City Council

Name: City Council — Idaho Falls, ID
Start: 2018-01-19
End: 2018-01-19
Location: Idaho Falls, ID

Regular Meeting

Idaho Falls, ID · January 19, 2018

Minutes

January 19, 2018 The City Council of the City of Idaho Falls met in Special Meeting (Council Work Session), Friday, January 19, 2018, in the Council Chambers in the City Annex Building located at 680 Park Avenue in Idaho Falls, Idaho at 3:00 p.m. Call to Order and Roll Call: There were present: Mayor Rebecca L. Noah Casper Councilmember Thomas Hally Councilmember Shelly Smede Councilmember Michelle Ziel-Dingman Councilmember Jim Freeman Councilmember Jim Francis Councilmember John Radford Also present: Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director Rob Harris, Holden Kidwell Hahn & Crapo, PLLC Ryan Tew, Human Resources Director Pamela Alexander, Municipal Services Director Kenny McOmber, Treasurer Mark Hagedorn, Controller Jackie Flowers, Idaho Falls Power Director Bear Prairie, Idaho Falls Power Assistant Manager Randy Fife, City Attorney Kerry Hammon, Public Information Officer Kathy Hampton, City Clerk Mayor Casper called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. with the following: Calendar, Announcements and Reports: Mayor Casper shared an appreciation note from the Idaho Falls Humanitarian Center regarding the Community Support Grant Program. She also briefly reviewed the status of the potential Federal government shut down. January 19, Martin Luther King Banquet January 20, Women’s March January 22, Association of Idaho Cities (AIC) Water Summit January 23, City Officials Day at the Capitol in Boise January 24, American Public Power Association (APPA) webinar January 25, Lunch and Learn sponsored by Tom Lenderink at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC); Grand Opening at Museum of Idaho (MOI); and, City Council Meeting Mayor Casper stated several advisory boards, which fall under the direction of individual departments, will be utilized as allowed. Any board appointments or reappointments will be included on the Consent Agenda. She indicated appointments to the newly-formed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Board will be forthcoming, any recommendations would be appreciated. She noted she will be requesting a small budget item to allow publication of board notices. Mayor Casper briefly reviewed City Officials Day at the Capitol topics, including legislative and tax issues. Acceptance and/or Receipt of Minutes: It was moved by Councilmember Hally, seconded by Councilmember Freeman, to receive the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and additional minutes included in the packet. Roll call as follows: Aye – Councilmembers Freeman, Francis, Hally, Radford, Smede, Dingman. Nay – none. Motion carried. 1 January 19, 2018 Water Rights Mitigation Update: Director Fredericksen stated the need for water to enable a City to grow is very important as well as the impact to the aquifer in the Snake River Plain. He then turned the presentation to Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris noted there have been a series of mediation sessions by Speaker of the House, Scott Bedke, regarding surface water coalition. Mr. Harris presented the following with general discussion throughout: Overview: Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA) municipal water rights  Most ESPA communities rely on ground water  Most ground water rights are junior to senior surface water (canal company and fish producer) water rights  Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) is authorized to “conjunctively manage” ground water and surface water and has done so actively since 2005 Overview: Conjunctive management means…  Delivery calls allege the seniors aren’t getting their full decreed water right and ask for curtailment of junior ground water rights  IDWR uses the conjunctive management rules and various administrative orders to decide: a) how much water the senior is short; and b) which ground water rights should be curtailed to avoid shortage Mr. Harris reviewed the map locations of the Surface Water Coalition (SWC) members  Beginning in 2005, IDWR has issued curtailment orders on a regular basis  For the most part, the curtailment orders impacted irrigation pumpers  In 2015, municipal water rights (including those of Pocatello and other communities) were also identified for curtailment  Juniors can avoid curtailment in the first instance by obtaining approval of a “mitigation plan” with the State Mr. Harris stated a mitigation plan was filed although it was objected by the coalition because there was belief an agreement could be negotiated with the cities.  Juniors can also enter into settlement agreements with seniors that involve providing water, money, management concessions, or other things of value to the seniors in exchange for avoiding curtailment  Settlement agreements provide certainty, but the challenge with drafting the terms of a settlement agreement is assessing the current risk under future conjunctive administration and how that translates into what is offered in a settlement agreement Mr. Harris stated future water years are unknown therefore the risk to the City has been translated into a set of action items which will allow the City to grow for 35 years. Shifting landscape: Idaho Ground Water Appropriators (IGWA) settlement  IGWA negotiated a deal with the SWC that will require the following of the irrigation pumpers: o Annually provide 50,000 acre-feet of storage water to SWC o Commit $1.1 million to existing conversions o Reduce ground water diversions by 240,000 acre-feet/year by 2025 o Shorten the irrigation season (April 1-October 31) o Install measuring devices by 2018 o Facilitate state sponsored recharge equal to 250,000 acre-feet/year o Meet agreed-to aquifer level goals (measured in 19 “sentinel wells”) Mr. Harris stated the goals must be met or reductions could increase. He viewed the sentinel wells areas.  In exchange, SWC agreed: o IGWA would have “safe harbor” from delivery calls for a period of 10 years  Both IGWA and SWC agreed the settlement would: o Stabilize aquifer levels and increase spring flows (and SWC water supplies) o Minimize economic impact that would result from curtailment o Increase measurement of ground water pumping facilitating enforcement of the terms by ground water districts  Goal: “Stabilize and ultimately reverse the trend of declining ground water levels and return ground water levels to levels equal to the average ground water levels from 1991-2001.”  Benchmarks: (1) By 2020 ground water levels will equal ground water levels in 2015; (2) by 2023 ground water levels will be halfway between 2015 ground water levels and goal; and (3) by 2026 goal is reached and ground water levels equal or exceed 1991-2001 average 2 January 19, 2018 Mr. Harris reviewed the 240,000 acre-foot pumping reduction: Declines: 216,000 AF Contingency: 21,600 AF Sum: 237,600 AF Rounding: 240,000 AF He noted flood irrigation versus pump irrigation became more efficient. Mr. Harris reviewed the 2010-2014 Water Management Information System (WMIS) Pumping Data: Irrigation = 1,712,424 acre-feet - 94%, Non-irrigation = 62,028 acre-feet - 3%, Municipal = 58,728 acre-feet  Most cities have resisted this because: o Agreement requires permanent reduction in pumping which is not consistent with economically viable municipal growth o Has a term of only 10 years (all bets are off at 2025) o Would impose on the cities the same penalties as the pumpers, but the cities are responsible for only a fraction of the depletions affecting ESPA ground water levels and the SWC—cities could be curtailed because of irrigators’ failures with no recourse o Cities will be assessed monetarily based on diversion rate (cfs) rather than irrigated acres; there was no clear guidance on how cities would be responsible for their share of pumping reductions  What was a good deal for IGWA is not a good deal for the cities Shifting landscape: GWMA  IGWA and SWC have suggested that the ESPA is in “crisis” and, once they executed their settlement, joined in asking IDWR to form a Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) Mr. Harris indicated this is unknown. Shifting landscape: IGWA settlement and GWMA  IDWR has ordered the formation of a GWMA for the entire ESPA, which many parties—including many cities—have objected to  Proceedings currently appear to be in a holding pattern  This has allowed Cities to negotiate with the SWC terms of a long-term settlement agreement, the provisions of which will be proposed for inclusion in a GWMA plan Long-term agreement term sheet:  Main Provisions of the Term Sheet: o All participating cities will collectively need to provide 7,650 acre-feet per year; this amount can increase to a cap of 9,640 acre-feet per year if IGWA’s 240,000 acre-feet per year obligation increases to 340,000 acre-feet per year or more o Current 16 “represented” cities plus any others that wish to join in are covered o Term of the agreement is the earlier of (i) 35 years or (ii) until participating cities’ collective pumping exceeds 120,000 acre-feet on a five-year rolling average (current pumping for all ESPA cities is approximately 80,000 acre-feet) o Cities will participate in aquifer enhancement activities, primarily through ground water recharge o Cities will perform recharge through either a city’s own recharge project, or more likely, by renting storage water and providing it to the SWC or the Idaho Water Resource Board to perform the recharge – cities would be responsible for any associated costs Brief discussion followed regarding control of water. Compare cities with IGWA  Why 7,650 acre-feet? Mr. Harris reviewed the analysis graph indicating reduction volume and growth. Long-term agreement term sheet:  7,650 acre-feet is the cities’ reduction amount at year 35 when compared with IGWA’s 290,000 acre-feet mitigation amount  At this amount per year, cities are significantly over-mitigating  Even if IGWA’s obligation increased to 340,000 acre-feet per year, cities are still over-mitigating at their rate of 7,650 acre-feet  Why the increase to 9,640 acre-feet if IGWA’s obligation goes up to 340,000 acre-feet or higher? 3 January 19, 2018 o The analysis assumed all cities pumping to be 72,500 acre-feet; it is believed actual pumping of all cities is probably about 10,000 acre-feet higher o 9,640 acre-feet is an estimate of the maximum amount cities would have to reduce if the cities were under the IGWA-SWC Agreement and IGWA’s obligation increased to 340,000 acre-feet per year o Overall, cities are mitigating from day 1 at the maximum amount they would be required if they were under the IGWA-SWC Agreement o Why?  35 years of certainty and the ability to grow into existing rights by 40,000 acre-feet  Cities are showing that they want to recover aquifer levels and over-mitigating from day one their intentions clear  Importantly, cities are not tied to the IGWA-SWC ground water level goals  The amount of mitigation is actually less than what was offered previously by the cities (mitigation equivalent to 10% of pumping)  Why the 120,000 acre-feet re-opener? o It allows another 40,000 acre-feet of growth o It is a better alternative to IGWA’s proposal to only let cities’ grow at a cap of only 1.4% per year o It should encourage city conservation  One major remaining issue relates to IGWA requesting to hold on to the ability to assert its spring water rights and/or ground water rights against the cities in a delivery call o Cities believed they were buying total peace from IGWA under this agreement because of matters wanted to address in negotiating this agreement o As a practical and political matter, IGWA asserting a delivery call against cities is not likely—but it is still possible o This issue has not been resolved  Mitigation water must be provided in the form of “aquifer enhancement activities” o Most likely sources are private leases with storage water holders (such as the City of Pocatello) and the Water District 01 storage water rental pool  GWMA: o Cities will withdraw objections to this designation Mr. Harris believes Idaho Falls is set up well to meet mitigation obligation due to mitigation water and local irrigation district agreements.  Once we finalize the long-term agreement, cities can turn their attention to an agreement between the cities on how we collectively meet our obligations o There will likely be consideration for the priority dates of each city’s water rights, but the majority allocation of mitigation obligation will likely be based on pumping relative to total participating cities’ pumping Mr. Harris stated the City would need to provide approximately 2,500 acre-feet per year. This amount would decrease and the mitigation obligation could be reduced if conservation measures were implemented such as water meters or converting the parks from ground water pumping to surface water irrigation. Mr. Harris noted a similar presentation will occur at the January 22 AIC meetings. Pay for Performance Status Report: Director Tew indicated upon his hiring, he was tasked with changing the City’s pay system. He believed any transition would take approximately two (2) years. He stated outside Consultants have previously presented to Council with what he believes, was positive feedback. He presented the following, stating any future direction would need to be decided by the current Council: Current system: 1- Annual pay adjustment – cost of living adjustment (COLA) 2.5% in previous year based on national inflation increase. 2- Step program – longevity based. All employee positions fall within the Grade and Step Salary Chart. Step increases vary with length of time. The general intention is to hire within market rate and then advance salaries. 4 January 19, 2018 3- Additional longevity bonus – this is a lump sum and does not increase with base pay. What is Pay for Performance? -A system in which all or part of an employee’s compensation is contingent on the quality and/or quantity of the work they do. What differences would it create for employees and the City? -Provide more options for managers/supervisors -Differentiate between employees -Create risk – not a guaranteed raise -De-emphasize longevity -Require more oversight of the process -Require effective management of employees -Change in culture Accomplishes so far - Year One – the Performance Management Piece -Consulting company -Task force Director Tew stated a task force consisting of Brad Cramer, Community Development Services Director; Chris Fredericksen, Public Works Director; Brandon Lerwill, Idaho Falls Power; Elizabeth Knowles, Airport; Russell Nash, Library; Vince Anderson, Municipal Services; Jeff Moad, Parks & Recreation; and, Mindy Moore and Eilene Horne, Human Resources, has met over the previous year and, along with Department Directors, has developed Core Expectations – a set of standards in which every employee would be measured. -Core expectations includes: Customer Service, Dependability, Integrity and Ethics, Continuous Improvement, Safety, and Teamwork -Specific job-related expectations – every job was reviewed for duties and measurable tasks -Performance levels -Structured evaluation and communication process (Performance Awareness Conversation - PAC) Year Two - the Pay Piece -Consultants and Human Resources work with Council and Directors -Develop salary range structure tied to the market – this could be a combination of steps and/or ranges -Establish budget Director Tew does not believe this process would cost more. -Develop merit matrix Director Tew reviewed an example of a Merit Matrix which includes Level of Present Salary within the Range and Performance Levels. The intent would give all employees a market adjustment versus an inflation increase. This process would also replace the Step increases. Issues to Consider - -Is it the highest priority? -Is it the right time? -Is it a cultural fit? Director Tew stated Pay for Performance does not always work in the public sector. Councilmember Freeman believes this process could cause tension between supervisors and employees. -Are our managers/supervisors adequately trained? Director Tew indicated managers and supervisors have only received performance evaluations in the previous two (2) years. He stated Idaho Falls Power (IFP) was anxious to move to this process due to a variety of issues. IFP is scheduled to implement Pay for Performance in the coming year. He believes IFP could be a good test for additional departments. Discussion followed regarding the reasoning behind the proposed Pay for Performance. Mayor Casper indicated the intent was to use tax dollars to obtain good performers and incentivize people to work hard. Councilmember Hally believes adequate time should be considered prior to any implementation. Councilmember Dingman believes it is difficult to recruit and attract higher performing employees if they would be paid in the same manner as someone who does a similar job at a lower quality of work. Councilmember Francis expressed concern that if competition is created among dedicated public servants, a more productive overall work force may not occur. Director Tew indicated there is evidence to support and not support this concern. Councilmember Francis believes 5 January 19, 2018 the leadership problem is being addressed but questioned the ‘U-turn’. General discussion followed. Mayor Casper suggested each Councilmember contact Director Tew directly with any questions/concerns/comments. She noted a follow-up discussion will be scheduled at a future Work Session. Quarterly Finance Presentation: Director Alexander introduced Kenny McOmber, Treasurer and Mark Hagedorn, Controller. She briefly reviewed tasks performed by the Treasurer’s Office and the Controller’s Office. She then turned the presentation to Mr. Hagedorn with general discussion throughout. Mr. Hagedorn reviewed Budget to Actual Revenue Reporting categories: Taxes and Franchises – property taxes and/or franchise fees Intergovernmental Revenue – contracts with County, State, and Federal government entities Governmental Charges for Services – general government charges (exchange transaction), only for current resources for current expenditures Enterprise Charges for Services – services charged for running a program, for current and long-term resources and expenditures Miscellaneous – non-categorized revenues, unique for certain situations, neither exchange or non-exchange transactions Non-Revenue Transfer – exchange within the City between funds Fund Balance – current revenue not budgeted 2017/18 Budget Year to Date Percentage Expended Year-End Forecast Total Revenues $194,923,941 $34,042,121 17.46% $173,017,875 Mr. Hagedorn clarified Enterprise Funds include Airport, Water, Sewer, Sanitation, Ambulance (although subsidized by County contracts and local government), and Electric. He noted property taxes from Bonneville County are received in January and July. Mr. Hagedorn reviewed Budget to Actual Expenditures categories: Wage/Benefits – all personnel costs Operating Expenses – any expense not considered a long-term expenditure Capital Outlay – long-term assets MERF (Municipal Equipment Replacement Fund) Depreciation – accumulation of cash over time with expected equipment to be replaced, managed by General Services Debt Service Payments – no current bonds, one (1) note with Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for Wastewater Treatment upgrades Transfers – Council transfers within funds or business transfers with another fund Mr. Hagedorn stated major expenditures will be addressed as they occur. 2017/18 Budget Year to Date Percentage Expended Year-End Forecast Total Expenditures $194,923,941 $35,614,582 18% $173,017,875 Mr. McOmber stated a Treasurer’s Report will be distributed to Council on a monthly basis indicating all funds, expenses, revenues, debits, credits, and final balance. The report is per Idaho State Statute 50-208 and will be included on the Consent Agenda. He also briefly reviewed Fund Balances for the previous ten (10) years. Mr. McOmber stated Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends, at a minimum, that two (2) months of expenses remain in the fund balance. The City expenses average $4.5m per month general fund expenditures, or $9m minimum. He indicated the fund balance is currently $3m due to recent projects. Mr. McOmber reviewed City Investments – Idaho Code 67-1210 Investment of Idle Moneys, and Idaho Code 50- 1013 Deposit and Investment of Funds. He indicated most cities use the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), the City of Idaho Falls handles its own investments and does not use the LGIP. He stated the City has assisted AIC with changes to State investment regulations. Mr. McOmber stated the Finance and Investment Committee meets on a quarterly basis. Director Alexander noted the Finance and Investment Committee consists of herself, Mr. Hagedorn, Mr. McOmber, Councilmember Hally, and Mr. Prairie. 6 January 19, 2018 Director Alexander reviewed General Fund Management:  General fund departments should manage within their approved budgets and any overages should be communicated to City Council  Monthly meetings with departments to review expenditures and management of general fund resources  Importance of general fund departments bringing 2017/2018 budgeted items before City Council by July 2018  Any new project or project(s) with ongoing costs to the general fund should be communicated to City Council to incorporate into forecast models Director Alexander reviewed additional financial-related updates including the annual audit for 2016/17 fiscal year (ending September 30, 2017), Cayenta financial system configuration and go live (anticipated for April 2018), 2018/19 budget and Priority Based Budgeting, and, risk management annual overview. New Large Single Load Discussion and Consideration of Approval: Director Flowers stated Mr. Prairie has coordinated with other staff to ensure IFP has the power supply capacity to serve this request. She then turned the presentation to Mr. Prairie with general comments/discussion throughout. Mr. Prairie stated per the IFP rate ordinance any load greater than 1 megawatt is required to be negotiated and approved by Council. The current request under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is for a 20 Megawatt (MW) request. He indicated the current largest customer is ~5 MW per hour average, the average annual load for IFP is ~82 MW per hour average. He stated this request would increase the load growth by ~25%. Mr. Prairie reviewed IFP’s current annual position graphs relative to average water; critical water; 20 MW load + Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) purchase increase; and power supply expense versus revenue. He noted Heavy Load refers to the sixteen (16) hours in the middle of the day, Light Load refers to the eight (8) hours during the night. These loads are managed by different price points and different markets. Mr. Prairie also reviewed Wholesale Market versus BPA stating Mid-C 2018-2023 = $20.59 (mid-market price without transmission), BPA = $37.64 (if the load is under 10MW in a single location IFP has to purchase from BPA up to the contract amount, IFP currently has ~14 MW of contract headroom). Mr. Prairie stated if this customer is put in at the current large industrial rate, revenue would be ~$8.1m. The MOU indicates the customer would be willing to serve up to 20 MW. Benefits:  Takes some of our surplus energy  High capacity factor load = light load hour energy  Limited time commitment contract – five (5) years  Limited to no capital outlay for interconnection  Can tailor contract to meet both parties needs  Fills our BPA commitment Risks:  Hydro and market variability – currently have these risks and actively manage them  Dramatic change to portfolio – performance guarantees are including in contract, wholesale prices are already low  Single customer risk – letter of credit will be pursued, potentially tighter billing cycles Mr. Prairie stated in the event of a power outage, this customer will be the last customer to get back on line. Next steps:  Execute the MOU  Customer works to secure final sites  Customer pays for IFP line extensions as needed  Negotiate Power Sales Agreement for five-year term and Council approval  Starts connecting load in April/May timeframe It was moved by Councilmember Hally, seconded by Councilmember Radford, to enter into the intent agreement/MOU to provide up to 20 MW with time constraints and obligations of payment included, and authorize the Mayor to sign the necessary documents. Roll call as follows: Aye – Councilmembers Dingman, Radford, Francis, Smede, Hally, Freeman. Nay – none. Motion carried. 7 January 19, 2018 Council Meetings, Liaison Reports, etc: Mayor Casper corrected Council Liaison Assignments as announced at the January 11, 2018 Council Meeting as follows: Seat 1, Michelle Ziel-Dingman – Airport, Parks and Recreation, Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization (BMPO) Policy Board Chair, and Community Development Services (#2) Seat 2, Shelly Smede – Community Development Services, Municipal Services (#2), and Library Board Seat 3, Tom Hally – Idaho Falls Power Co-Liaison, Police, and Idaho Falls Redevelopment Agency (IFRdA) Board Seat 4, Jim Francis – Fire, Human Resources, Public Works (#2), and BMPO Policy Board Seat 5, John Radford – Municipal Services, Idaho Falls Power Co-Liaison, and Parks and Recreation (#2) Seat 6, Jim Freeman – Public Works, Legal Services, Police (#2), Targhee Regional Public Transportation Authority (TRPTA) Board and BMPO Boards She stated the Liaison duties are to receive briefings from the director(s); become the colleagues resource; and carry department business items at Council Meetings. Mayor Casper reviewed City Council Meetings Overview of protocol and process including bi-monthly Regular Sessions; Special Sessions (including bi-monthly Work Sessions, Budget Sessions, and miscellaneous); and, Executive Sessions (as needed). She also reviewed the agenda building as: City business items from Department heads (memo or request), City administrative items (routine Clerk and Treasurer items), items required by State Statute (budget, fees, Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) hearings), reports from City departments and outside agencies and partners, items from the Mayor’s Office (presentations and awards, resolutions, appointments, administrative planning items), items specifically requested by the Council when in session, study items from the Council President, and, motions from the Council with majority of Council vote. Mayor Casper believes the time allotted for the Councilmembers at Council Work Sessions should be for liaison reports or to raise any concerns. She reminded the Council that their primary role is oversight, budget, and policy setting. General discussion and comments followed. Mr. Fife suggested the discussion item remain as a report. Mayor Casper reviewed the public comment process stating dialogue should not generally occur during the public comment period. She also reviewed the elements of a public hearing process. Mr. Fife stated all questions from the Councilmembers should be presented during the public hearing portion. Mayor Casper reviewed City Council Meeting protocol for regular agenda items. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Radford to adjourn the meeting at 6:49 p.m. s/ Kathy Hampton s/ Rebecca L. Noah Casper CITY CLERK MAYOR 8

Agenda

Honorable Mayor and Council Brad Cramer, Director January 10, 2018 January 9, 2018, Planning Commission Action Planning Commission took the following action during the January 9, 2018 meeting. 1. PLAT17-028 PRELIMINARY PLAT 1ST AMENDED BROOKSIDE DIV. 5 & 6: Generally south of E. Sunnyside Rd., west of S. 25th E., north of E. 49th S. and east of S. 15th E. On 1/9/2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved to the preliminary plat for 1st Amended Brookside Div. 5 & 6 as presented. 2. PLAT17-029 PRELIMINARY PLAT CARLYLE-ERMA SUBDIVISION REVISED PRELIMINARY: Generally south of Lincoln Rd., west of N 25th E., north of E 1st St., and east of N Woodruff Ave. On 1/9/2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Carlyle-Erma revised preliminary plat. 3. PLAT17-030 PARK PLACE REVISED PRELIMINARY: Generally south of W 49th S extended, west of S 5th W., north of W 65th S and east of S 15th W. On 1/9/2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat for Park Place with a condition to limit the access to Fox Run Drive to an emergency access easement only. 4 PLAT17-031 FINAL PLAT JACKSON HOLE JUNCTION SUBDIVISION: Generally south and west of Interstate 15, east of Pioneer Rd., and north of W Sunnyside Rd. On 1/9/2018 the Planning and Zoning Commission approved to the final plat for Jackson Hole Junction Subdivision as presented. 5. PLAT17-032 FINAL PLAT 1ST AMENDED SPRING CREEK DIV. 3: Generally south of E Sunnyside Rd., west of S 15th E, north of E 49th S and east of S Holmes Ave. On 1/9/2018, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the final plat for the 1st Amended Spring Creek Div. 3 as presented. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: To receive recommendation(s) from the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). PC Action 1/9/2018 IDAHO FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT Traffic Safety Committee Meeting Minutes Tuesday June 13 2017 VOTING MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Chairman Capt. Clements IFPD; Bruce Scholes Electric Department; Ralph Frost, School District 91; Bruce Lawrence, Engineering; Kent Fugal, Engineering; Rick McMullen Citizen Member at Large; Ben Burke Idaho Transportation Department. Of these voting members, the Chairman only votes to break a tie vote. NON-VOTING MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Lori Posey- IFPD Quarter Master DaNiel Jose- Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization Jessica Zeller Tye Tomchah Sally Hennie Lance Lindley Jamie, Gracie, Ainsley, Emi, Astrid, Finn, and Jameson Brainthwaite Nicole, Kori, Avery Tripp Marian Boag Old Business: March 14, 2017 minutes reviewed and approved with a unanimous motion. New Business: Item #1: Possible Crossing Guards and Traffic Control Measures at existing crosswalks near Sunnyside Elementary School. Jamie Braithwaite and other concerned parents were in attendance with a presentation regarding the traffic near Sunnyside Elementary. Although this matter was listed to be at the end of the meeting the presentation was pushed to the top of the agenda and the presentation was allowed to commence. The main focus of the presentation was regarding children in the area walking to school and the potential dangers they face due to no traffic signage. The challenges deal with young drivers dropping siblings off, driving too fast, and not being aware of the younger children trying to cross the streets. The group, which is comprised of spokespeople of the various sub-divisions in the school area, are requesting the city look to establish an attended crosswalk near the various intersections affected by the high traffic. These areas include intersections at Stonebrook and Cobblestone, Nathan and Cobblestone, Nathan and Woodhaven, Stone brook and Woodhaven The proposed plan includes:  Solar flashing stop signs (RRFB).  Portable signs for blind curves.  Working with the PD to create safe pick up zones.  Work on better snow removal so large drifts aren’t created.  Certify and train uniformed crossing guards.  Develop a safety awareness plan. Open discussion regarding presentation and the amount of children coming and going at one time. The school principal was present and he said there are approximately 520-570 children leaving at one time. Approximately 540 children coming to school at one time. They have tried to get volunteers to be crossing guards but they are concerned about their personal liability if someone gets hurt. They want to have some sort of crossing guard training and develop a protocol. They have also written a grant that if awarded will be 25K. It can be used to fund some of the requested projects. Kent from Public Works had already reviewed the request and they had already done an intersection count in the area around the school. Kent said there is a plan for traffic control zones that they try to follow for uniformity so drivers in the community know what to expect. All four corners that were brought up as trouble areas meet the criteria for a crosswalk. There are two reduced speed school zones already in place. Kent also pointed out that there was a traffic report done in 2008 of the entire area. The city has been trying to put the recommendations in place with the highest risk areas taking priority. At this time, not all the recommendations have been put in place. At this time the City is looking to: 1. Continue to evaluate the traffic count/gaps in traffic. 2. Determine where reduced speed school zones are correctly laid out. 3. Implement changes based on evaluations. The city is aware that they may need to double the signage but they feel they need to study the area in more detail. They may be able to move the current signage rather than make a large investment in new signage. Discussion regarding the funding crossing guards. The school district and the PD help fund the current crossing guards but the budgets are very small. Kent said that there needs to be some authority to enter traffic and stop drivers. Royce thought it would be possible to train volunteers and the criminal backgrounds checks are not expensive. It was also brought up that there are signs but the landscaping is blocking some of them. It was asked that the city gives the parents a timeline when they can expect some of these issues to be resolved. They will be finding out about the grant in August and if it’s granted they want a plan to be in place. They asked for the city to have a plan by November. Kent agreed this would be possible. Royce volunteered to check with legal into the liability with volunteers being crossing guards. Kent said that we should look at moving the present signs. Bruce Scholes said that could be done very inexpensively depending on the power supply locations. The cost may be expensive if power was not close the desired locations. The board asked Kent and Bruce to prepare a plan and present it to the group. They agreed to table the discussion until this can be completed. Another issue that was brought up was the amount of traffic around Skyline High School. Tye Tomchah said the city changed the speed limit on S. Skyline from 25 – 35 near the school. There is not a crosswalk and there are three schools in the area. Tomchah asked that this be put on the agenda sometime in the future to discuss the dangers of kids walking to the various schools in this area. There are three different schools in the area. Rhalp Frost explained that the elementary school boundaries in this area do not include the east side of Skyline. Unless they have a waiver no elementary students should be crossing Skyline in that area. Item #2: Possible permanent speed limit change on Rollandet to 30 mph Kent and Bruce did a speed study on Rollandet near the zoo. The speed limit goes from 25 – 35 – 25. They are finding that people are not slowing back down to 25. The speed data shows that 35 would probably work as a consistent speed limit. Royce said that the parking near the baseball fields is angled and that would make it difficult to get into the street if the cars are going 35. He suggested the parking be changed to parallel. Royce also thought 30 might be a good compromised speed limit. Kent thought 35 would still be the best and if the parking is changed to parallel it should work. The motion was made to change the parking to parallel and repost 35 mile per hour signs from 21st – Sunnyside. Approved with a Unanimous Motion. Item #3: Trend of traffic accidents in the city- Letter fromPaul Ziel The city has received a letter from an attorney named Paul Ziel. The city attorney’s office has drafted a response to come from Idaho Power. The response was read and it was recommended that a few changes be made prior to sending it. Meeting adjourned June 13 2017 DISTRIBUTION (via e-mail): MEMBERS: Voting Members: Non-voting Members: Chairman: Captain Royce Clements, I.F.P.D. Council Member Ziel- Dingman Rick McMullen, Citizen Member at Large DaNiel Jose, BMPO Ralph Frost, School District 91 Nolan Taylor, INL Transportation Safety Ben Burke, ITD Greg Smith TRPTA Bruce Lawrence, Engineering Kent Fugal, Engineering Bruce Scholes, Electric Department COPY TO: Mayor Casper Kathy Hampton, City Clerk Jackie Flowers, I.F. Power Chris Fredericksen, Public Works PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY NOVEMBER 6, 2017 ACTIVITY CENTER 12:00 NOON Present: Greg A. Weitzel, Brent Martin, Ronnie Campbell, PJ Holm, David Pennock, Tim Reinke, Bill Combo, Jeff Forbes, Jim Hammon, Tom Hersh, Matt Hill, Kyler Hope, Wendy Johnson, John LoBuono, Tom Hally, Mayor Casper Absent: Kerry Martin, Kris Millgate, Dave Radford Guest Attendees: Lisa Jones, Craig Lords, Kenly Osterhout, Robert Nitsche, Jim Francis, Dan Beck APPROVAL OF MINUTES September and October Minutes – Tom Hersh motioned to accept as written. Kyler Hope Seconded. All in favor. PUBLIC COMMENT None GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATE  Kenly Osterhout  Rebecca Casper  Craig Lords  Dan Beck  Jim Francis DEPARTMENT REPORTS Golf – Tim Reinke  No Report Zoo – David Pennock  No Report Recreation – PJ Holm  No Report Parks/Cemeteries – Brent Martin/Ronnie Campbell  No Report MEETING ADJURNED AT 1:29 P.M. Recorded by Lisa Jones Parks and Recreation Division November 7, 2017 - IFDDC Board Meeting held in the Syringa Networks board room (460 Park Avenue, Idaho Falls ID) 8:35am Greg Crockett called the meeting to order. Those in attendance include: Greg Crockett, Kerry Buetler, Brett MClane, Derick Christensen, Lisa Farris, Kevin Josephson, Tasha Taylor, Jake Durtschi, Angie McCall, Chip Schwarze, Mike Allen, George Morrison, Shanon Taylor, Catherine Smith, Todd Thoulin, Brandi Newton, Kevin Cutler, Antonio Meza Agenda amended: in compliance with the Idaho Open Meeting Laws, Greg motioned to amend agenda to include a discussion concerning Façade Grants. Shanon Taylor seconds. All vote in favor. Motion passes. Minutes from October 3, 2017 IFDDC Board Meeting were presented and reviewed. Jake Durtschi moved to approve minutes. Antonio Meza seconds. All vote in favor. Motion passes. Financial statements were reviewed. It was noted October is the first month of the new fiscal year. Shanon moved to accept the financials. Jake Durtschi seconds. All vote in favor. Motion passes. Catherine reported Zombie Pub Crawl - October 28th - $1,080 in sales of $10 each coupon page. Online sales were handled by EventBrite. Coupons outlets were: BlackRock, Healing Hands, Shaddow Domain. There is interest in decorating the downtown with a Zombie theme next year. There is also interest for another Crawl event after the first of the year. FallBrew was cancelled due to weather. The weather reports were predicting high winds of 40 mph. Tents cannot be installed with winds over 25mph. We do predict a $2500-$3000 loss in income. Board discussed the risk/reward on continuing the Brew events and of how folks spend their time downtown during and after the Brew events. Restaurants and bars benefit with increased business. Catherine suggested a committee form prior to WinterBrew to expand on the discussion. IFDDC received a $3900 grant from the Community Support Grant program from the City of Idaho Falls. Catherine presented two options and a vote was taken on the design for the top portion of the Yellowstone sign. The marquee box will also be replaced. A vote was executed and a design was agreed upon. Discussion of lighting the sign and Catherine will follow-up on costs. Discussed an electronic reader board replacing the sign for advertising purposes. Information packets distributed: the current Bylaws, IRS Designation letter, Management Agreement, Parking Lot lease, and the BID Ordinance adopted in July 2017. Information is also available on the IFDDC website on the Board Members webpage. A draft document of Board Responsibilities was distributed for review with comments to be added and implemented at the next board meeting. 2018 Board Meeting dates approved for submission to the City Clerk. Board meetings will be the first Tuesday of every month, except when a holiday or special circumstance bumps it to the next week. 2018 - Jan 9; Feb 6; March 6; April 3; May 1; June 5; July 10; Aug 7; Sept 4; Oct 2; Nov 6; Dec 4 Lisa Farris: $79,275 - façade and sign improvements 2017. The historic post office project - paint and awnings repair. $500 to Idaho Land Properties for a sign (2016 funds). The question has come up of capping applicants of the amount they can request for projects over the years and if roof repair should be included. Consensus was that roofs are not to be part of the façade program. Board agreed that an Ad Hoc Façade Improvement Committee will be formed to discuss the rules and review the criteria for the program. A recommendation will be made from the committee to the board in December. Greg Crocket adjourned the meeting at 9:45 Our next board meeting will be held December 5, 2017. December 5, 2017 - IFDDC Board Meeting held in the Syringa Networks board room (460 Park Avenue, Idaho Falls ID) 8:35am Antonio Meza called the meeting to order. Those in attendance: Tom Judd, Brent McLane, Derek Christiansen, Lisa Farris, Kevin Josephson, Tasha Taylor, Steve Fischbach, Jill Hansen, Jake Durtschi, Chip Schwarze, Shanon Taylor, Catherine Smith, Brandi Newton, Kevin Cutler, Antonio Meza, Dana Briggs, Carla and Ashley from Vogue Beauty College & Salon and Mala Lyon. Minutes from Nov 7, 2017 were reviewed. Motion by Brandi to approve the minutes ; Derek seconded – board approved. Financial report reviewed. Motion by Shanon to approve; Kevin C. seconded – board approved Catherine informed the board that the Façade committee met last Tuesday, Nov. 28th. Lisa reviewed that the committee discussed what criteria each application needs to meet, that the caps will be $25,000 per project per side of a building, $1500 for an awning project and $500 for a sign project. Also Code corrections, roof and structural analysis can be covered. The committee recommends that no grant money be given for roof repair. The consensus is that a roof is a maintenance issue and the responsibility of the property owner, and is not a façade improvement. A decision needs to be made as soon as possible, as an application for roof repair has been submitted. It is suggested that if the roof problem is going to affect the façade in some real manner then it can be considered and then only enough to shore it up until the owner can pay to have repairs done. Antonio requested something in writing before a vote was made by the board. Façade improvements are eye level improvements to a building that improves the walking experience downtown. Brandi proposed that Catherine put together the proposal and it be sent out by email to the board and they will return their vote to her. Shanon seconded that motion and the board agreed. The committee will met again and create a specific criteria point system that will determine if a project qualifies. Director Report – Catherine shared photos from the tree lighting and the Find Santa’s Puppy events. We had great weather for both and estimate 400 to 500 people at the tree lighting. We gave out 350 free cups of hot chocolate. The special middle tree honors veterans from Idaho – we included a presentation of the colors by an honor guard and the singing of the National Anthem. A kids group sang and another danced. The Mayor and Santa arrived on the trolley and did a countdown to turn on the lights. We gave out 365 Find Santa’s Puppy maps. MCS Advertising designed the maps and donated the map cards. The lines for the horse drawn trolley rides were very long both days. Some people didn’t get a ride at the tree lighting as we had to stop and go pick up Santa and the Mayor. We are looking into providing a second trolley for those two days next year. If the lines are shorter the next 3 weeks the trolley will swing over to Cliff Street. Catherine also showed the latest design photos of the Broadway project. The 3 story building will be closest to A Street with 49 underground parking spots and 24 surface spots. The courtyard will have about a 100 foot square of usable space. There will be electricity, speakers and lighting available for events. The parking management process is still in the works. We will go ahead with the planned parking committee and are grateful to have Brent’s expertise. Social media – when Catherine started we had about 2,000 followers on face book and we now have 3,160. We need to have some guidelines and policies in place for our social media. Catherine will draft an outline of that and have it ready for the next board meeting. The board was handed a board members responsibility document. No changes were received so it is ready as presented in our last meeting. Each board member is asked to read it and sign it and return it to Catherine. Traffic Cabinets – Through the Historic Foundation we are planning to do vinyl art wraps around the 16 traffic cabinets. Art work from the Art Museum and photos from Kris Millgate have been offered to use. We have applied for a grant from the Air Show and should know in the next few weeks if we received that. It will cost $10,000 to do all 16. We are also looking at asking for sponsorships that would include a small logo on the wrap. Brent said we would need to check the rules on that so it does not violate the signage laws. Cliff Street – several of the businesses on Cliff Street have expressed interest in being part of the BID as class B members. We hope to install planter boxes and hanging flower baskets on Cliff Street, so that the feel of downtown is there also. Continued discussion of who is our ‘customer’ and what do they value – the property owner, the merchant or the clientele that comes downtown. Brandi said it is always everyone, when you market an event you want all aspects to be a positive experience from parking, the event itself, to the visual appealing look of downtown, to the safety of when they leave after an event or shopping experience. Jake said we need the perspective of when the customer and the community experience grows, so does business. Catherine said we need strategic planning so we know the priorities so our marketing dollars are put to the best use. Brandi suggested that reports to businesses be done quarterly or annually to show the impact of things we do. We reach out to diverse demographics with the variety of events. Catherine pointed out that we have not had a baseline in the past to be able to say this many people came to an event last year and this year we had this many more. With tracking the metrics we can show the value of what we do and accomplish. Then when someone questions our value we can show them the facts. Jill recommended that we think of a bigger project, something property owner can see such as the talked about alley improvements. SnakeBite, Blackrock and the Villa are all still interested in using the alley spaces next to them. Brent – the downtown plan has been approved and will go to vote before the city council next week. This will be a form based code rather than a zoning code. He offered to do a presentation next month at the board meeting to explain it. The area affected will be from E Street to Cliff and the river to Yellowstone. Meeting was adjourned at 9:25.Our next board meeting will be held January 9, 2017 at 8:30am in the Syringa Networks board room. Respectfully submitted by Kevin Josephson, IFDDC secretary and Mala Lyon Pay For Performance Ryan Tew HR Director Today’s Presentation Review City’s current compensation plan Provide update on pay for performance project Receive direction from City Council Status Quo 1. Annual Pay Adjustment – tied to inflation 2. Step Program – longevity based 3. Additional longevity bonus Grade and Step Salary Chart 2017-2018 Longevity Compensation Regular Employees, Excluding Sworn Police Officers Completed Years of Service Compensation 3 years $ 351 5 years $ 747 7 years $1,230 9 years $1,577 11 years $1,843 13 years $2,060 20 years $2,240 25 years $2,372 What is Pay for Performance? A system in which all or part of an employee’s compensation is contingent on the quality and/or quantity of the work they do. What differences would it create for employees and the city?  Provide more options for managers/supervisors  Differentiate between employees  Create risk – not a guaranteed raise  De-emphasize longevity  Require more oversight of the process  Require effective management of employees  Change in culture What have we accomplished so far?  Year One – The Performance Management Piece  Consulting company  Task force  Core expectations  Specific job-related expectations  Performance levels  Structured evaluation and communication process Year Two – The Pay Piece Consultants and HR work with Council and Directors Develop salary range structure tied to the market Establish budget Develop merit matrix Merit Matrix Level of Present Salary within the Range Hiring and Proficient Range Market Range Superior Performance Range Market Adjustment + 3 – 4% Market Adjustment Market Adjustment Exceptional (not to exceed range max) Performance Levels + 4 – 5% + 3 – 4% or one-time lump sum increase not added to base Outstanding Market Adjustment Market Adjustment Market Adjustment Performance + 3 – 4% + 2 – 3% + 1 – 2% Meets Market Adjustment Market Adjustment Less than Market Adjustment Expectations + 1 – 2% Market Adjustment after Market Adjustment after Needs sustained performance sustained performance No Market Adjustment Improvement improvements improvements Fails to Meet No adjustment No adjustment No adjustment Expectations Action Plan required Action Plan required Action Plan required Issues to Consider Is it our highest priority? Is it the right time? Is it a cultural fit? Are our managers/supervisors adequately trained? MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN IDAHO FALLS POWER AND BLOCK UNITED, LLC (Relating to the service of data center type load under IFP’s New Large Single Load Rate) This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN IDAHO FALLS POWER AND BLOCK UNITED, LLC, (Relating to the service of data center type load under IFP’s New Large Single Load Rate) (“MOU”) is entered into as of this __________day of January, 2018 by and between Block United, LLC, (“CUSTOMER”) whose address is 727 North 1550 East, Ste. 425, Orem, Utah 84097 and the City of Idaho Falls, Idaho, dba Idaho Falls Power (“IFP”), whose address is 140 S. Capital Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402. WHEREAS, Block United, LLC, is a prospective new customer of IFP and is requesting large load interconnection and service; and WHEREAS, IFP is an Idaho municipal electric utility which serves the corporate city limits of Idaho Falls, Idaho; and WHEREAS, CUSTOMER will take service from IFP under a future Negotiated Rate Agreement (“NRA”) which will include more detailed terms of service and is planned to follow this MOU prior to MOU’s termination. 1. NATURE OF SERVICE This MOU is for the commitment of service from IFP to CUSTOMER of up to twenty (20) Megawatts of interconnected load (“Service”). Such Service will be for high capacity factor, data center type load in which there is limited fluctuation in demand through different periods of time. Specific capacity factor requirements for the Service will be addressed in the NRA between the Parties. 2. COST OF SERVICE The price for this Service shall be served under IFP’s New Large Single Load rate which provides for a negotiated power sales agreement (NRA) that identifies the rate, length of service and any additional price terms under which the CUSTOMER will receive service. This MOU contemplates that the NRA price will be no greater than the current Large Industrial Rate of 3.9¢ per kWh, with a monthly demand of $7.00 per KW on peak monthly measured demand. 3. LENGTH OF SERVICE The minimum length of Service to be offered by IFP to CUSTOMER shall be five (5) years, commencing on the first day of energy deliveries to CUSTOMER. The Parties understand that the length of service may exceed five (5) years, if agreed to by the Parties. 4. LOCATION(S) OF SERVICE BLOCK UNITED AND IFP MOU PAGE 1 OF 3 IFP will identify all locations which have available capacity for Service to CUSTOMER. IFP shall not be responsible for any line extension or system upgrade costs to connect CUSTOMER beyond those that are normal and customary for typical commercial customers. IFP will identify and communicate to CUSTOMER the line extension costs for chosen locations of service. CUSTOMER shall be responsible to pay for any and all line extension costs prior to IFP’s commencing of construction of facilities for CUSTOMER interconnection. 5. TERMINATION This MOU shall terminate upon the occurrence of any of the following: (a) execution of a NRA between the parties; or (b) written notification by CUSTOMER to terminate this MOU; or (c) failure by either Party to execute a NRA on or before midnight local time May 31, 2018. 6. AMENDMENTS No amendment of this MOU shall be of any force or effect unless set forth in a written instrument signed by authorized representatives of each Party. 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS (a) This MOU is for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties and shall not create a contractual relationship with, or cause of action in favor or benefit of, any third party. (b) Each Party shall be solely responsible for and shall pay its own costs and expenses incurred by it in connection with the negotiation of this MOU or other agreement(s). (c) Any notice required under this MOU shall be in writing, including by email, and shall be effective when received. Either Party may change the name or address for receipt of notice by providing notice of such change. The Parties shall deliver notices to the following persons and addresses: If to Block United, LLC: If to Idaho Falls Power: Block United, LLC Idaho Falls Power 727 North 1550 East, Suite 425 140 S Capital Avenue Orem, UT 84097 Idaho Falls, ID 83402 Attention: Barry Dixon Attention: Bear Prairie Phone: 801-404-6876 Phone: 208-612-8429 (d) Nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed as creating a partnership, association, joint venture or other entity involving the Parties, nor shall anything contained in this MOU be construed as creating or requiring any fiduciary relationship between the Parties. No Party shall be responsible hereunder for the acts or omissions of the other Party. BLOCK UNITED AND IFP MOU PAGE 2 OF 3 9. WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL NOTWITHSTANDING THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT AS TO THE NON-BINDING NATURE OF THIS MOU, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EACH OF THE PARTIES HERETO WAIVES ANY RIGHT IT MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN RESPECT OF LITIGATION DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS MOU. EACH PARTY FURTHER WAIVES ANY RIGHT TO CONSOLIDATE, OR TO REQUEST THE CONSOLIDATION OF, ANY ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL HAS BEEN WAIVED WITH ANY OTHER ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL CANNOT BE OR HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED. THIS SECTION WILL SURVIVE THE EXPIRATION OR TERMINATION OF THIS MOU. 10. GOVERNING LAW This MOU shall be governed by, construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. 11. MULTIPLE COUNTERPARTS This MOU may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which is deemed an original but all constitute one and the same instrument. 12. NO ASSIGNMENT No right, benefit, liability, or obligation under this MOU may be transferred or assigned to any third party. 13. SIGNATURE The Parties have caused this MOU to be executed as of the date both Parties have signed this MOU. BLOCK UNITED, LLC IDAHO FALLS POWER By: By: Name: Name: (Print/Type) (Print/Type) Title: Title: Date: Date: BLOCK UNITED AND IFP MOU PAGE 3 OF 3

Get email alerts for Idaho Falls

A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.

Report an issue with this meeting