Nancy Merrill moved and Tammy de Weerd seconded the approval of the previous meeting’s minutes and the finance/budget report.
Nancy Merrill introduced the final floodplain enhancement proposals that have been developed through cooperation with each jurisdiction’s floodplain management officials and representatives of the Idaho Water Resources and others. She indicated that each of the five bulleted items represent minimum standards that should help cities/counties minimize damage like what occurred during last year’s relatively minor flood event. She stated that three of the items are physical standards and two of the items are more philosophical or administrative in nature.
She stated that to institute the three physical standards some jurisdictions might have to create an overlay district for exceptions on areas where residential construction has already occurred along waterways. Nancy mentioned that the “no adverse impact” portion of the floodplain enhancements represents one of the most important philosophies of floodplain management that will help mitigate future damage due to flood events.
Nancy Merrill requested that each jurisdiction work these floodplain enhancements through their ordinance processes, and be prepared to come to the February meeting of the Treasure Valley Partnership to report on where each jurisdiction is in the process of enacting these enhancements. She indicated she would like to be able to identify a time to hold a press conference on flood mitigation management at the February meeting. Frank McKeever asked if there was a timeline on enacting these ordinance enhancements. Nancy stated that she felt we should try to have these enhancements in place by spring. Nancy also stated that she is working with several legislatures to work on this issue at the State level. There is a law that is being drafted to provide some guidance on floodplain issues at the State level.
Margie Watson commended Nancy for spearheading this effort.
Nate Mitchell introduced Bob Taunton, President of Suncor Idaho, to deliver a presentation on financing public infrastructure.
Bob stated that all jurisdictions are struggling to finance public infrastructure and there isn’t any new money available. He introduced Mike Martin to deliver the power point presentation.
Mike Martin indicated that they have done assessment bonds, general obligation bonds and revenue bonds to finance public infrastructure. They have worked with local jurisdictions to help coordinate the development of these finance tools.
Community Infrastructure Districts are separate political subdivisions or districts within a City that has the power to finance public infrastructure using tax exempt financing. The district has the ability to acquire and maintain public infrastructure. The project has to be a public project and within the boundaries of the impact area of a city or areas that are contiguous to the City. The district is governed by the City Council or County Commission.
Rick Yzaguirre asked if the CID is what is being proposed to the Idaho Legislature. The answer is yes. Matt Beebe asked why we are excluding the unincorporated areas of counties that are rapidly growing? Mike indicated that due to the political experience of last year it was felt the unincorporated part of past proposals would not progress very well with the legislature this year.
A CID is not mandatory. It is just a financing tool that Cities can use to finance public infrastructure. After a CID is formed, it is fully disclosed to potential homeowners of the district. The publicly financed debt of the district is guaranteed by the district and is not an obligation of City/County taxpayers. This type of financing tool for public infrastructure and is good for master plan developments. Additionally, this year’s proposal will include schools.
Benefits of the CID are that it is a tool that developers and Cities use for areas in the district and not all of the jurisdictions citizens are obligated to the tax. Paul Woods asked, if a CID were inside an area of impact, why would those citizens want to be annexed? Mike Martin stated, up front the City would be knowledgeable of CID areas and the plans for annexation of the development. Then when it goes to vote, everyone is knowledgeable of the process.
Tammy de Weerd asked if the CID would lower the price of homes in the district. Mike Martin stated that it will help lower the cost of homes in the district, but it would be impossible to prove. At the district development stage, all improvements are negotiated at the consent stage it places the burden on the jurisdiction up front as to what infrastructure improvements are involved.
The steps in the process: 1) Petition, 2) Form a board, 3) Developer constructs infrastructure, 4) Authorize bonds (these can be general obligation, special assessment, and revenue bonds), 5) District issues bonds, 6) District pays the debt service.
Nate Mitchell introduced Fire Marshall Joe Silva from Meridian to discuss the Fireworks Ordinances that have been developed. The major components of the ordinances include; 1) minimum ages of purchase, 2) maximum sizes of tents, 3) permanent structures for wholesale operations.
They asked for clarification on direction they would take with regards to this issue. Specifically would the Partnership want them to include language at the county level on banning dangerous or illegal fireworks?
Tammy de Weerd indicated that some of the problems we are having are the differences between city and county laws. Joe indicated that they are trying to address the issues at the supply side of fireworks. Tom Dale stated that closing the loophole of banning the sale of illegal fireworks in the county or at the State level is desirable.
The loophole in the State law has to do with inter-state commerce for legitimate wholesalers who are merchandising illegal fireworks for sale outside of the State. Rick Yzaguirre indicated that they would have their legal department to address this issue and hopefully have something for the next meeting. Matt Beebe asked what the reluctance is of the legislators for closing the State loophole. Joe indicated that legislators do not see the aerial fireworks as a problem as it seems as though everyone is purchasing and utilizing illegal fireworks and a belief that people will purchase and use them regardless if they were available in the State. Specifically, they could be purchased on Indian reservations. Additionally, there are no real statistics statewide on the property damage or injury/death due to illegal fireworks.
Nancy Merrill made a motion to support the ordinances as presented to the Partnership. Tammy de Weerd stated that we have to have the Counties on board with these ordinance proposals. She asked them to have their legal departments address this issue and come back to the Partnership with their recommendations. Matt Beebe indicated that when the State closes the loophole with respect to illegal fireworks, then Canyon County would follow suit. Motion carried.
Rick Yzaguirre indicated that Paul Woods would be the liaison from Ada County.
Tammy de Weerd asked each of the members to report back to the February meeting as to what each jurisdiction is doing for the March Against Meth activities. They would like to hand out a listing of what each jurisdiction is doing to battle substance abuse on March 21st.
Meeting adjourned.
