Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003 09-16 Pre Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 The Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 P.M. on Tuesday, September 16, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Bill Nary, Keith Bird, and Tammy de Weerd. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie, and Cherie McCandless. Others Present: John Overton, Bruce Freckleton, Bill Nichols, and Will Berg. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird O Mayor Robert Corrie De Weerd: I would like to call to order the City Council Meeting on Tuesday, th September 16 at 6:30 on the dot. Mr. Clerk will you call roll. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Okay number two, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It’s been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT Item 3. Discussion of Parks and Alleys and School Zone Ordinance: De Weerd: Item number three, discussion of parks and alleyways and School Zone Ordinance. I assume that Captain Overton is taking the lead on this. Overton: Well we’ve read over the new code, the proposed code. The language looks very similar to what Boise City has adopted which would put us very consistent with what you’re doing to the east of us. It does define better the school zones within the city especially when it gives definitions for the signs that Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 2 of 10 we presently have on most of our elementary schools which are speed zone is only effected when children are present. We are still in the process, we had a Traffic Safety Meeting this afternoon of determining whether that is the best sign to have up or the time limitation which would be the number three definition of 7:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. unless the Council has a request. Otherwise, in talking to ACHD this afternoon we’re going to take those on an individual basis on what type of signage we need to have up on the various schools depending on the student rate that we have crossing the streets. ACHD is doing counts in those areas. Other than that, the language appears clear and easy to understand. De Weerd: Captain, I guess I’ve talked to several people about this. The concern that has been shared with me is when school is out when they’re on vacation, holidays, or those kinds of things are those would still be enforced because the hours would be listed. They would – I guess the noted preference would be to keep when children are present. I know that that’s pretty vague too but if you’re on a busy street take for example Linder that’s going to be a pretty main thoroughfare on that arterial. You would be asking traffic during a certain point, point to point to slow down whether school is in or not, whether there is children present. I know it’s just an inconvenience but that’s kind of the feedback that I’ve had. Overton: And that’s correct. That’s why we wanted to look at them on a case- by-case basis instead of saying a rule one way or the other. Boise is struggling right now. They’ve moved a lot of them to the 7:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. and the argument that they’re getting is that that’s whether schools in session or it’s not weekends holidays the code does not state that it would be null and void on those occasions. We would be hard pressed currently to change any of our signs from when children are present to the timeframe now that we have a better definition of what when children are present is out there. The problem was it was really kind of a void for vagueness issue because no one was really sure how to enforce the when children are present. What exactly did that mean? This becomes better outlined in this code for enforcement purposes for the officers to understand. I’m not proposing I’m sorry. De Weerd: No, I’m sorry. Overton: I’m not proposing that we go out and change any of our current signs at this time. We’re going to work with ACHD on a student count for what they’re crossing on the major roads versus some of the other roads and see if it is an issue with we have an extremely large crossing. That also comes into play as we have the marked crossing guards during those times as well. We’ve spent this last year equipping them with traffic cones, signs, and uniforms to assist in that half hour period both in the morning and the afternoon to help designate those areas as speed zones at that time. Sometimes the problem is they don’t see the kids because these kids can be very small but in the heavy intersections, they do Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 3 of 10 see the crossing guards. We’re working from that angle as well so that we focus predominately on the times when the children are crossing. De Weerd: That’s great. I did notice that they are more noticeable with the cones and the outfits. It’s too expensive to think that we can get the flashing lights that are out in front of Meridian Middle School because those really are ideal. They are at least adaptable to when school is out they’re not on. Overton: Correct. De Weerd: Council any other questions or comments? Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess the school zone one doesn’t really concern me. I think the Captain’s right that as – we have I guess the advantage from the Boise schools is that we have a lot of newer schools. That’s what I think the struggle has been with Boise is there are a lot of older schools so they’re replacing signs. Here we have new schools coming on. I think your concern especially for maybe the middle school that’s going to be on Linder, there may be some concerns there. I’m a little – I think this is the definition in the Boise City Code but I’m wondering if there’s the second part of the definition says this definition – this is the when children are present section. This definition applies to children present on the same side of the street as the school building as well as across the street from the school building in any direction within the marked school zone. I guess I’m wandering if we use the school building as a guide many of our schools don’t have one building. They have more than one building and so I’m not sure if that’s maybe problematic or whether or not since it’s supposed to be within the marked school zone. I just can think off hand for example with like Ponderosa School by that definition and I don’t know the name of the road but the street that is basically on the east side of the school there is a pedestrian path that goes to the neighborhood. It’s marked with school zone school crossing signs in that area but no one can see a school building from that street because it’s on the other side of the houses. Although we want it to apply, I wonder if it would make more sense as a reference point, that we use the school zone signs as the reference rather than the building. I can certainly foresee some judges having concerns that when we’re talking about a school building which building were we talking about. If you can’t even see the building is that a very fair reference point. Certainly if they’re marked school zones anyway I don’t know if the building is kind of cupriferous. Maybe Mr. Nichols has a thought on that too. Nichols: Madam President members of the Council, just a couple of thoughts. One is in connection of what you’re saying you could insert the word or in that definition so that it says, after the word school building put or in any direction Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 4 of 10 within the marked school zone. That might be one way to address that issue. Under this 7:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M., what I’ve seen in Nampa is they also include the word school days only which you may or may not want to do. If you do the school days only then that would take care of the holidays, the weekends and those sorts of issues there. The other thing that Nampa is doing right now because of the issue of school days only and some school is year around and some schools are not year around. They’ve started putting up signs if it’s a year around school that says year around school on the school zone signs as a way to hopefully educate drivers that it does mean 20 miles an hour now even though it’s June or August. I don’t think we have to necessarily address that issue in the ordinance but it could be addressed in signage with ACHD on those elementary schools that are year around. Those are a couple of amendments if you want to the school days only under three and inserting the word or in that definition there too. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I like the change for the when children are present. The only thing I would be concerned with on the school zone of number three and putting school days only is now the prosecutor has to prove the element that the school was in session that day. Now they have to get some way to prove that to convict the person of this offense. I would rather live with Monday through Friday and deal with the three day weekend issue which is only going to be seven to 10 times a year versus trying to prove every single time that school was in session that day. That’s what the prosecutor would have to prove. I guess, the way it’s included now I think the way the Captain is suggesting is that we’re going to sort of figure it out which ones could have it. I think Monday through Friday would be just an easier one to prove that it would be to prove that it’s a school day. De Weerd: I guess that brings up the question as to would those two contradict each other because the school zone that lists the times is somewhat different than number two because it says when children are present and it’s not restricted to school days or hours. It’s just when any kid is present. I think when most people drive through the school zones they’re thinking it in terms of when school is in session and not necessarily when any child is present whether school is in session or not. Did your committee discuss that? Overton: They discussed several alternatives. The problem is I don’t think we’ve discovered on a perfect sign that addresses all the concerns. There are issues with both signs. The when children are present does it apply when school is out but you have kids you may have after school activities and you may have kids near those schools that are utilizing those pathways. It’s still a school zone because children are present and still enforceable where with the times if you have something that goes beyond that 4:30 timeframe you’re out of the realm of Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 5 of 10 protection under that signage. The one that looks like it has the best recourse for us as an enforcement where we deal with a sign that addresses the kids at the intersections needing the do caution by the drivers would seem to tend to lean towards the when children are present sign. I like the idea Councilman Nary had for changing that. The time one if fraught with probable issues depending on whether school is out. The other issue if you put when school is in session is you have parents to go to traditional schools and parents to go to year around. If their child is out at one school, they may assume they can drive through the other one. They’re not going to know which is which so you can run into other issues as well that we may not want to travel down. De Weerd: Well and I think it’s been raised that there are things that go on even after the 4:30 time period with different athletic events and after school activities as well as open houses and other kinds of things too. Maybe we just need to all be more aware of when kids are present to really take caution. These would really lend to that. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yes I think on the – I think some of the differences too that we see here with the school district versus Boise is that we have I think a larger percentage of newer schools as well as schools built right in the middle of a neighborhood. Where as a lot of the older schools in Boise are built on main streets. I think the when children are present is fine. I think it just seems to make sense to me especially for elementary schools where they are attractions to kids for all hours of the day. They have playground equipment that kids are using, they have basketball courts there that kids use, and they have different types of sports activities and practices that are used that that when children are present is probably makes more sense. The hour ones are just if I had to guess are going to be used more around the high schools and the middle schools where you’re not necessarily having playgrounds that kids are playing on all the time or you’re having bigger kids that are either driving there themselves like high school or being driven there for bigger activities. I think the only conflict would be like you pointed out is if you have both of these signs in the same school zones. Then I think it definitely would be a conflict but I don’t think we’re likely going to have that. I think we’re going to probably see the when children are present signs more around the elementary schools and the hour time limits around the middle schools or the high schools as well as the ones with the flashing lights on the main roadways. I think as Mr. Nichols suggested if we put the or in number two, and I don’t have a particular preference other than I just on, the number three on whether to include Monday through Friday’s or leave it as it is. I just don’t want to end up having an element for the prosecutor to have to prove that it’s a school day. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 6 of 10 De Weerd: I appreciate that perspective. Any other comments? Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On number three though if you put Monday through Friday and you know they have Thursday and Friday off and somebody gets picked up in the speed zone they’re going to go to court and fight it because school was not in. I like Mr. Nichols suggestion when school is open. I would have to think that one phone call to the administration by the prosecutor would certainly tell you whether they were in school or they weren’t in school that day. Nary: That’s not the issue. I can find out if there is school. I have to bring somebody down there to be a witness to testify that there was school that day. I don’t think the school district wants to do that real bad. I can’t do it by affidavit. Bird: Can’t the officer do that? Nary: Maybe. Bird: He usually goes there anyway doesn’t he if they fight a traffic deal. Doesn’t the officer have to be there? Nary: Well the officer would be there but I don’t know whether or not he could testify to that or not. Nichols: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Just some comments and maybe this will help get us where we need to be. One is I’m sure that Captain Overton’s troops are not going to be – it’s highly unlikely they would write a ticket for speeding in a school zone on a day when school is not in session because they’re spread kind of thin anyway. They’re not likely to be running traffic patrols in that area on a day when they know school is out. I would expect that they would know. There is a way that you could get around potentially it makes the ordinance a little more complicated but you could insert an extra section that says it’s an affirmative defense to charge under Subparagraph three if school wasn’t in session that day. That – I think that gets in another area. It puts on the defendant having to prove that school wasn’t in session. I think I’m not sure how Captain Overton’s officers would cite it but I would expect they would just say speeding in a school zone. You wouldn’t necessarily say Subsection three would you Captain? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 7 of 10 Overton: Most officers would try to be as specific as possible in listing the subsection of the code the actual violation. The only fear I would have with the timeframe and the affirmative defense that school is not in session is as I brought up before on the other violation, which is when children are present. The current code under when children are present would still be a violation if school is out but kids are at the school and there is an event-taking place at the school. Where if it were after 4:30 on a non-school day you would not have – it would be a defense you would not be within the time limit. If the ultimate goal is to protect the children that are trying to get to and from school for whatever the event is if it’s outside of the 7:00 or the 4:30 timeframe we would still be covered under the when children are present. De Weerd: I guess what we’re looking at is changing a mindset. The whole reason we added parks to this is that parks and schools attract children and we need to be more cautious when children are present. By distinguishing timeframes or anything other than when children are present, your caution should not be less. Our law should be consistent. If we’re looking at parks around the clock when a child is present, we probably should treat our schools in concert with that because the whole goal of this is to protect the well being of the child and some of the things that happen when children are walking down a sidewalk not paying attention. I think the more simple we can make this and consistent both with our parks and our school zones, the more understandable it will be to the general public on what the law really is or what the ordinance really is. Maybe the discussion on hours and whether school is in session or not kids are going to be attracted to schoolyards. To play, to gather and we want that to happen and we want to make sure they’re safe whether they’re in school or out of school. I guess I would look at or my recommendation and I don’t know if you need a motion from Council on the direction that we would like to see you take is something consistent and that will protect the welfare of the children. That should be consistent in our parks and our schools and so I don’t think we even need hours at this point. It should just be when children are present period whether school is in session or not. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would suggest for the sake of clarity and to move this along I don’t care if we leave number three the way it’s written. I don’t think – really right now, we don’t have anywhere that has a sign like that. All that’s saying is that if there is one. I guess if anything maybe what Captain Overton and the Police Department need as they decide what those standards are to put those signs in place because you can’t have both. You can’t have two and three because that would be confusing. If they’re going to make a decision on what type of policy they would like to adopt as to where these are appropriate, what type of traffic situation or traffic counts are necessary to have that maybe we could have that Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 8 of 10 discussion then. Right now this really isn’t going to matter because there isn’t any place that has this right now. If there is something in the discussion we decide is either better or a better signage of something then we could probably deal with that. Rather than – I think as we’ve seen in the last ten minutes we can make it really complicated and we don’t want to do that. This is pretty simple and right now, I think to move this along is fine. I think number two is the one that really is helpful because it’s a lot clearer now for both the officers and from the prosecution side. To get that done I think is really the most important to make that clear and to raise the fine so we raise the awareness I think is fine. I think we can just go forward the way it’s written and deal with that later. Bird: That’s agreeable with me. I agree with Councilman Nary that two and three – I’m like him three can stay in there it doesn’t bother me at all. Let’s move on. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: So we’ll – Mr. Nichols will add the or though in that so that we have or (inaudible) or the zone. Nichols: Yes and Madam President I noticed a couple of others. We’ll put – in order to make sure that it’s clear that it’s any of the three items we’ll insert or a semi colon or after the end of the second sentence. That will be ready next week. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Thank you. Item 4. Discussion of Fees with Sanitary Services Company: De Weerd: Okay we’ll move on to item number four, discussion of fees with SSC. Steve. Sedlacek: Thank you very much. I hope that each of you have in front of you the memo that I produced regarding our rate adjustment. First of all, I wanted to thank the Council and city staff for their support in our new facility that we’ve built out on Franklin Road. During the ribbon cutting, some people were asking me how we were going to pay for it. The coincidence of us asking for a rate adjustment and us moving into the new building isn’t lost on me. I do want to assure you there’s no correlation between the two. This rate adjustment in no way is enough money to pay for that building but anyway. This is something we do every year. According to our contract, our rates are tied to the consumer price index. You should have in front of you the print out from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showing how the consumer price index is changed year to year. Basically, it has got two percent. We’re allowed to take 90 percent of that Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 9 of 10 number so we have to reduce it to ten percent. That means our overall rate adjustment cannot be more than 1.8 percent. We further reduce our amount we can raise rates by excluding the landfill portion of the rate. In otherwards when someone in a residential home as you all live here you pay a certain amount to the city for waste collection every month. Some of that goes to the County for the landfill and those rates haven’t gone up so we don’t adjust that portion. Basically, if you look at Table one, the residential rates are going to go up 1.3 percent, which is 13 cents a month. Commercial container rates go up 1.5 percent essentially and roll off rates go up 1.8. We’ve already segregated our land filling rates. On the roll off system, we’ve already segregated out the landfill portion so those get the full 1.8 percent change. We have the new rate sheet in front of you. Residential rates go from $9.92 a month that’s with recycling to $10.05 so that’s the 13-cent raise. This is the methodology we’ve used for the last probably three or four years and we hope that these will go into effect st October 1 which would mean they would go out in the bills from the billing system the first week of November. I’m here to answer any questions or hopefully we’ve done this correctly. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Steve you guys have done a first class job with your rate increase. You back it up with facts and figures. I don’t think the public could ask for any more than that. You certainly are not going overboard on it. You’re just getting what you have to. I’m for moving it on and putting it on the Consent Agenda next week and getting it going. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would concur. I don’t think we can put it on the Consent Agenda though. I think we have to advertise fee increases. De Weerd: No, it’s not more than five percent. Nary: Oh, I guess that’s true. Nichols: Madam President and Members of the Council it would be by resolution to set the rates – Bird: Oh that’s right. Nichols: -- and we have put resolutions on the Consent Agenda or put them on the Regular Agenda. Either way you get a chance to look at them. Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 16, 2003 Page 10 of 10 Nary: Yes I think you guys have done a great job so yes let’s go ahead and get it done. Sedlacek: And you’re all invited to come out to the shop and office and take a tour too. De Weerd: Well we would hate to make it too easy but you are doing a superior job and appreciate it. Sedlacek: Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Sedlacek: Appreciate your support. De Weerd: That’s the end of our agenda. I would move for adjournment. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. Okay all ayes motion carried. It’s 6:56. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:56 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK