HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 10-25
Meridian City Council Meeting
October 25. 2005
The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M.,
Tuesday, October 25,2005, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Shaun Wardle, Charlie Rountree and
Christine Donnell.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Bill Musser, Ron
Anderson, Craig Hood, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
RolI"call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
X Charlie Rountree
X
X Christine Donnell
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: Okay. I will go ahead and call the City Council meeting to order. It is
Tuesday, October 25th. It is 7:05. Welcome. We appreciate you joining us this
evening. We will start tonight with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No.2 is the pledge of allegiance. We will be led tonight by Jenna
Layne. If you will all rise?
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Lauren Winter.
De Weerd: Jenna, I have a City of Meridian pin. Thank you. I think that gains you
bonus points, by the way. Item No.3 is our community invocation and tonight we will be
led by Lauren Winter. Oh, I'm sorry. If you will, please, all join us in the invocation or
take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence.
Winter: Father in Heaven, we are thankful that we are able to meet tonight. Please
bless that we can have wisdom in this meeting, that we can make the decisions, and we
say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. I also have a City of Meridian pin for you, too. Okay. Item No.
4 is adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 25,2005
Page 2 of 41
De Weerd: Mr. Bird. .
Bird: I would move that we adopt the agenda as published.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion is to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor say
aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A.
Approve Minutes of August 30, 2005 City Council Special Meeting
I Joint Workshop:
B.
Approve Minutes of October 4, 2005 City Council Regular Meeting:
C.
Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: AZ 05..030 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.1
acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit
Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road:
D.
Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: PP 05-030 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 24
residential building lots and 4 common area lots on 5.10 acres in a
proposed R-8 zone for Windwalker Subdivision by Beckit
Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road:
E.
Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: VAR 05-018 Request for a Variance to reduce the
street side setback to 10 feet for Windwalker Subdivision by
Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove Road:
F.
Contract for the Support Services for Existina Model Update
with JUB Engineers. Inc.:
G.
Sewer Collection System Maintenance Proaram Peer Review
with CH2M HILL, Inc.:
H.
Change Order No.1 for the McMillan Water Extension Project
with Masco. Inc.:
I.
Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement Aareement for
Jackson's Food Store:
Meridian City CounCil
October 25. 2005
Page 3 of41
J.
Aareement for Professional Services for Miscellaneous NPDES
Permit Assistance with CH2Mhill:
K.
FY2006 Budget Amendment for Buildina Department for Full
Time Department Specialist:
L.
Award of Bid for Well 26 & 27 Control System Installation to
Custom Electric:
M.
Power Easement for Well No. 26:
De Weerd: Item 5. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for
the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all proper papers.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion,
Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A.
Parks Department - Doug Strong
1.
Further Discussion of Land and Water Conservation
Fund grant for Splash pad at Meridian Settler's Park from
October 4, 2005:
De Weerd: Item 6, our Department Reports. We will start with Mr. Strong as the parks
department.
Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. As you will recall on the
October 4th City Council meeting, we discussed the Land and Water grant that we were
awarded from the National Parks Service through the Idaho State Parks. I'd certainly
answer any additional questions that you have had the opportunity to think about since
then. What I'm here for tonight is to recommend that we not accept that grant and to
request that the 45,000 dollars that we would have gotten from the grant, that we use
additional impact fees to build the water splash pad, phase two, of the Adventure Island
Playground. So, with that as an introduction, I'll entertain questions or concerns about
that proposal.
Meridian City Council
October 25,2005
Page 4 of 41
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any discussion?
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Could you -- Mr. Strong, could you explain to us why you're making that
recommendation not to accept that grant?
De Weerd: I think Councilwoman Donnell wasn't here when we had this discussion.
Donnell: I was not. I apologize. You can do it briefly.
Strong: Madam Mayor and Councilwoman Donnell, the primary reason for refusal of
the grant -- or requesting that we deny accepting the grant is a requirement of the Land
and Water Fund is that you establish what they call 6-F boundaries for property, the
property that's involved in the project. As we started the project, boundaries were first
described around just where the playground area is, the entrance into the park, and the
parking lot, so -- because access is a part of the condition of the grant. As we got
further into the project, they wanted to draw straight lines on the west side north and,
then, from that intersection back east to Meridian Road, which took a larger chunk of the
park that would forever be tied up in 6-F boundary description by the National Parks
Service for a 45,000 dollar grant and a million dollar project. So, as it progressed it
seemed like a lot of encumbrance to the project for the amount of dollar value that we
are getting from the grant.
Donnell: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Strong. I will need a motion from Council.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we refuse the Land and Water Conservation grant for the splash pad
at Meridian Settler's Park as recommended by the director.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to deny use of the grant, but, Mr. Nary, can -- in the
same motion can we request impact fees to pay for that portion?
Nary: Madam Mayor, because you have got an expenditure, you should probably
separate those into two separate actions.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 5 of 41
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg?
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm sorry. Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: On that particular item, you know, it's kind of painful to do that, but I
understand the constraints that 6-F imply to the particular property you're talking about
and I agree with your recommendation. I think that a letter to our congressional
delegation indicating the appreciation for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
program, however, the constraints that that program puts on locals, in some cases
unknowingly, should be pointed out and that, though, we appreciate the opportunity, we
have had to deny it based on the inability to negotiate a reasonable agreement with the
parks service and if the parks commission and legal counsel could craft that for the
Mayor's signature, I think that that would -- would be appropriate.
De Weerd: I appreciate that. I have talked to Senator Crapo's office, Senator Craig
when he was here last week for his town hall meeting, and also a staffer for
Congressman Otter. So, they are all aware, because they all had e-mailed me or faxed
me that we did receive the award. So, I did notice them in return, but I do think that that
is an appropriate letter and we will get that sent out. Appreciate that.
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Now, I will need a motion to approve 45,000 in impact fees.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I'd like to make a motion that we do authorize 45,000 dollars to replace what
this grant would have provided from impact fees.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to use impact fees to cover the 45,000 dollars. Is there any
discussion on this item? Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 6 of 41
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B.
Planning Department: Steve Siddoway
1. Discussion of Meridian's Transportation Task Force Priority
List and Recommendations:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item B is our Planning Department. Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Based on the
discussion last week of the proposed priority list, I did meet with Mayor de Weerd and
what I have before you here is what is proposed as the revised transportation priority
list. What I have highlighted in yellow are those road projects that have moved
significantly from where you saw them before. The others have simply been
renumbered in the order that they were already in. But what you see is that Ten Mile
Road from Franklin to Ustick moved up, followed by Franklin to Ten Mile to Linder.
Now, both of those are in to emphasize the need to get the roads in the Ten Mile area
ready for the Ten Mile interchange. Second of all, just following down, the Linder-Ustick
intersection was moved up and the Linder-Pine intersection was added to the list and
those would round out the top five ACHD projects and those intersection projects would
-- were raised in priority in response to the idea of agreeing to postpone the road
widening project in order to promote the split corridor ahead in the work -- in the five
year work program. The other two changes that you see below, Chinden Boulevard and
Linder Road overpass, those two have switched places in recognition that Chinden
Boulevard has been talked about and on the plans for awhile, Linder Road, while a
desire, has not been on a funded project list to this date. If you go to the next slide
quickly, what I have done here is I have pulled out what would be the top five projects
for ACHD that would receive bonus points in their prioritization process. The downtown
split corridor, Ten Mile Road, Franklin Road, and the two Linder intersections. The top
ITD projects would now be Ten Mile interchange as number one, rebuild of Meridian
Road interchange and Chinden Boulevard widening, the Eagle Road corridor
improvements, State Highway 16, and, then, the Linder overpass. And I already
mentioned the items that are noted beneath there. So, with that I'll pause and take any
questions or discussion.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any discussion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I think Steve and Mayor have done a good job of listening to
what we had to say last week and I think it's agreeable with me. I don't know about the
rest of the Council.
De Weerd: Council, we also did discuss, since this was from our Transportation Task
Force, we wanted to kind of be able to differentiate why some of the changes were
made and, basically, it's to support the construction and certainly the aggressive
construction of the Ten Mile interchange with aligning the Ten Mile Road improvements
of the local roads and, secondarily, with the Linder-Ustick and Linder-Pine intersections,
Meridian City Council
October 25,2005
Page 7 of 41
those are more directly tied to safety concerns, which also necessitated their elevation
in the list. So, I believe that there is a comfort level.. we can go back to the task force
and give those explanations and feel comfortable in doing so. Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor -- and certainly while I echo Mr. Rountree's comments as to the
work put in by Steve and the Mayor, this is a differentiation from what we saw come
from the task force in the respect that the Linder overpass has been moved from the --
from their original recommendation and I'm looking here is to be ITD's number three top
projects and just state my earlier comments from last meeting, in that I would
recommend that we take the Transportation Task Force recommendations as they
came from the committee.
Siddoway: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: And, President Wardle, the recommendation -- is your thought specifically
related to Linder and Chinden being swapped or is it related to the other projects as
well?
Wardle: My specific comments are related to Linder and the Chinden Boulevard
coordination. Certainly, my comment on all these projects is they were very important
to our community and need to happen sooner than later. I think that Linder, as an
overpass, needs some thought, the community needs to start thinking about it and
putting it in as a priority for that to happen.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Donnell: So, just as a follow up to Councilman Wardle's comments, is there any plan at
all to meet with that transportation committee and go over this summary of revised
priorities? Have they all been informed, those that were on the committee?
Siddoway: We meet monthly and so we meet on the second Thursday of every month.
We will meet again the second Thursday of November.
Donnell: So follow up?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Donnell: So, are we, then, approving this list of priorities prior to this committee seeing
this, then? Yes?
Siddoway. Prior to them formally seeing the changes. The committee sent forward the
list and the Council has final authority over what gets recommended onto ACHD and
Meridian City Council
October 25,2005
Page 8 of41
Compass. We discussed in general terms the -- some of the changes that had been
talked about at our meeting in October. They did express a desire to convey to the
Council that they hoped that you do provide some weight to the work that they have put
into the list and ask that I -- that I convey that.
Donnell: So, follow up?
De Weerd: Yes.
Donnell: So, at this point tonight are we approving these priorities or are we just being
informed of these priorities until they come back to us after the committee meets? I'm
unclear about where we are.
Siddoway: We need -- our deadline is to get a final list to ACHD and Compass before
the end of October. So, we need to take an action tonight.
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell, one of the problems is we have revised our Transportation
Task Force and they used to meet annually and now we meet monthly and a lot of that
is because of the challenges we have with transportation and the improved
commitment, I think, to communication with our transportation agencies. We did
prioritization of transportation projects a little different this year and I think we have
some fine tuning of that and we gave dots and that kind of thing and it -- it needs some
fine tuning. The priority list, as they submitted it, was a little bit skewed and they are
elevating projects that were really far down in the path and also above projects that are
in funded years that would be at risk and so some of that, again, we need to look at our
process of prioritization next year and see how some of that -- the weighted -- those
projects that are already on a funded year, you know, some of the details have different
weighting to them. So, some of this is more symptomatic to the process that we used.
And I agree with Councilman Wardle, every single one of these projects are needed and
we just want to make sure, since our message has been one over this last year, that the
message has some consistency to it as well, so we don't lose what we have gained.
Donnell: Thank you.
De Weerd: We do need to also turn this priority list to Compass, ITD, and ACHD by the
end of the month. So, we do need Council action. Is there any further information
needed by Councilor are we ready for a motion? I'm ready for a motion. I can't make
it.
Bird: I sit on the committee and I'm not going to make it.
De Weerd: Pardon?
Bird: I sit on that transport committee and I'm not going to make the motion.
De Weerd: Okay.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 9 of 41
Donnell: And I guess at this point I'm not comfortable making that motion either until I'm
assured that the task force is comfortable. And do you also sit on that task force,
Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, I do.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Steve, explain to her how the task force went about it. I'm not saying that I'm
against what this done, but sitting on the committee I don't think it's right and I don't
believe -- I did not participate in their votes, I chose not to, because of this right here.
And I don't think the Mayor chose --
De Weerd: I didn't --
Bird: We didn't participate in the votes, because we would have it this way, Christine,
but let him explain how they went about their prioritization.
Siddoway: Sure. The process that was used to come to the list was over the course of
the summer we were educated by ACHD, ITD, Compass, on all the various projects and
processes that were out there. There was, then, an open forum at which anyone could
nominate any project for consideration. That laundry list of projects was compiled and
in no particular order and, then, there was a voting process that was held. There was a
ballot created with all 30 projects. They were distributed to each of the members at the
meeting. Every member was given a certain number of points that they could put on
their own priorities with the maximum number that they could put towards anyone and,
then, all of the ballots were, then, taken, counted, and tallied, put up on the board for
everyone to see and there was a couple that were moved around by discussion of the
full group and, in general, everyone said that they could support -- I think the general
feeling was, well, it's not exactly the order that I would have put them in myself, but I
agree that this is the consensus of the committee and it seemed reasonable and I'm
willing to support it and, in the end, we had a consensus vote to send it forward to
Council.
Donnell: Okay.
De Weerd: And it did seem like there was a consensus that there weren't too many that
would -- would personally have prioritized them the way they fell out. So, that's why I
said there is need -- there is work needed on how we do that next year. And we don't
have time to take it to the task force before the deadline that has been given to us.
Donnell: I am going to ask one more question, please, Madam Mayor.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page10of41
De Weerd: Okay. Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: You say that this has to go to the -- to Compass and ITD and ACHD before
the end of October. What is the penalty if it goes after the end of October, so that there
would be an opportunity, if not bye-mail, by -- you know, you perhaps can't get the task
force together, but it seems like this new set of revised priorities could be e-mailed to all
of the members of the task force with a request that they respond back affirmatively or
not. Negatively. And, then, we could take action on that the first meeting in November.
So, are we going to, you know, get a spanking or something if we don't get this in on
time?
Siddoway: ACHD has got their five-year work program process underway. One of the
real deadlines for them is so they get our priorities in time for them to do their
prioritization. They have a draft -- their first draft of the five year work program is
scheduled to go to their commission on November 2nd and they need the -- they use
the -- the city's priorities feed into that process by getting certain project bonus points.
So, we risk not having that information in the first draft.
Donnell: Follow up? I keep asking all these questions. Did Bruce say that we would
get spanked or what did he say?
Siddoway: He said that was accurate.
Donnell: Okay. Thank you. The second question that I have is for you, Mr. Siddoway,
and that is your comfort level in terms of the revised priorities. I'm assuming that you
led this task force?
Siddoway: Yes. I facilitated the group.
Donnell: And so talk to me about your comfort level with this, without taking it back to
the task force.
Siddoway: I believe --
Donnell: Am I putting you on the spot?
Siddoway: Yes.
Donnell: But you -- this is what happens, you know, when you get into these kinds of
roles.
Siddoway: I believe there will be some consternation among some of the task force
members with the changes and if you want to have consensus among that group with
any changes before you send something on, then, we won't be able to do that by the
deadline that we have right now, but -- or you could make the decision yourselves on
what is appropriate and move forward. I just -- if you feel like this is the right list,
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 11 of 41
regardless of what that group may have said, then, you can send it forward with that as
your direction, but, if not, then, I guess I just need some direction of what you would like
me to do.
Donnell: Follow up?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Donnell: So, Mr. Siddoway, as our transportation planner, director, supervisor, et aI.,
what is your recommendation to this Council? What action should we take?
Siddoway: I would recommend approving the list as revised tonight, directing me to go
over that list at the transportation meeting with the reasons why things were changed, if
this Council wants them changed, and move forward.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: So moved.
Bird: You're making a motion?
Donnell: I did, indeed. Just exactly the way our transportation planner stated it.
Siddoway: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Rountree: I'll second.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to approve the list as submitted to you tonight,
with the amendments as noted. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Donnell, yea.
De Weerd: Aye.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. TWO NAY. MAYOR AYE.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
October 25,2005
Page 12of41
Wardle: If I might just real quickly, while I voted against the motion, I would like to thank
Steve and the department and the committee for all their hard work on the prioritization
and I know it's not an easy process.
Bird: I would agree.
Donnell: And Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Not to belabor it, but I certainly hope I didn't put you on the spot, but I certainly
do appreciate your hard work.
c.
City Attorney - Bill Nary
1.
Land Fill Recommendation by SWAC:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6-C. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I wanted to take the
opportunity to get out of the chair. We have a couple of items on your agenda tonight
that are a little unusual and this is one of them. A couple of weeks ago we had a
presentation in front of you regarding the request by Ada County under Idaho Code 31-
4407(a) regarding the landfill and the expansion that the county has proposed for the
landfill. They are required by state statute when they do that to give their users 90 days
in which to provide comment and commitment as to whether or not they were committed
to the expansion or whether they would continue to maintain and operate their own
landfill. It doesn't make it clear, because there is no case law in Idaho, as to what does
that mean. What happens in 91 days? What kind of commitment are they talking
about, because there is no proposal in front of you by the county to actually commit city
dollars towards this project, what if that city doesn't operate a system, but contracts
some other system to dispose of its waste -- again, lots of un-answered questions. The
county wasn't -- wasn't really good at answering all those questions and I don't think
they really, necessarily, knew all the answers to them either. Again, they indicated on
the record they were somewhat caught unawares by this statute and were simply
required to follow through that process prior to their expansion. What you requested
was that the solid waste -- and it used to be the solid waste ad hoc advisory committee,
but ad hoc really means for one purpose or at least a short duration and this is kind of a
committee that's been around as long as I can recall. So, I simply just refer to it as the
Solid Waste Advisory Committee -- to review that proposal and what was also brought
forth was another vendor, Idaho Waste Systems, offering an alternative site for the city's
solid waste, and to consider those and, then, make a recommendation back to you. We
met on October 20th. I provided you the written recommendation from the committee.
The committee did discuss, again, the sort of up-in-the-air nature of the county's
request. They did discuss Idaho Waste System's proposal and, again, there is not a lot
of -- not a lot of concrete issues we can really chew on here, but we do want to make
Meridian City Council
October 25,2005
Page 12of41
Wardle: If I might just real quickly, while I voted against the motion, I would like to thank
Steve and the department and the committee for all their hard work on the prioritization
and I know it's not an easy process.
Bird: I would agree.
Donnell: And Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: Not to belabor it, but I certainly hope I didn't put you on the spot, but I certainly
do appreciate your hard work.
c.
City Attorney - Bill Nary
1.
Land Fill Recommendation by SWAC:
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 6-C. Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I wanted to take the
opportunity to get out of the chair. We have a couple of items on your agenda tonight
that are a little unusual and this is one of them. A couple of weeks ago we had a
presentation in front of you regarding the request by Ada County under Idaho Code 31-
4407(a) regarding the landfill and the expansion that the county has proposed for the
landfill. They are required by state statute when they do that to give their users 90 days
in which to provide comment and commitment as to whether or not they were committed
to the expansion or whether they would continue to maintain and operate their own
landfill. It doesn't make it clear, because there is no case law in Idaho, as to what does
that mean. What happens in 91 days? What kind of commitment are they talking
about, because there is no proposal in front of you by the county to actually commit city
dollars towards this project, what if that city doesn't operate a system, but contracts
some other system to dispose of its waste -- again, lots of un-answered questions. The
county wasn't -- wasn't really good at answering all those questions and I don't think
they really, necessarily, knew all the answers to them either. Again, they indicated on
the record they were somewhat caught unawares by this statute and were simply
required to follow through that process prior to their expansion. What you requested
was that the solid waste -- and it used to be the solid waste ad hoc advisory committee,
but ad hoc really means for one purpose or at least a short duration and this is kind of a
committee that's been around as long as I can recall. So, I simply just refer to it as the
Solid Waste Advisory Committee -- to review that proposal and what was also brought
forth was another vendor, Idaho Waste Systems, offering an alternative site for the city's
solid waste, and to consider those and, then, make a recommendation back to you. We
met on October 20th. I provided you the written recommendation from the committee.
The committee did discuss, again, the sort of up-in-the-air nature of the county's
request. They did discuss Idaho Waste System's proposal and, again, there is not a lot
of -- not a lot of concrete issues we can really chew on here, but we do want to make
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 13 of41
sure that we made a recommendation within the time frame. The city is required to
make a response by November 5th. On the night they made the presentation in front of
you, the county was somewhat noncommittal. Their solid waste landfill director wasn't
present that night. Their deputy director was present. He indicated he didn't really
know what would happened if we didn't respond. Mr. Neil, the landfill director, was at
the solid waste committee meeting and indicated that there was no extensions and that
the city did need to respond. They would want something from the city as to a
response. But they were not -~ and they were more specific, I think, at least in the
sense that they were not asking for any financial direct commitment by the city. What
they were simply asking was that the city continue with the operation as it has been
done traditionally and that they were going to expand the landfill regardless of the city's
participation and that they already had the dollars from their user fees that they have
collected over this period of time that they have operated the current landfill, that they
were going to be able to build this expansion without an additional financial burden on
the city. The risk to the city is unclear. If the city were to opt into continuing with its
operation with Ada County Landfill, all that's continued -- all that really is committed by
the city is some financial obligation to the cost of maintaining the landfill. It's not
obligating the actual waste stream from the city. The city still retains the ownership of
its waste stream at least until the point of -- from the city's perspective that it's given to
the landfill. And at that juncture it's probably the property of Ada County to dispose of it
in some manner if they choose. If the city opted not to participate, what the statute says
is that if at some point the city opts to participate in the landfill, they may be subject to
the county commissioners' determination as to what is an appropriate participation cost,
some sort of start-up cost, some sort of participation -- participation fee. It's very
unclear as to what that would mean. It does indicate in the statute that they may not
allow the city to participate at a later juncture. They have the ability to do that if they
wish. The city, by opting in again, of course, right now, isn't asked to sign a contract,
isn't asked to commit any dollars. The statute does limit the commitment to 15 years as
the maximum amount of time the city can be requested to commit any participation, but,
again, it doesn't spell out if contracts will be required, what will be required, what does it
mean when the city's made a commitment before 90 days and within 120 days the city
opts not to participate, what does that mean. It certainly intimates in the ordinance -- or
in the state statute that if there were funds expended because of the reliance upon the
city's participation, the city may be responsible for that. But the county's already
indicated to us that that wasn't what they were going to be doing anyway and that they
would be building this regardless of the city. So, again, it's a little bit -- a little bit
sketchy, that's why I said it's somewhat unusual. But, anyway, the Solid Waste
Committee did meet on October 20th and did discuss this fairly thoroughly and Idaho
Waste Systems was present. Ada County Landfills operators were present. What you
have in front of you is a bullet list that is the recommendation of the committee.
Basically, I will just outline very quickly. The committee's recommendation was to
commit to this north cell expansion that was being proposed by Ada County. But the
commitment should be just for the continued historical uses of the landfill and the
method and operation has been done to date. The county hasn't proposed any
changes, any request for increased service, any requests for increased fees, they
simply asked us to continue business as usual. The committee was comfortable with
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 13 of41
sure that we made a recommendation within the time frame. The city is required to
make a response by November 5th. On the night they made the presentation in front of
you, the county was somewhat noncommittal. Their solid waste landfill director wasn't
present that night. Their deputy director was present. He indicated he didn't really
know what would happened if we didn't respond. Mr. Neil, the landfill director, was at
the solid waste committee meeting and indicated that there was no extensions and that
the city did need to respond. They would want something from the city as to a
response. But they were not -~ and they were more specific, I think, at least in the
sense that they were not asking for any financial direct commitment by the city. What
they were simply asking was that the city continue with the operation as it has been
done traditionally and that they were going to expand the landfill regardless of the city's
participation and that they already had the dollars from their user fees that they have
collected over this period of time that they have operated the current landfill, that they
were going to be able to build this expansion without an additional financial burden on
the city. The risk to the city is unclear. If the city were to opt into continuing with its
operation with Ada County Landfill, all that's continued -- all that really is committed by
the city is some financial obligation to the cost of maintaining the landfill. It's not
obligating the actual waste stream from the city. The city still retains the ownership of
its waste stream at least until the point of -- from the city's perspective that it's given to
the landfill. And at that juncture it's probably the property of Ada County to dispose of it
in some manner if they choose. If the city opted not to participate, what the statute says
is that if at some point the city opts to participate in the landfill, they may be subject to
the county commissioners' determination as to what is an appropriate participation cost,
some sort of start-up cost, some sort of participation -- participation fee. It's very
unclear as to what that would mean. It does indicate in the statute that they may not
allow the city to participate at a later juncture. They have the ability to do that if they
wish. The city, by opting in again, of course, right now, isn't asked to sign a contract,
isn't asked to commit any dollars. The statute does limit the commitment to 15 years as
the maximum amount of time the city can be requested to commit any participation, but,
again, it doesn't spell out if contracts will be required, what will be required, what does it
mean when the city's made a commitment before 90 days and within 120 days the city
opts not to participate, what does that mean. It certainly intimates in the ordinance -- or
in the state statute that if there were funds expended because of the reliance upon the
city's participation, the city may be responsible for that. But the county's already
indicated to us that that wasn't what they were going to be doing anyway and that they
would be building this regardless of the city. So, again, it's a little bit -- a little bit
sketchy, that's why I said it's somewhat unusual. But, anyway, the Solid Waste
Committee did meet on October 20th and did discuss this fairly thoroughly and Idaho
Waste Systems was present. Ada County Landfills operators were present. What you
have in front of you is a bullet list that is the recommendation of the committee.
Basically, I will just outline very quickly. The committee's recommendation was to
commit to this north cell expansion that was being proposed by Ada County. But the
commitment should be just for the continued historical uses of the landfill and the
method and operation has been done to date. The county hasn't proposed any
changes, any request for increased service, any requests for increased fees, they
simply asked us to continue business as usual. The committee was comfortable with
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 14 of 41
that. That the city also in its response to Ada County make it clear that the city reserves
the right to maintain control over its waste stream produced by the City of Meridian.
The committee was very strong in that particular recommendation. They felt at least
that needed to be emphasized with Ada County in the city's response. The city would
commit to only use of the current landfill and the north expansion. There has certainly
been a lot of discussion about an alternative site in Ada County, there was discussion
by the county about some potential and very very sketchy potential of having to use an
alternative site out of the county. Not necessarily in Elmore County, but even they
mentioned Payette County. The city was not -- or the committee was not
recommending that the city commit to anything other than what was specifically
requested by Ada County, which was the north cell expansion. The city also would -- or
the committee's recommendation also was that the city reassert that a diversion to
another waste site by the city's vendor, if for some reason there was a necessity by our
vendor SSC to take their waste to another site based on need, historical usage -- the
Ada County landfill, for example, doesn't take every type of waste that is produced by
our residents, so they sometimes have to take it to alternative sites, including Idaho
Waste Systems' site in Elmore County, that that was at the city's discretion, that that
was the city's decision on what to do with that and it was not the county's ability to
somehow direct the city in where to divert its waste stream. That the city also -- in its
recommendation the committee said that to assert what Ada County had committed to,
that they had committed to provide the city annual notice by April 1 st of each year, to
any possible request for increase, so there would be adequate time for public notice,
public hearings, before any proposed rate increase would occur. Ada County has
committed to maintaining better dialogue and communication between the city and the
county and the vendor on solid waste issues, basically, on making sure that the landfill
is available for when it's necessary and needed and including with the other alternative
program and current types of programs that they have for recycling and the like. And,
then, the final one, that Ada County has committed to continuing the current recycling
programs, as well as additional and alternative other waste disposable systems or
expanding in certain areas or allowing some free type of access to the landfill for certain
types of waste stream and the like and that they have committed to doing that. Again,
that's, basically, the gist of the letter. Again, the committee felt by far the city's most
important point to reassert was that it was always the city's alternative -- or opportunity
-- the city's right to assert where the waste stream that's generated in the city goes to.
The city does collect it, the city does transport it through its vendor and they wanted
to --
De Weerd: I think your time is up.
Nary: Thank you. Just wanted to make the record clear.
De Weerd: I don't know. 1--
Nary: Was there any questions? My time is up.
Donnell: You covered it very well.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 150f41
Rountree: Mr. Nary, just to -- an editorial. The sixth bullet, the second line of that, it
says each year to -- that probably should say each year of. With that, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I move that we approve the recommendation from the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee, subject to the conditions outlined in the October 24th, '05, letter to the
Mayor and City Council.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to move forward with this letter that Mr. Nary will
draft.
Nary: I already made a note, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll. Oh, Bill, did
you have any comment? Thank you. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Nary, I was looking for my sign, but I couldn't find it.
Nary: That's perfectly fine.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Bill, for being here tonight. Okay. There were no items moved
from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Pretermination Hearing for Ryan Wixson at 4343 East Enalish:
De Weerd: So, we will move to Item No.8, which is a pre-termination hearing for Ryan
Wixson at 4343 East English. Is Mr. Wixson here? Okay. Do we start with staff
comments or do we start with Mr. -- Mr. Attorney, if you will kind of explain the process.
Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. How much time do I have?
De Weerd: Thirty seconds.
Nary: Okay. Might be a little bit longer. This is, again, a fairly unusual item. It's not
common for you to have these types of hearings in front of you. This hearing is
governed by the Meridian City Code 9-1-21 regarding delinquencies. What this -- what
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 160f41
you're hearing in front of you is a request by one of our users of the water system
regarding termination of service and notice. What our city ordinance indicates is that if
you have a dispute over your bill or your service that you have received and the amount
that you owe for it, what you need to do is request a hearing before the City Council.
That's what Mr. Wixson has requested, that's what's in front of you. Just so that you
know -- and the staff will give you more information as to how we got here with Mr.
Wixson's account. What you will need to do after you have heard from staff, give Mr.
Wixson an opportunity to respond and present his case regarding this ordinance and
how it applies to him and if you have any other questions of either staff, myself, or Mr.
Wixson at the end of that, you will be required to make a decision and it has to be in
writing. So, your direction would probably be at the end of this to request that staff,
probably my office, draft your findings and decision, then, bring that back in front of you
next week for a final approval. What the ordinance says, so that you keep it in mind as
you're listening to both the staff presentation and Mr. Wixson, is that under 9-1-21, if
any water user does not pay the billing that they receive within 15 days from the date of
the statement, the water user's account shall be delinquent. The water user shall be
notified by regular mail of delinquency and if this bill is not paid in full within ten days
after service of this notice, the right to water shall cease and terminate unless they
request this hearing. So, what the statute requires is that there is to be notice provided,
that there be an extension time period with some -- a specific time in which that bill
needs to be paid. If it isn't paid by -- within the ten days at the minimum that's required
by the ordinance, then, termination of the service can occur, unless this hearing is in
front of you. So, that's the basis of why you're having this hearing in front of you tonight
and if -- unless you had any other questions about the process, I would turn it over to
staff to give you the background as to this particular account.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Any questions for Mr. Nary at this time?
Rountree: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. I will turn it over to Jaycee. Thank you.
Holman: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, I just thought I would brief you on
our policy regarding the billing and the delinquent notices and how we handle it.
De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name for the record.
Holman: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm Jaycee Holman and I'm the billing manager for the city.
De Weerd: Thank you, Jaycee.
Holman: We send out delinquent notices at the same time that we send out someone's
bill, which in this case this was on the 5th of the month. So, when I sent out the October
5th bills, this particular person -- and he received a delinquent notice, because he had a
balance forward from the September 5th bill. If the balance forward from a prior month
at the date that the statement's are printed is 50 dollars or more, they also are mailed a
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 170f41
delinquent notice, which the delinquent notice states that they -- the customer has to
pay the past due balance by the stated date on the bottom of the delinquent notice. In
this case it said that they had to pay their delinquent amount by 8:00 a.m. on the 17th
of October, so -- which was a Monday morning. I normally -- that's what's printed on the
notices. I post payments up until 2:00 o'clock the day before the actual shut-off day,
which is Wednesday. So, I -- at 2:00 o'clock on Tuesday was when I stopped posting
payments and the reason that I chose 2:00 o'clock on Tuesday is because that gives
me time to pull -- post all of my payments and take any payments out of our drop box
out front and post any of the walk-in payments that people have delivered that day. I
print a preliminary list and, then, I have to have -- it takes me roughly an hour and a half
to go through the list and make certain by going through all the notes on the account
and everything that I just -- my checks and balances, essentially, to make certain that
we don't turn someone off in error, that we haven't -- that they had a billing adjustment
or that there were no errors on our part within the billing department. So, that enables
me -- my goal is by 3:30 to be able to send that list over to the water department -- to
Tammy over at the water department. She runs the shut-off list. She makes any
changes she may need to make and, then, she has to print a list for each of the drivers,
so that when they arrive Wednesday morning at 8:00 a.m. she can have their list ready
to go, they can get their routes and head out and do the shut off in a timely manner.
Their goal is to have all of the shut-offs done by noon, so that by 1 :00 o'clock they can
go back out and start turning people's water back on and that way people's water is off
for the minimum amount of time. So, that's our time frame in how we do things. Are
there any questions or things that I was not clear on?
De Weerd: Council, any questions as to the process?
Rountree: None.
De Weerd: Okay.
Holman: So, I don't want to speak for the customer here. I am not completely positive
as to what it is that he is disputing. I believe -- for a little more background on Mr.
Wixson in particular is he came in -- I believe it was around 4:30 on the 18th, which
would be Tuesday night. I had already gone over my list and I had sent it to the water
department. He came in and made a payment and did not want to be shut off on
Wednesday, because he had made that payment on Tuesday night before 5:00 o'clock,
so -- but I will let him speak for him.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for the purposes of the record, maybe Ms. Holman at least could put on the
record what the address is and when the payment--
Holman: Oh. Okay.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 180f41
Nary: -- when it was delinquent, when the notice was sent, just to make sure that it's
clear about all the statutory requirements.
Holman: Okay. Let's see. This is account number 204712042 for Ryan Wixson, 4343
East English, Meridian, Idaho, and --
Wixson: Oh, if I could --
De Weerd: If you will hold on just a moment, Mr. Wixson.
Wixson: Okay.
Holman: Okay. And the amount that was delinquent that came forward from the
September 5th bill -- so, when I printed the October 5th bill there was a past due
balance of $114.82, which appears to be part of the August 5th bill and part of the
September 5th bill. So, that's -- that he did come in and make a full payment of the past
due balance of 114.82 on the 18th.
De Weerd: Of October.
Holman: Correct. The delinquent notice he had received said that the past due balance
had to be paid by October 17th at 8:00 a.m., so --
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Wixson. If you will, please, state your name for the record.
Wixson: Ryan Wixson.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wixson: Thanks for taking the time. I didn't realize we were already -- have taken this
long. I know it's kind of trivial, compared to other matters that you have, obviously. My-
- I guess my only argument is my wife and I came in and paid the full amount and, then,
we were informed that the water was still going to be shut off. It just seemed silly to me
to have a person come out, after our account was completely current, and shut the
water off and, then, come back two hours later and turn it back on and charge us 30
bucks. I mean I have no problem paying it at all, but that's kind of my only argument, I
guess. And somehow we ~- you know, I scheduled this pre-termination hearing that
same day. Somehow the driver was alerted not to shut my water off, because of this
hearing. So I mean there is, obviously, ways to alert the drivers if someone actually
does pay, to not shut the water off. It just seems like a waste of City of Meridian's
resources to --
De Weerd: Well, we are following an ordinance and the ordinance spells it out, that the
shut off needs to happen. Also, if you request a pre-termination hearing, that exempts
you from that turn-off until your hearing and so --
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 190f41
Wixson: Sure. Well -- all right. I won't waste anymore time. That's -- I was just -- it just
seemed silly to me to have the driver come out and, then, come right back a couple
hours later.
De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Wixson?
Rountree: I have a question. I'm confused. You did indicate that your water was not
turned off?
Wixson: It was not turned off, because I scheduled this hearing.
Rountree: Okay. And--
Wixson: So, somehow they got notice to the driver that I had paid and I had scheduled
this hearing and not to shut the water off.
Rountree: Was the turn-off fee paid?
Wixson: No. I think that's --
Holman: The turn-off fee was not assessed at that -- no.
Wixson: That was up to you guys. I don't care. I'll just pay it. I just wanted to voice my
opinion about the --
Holman: I didn't assess the turn-off fee, because I wanted to wait to find out what the
Council had decided.
Rountree: Thank you. Madam Mayor, just a comment. The folks in the audience
probably think this is a trivial matter. The fact of the matter is delinquent fees to the City
of Meridian run anywhere from 20,000 to 70,000 dollars a month. That's a lot of money
on a year's basis. So, it is beyond a trivial matter. It subjects the city to some cash flow
issues. Just to comment at this point in time -- I don't know what the rest of the
procedure is. Mr. Nary, what do we do at this point?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, what is in
front of you currently -- because Mr. Wixson's service was not terminated, would simply
be the fee that would be assessed normally, if -- if the opportunity presents itself to not
turn off the water because it's been paid, it's always the utility billing's attempt to do that.
They can't always guarantee it, but they do assess the fee, because, as Ms. Holman
stated to you, they did not turn off Mr. Wixson's water, because the statute directs that --
or the ordinance directs that specifically. So, the turn-off fee has not been assessed.
The Council can certainly direct to assess that, as it should have been done last week
without this hearing. If you have any other -- since there is no other direction to give the
water department, because the water wasn't turned off, you can simply direct that, if you
Meridian City Council
October 25. 2005
Page 20 of 41
wish. You can make a finding that the process and procedure was met pursuant to the
ordinance, if you believe it has been, and simply direct that in lieu of turning it off at this
juncture, just simply the turn-off fee should be assessed, as it would be for anyone else.
Again, the fee is assessed normally whether the actual physical turn off occurs or not,
because of when the time period indicates it and our city ordinance for 9-1-22 also
allows us to assess the fee whether we turn the water off physically or not.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Another question for Mr. Wixson. Was there some reason that you weren't
able to make payment by the due date?
Wixson: Not any good enough reasons. My wife's pregnant and she's had a couple --
Rountree: That's a pretty good reason.
Wixson: Well, a couple health problems on her side, but not -- no reason good enough.
Rountree: Okay.
Wixson: I have no problem with --
Rountree: Thank you.
De Weerd: Mr. Wixson, is this the first time this has happened?
Wixson: That the water has been turned off?
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Wixson: I don't know, but the first time we've had to pay anything.
De Weerd: Generally, on first-time accounts there is some leeway, but I think what we
do find is we have a number of turn.offs and a number of people running down here, it
is a logistical nightmare. And they have to cut it off somewhere and so it's the -- our
staff follows the ordinance as set by the City Council and that's what they have to work
with. And I appreciate your comment and certainly it has sparked some discussion on
delinquent payments that are made prior to payment and maybe a less -- a lesser
assessment to that. You know, delinquent is delinquent and beyond the date is beyond
the date. But there is some discussion on something we can bring back to Council for
their consideration. But at this point our staff works with the ordinance as directed by
Council.
Wixson: Sure. I understand.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 21 of 41
De Weerd: Council, I do believe that, as Mr. Nary stated, we do need some direction
from you on how you want to move forward with this.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I guess maybe a procedural question for Mr. Nary, in the sense that we have a
termination of service, the delinquent amount has been paid, I don't know that it would
make sense to certainly terminate the service and, then, turn it back on. We are really
only talking about the fee; is that correct?
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, that's correct. I
think at this juncture your only -- I guess decision point on the cost here for Mr. Wixson
is whether or not to assess the fee. And maybe on the other -- I guess to follow up on
that, if you opt to pay the fee, that would be consistent with the practice. If you opt not
to assess the fee, then, we just need to make findings to make that exception, so that
we wouldn't have a standard that's different than what we normally follow.
Wardle: And thank you, Mr. Nary. That was my next question to staff is what is our
standard practice and procedure for that.
Holman: Well, Madam Mayor and Council, I'd just like to bring a couple of things up
here. Actually, I'd like to ask Mr. Wixson -- have you -- I know this account is in your
name, but have you lived in the home since '03?
Wixson: Yeah. We have --
Holman: Okay. Well, according to our records -- I know he had said he had not been
shut off before, but excluding this one, it's been six times that he's been shut off and has
paid the 30 dollar fee, so -- I mean I just think that is a valid point and he had also
mentioned that his account was paid current, but we, actually, do have a balance from
his October 5th, so the delinquencies have been paid, but the account is not paid
current as of today. So, I just wanted to bring that up, just -- that this has been
assessed before, so --
Wixson: My wife deals with most of it -- most of the actual paying of the bills. I didn't
mean to be untruthful.
De Weerd: No. That's fine. Okay, Council, I -- if there is action to be taken, I do need a
motion.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 22 of 41
Rountree: Having heard what we have about this situation and not hearing any
extenuating circumstances, I would move that we support our standard practice on this
particular process that the city goes through of turn offs and assess the turn-off fee and
that we not be in a situation to waive it in this situation.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to continue with our policy and assess the late
fee. Any discussion?
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Then, I'm assuming by the motion that you're simply going to ask for those
findings and decision to be returned to you the next week for final adoption, since it
requires it be in writing?
Bird: Yes.
Rountree: Yes.
Nary: Okay. Thank you.
Wixson: Thanks for you time.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Wixson. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 9:
Reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Approval: CUP 05-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify
the Conditions of Approval for CUP 03~050, in order to allow the existing
building at 703 North Main Street to remain and to allow a public use in
the O-T zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by Farmers and
Merchants State Bank - 703 North Main Street:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No.9 is reconsideration of Findings of Facts and Conclusions
of Law for CUP 05-040. Mr. Nary or Mrs. Canning?
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 23 of 41
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to give you a brief
update from my staff's part. I think the two options before you tonight -- and there may
be others that Mr. Nary can tell you, but the two options I think you're considering is
whether to set this for a future City Council hearing date or whether to remand it back to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for them to hear it. And regarding the latter, I did
want to give you some information. The public notice for this project was listed as a
request for a Conditional Use Permit to modify the conditions of approval for CUP 03-
050, in order allow the existing building at 703 North Main Street to remain and to allow
a public use in the OT zone for Farmers and Merchants State Bank by Farmers and
Merchants State Bank. So, it was not listed as a temporary -- as a temporary use, it
was listed as that building would remain. Then the staff report was structured that way
as well. So, I believe that the Planning and Zoning Commission, in their deliberations,
felt like this building would be here, that it wouldn't go away. So, I just would suggest
that I don't think it's necessary to remand it back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
De Weerd: Okay. I guess my confusion is is that is not the intent that Council asked
this application to go through. It was to go through to extend -- to delay as an interim
use a condition to demolish the building and so, you know, how it started through the
process kind of was different than how it was initiated.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I will take responsibility for that. I
had difficulty in how to process a modification for a CU as a temporary time frame, so I
instructed my staff to just treat it that the building would remain. If Farmers and
Merchants wanted to take it out later, they could take it out later. I think there has been
some subsequent confusion on site issues related to this that made it seem, from
Farmers and Merchants, that it was going to be temporary, but as far as the application
has gone -- and we did prepare with -- the application with the assistance of Farmers
and Merchants, so I take responsibility for that. It doesn't -- I just think that P&Z saw it
as a -- all I was trying to say tonight is that the Planning and Zoning Commission
reviewed it as a permanent building. That doesn't mean that Council has all of a
sudden lost their authority to grant conditions on it, it's still a Conditional Use Permit.
So, I just wanted to clarify that, how P&Z reviewed it.
De Weerd: Okay.
Rountree: So, the action is simply whether or not we want to reconsider the findings?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary:
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, that would be -- your third option
that you -- you have already committed to Findings that are before you. The request is
to reconsider those. Those Findings are three things. One was to require a cross-
access between this parcel and the adjacent parcel for Washington Federal Bank. To
require that they permanently block the drive-thru that enters from Main Street to the
rear of this parcel, so that no vehicle traffic can either come from Main Street through
Meridian City Council
October 25,2005
Page 24 of 41
the parcel or exit out onto Main Street through this -- through the former drive-thru of the
building. And the last Finding that you made was that at the point when the city vacates
the use of this building, at that point in the future you would, then, reconsider the
viability of the building remaining or whether or not it would have to be torn down. I
think as Madam Mayor stated, it was simply a delay in the requirement to remove the
building today. You can leave those Findings if you wish. The request was to
reconsider them. To hear from the applicant is why we are here tonight as to why you
would do that. I think as Mrs. Canning stated, one option was to remand. Her
recommendation is not to remand, because they wouldn't have any more information to
provide you on a remand. The last is if you wish to reconsider your Findings, then, my
recollection would be to hold a new hearing, provide notice, because it was not your
impression at the hearing -- and, again, at the hearing on that in front of you, Farmers
and Merchants did not appear to make that request. So, for you to, then, set it for a
new hearing to make, again, a decision on their request now, which is to permanently
leave the building, and they have some other requests for changes to what was
determined by Planning and Zoning regarding cross-access. So, yeah, you have a
couple of different options, Council member Rountree, but that's basically it in a nutshell
of what you have got.
Rountree: Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: And, certainly, I'm going to ask for a little bit of direction from the legal staff.
The application is -- we have heard testimony -- or we have heard the director say that it
was heard at Planning and Zoning differently than it was heard at the City Council level.
My understanding is this was a city-initiated process, because of the good will of the
applicant that -- allowing us to utilize for a city office. But along the way somehow it
changed and, as I understand, there was some fees that were waived because it was a
city-initiated process; is that true, Anna?
Canning: Yes. I believe you did waive the application fees.
Wardle: Okay. And the Mayor at the last meeting talked about some commitments as
to the part of ACHD. Mr. Nary, one of the things that I certainly don't want to cause is
any additional -- we want to be -- in my opinion, Farmers and Merchants has been great
for us in allowing us to utilize that and don't want to cause any ill will and that sort of
thing, but it appears to me that this application and the comments that we have received
are contrary to what we thought they were and I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with
proceeding along this in the manner that the city has brought it before this Council. Are
there other options for us in that respect?
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, I mean
you certainly can hold these Findings. If you think a different application -- I think what
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 25 of 41
Mrs. Canning has indicated is that the application -- if you were to remand it or hold
these -- or hold these Findings in abeyance until Farmers and Merchants directly
applied for this conditional use modification with what they are requesting today -- the
application itself wouldn't be any different and the notice to the public for the Planning
and Zoning part of this process wouldn't be any different. So, I think you could certainly
do that, you could probably get the same result by -- if that's a desire to you to fully hear
this issue about the building staying permanently, rather than being delayed for that
ultimate decision, you could -- we could probably do the same thing by noticing up a
new hearing on this CUP modification. Because although -- what you're saying is is
what the Council viewed it as is different than what you thought it was supposed to be.
The application itself and the notice to the public was with the building staying as a
permanent facility. So, the public notice has been satisfied. I think what you're saying
is the Council's notice wasn't staffed and that can be done through another hearing,
rather than another application. So, you certainly have the ability to remand it to begin
the process over. I just don't think it would look differently.
Wardle: And, Mr. Nary, maybe I can qualify. Certainly that was one of my concerns,
but also the fee waiver is a concern and, Mrs. Canning, as a general rule of thumb,
when applicants come into change conditional use in a commercial setting, the City of
Meridian, as a general rule, doesn't waive that fee; is that correct?
Canning: Correct.
Wardle: And, counsel, that's my consideration.
Nary: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: I don't know -- and maybe Mrs. Canning can answer. If we were to hold another
hearing -- did the city absorb the cost of noticing previously, since the city was -- had
waived the fees? And if we were going to hold another hearing, we'd have to notice that
up and there, obviously, would be costs associated with that.
Canning: Yes, sir.
Nary: To which?
Canning: We collected no fees, which is typical with other city departments. We don't
typically charge other city departments. But, yes, also that there is an additional hearing
fee under -- well, I'm sorry. There is one under the UDC, but this application came in
before that. But I believe the clerk charges for additional notice in hearings. And he's
nodding his head.
Berg: Madam Mayor, yes, we have in the past actually invoiced or billed what it cost us
for public notices in the newspaper and the mail out noticing.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 26 of 41
Nary: So, Council member Wardle, I don't know if that answers your question, but that's
certainly an option, if there were to be another hearing, that you could certainly require
the applicant to absorb the cost of that fee.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: Let me see if I got this clear. And I'm not sure I do. Originally when we approved
the CUP, the building was to go down after a certain amount of time in moving into the
new building. Then, between the city and Farmers and Merchants, we decided that we
could use that until we get a new City Hall for property. We remodeled it, brought it up
to code, which -- and at that point we had to run a -- change the CUP to allow that
building to stand; am I not right?
Canning: Correct.
Bird: So, what this -- what we are doing here is allowing the building to stay until it's no
longer needed for a rental for the city. Is that the time period or is it just --
Canning: Your current Findings are to revisit the issue of whether the building should
stay or go at the termination of the city's lease.
Bird: And whose request was that?
Canning: I believe the Mayor added that to the condition --
Bird: I beg your pardon?
Canning: I believe the Mayor added that condition. It was put on by Mayor and
Council.
De Weerd: Although I didn't make the motion.
Canning: No. I'm sorry. It was --
Bird: You get credit for it.
De Weerd: I'll take responsibility. I guess, Mr. Bird, it was because of the confusion
that we had at the time of the intent and what the application was all about. We heard
through the grapevine -- and it was not stated anywhere -- that there seemed to be an
intent to keep the building permanently and we continued to operate under the
assumption that it was an interim fix and to answer that question we put the condition
that it would be determined upon us vacating it. So, if the applicant -- if the bank
wanted to change it, then, that gave them an opportunity to change it.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 27 of 41
Bird: That was what I recall happening and so what are we -- isn't that what the
decision of order says right now?
Canning: Yes, sir.
Bird: What did we get it back for?
De Weerd: Because you agreed last week to reconsider it.
Bird: Well, because we had been told that it was not by the applicant, we were told that
it wasn't noticed right or something and we had to take it -- is that not right?
Nary: No. Madam Mayor, could I help?
De Weerd: Yes.
Bird: Go ahead, Bill.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no. What happened is in the request to
reconsider, the applicant had two concerns with your original Findings that are still
pending. One was the cross-access to the adjacent property and the second was the
revisiting of the demolition of the building at the point the city vacated. The applicant
requested in their reconsideration that their intent was to always leave the building there
and so they didn't want that condition placed on this CU that you would revisit it later.
And the discrepancy was in what you have said, the Mayor said, and Councilmember
Wardle said, that confusion, that wasn't what -- what's been stated tonight, that wasn't
the Council's impression of what was in front of them. Now that has been placed in
front of you have as a reconsideration. Again, you can hear from the applicant if they
have more specifics about it, but that's what was in their request for are-consideration.
Bird: Yeah. I understand, that's what I understood, you know, and I realize they want to
keep it up.
De Weerd: I guess where the confusion came is all of our correspondence -- and when
I brought it to you for consideration for office space, it was all in writing as an interim --
or as an interim use. And so that's led to our confusion.
Bird: Madam Mayor -- and I agree with you, but I also agree with Councilman Wardle
that if there is anymore costs involved, they could pay it, because I'm telling you, we are
paying lease payments over there. And I know they are pretty cheap, but they are still
lease payments. They are not cost payments.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here tonight? Would you like to make comment?
Donnell: Do you dare?
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 28 of 41
De Weerd: As you can see, there is a considerable amount of confusion from when the
intent changed and if you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Thierra: Steve Thierra, 7912 McKayla, Nampa.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Thierra: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmembers. I confess, I am thoroughly as
confused as we all may be. My understanding at the point from Mr. Slocum at CSHQA,
our architect, at the point that the original request to adjust the CUP, was that at some
point as the city was finished using the property, that the bank would, then, determine,
well, should we take it down, should we not take it down. We were under the
impression that the pedestrian park was either still a requirement or was not a
requirement and so we were hoping to get some guidance from Mr. Slocum. The
conditions on September 27th caught us totally by surprise. We had no knowledge --
we didn't know that the conditions were going to be placed on the bank that at the time
that the city's use of the property was done, that we would be required to reapply to
keep the building and, then, to install the pedestrian -- or to demolish the building and,
then, install the pedestrian park. Our feeling was that we know what all the costs were
this year to do both the demolition and to install the pedestrian park, we don't know what
those costs will be in whatever year that this situation would come up again. So, the
reason we asked for the reconsideration was to have the hearing, so that we could
examine all of the different questions again. The bank understands -- and we know that
the city has been very fair with us. We would not object to having to pay an application
fee and, you know, the normal process should prevail. The other issues that Madam
Mayor stepped up and helped us out with ACHD on the fees and we appreciate that and
we realize that this may cause that to change, in which case we would be liable for the
ACHD fees that we were originally assessed.
De Weerd: I guess just to give my take on what I think you just asked, is that when we
vacate the building, you have the opportunity at that time to modify the conditions of the
Conditional Use Permit, which was to remove the building and put in the pedestrian
mall. If you desire at that time not to move that direction, you can apply to the city to
change the Conditional Use Permit at that time.
Thierra: My understanding is that's the order that's in front us now. If we were to
reapply, we would reapply on the basis of keeping the building permanently and -- but
we realize that there is some discussion on the pedestrian park and those things. The
other issues, the easement and the closing off of that one entryway, are minor.
De Weerd: And as I understand it, that's kind of a separate application, that they can go
through at anytime to change those.
Nary: When you say those, Madam Mayor, I'm sorry, you mean the request to leave the
building? Can they come -- if you left your Findings as they are --
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 29 of 41
De Weerd: Uh-huh.
Nary: -- could they come back and reapply tomorrow to leave the building
permanently?
De Weerd: Yes.
Nary: Yes, they can.
De Weerd: And to remove the pedestrian mall.
Nary: Correct. They could come and reapply for that. Right now all you have done is
left that decision for a point in the future. Yes.
De Weerd: Does that give you clarity?
Thierra: Somewhat.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, if I can maybe try to help clarify here. Mr. Nary, can we vacate
our Findings on this application and allow the applicant to proceed in whichever manner
they would like to, which would include applying through our normal process, paying
whatever fees that may be, and let them drive the process on their property?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary?
Nary: I'm thinking. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess you can. The
problem is is you have had -- you have had a Public Hearing at the Planning and Zoning
level with a recommendation, you have had a Public Hearing in front of you with
Findings, and now you would be vacating that and so what they are left with is what is
originally under the CU, which is to tear the building down. If you want to basically go
back to square one, you have the ability to do that. They would be required to, then,
apply, because their direction would be to tear the building down now.
Donnell: There goes your office, Mr. Nary.
Nary: But you're right. Could you do that? Yes, you have the ability to do that.
Wardle: There was a time frame in there and, if I'm correct, it was longer than the
appointed period, which is before us today; is that correct?
Nary: No. I believe it was less. It was when the other building was built.
Rountree: Occupied.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 30 of 41
Nary: They were supposed to tear it down.
Wardle: My mistake.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I can't -- with his testimony, I can't see why what we got in front of us is harmful to
us. I'm for passing this as it is. If they don't -- if they want to come back after we vacate
it, which we hope we will in '07. At that point, then, we can decide whether the building
goes or stays. At that point -- and he's got a good point. In '07 it's -- the cost is
different, what it's going to cost to do all this stuff, so we need to take that into
consideration. So, I don't see anything with what we got wrong now, is to pass this on,
as long as the bank is agreeable to it, and evidently they are and go on with it, these
Findings.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: I guess I don't understand that and I'm getting more confused, but it seems
to me that the bank has lived up to their end of the bargain. Conditional Use Permit
requires them to demolish that site and build a pedestrian park. They have asked for a
modification, so the building can stay, because the city wants to rent the space and now
we are telling them, yeah, that's okay, but you still have to hold up the end of your --
other end of your bargain, you got to tear down the building and build the park when we
are done. To me that's not -- not good business on the part of the bank and I think it's
an unfair treatment on the part of the city. If I were the bank, given those
circumstances, I would say, okay, your lease is up, we are going to tear it down and
build a park, because it's going to cost us less today than it is going to cost us in a
couple of years. So, I think we have got an issue here. We have got to resolve it. I
think the bank needs to understand what their liability is going to be in a year or two, so
they can make a decision about whether or not they want to lease that building. Maybe
I'm confused, but I wouldn't want to be put in the bank's -- I'd like to have the bank's
money, but I wouldn't want to be put in their position.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I think these Findings state just that, Charlie. It just says that when we vacate it
they have a chance to come back and at that point either do it or don't.
Rountree: But--
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 31 of 41
Bird: And -- I mean they are the ones that got up and requested that we take the bank
out. Now that there has been some remodeling and stuff done and they can probably
get 16 dollars a square foot, yeah, as you said, they are bankers. They know the dollar.
And I don't blame them. And you know -- but that gives them the opportunity to come. I
can't -- you know, I think -- I don't think they want -- would stand right here and tell you
today they don't want to take it down, maybe, in two years. I don't know.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle, did you have -- I heard you over there.
Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. The issue of permanency is really the issue of
question here. And that's -- and the expectation and I agree, wholeheartedly with Mr.
Rountree that the Bank's lived up to their expectation, has always been a good partner
with the city and I think the difficulty that I see or -. other than the issue of permanency,
is there were two additional requirements. One was a cross-access agreement and the
other is a curb, if I understand that correctly. Mr. Nary?
Nary: Blocking the drive-thru.
Wardle: Okay. If we were to remove those two specific conditions, the only condition
left is the issue of permanency, which the bank can certainly come back at anytime --
tomorrow or after the Findings and modify; is that correct?
Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, might
want to ask Mrs. Canning. I mean we have another little goofy wrinkle about this and
it's because this existing use and conditional use is based on our old code, not our
current code. If you recall, part of the reason for the original application was because
we had a public use for the building, with the city being the occupant. That went away
when the UDC passed. So, not making a decision on that conditional use now may be
more problematic a year or two or three from now.
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I don't think that's what he said.
Nary: Oh.
De Weerd: He said go ahead, drop the additional conditions for the CUP modification,
and just extend the life of the building until it's vacated and, then, anything else will be
dealt with through another application, if that is the desire to change.
Nary: Right. But that's the problem with the later application. Maybe Mrs. Canning can
give you a little more about that.
Canning: If you were -- if they were to come back tomorrow with a new application, it
would be the same application that we have processed, but asking to remove the
condition that you're considering adding regarding the temporary use. But if they were
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 32 of 41
to come in and say what do I need to do to have this use here, the answer is you need
to have a tenant improvement of a certificate -- a tenant improvement is all. So, I'm not
sure what they would be applying for, other than exactly what's before you tonight,
which would be a modification to their original CU. Their modification was turned in
before the adoption of the new UDC. A new application would not be -- what the code
generally says is that you have a use that -- the only thing I can really rely on is the
nonconforming. It's conditionally allowed, but it's kind of the same thing and it says if
you were nonconforming before, now you're conforming, you're conforming. So, I'm not
sure what they would be actually -- I'm not sure what they would be applying for.
De Weerd: So, what you're saying, because of the new UDC, that they wouldn't have to
come through and request a change to their Conditional Use Permit to remove the
building and put in the pedestrian mall?
Canning: They still have their old -- are you suggesting that they come in and modify
their original one or the one that you are considering approving now?
De Weerd: The one that their -- would approve tonight, if they so chose, is only going to
modify the -- or delay the removal of the building condition. I'll let Mr. Wardle suggest it
himself, but that's what I assumed. But if they approve Findings, drop the two extra
conditions that P&Z put on it, just extend the life of the building to be removed at a later
date, they could come back and through their own initiated conditional use modification,
and request that that removal of the building and the pedestrian mall be modified or
taken off. That would be a separate application by them.
Canning: Yeah. It just sounds odd, but I guess it would -- I guess if we took it in, it
would be just -- it would be decided by our Planning and Zoning Commission at a
minimum.
De Weerd: And that's fine. That's the new UDC--
Canning: But without a termination date on a condition, I don't understand why they
would ever come in.
De Weerd: Well, there is a termination date based on action tonight on the Findings in
front of them.
Canning: Oh. Okay. I -- I give up. I'm confused.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Nary: Madam Mayor? Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 33 of41
Nary: Yeah. And not to try to make it more complicated -- I don't know that I could, but
the only thing that -- the only other thing, I guess, to add to your discussion is that right
now the only -- those two new conditions regarding cross-access and no access onto
Main Street or from Main Street, if you remove those conditions, when that shed is
gone, then, you will have vehicular traffic driving in and out through that where there is
one exit door out of that building that people walk through, so -- the rear part of the
building. So, if you remove it, then, you may have a safety condition that might be
problematic, that is now the only thing that's requiring them to abate that safety
condition is the condition that was required by you.
De Weerd: And that shed is there illegally.
Nary: Well -- and it's supposed to be gone shortly, so that's only my concern as the
tenant, is having people exiting the building with cars driving right next to them.
De Weerd: Okay. Think of yourself.
Nary: And my staff.
De Weerd: Do you have anything to add?
Thierra: Madam Mayor and Council, I would agree with Mr. Nary that that access to
and from Main Street does need to be blocked. We don't have any objection to that.
De Weerd: And I guess -- I'm not going to throw in another discussion point, but -- so
Council could move forward with the Findings, drop the cross-access and let the bank
mull over what they want to do and come back through their own application process,
should you choose to adopt these Findings in some form tonight. That's about as
simple we can get it.
Nary: It's very lawyer-like simple, Madam Mayor. That's was very good.
Rountree: I don't know whether that's an --
Bird: I don't know whether that's simple or not.
Rountree: -- an insult or a compliment.
De Weerd: Dean, he said I don't know if that was an insult or a compliment.
Thierra: I have nothing further.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. You have a couple of different ways you can take this,
Council. You can approve the Findings tonight or reconsider it at a later date.
Rountree: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 34 of 41
De Weerd: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Just a point. It seems to me there is enough confusion that we are just going
to have a series of these actions that are going to compound on one another. My
preference is just to have an opportunity for the applicant to be heard. They did have a
previous opportunity, they were not here, and we acted on some assumptions, on some
information that was provided that may not have been quite to the point. My preference
is that we reset the hearing for reconsideration and make sure that there is sufficient
time that the bank knows what it is they do and don't want to do and if, in fact, they want
to keep permanent status of the building, then, there are other conditions in the previous
conditional use -- in the previous Conditional Use Permit that need to be modified, get it
done so a Council two terms from now won't have to go through what we just went
through this evening and I'm still a bit confused as to where we are. Having been on the
receiving end of those kinds of things, it is difficult, as the years progress. So, my
preference is let's get it cleaned up for everybody's interest and reset this for hearing
the 15th of November.
Donnell: Is that a motion?
Rountree: That's my motion.
Wardle: I will second that motion, if I may have additional discussion.
De Weerd: Well, by seconding you granted yourself the right to discuss.
Wardle: Perfect. Robert's rules. I agree that we need to get this resolved. My -- some
of my earlier expectations and some comments made on the part of the applicant, I
suggest a compromise that I think will fit into our -- into what the city is looking for, as
well as what the bank is looking for, and that is let's reconsider this, let's talk about the
merits of a permanent -~ have the bank come back, present all of their requests, the
permanency of that structure, and to have them bear the cost of an additional noticing
for Public Hearing, I believe that would satisfy some of my concerns, and let's hear it
and let's decide it and do away with any of the confusion.
Rountree: The maker of the motion would agree to the statement about fees.
De Weerd: Okay. So, the motion is to put this on for reconsideration November 15th
and assess the additional noticing fees to the bank, which would now be, technically,
the applicant. Okay. Mr. Berg, do you want to call roll on this.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 35 of 41
Canning: Madam Mayor, before you move onto the next application, it appears to me
that some of the confusion tonight resulted from correspondence that you had regarding
the office lease and maybe if we could get those in our files, so that we could
summarize it in a new staff report, then, everybody would have the same information.
Would that be helpful?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: Thank you.
Item 10:
FP 05-062: Request for Final Plat approval for 12 commercial building
lots and 2 common area lots on 4.65 acres in an L-O zone for Paramount
Villaae Center Subdivision (fka Julie Subdivision) by Engineering
Northwest, LLC - east of North Linder Road and north of McMillan Road:
Item 11:
TE 05-009: Request for approval of a second one-year time extension to
commence work on the approved conditional use permit for Finish Line
Automotive by Lee Kallenberger - NEC of West Franklin Road and North
West 10th Street:
De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 10 is FP -- and, you know, we really thought we would be
out of here by 8:00 o'clock. Item No. 10 is FP 05-062 and Item 11 is TE 05-009. Staff,
are there agreements on these two items?
Canning: Madam Mayor, regarding Paramount Village Center Subdivision, we have a
letter of agreement stating -- a letter stating they are in agreement with the terms of the
application. Regarding the time extension, we request that you vacate this from your
agenda. It was another issue where they -- instead of applying for a time extension,
they just need to just complete their certificate of zoning compliance. We ask that the
fees that they paid for the time extension be applied toward a new certificate of zoning
compliance. We did issue a new one based on the Unified Development Code, so that
they do have a full year to date to get that done.
De Weerd: Okay. So, I would entertain two separate motions. First on Item 10.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 10. FP-05-062 and to approve the Findings.
Donnell: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item No.1 O. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg,
will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 36 of 41
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
De Weerd: Item 11.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
Bird: Just a second. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We have a letter in our packet that asks for this to be removed from our items for
today.
De Weerd: And that probably was the motion.
Bird: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move that we remove Item 11, TE 05-009, from our agenda and to apply all
fees paid by the applicant to a certificate of zoning compliance.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to remove Item 11 with the fees to be reapplied. Well, since
we have a fee --
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 12:
Public Hearing: MI 05-011 Request to remove the approved
development agreement for The Plavaround. Inc. by Ronald Van Auker
- 1822 East Overland Road:
De Weerd: Item 12 is Public Hearing MI 05-011. I will open this Public Hearing with
staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a miscellaneous application.
It's a request to modify a development agreement that has been in place since 1994.
It's for the properties located at the northeast corner of Locust Grove and Overland and
it was originally known as The Playground Subdivision. When you annexed this
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 37 of41
property a number of years ago, there was an RV park right at the corner on Lot 1 that-
- and maybe I got that lot wrong. There was one on the corner, anyway, that is an RV
park and the original intent was that there would be other entertainment uses within the
subdivision. That has not happened. Sysco is on the property immediately east of that
and Sysco is interested and has now acquired the property to the north. So, the request
is to remove the two Sysco properties from that development agreement, which limits
the entertainment -- limits it to entertainment and recreation uses. That's my most
succinct summary of the application.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Do you have
comments? Do you have a comment? If you will, please, state your name and
address.
Eng: John Eng, Arrow Development for the applicant, Graven Properties, Inc.
De Weerd: Do you agree with staff's comment?
Eng: Yes.
De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, John.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: I would like to make a motion that we close the Public Hearing on Item No. 12.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Is it okay if I first ask if there is anyone else who would like to provide
testimony?
Donnell: Sure. Go right ahead.
De Weerd: Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application?
Okay. Seeing none, I will entertain your motion to close the Public Hearing and the
second. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Donnell: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 38 of 41
De Weerd: Mrs. Donnell.
Donnell: l'd like to make a motion that we approve MI 05-011, a request to remove the
approved development agreement for The Playground, Incorporated, on east Overland
Road.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item No. 12. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 13:
Public Hearing: RP 05-003 Request to split one parcel into two parcels
for Linda Yanke by Linda Yanke - north of West Franklin Road and east
of Linder Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 13. This is listed as a Public Hearing, although it's just a
request for a one lot split or a split. It does not need to be a Public Hearing, but we will
have staff comment on Item 13, RP 05-003.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this should be your last reduction in
platting requirements request and it is to divide the subject property into two parcels.
The first is about one acre. The other one is about two and a quarter acres in size. It's
an I-L zone and the lots satisfy the requirements of the I-L district. So, staff is
recommending approval, and there was no -- no site specific conditions of approval
placed on this, other than our general requirements.
De Weerd: Well -- and I'm sure the applicant stayed here tonight just so she could
make comment; correct? Does the applicant have any comment to staff's
recommendations? Okay. Council, do you have any questions for staff or the applicant
at this time?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this
application? And since it's not a Pl,Jblic Hearing, I didn't need to say that, but --
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we approve RP 05-003, incorporate staff and applicant comments.
Rountree: Second.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 39 of 41
De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 13. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 14:
Amendment to Ordinance No. 05-1192: AZ 05-030 Request for
Annexation and Zoning of 5.1 acres to R-8 zone for Windwalker
Subdivision by Beckit Development, Inc. - 2770 South Locust Grove
Road: Approve
Item 15:
Ordinance No. 05-1196: Enacting a New Title 7, Chapter 1,
Section 12, Meridian City Code Making It Unlawful to Drive in a
Nealiaent Manner:
Item 16:
Ordinance No. 05-1197: Amending Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 2
of t,he Meridian City Code Regarding Membership for the Traffic
Safety Commission:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 14, 15 and 16 are ordinances 05-1192, 05-1196
and 05-1197. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these ordinances by title only. And for
you students who are left behind, if you want a City of Meridian pin, I would be more
than happy to give you one. Anyone who can last through this mass confusion or -- so
while you read that, I will --
Bird: You guys were good and we know you're from Meridian. Christine, you did a
good job getting them through.
Donnell: Yes, I did. You bet you.
Berg: I don't know about that. I mean I'm from Meridian.
Donnell: You're too old.
Bird: What did you say, Will?
Wardle: Mr. Berg.
Nary: Mr. President?
Wardle: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Do we need to clarify just on the record that the Windwalker one is just a
cleanup, because there was an error in the original ordinance as to the property owner
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 40 of 41
and so you have already previously approved this annexation, it's just a cleanup of
some of the text. So, that's why that was in there.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Amending Ordinance No.
05-1192, an ordinance for annexation of property located in the northwest quarter of the
southwest quarter of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territory
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate city limits
of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and
determining the land use zoning classification of said land from RUT to R-8 in the
Meridian City Code, providing that copies of the ordinance shall be filed with the Ada
County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission as
required by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver
of the reading of the rules and providing for an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 05-1196, an ordinance enacting a new Title 7, Chapter 1, Section 12,
Meridian City Code, make it unlawful to drive in a negligent manner and providing for a
waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date.
Berg: Ordinance 05-1197, an ordinance amending Title 2, Chapter 3, Section 2 of the
Meridian City Code, establishing membership for the Traffic Safety Commission and
providing for a summary and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and
providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Okay. You have heard these ordinances read by title only. Is there anyone
who would like to hear it read in its entirety, any of these ordinances? Thank you for not
saying so. Okay. Council, I would entertain a motion to approve Items 14 through 16.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 05-1192, 05-1196 and 05-1197 with
suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion to approve the ordinances as read, Items 14
through 16. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council
October 25. 2005
Page 41 of 42
Item 17:
Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(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: Thank you. Item 17 is an Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-
2345(1 )(c). Do I have a motion?
Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code
67-2345(1)(c).
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Donnell, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
De Weerd: I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session.
Bird: So moved.
Rountree: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Rountree: So moved.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Meridian City Council
October 25, 2005
Page 42 of 42
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:31 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
II ¡ ¡ç¡tJS-
DATE APPROVED