's all rock. So, it's way more cost-effective to build on the north side of the river where there's soft dirt and everything else and it's pretty flat. Uh, if there ever comes a time uh where it's uh as cheap or cheaper to build on the south side, that's when we'll start seeing interest. But, uh that doesn't seem to be foreseeable anytime probably in our lifetimes. So,

it occurs to me that providing sewer to the south side of the river would be very expensive for a small number of houses. Seems it would. It at least all goes downhill. We wouldn't have to go straight in the river. Not the river. Yeah. That was a joke.

My last comment was just I liked the liked some of the the things I was reading about the bicycle pathways and whatnot. I think I alluded to this in our last uh hearing on the transportation master plan. I'm personally more of a fan of a stay in your lane type methodology. I think I'm very supportive of cyclists. I like the idea of more people are doing it, fewer people are on the road, decreases congestion. I just don't like when the cyclists are in the road because despite what some of them might believe, they are not as fast as cars. So, I'm all for it. Just stay in your lane. And I like I think the multimotal pathways uh focus in the transportation master plan where uh I like it like where it's going. So I'll be in favor

and we did upgrade upgrade to Greens Fairy. Correct. Perfect. Thank you. Then I'm in favor too. I would move to approve the city of Post Falls 2025 transportation master plan. Second. Motion and a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Ziggler. I. Mosby I Luca I Stigleer I Mallaloy

I motion passes. Thank you. We're on to new business. First up is 2026 Chip Seal Contract Award. Find it here. Good evening, council. Uh Ross Juncan, public works maintenance manager. Um here to talk uh about our 26 chip seal contract. We recently bid that. Um we do these annually for our city. Um and I'll start with going over um we had two pre-qualified uh contractors. uh American Road Maintenance and PO Asphalt. Um they were fairly close, about $25,000 apart. Um but the low bid was from American Road Maintenance. Um this slide also shows um recent history um that we've had in our pricing over the years. Um you can notice that this year we've moved to halfinch chip seal. Um that's primarily because the roads that we're looking at doing are arterials which need a little bit more um larger rock. Um we're not getting into residential areas this year which would be in the quarter chip to 38. Um and you can see the price has been is down a little bit too. Um $3.75 um for that half inch chip. The larger the rock that you get, typically the more expensive it is because the oil that goes into holding that rock into place, there's more of it needed. So that is a good price that we see um comparatively from recent years.

Um our budget this year was 630,000. Um so that number um is below that roughly $500,000. um we come the amount of work that was selected for that we used the previous year's um numbers. So we would have used the 25 um numbers for that contract and the dollars and we would generate what roughly what we're looking at for the next years. So we're basically getting the same amount of work um for the 630,000 what we're anticipating for 500,000 based on the previous year's amount of work. Could we add more work? I was just gonna ask.

Sorry. We can um in the contracts there is some wiggle room in the contract. I think it's 25% where you can hold those numbers. If you go above that, then there's renegotiation that happens. So, we can look at that if we want to um add some. We would have to go back to our drawing board and look and see where it makes sense to do that as well. Do you think that we need to? I feel like we're always playing catch-up on streets. We can um No, I asked if you thought that we needed to if we needed to. This is

roads is a squeaky wheel. It always needs grease, right? So, um yes, I think it would be beneficial. Um it's such a minor um amount. $100,000. I know we think of that as like a lot of money, but um when I look at our road system, we have over 500 thou 500 miles of roads, and you can see how many miles we're going to get done um this year. And and the reason for that 3.74 miles is because the roads that we're doing, those are lengths.

Those are not widths. So, we're actually doing some pretty wide roads. So, that's that's why you're not seeing the length. And I'm actually toyed with the idea of changing how I'm measuring this and reporting it so that it calculates areas and not lengths.

So it's a little more accurate. Um a number of you have probably seen this slide before. It's um it's a pavement condition data that we got about four years ago and it shows where we were at then. Nothing's changed because we have not done another assessment. We'll typically do those every five to six years depending on the budget and if we can afford it. Last one was $75,000 to the city. Um in here um you can see our roads are back then were in good shape and I would attribute that to our chip seal program as well. So pushing upper 80s% is in the good satisfactory to good condition. And since then we've addressed um quite a few of those roads that were in the fair and definitely in the poor um the poor and the very poor for sure. You can see the map um which doesn't reflect the current conditions um and the 26 uh you can see in the blue up there the 26 um season. So this summer we will be doing some in-house paving in that area. So those red roads and those yellows will come back up to green. The following year, we'll chip those so we can seal them up and uh and and I I kind of explain why we chip, but it seals that asphalt up, keeps the water out, keeps it protects it from the UV rays, and it provides that extra layer of traction, especially here in North Idaho when we do get occasionally get snow. Um, so, um, I went back in the in our archives and and found that my records could go back as far as 99. I know that they go back farther than that. Um, but we've been chip sealing for a long time and

that's one of the main reasons why our roads are in the shape that they are comparatively to the neighboring cities um, in our area. So, uh, staff recommends awarding the contract to American Road Maintenance. Um, the bid amount was $498,955.30 and asking for a contingency to go along with that. Now, I have never spent that contingency, but it doesn't mean something couldn't come up in which it's necessary. So, um, so a 5% contingency for a total of $523,937. And I'll stand for questions.

I'm happy to support it, but I would be interested to know if we could get some more done if we had it budgeted. So, I don't know, at a later time, I'm sure you could let us know. So, that's something we can look at in the change order process of the contract. Um, that would be something I would have to come back to you, of course, and ask for additional dollars to be spent. It's above my signing authority, especially since we've already budgeted $630,000 and the cost for about the first time ever is is down, then it might be a good opportunity to strike while the iron's hot. So, sure, some of those dollars in that $630,000 also go towards crack sealing. Okay.

So, there's other there's smaller components. I'd say like 30 $40,000 of that goes towards a crack seal program that we have. Um, but yes, we do have some money that could be allocated for additional chip sealing. Don't tell Mr. Beum about it because he'll find a place to put it. I would move to approve the 2026 chip seal contract award to American Road Maintenance. Second motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Mosby, I. Luca, I. Stigleer, I. Malloy, I. Ziggler,

I. Motion passes. Next up is Northeast Quadrant Sanitary Sewer Study Update. Uh Mr. Mayor, Council, uh Jim Okahi, senior staff engineer, City of Post Falls. Um staff is here today to request approval to enter into a professional service agreement with JUB engineers um updating the northeast quadrant sanitary sewer study. Uh this study is needed to verify the existing capacity up in this area. Um not only that but to recalibrate the model sanitary sewer model um based on the current growth forecasting and land use assumptions and to evaluate any potential modifications to improve system performance and efficiencies. The estimated cost um at this time is $126,400. Um the original study was done by JUB also um in 2018. This study uh combined the sanitary sewer 2010 master plan along with the rather prairie master plan and the 2018 land use project. Uh this adjusted locations and sizes of transmission mains uh and service basins along with identifying timing for system improvements. The results from this study were also incorporated into the 2019 water reclamation master plan. Um since that time uh we've actually upgraded pumps into the Tulmore lift station. Uh this helped increase

performance with that lift station. Uh it was part of that study as a portion of it. Um phase one of the 12th Avenue force man was also constructed at this time and there was a 21-in sanitary sewer gravity man that went went from Horse Haven to the 12th Avenue lipst. There are some remaining items that were that are still out there. Uh increasing the the two or more lift station in general was one of the items that that we were looking at. Also running a parallel uh sanitary sewer main on the west side of Highway 41. Um and installing the Fenicus line which eventually goes all the way north to uh just north of Prairie and that property is those properties up north. Uh this line was also identified as the excuse me the al myer alternative line. Um we also are looking at doing phase two and phase three uh of the the forest main which I believe public works is taking a look at that at this time. The main reasons of course for this study update is uh for widening the widening of highway 41. um which of course adds the demand the the rapid growth demand in the in that service basin up in there. And we were also looking at anticipating that the tech park was going to have more increased flows with all the with the new developers that are going to be with that project. Um so what we did is we increased the surface area or the the study area, excuse me. um not only to potentially relocate some of the the lift stations that are up in that area, but also to determine trigger flows for the 12th Avenue lift station, uh the

Meer alternative line, and to finally determine the capacity of the future development up in that northern area. Um the these results would also be incorporated into the wastewater master plan that's going to be updated here shortly. So that's an important item. Um but the total cost for this project um is estimated to be at $126,400 and with the estimated completion time of November of 26. So if there are any other questions, be more than happy to answer them. This needs to be done outside of the wastewater master plan.

Correct. So this is basically we're analyzing that capacity issues that for up that whole northern area to to help find out what those capacities are because it's growing so fast and that's not a scope of the wastewater master plan. it would be, but because of the growth and and the impacts that we're having up there, um, this is a study that is it's it's how would you say it? It's already been processed. So, it's more of updating what's happened up in that area. So, it can go a lot faster than the master plan itself, which would study the whole city. This will basically be incorporated into the master plan, right?

Correct. So, this would take away from that $120,000 decrease on our master plan because this part's already done. It's already done. You say technically, but like I mean actually technically like Well, I I don't know how the accounting works, but I don't know the accounting either. I I guess just my my only drawback of this is like that we're going to pay for it to be done in when is the master plan to be redone? Did you say uh we would have to talk to to Mr. beach him as well. But it's coming in the near future. I know within within a year or two, I believe. Oh, see it'd be better if you said like 10. But uh but the this will be more relevant than But the growth in this area right now is is pretty impactful.

I know. I'm saying if we were going to have the master plan done in 10 years, then yes, we should do this right now. But if we're going to have the master plan done next year. Oh, no. It's gonna it'll probably be at least four or five years out. Okay. Okay. I believe that's what that was. There you go. Well, if we didn't do this now, then we would be paying to do this later anyway with the master plan, right?

Yeah, eventually it would be with the master plan, but um and this also kind of goes in conjunction with with some m Mr. Ambini or Andrew talked about which was the um that area where they're doing the construction to fix that that belly that's in the pipe. So that's also restricting those flows which is going up to the hospital which is going up into the the all of those areas up there. So it's it's kind of a a necessity to understand what these capacities are at this time.

I'm definitely not saying it's not necessary. I'm just saying my only question was if we do this now sounds great. I get that we need it, but we're doing if we were to do a master plan next year that also would look at this information if we didn't have it. Then we're and they're not going to be like, "Oh, you already have the northeast area done. We're not going to charge you for that." I highly doubt that's how that's going to happen. So, we'd essentially be paying for it twice. But if we need this information now, the master plan won't give it to us for five years. That makes sense. That's what I believe. Did I summarize that correctly? Yeah. Yeah. Further questions? All right. I would move to approve the Northeast Quadrant sanitary sewer study update.

Second. Motion in a second. Further discussion. Just a comment. I think studies like this are important. If we're going to be spending money, we need to know that it's necessary. Roll call, please. Luca, I. Stigleer. I. Malloy. I. Ziggler. I. Mosby. I. Motion passes. Next up is citizen issues. This section of the agenda is reserved for citizens wishing to address the council regarding city related issues that are not on the agenda. Is there anyone wishing to speak? Step on up. We've got to move this agenda.

State your name for the record and you have five minutes on the timer.

Good evening, council. My name is John Wright. and I live at 355 West Wateride in the city. And uh I wanted to bring to your attention an issue that I actually emailed the full council about last summer. And that was the increasing frequency of um burnout sessions and what sounds like drag racing and uh just general mayhem of uh of uh doing donuts and everything in the parking lot at Camelan Park. And I had a lot of uh interaction uh I had a discussion with the chief of police um last summer about that and uh you know he he he encouraged us to call in every time that it happens and it happens very frequently unfortunately um and it and at on time. So, you know, it's there's an understandable difficulty with the uh police department being able to respond to it uh since it happens at at very odd hours and and uh sometimes there are literally hundreds of cars that show up. I think maybe this is something that's being organized over the internet, but uh anyway, um I don't I I wanted to make sure that the council was aware of it. And then also um I wouldn't come down and just report a problem without providing some suggestions for a solution. And um you know, I think that you could consider closing the park during off hours, but that would require manpower to to go and close it and open it every day. And then

also it would probably deny um it would be a punishment for folks who are they're using the park for, you know, using the boat ramp or whatever. Um, and it would, you know, it would be a solution that would kind of punish those that are not really involved in the problem. Um, alternatively, we could possibly put speed humps across the parking lot uh so that people driving through there at normal speeds wouldn't have any problem, but somebody trying to do a donut would do serious damage to their car if they hit something like that. and that might be a solution. Um, but I think that we because of the increasing frequency of this, it's something that really demands uh some council attention and action from the city. And I think that um you know we these sort of sorts of things if they're not addressed just have a tendency to increase and frequency and seriousness and you know before long we're having things like street takeovers and things like that and uh this isn't California and I want to make sure that it stays that way. So anyway, um that's the only other item that I had tonight that I wanted to ask you about was the possibility of the council considering moving the citizen issues up in the agenda since we're now over three hours into the meeting and it would make it a little more easier for citizens to come in and and address you all. So that's it. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you. I I'll follow up with RPD about that. I appreciate you coming down here. And M Mr. Wright, I'm not familiar with that street. And where is this happening? So, it's happening in in Camelan Park, both the upper parking lot that that serves the community forest and the lower parking area that's uh well tonight. It's the parking area for the boat ramp. Okay. Thank you. Mhm. And then, you know, if you go up there, you'll see the evidence of it. I mean, there are black tire marks and circles all over up there. So, yeah. Thank you. Thanks for waiting for

maybe involve Chris, too, since the parks and police could maybe work together. Yeah. Anyone else wishing to speak? All right. Seeing none, we will move on to administrative staff reports. And up is Hope Avenue at Cecil Road traffic control.

Good evening, honorable mayor, members of the council. Robert Paulus, city engineer. This action or this item tonight does not require any action by the city council. It is for informative purposes only. So, the intersection of Hope Avenue and Cecil Road. Back in December of 2025, um myself and the then chief of police, uh Chief McHugh were before you to answer a bunch of questions. There was concerns from the public regarding the safety at the in intersection of Cecil Road and Poline Avenue in particular. There had been a couple of uh collisions at that roundabout at that time. And there were also concerns from the citizens about speeds on Cecil Road and on Poleline Avenue. The intersection of Hope and Cecil uh Cecil Road is a major collector roadway. Hope Avenue is also a major collector roadway. Um prior to 2024, there had been uh three property damage collisions at that intersection, which is on on the low end over a 4-year period. Over the past 12 months, we've seen a great increase in those collisions. There have been uh five, one serious injury, two minor injuries, and two possible injury collisions. One of the consistent things in all of those, well, in four of those, because I've been able to read the police reports on four of those, is they involve distracted drivers. People running stop signs, couple of them on their phone, couple of them talking to the passenger in their car. There are mitigating circumstances in that as well. What we went out and we took a look at after reading the collision reports is we took a look at the site distances and the stopping site distance in particular for that intersection.

The problem that was going on is that people northbound on Cecil Road do not have significant or sufficient stopping sight distance to perceive someone who's running that stop sign to hit the brakes and come to the stop in a safe amount of time. Also, if you look at from the person who's coming up to that stop sign, whether they're legitimately coming to the stop sign or running it with a California stop or running it completely, they can't see far enough down the road to make that last second decision of, oh, I really should stop. So, I have put together in your packet, it said that uh we were going to give direction to the street department um last week. Uh held off on that to wait until after tonight's meeting. But what we are going to do is we are having the street department install hallway stop control at that intersection. The intersection does not meet warrants based on volume but it does meet warrants based upon uh the number of collisions and the type of collisions. All of them would have be correctable by having allway stop in place. Along with putting in allway stop, since this is a change in traffic patterns, we would be putting orange flagging on the stop signs for the first one to two months to try to bring a little bit of additional awareness to the existing signs along with the new signs. And we would also be putting warning signs up for about a month to two months that saying new traffic pattern ahead. We'd also include notification on our social media sites and uh that should help and then we would monitor it to make sure that um the situation has improved. Stand for any questions that you might have.

Presently Cecil doesn't have a stop, right? And so that's what you're What was that? Cecil just goes right through presently. Correct. And hope is what is supposed the traffic on hope is supposed to That is correct. We base that off of whichever roadway has the highest amount of movement. We call that major movement. That usually doesn't get stopped. And now we'll stop him. And long-term or medium-term, we anticipate that this intersection is going to need to be a traffic signal within the next 5 to 10 years anyway. So, this is a step towards that direction. It's also a California roll, not a California stop.

Okay. question about these are both fairly new roads I would estimate within the last 20 years guessing. Um so it seems like there's a design failure there and site you know visibility along that road. Can you speak to that a little bit? So the design of the fence in that area and the landscaping was put in per our city code. Our current city code is based upon a distance measured on the property line and it doesn't quite respect in all circumstances the speed of the roadway and so that's where the weakness is in this case.

So the speed of Cecil the thorough fair that goes through is higher than your then what than than what the strict application of the city code would allow for. Correct. So, can we just lower the speed limit? You could lower the speed limit. Um, in this case, you'd have to lower it to below 25 miles per hour. Um, one of the problems is the roadway is currently marked at 30 miles per hour. And we're seeing speeds typically around 35, a little bit higher. Yeah. Just because you mark a roadway with a speed limit doesn't mean that people are going to drive it.

Oh, I totally agree. We should mark it at 15 so people go 25. Well, that in the world of putting up traffic control and traffic speeds, normally we do an 85th percentile study to say what is the reasonable and prudent speed limit for that location. There's also some computer programs that the Federal Highway Administration has sponsored which you would also apply and take a look at what is the width of the road, what is the classification of the road, how many driveways, how many road intersections are in that roadway. Back in 2025 when we were before city council before we did an 85th percentile speed analysis and I did an analysis on the FHWA software as well. They both recommended that based upon the collision history and everything out there, 35 miles per hour was the correct speedway for that road. Um, with this current site visibility issue, that creates a little bit of no. But if you mark it at lower than 30 miles hour, I don't think you're going to correct people's speeds out there. In fact, you're just going to make it a higher location for the police department to be out there more often trying to enforce a lower speed limit. You'll get compliance when the police are around or when a trailer is out there showing the speed, but I don't think you will really slow down people. Sorry,

Nathan. Can I I I'm curious about your question though because it sounded like the sighteline doesn't work for people going 35 on Cecil for when someone on hope doesn't mind the stop. So it's almost like it's not actually the problem of the people going 35 on Cecil. It's the problem of someone on hope. Not is is that what you said that you don't have time to stop on Cecil when someone looking at this right here for a person who is at the stop stop sign of Hope Avenue.

A person heading north in order to see, perceive, and react to a person pulling out from that stop sign. Uh, where am I at? Post speed 85th percent. You would need a you would need at least 155 ft to have a 25 mile per hour speed limit. Right now there's 125 ft. So it's slightly but the onus isn't on the person in the thoroughfare to make sure that there's not someone in the intersection. The onus is on the person at the stop to not pull out. Right.

Yeah. So the person that who violates the stop, they come out there, but they put the other person who's driving the speed limit in a situation where they cannot perceive them pulling out and they can't come to a safe stop. So are these sight lines and speed limits something that we could address in the comprehensive plan since that that's where our these would be addressed either in these um performance standards within the subdivision code or within the transportation master plan. No, no, we cannot touch that. Well, that

th those are the two documents that set that stuff. So, we are in the process of updating the um title 17 for the subdivision performance standards. And I can look at those numbers in there and get us more away from the the way it's set up right now is you take where the two right-of-way lines intersect and you go 25 ft back in each direction and that creates your triangle. It works in general. It works really well for speeds of 35 or less. This case, it doesn't. It's just not okay.

And I can't explain exactly why in some locations it doesn't work and in others it does. To your point, I'd like to see it, you know, if there is a problem with the design. Yeah. I think it does play into the decision making of the California stop role. if they're if they're not able to see if they're only be able to see 125 ft to their left into oncoming traffic, it also gives them a very short window of deciding whether to roll that stop sign or not. So, I think that's the part where it Okay. It plays on both sides. Yeah. Intersection. Sure.

But the issue of the obstruction for site, it's that fencing and like shrubbery, right? It's not a building. That is correct. So why don't we just condemn a site view easement? Just use the power of eminent domain to condemn a site view easement and get rid of the obstruction. Person who owns that property probably won't be very stoked about that.

It still would be a problem. This is what in law enforcement one might call a fishing hole because this is a long stretch with a stop sign in the middle where people feel like I can run it and they're testing the limits or they do dumb things and don't pay attention. I I do think that the stop sign is warranted and I also think that we should spend a little time thinking about how we got to this place so that we don't have we don't have to wait until we have tons of crashes before we fix this. And then the third thing is that to the speed uh question that Councilman Ziggler brought up, when the Quarry Sports Park goes up, I think north of here, we're going to have to look at that around Kilder because of the increased traffic of youth around there. So that at least that portion is probably going to have to have a reduced speed limit. We'll take a look at that when the quarry supports part closing.

Thank you. Oh, you don't need us to approve it, right? Sounds great. Just staff report. Thank you very much for your time, council. All right. Next up is mayor and council comments. Nothing for me. I I Mr. Wright's gone. I I would like second his um suggestion to move count or Oh, and issues. Thank you so much. Citizens issues up. I think we've had this discussion before of moving it to somewhere else on the agenda. I feel like the negative was that then they don't listen to what's on the agenda. So they might talk about something that's in the meeting. But I mean really

one of the possible drawbacks is people here for public hearings who would try to speak at the very beginning during the hearing. But you have a gavvel and you can ask them to stop talking. But any I'm just saying I'm sympathetic to what he said and I think it's worth considering. Yeah. That's my only comment. All right. And then we need an executive session. I move to enter into executive session uh pursuant to Idaho code 74-206A. Further that no action will be taken during the session. The session will last approximately 45 minutes. Second.

Motion in a second. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Stig leader I Mallaloy I Ziggler I Mosby I Luca I motion passes we'll enter executive session

I will call the meeting back to order and then I will call this meeting adjourned.