(Minutes subject to council approval)


DATE OF MEETING: – Monday, April 22, 2024                                   TIME: 6:30AM

PLACE:  Training Room, 606 Maple Street


PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Nelson

PRESENT were Councilmembers Tyler Nelson, Kimberly Ingram, James Zenner, Kelby Heartburg and Mike Jensen, Maintenance Supervisor Craig Cardwell, Maintenance Operator Ben Mauer and Clerk/Treasurer Rhonda Schmidt. Guests present were JUB Engineers Amy Uptmor and Colt Shelton. 


  1. IDWR Emergency Plan (EAP) – Review and adopt: Following a description of the purpose of the emergency plan Cm. Ingram moved to adopt the plan as presented, motion was seconded by Cm. Heartburg, motion carried with all ayes.
  2. Council Questions Regarding Design: The following is a list of council questions and answers compiled by Engineer Amy Uptmor:
  • Pros/Cons/Cost/O & M – The cost of ownership over the next 5 to 10 years: Ingram would like to know what the cost of ownership is for pivots vs big guns including budget needs. Discussion of the cost to install a big gun was estimated at $3,700. That covers the pipe, fixtures, contractor costs and such but to replace a big gun is around $1,000 the gun comes with warranty. Maintenance costs, repairs on pivots are unknown. More than likely this project will require a full time employee.
  • Safety/Pilots: Council concurs that safety for the pilots remains a priority.
  • Why Pivots Now: Zenner asked “Why Pivots Now?” and Amy explained that JUB looked at pivots initially and when speaking with a colleague regarding pivots in 2020 he explained the slick soil type and the contour of the landscape of the property does not make pivots the best option. She added that following the pilot meeting Colt came up with a design that included a pivot, but Amy made it clear that they are not recommending a pivot, they feel strongly that there will be issues with the pivot and defiantly do not recommend pivots on the east side of the field. Amy explained that in 2020 the designed moved away from pivots and the design of big guns and zones began. Colt added that if the council decides on pivots we would need to get manufacturers warranties because the manufacturer will tell us they will work to make a sale but there remains too many unknowns with pivots.
  • Dollars for Plan/Design – Rising Project Costs from facility plan until now: Mayor Nelson stated that when we initially started the council didn’t want to spend the dollars for a mechanical treatment plant so moved in the direction of land ap. Amy answered that when we began this process the cost of a mechanical plant was more than the land ap project and that was with the city leasing irrigation property. The city decided to purchase the property, so the cost of the property purchase was 3 quarters of a million dollars and inflation over the last 4 years is a major driver in project costs.
  • Residents Rates – Don’t want to use the bond: Nelson stated that we have many residents living on a fixed income and the city wants to keep the cost to the public as low as possible. We have a responsibility to the community to be fiscally responsible and make every dollar count.
  • Pivot Operation: Amy and Colt met with Craig and Ben to discuss how pivots work as neither has operated one. Colt knows more about pivots than anyone. Pivots come with lots of unknowns as there are lots of moving parts and maintenance needs even with a warranty. How long they last are all unknown as well as the ownership costs. Colt explained how to install the quick coupler is installed on unpressured lines. To determine how many quick couplers we will need in the RPZ Cardwell and Ben will take the GPS coordinates and mark the area with flags giving the pilots another visual as they take off and land.
  • From the above questions the council’s priorities became:
  1. Safety/Regulations
  2. Rates (Project Cost)
  3. Maintenance/Ease of Operation
  4. Re-Design Options: Amy moved to review options the city has for additional funding. Until Phase 2 goes to bid we are unable to move on additional funding. The funding opportunities come with a fee increase depending on the direction we go, and it was evident that the bond will be used but how much depends on the Phase 2 bids and the funding package decided upon.

The final discussion was based on choosing an option to move forward with. The council discussed Option 5 from the April 4th meeting powerpoint which moves the road east, has big guns and quick couplers in the RPZ. With moving the road it means that the valves can be above ground which will help with project costs. Amy and Colt thought it could take maybe a month of redesign then the project would be ready for bid.

Cm. Jensen moved to approve Option 5 with big guns and quick couplers in the fly zone and moving the road to the east. Cm. Zenner seconded the motion, motion carried with Cm. Heartburg, Jensen and Zenner voting aye. Cm. Ingram left the meeting at 8:00AM so wasn’t present for the motion.

ADJOURNMENT: Mayor Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:07AM                   

Other/Upcoming Events:

Upcoming Council Meetings: May 13 at 7AM

CEDA Annual Meeting – April 25th 5PM  LCSC, Williams Conference Center

Tax Commission Budget Workshop April 29th in Moscow

Arbor Day – April 26th DATE CHANGE

Community Wide Yard Sale Day – May 11th

The next regularly scheduled city council meeting will be on Monday, May 13 at 7:00AM at City Hall.

__________________________                             _____________________________

Tyler R. Nelson, Mayor                    Rhonda J. Schmidt, Clerk-Treasurer

The following is an email transcribed to the council following questions from the meeting and 3 pages regarding funding from the April 22nd powerpoint.

From: Amy Uptmor <auptmor@jub.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 10:00 AM
To: clerk@cityofnezperce.com <clerk@cityofnezperce.com>
Cc: dclerkcityofnezperce@gmail.com <dclerkcityofnezperce@gmail.com>
Subject: FW: Budget/Funding follow-up for Nezperce


Thanks for meeting with us on Monday to discuss questions & concerns you have on the design approach.  I know that we ran short on time for the rates & funding and wanted to follow-up regarding several of those items, especially as that was the highest priority (below safety/regulations) you discussed for your project.

  • Total Cost Analysis –A total cost analysis of the project was estimated during the Facility Plan, see attached.  You’ll see that Operations & Maintenance costs in 2019/2020 were estimated at $26,000/year (not adjusted for inflation).  We have a much more thorough understanding of what the project looks like now.  Purchasing the property allowed you to shift a significant expense from the O&M cost (which the City will bear) into a capital cost that you were able to receive grant funding for.  We can complete another estimate on this at any time, moving forward now & revising after bids are received if you would like, just let us know.
  • Rates –  As you noted, the City has been proactive raising rates for over 10 years to position for this effort and a portion of the existing rate is already funding the project.  Even though the additional O&M on the project was estimated at $26k/year, we don’t have information to tell you how much of your existing rate you are saving and how much you’re currently using in your operating budget.  I believe rates following the 2009 upgrades project were on the order of $40/month.  If you’re interested to dig into rates and hone them in, this is not our specialty but there is a 3rd party financial analyst called FCS that several of our clients use to assess municipal utility rates.  I can get some references for you to talk with if you would like to learn more, but I’m pretty sure both McCall and KPSD (near Sandpoint) use them.  FCS Group | Solutions | Utility Rate and Fee Consulting.  DEQ has a minimum rate increase they required to fund their loan, but that wasn’t based on a thorough review of rates.  An analyst may be able to help you refine that value.
  • Funding/Loan – If you’re able to secure the supplemental funding from DEQ, the estimated loan is about $1.1M, which is roughly in line with the $1M loan discussed back in 2019 during Facility Plan development.  In short, the funders have interest in keeping rates as low as they can and you have received an very strong funding package.  DEQ is committed to the success of your project.  Please use these estimates with caution, as again, I don’t know what additional funding stipulations may roll forward with the supplemental funding, nor do I know what type of financing you will be able to secure on any additional loan. 
    • I attached a few slides from the presentation on funding, adding a new one that shows a theoretical $1M savings.  The only way we see that we could get you to that level of project savings would be to make a significant shift in design, moving to handset irrigation line or converting all your sprinkler heads to the quick couplers so you only purchased 30-40 heads and rotated them around (savings on the order of $500,000) daily.  These would both be significant concessions increasing your O&M with an estimated rate impact on the order of $1-$5/month depending on the financing received for the additional loan. 

Please don’t hesitate to give myself or Colt a call at any time if you would like to revisit any topic or have questions moving forward.  Thanks again for your time,


Amy K. Uptmor, P.E.

Project Engineer


201 S Jackson Street – Moscow, ID  83843

e  auptmor@jub.com   w  www.jub.com  

f  844 830 2645 c  208 790 1957