HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-22Meridian City Council March 22, 2016
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday,
March 22, 2016, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Joe Borton, Ty Palmer
and Anne Little Roberts.
Members Absent: Genesis Milam and Luke Cavener.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Bruce Chatterton, Caleb Hood, Sonya
Watters, Steve Siddoway, Warren Stewart, Jamie Leslie, Perry Palmer, Keith
Watts and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X_ Anne Little Roberts X _ Joe Borton
X__ Ty Palmer X_ Keith Bird
_____ Genesis Milam ______ Lucas Cavener
_X Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you for joining us. For the record it is March 22nd. It's
five minutes after 6:00. We will start with roll call attendance. Madam Clerk.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and join us
in the pledge to our flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard with Ten Mile
Christian Church
De Weerd: Item No. 3 is our community invocation. Tonight we will be led by
Larry Woodard. He is with the Ten Mile Christian Church. Thank you for joining
us, Larry. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an
opportunity for a moment of reflection.
Woodard: This has been an unusual day, has it not? And my prayer reflects
that. Our Dear Heavenly Father, we come to you tonight with anxious hearts
after learning of the Islamic terrorist attack in Brussels. We pray tonight for those
who were wounded and for the families of those who were killed. We ask that all
the hurting people in Brussels be comforted as a search for the terrorists begins.
We pray tonight for our nation, that we be safe from this kind of attack, but we
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 2 of 48
are reminded that even in our city, a city that has been blessed with good police,
good leadership by this Council and neighborhoods that are clean and friendly,
that we not forget you. Before the Council takes up business of this city we just
ask for your forgiveness when we have strayed in our moral values. Nude
Facebook pictures, drugs, pornography, language are just a few of the dangers
our young people face and we ask for wisdom in how to deal with these issues.
Our city continues to grow rapidly and with growth comes critical infrastructure
issues that this Council must address. Give each of them wisdom tonight as
issues come before them. Tonight I pray for the city clerk, who quietly goes
about her duties each day. The city worker in his pickup truck that makes sure
the water is available to each home, that the sewers work, and as I often
mention, our emergency personnel, the police, fire, ambulance services that
keep us protected and safe. I thank you tonight for the Mayor, each City
Councilman and Woman and each city official who is attending tonight, that they
have good health and wisdom as this Council meeting begins, in Jesus' name,
amen.
Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda
De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Under 6-G, the resolution number is 16-1126 and Item No. 9-B has been
asked to continue until April 5th, 2016, and Item C has been asked to withdraw
this application. And with that I move we approve the amended agenda.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as
read. All those in favor -- I'm sorry. The adoption of the agenda. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 5: Proclamation
A. Proclamation for March for Meals Month
De Weerd: Council, excuse me while I go to the podium. I will ask Mr. Grant
Jones to join me up here. I have a proclamation to read and, then, I will ask Mr.
Jones if he would like to make some comments. This proclamation is regarding
Meals on Wheels and if you haven't helped to deliver them I would suggest that
you volunteer and take that opportunity. You will get a greater understanding of
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 3 of 48
the importance of this activity and the service. It's not just feeding the hungry, it
is -- for many of our shut-ins that outlet to have social and human contact. So, I
appreciate all you do in our community and across the Treasure Valley.
Whereas on March 22nd, 1972, President Richard Nixon signed into law a
measure that amended the Older Americans Act of 1965 and established a
national nutrition program for seniors 60 years and older and whereas Meals on
Wheels America established the March for Meals campaign in March 2002 to
recognize the historic month, the importance of Older Americans Act nutrition
program and to raise awareness about the escalating problem of senior hunger
in America and whereas Metro Wheels -- Meals on Wheels -- say that fast -- in
Treasure Valley has served the seniors of Meridian and surrounding communities
admirably by providing nutritious meals and whereas volunteers are the
backbone of the program and not only do they deliver nutritious meals to seniors
who are at risk of hunger, but also delivery genuine, caring co ncern and attention
to their welfare and whereas Meals on Wheels program helps maintain senior
health and independence and offer a powerful socialization opportunity to combat
loneliness and isolation, therefore, I, Mayor Tammy de Weerd, do hereby
proclaim March for Meals Month here in the City of Meridian and I urge every
citizen to take time this month to honor our local Meals on Wheels and the
seniors they service and the volunteers who are an integral part of this program.
It's signed today and I will turn this over to Mr. Grant Jones and ask him to make
some comments on behalf of the Meals on Wheels program.
Jones: Thank you so much.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Jones: Thank you so much, Mayor Tammy. It is a real privilege to be here
tonight. We deliver and serve over 400 meals just in the Meridian area alone
every weekday. That's a lot of meals if you think about it. Nine hundred in our
whole program and senior hunger and food insecurity is real. It really is. We
think we live in a, you know, pretty affluent community where we don't have to
worry. Over 29,000 Idaho seniors face food insecurity. I want to share a face
with that statistic, just to give you a quick little story. We were just recently
notified about a lady named Wanda -- and I get kind of emotional about this,
because you just think about there are lots of Wandas out there in Ada County.
One of -- a lady had come to our office and I gave her a brochure. She took it,
she said I didn't really know why I took it, I just took it. W ell, now she knows why.
She went to her neighbor, they just moved there. She went to her neighbor and
she took her a cinnamon roll and Wanda started crying and she said it's just a
cinnamon roll. Well, I used to make cinnamon rolls. I can't make them anymore
and I'm going to have this for dinner. Nicki looked at her and said that's your
dinner? She said I went to the refrigerator this afternoon, I had two hotdogs and
they were green. That's all I had. That's all I have. So, Nicki said, well, enjoy
the cinnamon roll, but I'm going to bring you a dinner. So, she did and, then, she
put her on Meals on Wheels, so now we deliver to her every day. Lots of
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 4 of 48
Wandas out there. So, thank you so much for what you're doing. Thank you for
your proclamation. We really appreciate it. And we have for you -- I know you're
going to love these -- Meals on Wheels hot pads. So, a pair of hot pads for you
and may I say one thing -- just one more thing? We had a march on Saturday,
891 people came out. Frank, who is back here, front page of the ValleyTimes,
plus inside the paper. FSA right here in Meridian donated five dollars, which is
the cost of a meal for every walker. That's pretty generous. And they have
committed to next year, too. We doubled what we had l ast year in Meridian at
Kleiner Park and we hope we have the largest one in the country and Meridian
may be able to take that distinction. So, thank you so much. It means a lot and
this means a lot to our seniors and we really appreciate the fact that yo u're
recognizing that senior hunger and food insecurity is real, even right here in
Meridian. So, thank so very much. Thank you.
Item 6: Consent Agenda
A. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement between the
City of Meridian and James D. Patterson on S. Barletta
Way in Normandy Subdivision No. 1
B. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement between the
City of Meridian and James D. Patterson for S. Sarteano
Ave. in Normandy Subdivision No 1
C. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement between the
City of Meridian and James D Patterson on S Leaning
Tower Ave in Normandy Subdivision No. 1
D. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement between the
City of Meridian and James D. Patterson for South Murlo
Avenue in Normandy Subdivision No. 1
E. Cost Share Permit with the Ada County Highway District
for: Street Lighting Improvements to be Included with
the Franklin Road, Black Cat Road to Ten Mile Road
Widening Project. The $29,000.00 Local Match is to be
Paid up Front Per Idaho Transportation Department
Requirements.
F. Fifth Amendment to Lease Agreement with Department
of Correction for Space at Meridian Police Department
G. Resolution No. 16-1126: Approving Fifth Lease
Amendment Extending Term of June 24, 2002 Lease
Agreement for Space at Meridian Police Station Between
State of Idaho and City of Meridian
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 5 of 48
H. Approval of Task Order 10628.a to MURRAY SMITH &
ASSOCIATES for the “WATER MASTER PLAN 2017
UPDATE – PHASE 1” project for a Not-To-Exceed
amount of $68,748.00.
I. Final Plat for Creason Creek Subdivision (H-2016-0022)
by CS2, LLC Located Southeast Corner of N. Linder
Road and W. Ustick Road. Request: Final Plat
Consisting of Thirty-Four (34) Single Family Residential
Lots and Six (6) Common Lots on 15.75 Acres of Land in
the R-8 Zoning District
J. Final Plat for Oaks South No. 4 (H-2016-0020) by
Coleman Homes, LLC Located South Side of W.
McMillan Road, Between N. McDermott and Black Cat
Roads Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-
Six (46) Single Family Residential Lots and Seven (7)
Common Lots on 17.99 Acres in the R-4 Zoning District
De Weerd: Thank you for the hot pads. For some reason my hot pads never
look nice very long. So, that's great. Okay. Item No. 6 is our Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On Item G, as stated earlier, the resolution number is 16-1126. With that I
move we approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to
attest.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda.
Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea;
Little Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 8: Items Moved From the Consent Agenda
De Weerd: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 6 of 48
Item 7: Community Items/Presentations
A. Recognition of Parks and Recreation Commissioner
Treg Bernt
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item 7-A and as our parks director makes his
way forward, along with Treg, I did want to add my own remarks before our
director has a chance to acknowledge the volunteerism and leadership shown by
Treg. Treg, I want to personally thank you. I have seen the passion that you
have had in your last six years in serving on our parks and recreation
commission and the leadership you have shown, both as the vice-president and
president. But your passion is infectious. There is no doubt where your love for
our city parks and recreation program lies. You -- as I mentioned the -- that
infectious piece, it surrounds you and you draw people in. You have been a real
passionate voice and have served on our impact fee committee and also an
advisory committee that there is little doubt in anyone's mind what you think,
because you're pretty frank at sharing your thoughts. We do appreciate your
service. You are a loss to our parks commission, but we know where you live
and we will hunt you down when we need you.
Siddoway: How about tomorrow? Thank you, Mayor. I don't know that I could
say it any better. His passion, like you mentioned, is really truly secon d to none
and Treg is already missed dearly. As you mentioned, he served for nearly six
years on the Commission, five years and nine months to be exact, and was our
president in 2013. One of the things that I wanted to highlight -- he went out
himself and secured a sponsor a few years ago with Meridian Cycles to be our
sponsor for our first pathway Z card map a few years ago and that was
something that I really appreciated about him. While he's served on the
commission I just wanted to take a minute and share some of the highlights of
those six years.
Bernt: Not the low lights?
Siddoway: Not the low lights. We will skip those tonight.
De Weerd: I could probably tell a story or two. Shall I?
Siddoway: But to be fair, I want to mention that ou r two other commissioners
here, Creg Steele and Phil Liddell, have also served on the commission through
these same achievements, but in -- in 2010, soon after he joined, we opened
new amenities at Centennial Park. In 2011 we opened the Diane and Winston
Moore Pathway. In 2012 we opened Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park. In 2013
the parks and recreation maintenance facility. In 2014 new park amenities at 8th
Street Park. And in 2015 the Settlers Park tennis complex and the Story Bark
Park. And, then, for his crowning kind of final hurrah with -- he stayed with us
through December of 2015 when we wrapped up our parks and rec master plan
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 7 of 48
and thank him and all of our Commissioners for the leadership on that, but, Treg,
you have been with us through a lot of significant accomplishments and we thank
you for your role in them.
Bernt: My pleasure. Thank you.
Siddoway: I have an actual certificate to give him, which says to Treg Bernt in
recognition of your service, dedication and participation on the Me ridian Parks
and Recreation Commission for the City of Meridian from April 2010 to January
2016. On behalf of your fellow citizens we thank you for your years of service
and commitment to improving the quality of life in our community. Presented this
22nd day of March 2016 and signed by the Mayor and the Clerk and along with
that a very small token of our appreciation, your official City of Meridian mug.
Bernt: All right.
Siddoway: Shall we have him say a word?
Bernt: I don't -- I -- I will be real short. I -- during these type of talks or, you
know, when I express my gratification I always get real emotional, but I just
wanted to thank Steve and his staff. I have an enormous amount of respect for
Steve and those in his department. They are fantastic people and it's truly been
an honor to be able to have worked with you, Steve, and your staff. Grateful for
the Godfather himself Creg Steele and my partner in crime Phil Liddell and my
other friends that I have made on the commission, they have been fantastic to
work with and they have taught me a lot and I have learned a lot over the years.
So, I promise you this won't be the end of Treg Bernt in the City of Meridian, I can
promise you that. I appreciate, you, Madam Mayor, for your friendship and,
hopefully, and in the near future our paths can cross again. Thank you, Council
Members and Jaycee and for all that you do for me and for the opportunity to
serve. Thank you so much.
De Weerd: Thank you, Treg. And I will say that the gray hair probably is from
the Godfather and his -- his partner in crime next door.
Bernt: From the lashing I have taken in the past month from these guys.
De Weerd: Thank you, Treg.
Bernt: Thank you.
Item 9: Action Items
A. Request by Penelope Riley, representative of Jerry
Trana, to discuss annexation and connection to
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 8 of 48
municipal water and sewer services for the property
located 175 N. Black Cat Road
De Weerd: Under Action Item 9-A is a request in front of you -- you do have in
your packet a letter for request for municipal water and sewer services. Warren,
did you want to present this? Was someone going to offer any comments on this
or -- okay. Would Penelope like to come forward?
Riley: Good evening. Thank you, Mayor and Members of the Council. Penelope
Riley. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. On behalf of Mr. and Mrs.
Trana I want to thank you for giving me a few minutes of your time this evening.
I'm going to cover my material really quickly to leave time for any q uestions that
you might have. You're getting a couple of handouts. There is a letter regarding
the sewer and water line in Black Cat Road and also a handout from the City of
Meridian's website on the low density employment land use. So, Mr. and Mrs.
Trana of 175 Black Cat Road would like to rezone their property to C-2 through
Ada County Development Services. Once the new zone is granted they intend to
use the one time split option to create two parcels. The northern parcel will
remain single family residential and the southern parcel would become the new
home of Trana's Garage. Ada County requires certain documentation in order to
grant the rezone application -- excuse me -- to even accept it. This
documentation includes a verification from the City of Meridian that the parcel
cannot be annexed and authorization to connect to the City of Meridian sewer
and water services. Ada County also requires that the proposed zone be
consistent with Meridian's future land use designation on the site. So, there is a
map that you see now and this is where the subject site is relative to the rest of
the City of Meridian. Customary procedure for annexation is to go through the
entitlement process. In this instance, as you can see on the map, the parcel is
not contiguous to the City of Meridian. Given this property cannot be annexed at
this time and that the process of requesting annexation through a development
application will yield no return on cost, we respectfully request the City of
Meridian provide the Tranas with a letter establishing that the site is not
annexable at this time. The next map is going to be the Ten Mile area and the
future land use. Oh, it's coming up. Thank you. So, the site is where the little
asterisk is there. The future land use map shows that the Trana site is included
in the Ten Mile specific plan as a low density employment future land use with
zoning designations as C-G, L-O and I-L. The Ada County C-2 zone is
comparable with the city of Meridian's C-Z -- excuse me -- C-G zone. Boy, don't
try and say that very fast. In the C-G zone auto repair is a permitted use. We
believe that the proposed Ada County zoning designation is consistent with
Meridian's future plans for the area. That the proposed use is able to comply
with the C-G zone. One of the allowed zones for this land use and meets the
intent of the zoning ordinance. It's also included in the information letter from
Civil Survey Consultants. So, at this time city sewer and water is available in
Black Cat Road. The Meridian Public Works Department has an application for
requesting these services for properties not within the city. It is understood that
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 9 of 48
agreeing to annexation in the future is a part of any agreement between the
Tranas and the City of Meridian, authorizing connection to these services. To
summarize, I'm asking for the City of Meridian to provide the Tranas with a letter
establishing that their property is not eligible for annexation at this time. I'm
hopeful that the presentation will provide you with some assurances that the
proposed entitlements through Ada County are consistent with your long range
plans and zoning ordinance. And, finally, my discussion of the desired and
required connection to city services was intended to provide the Council with a
full understanding of the Trana's planned development activities. Thank you for
your time. I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
De Weerd: Council, any questions? Does staff have any comments? Typically
in the past we have not extend ed services to those that are not annexing into the
city, but I hear we have facilities in the road and so we are able to deliver
services?
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is a sewer and water
main running in Black Cat Road in front of this particular parcel. They would --
you know, I think there is some real -- I think Caleb had some things that he
would like to talk about perhaps with regards to annexation and land use and so
forth, but from a Public Works perspective the sewer and wat er mains do exist.
They would have to go out into Black Cat Road and establish residential sewer
connections to those mains, but they do exist out there in the roadway. W hether
it's advantageous for the city from other perspectives to go out -- you know, to
approve this, I think maybe Caleb would have some information on that.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Hood: So, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. First time I'm hearing about
kind of some of the details. I knew that this request was on the agenda and I
read the letter that was in the packet. I have a little bit of a problem with jumping
to too many conclusions based on what our comp plan map and the request to
write a letter saying -- you know, I have no problems saying it's not eligible for
annexation, because that is true. If you -- if you read more into the Ten Mile
specific area plan though -- and I don't know exactly what land uses are
proposed here. C-G is not the ideal zone in this designation on the comp plan.
The low density employment is more an office district. So, if they are proposing
office, maybe we can write a letter that says this land use may be appropriate in
the county, but our vision -- the plan is really looking for office along Black Cat.
So, kind of working backwards a little bit here and I do have some hesitancy on
that request to write a letter, because I'm not sure that this is consistent with the
city's vision for this corridor and this designation in the Ten Mile specific area
plan. Regarding advancement of -- even though sewer and water appear to be
very close and available, I mean it has historically been the policy of the city -- it's
a three legged stool. Sewer, water and annexation. They all go together. And
you don't really want to advance one without the other. If services are advanced,
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 10 of 48
but yet you don't advance the city limit, it really -- and we will talk about this a
little bit later -- it could hamper the future development of parcels down the
stream if you will, because you aren't extending those se rvices to and through, let
alone extending the city's limits so that the next parcel is contiguous and,
therefore, adjacent for development in the city. So, there can be some real
problems that get created land use wise. If you provide services and allow them
to develop in the county, yet you don't make it annex into the city and, therefore,
allow again adjacent properties to be annexed. It is true, I mean C -G and I-L
both are -- can be appropriate zoned in here, but it really comes down to what is
the land use and I will just -- Sonya, can you pull up Google Earth, please, and
go -- just looked on the existing condition out there and one of the other concerns
I have with this -- and I don't know the proposal, I don't know the rezone to C -2 in
the county, what they would proposed for access, but there are three driveways
to Black Cat Road, an arterial roadway, within 180 feet of each other. That's not
something that meets typical city policy. So, with the extension of services and
that consent form that -- for the handful of cases that we do that for, I don't know
-- I can't even envision a scenario where we ever actually -- the city initiates the
annexation. I don't know why we would want to annex this. This seems like you
probably just wait until the city limits get there and you're eligible for annexation.
We review the entire project for the merits as development in this city, not
development in the county with city services. So, just kind of a summary of my
initial thoughts -- thank you, Sonya. Right there where the blue outbuildings are.
So, that's the subject property. Again, city policy -- we are going to look at
restricting driveways -- can you zoom in just a little bit, please. And, again, I don't
know what's proposed at the county or what will be proposed, but it's definitely
going to be substandard. We are looking at property that doesn't have -- their
driveways aren't even paved into the site. The parking there, obviously, isn't
going to meet our -- our standards. There isn't any households out there. So,
again, they are kind of in between both worlds with living on a property that's C-2.
In a commercial district or an industrial district in the city you can't have
residential. So, you can't live on a property and have -- run a business out of the
back in the city and I understand they are looking at a lot split and that creates
another problem, which we don't allow lot splits in the city either. So, again, this
seems to not -- be against a lot of our Comprehensive Plan policy that we have --
we have in the city if this were proposed in the city. And I realize they are trying
to go through the county process. I can comment on those applications in the
county and it would probably raise a red flag when this comes across my desk.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, to provide some
additional historical perspective, it has not been common for past councils to
extend services without annexation. We have done that on occas ion and we
have done that by agreement. The agreement requires they annex when they
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 11 of 48
are annexable. It has not been for commercial properties. It's been for
agricultural properties, individual residences on an agricultural property or an
individual residence with a family septic system and so that's in the normal
course of when city services have been extended. You know, Ca Ieb brought up
a really valid point is under our city ordinance s you're required as a development
to extend services to and through. That wouldn't apply to this, so they would just
hook this house up to services and they wouldn't be required to extend it and if
you look how large that parcel is -- I don't know, again, what the future
development of that site is, but, again, they are no t going to be required to extend
it any further beyond that and how in the future we are going to get access to get
services through the other way or this easement or something else. I don't know.
But -- but that's been the historical way we have handled these types of requests.
We just haven't had one for an existing business. We had one issue with an
existing business on McMillan that didn't want to annex and had city services
available and they were not willing to annex that property and it's still i n the
county and they could not rebuild their septic system, because they were not
willing to annex. But that's the only commercial one I could think of that we have
had in about the last dozen years.
De Weerd: Thank you. And, Caleb, does this not come through your office?
You haven't seen this?
Hood: Madam Mayor, I saw the letter that was in the packet. It didn't have a
whole lot of details in it. It had the property address and the request to hook up
to services, but this is the first time I'm hearing about the C-2 zone and going
through the county and lot splits and things like that. I have not -- I didn't know
any of those details.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for staff?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Does the representative have any comment on the conversation?
Riley: First of all, I --
De Weerd: If you will just restate your name for the record.
Riley: Penelope Riley. Do you need my address also?
De Weerd: No. We are good.
Riley: I was directed by staff at Development Services to come directly to you,
so that's what we did. I was told that they -- there was nothing Development
Services could do to help us with our inquiries and that we had to come straight
to the Council. So, anyhow, it's currently zoned RUT and half of this site would
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 12 of 48
remain RUT. It's true that the southern parcel would become C-2 if we were
successful with Ada County. With regard to parking, paving, driveways, I'm
assuming that ACHD would see this application and we would be more than
happy to go to ACHD and discuss consolidating driveways, getting everything
paved back 30 feet, all the standard development requirements for accesses to
arterial roadways. I guess I'm feeling a little bit blindsided here, because I was
not trying to make trouble or bypass Development Services. I was told to come
here directly. If you have any questions for me that would be great.
De Weerd: Well, I don't think anyone was saying that you -- you avoided the
process, it's just the details in your letter didn't state the intent of the use for the
property. So, it was not anticipated.
Riley: This is not something I have done before and so I was reliant on guidance
from other parties on how to do this. So, I apologize if it's not done correctly.
Hood: Madam Mayor, if I can. I did talk to Bruce Freckleton, who directed
Penelope to come before you, because that is our policy. Again, we can't write a
letter saying you can hook up to city services when you're not annexed. That is
-- the only body that can do that is you all. I guess the point I wasn't aware of is
the request to also write a letter saying we are in support of commercial
development out here in the county. That's -- that's kind of -- that's another step,
guess, that -- that adds on to not just the policy of hooking up, but, then,
preapproving development in the county and that's where, again, I haven't seen
the site plan. First time, again, I'm hearing about commercial zones. I don't even
know what -- what uses are out there and, again, I -- so, I'm not trying to
overreact, but I don't really know, so I kind of play maybe Devil's advocate or the
sky is falling a little bit with these and I don't know what type of project may go in
here. But it's not just paving the property back 30 feet, it would be, you know,
city required parking lots to be paved, not just your entrance to a roadway and it's
not ACHD policy about accesses, it's the city's policy about accesses. So, things
like that that -- that concern me a little bit. So, sorry if you feel blindsided, but
that makes two of us.
Riley: We are not asking for the City of Meridian to give us a letter that supports
the proposed use. I did state in my presentation that that would be the future
home of the Trana Garage. So, it would be an auto repair shop. It's already in
existence. So, we are just asking for a letter that says we can't annex right now.
That's really all we are asking for. Thank you
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 13 of 48
Borton: Maybe for clarification. The last remark made kind of pivoted this
process -- is the request simply to have the city provide a letter saying that this
property is not eligible for annexation period? Your last remark sounded like that
was the extent of the new request.
Riley: That is correct. I provided additional information, because I thought it
might be appropriate and respectful to do so. But that is all we are asking for is a
letter. The Public Works Department has an application for hooking up to sewer
and water outside of the city limits and I have advised the team members that
that is the route we need to proceed with, because that's the -- based on your
code that's what you're supposed to do and it was actually a code section about
hooking up to sewer and water when you're not in the city limits. But the letter is
really all I'm asking for. That's correct.
De Weerd: So, procedurally I guess -- while you still stand up here, just in case
we need to ask you a question. The city's policy is not to extend services unless
there is an annexation. Outside of that, I don't think that Public Works can
approve extending services without the direction from City Council. So, you need
a couple of things here. You need City Council to act on the request to extend
services to a parcel that will not be annexed into the city and, then, you need a
letter from the city saying we will not annex you and what I heard from your
original comments is you would like us to include a statement that the proposed
use is consistent with our Comprehensive Plan.
Riley: I was just trying to provide that assurance, because it's important to Ada
County to ask you. I'm assuming when they route any application they are going
to ask you if what's being proposed is consistent with the future land use that's
proposed for the site based on Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. So, I was trying
to be -- I was trying to provide you with a lot of information quickly in all the
elements that related to what the future held. And if you would excuse me for
just a moment. According to Meridian City Code 9-1-16, connection to city water
system outside of the city limits. It actually says there is an application you need
to fill out. You file it with Public Works and pay a fee. So, this is what I was
basing my comments on about doing an application. It does say later on the City
Council is the ultimate decision maker.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor, maybe to help clarify. So, the basis of the letter, why it's
here tonight, was the request for both the annexation letter, that it's not
annexable at this time, as well as the connection to city services, but from what I
heard from Warren is that application hasn't been completed or processed yet, so
they really can't really act on that yet anyway and I think what Caleb is saying is
there has been no application from the county asking for comment on whether
this is -- meets our Comprehensive Plan. So, at this point it's premature for
planning to give you anything. They haven't analyzed that. I recognize that there
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 14 of 48
may be some misunderstandings here on process, but what Ms. Riley is really
only in front of you tonight could have been handled at the staff level if it was only
about annexation. I think the two -- maybe the miscommunication occurred and
needed both and both requiring Council approval, but I think one is premature. I
think the -- premature in regards to whether it meets the comp plan and maybe
premature as to whether or not the analysis from Public W orks would tell you yes
or no we shouldn't do it. I think you have got enough information. Whether or
not you feel comfortable making a decision is up to you, but I think we would be
asking the same questions at a future date on is services available and why we
should or should not provide it for a parcel that's not annexable. I don't know if
that helped or made it less clear.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: We can't make a decision with regards to extension of services tonight.
De Weerd: Without the application.
Borton: So, there is no point in even commenting on it until the application is
completed and presented. Correct?
Riley: Madam Mayor? If I may, please. Those are -- those are requirements of
the application to Ada County. In order to make an application to rezone the site
with Ada County I must provide them with a letter that says the site cannot be
annexed into the city. If I proposed to zone in a commercial zone, then, I must
give Ada County verification that the site can be connected to sewer and water
and I apologize for making things muddy, when I was just trying to be
informative. The primary reason for being here is the annexation letter. The rest
of it is something that's placed on us by Ada County. They are going to contact
Development Services and say is the proposed zone consistent with your future
land use map. So, these things are going to show up. Some of it's premature,
Again, I was directed to come here for the letter. So, I didn't -- I just did what I
was directed to do.
De Weerd: Well, thank you. We will all learn with you.
Riley: Okay.
De Weerd: We are not familiar with Ada County's processes either, so we -- we
apologize if we are clumsy in figuring all of this out.
Riley: This is not ordinary and it a clumsy thing to do, so --
De Weerd: Yes.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 15 of 48
Riley: Thank you.
Hood: And, Madam Mayor, if I can, just my -- and I'm going to -- you know, just
go back up more to the -- to the latter part of that. I mean like she said, I mean
that's part of their application just to get in the door with the county. I just didn't
want there to be any surprises. Send one letter that said we will serve and, then,
I turn around and write a letter saying we recommend denial of the project. I
mean that just doesn't seem right to send a letter saying we will extend our -- if
that's what you all want to do. We will extend your services and, then, it comes
in and I have to say, no, our comp plan says this should be office and research.
This is an auto garage. I don't know how -- again, I'm not -- I haven't seen the
site plan. I don't -- maybe -- maybe I can make the finding that it's consistent, but
I don't want to send one letter one day and another letter saying we recommend
denial of the next potentially. So, that's my concern is -- it may be premature, but
it's all sort of wrapped up together and to really make a recommendation that's
appropriate to provide them services, I think you sort of need to know what we
are going to get, don't you? I mean not just me, but -- that's kind of where I'm
coming from.
De Weerd: And typically we would ask for a staff report to kind of give an
overview of all of these details. So, we at least act like we know what we are
doing up here. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Well, I will stumble through as I understand it. What the applicant is asking
for is a letter stating that that property at this time is not annexable. Is that right?
Is that the way -- and she wants us to write that, but, then, she also wan ts us to
say that it can be serviced. Well, there is no way we can say it can be serviced,
because we don't even have an application for it. I, as a Council have no
problem -- it don't meet our zoning or anything else -- to say that it is not -- it can't
be annexed at this time, but there is no way I'm going to say that it is serviceable.
That's my personal opinion.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: I believe she would just be satisfied with a letter saying it's not
annexable currently and that's it. And that's the truth, so I think that's -- we can
do that. And just that. Lots of head nods.
De Weerd: We can. But it does go back to Caleb's point and what was
discussed tonight in terms of the proposed use and it not being consistent with
our Comprehensive Plan, as well as extending services without annexation is --
provides a conflict. You're saying one thing to proceed further to, then, have the
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 16 of 48
city come back and say, yeah, but we won't serve. If you won't serve. So, that's
the conundrum that has our head spinning right now.
Hood: And, Madam Mayor, I have no problem and I don't know if Warren and I
co-signed it, the letter to the county, but if it just says that, this subject property is
not currently eligible for annexation in the City of Meridian period. We sign it. I
don't see a conflict with that. It's the second part of that that I do worry about
misleading the applicant, potentially the county. So, if that's all that's being
asked for and with your direction I think we can send that letter and that will be
fine. I don't know that that gets the applicant in the door, though, with the county.
I don't know that that goes as far as it needs to, but I don't have a problem with
that letter.
Stewart: Mayor, I would agree with Caleb. We certainly can provide water and
sewer services, because they are in the road, but I don't know that it makes any
sense for us to do so. I don't know that I would even -- that that's advisable
based on what they want to do, which we don't know much about, so --
De Weerd: Well, it sounds like if the -- the Council is so inclined to instruct staff
to write the letter saying this property is not annexable and so, then, the process
can begin, I think, then, staff will have more details to make a determination and
recommendation to come back to Council with.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton. I can't make the motion.
Borton: Yeah. If it -- if it needs a motion. I would move that we direct staff to
provide the applicant the letter requested, specifically stating this property
located at 175 North Black Cat Road is not presently eligible for annexation.
Bird: Second.
Palmer: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to instruct staff to provide a letter.
Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea;
Little Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 17 of 48
B. Final Plat for Paramount Subdivision No. 31 (H-2016-
0021) by SCS Brighton, LLC Located North of W.
McMillan Road and East of N. Linder Road Request:
Final Plat Approval Consisting of Forty-Two (42) Single
Family Residential Lots and Three (3) Common Lots on
10.54 Acres in the R-8 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 9-B was requested to continue to April 5th. Council, do I have
motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we continue H-2016-0021 to April 5th, 2016.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 9 -B to April 5th. All
those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
C. Continued from March 1, 2016 Final Plat for Kentucky
Ridge Estates Subdivision No. 4 (H-2015-0035) by T & M
Holdings Located 1100 Riodosa Drive Request: Final
Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty (20) Building Lots
and Three (3) Common Lots on 5.49 Acres of Land in the
R-4 Zoning District
De Weerd: Item 9-C is also an item that has been requested to continue to -- oh,
no. It's been requested to withdraw and we would need a motion to approve that
request.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we allow the withdrawal of the application on H-2015-0035.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the request to withdraw the
application on Item 9-C. Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 18 of 48
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, absent; Palmer , yea;
Little Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision
(TEC H-2016-0023) by Spurwing Limited Partnership
Located North of W. Chinden Boulevard and West of
Spurwing Way Request: Two (2) Year Time Extension on
the Final Plat for Olivetree at Spurwing Subdivision in
Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on the
Final Plat
De Weerd: Item 9-D is a public hearing for TEC H-2016-0023. I will open this
public hearing with staff comments.
Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This application
before you tonight is a request for a time extension. This site consists of 20.51
acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and R-8 and it's located north of West Chinden
Boulevard and west of North Spurwing Way. This site consists of 20.51 acres of
land. Excuse me. This property was annexed and platted in 2006 -- I'm asleep
tonight. A final plat was approved in 2008 and four previous time extensions
have been granted to extend the time period in which to obtain the city engineer's
signature on the final plat. The applicant is requesting a two year time extension
to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final p lat for this subdivision. The
final plat consists of 65 single family residential building lots and six common lots.
Eighteen percent of the site is proposed to develop as open space. The
applicant states that the Idaho Transportation Department has com pleted
improvements for the State Highway 20-26 Chinden Boulevard-Ten Mile Road
intersection, which requires significant modifications to the overall Spurwing
development. With construction of the corridor complete they feel current market
conditions are favorable to complete processing of the plat and construction of
the subdivision. Construction plans are complete and should be submitted within
the next month. Staff is recommending approval with no new conditions of
approval. Written testimony was received from Shari Stiles, the applicant's
representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like
to make any comment?
McKay: Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North
Rosario. I just want to let the Council know that we have updated their
construction plans. Those were submitted on the 3rd of March back to the
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 19 of 48
highway district and to the city. So, my client will be proceeding with this
development, because this is our fifth time extension and I had indicated to him
that the Council -- this is as far as they have gone on other projects and that
constructions on previous projects have been -- this is it, build it or start over.
So, I did inform my client of the Council's past comments and he will start
construction -- he's thinking the fall -- summer or fall. But we will have our new
plan approval in about a month. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for Becky?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who like to provide
testimony on this item? Okay. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we close the public hearing on TEC H-2016-0023.
Little-Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item
9-D. All those in favor say aye. Did I hear all ayes? Okay. All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve the time extension on TEC H-2016-0023, including staff
and applicant comments.
Little-Roberts: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 9-D. Madam Clerk,
will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea;
Little Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: Thank you for that articulation. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 20 of 48
Item 10: Department Reports
A. Mayor’s Office and Economic Development: Discussion
Regarding the Proposed Medical School in Meridian
De Weerd: Okay. Under Item 10-A we have a discussion regarding the
proposed medical school in Meridian and I will invite Brenda Sherwood, our --
and our Community Development Director Bruce Chatterton.
Chatterton: Madam Mayor, Council Members, Brenda is really going to do the
heavy lifting for this presentation. I just wanted to cue things up. We are very
excited to be here tonight to ask you to confirm Meridian's partnership with the
Idaho Department of Commerce in making ICOM, the Idaho College of
Osteopathic Medicine a reality. Specifically we need your approval to prepare a
resolution that you would act upon in about two weeks. The resolution will
confirm Council's commitment to provide 200,000 dollars, plus 100,000 dollars in
wage permit fees as the city's local match under the state's tax reimbursement
incentive program. Also I would be remiss in not recognizing our economic
development administrator's role in making this happen. Partnering with the
Department of Commerce, really doing the leg work, and I wasn't -- I didn't have
the privilege to be there, but I also understand that at a very important and
emotional meeting the Mayor really closed the deal. So, that combination, that
tag team, is -- is very effective. Appreciate that a lot and that's really how we got
here today in large part. So, Brenda.
Sherwood: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, of course I would just like to
start, as I always say, congratulations. This is the proposed College of
Osteopathic Medicine and I'm going to start calling it ICOM from here on out. So,
ICOM. It's Meridian's very first recipient of the Idaho Department of Commerce's
tax reimbursement incentive. But you know what's even more exciting about this
is that this is the first recipient to reinvest the approximate 3.9 million dollars that
they will be receiving as a tax credit from that incentive back into the community
in the form of student scholarships. This is going to create a lot of opportunity for
Idaho students. Just a little bit about the project. This was a project that went
throughout five states in the northwest. It was a project led by Senator Mark
Hagadorn and the Idaho Department of Commerce and I want you to k now that
this -- this really picked up the pace. All of us learned that it was about doing
business or, you know, doing these incentives and working through this at the
speed of business and I think that we all prevailed. Where they are going to be
located -- they are going to be partnering with Idaho State University and they
are going to be locating on that land that's actually been held by Idaho State
University and has been exempt to taxes. However, this is a private college, so
what's really exciting about this is is that you will see that land will be back on the
tax roles for the City of Meridian. I'd like to really talk to you about what the
benefits are -- the economic impact to the community and I'm going to read
through this, so that I don't get any of these numbers wrong, because they are all
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 21 of 48
pretty big. First of all, 79.5 million dollars impact during the construction period,
with approximately 350 jobs created as the result of just the construction and
planning. The facility capital investment is approximately 32.6 million dollars. It
will be up in the hundred thousand -- or hundred million primarily just because of
the equipment that will go into the school as well. The number of new jobs is
equal to -- equals 90, with the average wage of 88,300 and the total project
wages per year are 79.5 million. So, we are very excited about this project. It's
going to bring a lot to the community. But also as a state that's been rated 49th
in healthcare, this I think will impact the state of Idaho more than the investments
and give our children the opportunity to be part of a medical school to become
physicians. So, we are excited about this project. Once again, Mayor, thank you
for all the support. It was fast. And so I really appreciate everything that was put
into this and thank you to all of you and congratulations. So, now we would like
to move forward with that resolution. We will come back with the commitment --
actually, we better go do this again. What we are asking today is for that
commitment to our partnership, the 200,000 and up to 100,000 dollars in the fee
waiver and we come back to you with that resolution in about two weeks time.
There we go.
De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, I think the request in front of you is to approve
the commitment and instruct the city attorney to provide -- or to prepare a
resolution to be voted on at our next regular meeting on April 5th. So, any
questions from Council or commits to Brenda or Bruce?
Little Roberts: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mrs. Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: I would like to move that we approve the commitment and for
legal to provide a resolution for us to vote on April 5th.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to direct staff to provide a resolution to
come back for Council for a final approval on April 5th. Any discussion? Madam
Clerk.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, absent; Palmer, yea;
Little Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
De Weerd: I appreciate the -- the shepherding this through the process, Brenda,
and for your work with the Department of Commerce. Our thanks to Megan
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 22 of 48
Ronk, the director. To Governor Otter for his leadership on this and to Senator
Hagadorn. I think that as we look back we have been hoping for medical
education in this state for some time. This medical education will be provided not
on the backs of our taxpayers, but with a private investor and a private college
that in addition to the WWAMI program, will continue to provide medical
education, but expand that opportunity to these students that we have in this
valley and across the state of Idaho. It's exciting -- very exciting to have this
opportunity and to see that it's located in our health science and technology
corridor, to continue to build on the development and the focus on health
sciences and technology in that area. It's going to create a lot of opportunity.
This is an applicant status, so they still have some regulatory and accreditation
hoops to jump through. I think the city has demonstrated a support through the
commitment by City Council to show that we stand beside them and will be a
partner in their success and meeting those initial accreditation steps, but also as
they go out into our medical community and develop the opportunities that have
been a concern of the medical community in terms of those residencies and --
and the clinicals. I think they have established key relationships. They are
willing to be a financial partner in those residencies, which is -- is something very
new and very welcomed by our medical community and I know that in the six
years they have to develop the needed residencies they will continue to make
progress and have opportunities for our students as they graduate and start
looking for the next part of their medical education through the residency. So, we
are excited. We appreciate the -- the pubic-private partnership of this. Part of
their partnership with ISU is going to be leasing or paying for the facility use that
they have with ISU and I know in talking to the students that we have through the
Mayor's Youth Advisory Council, that our focus on medical education in some
form or another -- this is an opportunity that is extremely exciting to them th at's
being offered right here at home and in our own state of Idaho. So, it's a win -win
for everyone and excited to see it move forward.
Sherwood: I am, too. Thank you so much, Madam Mayor, Members of the
Council. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Chatterton: Madam Mayor, I think Brenda and I both neglected to mention --
Council is aware of this -- that ICOM's intent is to use our local match to fund
scholarships. So, this would be the first instance of a local match actually being
given back effectively to the community in the form of the scholarships. So, it's
really -- really remarkable I think we can feel even better about -- about reserving
these funds for this use because of, you know, that good impact.
De Weerd: Well -- and with the focus of the city and -- on our youth and their
future, I think it's very appropriate. So, thank you.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 23 of 48
B. Community Development: Discuss Potential Topics And
Prepare For Joint Meeting With The Ada County Board
Of County Commissioners
De Weerd: Okay. Now that we have had all this feel good good news, I will turn
this over the Caleb. I'm just kidding. Item 10-B is through community
development and to have a discussion about our upcoming meeting with the Ada
County Commissioners and the letter that was approved last week that has been
sent out and it's been confirmed the meeting date and time. So, Caleb.
Hood: No, thank you, Madam Mayor. Your opening comment was spot on. If
this topic weren't bland enough I made the PowerPoint black and white tonight,
so please bear with me as we go through this. But we are -- we do just want to
make sure the talking points are in order, that you at least know where everybody
is at as you go and engage with the Board of County Commissioners on April 6th
at 2:00 p.m. at the courthouse. I think I verified with everybody last time you had
that on your calendars, but that's kind of the idea with this is to prep and make
sure that -- that the agenda is set accordingly and, then, to go through any -- any
items that we need to talk about internally before we air that with the board on
the 6th. So, I just wanted to take a second, though, to just kind of orient you just
to the bigger picture of -- of how we can do this with -- or together with the board.
We talked last time about, you know, once we sent that letter they had 30 days to
respond and as the Mayor just mentioned, they have confirmed that meeting with
us. But in Title 67-6526 of Idaho Code it talks about negotiation of areas of city
impact and so, really, a city within a county and the county can -- toward the
bottom of the slide, go through and by ordinance create the way that you want to
plan and what's effective within a city's area of impact and I highlighted the third
on there, because mutually agree upon plans and ordinances adopted under this
chapter. So, it's whatever you all agree to with the county we can implement
within our area of impact. We can say county rules apply, we can say city rules
apply or whatever we mutually agree with to implement. So, that's kind of the
summary of that section of Idaho Code. Just one more section and this really
applies to a subsection of one of the topics we will talk about, but annexation by
cities and I'm not going to read this entire slide against a bla ck and white and it's
state code, it's not that exciting. But the point here is orderly development, cost
effective availability of municipal services and equitably allocate the cost. So,
those are some of the key points in here why annexation makes sens e and,
again, that's really only going to apply to a small portion that we are going to talk
about today. I don't have a long PowerPoint presentation, but this is the meaty
slide, if you will. So, again, Title 9, Chapter 4 of Ada County code contains our
section of the area of city impact agreement. So, what we would request -- what
I'm asking you to request of them -- what our letter states is that all proposals, not
just subdivisions and rezones, on property that's eligible for annexation -- so,
contiguous to city limits -- apply for annexation and not be processed through
Ada County. So, I have got a couple of slides here that show some of those
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 24 of 48
examples over the past year of where some of those projects are and just kind of
bring me to home of what this is talking about. But again -- and this is sort of in a
hierarchy of my request for you all. This one is one that I think makes a lot of
sense that we talked about a little bit a couple weeks ago, but if it's eligible for
annexation, let the city process it. That's kind of the long and short of it. Have
them come to the city and request annexation if it's within our area of impact and
eligible. That one's kind of low hanging fruit I think from my perspective in the
feedback I have gotten from the county thus far. I will just clarify that most --
most property owners that are eligible for annexation do want to come into the
city and develop, because we do have sewer and water and they can develop to
a high level. They can get more of a return on th eir property. They can do more
density, they can build those bigger buildings, so there is an incentive for most
property owners -- for most types of development to annex in the city and not go
through the county processes, because they are pretty limited . However, there
are a few and I will just list a few. Contractor's yard, cell towers, and outdoor
storage yards are ones that it's the exact opposite. It's easier for them to get
approval in the county than it is the city and so they are doing that through the
county and not the city. So -- and those are the ones that cause us the biggest
headache as time goes on. So, one of the exceptions to that request -- and this
isn't fully vetted, but if somebody wants to do a single family addition, a home
occupation to run a daycare or a home business or other -- and I guess that's
kind of -- you know, wouldn't make all of those properties request annexation.
So, if you just -- if you just want to do an addition to your home or run a daycare,
I could see you running an exception through the code and I will probably also
just point out -- I didn't want to be too presumptuous with you all, with the board,
with Ada County staff. We haven't gone to the extent of doing underline and
strike through of what the code would look like. We want to make sure at a high
level that broadly we are on the same page, then, we will go and write the code
and run that back through and say, okay, here are these proposed exemptions,
daycare, single family additions or whatever. So, this is just a sampling. But,
again, I didn't want to spend the time and the effort to actually draft all of this
code and you say, no, we don't want to do that. So -- so, that's one -- that's one
of the three bullets here. Are there any questions about that? Does everyone
kind of understand what -- what that request is? Again, you're eligible for
annexation. The county doesn't process it. The county sends them. They don't
take in an application, they require an application to send to the city. Ok ay. The
second request would be for those properties that aren't eligible for annexation.
So, bullet one does not apply here. What we would request is that the county
amend Title 8 to include some of our or similar urban level improvements for
county subdivisions and commercial developments. So, again, this -- the sub
bullet here is not fully vetted, I'm not endorsing all of these, these are just things
that have been thrown out there as potential to include in the code and if you
have the feedback now and you want me to take it off the list now, because
you're like that seems a bit much to require a county subdivision to put in -- I'm
just going to pick one. Public streets. I will take it off the list. The list. So, if
there is any of these. But this is our -- our -- it's a growing list, but the short list of
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 25 of 48
things that we think potentially could go in Ada County code and so they would
require through their review and approval on our behalf for when the city limits do
get there retrofitting of these county subdivisions and commercial projects isn't so
much. They are set up for being and looking and feeling like the city when the
city limits get there. So, I will just read it real quick. Landscape buffers along
arterials, pathways or easements, so that we can put the pathway in, so at least
the land. Open space. Requirements for tree mitigation. So, right now any trees
that are removed from the site we require you to reconstruct or replant a similar
caliper inch on this site or in a public park. Sewer or water infrastructure. Dry
line sewer or water infrastructure or easement, so that those can be put in in the
future. Streetlight infrastructure. Not saying hang the poles, but maybe the
conduit, maybe even the bases for them, so you don't ha ve to rip up the street to
run conduit and things like that. Public streets and not private streets with stubs
to adjacent properties as appropriate. And, then, here are the prohibitions. So,
prohibiting billboard signs, barbed wire and electric fencing. And, again, to me I
could see that even still in cases being okay. You got a five or ten acre lot,
you're on the outskirts, maybe you're running horses or whatever you want, have
barbed wire. So, again, I'm not -- I'm not advocating necessarily for th at list,
that's just a list of things that I have heard from folks. I think most of those make
some sense to a certain degree. So, I will pause there with just kind of that --
that's what we would look for the county to implement, essentially, on our beh alf
and you could add to that list, too, I guess, too, if you had something else, but
that's kind of the intent behind this bullet.
Palmer: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Palmer.
Palmer: Madam Mayor, a question. So, if -- in that last one where you
mentioned the billboards, if that was something that they implemented would
that, then, only affect people that are applying for a billboard within an annexable
property -- an existing -- it wouldn't affect anybody that's existing as they are?
Hood: Correct. Madam Mayor, Councilman Palmer, it would be for new
proposed billboard signs. It would make any non -- it would make them
nonconforming today, but -- any existing ones, but it wouldn't require them to tear
them down or anything, you just -- any new ones in our area of impact would be
prohibited.
Palmer: Okay. Thanks.
Hood: And that would go for everything on the list, quite frankly.
De Weerd: Any other comments? And I think Caleb has really reached out to
the other departments to kind of tap into historical problems and those things that
we have had issues with to anticipate. As well, a lot of this is in agreement with
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 26 of 48
the city of Boise that they help enforce many of their city standards in their
agreement and we just don't have that yet in ours.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Does tiling waterways fit as -- into the conversation at least? One of the
items that might be worth discussing?
Hood: It's -- it's -- Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, I mean it's certainly
something we could add to the list. I don't know what the county's policy is on
that right now, so I could see if they -- I don't know if they require that now or not.
But certainly if it's something you think that they should require, I mean we could
add it to the list and talk about it with them.
Borton: Well, it seems -- Madam Mayor? It seems to fit to capture the same
theme of insuring certain components of city-type development or apply to these
county applications to preserve things such as that.
Hood: Is everyone comfortable with the other things on the list? At least having
the dialogue with them about those items on the list -- and as the Mayor -- I didn't
pause long enough to get everyone's head nod, but as the Mayor pointed out,
just things like the pathway system -- I mean that's critical. If you get a county
project in the middle of a section and we don't get the easement or the pathway
in, we are proposing to have that -- now the city has got dead ends on both sides
and the likelihood of us ever getting through there is -- is pretty slim. So, that's
just one example on pathways of why it makes sense to -- to at least get an
easement, if that has them -- because that's going to be a pathway to nowhere
initially, but you're going to have a pathway to nowhere on both sides if we don't
get it through there, too. So, I don't know exactly what that looks like with code.
But if everyone's at least good -- some comfort level with having these, plus tiling
waterways on the 6th we will move forward.
De Weerd: We have pathways to nowhere all over the place.
Hood: And we want to try and avoid them. And, quite frankly, Madam Mayor,
some of those are because there is county blocks.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Hood: There is county projects that have been not yet developed that don't allow
us to connect the pathway network. So, were trying to avoid that in the future.
And, then, the second sub bullet on this slide here, as -- again, as the Mayor
pointed out, we have talked with Fire, at least at a director's meeting -- a couple
of them I think it's been discussed at and this even goes to the earlier action item
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 27 of 48
we had tonight with the request for hooking up to services, there is a policy on
commercial development in our area of city impact, but not contiguous. That way
you aren't getting these types of requests. Let's come up with a policy with the
county saying, listen, if they are not eligible, they are not eligible and we -- you
know, we aren't going to hook them up. If you want. I'm not saying we have to,
but develop some policy on that topic. Same with fire protection. I know this is
something -- Mr. Palmer's here, which is good. I mean he worked with Ada
County through -- sorry. And Fire is here. It's not that it's not good that you're
here as well. Yeah.
De Weerd: Chief Palmer.
Hood: Right. Perry Palmer is here, yes. Chief Palmer is here and he works with
Ada County reviewing development applications in the county to make sure there
is some level or review, because it's us responding -- us, fire, responding to
enclave properties or to commercial projects that don't have fire flow and there is
not hydrants yet, but there is a commercial project that was approved in the
county with -- I will use my term -- marginal fire flow availability. So, having a
phasing of those projects -- the first phase they could just meet fire flows, but
they have a master plan where they are going to add, you know, thousands of
more square footage when city services are available. Well, that's kind of cart
before the horse. The city should be approving those master site plans, not the
county, and then we implement their plan, it should be reviewed by you all,
because we are the ones that are going to inherit that project and that land over
time. And, then, paving a parking lot, again, things like we have talked about
tonight or et cetera. Again, those types of things for county -- for things that don't
have commercial allowances in our area of city but similar to the point up above,
there should be some investment in the property that doesn't make it stick out
like a sore thumb as the city limits approach. I guess that's my editorial on that
topic. But potentially developing a policy with them on what level of commercial
development is appropriate in our area of city impact, but not yet -- doesn't yet
have those urban level services. So, a sub bullet, but under the same main
heading.
Stewart: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Warren.
Stewart: I want to just kind of take an opportunity to chime in a little bit from the
Public Works perspective. Tom isn't here to talk about this and asked that I kind
of mention this to you. The water and sewer issue has been an issue for us in
the past. We have had a couple of instances in the county where we have had
county developments, which have come in which actually those particular
properties were on the alignment for major trunk sewers that would serve
properties down the road and we went in and asked for -- the one or two
particular cases that I can think of we asked for easements. We didn't even ask
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 28 of 48
them to put the infrastructure in, we just simply asked for the easements, so that
that corridor could be preserved, so that we could eventually extend sewer
through there and onto properties beyond and we were denied that through the
county and that creates problems for us. I mean, obviously, not only does it
make it difficult for us to eventually serve that particular property, but it could
actually put a roadblock in place for properties that are beyond them. You know,
Meridian Heights is a great example, sort of a county development that did its
thing years ago, came back and cost the city a lot of time, effort, money,
investment and whatnot in order to help resolve that in the long run and we
actually have another situation here where we have done the south Meridian
annexation project, which is primarily the city has led that to basically overcome
impediments that had been caused by county development. So, this is from an
infrastructure standpoint a really important issue for us and Public Works,
because we believe that it certainly has impacted us in the past. It certainly has
caused the city to invest significant time and money and we are still trying to
resolve some of those issues today and we need to make sure that we work
better in the future, so that we can avoid that.
De Weerd: And, Warren, I think it's fair to say it wastes time and money on both
sides, because when the county sub comes in they are required to put in dry
infrastructure that is our best guess and what if the best guess is not the best
guess? That is -- is not able to utilize it and they have to -- to put in different
infrastructure. That's a waste of money. On the private side you're requiring
extra expense that is not a for certain. So, I think that building from the inside out
has proven numerous times to be the -- the right approach. Any questions from
Council?
Hood: Madam Mayor, I just have a couple more slides and, then, we can --
you're probably prepped enough, but I just kind of -- I'm going to jump back to
impact fees here in just a second. I do want to do a little bit follow up on what
Warren said and going back to the director's meeting and from the police
department, their main concern with development in the county is consistency
and code enforcement and that's kind of what Warren is saying with consistency
in code, enforce your code. Don't allow variances. If we are asking for an
easement, we need the easement. If your code requires that in our area of
impact we get either dry line or the easement to put in future sewer lines, please
don't allow that variance, because now we may not even be able to design
around that. You may just have to shut off a whole shed or we have to go -- or a
lift station and costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars, potentially, to -- to
serve people downstream from that. So, from the police department standpoint,
again, code enforcement and consistency was their biggest issue. I don't know
how we really wrap that into this dialogue, but maybe there is a follow-up meeting
with the county on that -- on that topic. I just want to kind of bring you in on that
as well. So -- and Warren kind of stole a little bit of my thunder. I want to run
through a couple of sites and if you look at that third bullet, maybe we will start
there, because that's where he went. Overland, Ten Mile, Victory, Meridian and
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 29 of 48
Linder-Victory, this is something at those director's meetings -- at least the one
that I went to, was talked about. It's s ome examples. Gives some real life
examples of what the issues are and so Warren mentioned Meridian Heights and
Kentucky Ridge. These were county subdivisions and the city limits have been
growing this way and not to rehash, you know, recent history, but , you know, we
are currently working to bring that sewer line by this subdivision, because there
wasn't a to and through policy and this developer didn't have to bring the sewer
line down, so we are working on extending sewer so we can get orderly growth
and development in this portion of south Meridian. I know this may hit close to
home for a certain -- some certain people on the Council, but I -- I just want to
call out, you know, a couple of county subdivisions in this area. It's a similar
situation where city limits are here and you have older county subdivisions, but
there is no infrastructure here and the likelihood of these developing and
extending that infrastructure to the larger lot subdivisions that want to extend is
not very feasible. I mean it's cost prohibitive for a lot of developers. So, the city
has to step up, essentially, and -- well, has worked to deal with the property
owners to step up and extend that sewer if someone doesn't step up and extend
that. But you also look -- and, again, I know there has been conversations on
this, but if you look at the infrastructure on these county subdivisions, there is no
sidewalk along the arterials, there is no sidewalks internally, you don't have
connectivity. You have got a middle school that's going in right across the street
and yet there aren't -- there isn't that -- those urban level services. And, again, I
know this is an older subdivision, but we see this same type of development
occurring now and so we are going to see this in five and t en years just a mile or
section down the road, because you do get these county subdivisions with five
acre lots that are developing and don't have some or all of that infrastructure we
just talked about the county requiring in Title 9. I just want to brin g a couple of
other -- zoom into a couple of other locations. I want to show you a couple of
commercial -- and you're all probably aware of these, but I think it helps to -- to
see them again, especially with an aerial view. So, you have a county approve d
project here and --
De Weerd: A very old one.
Hood: -- city one -- it's old -- it's older. But just to show that the level of
development in the county versus the city and the landscape buffers that are
required and the sidewalks that are required and the lack thereof. So, if you look
at all four corners, the three corners that are developed in the city pretty
consistent. You have commercial development -- yes, it didn't just get approved
yesterday, it's been there. But there is new commercial development approved.
All of -- so, just go to the residential side -- and, again, an older subdivision, I
don't know, '70s, '80s, maybe even older than that, but they all have direct lot
access to Locust Grove Roadway. You know, there are 30,000 cars a day and
the county doesn't have the access restrictions to arterial roadways. They are
approving driveways right now at Eagle Road south of town. They don't have the
same policies we do and it's not a problem now, but it's going to be a problem
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 30 of 48
into the future. So, just working with them on access, having an access policy on
allowing a private driveway. So, again, you know, you look at nice landscape
buffers and sidewalks, you get a battery company that went through the county
and they don't have landscape buffers, they don't have a sidewalk, they have an
advertisement vehicle out front. Just the difference between development in the
county and development in the city. We just have different standards. So, I plan
on just showing a few of those during the joint meeting. Again, that was
something that was brought up at the director's meeting. I don't know what your
all thoughts are on that, but just to kind of -- I have got a little bit more recent one
if you want, because that's -- I think they are fair still and valid, but -- but those
projects are a little bit older -- just real quick. Another one. Victory Road. So,
this is not too far from where we were just at, but Mesa -- this subdivision here
kind of paints a pretty good picture I think. Five acre lots in the county. Long cul-
de-sac that dead ends. If you look at the city approved subdivision, there is a
stub to this property, but there is no connectivity to any of the adjacent
subdivisions in -- that are developed in the city and we are lef t with a gap in the
sidewalk that would make the -- basically, you know, three quarters of a mile on
the north side have complete sidewalk and no landscape buffer. So, again, this
one really paints a good picture of, you know, the development between the
county and the city and I'm not saying all development in the county should have
urban level streets and streetlights and sidewalks and all that, but -- but to retrofit
a lot of these subdivisions it's very, very difficult, especially when these are
private lanes. Those are so difficult to convert to a public street in the future and,
then, you're left with this big -- a long run, there is no way to get across that thing
and you really are forcing folks on the arterials and it makes -- forget safety, but
congestion and all of those different reasons to have some of those requirements
for --
De Weerd: Caleb, I think another example is -- and it's King something. It's
down in south Meridian on -- off of Eagle Road across from Tuscany.
Hood: Kingsbridge.
De Weerd: Yeah. Kingsbridge. When it wrapped around that county sub --
Hood: Yeah.
De Weerd: -- and the -- the neighbors were concerned that, you know, they --
they had no sidewalks, they knew kids would be walking through their
subdivision, they had the narrow roads, they had borrow pits for drainage, and
safety was a huge concern of the neighbors in that county sub and having school
age kids walking through it. It's just different standards that if you anticipate the
city growing around it, you want some compatibility in at least looking to the
public safety piece to that.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 31 of 48
Hood: Yeah. That's a good point. I can bring that one up. And it's really the
private lanes -- at least in this case, if memory serves, I think that -- that
developer was required to construct off-site sidewalk on --
De Weerd: He did.
Hood: -- a portion of Dartmore to get out to Eagle Road to address that concern.
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Hood: But you are retrofitting it. At least it's a public roadway with the right of
way. That's a private lane. You have to go to a hundred percent of those folks
that have an interest in a private lane and get them all to consent? It doesn't
happen.
De Weerd: Well -- and that would be a perfect example, though, to the county in
you had a developer that had to do off-site improvements because of the
concerns of the neighbors and that was at extra expense and certainly wasn't
something that had to happen, but he knew to be a good neighbor it had to
happen.
Hood: So, I'm not going to beat this dead horse. I think I talked about all these
things here in retrofitting safe routes and connectivity. I just want to take just a
minute and run through the applications that we saw in 2015. I do have a
handout if the clerk -- and I'm not going to go through all of these, but there were
-- and this doesn't include property boundary adjustments, records of survey,
most variances, staff level approvals, but these are, quote, unquote, true
development applications. Somebody's proposing to build something or change
a land use on a property. So, I just wanted to -- we had 13 -- 14 of them last
year. So, a little over one a month. It doesn't seem that much, but this is just 12
months worth of applications. So, you know, it's -- and not all of them are
egregious, some of them are -- are really no issues. In fact, the first one I have
on the screen was a contractor's yard. They did have a variance request for their
setbacks, their shop to be located closer to a hundred -- closer than a hundred
feet and, quite honestly, a contractor's yard in this situation where it's next to
county properties, it will probably redevelop with a higher and better use. I mean
it is sort of an interim use as a contactor's yard. Some day when there is an
interchange here this will redevelop and it will be something different. So, I don't
really have a concern with a contractor's yard in that -- in that situation. There
was a digital billboard sign proposed on -- at 1035 East Fairview as you can see
it's an enclave property. It's just out of our downtown. Why is the county
approving digital billboard signs on Fairview just outside of our downtown. So,
again, that just highlights one of the -- the earlier points of why we want to
renegotiate. Five Mile and Victory, outdoor storage -- self storage and gravel pit.
You all probably got phone calls from some of the neighbors out here when it
was proposed on this property. It was appealed to the Board of County
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 32 of 48
Commissioners. They ended up denying it. But, again , having an outdoor
storage facility -- it was mostly the gravel pit I think that the neighbors were
concerned with, but they also had some commercial development. So, the level
of commercial development and the neighborhood concerns were our concerns.
Amity and McDermott -- or near McDermott, this was a three lot residential
subdivision. It, in an of itself, it's pretty far out there. I mean, geez, this is way
out, so, you know, not a whole lot of concern with it, other than it had a private
lane and, again, this isn't going to be my problem, but -- and for future
generations, private lanes out there, you aren't going to be able to get through
this section, you're going to have to go around. So, you're not going to have
neighborhoods on this side of McDermott and this side of Black Cat being able to
get there, you're going to have to go out to Amity or Lake Hazel to get there. So,
that's the main concern there is a private road at that project. 5151 South
Meridian Road. This was a 66,000 -- again, self storage facility. At that point in
time it was an enclave like it shows now, the city limits reflect the south Meridian
annexation. But, again, there wasn't -- 66,000 square feet of outdoor storage
proposed not too terribly far from existing city limits that cause -- and I know
Perry -- Mr. Palmer -- Chief Palmer, excuse me, was a part of that review at the
county and fire flows, you know, they were working through those things, but,
again, why have these interim conditions, just wait for our services. We have
planned services for water infrastructure there in this fiscal year. The next one,
number five on your list, Nickel Creek Place, a graphics arts product business out
of a home, no real issues. Home occupation. Home business. That seems --
that's no issues from my standpoint anyway with those. The next one off of
McDermott Road, outdoor self storage facility. Again, self storage, self storage,
self storage. Outdoor. No pavement. You know, barbed wire fencing. City
limits aren't that far. We have projects here and another one that -- that will
probably be before you before too long that backs right up to these -- these
properties. It is a contractor's yard, though. So, again, I see those as
redeveloping. It's when they are adjacent to city limits like this one is, a
contractor's yard next to city limits and their variance is to our constituents,
basically, you know, residents in Meridian, with a county contractor's yard, they
should be applying to the City of Meridian if they are eligibl e for annexation. Next
one was a -- the Fairview cemetery. Again, no -- no issues with the expansion of
the cemetery from my perspective. Accessory structure. No real issues with that
one either, again, with its location and an accessory structure. Gr oup daycare off
of Tasa. Again, the group daycare, home occupation type of a thing, that seems
to be in line with our future vision. Again, landscape contractor's yard. Again, we
-- so, it's kind of the same types of things, but the variance to the setb ack closer
to residential. Thirty-eight thousand six hundred five square foot research and
development facility. Again, we have got proposed commercial projects, not too
far from city limits. In fact, we heard from several of these neighbors here asking
the city to oppose this project in the county. The county was looking at approving
a master site plan on a ten acre research park. I will just leave it at that. And,
then, the last one to highlight was a cell tower and we are seeing more and more
of these as well. Again, this is an enclave. Totally surrounded by city limits next
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 33 of 48
to a high school. Not that we wouldn't approve a cell tower. A cell tower may
work there. But it's the level of improvement of the site associated with
developing that cell tower. Are they paving -- are they paving their access in and
making sure that dust isn't being brought in. Are they putting in their landscape
buffers. Is the sidewalk being connected? Those types of things that urban level
developers are required to do versus county level development. So, those are
just -- that's just a sampling of this past year and the applications that we saw.
Not all -- not all development applications in the county are bad or cause me
pause, but 50 percent, something like that, roughly, do or are of some level of
concern, so just to, again, kind of bring the point home. So, finally, impact fees. I
didn't hear anything back from fire or police about potential for th e county to
protect -- collect impact fees on our behalf. Steve Siddoway did provide some
comments on this and other things, but, again, we talked about this last time,
Boise City and Ada County have an agreement, it's in that Boise city's area of
city impact agreement with -- with Ada County to collect parks impact fees. The
main justification for that is the residents that are being approved in the county
are parks patrons and create that demand, so why shouldn't they be paying a
proportionate share of park impact fees. So, that's one where I'm not the subject
matter expert on impact fees. Again, it's something we asked for in our letter.
Again, as far as the hierarchy goes, the thing that -- that I would request you --
you discuss with them it's the first two bullets and not that we can't talk about
impact fees, but I don't know how would be we start to go to implement
something like that. But I just bring it up, because it is -- it is possible. And I
don't know if anyone else wants to speak on that -- on that topic about impact
fees, but with that I hope everyone is comfortable for the 6th. I don't know how
long -- I haven't timed myself, but I won't do that long of a presentation on the
6th. I will definitely make it shorter, but -- but it will be in the same vein, so --
De Weerd: Caleb, I think it was very helpful and I appreciate the examples and
kind of walking through it and giving specific instances where it's caused
challenges.
Hood: I will work on some more examples as well.
De Weerd: Okay.
Hood: Maybe instead of the ones I had here. Everyone's good, then? Thank
you.
De Weerd: Uh-huh. Thank you. Oh. There is -- there is another private lane
that if -- if you can use that as an example -- was it Winsgate? What --
Hood: Wingate. Yeah.
De Weerd: Wingate. Oh, my gosh. I'm so glad that that area is -- is built out.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 34 of 48
Hood: Not quite. But we are getting there. And that may be a -- I can look at
using that one.
Bird: Wingate is off of Ustick.
Hood: Yes. Yes.
Bird: Between --
De Weerd: It was over by --
Hood: Do you know where that's at, Keith?
Watts: Yeah.
Hood: Yeah. We can -- that is a good example, Madam Mayor. So, I can --
here is Wingate. And it actually used to go through here and, yes, we got
through the -- the Sharps. If you remember Dale and Helen Sharp's property
that --
De Weerd: Absolutely.
Hood: -- you know, used to have --
De Weerd: I have scars.
Hood: -- the five acres here. But that is -- there are still some scars, actually,
from the remnant of what was Wingate and, you know, these would be double
fronted lots. So, that's maybe a good example, too, to bring up to that to say --
De Weerd: Well -- and I think there is one over by Redfeather as well that is now
a major connection to a large subdivision through a county sub. Has no
sidewalk. It's a very narrow street. There is no lighting. It's -- it's not a safe
connection, but a lot of people use it and they drive very quickly through there.
So, we have, unfortunately --
Hood: There are examples that --
C. Community Development: Review List Of Priority
Roadway, Intersection And Community Programs
Projects For 2016
De Weerd: Uh-huh. But thank you. Okay. So, if there is nothing further,
Council, on that one, we will move to Item 10-C. You received a road priority list
last week and I will tell you I only got halfway through it myself. That was a lot of
great detail and appreciate that.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 35 of 48
Hood: Madam Mayor, if I can, just the -- I sent you all an e-mail, but this is the
exhibit I didn't show you last time. I have talked to two Council members, so I will
just share with you that feedback that I have gotten from them. Mr. Cavener was
not able to be here. He wanted to talk a little bit about the community programs
projects and Rail with trail. I don't know if it's appropriate now, but there was a
discussion at the transportation commission about the purpose of these lists and
this list is primarily used again for ACHD, so they can know what our priority
projects are. There was some discussion about, well, why is Rail with Trail so
high on our list to ACHD. They are not going to really do anything. That's --
that's outside their right of way, aside from crossings, and I told the commission
-- I said it's not just an ACHD list, this is a comprehensive list that I share with
whoever asks to say what are your -- what are you priority projects for pathway,
sidewalks, roadways, intersections. So, this isn't just an ACHD list. Yes, that's
primarily what we use it for, but you will see projects on Chinden, you know, that
are listed there and that's a partnership with ITD. But they are still on our list,
even though ITD is going to be the lead agency in making those intersections
happen. So, that was the feedback I got from -- at least a question or future
dialogue is should we add an asterisk next to projects like that that may be -- the
File Mile Creek pathway extension that goes back Badley to Fairview, ACHD is
probably not going to play a role in that, why -- you know, should it be so high on
the list.
De Weerd: Well -- and, Caleb, I would maintain that the Rail with Trail -- ACHD
has told us that they are on board, they see it as a priority, and they also see it as
a potential alternative to widening Fairview where the small business owners up
and down that corridor express concern. They see the Rail with Trail as a
potential alternative. Improving that would eliminate the need to expand
Fairview. So, I guess I would say the Rail with Trail becomes even more
important.
Hood: And I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, that wasn't Mr. Cavener.
I don't think that was his point. Just to have the dialogue about should there be
some footnote or something there about this project maybe not being so much
for them to program, because our expectation isn't for them to necessarily fund it
a hundred percent.
De Weerd: Is it my expectation.
Hood: Okay. Well, maybe it is. Okay. And, then, the other -- I just had a brief
e-mail back and forth with Councilman Borton -- again, not to put words in his
mouth, but he's actually here. I think he's generally okay with the priorities as
shown on this exhibit here, but some of the dialogue, as you may recall from two
weeks ago, was about -- and, Madam Mayor, you weren't here -- was about
Fairview at seven lanes and ACHD has Fairview in their CIP through Meridian
Road planned for widening to seven lanes and one of our higher priority projects
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 36 of 48
is the Locust Grove-Fairview intersection. It's number six. So, it's a top ten
project and they would blow out to a nine by seven. So, nine lanes -- nine lanes
on east and the west leg and seven lanes on the Locust Grove leg to
accommodate a future seven lane wide Fairview. And I just brought it up that in
the past it's been a topic of discussion, I said I don't recall there ever being -- I
know there is not a resolution. I don't remember there ever being a vote or even
consensus from the previous councils on, yeah, we think Fairview should be
seven or, you know, it's okay being seven to Locust Grove or to Meridian, but,
boy, west of Meridian Road does it really need to be seven, maybe five is
appropriate. So, I think maybe -- against that's what we are -- maybe there is
some of that dialogue tonight for potentially including in the letter that you all
have in your packet. But, other than that, I think the priorities are what they are
and if you're okay with the list and the letter, I will -- if you will authorize, I will get
the Mayor's signature and get it off by -- April 1st is the deadline to ACHD, so
that's the update I have.
De Weerd: Appropriate.
Hood: Yeah.
De Weerd: Any comments from Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: It doesn't necessarily need to be addressed in the letter, but to follow up
on Caleb's comments, the question that I had with regards to Cherry Lane. It
didn't make initial sense that the -- the ultimate build out of Cherry Lane heading
west from that Locust Grove interchange would be seven lanes, as opposed to
five. Understanding it's seven from Eagle to Locust Grove and, then, at least my
initial thought was five heading west from there and so the question is whether
that's really been addressed by the Council before taking a position or have we
even discussed it at some point, presuming we need to, and give some
consistent direction -- not necessarily in this letter, but whether it's a unified
message to have that be seven to and through or if five is m ore appropriate as
you enter our downtown Main Street, Meridian Road.
De Weerd: I think that the city has expressed concern of the seven lanes and
asked them to look at other opportunities. Again, I would point out the -- the rail
corridor is -- is one of those. Hasn't been -- I mean certainly in the initial
discussion, but the Fairview corridor has been a point of discussion and potential
contention of what was being proposed.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 37 of 48
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Fairview has been discussed quite a bit and I'm quite shocked that they
come -- that they come out with the seven lanes at all, because it is -- it is the
greatest way to shut down business -- existing businesses that are already there.
And we have -- we have had -- we had a committee that we have met -- oh, I
would say five, six years ago, two from Boise, two from Meridian, and -- and had,
basically, said that five lanes and all of a sudden you have got seven and it's
something that I think -- I think if they look at going over five lanes on Fairview
from Orchard to the county line at McDermott, I think they are going to kill one
heck of a lot of establish businesses that have been there a heck of a lot longer
than Fairview has been paved. So, I -- I just -- I think they are -- I'd sooner see
them worry more about getting Ustick five lanes all the way through, because
Ustick is -- is the one road -- east and west that goes from the river to Boise.
From the Snake River to Boise.
Hood: And, Madam Mayor, Mr. Bird, just on that point, I will just point out that
Ustick is a priority corridor and they are working on it. So, it's not an either/or.
They are doing Ustick, but they are also planning to do Fairview. So, for them it's
both. It's not an either/or, so -- but if you look on the spreadsheets, I mean Ustick
-- the next few miles of Ustick will actually be under construction later this year.
Bird: I know that.
De Weerd: I guess -- in response to your earlier comment, I do think it's
something that this Council needs a joint meeting with Ada County Highway
District to discuss the Fairview corridor and what some of the alternatives that
are being considered in lieu of a seven lane facility.
Hood: So, Madam Mayor, can I ask you -- can we go another step first before
that joint meeting? What I would -- I'm working on the capital improvement
citizen advisory group at ACHD and they are working on their next round similar
to our impact ordinance, they do it every four or five years they have their group
of projects. Gary Inselman -- I'd like him to come to just address you and kind of
explain from the staff perspective more technical perspective on why they are at
seven and, then, we can -- similar to our discussion with the board, I want you to
be comfortable before we just pound our fist and say, you know, not seven. To
get their perspective at least from a staff level about why they are planning on
seven lanes now, if you're okay with that, before we go into the joint meeting. Is
it okay if I invite Gary in the next month or so to come and -- or do you want to
jump to the joint meeting, that's fine.
De Weerd: I'd rather pound my fist if I have to.
Hood: I didn't mean to assume that you would, but just before you have your
mind made up, maybe listen to why the transportation authority thinks that seven
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 38 of 48
lanes is warranted. If you have already heard it and you don't want to do that,
that's fine, too. I just thought I would offer that.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Caleb, you know, we had a meeting -- a joint meeting down there
discussing it a couple three years ago and we had enough of those businesses
along there that -- that got up and testified. I understand the staff really don't
have to answer to the public, but I will guarantee you the elected officials do.
Hood: And that's fine, we don't have to -- I just wanted to make sure you're
comfortable --
De Weerd: But our staff does. I mean you guys do really well.
Bird: I was talking about ACHD.
De Weerd: I think if Gary if the first appropriate step I can save my fist pounding
for later.
Hood: You could practice on him.
De Weerd: I can. And he's fun to practice on.
Hood: All right. I will work on that. Thank you. Good with the priorities on the
list then? I will put it on letterhead and get the Mayor to sign it then.
De Weerd: Yes.
Hood: Thank you.
D. Finance Department: Update to Purchasing Policy
Discussion
De Weerd: Okay. Item 10-D. Keith, before you get started I just want to thank
you. This was really comprehensive and all the various forms that you presented
the information was helpful. I know that the departments have expressed sincere
appreciation for the clean up, making the process easier to understand and
easier to use and I will turn it over with my praise.
Watts: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I have e-mailed the draft
policy to each of you and provided another hard copy just in case you didn't have
it up in front of you and, really, I'm just here tonight to ask for feedback,
comments, and answer any questions that you may have and to look for
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 39 of 48
direction. If you wish I can go through the -- the major changes that I pointed in
my cover letter that I sent to you folks earlier last week I believe, if that's where
you would like to start. I will state that I have -- I had -- Councilman Borton has
given me feedback with no recommended changes and I was able to meet with
Councilman Cavener last night and to answer any questions he had and review it
as well and he is comfortable with it as it sits. I would like to go through and tell
you the process of -- that we went through to draft this. I made all the changes
that I thought were appropriate, reorganized it, sent it through the Finance
Department and had the key players in the Finance Department review it and
provide feedback. Then I provided it to the Ma yor and my liaison Councilman
Borton for their review and comment. After that passed that out to the
department directors and I have had either e-mail or conversations with each of
the department directors and had no significant comments or changes. Asid e
from just the department directors I also had the entire Legal Department review
it as well and, then, sent to you, the Council members, for their review as well,
so --
De Weerd: Council, any questions, comments for Keith at this time?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just to tag with your comments, I appreciate Keith's efforts to get all of
this input on the front end from so many different interested stakeholders. It's led
to what I think is a great product, great end result.
Watts: Thank you. I guess I would point out -- one more item I'd like to point out,
too, is I had one add from the McGladrey Report. There was one small section
where I had that conflicting three words with one of the HR policies and we have
completely removed that section from the purchasing policy. Now we just refer to
the HR policy to avoid any conflicts and that was my one take away from the
McGladrey as far as the policy was concerned.
De Weerd: Thank you, Keith. Anything further from Council? So --
Watts: And direct that would be -- bring it back on the -- would you like it on the
5th or next -- or would you wait until the -- the second week, the 12th? The
workshop?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: My preference would be on the workshop, the 12th. Let's bring it back.
That will give everybody time to look it over really, really good.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 40 of 48
Watts: Yeah. And, then, we will --
Bird: I think -- I think you did a great job on it, Keith.
Watts: Thank you, sir.
Bird: You addressed some of my concerns.
Watts: Thank you.
E. Public Works: Design Standards Update
De Weerd: Thank you, Keith. Okay. And 10-E is under Public Works to have an
update on our design standards. Design standards? This is all unde rground.
Who cares what it looks like.
Stewart: Well, some people do. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, some
of you heard me give some updates on the design standards a couple different
times, but I think we are -- at least two of our Council Members this might be the
first time that they have really heard a lot about it. I just wanted to give you an
update on the process as to where we are at and I forgot something. I just
wanted to hand you each a copy -- a draft copy of the design standards. I'm
going to take you through briefly the process that we underwent to put this -- the
standards together and where we are going to go from here. So, essentially, to
just kind of recap a little bit for those who may not be familiar with it, the City of
Meridian and the Public Works Department has a couple of -- one -- primarily one
document right now that we utilize to help the development community and our
contractors who are putting in infrastructure for the city and the specifications and
there is two pieces to that. There is the ISPWC, which is the Idaho Standards for
Public Works Construction that's produced by the state and, then, there is the city
of Meridian supplemental specifications that go along with that. Those are
primarily instructions or directions to contractors who are out building things in
the field. It tells them how to build it. But the city has not had a central repository
or location for all of the information that we require designers to have when they
are designing plans and putting together specifications that they need to submit
to the City of Meridian. So, a few years ago we realized that we sort of had this
deficiency. What really kind of brought it to light was the fact that we put together
our street lighting standards, which was the standard that was adopted in 2010
and we realized the value in that standard and thought, you know, we should
probably create something similar with regards to sewer, water, reclaimed water
and other things that the city has to deal with and put that in a document, so that
we had a resource that was available to all of the -- essentially consulting
community, consulting engineers who are putting these plans and specifications
together, so they had one location where they could really get a hold o f most of
the information that they would need to put together a set of plans and specs that
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 41 of 48
they could submit to the city and hopefully by doing that it would help them so
that they wouldn't have to go through as many iterations in the review and
approval process. So, the design standards and specifications are slightly
different. Specifications are instructions to the contractors. Design standards
are instructions to the consulting engineers primarily or the development
community. Again, just a reminder, we did have a street lighting standard that
was adopted in 2010 and we are reviewing and updating that as a part of this
process. They are complimentary documents. Okay. So, just to review some of
the drivers behind this, we wanted to be able to document current practices.
Much of what's in this document that you see before you is actually things that
we have been doing and requiring for many years. They are not new, we just
didn't have a place where somebody could look them all up and -- and review
them all. So, a lot of what you have there is just actually putting all of the current
practices in a document that makes it easier for people to use. There are some
new things in there, especially when it comes to, for instance, reclaimed water.
We didn't have a lot of information with regards to reclaimed water and so we
took this as an opportunity to really sort of identify what we want and what we
would expect with regards to reclaimed water when somebody is putting in
reclaimed water facilities within the city. As I had mentioned, we also hope that
this would streamline the review and approval process for plans. We wanted to
improve our ability to communicate with the design community or with the
development community. We feel that this does this. It helps put together all of
the information in one location that they can use as a reference that should help
them out and it also should help us when we have to update something, it gives
us one location that we can update, similar to what we do with the specifications.
Every year or two we gather together all of the things that have come to our
attention over the past few months and we make an update, we do a public
outreach and we bring that back to you guys for your approval. So, it's sort of
formalizes the update process and makes sure that we are getting out and
reaching out to the stakeholders to make sure that everything that we are doing
is -- is communicated well to them. It also helps us to facilitate this opportunity
for public outreach. It really drives us through a process that helps us to get out
-- and I will talk a little bit about what we did with this and you will see that. It
helps to drive a process that helps us to reach out in order to get with our
stakeholders and get information from them. So, to sort of give you a little bit of a
timeline just real quickly about what we have done so far. In the 2015 time frame
-- or 2013 time frame, excuse me, is when we really started putting this
information together. We went out, looked at other communities, not only -- not
only here in the Treasure Valley, but elsewhere in the -- kind of Pacific northwest
and we went and found what they had for design standards and we started
looking and saying, well, what about what they have done sh ould we bring to the
City of Meridian. How should we organize it? It was kind of a benchmarking
effort. In 2014 we developed our sort of first draft document and we started
some internal review. We created some committees. We had a major
committee that had members from each one -- or from various different
departments and divisions within the city. They had subcommittees. Each one
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 42 of 48
of those subcommittees was responsible for two or three chapters within the
document and we broke it up and really allowed them to dive into the meat of the
-- of the document and get those particular chapters the way they needed to be.
We developed in 2015 an outreach strategy working with our -- the Mayor's office
and our -- our specialist up there and we also conducted a peer review. We went
out and had a consulting firm review the documents for us and provide us with
their comments. We did -- after we got the peer review back we did another
internal review and made modifications and changes based on that review. We
met with other folks in the City of Meridian to discuss outreach opportunity. We
developed a presentation and, then, we started our presentation -- I'm not going
to go through all of these bullets, I'm just going to kind of hit some of the
highlights. So, in 9/8/15 where you start to see the dates, is kind of what I want
to go through. So, early last fall we did a presentation to the BCA where we
actually presented design standards to them and opened the comment period
where we solicited and said we are go ing to have a comment period now for the
next -- I think we had a little over two months that we left the comment period
open and said could you, please, provide comment regarding the design
standards. We also conducted an open house here at City Hall and we sent out
an e-mail blast, as well as we put it on our -- on the internet -- the design
standards were on the internet and we -- and we noticed everybody. It was on
one of the little front page flags that -- basically so that when you opened up the
website you saw it right there on the main page, if you wanted to comment on the
new design standards you could click on that and it would take you into a spot
where you could review the design standards and it would solicit comments. So,
we did that on our website. We conducted an open house and after we
conducted an open house we put together a series of focus groups. The focus
groups consisted of two different -- two different groups. We, essentially, had a
development group where we had -- and you will see their names and
organizations listed here. We had representatives from the some of the more
significant or major developers that do work here in the City of Meridian, as well
as some of the engineering firms that are more prominent and do a lot of wo rk
here in the City of Meridian and we went through chapter by chapter. We met
several different times, because it took us a while to get through the document,
but we went through chapter by chapter with the -- with the development group
and with the engineering group and got their comments and feedback on the
document. Then we took all of that information, we made the modifications and
changes to the document that we felt like we could and should and we created a
question and response document to go along with it. So, we -- we listed every
single comment that we received and how we responded to every single
comment. After we put that together we sent it out for one more review to our
peer group and we are doing an internal review again right now. We have,
again, posted that document on our website, along with the question and
response, so if somebody wants to know, you know, I commented on this, they
can go down and find their comment and they can find what the response was
from the city, how we addressed their comment. So, we went through a fairly
extensive process to try and get feedback on the document. In total we received
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 43 of 48
105 comments. Primarily the vast majority of those comments came in through
the focus groups. We did receive a few comments through the open house. We
had about 20 attendees at the open house and we did receive a few comments
there. We actually did not receive one comment through the internet, although I
think a lot of people pulled their document from there and, then, came to the
open house or other places to talk to us about it. Ninety -three of the comments
that we received we favorably addressed and what I mean by that is we were
actually able to address that comment in a way that actually was in their favor or
we moved in their direction to make those corrections or make those changes.
There were some -- some as you can see that we were not able to address or we
weren't able to do exactly what they asked for and I wanted to list some of the
reasons why we were not always able to respond positively. Some of those
actually increased the risk or the liability to the city. It was shifting, essentially,
from the development community to the city for the risk and we though t that's
probably not fair to do. So, we didn't -- you know, essentially, accept or -- or
make those changes if that was the case. Some of them actually increased risk
to public health, which we weren't willing to do. Some of them actually were
because there were conflicting views. In other words, we had ce rtain entities that
expressed that they wanted it this way and some that expressed, no, we like it
that way and so we didn't have universal agreement on what they wanted. So, in
those cases we tended to leave it as it was. Some of them were because they
were, essentially, requirements that were from another document or another
agency. They -- in most cases what we did is we actually removed those
requirements from the design standards and just listed a reference to the other
document. But we didn't actu ally -- it didn't actually appear that the -- the design
standards were making that requirement. We were simply referencing the
document. Some of the things that were -- were concerned were actually things
that were to the UDC and so we were like, well, if you want to change the UDC
that's a different process. We will remove it out of the design standards. It's not
removing it as a requirement, but we won't have it here, we will just reference the
UDC. And there were a few cases, although not many, whe re it actually would
undermine the objective or the purpose of these -- of the standards. So, all in all
we were able to address 88 percent of the questions or comments favorably,
which I think was pretty good, actually, when you think about all the thing s that
they commented on. We did our best to listen and to make the modifications and
changes that they asked for whenever we could. Moving forward, we have -- as I
mentioned, we have taken this document that you have, as well as the response
document, we have put it on the internet and we have sent notifications back out
to all of the subcommittees and asked them for review. We sent it out for a
second peer review, available online for anybody to comment on. We have
contacted all the focus group participants, the BCA, and all the open house
participants and asked -- and told them that it was available and we would like
final comment on the document and what our -- what we were hoping to do is be
able to take this document and bring it back to you on the workshop in April and
seek adoption of the document at that time. We have asked for the comments --
for everybody's comments to, essentially, be in by April 5th. It gives them two
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 44 of 48
weeks. That seems like a short time frame, but the reality is we have already
had a very long comment period and I hope that we have received the vast
majority of the comments that we are going to receive. So, I don't anticipate a
significant amount of comments at this point. So, we are giving an additional two
weeks worth of comment period for anybody to make final comments. We can
make final modifications and, then, bring it back to you in that week before the
12th and, then, come back on the 12th and seek adoption of the -- the design
standards. So, that's it in a nutshe ll. Sorry it took a little long, but I wanted to
make sure everybody knew where -- where we had been with this.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you, Warren. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Very nice, Warren. I appreciate this. I do have one question. In your
focus group I see you got a lot of professionals and stuff like that, which is great,
but why -- why don't we have a couple of utility contractors, the guys that actually
put this stuff in the ground? You know, a lot of times we can design somethi ng
and it looks good on paper or on our computer and we can draw it up nice, but it
don't work out in the field and you and I both know that happens more than we
would like it to. I would like to see -- when you -- and I like the way you -- the
process you went through couldn't be beat. We should go through all these
processes when we design something -- get a design review standard, but I
would -- I would like your team to sit down and think about getting a couple of --
of the actual contractors or construction guys that do the actual physical putting it
in the ground and making sure that they are on board, too.
Stewart: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, I totally agree. When we went to the
BCA we actually announced at the BCA -- but we contacted the association that
we would welcome -- if you wanted to be on one of the focus groups, let us know.
And we also sent out a lot of the notifications for the open house were sent out to
contractors and the message that we got back, honestly, was that the contrac tors
were primarily more interested in changes made to the specifications, because
that affects them more directly in the real world and that the design standards
were really intended to help consultants prepare plans and although they were
interested, they were more than willing to let others be a part of that focus group,
as opposed to being on it. We do intend, as soon as we complete this process,
to start the process to update the specifications and I expect we will get a lot
more interest during that process from the contractor's community.
Bird: Great answer. No problem.
De Weerd: Any other questions, comments?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 45 of 48
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: One quick question. Warren, can you go to slide six? I think it's --
Stewart: You might have to remind me -- I can't read that one.
Borton: Yeah.
Stewart: Is that it?
Borton: Yeah. And I agree with Councilman Bird, this is a through process you
went through to gather all this input. It's fantastic. It leads to a gre at result and a
great product. On the -- the items -- the very few items that were not favorably
addressed gave five good explanations as to why they wouldn't be. Of the 12, it
looks like 12 comments, on providing that feedback of one of these five
explanations as to why those 12 wouldn't be addressed, were any of those 12
resolved or is there still lingering disagreement from whoever made those
comments that these five explanations that seemed reasonable don't address it,
at least in their eyes?
Stewart: We haven't -- you know, we had some discussion as we were going
through the focus group discussions themselves and in some cases, you know,
we -- we, essentially, talked to them then and said, well, we will have to -- we will
have to ponder that and look at it. We haven't gone back to them at this point
and -- although we have, but it's just gone out -- and told them how we revised it.
That document that I talked about, which is the response document, basically
says here is the comment, here is how we addressed it or maybe why we
couldn't address it. They will be getting that at the same time frame I think as
some of that went out yesterday, some of it went out today, some of the e -mails
went out today, so people -- I expect we will get some of those comments and
feedback in the next two weeks. There are some things. For instance, I will just
give you a heads up. I'm confident that when we come back -- or pretty confident
that when we come back on the 12th seeking adoption, that there will probably
be folks in the audience who will come up and want to talk to you about street
lights again. We hear that over and over, even though that's been adopted since
2010, we made significant changes to the street light standard and I think the
vast majority of those changes were -- will make life better and easier for the
development community. However, one of the comments that we made and
have made consistently is that we have adapted a standard, which is a -- you
know, essentially, a standard that's by -- by the transportation industry on street
light spacing and it's based on photometrics, you know, and safety and they don't
like the spacing. They want it to be further. And I have no basis for allowing it to
go further and I have offered several times, said you show me another standard
that I can use and I would be happy to consider it and I have not receive one yet.
So, I'm sure that that's still a bone of contention with some folks. They would like
greater spacing. As an engineer I simply -- street lighting is not my area of
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 46 of 48
expertise and so I go to the resources that we have from the professionals, who
that is their expertise, and we have adopted what their recommendations are.
De Weerd: Warren, have they come back and offered you an alternative and
cited the resource of where they found the standard?
Stewart: I have not had any of them come up with an alternative standard. I
mean we have a standard. We are happy to share that with them where ours
comes from, but I have not had -- I have offered that same statement that I just
made here in every meeting. You give me an option, I would be happy to
consider it and I have not gotten one, so -- I'm sticking with the one we have until
there is a -- a bona fide alternative. I get a lot of -- well, Boise doesn't do it that
way or Nampa doesn't do it that way and I'm like, well, you tell me what their --
what they base their lighting standard on and I will be happy to entertain that.
But you asked Boise and you ask Nampa and they are like, well, it's just been
that way for -- for years. But they have no basis for it. And I'm like, well, I can't
get there. I'm not going to --
De Weerd: Isn't that good enough? Just because you do it that way.
Stewart: Well, that doesn't make me feel --
Bird: Very good, Warren.
De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you. Very thorough. We appreciate
that.
Item 11: Future Meeting Topics
De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything further for upcoming agendas? Any topics?
Bird: I have none.
Item 12: Executive Session Per Idaho State Code 74-206 (a)(c): (a) To
consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or
individual agent, wherein the respective qualities of
individuals are to be evaluated in order to fill a particular
vacancy or need. This paragraph does not apply to filling a
vacancy in an elective office or deliberations about staffing
needs in general; AND (c) To Conduct Deliberations
Concerning Labor Negotiations or to Acquire an Interest in
Real Property, Which is Not Owned by a Public Agency
De Weerd: Okay. We will make sure to get the design standards on there and,
Council, we are at Item No. 12, Executive Session. Do I have a motion?
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 47 of 48
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho State Code 74 -206, (a)
and (c).
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to adjourn into Executive Session.
Madam Clerk, will you call roll.
Roll Call: Bird, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, absent; Cavener, absent ; Palmer, yea;
Little Roberts, yea.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: (8:24 p.m. to 10:35 p.m.)
De Weerd: -- motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bird: So moved.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor? All ayes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:24 P.M.
Meridian City Council
March 22, 2016
Page 48 of 48
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR _!r -D
ATTEST:
- !� 1 5 /&
DATE APPROVED
JAYCEE WLMAN, CITY CLERl `; �� `` '��,°� } Ni,;