City Council - Regular Meeting

Get yourself going when you come in and like some of the other started the project made it fit with his strength. as the market shifts. So right now this is designed the market shifts basically.

So it's one of one of the people that did some options. Yeah. Thank you. She she manages so one's going to bring the other nights. She's done an amazing job. No, just a three day everything. I don't know.

I told him I mean I told my

go finish it and then come back to show them that we make the changes. That way we don't want to make sure we get through everything first. PDFs down here instead.

I mean so good. But we have this one and the cell tower. So I think we'll start to see more and more of those. Anybody that's all I got

this is talked about it to you. I made myself a drink and then I forgot to bring him. Oh, well that's why I thought I was a little late. I had to stop off the other one. Grading senior broadcast.

So summertime you said you're going to Europe. Is that what you're going? You're getting ready? Yep. When you when you got the dudes here on the June

that's me

I would prefer king rather than president but you Everybody knows you're taking right. So yeah, for the first half we're doing a tour where we take people home and continue where I'm

about half gone around four weeks. Yep. and figured out what we're doing.

Okay. Straight home. Live in their house. Uh Alicia's gone. I think she I'm here. Alicia's here. I don't know about maybe not. everything. And then they finally figured out if you want to go ahead and get started.

All right. Well, thank you everybody for being here. We appreciate you. Appreciate your time here and uh time that you dedicate to the planning and zoning commission and the city council. So, uh, we just want to go over some of these things that, uh, Alan and his staff have worked on for a while and continue on this. So, go ahead, now we'll do we want to, uh, let's introduce Rick, everybody. Yeah. Rick. Hi. Right here, Rick Robinson. Rob Robinson with the N, right? Robinson.

And, uh, yeah, I don't Many of you probably know Rick. He's a realtor here in town and um and has been very active with the city and doing the Christmas light show at the on the tabernacle and then at the pool and uh just doing a lot of things to help out in the community. He's also been serving on our historical preservation committee and the tabernacle uh fund committee. So very active and help us out with a lot of things and so new planning and zoning commissioner now. So, thank you. We appreciate your willingness to serve. Okay. All right.

Thanks, Mayor. Um, couple of things. We made it to we we were right around page 53. I'm going to back up just a teeny bit. How many pages? Oh, yeah. Tons of pages.

What we want to do first is get through stuff you have not seen yet that we wanted to finish. There's not a whole lot of it. Then we want to go back and show you that we made the changes that you requested in the last meeting so that you can see where we're at on that. Couple of things that have happened in the interim of in this time frame. The state has stepped up and really stuck their hands in everybody's business in every city. Uh they're trying to solve the housing crisis by telling every community what to do. So we've had a bunch of bills introduced. We've had quite a few of them that have been passed. It's going to affect our code seriously. So even if we get done tonight and get through that, we've got to go back through see what theirs does, see how it affects this. So we're going to end up in another work meeting before this is presented to any of you guys for approval.

So that's just a caveat. These are codes that go into effect immediately. January July 25th. Yeah, there's stuff in some of them are I mean it's like short-term rentals. You can't. There's no owner occupied requirement, no parking requirements, no licensing, no parking requirements, nothing. No, I can't I can't ask for any of that for a short-term rental. Short-term rental. And that's just an idea of some of the stuff that's coming down.

So, anyways, we want to go through this. Again, this is an open discussion with you guys. We're here to get your input. We put together what we think is the best option. That doesn't mean it's the best because you guys are the ones that are making the decisions on these, especially city council because you're the ones that are actually implementing this. So, we want your input. We want your advice on how to go through that. So, uh the very first part of this uh I just reiterate, we wanted to remove the RVD district. RBD is residential business district. We have two lots in the city right up next to used to be Dr. Peterson's office. Now it's the I can't even remember who it's in now. It's a therapy place. Therapy.

There's the two next to it. Used to be Dr. Fulmer's office and the one next to it. That's the only ones in the whole city. For some reason, they had this district and they removed it. They forgot to change these two out. They kept the code just for that. So, we want to take it away. If you choose to do that, then we're going to come back in and have those reszoned as a mixed use. So it can still be residential and commercial and we would leave that area. So that's the proposal there and I know everybody was pretty well in agreement to that. We just want to move from there. Okay. So let's go beyond RBD. Rick, for your information, when we do these, everything in red is what we're removing or moving. And then you will see in green anything that has been moved or is new. And so anything in black is original code and it stays the same. Just so you see what's going on. Yell at me if I don't say Robinson because I have a brother-in-law. It's

Robinson. Okay.

Um okay, this is in the tag. Um we again in re we changed the rural residential to residential estates. This is in one in those two areas. Uh we just wanted to have the name change in there. And this is just going through this chart and we're going to show you all of the permitted uses that would be removed with like RBD going away and some of the others in there. So that's all these are. So, you're going to see a whole bunch of pages of this that just shows you every single permitted use that it was changed. So, you should only see red in all of this because it's just those zones that took that out.

And I do have to make one other announcement. I know Katie's told a few of you. Katie has accepted the position of assistant HR for the city and we are brokenhearted on the planning side and HR is cheering and it's a battle between north and south. We wish her the best of luck. She is she's good enough. She's not going to pay good though.

Yeah, the pay would have to be a lot higher. But we are really going to miss her. So, we will be in the process of hiring a new assistant, administrative assistant for planning and zoning. I want to especially thank Katie for all of the work she's done. She kept us in line and straight and what we needed to do at times when we were going, "What?" She's very good at her job. Anyways, so that ends this part of this one. Now we want to jump into the next one which is the changes that we talked about in the comprehensive plan. So this is just coming in and making some of those changes to the names and that. Now we want to have a discussion and we'll get to this one. Colin brought up the fact of putting LDR3 in intermediate and law. Let's save that discussion for the end. But we just want to show in here and we'll we'll come back and address that one. Other than that, it just it just represents some of the changes we made as we went through. And Rick, I I don't know how familiar you are with the comprehensive plan and what it does. Okay. You you've dealt with them before. Okay. Um so again, this is just showing that we continue on through again removing the RBD. That was one of them we missed. Kadas, we had proposed putting LDR3 in both of them. We're showing taking it out of the inter. Again, this just breaks it down and shows you those changes that we make. And this actually goes into our development code as reference for those that are looking to what do I need to have comprehensive zone to fit my zone. So, that's what this does in there. Professional office zone. For some reason, that one had never been removed, even though we don't have that code

anywhere. So, we're removing that. And then the residential business district. Is that the end of it? Okay. So, that takes care of that one. The next one we're jumping into is cell towers. We've had a couple of requests for new cell towers and when we looked at our code, we just went, "Holy cow, it's going to take uh five different engineers to even understand how to how to manage this code." So, we had first attempt at coming into streamlining it and making it more effective in getting what we want to happen. So, some of the things we're going to talk about is, you know, size of tower, how tall, separations, what property lines from where, um, if you want to see them clustered, if you want to see them in certain zones. Those are the type of things that we've put together on our side. So, this is some of our goals and our objectives. Protect the public health, safety, and welfare. That's number one. We always want to do that. preserves the visual character and community appearance and minimizes the adverse visual impacts through design, location, landscaping and screening. Promotes collocation, which means how many of them can we cluster together rather than have them scattered all over the city. Uh and use of existing structures to minimize the total number of tower sites throughout the community. Standard towers right now have they can put up to three bands on them. Some go more, but that's standard. Eric,

so are you coordinating with the county on this? Um because we should we should have a a standard some somewhat of a standard for the whole area. Yes. Because you know they could just go in just outside the city limits and put one in that'll be in our totally against what you know our thoughts and so we probably ought to coordinate that with the county. Yeah.

When we make these changes I have to sit down with Gary because they have to adopt everything we do. So then I can sit down and have that discussion with Gary. But that's a good suggestion, Eric. I appreciate that. Uh encourages towers and antenna to be located where adverse impacts to the community are minimal, avoiding residential areas if possible. We ran into one person that was trying to do the development and there was a cell tower on the land and it was a narrow piece. Yeah. They couldn't make it work because they had to be 100 ft away and it just made it so they couldn't make the development work and it's a tower that how do you change it now? The only option he would have is to be able to buy two or three pieces and then work around it and it becomes difficult.

And on that uh what Eric just brought up I think we should have him sit down with them and go over before we adopt it. Yes, we'll do it before before but not after. Let's before do Yeah. I have to present these to Gary to look at before we even approve them because he'll he'll be approving them once ours is approved. It goes through that. But I That's good. Um Okay. Any questions on what we've done there? Yes. I was just going to ask so up next to the water tower. We have other towers, right? We have a lot of towers up that way. And uh so right now or is that a main hub for most of our

that's where a lot of them like to go because they want to be as high on the hill as they can because it gives them further range. So you have those typically happen. Right now we've got an application for one to go in next to Walmart. So you're getting out that way. Even shooting that one up there. You have dead spots down in junior high shadow. This will shoot it back under theirs where they can't get it in situations. one in Costco. In Costco, you know, what about the Sam? You don't want one in Sam's? Yes. Okay. I'm sure Idol Falls would do that for us. Okay. Any other questions on that part of it? So, that's our that's our goals and what we're trying to accomplish in what we're doing.

Can I want to ask this question? Who requests the cell towers? Is that the who makes the request? Who says I want a cell tower in your city? the person that it can be one of two things. If Verizon comes in and wants to put a new tower in, they'll be the one requesting it. Okay? Sometimes it's a private citizen that'll put the tower up and they rent space on the tower. So some so one of the cell phone companies comes to them and says, "We'd like to rent your space or they'll purchase that little corner and make that work and put the tower up and then that person comes and says, "I want to put a cell tower here." Yes. But both of them are driven by the company. Correct. like TCON communication right now a bunch of cell towers that they don't have no cell but they lease it out to the rise and

oh gotcha they put up the tower and they lease out all the space for 30 years or whatever make and a typical tower yeah Dave well I just wonder is there is there a limit to the number I mean because you kind of see those long rectangular I assume are the transmitters is there a limit to those how many you can put all those on a tower if you look at a cell tower they kind of go in a ring all the way around and you'll have one row that goes all around. They aim in every direction. And uh typically it's like at 90 ft 100 is it 110 and then 150. There's three different ranges and they put those in there. Each one of them goes all the way around. Three. I have seen some that go to four.

And is that all for one company or do companies ever get together to Okay. Usually it's we have one out in Plano where the guy put the tower up and then he rents the different levels to different companies. He set his up for six different uh providers to actually use that. So and and he gets so much a month. And where you talked about in the at the beginning where you kind of set your parameters or your goals, one was to use existing structures. Are you considering buildings? Are you considering like the water tower itself? Existing towers. existing towers. Some existing towers may only have one array. And if we can encourage them to put more arrays on one rather than a whole new tower, that's what we'll try to do.

Okay. Yeah. There are towers that go on top of buildings and they apply for those. The Cedars has one on top of theirs, but it's usually a 10 20 foot mass that's just up out of the top of it and then they go from there. So, but there's rules in here for that one also.

Okay. anybody that's trying to broadcast. And you also there's there's basically two types of pole. You have monopole, which is just one pole. Then you have the lattice, which is the one where you see they have all the three corner deal and all the bars in between. Some of them we're trying to push more to the monopole simply because it's less obtrus intrusive to people's lives. You don't see it as much and that type of things. But some of them depending on the weight of the equipment have to go to the ladders. I just say it's like the one out here from by the police department behind the police department. Yeah, it's just out here. It's not. It's crazy. It's It's a lattice and it you get used to them. This is the sad part is

this one just a pole. Oh, is it the monopole? Okay. The lattice one is up on Barney Gary Barney. They have one there right now. They stuck it right against the trees which helped. Yes. sticking out right in the middle of the field. Yes. So, those are reasons. Um, some of this is just going to be FAA stuff, FCC uh requirements. We're going to make sure that they meet all standards, both electrical, FAA, FCC, they have to bring to us. We have met their requirements. FA FAA is the biggest one. Are you how close are you to the airport? Does this interfere with our flight pace? And do you have the proper lights and stuff to make sure you're warning airplanes? Alan,

yes. How often does FFA or FFA and F how often do they change their regulations? That I don't know. All we know is they have to stay current with FAA. Okay. So, we just don't know if we're be updating this every six months or Yeah, I think they have an annual renewal that they have to go through. Okay. And I believe they have to show we are still meeting their standards. Okay.

But that's that's one of the things we looked at. We don't want to get in the game of telling them how to meet FAA. Yeah. We just leave it. You have to meet those requirements. And of course, the standard electrical, structural, these have to have engineer drawings stamped so that we know these these meet the approval. they're going to stand up like they're supposed to. Um, and if they fail to keep them up, we have that six-month window to say either come in compliance or bring the tower down.

We have anything in there? I noticed the one over there on Barney Derry Road right at the corner. You know, we've got they've got a chain link fence around it, but then they've got plants planted all the way around. Is that coming? Okay,

it's in here. Um, okay. Permits required. This is one of those. They're going to have to get a building permit from us to move that through. Statement of compliance with local, state, and federal engineering plans have to be stamped. So, we want an engineer to sign off saying, "I'm standing behind this." Uh, building plans, especially for fences, uh, most of them will have a building of some type to store the cabinets and that equipment. It all has to meet our building plans. our forbased code or our code electrical elevation drawings. We want to see what you're building, how tall it is, what arrays you're going to put on that thing. Um, land use zoning for tower property, how close it is to adjacent properties. We want to be able to see all of that in that site.

Also have generators, too. Are we putting anything on sound that the generators can put out or anything? They're going to have to meet the noise ordinance by the residential. Well, we're trying to keep them away from residential as much as we can. Most of them do have generators. Yeah. Yeah. So, this is all green. I didn't see red necessarily for this. So, is this a new This is all It may be new and it may be moved. Okay. From other parks. But if we even if we moved it, we crossed out where we moved it from. Right. Yes. Yes. Okay.

Jim, there's food in there. Um, no matter what, it is a conditional use permit. They will come in front of P&Z and city council for approval. No matter where it goes, we want you guys to look at it and say, "We agree with this or we don't like it here." So, that's that's one of the requirements. We don't want to change that. Okay. Um, any others in there? Let's keep going. Here's where some of them you see that are taken out. Do we have anything on a distance from other people's property? Like see you had

you brought up that wand that all a sudden their value goes down because now they can't build there because the towers right on the other person's property. Well, and the challenge is is if some farmer wants to put one out in the middle of his field. If he's away from everybody else, I can't stop it. But they need to be aware that when you do sell this for development, you're going to have restrictions on how close you can build. I'm talking about the ones that put right close to the fence and all a sudden the next owner next can't build because this farmer put a tower right next to the property line sit out in the middle of field. If you want something field of his and that's a different story but

this is one of our controversial discussions. We were wavering both ways. Do we make it so they have to get a restrictive lock covenant from the neighbor saying I know this tower is going in and I'm okay with that being an issue. Now, the interesting thing is the one that they submitted for out by Walmart, they have an engineer that's willing to stamp the plan that says it will collapse upon itself. It will not land outside of the footprint. Nowadays, they can do that. And that's what he claims. He's they says he he's willing to stamp the plans and sign it that he will guarantee this will not land outside of it. So, if it does, he's liable. Even in even in high winds,

even in high winds, he says this tower is designed to collapse. I think they do it with cables and stuff run through it that when it snaps, it just forces it to fall like this rather than like it fall away. I'm assuming. I don't know. He just says I can guarantee it. Which still protects the property owners to to the next which I I like. What's that?

Which protects property owners and stuff next to it that we can still build there because as we grow we're going to end up going around it. And it it was our question because we were looking at it going, "Well, we got to make because this this was in a back corner of Walmart right against the property line. He was met his setbacks. We're going you got to go get permission from these ghosts." He goes, "Why?" I says, "Because if your tower lands over there, you're you're or if he wants to build next to you, then we've got a problem." and he goes, "No, we'll but I want to know if that's what you guys want in there or do you want spaces residential? We're still putting a space in." To me, the engineering they can do now and it can collapse down itself if they stamp it that way.

Okay. We're we're still protecting the people around. Yes. And the property owners around. So I I mean I'd rather see that we don't restrict everybody to something if it can be engineered differently. Correct. Right. Um and at the same time, this has to come before you guys this body in perpetuity. So those would be questions that I would assume would come up or neighbors would have. Yes. To make sure. So

yeah. And that's the reason why we want to keep it a cup is simply because we want the neighbors to weigh in on that to get their fears answered or their concerns or anything of that sense. or you know it doesn't work and then you guys can make that decision. So fall zones they can be designed within their own setbacks. They have their standard zone setbacks that they have to meet just the same as others. Easements restricted lot covenants. If they're accessing through somebody's property we need to see the easement or we need to have a restricted lock covenant guaranteeing you can continue to come in maintain and service and everything else. Um,

I had jumped ahead because that's where the conversation was headed. So, I'll go back now. Okay. Where we were. Katie will miss you. You know what you're doing. She anticipated my thinking. Yeah. Power cannot be artificially lit. Sorry, Rick. They can only put on required FAA required lighting. So, nothing above and beyond. So, we don't want Christmas lights or Halloween or anything else being put up on the tower. A flag. I've noticed I've noticed in some places they've required them to make them look like a tree. You know what I mean? Did that ever enter into the discussion? The things we've talked about and it's in there.

Okay. We don't require it, but if they can, then they can put in. I've seen them where they look like a tree. An evergreen tree or something. Yeah, I've seen palm tree ones, too. seen palm trees and I've seen everything warm climate. Don't put palm trees. We'll give people the wrong idea.

Well, if you put it out in Egypt close to the sand hills, the beach, I think we'd be okay. No advertising on the towers. I mean, they can put their own logo on their equipment, but these are not to be turned into a billboard or anything else of that type. Um, okay. Colors. We want them neutral colors. Grays, things like that are less intrusive, but we don't want any brilliant copper color, blue, passion pink, or whatever it is. We don't want wild colors. Passion pink. The fact you even know to call it that. Do you have grand inspection?

I don't know what it is, but I heard the term. Um, if upon inspection, the city sees that the tower is fails to comply with codes and standards. That's being taken out to Oh, that's going We forgot to cross it out. Well, it's it's red. It just doesn't have the line through it. Okay. The system was having a moment.

Okay. This is one that uh we spent a little bit of time on. the height of the towers uh provided towers provided a licensed professional engineer certifies the tower can structurally accommodate the number of shared users proposed by the applicant. The tower shall not exceed the following height restrictions. One user, if you're only going to put one, it has to stay at 90 ft. Now, if you're planning on three and you've only got one, great. Go to the higher one and then you're going to add them later. Two users, they can go to 120 ft. three, they can go to that 150 ft. We do have ones in the city at 150 ft. So I think the one out on Barney is 15.

Ellen, when you say users, you mean what on that? That would be how many providers? It would be like Verizon or whoever comes in T-Mobile. It would Okay. So that's rentable space. Rentable space. Okay. On the tower. Okay. um groundmounted antennas because we also dealing with it's rare anymore but we do have some ham operators. We also have still a few have two-way radios. It's rare but they still do. So we did put in there 30 feet maximum height for those type of antennas. I'm not going to let them go 150 ft.

So what's what what's the difference though? I mean, how do you tell the difference between a freestanding groundmounted antenna and something that they're going to mount cell repeaters? They're going to come to me and ask first. So, you're going to ask them what's the purpose of this and then it's going to be okay. What's a normal power pole? Normal tower pole. Power pole. Depends. You talking a normal one or you talking the the reason I bring that up because I know we have up by the water tower right now like three power poles and they're pretty good size and they all uh they have radio antennas on that deals with the buses. Yes.

And the school district and also police I think they're taller than 30 feet. I don't want to limit that. That's why I we got to be careful on the size of 30. What is that up there? I don't know. Well, I'm talking 30s for a ham operator or a private you're getting into school district that type of stuff. We need to clarify between private and commercial use. I don't even in parentheses, right? I mean, if you can put in there what what does that what is a ground mounted antenna? What is good include? Right. So am M uh you know whatever M operator two the FM stations. I like the private commercial because like say school district has it up there. The police has and I know that

you're on a repeater up there, right? Yes. And I know that one up there has probably a 30 or 40 foot pole and then a hand on top of that by 20 ft. Okay. That sticks up above that. It's just like the fiberglass pole that can fiberglass pull up. Okay. that deals with all the buses especially for safety purposes especially for public I mean this is a this is maybe you should public and private because that would just I think you need to do public commercial and private so you have those three designations I just know that they're out because if you have somebody like Ton communications height I mean is 30 feet tall enough to do what they so a ham operator can do what they very few ham operators go higher than 30

I just don't want limited Yes. And police, we don't want policeing. Yeah, that's ridiculous. We don't want uh mounted antennas. We don't want them going any more than 30 feet above the top of the structure. And so it's a fourstory building. 30 ft above. You're looking at 40. It' be 70 ft total. You're still less than what's on the ground. Our concerns on the building is number one, they're going to have to prove to us that the structure can handle that on top of it and not have it collapse. But it's just that fact of is that really where we want them to happen in that. And I believe the one on Cedars, I don't know if that's a cell tower. It might be, but I know they have one up there.

As our buildings get bigger, we're going to have some on the corners. Say you go to New York and they're on all the corners. So those buildings down low, they're not clear at the top. They're up top too, but they're down low, too. They are. Is there any I'm I'm curious about residential areas. Do we have any limits on get to the residential?

No, but not cell towers. I'm I'm still talking about this 30 ft above original grade. You got a ham radio operator in a house. They can put that right on the top top of their house up 30 feet. So, there's no restriction to have that kind of an antenna in a residential area. I don't know as I've ever seen one that way, but it may be something we call out that at in the the ham radio stuff they're ground mounted 30 feet or they can only go 30 ft total whether you mount it on top or not. 30 ft above the radio. Well, but that's for your cell towers. Oh, but I need we need to clarify that one. Um, number two.

Oh, yeah. Let's clarify in there that that is for cell towers mounted on top of a building. So, just to point out, we also have up here in our applicability. I forgot that one. Thanks, Katie. Again, Katie, you can't leave. She'll be running down the hall a lot. She's doing that now. And I think she's tired of it. The training on the HR. Okay. So, this covers your amateur radio, which would be your ham operators and stuff.

So, would you include like our stake has a a radio name? Would they fall under that? Yeah. Okay. So, so with a religious organization, they need to come to the city and get a permit. Shell Towers are the only ones I'm requiring to have the permit. Okay. Yeah.

And could you go back to that where you were at just a minute ago at the beginning where you there was just something that caught my attention there. So, so we have that exception is any tower or antenna that is under 70 feet in height is owned and operated by fally lic operator or is used exclusively for to receive only antennas. So here you're you're giving them almost you're you're saying it can be up to 70 feet, right? So um so you got 70 here and you got 30 in the other one. Good catch. 30 asking if 30 ft was enough on the other on the other.

Yeah, 30 won't be enough. I guarantee that on some of these towers. What is it? That's 70 off the ground. From the ground. ground. Mhm. And the 30 you said could be on Well, there was a 30 on top, but we were also looking at the antenna, ground mounted antennas at 30, which kind of fell under this one. So, already stated the 30 on top of buildings that was already the move that we added that to the ground antennas as well. Yeah. So, we just we copied that one over, but this one was already set at 70, but we can change. So maybe we just take out the 30 ground mounted down below and stick with this one at the 70 and below. And that's total regardless of how

maybe Yeah. Add language 70 ft from ground. Yes. Okay. But are I mean if you look at something like the cedars that has four stories, are they only 10 foot stories? Yeah, they may be more. I'm not sure what most of them, you know, 12, especially if they're putting trusses in. floor and that bottom floor where they have commercial stuff, it's probably a 20 foot plate. Yeah. Yeah. But on that one with a cell tower, it's 30 ft above. Now, if they're doing a private one, then they're going to run into that challenge.

Now, this doesn't count your regular, you know, a Starlink or satellite dish or anything like that. We're not even that's that's not even part of this. Those are Yeah. You don't need a permit or anything like that to install? No, it's only if they're hooking electrical up so that electrical comes in. Make sure they do it right. Okay. Which most antennas do not. So, okay. Uh

she need changes.

She will. She writes them down and then she'll make the modifications as we go. uh compliance. Um we have to make sure that it is staying within the requirements setback requirements. This is where we start getting into our separations. Uh base of the tower shall be at least 100% of the height of the tower away from the nearest structure. Okay. Exception accessory structures to the tower, accessory towers, and accessory antennas. So other stuff like that they don't have to be that separation. The other one is commercial, industrial and university district zones. The separation requirement may be reduced if the licensed engineer can stamp those plans as it's safe. So that's the only area we would reduce that 100% uh setback. So that protects our residential but if that tower tips over it can't reach a house in that way. Um if possible, they need to be designed to contain to collapse within the least or owned parcel setbacks. Um you just do the underlying zone setbacks in that deal. Easement restrictive lock covenants. Again, if you don't have enough separation between yours and the neighbor, you better get an easement from the neighbor or restrictive lock covenant saying, "I understand this. I accept it and I'll allow it." And that that stays with the land. Even if you sell it to somebody else, that that restricted lot covenant stays all the way through.

Now, that covers a building, but it doesn't cover if they're within the, you know, the height of tower, if they're in that distance from the property line. This only covers if there's a structure involved. So, have you have anything in there that that limits where they can put it up to the property line so that it can't fall onto the deck's property?

Well, that's the% to have that 100% when it's up next to residential and stuff in the commercial, then they don't have to. But if it's going to land in the neighbors or potentially, they have to give me permission saying I accept the responsibility if it lands in my property. You do the same thing. If I come in here and build an apartment complex right here and one right here and this property line's here, I don't have enough parking. He's got extra. And if I use this to meet my parking numbers, I sign a restricted lot coming up as this guy saying, "I give you permission to use these 10 extra spots." that never goes away unless the two of them together decide to resolve it. And if they sell the buildings, it stays with the property. We're doing the same thing with that separation. Once that restricted lot or an easement says, I'm allowing you to use part of my land for that 100% uh spacing. Does that make sense? Or am I

But but this only covers it is the separation does not say anything about property lines. It just it just says the height of the tower from the foundation of the nearest building. Right. If you added of nearest building just a little bit property line the other way. Sorry. It uses the wording is there a lot more. So it says that tower shall be designed to contain collapse within the leased or owned parcel. So that would be your property line, right? that would be your or if you've leased that or an easement or whatever to allow you to leave.

So, it protects it. They have to have that proof that if that tower is going to possibly land over there, you've got to get me permission from that land owner saying that it it will happen no matter what. But in the residential ones, they have to have that separation. If it's going to land on their property, they still have to give me that permission saying, "Here's my restricted law covenant saying, I'm okay. I'm going to not build anything in this 150 ft so that if the tower tips over it's protected. That's going to be a requirement. Okay. And that will protect that property owner from not having it land value go down because I seen something or he accepts the the risk

because we seen that just recently. So I don't I just want to protect that. Yeah. That's why we did a is we don't want that to happen in the future of going well I didn't know this was happening. Well, you signed the paper. Oh, okay. Well, yeah, I guess I did. Or, no, I never heard about. That's what I don't want happening is somebody coming in and going, you just took something away from me. Well, that's kind of what we had on this one. So, yes, that's what we don't want to have happen again. Yes, I agree.

You still have some concern I can see. uh because it says the when you the definition of separation is the base of the tower shall be 100% of the height of the tower from the foundation of the nearest building. Okay, I know. And then down here it says in the event that the separation setback requirements exceed the partial boundary. Well, if the only way it'll exceed the partial boundary is if there's a building in place. That's the way I read it. Now, maybe I'm wrong. No, it could be just land. What? But it doesn't say that. doesn't have to. It just says at any point if it exceeds the parcel boundary then an easement or restricted lot covenant.

Yeah. But the only separation requirement that you're you're not putting a setback requirement to No, I'm talking the 100 100%. Yeah. The only time there's a separation, maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but it you're you're defining separation as from the base of the base of the tower to a building. That's what separation is. Well, the separation on this one is I have 150 foot tower. I have to have 150 ft away from That's not what that says. Yes, it does. Maybe I'll see it wrong. Am I seeing a wrong building? In any event that the separation or setback requirements exceed the partial boundary. Yeah. In that one case of 100, that's your setback.

But if there's not a building, if he's got it on the property line and there's not a building on the next property line, doesn't have to be a building. But that's what it says. It doesn't say parcel. I I see what you're saying. But whereas of the nearest building, it does say building at the beginning. You don't want it to land there. But there you may have one sitting and this is the case out here. There's a tower out in the middle of this field and it's next to property line. I know. So it's going to cross if it falls with no building. So he has to get an easement for that additional grade. And I understand whe that's not what that says. not beholden to just to this specific language. We can retool it. Can we property boundary would be better than building

property but just conjunction with two propert what I'm saying is we need to add property line up above because away from the building on their own parcel right yeah that's all you'd have to do is add boundary okay let's do their building or partial boundary It clarifies a lot better. Yeah. Okay. And also it doesn't Here's the problem. We do this so much looking at it. We start assuming a lot of stuff and so that's why I bring it and I want you to talk it through for me

so that we definitely clarifies a lot better. Yeah. See in in our minds we went okay we've covered it with the separation 100% also the building also the partial line. It wasn't in the same paragraph

and it didn't. So, we'll drop that in there. Okay, let's go up higher. This is where we get into screening and security. We want this a fenced tower so nobody can get into it easily. Kids will always find a way. Uh this is the one area where we do allow barbed wire, concert wire on the top to keep people out, but we want it buffered with privacy fencing or they can come in and put a shrub boundary. That's what's up on Barney Derry. We want something that eases that visual impact in doing that. So you allow the Constantina wire, but you don't require it. Is

that on every tower, even the city? new ones. New ones right behind the PD that we inherited is not that way. What we're saying is if they want to put that on the top, we will allow it. If they don't want to put it, all we require is a six foot privacy fence chain.

Yeah. And the idea is is we don't want kids trying to crawl the tower and get in there and cause problems. uh the buffer. We also want a 4 foot wide pvious surface around that. That helps with any water retention and it also keeps possibilities of fire starting with generators and things like that. It keeps that safe. So is that is that where the sixoot fence would go then? Yes. Is around the outside. It would be at least four foot wide than that fence. Well, then they need a four foot outside the perimeter of that fence. Oh, okay. I don't know that that's clear. By the way, I I I don't see it. It says outside the perimeter compound

and your compounds whatsoever inside the fence. May you may want to put that word compound in that security sentence so that when you read number three, then they recognize that it's four feet outside of that fence. Beyond that fence, beyond that, where are you saying to put it again? Yeah. Just to connect. So take number one, security fencing not less than 6 feet in height shall create a compound the tower and surrounding the tower and surrounding tower whatever and then and then perimeter buffer a 4 foot wide

uh pvious landscape buffer is required along the outside perimeter of the compound right just so you know at least when I read it I see okay I'm going to put a sixoot fence and it's going to be 4 foot away uh it's going to be a 4ft perimeter from the center of my poll, but that's the way I'm reading it. But I think if you just take that word compound and and include it in that first sentence somehow so that they recognize that that that that perimeter buffer is going to be outside of that sixoot fence. Take a look at it and rewrite it. I see what you're saying. Do you get what he's Okay, I'm using the same terminology.

Yeah. Are we are we happy this I'm going to get everybody else's opinion on this because I realize that I'm biased on this, but are we happy with privacy fencing or do we want to require some kind of shrubbery or something around them to kind of dress them up a little bit? I I I prefer that, but that's just me. Is that the landscape guy coming out anyway? Yeah, it is. It is. But I just think they look a lot nicer if you get the only thing problem with the land. I like the landscaping, but they the water they don't have water stuff there to deal with. They got to take care of that too. They don't want to put the shrub and just let it grow. Bunch of weeds. Well, the one over there in Barney Derry, they've got a little water just little drip system.

Arizona landscape. Where do they get the water from? There are water. See, our new requirements don't allow you to to sit. You have to have secondary irrigation. Oh, that's true. So, that makes it I do like having the landscaping, but I'm worried about the water. And the one challenge I have with irrigation,

you start irrigating. It's not just the trees that gets watered. It's all the weeds and everything else. So, if you can do something that sterilizes it, I would love to see the shrubs around every single one of them as a buffer. I think it would be the best way to do it. But it also becomes a fire hazard in certain conditions and then just the regular maintenance and upkeep of trimming them, shaping them. Okay, that's where we ended up there. And those tables will be removed. They just didn't turn red.

Yeah, they would walk out. You know, looking at all this, you just don't have enough to do. Let me put it to you this way. Wow. Four sections behind on stuff we were getting ready to present. Plus, now we got to take all the state stuff and go see how it fits and everything on top of this. And it's it's it's going to be a crazy year. Are we requiring any type of building structure of how it looks there or can they just throw up a a shipping container and call that their building? Yeah. I mean, do we want to require something at least represent the area it's in so it looks presentable?

I don't believe we allow shipping containers. It has to be a build structure. I just want to make it should look kind of like what it wouldn't matter. Got you there. That's true. Rebuilding damage tower.

Oh, let's go back out. Abandoned towers or antennas. Uh we we bounced around on this one. that's not in use and considered abandoned shall be removed and the site restored within six months of receipt of notice from the city of Rexburg. We don't want ones that are abandoned and dangerous. Then we need to have them come in and either take them down or bring them back up to speed. How do we know if it's abandoned? Yeah. How do we make that determination?

Well, that's going to be the tough part. if we can somehow track it. Usually it comes down to the point where nobody's maintaining the grounds, the tower. They usually don't have antennas because somebody's pulled the antennas off. Uh because if they're renting that tower out, they won't do it. The only one in the whole city that I can think may be abandoned is the old radio antenna. Is that still up? It's still up. And that is definitely being used. Yeah. If one of those snapped, it's coming up. Is that like the one out by the Rexburg cemetery? The old KRX, you know, that's still up, huh? I don't know. Do we need to specify that in here then? That what that looks like? What abandoned? Like, do we need to find that?

No, because I think there's so many variables that can actually say it. We've just got to be able to determine it's not being used, it's not being maintained, uh to the point where we can come in and then find the owner and go, "What is your what's your plan?" And then they have six months from that time once we notice them that it's abandoned. Okay. Have the definition of abandoned already in the code. Yes. Abandoned. Oh, it Okay. Yeah. In our definition, is it similar to like if if a building is considered uh what's the right word? Condemned. Condemned. Well, condemned and abandoned is two different things. You can aband something, but condemns means it is not physically safe for

it's in danger of collap. Okay. So, that's not the requirement. We're looking for even more stringent than that. It's not being used and they're not doing whatever. They're not maintaining that. They need to make it they need to come down. She's going to show you where in the definitions

I intend to resume. Okay. You have to some things you have to be careful of because we also look at grandfathered. Some things will sit idle for a certain amount of time because they're in between what's going to happen. The frontier sign out there on where Frontier Pies used to be looks abandoned, right? It's because they've been under construction for four years now

and their intent is to bring that up. Now they're sending us their proposals to put up on the signpost and we've called them many times. There's no time to come down. They go, "No, we intend to as soon as we get the building open." So they're still making sure that it's structurally safe. We just haven't put the new face. So that radio antenna that we were just talking about, is that within city limits? No, it's still in the impact area. Okay. So it's a county jurisdiction, but yeah, it's impact. Um,

if you have an antenna that's damaged, destroyed, or something happens, they can come back in and rebuild it to the same standards. If they're going to modify it, make it taller, bigger, a whole different thing, they're going to have to resubmit it again. But as long as it's just replacing because of an event, it's just like if your house burns down, you don't have to come get approval to build it again. You can build it back. Exactly. Even if it doesn't meet the zone code because it was built to code at one point, we let you build it back to the same code in that one. Okay. Oh, good. Thank you. except chunk of that one. That's the end of that one.

Do they have to alert us that they are rebuilding that though? Is that like something they have to come let us know that they're rebuilding or can they just almost every single one of them? Even even in current maintenance, if they're going to come in and work on the antennas, they come in and get a building permit. So, they have to get a building permit. Okay. because they're nine times out of 10 they're doing electrical work or structural work of some kind. Has to be inspected. Okay,

good question though. Okay, that ends the tower discussion. Now, let's bounce back to LD3 and oh, let's go clear back to the start. We'll walk you through and show you the changes you guys requested to show you that we did get them in there. Are you sure we want to do Well, it took us an hour and a half to get through. All we want to do is show you. We want that transparency that we we're doing what you ask us to do. You've made it through you want to everything we've covered. And maybe we hold this one off until we get to that point of uh coming back because I I guarantee you we're coming with another work meeting,

okay? because we're going to have other changes and we can look through it. I'm just looking at this. I think there's something discussed because can I can I bring something up that's a little um I know I think state statute allows local communities to require at the time of a zone change a um a development agreement. If we pass an ordinance, if we pass an ordinance, we we can we can require a a development agreement at the time of the zone change. You say there's a state statute that says this. He's correct.

Okay. Now, so we would have to pass an ordinance to make that work. Correct. Some communities have done that. It' have to be in our code. Yeah. Somebody some communities have done that. I'm just throwing it out there as a as an item to consider. So, let me ask this. There's two mechanism under Idaho state code in which you can require development agreements.

Development agreements. The one the way that we typically do it, we do we do it and then there is a subsequent uh condition you can place on zone changes. There has to be a pre-existing ordinance, local ordinance that authorizes it and then has to be structured in such a way to uh avoid legal legal entanglements moving forward. The nature of those things when you encumber land with some of those agreements, someone like our former city attorney would say that inherently they're always going to create legal entanglements. And so, but I'm happy to go through that analysis with you guys and and I don't mean to have that discussion here today.

No, it's a big discussion, a work meeting. I think it would be good to take a few minutes in and we talk through that one. Yeah. Because that affects his department more than anybody's. It does because it places and it's it's not load on him. So, I guess I'll I'll give one clarification though. That's typically so what could be required in that development agreement isn't based in uh substance or like necessarily design of a project or uh infrastructure. It's mostly intent. It's not not so much even intent of but it's it's it's with it's things that development agreements typically um rely on with infrastructure with

sewer water sewer water capacity things like that where there's a there designated exactions amounts um and so it it requires more on the front end from that standpoint. Um but again the bigger thing and where the legal question can arise is when they abandon that project we have encumbered a property the subsequent owners a parcel uh when somebody's running a title search on that property what is uh the resulting incumbrance and is it legally enforcable by a subsequent owner that's where it's often challenged and that's where it can cause issues. So, I've looked at it. I'm happy. Again, I'll

talk it through. I can absolutely bring you uh and again, I think it it would be beneficial to likely uh I'm happy to talk to attorneys of other communities that do that and talk about how uh they navigate those things and make give you guys a presentation on what I find that way. And then I always think leader white. Some of the conferences that you go to at AIC, things like that are good because you even if it only required uh a specific density to be developed within that zone.

That's that's hard because sometimes just that that isn't read as a development agreement. That's that's going as to a condition. And so then it's it's looking less like a development agreement and more as a condition conditioned upon certain. Yeah. Anyway, I just I just want to throw it out there. I think I think it would be worth having the discussion. Yes. To see if that could solve some of the issues that we've seen come up. It's worth talking about. We can set that up in a work meeting later on. Okay. Discussion.

Okay. Colin talked to me a little bit earlier about the question on the LDR3. We had talked originally about moving it down into low residential. Uh then we talked about in our work meeting about putting it in low and in intermediate and Colin explain your heartburn. Well, we've changed it out of low and moved it up to me intermediate to solve the problem and it didn't solve the problem. Now we're moving them back down which we're doing exact same thing we had the problem before. It's to me it's almost a too big a jump somehow. we got to split that or do something a little bit different so it's not because we're causing the same problem we had before by just moving it down saying okay let's move on. Um,

okay. Let me let me ask a clarifying question. What are the problems we're seeing have it in the low or having it in the high? Explain to me from your point of view. It pushes up the higher density in some areas we want to leave at a lower density automatically because it's it's in the zoning there, right? Um, and that's why we moved it up and then also now we're moving it back down. Like I say, this is over many years before it's even started before I got on the council. Oh, it started long. It's when you was on the council. So, I just think we need to look at that pretty intense and saying, "Okay, how can we solve this a little bit better than just move it down? That's

or keep it in both because that's not solving the problem either." Well, it is and it isn't. Yeah. It can create new problems if you do it in the low residential. Now your example was what's happening across Highway 20 and LDR3s being over there the higher the 10 and increasing traffic and problems like that. Um and throughout the whole city it's going to look at it could happen the same thing right now 20 years or whatever coming in the future. Um I even told Alan I said maybe we need to split it and move so they're not quite as much as 10. Move it. I don't know. do an eight and then another in between maybe maybe digest a little bit deeper and

so here's here's one question I would throw out define single family residences what are the types of single family res I don't think you can almost define that as much as you can define low low you can affordable housing there's not low affordable housing spells it out specifically what a single family residence is well and one of the things we got to keep in mind too is that's that's one of the reasons that the legislature is trying to preempt the cities from doing a lot of this stuff is because they feel like we're getting too too regulatory on, you know, what kind of housing can go in different I'm trying. They have

they are they usually almost got to the point where where we couldn't do anything as far as density whatever they want basically get there but it almost did. Yeah. And I will tell you there is one that's coming out. You have no power over density if it passes. Yeah. That's didn't get through. And you know what? They're got passed in the house, but not the is coming back. I know.

And they literally said that you design deny a density any more than your highest density in your city for residential. Our highest is 42. So that would mean every zone could go to 42 units. And we couldn't stop that if that bill passes. We can't regulate the lot size. We can't regulate setbacks or any of that. We can't regulate any more than minimal parking. There's there's a it's a scary bill. It is scary. And this this last year has been a lot of scary bills. Yes. I mean, it's just amazing what legislature did on this.

I went to the National Planning Conference on the 24th and we spent four days and I sat through one meeting and it was the two worst states were Utah and Idaho. for housing and they had the most bills written out of any state in the union trying to alleviate the challenges and the one guy got up from Utah and he says we came in we thought we would solve the problem we said okay we're going to make lot sizes down to 30 by 60 so we can get small homes in here for starter homes he says yeah we passed a subdivision they started building we go out there 3,000 square f feet on a 30 by 60. That's 1,800 square feet. They were doing a,000 per floor and going three stories high

and they were up five $600,000. He goes and that's where the legislature steps in and goes, "Why are you doing that? You may gone down to the smaller size, but you're not providing affordable housing." And so that's why the state stepping in and going, "If you're not going to do it, we're going to do it." Now, state's going way too far one direction. Uh, I don't think we have gone way this way. I think we're still hanging in there fairly close. But these are some of the things we got to be cautious of because they are going to come down the rope and they've got some pretty strong lobbyists that are pushing this and we've got some strong people in the House and Senate that are also pushing this

and it's extremely difficult. One of the other things Colin and I talked about was we don't we want to minimize the density across the road. Why would we limit growth on the other side of Highway 20? What are some of the things that we worry about? Connectivity. Connectivity. What else? Because we have a freeway going right in the middle. Connect. That's a big issue. It is. What else? A lot of agriculture land over there. Is that a problem? Emergency services. Emergency services getting over there because of the connectivity.

Yeah. preservation of agricultural land is one of the reasons to increase density and maybe not out on the periphery but you know in within the city limits but there there aren't there aren't amenities over on that side. So limiting the growth right now makes better sense in some ways because we need more amenities over there because because of this connectivity problem. How do you get amenities over there? We've got to get businesses to come in and how do you get businesses to come in? Change zoning laws to allow it. more people there. It's like a school district. The amenities follow the people rather than the people following amenities.

Now, you may have this weird situation where commercial commercial right now is exploding in Rexburg. I mean, three years from now, you're going to look back and go, "What happened to Rex?" Then all of a sudden, you're going to have residential step up and go, "Well, cool. We got amenities. Let's go build that here next to these." Those things happen. School districts. school districts. I remember listening in a meeting. The guy says, "We need to build a bunch of schools for the future growth." School boards going, "We can't get bonds pass to do what we have to do. How are we going to build extra classrooms?" We're kind of in that horse the horse before the cart. Which one? Or the chicken and the egg. Which one comes first?

Well, and even when I mean WCO came out over here instead of going over there, the people were here, but WCO landed there, not here. So, a grocery store is needed. It's just landing in a different spot. So, we need a grocery store to land in the spot where it's needed. Well, it was all the part of the dictate that we needed is is subjective too. For you, it's needed over there. For the people in St. Anthony, it's needed right where it's landed. So, but I'm saying with the with the connectivity problem, it's needed there. Once those diagonals were crossed and weren't we couldn't get across the street,

we were driving 30 minutes to go get groceries. It didn't matter if we went north or we went south. It was easier to drive to Idaho Falls to get groceries because we couldn't get into town. So the pro it is a huge problem. It is needed. It's it's hugely needed. Yeah. So there are amenities that aren't there that need to be there. It's just that where the business chooses to go, that's where the business chooses to go. And I get that. But it is needed. Yeah. Answer me this. Why were people fighting the commercial that was being approved on both? That's what I said. It's been the whole talk. Um I don't think that they were fighting the commercial. They were fighting the MDR. No, they fought the commercial, too. Oh, okay. They were fighting They were fighting both. Okay. They didn't want either one to happen.

All they're doing is shifting. They're not adding. But they didn't want commercial there. We don't want that in our neighborhood. And I'm going, "But you want amenities. This is how we get the amenities." So, I don't know who it was that was fighting the commercial because anybody that I knew just didn't want the MDR. They wanted commercial because that's a perfect place for commercial. There were a few people that stood up and says, "We don't want the commercial over here." I didn't hear that. I missed that. We'd have to go back and look amends. But in every situation, you run into this. And it's it's that situation. I'm here. I like the way it is. Don't change my world. We're all that way. I'm that way. Oh, I love that there'd be commercial. I wanted the whole thing to be commercial. I was like, it's perfect. It's right off the highway. people can come to our town, they can spend money. Perfect.

So, so that brings me back to what we're discussing here, the Lar 3. One of the challenges we do face is we don't want that higher density over there. Well, if your zoning or your comp plan allows those to happen, we have to be very careful on our reasons for denying or stopping anything because if they are not valid reasons and they can't stand up to common sense, you may end up being sued because they'll simply come in and say this is a taking. It is happening all over the state, all over the nation, and people are getting a lot more particular. And I'm going to leave that up to Spencer to get into that more deeper and he will explain to you some of that that's going on. Every one of these meetings I go to, there's a whole session on these type of lawsuits that are hitting and we're not talking away. These are in Boyisey in areas close to us.

90% of them was Blaine County Spencer is exactly what he was referring to. Bla County hit big time. Did you read? So those are the kinds of things we have to be careful of. back to the discussion. LDR3, they they hit this Supreme Court fight, you know, I'm I'm new, so I I your opinions.

Well, no, no, this is not opinion. I'm asking about master planning, right? So, when we talk about So, you we we have this huge community that got built out there. You've got homes, you got single family homes, you got duplexes, you've got apartment buildings, you got all this stuff and and they've got some parks and stuff like that, but but what are we doing? What what what does what does what do our code say? What what do we have in place? So that we we do say you're going to build that many homes, you have to have x amount of pro you have to set apart x amount of property for Brolms to go in or for what I mean.

Our code does not do that. Well, I mean I you know I was a builder in California and you and you if you're going to build a community of more than 10 homes, you got a master plan, right? You got to have you got to have these kinds of things included into the master plan where you say, "Where's the space for the school? Where's this place for the for the for the the store? Where's the right these kinds of things?" That's called master planning where you're where you're solving these things. You're not just leaving it up to Yeah. to wherever it's going to be. The other the other issue that I I I have again is

what percentage when we when we have these folks coming in and they're putting in literally hundreds of homes. From my perspective, with that many homes going in, there should have been enough tax money coming in to redo 12 and make it completely a fourlane road because of what that developers are paying, right? Instead of coming out of our Okay. You've you've gone through budget. Well, you're going to go through. I'm going to

One of the key things that I have heard Keith and Matt tell me multiple times, at what point does housing pay its own way? taxes that it gains supports the roads, the sewer, and the water. What level of of density gets to that point where okay, it's not costing the city extra money, right?

It's not until we hit into the the 8, 10, 14 to the acre before it even breaks even. So, anything less than that, it's costing the city extra money to maintain the amenities that are going into that. And you talk about I I think it would be great. I would love to master plan a whole community and be able to come in and say, "I want corner stores here every so often." So people, I need to run down and get a gallon of milk. Okay, great. Or, you know, a gas station every so often. Those types of things. But if I'm if you're a developer and I come to you and say, "Okay, Bill, you've got 40 acres out here and you want to develop it. I want a 5 acre park in there. I want 10 12 acres of commercial and then I want you to dedicate five acres to the school district." But you're going to build single family homes on LDR2 six to 40 to the acre six to the acre. Can you make it pencil?

Well, and that's that's I mean that's the issue. I think that's the thing that we I think we have to we have to look at that. You have to say and the school district because the reality is anywhere else they go anywhere else in the country to build and they're going to have to do it some California. California but most of them don't but I'll I'll jump on the other side. You're talking about this before, right? You go to I was in Queen Creek, Arizona this last or over spring break. Yeah. You get these planned unit developments that are amazing. But these are multi multiillion dollar groups that are coming in. Idaho Falls. I saw, you know, there's a Shelly 50 plus community going in right now.

That's the first one that we've seen that's actually planning things out. We're just too small, you know, to grab. We don't have enough acres to come in and do that type. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. And

I guess I guess the question I'm asking, we we can't go back, right? But I think we're looking into the future. If we see that happening, if we see that that's go that's where it's going, that's where it's headed, I think we need to be prepared. I think we need to look at it and say, I mean, I I don't know. So you probably you could probably give us numbers. You know, again, when you look at that community out there, have any idea how many how many homes and and what's the population of that of the other side of the freeway? Yeah. 500 homes. Yeah.

500 units. That includes the town homes, the twin homes, everything. You know that's a pretty good size development 3.1 and it's still two develop and by code we are required to look at schools right in our code we have we be looking at and the school district said that several times in the meetings I've been in why aren't you looking at this and I said well we can't force them but we do look at it so what are they asking us to look at like what Bill just brought up because we look at that we sit there and say you got to kind of plan a school here you're putting in 500 or 700 homes How many kids are going to be in there to go to school? We need to build a whole another maybe two schools there

to be sit down with we sit down with Randy Lords. We try to quarterly or at least semianually. Randy, here's what we're seeing coming in the next six months, the next year, the next two years to give him an idea of what's happening. Here's where these are happening. Right now, I have right around 4,800 homes, units proposed, under construction, or being planned for the city of Rexburg. That's new ones coming. That's single family. That's all from apartments all the way. Yeah, that's everything. Yeah.

So, so this master plan that that council member talking about, um, that is our comp plan, is it not? I was just going to bring that up because our master and we worked with them. That's that is our master plan is to look at that and and see that's why I'm just so confused that people didn't want business. I just totally missed that because I'm like no the whole thing should be business. It just makes sense. There should be locations of business. You need to have neighborhoods. You need to have business. And then you need to have mixed ones where people want the business. They do. right off of the freeway. Businesses just make so much sense to bring people in the residents to be able to run down, grab what they need, and head back home, whether they're walking or riding their bike, whatever it is.

So, let's let's all get talks, but we need to wrap up because we got to get ready for So, I was just going to say, if you look in our area, the closest thing we have to a PUB is summer. Yes. Right. It is the the neighbors love each other. The the area down there, they they're playing at the park. You have people who might not be able to afford the $600,000 home, right? But they they're in a town home or they're in a twin home with the hope of moving to the other. Yeah. So, I mean, my my big thing is

having keeping it in the ability for the for the low residential, following the comp plan that we took so much time to go through and and sort through and and go through these things. I think the best thing that government can do or municipalities can do is stay out of, you know, possible. You have a comprehensive plan. You're not going to be able to tell which businesses to come in on the corner, which grocery stores like that would be great for you, you know, where if it's right there on the corner, but they're naturally going to go by the highway. They're naturally going to go by railroad tracks and and things that where the million-dollar homes don't want to build. And so I just think leaving the options available and keeping it in low. I I think it makes sense.

Low and in high. I mean medium. Are you okay with it in bulk or do you want it just in low? I like it just in low. Well, if it's in low, they can build it in anything above that, right? Yes, they can. Yeah. So, I don't know why we need to put it in. It's the density number. It's Yeah. It's because city council forever ago had problems again and again. That's why they pushed it to the MDR to the medium to the intermediate. Yeah, there were enough that they changed it. And if we hop in and put it right back, we just undid all of what experience they had when they changed it. Explain why. We're up against. We're gonna have to move this to the next meeting.

Okay. Thank you all. Appreciate it. We'll move to the next slower. Yeah. Yeah. Right.

I mean I mean response. I don't want to go find out.

Sorry. have questions that I know work that's completely change. So yeah,

and then the mayor will

and I think that's basically it. I guess it We're going to put those That was just like hand. It's cool. Well,

you read the article. You think that's what we're doing? I mean, we saw they'll say, "Oh, I guess you know Thank you.

Would you offer the opening prayer for us? Okay. Slide down notes. Okay.

Right. Good evening everyone. Thank you for being here. We'd like to welcome you here to our city council meeting of May the 6th, 2026. And uh we would like to start out our meeting this evening. Well, just uh just uh for your information, um I know a lot of some of you were waiting out in the hallway, we were having a uh planning and zoning and city council work meeting um for the last hour going over some of the proposed development code amendments and things like that. So, so uh this is a continuation of that meeting, but we would like to go ahead and start this this part of the meeting with a a prayer and a pledge to the flag. I've asked council member Reer to offer the opening prayer for us after which council member council president Ericson will lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Council member Reer Father in heaven we are grateful for this opportunity that we have to meet together and to discuss the needs and the concerns of our city. And we are so grateful for this land that we live in. We're grateful for this community that we have. And we're grateful for the good people who inhabit this community. and ask that thy blessings be upon everyone within our community that we might be able to get along well together, that we might respectfully listen to each other and and our viewpoints and our our concerns and our attitudes. And we are grateful that we live in a land in which we are free to do that with each other in the hopes that we can come to common understanding and and work together. Father, we're grateful for the blessings that thou has given unto us and we're grateful for the freedoms which we enjoy. And we ask for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. The pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with all. Right. Thank you. Thank you all very much. All right. At this point in time, would like to go ahead with the roll call of our council members, please? We'll ask Mariana to do that. Council member Colin Ericson here. Council member Reer here. Council member Riggins here. Council President Eric Ericson here. Council member Ten

here. All right. Thank you. We appreciate that. And uh Coun Council member Johnson is excused uh from the meeting this evening. So, um, okay, we will move to item number four, which is, uh, to welcome a new employee to our city council or to our Rexburg city team. Uh, Josh Heaton. Josh Heaton. Let's see. Is Josh here? Did he make it tonight? Maybe not. Okay. I have not actually had the opportunity to meet Josh yet. So, so I'm not sure who he is, but apparently he's not here. So, we'll have to move that to uh next time.

Uh well, we do have also Brennan Batton. That this is Brennan right here. Okay, Brennan, thank you. Would you uh come on up and tell us a little bit about yourself and uh and just introduce us to the council members, please? Yeah, my name is Brennan Batton. I'm from St. Anthony 2023. Um thankful for the opportunity to work for you guys. Great. Thank you very much. Well, we appreciate the work that you're going to do and uh we're great. We're happy to have you on our Rexburg team. Let's give Brennan a hand.

All right. Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming tonight. Okay. Item number five on the agenda is a time for public comment. This is a time for items that are not on the agenda. Um, if anyone would like to make any comments uh about items not on the agenda tonight and make us aware of things, please come to the podium and state your name and address. We ask you to limit your comments to three minutes. Is there anyone that would like to comment? Yes.

My name is Shri Barton. I live at 1076 Green Willow Drive. As a citizen who tries her best to stay informed about matters in our city, I have a question. Is it legal to have incorrect zoning and comprehensive maps on a city's website before, during, and during a reasonzoning hearing? Can a hearing be reopened based on the fact that incorrect information was used during a hearing displayed on the screen while decisions were being made about zoning? When a planning and zoning meeting is held, a quorum of five is needed. Five of the 10 commissioners need to be present. The city's web page states if commissioners join virtually, they need to be to to be able to hear the proceedings clearly and those in the hearing need to hear them. What happens when one person only responds about 10% of the time? And when the microphone is on, it sounds like they're at the fund factory having a party. Could a planning and zoning meeting be reopened if this happened? I would just like to state for the record, we came away from the process feeling unheard and dismissed.

Okay. Thank you. Do you have a comment there, council?

Thank you, mayor. Just uh quickly uh again, issues that have been raised by constituents. I've done an analysis, looked at these things. uh issues being relayed specifically. I can't speak to the uh nothing has been brought to my attention about uh if there is a quorum. Um that's new that I'm just hearing right now. Again, we did and Mr. Parkinson could talk. The meeting did uh start a few minutes late and we are actually grateful for there was a couple individuals on vacation and again there was a number of calls uh asurances made that they were able to participate uh and hear and participate in the meeting. Um again the reason uh issue being related to uh maps it relates to an online GIS display layer not the underlying legal designation adopted by ordinance. Um again the illegally controlling action was the ordinance previously adopted and recorded by the city. Um the comprehensive plan that was associated with the mapping and the data uh those will go through amendments over time and the city maintains uh those through uh internal GIS and shape file processes. uh the generalized images showed publicly always or or publicly or referenced in GIS as a visual reference tool and not the controlling legal document itself. Um again and I think also uh and importantly the substantive discussion during the last hearing in my review accur accurately reflected the actual land use designation uh and the application uh before the body. Um they discussed and evaluated the proposal on its merits under the correct designations and the applicable standards. Um based on my review uh there's no indication that notice was defective uh that the body uh lacked jurisdiction or that the deliberations

were based on incorrect a incorrect legal standard. Um as as a result uh I've notified the mayor and and said that there is no legal basis. I make the same recommendation uh to city council that there is no legal basis to conclude uh the hearing that was uh the hearing or meeting was invalid. Um was there any other questions on that mayor?

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Is there any any other public comments? I uh hadn't planned Brent Harris 1125 Woodison Lane, Rexburg. Uh I was at that same public hearing and you know I I was a little concerned at the end of the hearing and if you listened to that uh one of the members of the planning and zoning commission who came in via Zoom was what I would turn very rude. He called uh people who had testified hypocrites and uh used other language that I thought, you know, everyone that testified, you know, against the the uh topic, I thought was very polite, very respectful, which they asked us to do. But the uh one of the members of the committee on the via Zoom I thought was very rude and I just don't think that should happen. You know uh you know they may disagree that's fine but to call people hypocrites is not I don't think that's right. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that comment. All right. Is there any other comments on items that are not on the agenda tonight? Anyone online? All right, hearing none, we will move on to item number six, which is our staff reports. Uh we'll start out with our finance report with our CFO, Mr. Matt Nielson.

All right. Good evening. Um, so this first one included in your packet is a budget adjustment and Deb's going to pull that up. And then, uh, so this is something we talked about many months ago when the ice rink came in. So we were able to get the final appraisal back on the facility that was donated and it came back at 5,144,000. And um, and then we'll be filling out the IRS tax form, working with the donor in the coming week. And then we've got a we're looking at another deed recording we'll have to do just to get it in our name. So this budget adjustment um even though there's no dollars crossing has to be done per Gazsby rules. So it basically just shows the contributed asset as a capital asset so I can begin to capitalize it and then a contributed revenue basically. So all right, excuse me. So, we uh at this point in time, we need a a motion to approve this budget adjustment for the ice rink facility contribution. Is there such a motion?

Mayor, I'll make that motion to approve the budget adjustment for the race uh the ice rink facility. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Second by council. Oh, okay. Thank you. Second by council member Rigggins, but thank you for the effort, Council Member Teen. Um All right. Uh, is there any further discussion or questions about this item? Hearing none, all in favor? All right. Any opposed? Thank you. That motion passes. So, we will go ahead and make that budget adjustment. Item number two, uh, regarding the city's pro procurement procedures.

Yeah. So, there's there's two parts to this. There is a resolution. Um, I'm not going to go through the resolution. We do need you to to make a motion on that, but I'm going to go through this summary instead. So, what this is um this this is a document that we've had for many many years in our handbook. And so, it's what we basically give to employees who are doing purchasing or bidding for the city. Um last year the state updated the two major statutes regarding purchasing of services and personal property and then public works construction projects. So um we went in and of course made updates to that. The major thing is is they they really increased their limits as to when you have to formally publish. Um and I'll just start right at the top. Uh, so we do have some city policies. So those first three rows are really things that we've had in place for since I've really been here 20 plus years to be honest. Um, the big change is is that we are saying that um you don't have to have bids if it's under 10,000. We're still saying to do local preference. So we try to buy local. And then um you know if we do get if we do go out and we happen to get bids locally, but we can get it significantly cheaper other places, the mayor or the chief finance officer can approve that. And then uh kind of the same thing on public works. I'm going to bounce between the two. And then on the 10,000 to 50,000, we we do require three oral or written quotes or bids. Uh the only time that there can be an exception made is if it's it's a large price difference or if it's approved by either myself as the CFO or the mayor. And then on construction projects um

the public works director can approve that if it's under the 50,000. And um sometimes that's because time is of the essence. Sometimes we've already bid it out and we have contractors that we can have go get those projects done. Yes. Uh if you could as you're going through this since this is an amended policies different than what's been in the past if you could just kind of highlight the areas that Can you turn on your mic? Oh, excuse me. If you could just highlight the areas that have been the big changes. Yeah, I can do that. Um

I don't have the old one in front of me, so I'll try to remember the amounts, but the the first the first one used to be 5,000 and so that's going to 10,000. And then we used to be able to approve um I believe it was up to the 10,000 uh either myself or the mayor and now we're saying between 10 and 50,000 and then we're saying from the 50 to 100,000 range. Uh that one still requires the quotes or bids. Uh but then if there is an exception made it would have to be by both myself and the mayor. And then uh that one um on the Keith's side or the public works side would actually need to be required by all three of us. And so we would all need to get together. Now here's where the big change

I have a question. Yeah. Um so on the the written the quotes, what if three cannot be like is there an exception if you can't get three if you can only get two or Yeah. Yeah. We and that happens a lot actually. And so we seek to get three. Sometimes we can only get two. Sometimes we only get one because they're unresponsive. And so as long as they've made that effort and they can prove they've made that effort, we make those exceptions. So is that approved by you or the mayor in that instance? Does that include Sorry, what does that is that approved by you or the mayor in that instance then?

Yes. Yeah. Okay. And and the process for that is that the person trying to get procure the item actually emails it to me and or the mayor and then we we keep a written email that goes to the accounts payable just so that there's we have all that documentation of how it was approved. Okay.

Okay. So the next two are really the big changes. Um, so with the semi what we call semiformal bidding per state law that has now gone up to anything between 100 and 250. I believe it was 50,000 before um that it started. And um anyways, that one you you can do it really you could you could send an email out. You could call the individuals to get bids and then what happens is you have to accept the lowest qualified bid or reject all bids. And then the last one is if it's a project over 250 um which I believe this was over a hundred on the old one. Um that one you actually has to you have to formally put it in the newspaper and and of course with all of these big projects um the over 250 we also put it on our website. We have a whole bid process and then we also keep lists to be able to send it out to vendors for these big projects and procurements just to make sure that we get the most bids that we can. So, any questions on that? I know that's pretty quick.

Matt, just a question on on especially the first three. that the last one I don't worry about because it it has to come before the council. But those those previous ones, do we have some protections in place? Even, you know, when you're spending under $10,000 because like the first one says, except due to large price differences, then it's got to be approved by you and the chief. So in in those do we do you have some um are there the head of a department with and and two three people who are signing off on it rather than just kind of hey I like you so I'm giving you the bid and kind of thing.

Yeah great question. Spencer can he said he can speak to it, but I I will add that, you know, these are these need to still be budgeted items as well. And so that's another layer of approval that really comes from you as you adopt the budget. And so keep that in mind as well. And then and then yeah, we're we're we're not just saying, "Hey, you're my buddy. I'm not going to require you to go get bids." Uh I have very regular conversations with people where I'm like, "Nope, sorry. You got to go get two more bids." And so we're still encouraging them to always go do that. My perspective that's secured. Yes.

So to that end, I think that there anytime that there's leeway given in uh in our ordinance uh that there's checks and balances and internal scrutiny uh that should be applied. So it's funny you brought that up. I had that exact conversation on Monday uh in staff meeting where I notified uh department heads that with these changes and again I reviewed these changes went through these changes uh with Matt and they're legally defensible but with that uh I am going to uh increase essentially I'm not going to call it an audit but internal structure or checks. Uh I spoke uh today with Terry about the same issue, making sure that the plan that I have in place uh is defensible from our handbook and from an employeeing employer right standpoint. But again uh anytime I think I think it's incumbent and and this council has made it very uh clear to myself and to others uh that you take the use of funds and the appropriate use of funds very seriously. And so given uh these kind of uh again it's still more restrictive than the state uh but again with that change will be an accompanying level of scrutiny that comes from the legal department and will just add to my reputation as the no fun police around here because uh I'm sure that they'll love me when I walk in there and and start pulling random receipts. So

and being through the process, you know, being a lieutenant there and going through this for many years. Even an officer or anybody down there, it goes through their chain of command, goes through the to the department head, it's definitely a major step to go through. It's not just we we definitely look at spending the funding and the taxpayers money very seriously and very careful. So, it's definitely as it goes up, it's not easy thing.

I appreciate that explanation. Thank you very much. You know, Matt, just just since we're talking about bidding and things like that, I would like to just be fully transparent and make it clear that some of the Facebook posts that have gone on about our tree grant and my landscape company doing all that work and stuff are not true. My company since I've gotten this job has not bid on any city jobs any way, any any way whatsoever. So, I just want to make that clear to the audience here and to the public. I want to go on record as saying that my my company has not benefited in any way from city business since I've been on the council or the mayor. So, I just wanted to make that clear.

Um, and then I Eric, I I did I did find it. So, the the old number that top row was under 5,000. the second row was actually 5 to 15,000 and then it was 15 to 50,000 on the third and then on the state side um they went from they had one that was 50 to 100 and another 100 to 200 and one over 200 and so now it's just the two the 100 to 250 and then the 250 or over 250 so

so so Matt is this is the purpose for this to to to try and streamline the process us a little bit. I mean, it just seems like we're we're loosening the requirements a little bit. Is that is has it been a problem?

Um, I think there's a couple things. I I definitely think the under 5,000 was super inefficient. Um, and and that 5,000's been in for a very long time. 5,000 when this that got put in place is probably a $12,000 item now. You know what I mean? Just because of inflation. And so, so I think that there is some some form of efficiency. Um, there are, you know, you'd be surprised sometimes how hard it is to get two or three bids on specific items, especially when you get into the public works arena. And so, so I think having the ability for the mayor, the public works director, and the CFO to be involved, you know, we we understand those categories. Um, we deal with that all the time. And so sometimes we we already know the answer and we're just we're just wasting a lot of time trying to get those bids. Um and so but the biggest thing is is we wanted to make sure that our policy matched the state policy which was totally different from what we used to have.

So great. Thank you. Okay. All right. So then at this time we um if there are no other discussion items on that, we need a motion to uh approve resolution 2026-06. Uh Mr. Mayor, I'll make that motion that we uh approve resolution 2026 amending the city's procurement procedures. Right. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? I second. Second by council member Reer. Okay. Any further questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? All right. That resolution passes. We will go ahead and make those adjustments.

Okay. And then we'll uh we'll add it to the handbook and then it goes out to all the employees just so they'll get notified. Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh staff reports item number B is the police report by uh Josh. I don't see any I don't see our police chief or Gary here. So maybe they'll be be here later or uh they were coming back from the chief chief meeting somewhere down the valley, but I don't know if they made it back. Made it. I I told them I'd cover. Oh, okay. All right.

I I don't have a ton to add. I was going to say that uh you know we sent these mailers out and we have quite a few extras and so if if you guys have people asking you questions I figured I'd leave some of those if you wanted to take them because that directs them to the web page. But one one thing I do want to bring up is I think that a lot of people they had a great question. They said what does the 2028 tax year mean? Um and I don't think a lot of people actually know that answer. And so what it what it really means is uh so if somebody came to you now and said, "Hey, I just made my first payment, my first half of payment for my taxes last December." That is actually the 2025 tax year. So you get notified in November, you make your first half of the payment is due in December. So really the second half of the 2025 tax year is actually due in June of 2026. So, fast forward, what we're asking on the ballot is that we wouldn't put it until 2028, which means that they're going to get notified in 2028. And I think that that even I and some of us misrepresented that because we thought it was 27. But the reality is you'll get notified in November of 2028, first half due in December of 2028, second half due in June of 2029, which so it gives you an idea of, you know, how far out that is. Um, which is great because there's multiple school district bonds that come off and then the library bond comes off actually in 2028. And so you would have one year where they're both on there and then library comes off. And that was the intent for us to have some of those bonds come off uh just to reduce that

tax burden or property tax burden to the taxpayer. So I think that's important to understand. So, we've had a lot of questions in our meetings like what's that timeline look like? So, I I'm not going to get into a ton of detail, but I've provided for you kind of what that looks like. I mean, essentially, if the public passes it for at least almost the next year, you're going to be in design phase and estimating and bidding out phase, right? And then the next question would be we would look at our cash flow. So we've been setting aside cash. We have some reserves. So we would basically then go out look at our reserves. We would try to time it with the construction of that project. And then what we can do is we we would just take out what's called a a bond anticipation note if needed for cash flow. And then you could actually still begin your construction. Probably April's probably on the aggressive side of 2027. Uh but sometime between there and and uh summer, you'd probably want to start that project because you want to make sure you have that earthwork done before winter hits, right? Um, but anyways, then then as far as certification goes, you can see we'd actually certify that in September of 2028, and the first payment that the city would actually make for principal and interest would be in March of 2029. Um, and so, so anyways, I just wanted to kind of clarify that. I think it's good information for you to understand and for the public to understand. Um, and it really helps us achieve that goal that came from that survey, right, of of trying to reduce that tax burden. So,

mayor, yes, Matt, uh, just briefly explain just so the public understands and and everybody understands the difference of going the 15 year to the 20-year. I think that's a a major a major savings, a major understanding that we're looking at trying to not burden the taxpayers.

Yeah. Yeah. And I don't unfortunately I don't have the number right in front of me but essentially what it is is that extra five years I mean it it really does two things. it really increases the total interest that you end up paying and then you're paying five more years, right? And so when we looked at how much the difference was because I I think the I don't have like I said I don't have the number in front of me but if we even went to the police bond page and pulled it up uh there's there's an example there of the average home price and I if I remember right it's around $150 to $60 a year. Um, and if you think about the difference between the 15-year and the 20-year, it was like I, if I remember right, it's like maybe 140 or something like that. And we just felt like, you know, 15 to $25 difference per year. It wasn't really worth it to extend it out another five years and pay, you know, millions of dollars more in interest. And so that's why we went with the 15-year. So,

yeah. And that's a good point. Matt, my my question was have we have you done an analysis of what uh the the uh the difference would be if we paid off if the uh the a school bond's going to disappear, a uh the library bond's going to disappear um versus what the the the police bond would be. Because then all of a sudden now that that 140 or so that you were just talking about just shrinks, right? because um you're no longer depend on the other ones. So you do the math for me. I I'll give it to you.

So uh in 2025, so remember the second half of that's due in June of 26. Madison has their their $40 million bond coming off that is about $537,000 a year. So that's 537. They also have in 2027 coming off their $19.5 million bond that is about1,123. So you add those two up uh 1.6 1.7 million there. They also have that's coming off this year or at least it comes off in 25 but of course that's not due like I say till June 2026 their supplemental levy. Of course, they are putting that back on and so that's back on for the voters to decide on. So that one may or may not change. And then the Madison library is about $283,000 a year. So So you're probably close, you know, even if the supplemental levy goes back on, you're a couple million that comes off by 2028. And then our amount is about 1.37 million for the police bond. So,

okay. Any other questions or comments about the police bond? Okay. Thank you, Matt. I appreciate that. All right. All right. Item C is our public works report, Mr. Keith Davidson. Item number one, a surplus item. Surplus. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so we have a couple items that we'd like to surplus. One is a 1997 Ford Ranger pickup and then the other one is an EasyGo battery operated golf cart. And so we're just seeking council's approval to surplus these items. All right. Any questions about these items? I'm very familiar with them. Yeah, we didn't want to keep the 1997.

It's a classic. All right. I would entertain a motion then to Yes, I'm very familiar with the both of these vehicles and I'll make the motion to surplus both of them. All right. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Mayor, I'll second that. A second by Council Member Wiggins. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? Right. We will go ahead with that surplus item number two, L construction bids.

Yeah. So, thank you, mayor. Uh so we had the the bid results the bid opened yesterday uh for L55. We had four biders on there. JM Concrete was our low bidder at $3,294,540. And so we're seeking council's approval to award to JM Concrete on that amount. Um it also based on our estimates that we sent out to the property owners um overall it was about 33% lower um than those estimates that we sent out. Now some were higher and some were less than that 33% but on average or so.

Okay. All right. Right. Um if there are no question are there any questions about this? You have a question? Yes. Go ahead. Have we ever dealt with JM concrete ever before? Um, yeah. And they have done great job for us and everything like that that we Well, there were some things that that went a little slow. Um, but we didn't have a problem with the product at the end, but there was some timing issues that we'll be having definitely some discussions with them on. And did we put any time frame or specifications, so we know they will meet at this time? Yeah, so those are those are in the contract documents. Can't remember the specific dates off the top of my head. Uh but and then there's Do you remember them? Yeah, it's 200

200 days, calendar days. Calendar days on that. So yeah. Um so we have those in place and then we have liquidated damages that can occur after that. And obviously there's things that can come into play that that we give them extra days on uh if there's weather related events or things of that nature or unforeseen things that come up. But but generally, yeah, we will be having a discussion on those and you feel good about going back to GM concrete then? Yeah, we don't we don't have a reason to throw out their bid. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions? Uh hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve uh this item. Is there such a motion? I'll make the motion to approve uh an award that's bid to JM Concrete for 30 3,284,540. All right. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? I'll second that. Second by council president Ericson. Any further discussion or questions? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right, that the motion passes. Let's move on to item number three.

All right, so item number three is a grant agreement with the Idaho Water Resources Board. Um, and so this grant, um, it's a 50-50 match. And so what we've received this grant for is to take Porter Park off of our culinary system and move it and use water out of the canal system. So, we're going to use service water for irrigation of that park, which I will be beneficial for our community. Okay. Any questions about this particular item from anyone? Uh, hearing none, I would entertain a motion to move forward with this particular item.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve contract number 9097, this uh water conversion grant. All right. Thank you. Is there a second that motion? I'll second that. Second by council member Reer. All right. Any further questions? Riggins. He seconded. Oh, sorry. Oh, sorry. Council member Rian seconded. Okay. Um, any further questions or discussion? Hearing none. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. We will go ahead with that. Uh, and receive that grant money. Any other questions for for Keith before he we let him sit down?

I'm going to make one comment. With all this wind that we've had coming up and you see a lot of our street lights, the red and green lights cover the back plates have come off kind of heading towards St. Anthony. Yes. is do do we need to replace them to make sure the citizen can see that light or I know they're there for a reason but I know a lot of them yeah it just helps out especially with the reflective yeah those are things that we need to look at replacing some are uh we getting with the state on those so anything on state highway 33 um but on those other ones that involve us yes we want to be replacing those and then one more comment

and it's it's a bad word I'm going to bring it up I've talked to you about the potholes on Main Street for the state. Uh, have they got up? I still see the one over here by Walgreens to get them. Yeah, I'll follow up with them because I I did have that conversation with their maintenance. They kind of came the last like three days. I haven't seen it in the last three days, but check it out where you're looking at and then let me know. And if it's not, you can take a car out, but I Yeah. Okay. I'll look at that. Okay. I know that's a bad word, so want to say that. All right. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you, Keith.

Uh just a heads up for you. Uh we'll be bringing that capital improvement street plan uh for your approval on next council meeting. So maybe if you if you've had a chance to look through it or if you have any comments, uh let me know and then we can move those forward. So thanks.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Item number seven is uh is the mayor's business. Item number A is to ratify Mr. Chad Richards as a member of the airport board. Um Chad is a um uh has been a member of the community here for a lot of years. Uh part of our construction community. He was uh one of the foreman or u folks in charge of the uh the Rexburg temple construction. Worked for Jacobson Construction at the time. And um I got to know him as part of that construction team. And um he now uh since when when they finished the temple and told him he needed to move back to Utah, he refused cuz he decided he wanted to live in Rexburg. So he actually got a new job with Headarters Construction and uh has been living here in the community ever since and working with that with that company. Um so uh he has expressed an interest in uh being on the airport board and helping with that um particular part of the the city and county. Uh the city airport of course is a city county owned facility and uh we have representatives from both the city and the county on that board. Uh council member Colin Erikson is our uh uh council liaison to that board. Um, so at this time, unless is if there are any questions about this item, um, I would entertain a motion to ratify Mr. Chad Richards as a member of the airport board.

I'll make that I'll make that motion to ratify Chad Richardson's airport board. All right. Thank you. Is there a second to that motion? Second. Second by Council President Ericson. Any further questions or discussion? Hearing none, all in favor? I I

Okay. Any opposed? All right. We will go ahead and notify the board of that ratification. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Item number 8A is the planning and zoning recommendation to approve a reszone from rural residential 2 zone to low density residential 2 and low density residential 3. Uh we've got Mr. Alan Parkinson, our planning and zoning director here to tell us about this item.

Thank you, Mor Mayor, council members. Oh, okay. Uh, the property is located out on 12 West. Uh, did you want to see partial view or are you okay with the map just as it shows? This is what was published. Uh, property is the Steiner Parkinson property. uh located almost directly across from the church house right next to um Somerfield in there. The applicant has asked uh to reszone this the back six acres approximately he wants to take to LDR3. It is currently comp planned as intermediate which this is the lowest that you can grant in that zone. then he would like to bring the remainder of that to an LDR2 is the request that he wants to do with single family in there. Now LDR2 can be single family, twin homes or duplexes. That is all. L3 does allow those same things plus town homes. So those are the the types of homes that can be built in there. Um staff looked at it, reviewed it. We had recommended it for approval to PNZ. PNZ reviewed it and they have recommended it to you for approval.

All right. Any questions for Mr. Parkinson? Yes. Question. I was getting my the map up on my pad here when you were talking uh and I missed it. What did you say types of homes could be in LDR2? That's single family detached twin homes or duplexes? Duplexes. Twin home. Okay, that is it. 8,000 square foot lot. 7,256 just under 8,000. Yes. So that's per lot six of an acre or so. Yes. Because you got six per acre is the the density that's allowed in that zone.

Okay. Um Allan, tell me about the connectivity um between the Meadows and the parcel there that to the north and then also from LDR2 both out to 12 West and into the Willowbrook subdivision. Tell me what's what is what what city's going to require there. city is going to require connectivity to those other parcels. Um they have to have two ingress egress excesses once they exceed 30 units per acre. So that is part of the thing that will happen. So we also require that between subdivisions which also slows down people having to drive out onto the main road, come around and drive back in to get to somebody that's 100 yards from their house. It reduces traffic on your main roads. It also is for safety of the MS being able to get through into different areas. Uh the Meadows at this point only has one access and so we are trying to figure out how to make that work to make that connectivity into this parcel that is being asked to be resoneed.

You you're talking about to the to the to the north. It would be on the north end on the west side is about the only option that has the possibility of that working. Okay. And the question I have on that, looking at that, I drove out there and there's really not enough room to, it's not a city street. There's one room for one car with the parking they have there right now to do that connectivity to the other property. The way I understand that, we don't have to force the owner to the north to have that connectivity. They can have emergency. They have a a a gate there that they can open the emergency services and go through. It doesn't have to be a street that all those people go north.

I mean to me or something. To me that kind of I mean it helps out the metals but it definitely detrimental to his subdivision or this new look in the subdivision as we if we force him to make that in as I looked at the what spilled out there right now is that's that's I talked to Alan about this a very high concern to me is okay we we solve a problem with the metals but we cause a huge problem to the north as as we open that up. So they can we can have a lot of different things there. That's something to discuss later with with your platting process as a platting. It can be emergency gating. It can be so they don't have everyday access

uh that the fire department and emergency service can get through. There is a safety reason for have one on the south but something we can look at. Okay. Any further questions or discussion? Yeah the question I had a question about the the meadows themselves. Are those is those two are those two city streets? I think it's countryside and all private. So those are not city streets. Those are all private roads inside there. So how can we require connectivity because we don't own the streets.

We do that with everything. We do it between businesses. We want connectivity between parking lots. We want connectivity between subdivisions just to create that ability for people to transpose or for emergency services. That's in our code that calls for that connectivity. Okay. So, we're not going to we're not going to have a dedicated second exit out of the meadows through this parcel.

It would be a private road that would have to be maintained. Uh cuz and here's where it comes down to. These are decisions that are made during the platting process where we come in, fire department will look at it and go, "What do I need to make sure I can protect the people in the meadows? How do I get that connectivity?" Keith will also look at his and go, what do I need to make sure that I'm getting the proper connectivity for streets? Those are decisions that are made at that point. We'll address them then. We'll address them in those meetings. Get there for Okay. Anyway,

to that end just quickly and then any requirement that would be placed upon a developer is analyzed through an exaction uh or essentially a takings analysis from legal and there's that conversation that takes place. Uh but quickly just before uh this council gets into uh deliberations just one quick note for the record. Council is aware that one possibly two uh emails were received uh after the public hearing has been closed. These communications have been uh received and disclosed. Um the applicant has been made aware of them uh because they were submitted after the close of the public hearing. Um I'm advising uh council to not consider or rely on the contents of those emails uh during deliberation or any motion or approval for or denial of this application. All right. Any further?

Yeah, I'd just like to just um so I went into the packet and tried to read and I I I I saw the email that had been sent to the mayor. I saw the other emails that you had included in the packet and so on. And then um I went in and took a look at the considerations for approval. um and and they're they're um my my uh my concern and my and and I guess the only answer I want here, right, is that uh um that as these decisions are made um about uh road capacity, public services, uh and so on so forth. uh that they not be based on speculation or hearsay, but that that we have um that that we actually have evidence. Um and and again, some of the the the concerns is that 12 that 12 is uh uh a very busy street that it can't handle more, you know, all all these these things. So Allan, I just want to know is have we done do we have any official studies of you know how many how many vehicles actually 12 I don't live in that area. I don't know but I know what it used to be like before the light went in right. It was crazy. But now that the light is in at the high school and it and and it flows and stuff are so I guess my question is is is I I want to make sure that that our residents and we are making a decision according to as the law says right the the not speculation evidence um that we're looking at it and saying what we have here will serve this community.

Keith, this is a question when we get to roads. I'm going to let Keith answer that question simply because his responsibility in reviewing these types of deal is what evidence do I need to look at and say I'm going to approve this or not. Yeah. And so Keith can better answer that than I can. Yeah. So we require traffic impact studies, right? So we've had se several traffic impact studies and not prior to development, just in a reszone. Well, yes. Oh, but for all the others

just the development comes in, right? not not on the zone but as a development comes in platting process takes place that we know what's happening in that location we require traffic impact study that looks at the intersections the street capacities things of that nature and we have certain things that we look at so like for traffic impact studies you have levels of service A B C D E F U and when you look at that F is like gridlock and so we we have where we say it needs to be able to meet a level service of seat, right? And so what they do is they look at those the increased impact from that development at the different intersections that we're looking at and on that road and we take a look at that and say what level of service is that going to take it to and if it's going to take it below a level service of C. Then we have that engineering firm take a look and say what does it need to h what needs to happen at those locations to bring it back up to a level of service C. And then we look at what that proportionate share of that cost would be for that developer to bring that those those traffic impacts up to that level.

So have we done with the that with this? No, because this is a zone change. Oh, okay.

Right. So when when the development comes in and they say right because yeah, we know what what impacts it could be, but they don't always go to the maximum amount of of development, right? There's sometimes when the the zone change will come in and they'll say, "No, we're building to this because we believe this is where the market stands on with this construction." So depending what happens, once we know what's happening, then it's a lot easier for the traffic engineer to take a look at that and and calculate those trips generations, what the current traffic is, and what's going to happen on those intersections. So that would be done after we if if we were to say if we were to uh approve this then that would take place to make sure that whatever's going to be built there is going to be uh is is going to be adequate for what we need.

Yeah. So they and that would be done through a development agreement. So, anytime we have a development, we enter into a development agreement and that development agreement lays out the responsibilities of the developer and the responsibilities of the city with that. Um, I've got a No, no, go ahead. Go ahead,

Keith. Quick question. I think one of the concerns that people have with the change in zoning is it, you know, the perception that it just kind of opens the floodgates. Now it can go to the highest density uh that is allowed in that area. So just to make sure I understand this correctly. So if the zone if we were to change the zone designation here, we still a developer would still have to go through that uh process of getting approval to build anything that would go to the maximum. I'm trying to, you know, use my words correctly. To go to that maximum, it'd still have to be approved there and that would then be based on those traffic studies and those other things.

Could a builder be legally stopped from doing that even though it it would fit the zone if it's determined that the roads couldn't handle it or the intersections couldn't handle it? or is it more of well it's now zoned for that we've got to let you do it but we've got to work out who's going to pay for what to bring the road up to compliance to that C level did did that make sense that question

yeah so so yes I mean in a in a nutshell right it's in that development agreement and those fees that come into play if the developer says I'm I'm not doing that then then we're not going to allow the development to move forward right because there's costs associated with that that come into play. And so generally we sit down, we go through the development agreement, we go through the traffic impact study, we take a look at all that, we list all those costs out, right? And then that's what's signed off u by the developer, the mayor, myself, and uh Deborah. So the amount that can be built there, even though the zoning might allow it, is still contingent on the roads and those things that we

I mean, you got the roads, you got water lines, you got sewer lines, you got all the infrastructure that has to go be put in place on that. Thank you. Okay. Just I'm sorry, just one more question. Right. Um it it seems that just recently as in I don't know the last six months, right? we were dealing with a property right next to it or right above it, whatever, and the the the same same kind of issue. Right. Right. And and and we were we were having the very same conversation um as it relates to it. So

I I just I just want to uh I I just want to make sure that that uh what u Councilman David Reer here was just said is exactly what we're dealing with. um that that um this still has to go through a process in order for that. We're going to make sure that there's going to be if if roads need to be widened, if whatever that whatever that's going to be to service the community that will will be there. Correct. Okay.

It does. And then the thing you got to look at too, when we go through that process, we're going to bring it back to PNZ and to city council. And that's again where you can go, were the numbers met? Is it being taken care of? Have you uh addressed any issues that come in that? And you'll be able to look at traffic impact study. You'll be able to look at those types of things. Uh I think they can even see the development agreement, I believe, if you wanted to re review it. All those things are part of the packet that you have the right to look at. in in the packet that I was looking at, um, you had a you had a plan that kind of showed and I and and again I I I I think you even had a picture. So the from the south on the south side where where you've got LDR3 on on your your map on the south side, there's already apartments there, right? Is that

No. And and here's the thing you got to realize that was submitted to us due to transparency laws. I have to put it in the packet. Oh. Well, we cannot make a decision based on any of that because that's not pertinent to what they're deciding tonight. They could swap that up tomorrow if you approve it. So, it needs to be ignored, but my job is I have to show you everything I received.

Okay. I I appreciate that. That's what I needed to know. And as you would have looked through the planning and zoning minutes, you'll see again that I was belligerent almost with members of the commission to disregard specific aspects that were being discussed in that meeting. Um again as to the previous discussion um remedial measures are contemplated in the law. It's I can understand from your position, from members of the community's position, uh that it can be a counterintuitive uh process that we deal with with planning and zoning. Um, I don't disagree with that at all, but they are uh it's not a perfect system, but it's the system that we have currently and uh it's incumbent that we operate and we make decisions based uh in the law regarding that those decisions. Now again uh in the planning meeting that we had prior uh to this meeting to or to the planning what did we refer to it as

the meeting? No, the one just before this one, the work meeting, we talked about um some new legislation that's coming down in July. Now, again, whether we agree or disagree with some of that legislation coming from land use decisions and land use issues, we are still going to implement those laws and incorporate that into our decision-making. Um because again it's it's it's what we do and and we're going to continue to do those things even if it's counterintuitive even if it's uh can be frustrating at times. Uh it's the nature of the decisions that we make when it comes to land use and planning.

Spence before you get down I have I want to just answer the couple questions we had on the public on the three minute one. Was there a quorum that was asked? I want to make sure that was specified. Yes, there was a quorum. There were six members. Okay. That's why I just wanted to make sure it's specified that we would did have a quorum and that's that's the main thing I wanted to make sure u there was there was not six there was five there was yeah we only had three of us up there and then two online okay we only had 10 members so it still needs to

okay that's why I just want to make sure that that's stated that we did have that okay then Allan just a couple questions I have to bring up on this and they say Spence you can sit down probably want to stand there

as as I watched this planning zoning several times and been through it um and listened to the public comments and looking at the whole structure of this. Um when we look at changing zoning and you have RR 2 to the south of it, you have RR2 in the middle of it. It's totally different than the birch property which you changed to R2 because it had really nothing connected to that to change that to R2. But where this is button up against R2 and we jump and clear up to LDR2 to me there's it's not a step down. It's a major jump. And we can even considered that especially where this lies right in the middle of two RR2s. You have R2 in the south and R2 right in the the middle of it. Uh which is the south property. And then we and as I watch this whole thing our one yeah at the north and as I watch this whole thing and we had a developer and that's why I want to emphasize about the connectivity with the medals to his development is that I don't want to force him into taking that burden on what the medals have of trying to get all those people out and in cuz I've been out there twice. All right. Took pictures last night, walked around looking at that that it might be need to be look different because of just having a road there. I know that's nice, but it could cause a whole burden on his development. But I did see a lot of, you know, let's talk about it. Let's work this out. Let's look at things. And that was never ever discussed in planning zoning. And the only way we can get our information is is from the planning and zoning. and and that's why I watched it so many times and went over it and over and trying to figure out

what could we do different. I do have a problem with stepping down from RR2 to LDR2 cuz it's such a big jump back to back. Maybe that needs to be on the next street. So, we have a mix whole mixeduse. We always talk about mixed use. I did also look at the property on the east side where that's in our comprehensive plan. Um, I feel like that fits, uh, even though maybe I personally don't agree with it, but I still feel like it fits to what the developer came and looked at to have LDR3 there. But I do have a concern with this with from LDR2 to RR2 and then also R1 to north of it. And then as I drove around and looked at the maps today on to the whole city, we also got to consider as we look at this changing where's our city going and where are we doing at this as we take out the second and third home buyers because there's nothing in the city that you harden get into now on the LDR2 LDR1 or the R2 or the RR1 and I know that's we got to conserve and look at that. So, I'm just bringing my concerns, what I've seen.

Uh, I did like the developers saying, "Let's discuss it. Let's talk about it." And I don't know why, maybe it's legal that they couldn't discuss a little bit of this and figure out how to best meet and come together to be able to have this development because I think the developer is trying to do and come in with a good product, but also trying to, you know, cover himself also. But uh there was some concerns in the planning zoning because we get all of our information from them and it's hard to not go back and say ask these questions do this come up more in understanding so we can make a better judgment and better decision for our community.

One of the challenge let me address a couple of things with that. If you also look you mentioned across the freeway we are MDR1 and HDR1. So you have that step down which in LDR3 is a perfect fit going into that. You also have LDR2 LDR3 across across the road 12 west which is also there. We have MDR which is just down the road to the north a little MDR2. This is not considered a spot zone. And when we get into discussions with P&Z and similar to this board there are things we can discuss and there are things that are we cannot. Number one, we can't speculate on what should or shouldn't happen on a piece of property. The citizens are able to get up and express their concerns and their deal, but it's not a time of negotiation in that meeting. Their job is to look at that and go, does does it meet staff standards? Does it meet the code? And is this something that fits in this area? Does it, you know, is it a spot zone? Is it anything like that? Those are the things they have to make the decision on because what's happening in our country right now is a lot of developers are now coming back and suing if there are not valid reasons to turn it down. And so if they just turn it down because it says we don't like it or the neighbors don't like it, they can actually have that overturned by the courts and the city is liable for those damages. So they're giving parameters in P&Z of what they can and cannot discuss. Even the fact of well why can't we look at these elevations of the homes and what's going in there because it can be changed after you approve it. We're not approving plans. We're approving a reszone only. So it's difficult to say anything other than what is the maximum density and are you comfortable with that? Anything less you're going to be okay. So that's the reason why we can't go deeper into some of those discussions is it's not allowed by code

and and looking at that and one of the in zone changing discussion standards in Idaho law states that we need to look at the compliance of zone ordinance the public service and infrastructure and also uh capability of with land and use impactility. Yes. and and connecting to that to me jumping from LDR from R2 up to LDR2 is a huge jump especially when you have another land the R1 right next to that that's my concern I agree with some of the other stuff here but I think by the way the laws we got to consider that we got to look at that on what it's doing to

that land that's surrounding those neighbors and those people but I believe you have already because you've approved an LDR1 and LDR2 two directly north of this property which then fits close to what he's asking for. Now the upper part that's LDR3 that's the lowest you can grant him according to the comp plan. He can't ask for less because of the comp plan. So he can't come in and say make it an LDR2 because the statement in the early meetings was we shouldn't be changing the comp plan. So he says okay I'll stay with the comp plan and do the lowest I possibly can. He could come back and ask for a comp plan change just like denied the first time. And