HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 09-05
Meridian City Council Meetina
September 5. 2006
A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday,
September 5, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, and Joe
Borton.
Member Absent: Charlie Rountree.
Others Present: Bill Nary, Ted Baird, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bill Musser, Ron
Anderson, Len Grady, Doug Strong, Stacy Kilchenmann, Terry Paternoster, McKay
Graybill, and Dean Willis.
Item 1:
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X Shaun Wardle
o Charlie Rountree
X
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
De Weerd: I'd like to welcome you all here this evening. I understand our clock is five
minutes fast, so we have been kind of just sitting here waiting until that five minutes was
over so we could start. So, welcome here tonight. We appreciate you all coming. It is
Tuesday, September 5th. It is 7:00 o'clock. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call
attendance. Mr. Berg.
Item 2:
Pledge of Allegiance:
De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our pledge of allegiance. Tonight we will be led in the pledge
by Frank Thomason with the Valley Times. If you will all rise.
(Pledge of allegiance recited.)
Item 3:
Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn, with Meridian
Gospel Tabernacle:
De Weerd: Item No.3 is our Community Invocation. Tonight we will be led by Pastor
Bud Henthorn with the Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. If you will all join us in the
invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of silence.
Henthorn: Heavenly Father, as -- as fall rolls around and as school gets back under
session our thoughts turn again to the young people of our community and tonight we
pray that prayer that Paul prayed, but we pray it on behalf of our kids. We asked, Lord
God, that, God, you would cause them to know and to understand the hope to which
you have called them. We pray, Lord God, that you would reveal to them the incredible
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 2 of 74
treasure that you have placed within them and we ask, God. that you would reveal to
our children the incredible power that is at work within the world today on their behalf
and, Father, tonight as a -- as a governing body we come before you to say that we
want that power to work within us. As Solomon prayed, we pray, God, give us wisdom
that we might govern this great people of yours. Help us, Lord God, to keep in mind the
decisions we make impact the children that we love, the children that you love. We ask,
God, that your grace, your mercy, your love, your kindness, your peace would prevail in
this place. We ask in Jesus' name, amen.
Item 4:
Adoption of the Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you, Bud. Item No.4, adoption of the agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: We need to -- on the Consent Agenda, Item G will be resolution number 06-527.
Item H needs to be pulled to September 12th, 2006, let it be noted that Item S, the Joint
Powers agreement is with the rural fire district, not Local 3211 -- 2311. In the regular
agenda Item 8 has been asked to be continued to September 19th, 2006. And Item No.
11 is resolution number 06-528. And Item Nos. 16, 17 and 18 we would ask the Council
to continue these to September 12th, 2006, because the Councilman that requested
reconsideration is not in attendance tonight. And items 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 are all
ordinance numbers starting with 06-1256 and ending with 06-1262. With that I move we
accept the revised agenda.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 5:
Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of August 8, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting:
B. Approve Minutes of August 15, 2006 City Council Regular
Meeting:
C. Development Agreement: AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density
Residential) zones for Incline Villaae Subdivision by Incline
Village, LLC - north side of Cherry Lane and west of Black Cat
Road:
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 3 of 74
D. Development Agreement: AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek
West Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West
Overland Road and west of South Stoddard Road:
E. Development Agreement: AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)
(168.23 acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential) (10.42
acres) and C-N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) zones for
Tanana Vallev Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by
Farwest, LLC - southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory
Road:
F. Development Agreement: RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of
1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian
Professional Office by John Homan - 2835 and 2825 North
Meridian Road:
G. Resolution No. 06-527 A Rate Increase for Solid
Waste Collection Services due to the Net Percentage of
Change in the Consumer Price Index for the Pacific Northwest,
to Provide for the Solid Waste Disposal Rate Changes Within
the City of Meridian:
H. Resolution No. Adoption of the Ada
County EmerQencv ManaQement Plan, All Hazards Mitigation
Plan, Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Mitigation Plan, Ada
County Flood Response Plan, Ada County Hazmat Response
Plan, Ada County Terrorism Response Plan, and Ada County
Wildfire Response Plan:
I. Water Main Easement AQreement No. 1 for Commercial Tire
by Schwenkfelder Investments, LLC:
J. Water Main Easement Agreement No. 2 for Commercial Tire
by Schwenkfelder Investments, LLC:
K. Water Main Easement Aareement No. 3 for Commercial Tire
by Lea Electric:
L. Water Main Easement AQreement for LOS Church at 5555
North Locust Grove Road:
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 4 of 74
M. Contract for the Black Cat Trunk Sewer Phase 3 Authorization
for Additional Services No.1 with JUB Engineers, Inc.:
N. Approve Rejection of All Bids for Water Division Buildinq
Project:
O. Public Works Chanae Order No. 1 to Uparade Storm Sewer to
Water Class Pipe for Linder PRV with Star Construction:
P. Aareement for Professional Services for Construction Staking
for Water and Sewer Improvements Associated with Overland,
Topaz to Cloverdale Project with Civil Survey Consultants,
Inc.:
Q. Aareement for Professional Services for Construction Stakina
for Water and Sewer Improvements Associated with the
Locust Grove Grade Separation Proiect with Civil Survey
Consultants, Inc.:
R. Award Bid and Contract for the 350LF Water Main
Construction on McMillan Road between Wild Goose and
Palatine with Star Construction:
S. Joint Powers Aareement Amendment with the Rural Fire
Oistrict Local #2311 :
De Weerd: Item 5, Consent Agenda.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: On the Consent Agenda Item G is resolution number 06-527. Item H has been
asked to be table to September 12th, 2006. And Item S removed local 2611 from the
amendment agreement. And with that I move that we pass the Consent Agenda and for
the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as
changed. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 5 of 74
Item 6:
Department Reports:
A. IT Department
1. Update on the internship program and strategic growth:
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 6, Department Reports. We will start tonight's meeting
with our IT Department.
Paternoster: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the IT Department is quite
pleased to be here tonight, given the opportunity to talk about some of the projects we
have been working on in the IT Department over the past six months and to just take a
few minutes and just go over those with you. Some of the projects the IT Department
has worked on over the past six months is we finally finalized the wireless area network
project that connects all of the different departments together. This project has been
dragging on for quite some time, but we are quite pleased to announce that last month
we were able to bring this to completion, work out some differences with our vendors,
and the wireless network is up and functioning and operational and saving the city
money every day through its use. One of the other projects that we have been working
on, especially over the summer as we have had quite a few extra part-time help, is that
we have been working on our inventory management and our tool management. We
have tools to help you manage our inventory and in addition we have been going
around taking a physical inventory of the different hardware that we have within the city
and reconciling that to the financial reports of the finance department to make sure that
we know which assets we have and where they are at and how they are being utilized
to make sure that the city's getting the most out of its dollars. One of the other things
that we have worked on over the past six months is we helped the police department
implement their Lenel Security system. This is an IT based security system that
connects multiple cameras at the police department to enhance security. It operates
and connects over the network to several computers so that they can do realtime live
monitoring. One of the other projects that we worked on is remote database access to
the data system, which we have been, you know, kind of been talking about for several
months and maybe even years and I think that this latest implementation of opening up
some data ports to allow the Public Works Department to access information off this
date system to be able to make a report has been quite beneficial to Public Works and
we have received very positive feedback and we are quite proud to say that our
relationship with Public Works is very good today.
De Weerd: We are very pleased about that.
Paternoster: Something else we have worked on is we have -- recently over the
summer we have implemented a city intranet. Unlike the internet, which is really
designed towards public access, we have a city intranet which was put into place which
is designed to help employees just gain information within different departments. Like
for the IT Department we have put out help documents, we have put out places for them
to fill out forms where if they need support or if they want remote help, there is a tool on
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 6 of 74
here that they can download that allows' us remote access to their computer. In
addition, you know, the HR department and the finance department has put out multiple
forms that are used by the departments on a daily basis with whether or not it's
someone changing their W-4 requirements or want their latest budget numbers. That
information can be found out on the intranet. One of the other projects that we have
worked on -- let me click up here -- is we have done an online employment application.
This application was put into place and programmed by McKay Graybill to help the city
allow people who are interested in working for the city fill out applications online, submit
those, versus going through the antiquated process of filling out a paper form and
maybe having to have the HR department try to discern what the employee's -- or the
potential employee's writing on that form and trying to read their handwriting, which I
know in my case would be quite challenging and I think that this is a good tool for the
city and it's really helped us to move into the 21 st century. One of the other things that
we worked on this summer is a nonemergency online police report. This report is so
that people who have -- don't know of a specific suspect, can submit their police report
online and, then, it goes directly to the police department where they can file it and go
through and assign it to an officer to investigate it. And the other thing that we have
worked on is we are in the process of completing an employee time card entry system.
This is a system that will allow employees to enter their time online, which will save the
finance department multiple hours per month of manually taking time cards that have
been entered by employees and, then, putting them into the MIT accounting system
database and running time off it to do payroll each month. Any questions regarding
those? No? Good. The next thing I want to take a few minutes and talk about is I want
to talk about McKay Graybill. He's standing right beside me. I'd like him to stand up.
McKay is one of the interns that we have -- we first received from the Meridian technical
charter high school two years ago. McKay has been a great asset to the city through
his programming skills and development. Unfortunately, McKay is going to be leaving
us soon and so I wanted to take this opportunity to just honor him before the Council,
because he has put forth many hours and time working on projects for the city, like
some of the ones you have seen so far. You know, McKay specifically has been
involved in working on the IT support request form, which allows the IT Department to
have users submit requests for us to assign those, track those, and allow users to know
when their request has been completed.
De Weerd: And staff really likes that form.
Paternoster: They do. They like the info of please fill out the form. We do like a
procedure; it helps us to be able to be accountable to Council and to the department to
make sure that the request is taken care of in a timely manner. McKay worked on the
employment application. He also developed a time sheet application. And he also --
some of the other projects that he didn't played quite as large of a role, but he definitely
worked on planning staff report, the planning application tracking system, and he
designed the online police report, which I displayed before. Unfortunately, like I said,
McKay has plans to leave us where McKay will be leaving his employment for the city
this month to prepare for a two year church mission where he will be serving in
Guatemala. For those who don't where Guatemala is at, it's south of Mexico. We are
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 7 of74
very sad to see McKay leave, because he has been an excellent asset to the city. We
would love for him to forego his mission and stay with the city, however, we realize that
he has plans and goals that he wants to accomplish.
De Weerd: And we did try and convince him that this is a mission, but he didn't go for
that.
Paternoster: Lots of opportunities. The one other thing that I just want to briefly update
the Council on is that the IT Department is going to be engaging in a technology
procedures audit. This is where we are going to be engaging an outside consultant to
come in and review our practices and just help us clarify our expectations and
objectives at levels throughout the city and help us identify areas where we can become
more effective and pro-active at meeting the overall city needs. And, hopefully, through
implementing the changes found through the strategic audit we will be able to save the
city time and money in our future growth plans. My goal, you know, presenting this
before the Council was to get your buy-in and find out, you know, that through this audit
if the City Council has anything -- or any issues that they would like us to have
evaluated during this process, that they think might be beneficial to the future growth of
the city. I know that for us one thing that has been continually challenging for us is just
with the rapid growth of Meridian. It's been a challenge for us to really be able to use
technology in a way that helps the city optimize all of its processes and really save
money. We believe that we have -- the IT Department has implemented a solid
structure for helping the city grow and meet its current needs, but as the city continues
to grow we need to find ways to continue to optimize our processes and bring synergy
between those different applications, so that instead of implementing and inputting data,
you know, multiple times in each department, we are able to put that information into a
single repository, you know, and have it utilized in multiple fashion.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor. One of the things that always concerns me with technology
and that I like to see is just -- I know we have to have a secured system. Security is
your department's priority. Just to give us, the Council, and the community the benefit
that the information is safe. I think certainly that is probably already considered with the
process and I'd like to stress that. In addition, one of the other areas -- I'm not sure if,
Terry, you have -- if you're working with us right now, but data management and, you
know, how long do you keep that data and what happens to that data when we purge it,
all those things are certainly, I think, you know, that you have been taking an active roll
and in the future.
Paternoster: I think those are excellent areas for us to look at. I definitely think security
is on the forefront of everybody's mind, just given the size of the world we live in and the
risk are inherent to business. I also have been considering data retention policies that
the city is implementing which has come up in a couple of seminars and I think that
would be an excellent thing for us to look at as well.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 8 of 74
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
Paternoster: Great. At the conclusion of this technology strategic audit we plan on
coming back and having consultants present to the Mayor and Council the findings of
what they discovered during the audit. So, we definitely look forward to that and try
and, hopefully, have that completed within the next month. So, if there is no further
questions, that is the end.
De Weerd: Terry, I would just like to thank McKay for his service to the city. Certainly--
we know you have extended your employment with us to finish up on some loose ends
and you have reduced the amount of time spent with your family, although we do think
that we are your family these days, but we appreciate that and it just shows the quality
of the employee that you are and just a small token. I would like to give you one of our
City of Meridian coveted pins and so thank you, McKay. Good luck. Thank you for your
report, Terry. We appreciate it. And we look forward to the results of the audit.
B. Public Works Department - Len Grady
1. Discussion of Requirement for a Common Lot Rather
than an Easement for PI Pump Stations:
De Weerd: Okay. The next item on our department reports, I'll turn this over to Len
Grady.
Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I wanted to talk to you briefly about a --
sort of a situation that's come up with regard to PI systems and, in particular, pump
stations within those PI systems. Our UDC requires that those pump stations be on a
common lot and dedicated to a homeowners association. Jonathan Seal is an applicant
for Center Pointe Subdivision, which is a commercial -- a commercial deal and this
doesn't lend itself that well to that particular part of the code, so the code is fairly clear
that it requires it, but in this particular case it does look like maybe it's unnecessary.
The idea is if you have this PI pump station and you have a subdivision, you do want it
to be on a common lot and you do want to be able to have access to it. He's claiming
that there is no homeowners association or nobody to dedicate this pump station to.
Again, the code is fairly clear and I think I have offered to just bring it to your attention
and see if there is any direction you want to give me on that. And he also said he would
be here to comment on it, but I don't see him.
De Weerd: No, I don't see him either. Do you have a recommendation?
Grady: I would recommend in this particular case that we go ahead and rescind that.
Again, it seems to lend itself fairly good on subdivisions. On commercials it's not that--
it doesn't seem like it's that critical.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 9 of 74
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions or comments? Ted?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, in this particular situation it looks like
the goal of that UDC provision is achieved, but it's just not applicable, because it's -- I
would call it a legal impossibility, since there is no homeowners association to give it to,
and since it is privately operated it can't be given to the irrigation district. So, if you want
to follow the recommendation, just make a motion on the record that UDC Section
11.3.B-6-E is not applicable to this particular application.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Baird. Okay. Anything else from Council? Mr. Bird.
Bird: Madam Mayor, I would move that we follow the recommendation of the Public
Works regarding the PI at Centre Pointe, according to UDC 11.3.B-6-E.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, would
you like to call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7:
Items Moved from Consent Agenda:
De Weerd: Thank you. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda.
Item 8:
Tabled from August 22, 2006: FP 06-038 Request for Final Plat
approval for 5 single-family residential building lots on 1.06 acres in an R-
8 zone for Windsona Subdivision No.2 by Landmark Engineering &
Planning - north of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road:
De Weerd: Item NO.8 has been asked to continue to September 19th.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move that we table -- I guess we don't continue it. We table FP 06-038 until
September 19th, 2006.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. A motion and a second to table Item 8 until the 19th. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 10 of74
Item 9:
FP 06-039 Request for Final Plat approval of 103 single-family residential
building lots and 10 common lots on 25.12 acres in an R-8 zone for
Solitude Subdivision No.1 by Solitude Development, LLC - Southeast
corner of McMillan Road and Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 9 is FP 06-039. We have received a letter from the applicant
agreeing to staff's conditions. Anna, any additional comments?
Canning: No, ma'am.
De Weerd: Okay. Council?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we approve Item 9, FP 06-029.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. Motion and a second to approve Item 9. Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10:
Public Hearing: Amendments to the City of Meridian Impact Fee
Ordinance increasing the park impact fee imposed on building permits for
residential construction; and adopting new impact fees for fire and police
capital improvements to be imposed on building permits for residential and
non-residential construction AND CPA 06-001 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to update the
Ten Year Capital Improvements Plan for parks, police, and fire capital
improvement projects.
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 10 is a Public Hearing on amendments to the City of
Meridian Impact Fee Ordinance, as well as CPA 06-001, a Comprehensive Plan
amendment. I will go ahead and have Mr. Baird introduce this.
Baird: Thank you, Madam Mayor. As you pointed out, this is a combined Public
Hearing. State law requires that when we do amend our impact fee ordinance that we
also update the capital improvements plans that are associated with those impact fees,
so that's -- they are intertwined issues and so we have got a combined Public Hearing
tonight. I'm shortly going to be handing this over to the lead of our consultant team, Mr.
Tom Pippen, from PBC Consulting. He has a short Powerpoint presentation that he will
be presenting and I'd recommend that the chair open it up for public testimony.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 11 of 74
De Weerd: Thank you.
Baird: So, at this pOint I will introduce Tom Pippen.
Pippen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Tom Pippen. I have
addressed you before on the subject of impact fees. And as Ted promised, I'm going to
give a brief presentation and, then, of course, after public comment, if you'd like us to
come back up to do any questions and answers, we would be happy to. Anna Canning
is going to help with our Powerpoint tonight. Anna, let's go to the first page, if we can.
What I'd like to do briefly is introduce our team who are present this evening and, then,
talk a little bit about the definition of impact fees, review the statutory requirements and,
then, excerpt for you two fee schedules from the reports and, then, finally conclude with
Q and A. The next page I won't dwell on, simply an introduction of me and my
colleague Laura Doze. As Ted mentioned, we were part of the team. We are an
economic consulting firm, so we ran a lot of the spreadsheets and did a lot of the
demographic analysis for the report. But, certainly, there were other key members of
our team. The next page -- we have here tonight JoAnne Butler and Sherry Gallivan
from Spink Butler. That was the law firm associated with our team. They participated in
all of the advisory committee meetings, made sure that our mathematical calculations
were consistent with the state law and they also worked with your city attorney's office
to draft the ordinance that's before you tonight. And, then, finally, also in attendance
this evening is Anne Westcott from Galena Consulting. Anne was a critical member of
our team and her particular expertise is capital improvement planning. Anne worked
very closely with all of your department heads involved in the fees to understand which
capital projects were coming over the next ten years and what portion of those were
growth related and, therefore, possible for impact fee inclusion. Let's move on to the
next page. This is a slide I have shown you before, but just as a little bit of background,
impact fees are one time charges, typically assessed at the time of building permit.
They have three key components, which. I have underlined. First of all, they are only
charged on new development, meaning that if someone remodels their home or
business, that's not fee eligible. We are only talking about an increase in the number of
dwelling units or if it's a commercial building, an increase in square footage. Secondly,
they can only be used -- impact fees can only be used to support infrastructure. They
cannot be used to pay for salaries or operating expenses. And, then, finally, as we
have underlined, they have to be proportionate to new growth's impact. In other words,
we can't charge new growth to correct any existing deficiencies. Let's advance to the
next slide. I mentioned Anne Westcott's key roll in terms of looking at the capital
improvement plans and, really, the core of this work focused on these three items. In
other words, when the City of Meridian spends money on a capital project over the next
ten years, some of it's going to be in category number one, repairing and replacing what
you have already got. Those aren't in the calculations, because you have to do that
regardless of growth. Item number two is betterment and you will see there what we
have underlined are generally not entirely eligible, meaning that you have some projects
where growth was the trigger, the straw that broke the camel's back, if you will, but it
wouldn't be fair to charge growth a hundred percent of that project, because existing
Meridian City Council
September 5,2006
Page 12of74
residents also benefit. So, in our calculations we pro-rated projects like that. And, then,
finally, number three. There are some projects in your capital improvement plan that
are only due to growth and, therefore, they are entirely included in the fee calculations.
Let's advance to the next page and that is working with Spink Butler we tried to insure
that our methodology was consistent and compliant with the Idaho state law. I won't go
over all of these bullet points, except to say that the first one, establishment of and
consultation with the advisedly committee, was very important to this process. We met
with the advisory committee five distinct times during the course of this project, they met
once without the consultants, and in a little bit I'm going to recap for you what their
recommendation is for you to consider tonight. Also, I should point out that there is an
appendix to our report, a matrix that checks off where in the report we believe we
comply with the various elements of state law. Let's go to the next slide. And this is our
first excerpt from the final report. We have calculated in the report the full cost recovery
impact fee, meaning the impact fee that Meridian would charge if you want to recover
one hundred percent of the growth-related projects for police, fire, and parks and
recreation infrastructure over the next ten years. As you will notice in the gray bar, that
totals 1,846 dollars per residential unit and 31 cents a square foot for nonresidential.
Now, I mentioned -- and I believe this is in your packet as well, that the advisory
committee has asked you to consider a different set of numbers, a slightly lower set of
numbers. So, what you see here -- let's back up again. Thanks. That is the full cost
recovery fee. The advisory committee has asked you to consider an amount that's
1,600 dollars per residential unit and an amount of 26 cents per nonresidential square
foot. I believe there will be members of the advisory committee here tonight that will
speak to that, but, in general, if I can paraphrase where they are coming from, I believe
the concern is that 1,846 and 31, in the opinion of some of the members of the
committee, might harm economic development in Meridian and might slow down growth
and the feeling is that 1,600 dollars and 26 cents wouldn't have as much of an injurious
impact on growth. But, as I said, I believe other speakers will cover that tonight. Let's
go to the next page. And this page really summarizes what I'd like to say, that impact
fees are a two-way street, meaning that if you decide to adopt expanded impact fees in
these categories, it's not just new development that would be paying, because some of
these projects, as I mentioned before, are split. Existing residents benefit, but new
growth was the trigger. In those cases it's important that the city chip in funds, in
addition to impact fees, to make sure that the CIP gets built. And if you will look at the
number right above the gray bar at the bottom, that 2.8 million dollars, if you adopt the
full cost recovery fee, the maximum that's in the report, the city would have a
responsibility of about 2.8 million dollars over ten years, about 280,000 dollars a year. It
doesn't have to be that precise where it's that amount every year, but the city would
have to have confidence that you could afford that over a ten year span. If tonight you
decide to not adopt the full cost recovery fees, but to go to the slightly lower amounts
that the advisory committee is asking you to consider, the 1,600 dollars and the 26
cents, then, these numbers would go up, which just -- it's kind of like a balancing
equation. If the impact fees are a little bit less, then, the city's share would be a little bit
more. So, if you decide to adopt the lower amounts, then, the city's liability would
increase to a little over six million dollars, instead of 2.8 million. So, it would be roughly
600,000 dollars a year that you would have to be comfortable, based on the advice of
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 13 of 74
your finance staff, that you could afford. It is within your power to adopt something less
than the maximum. But there is an implication of that and that is the city would have to
chip in relatively more. I believe that concludes my comments. I would be happen to
answer any questions now or come back up after some other members of the public
have spoken.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Thank you, Tom. We might ask you to
return. Thank you.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Baird: Before Tom leaves the podium, I know that you inquired of us and requested that
we be prepared to let you know where these numbers compare to some of the other
communities in the area. I know that Tom is working with both the city of Caldwell and
the city of Nampa and he can give you some details on that and I can show you that in
the city of Boise they currently only collect a parks and recreation fee and it recently
went up. Single family residences, 1,187 dollars per resident. So, just under 1,200 in
the city of Boise. But if -- naturally, an appropriate time just to give perspective of where
we are, I'll have Tom maybe address that question.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Pippen: Thank you, Ted. Anna, let's stay on this slide. If you'll notice the police fee up
top, we are currently working with the city of Caldwell, which does not have a police fee,
so I can't give you a number, but they are actively considering it and they are reviewing
a draft report of ours. So, they are contemplating it. The city of Boise is also
contemplating a police fee, but they don't have a number yet either. The one
comparable number for a police fee would be the city of Nampa and whereas we are
saying the maximum here would be 85 dollars a unit, Nampa has a range, depending
on if it's an apartment or a single family home or a townhome, between 64 dollars and
84 dollars a unit. So, Nampa is between 64 and 84. On the nonresidential per square
foot, Nampa has a very detailed table, depending on the type of land uses, ranging from
a penny a square foot to 28 cents a square foot, depending on the type of land use.
Fire fees. Caldwell, where we are working now, and Boise, city of Boise where we are
working, have fire fees under consideration, but there aren't any numbers yet. You're
ahead of them in terms of the consideration process. So, the comparable, again, would
be Nampa. We have said that your full cost recovery fee would be 377 dollars.
Nampa's fee per single family unit is 150 dollars. And one of the reasons why there is a
relatively large disparity there is that Nampa's fee is focusing on stations and buildings
and not as much on the fire trucks and other capital equipment. The state law calls for
something with a useful life more than ten years. So, we have included vehicles and
communications gear that we believe are going to last more than ten years in your fee
calculation. Finally, for parks and recreation, Ted just -- you're at 1,384 full cost
recovery. Ted mentioned that in Boise a single family unit is 1,187. Caldwell-- and we
Meridian City Council
September 5.2006
Page 14 of 74
did -- our team did their fee a couple years ago. They began at 750 dollars a unit and
are inflating it. I don't know their exact number now, but it's less than 800 dollars and,
then, finally, Nampa for a single family unit is 674. So, this parks and rec fee is near
Boise, significantly higher than Caldwell and Nampa's, but I should indicate that we --
right now we are recalculating Caldwell's and Nampa's. We are working for both cities.
So, I would expect that when our draft reports are done for them, their fees will go up
substantially. And one of the reasons is the same reason that your fee is going up.
Land prices, which are the big component of parks infrastructure have gone up
significantly. So, Caldwell at 750 dollars a unit and Nampa 674, are a couple years old
and based on land costs per acre that are significantly less than where we are at now.
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you, Ted. I appreciate that. Before we open this to
public comment, we may want to hear from any of our directors if you have reports to
make before we ask for public comment.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd like to make just a brief comment.
When we are working with the public we often hear that one of their priorities is that
growth pay its way and this was kind of -- we, actually, have a few numbers behind that
now. If we were going forward talking to the folks in the south -- south of our city limits,
talking to them about issues that are important to them. The highest single community
value that they identified was planned for responsible growth and that was 24 of the 62
folks that participated in that study, identified that as an important community value and
the two components of planning for responsible growth or making development pay for
itself and not allowing forced annexations. So, again, this is just indicative that having
growth pay for itself is an important public concern.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Stacy.
Kilchenmann: I just wanted to point out to the Council that I put some information in
front of you to look at when you consider --
De Weerd: Stacy, if you will just state your name for the record.
Kilchenmann: Oh. Stacy Kilchenmann, finance director.
De Weerd: I think Dean knows everyone back there.
Kilchenmann: So, I just gave you some information -- some historical information to
look at when you consider the committee's revised recommendation that requires the
city to contribute almost 600,000 dollars a year. That is not impossible for the city to do,
but, as you know, as we just went through our budget process that our base is growing
with 82 percent of that spent on public safety. So, that would be -- when you consider
this, it would will be a change in our spending patterns and when we make the decision
to move our monies from capital -- or from the base to capital, that will impact the
amount of personnel and so forth that we can add. So, what I have given you just
shows the growth of our base. It also shows our total capital expenditure for the
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 15 of 74
General Fund and we have to remember that the rural fire has been paying for our fire
stations in the near -- or in the recent past, so that's not a cost the city's had to absorb.
And, then, the bottom line shows how much we spend in park impact fees on park
development and how much we spend from the General Fund on park development.
And our spending on the capital kind of goes up and down, like when we made the
commitment to do the police station, of course, we spent about four million dollars.
When we made the -- bought Settler's Park, that was a large infusion of cash. It was
over a million dollars and since has gone down. So, I just wanted to let you know that
that's a decision that the Council is going to have to think about when you make the
decision to choose whenever impact fee you choose.
De Weerd: Thank you, Stacy. Chief Anderson.
Musser: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as far as the police numbers that we
have at this time --
De Weerd: Chief Musser.
Musser: Oh, I'm sorry. Bill Musser, Chief of Police for the City of Meridian.
Musser: Continuing, I'm satisfied in terms of the capital improvement items that we are
looking at, which are primarily building related and communications equipment,
especially long-term communication equipment that we are going to be facing with the
methodology used and the numbers that were arrived at sufficient and very reasonable
in terms of where we are headed down the road.
De Weerd: Thank you, Chief.
Anderson: Madam Mayor and Council, Ron Anderson, Fire Chief, City of Meridian. I
would just like to comment, I guess, basically, on the 377 dollar fee that the consultant
came up and, hopefully, you will understand that that is based off of our current level of
service and I have read, I guess, the advisory committee's recommendation that the fire
department should only have 300 dollars per residential unit and that concerns me,
because they agree with the methodology, they agree with the calculations, and
everything that we got to the 377 dollars, but for some reason they recommend a
funding at a lower level, which would mean that they are, then, asking us either to lower
our level of service to everybody else or the city is going to have to pick up that
difference in the impact fees. I also would agree with the consultant. One of the
reasons why Meridian's is significantly higher than Nampa's is when the consultant did
Nampa's impact fee studies they didn't put any of the vehicles, the apparatus, anything
that wasn't a building into impact fees and that's one of the reasons why Nampa is now
looking at revising those impact fees and including those things and as you guys are
aware, we just recently are going out to refurbish a fire truck that's 24 years old, so if
that doesn't meet Idaho's definition for a capital item, it has much greater than a ten
year life expectancy and fire trucks costing in the neighborhood of 400,000 dollars
apiece, I would definitely consider those a capital item. So, I would encourage you as
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 16of74
you listen to the presentations tonight and as you take the advisory committee's
recommendation into consideration that you, please, look at funding the fire department
to the full allowable fee of the 377 dollars.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, chief. Mr. Strong, you're also the administrator of the
impact fee committee; is that correct?
Strong: That's correct. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Doug
Strong, Parks and Recreation Director, City of Meridian. Just want to make a couple of
comments and primarily just to thank the consulting team and the advisory committee
for all the work. We have met many times and, certainly, our legal department has done
a real banner job in keeping this process moving and working through what in the past
has been a very complicated process for us and I think has brought our fee calculation
to a much more predictable process of determining what a reasonable fee should be for
impact fees. I think we have some groundwork set here that's very good. And in saying
that, I -- the comment that I want to make that I think is most important and -- is that
throughout this process we were often told that the fee calculation would -- as the
calculation was taking place, they were erring on the conservative side of what we could
potentially be asking for. So, I think the full cost recovery fee that you see before you
really is kind of a bare bones of what we are looking at in a ten year capital
improvement plan and certainly over ten years many things can change in a plan and
we will come back annually and look at where we are with our capital improvement plan
and the progress that we are making, but I think that the work that the consulting team
has done has really kind of put us on the mark of where we need to be to address future
growth and provision of a level of community service that the citizens expect that
choose to live in Meridian. Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Nary, I assume that you want to say something,
Nary: You have assumed correctly. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Bill Nary,
city attorney. I did not sit as a member of the impact fee committee; Mr. Baird was the
advisor for that committee. I did attend a couple of the meetings, one as an advisor and
one as the chair, because Mr. Strong wasn't there. There is a member of the committee
in the audience who I assume is going to speak tonight that's from the committee and
there is also a member in the audience who attended all the meetings as well. I did
want to help explain for the Council, as you listen to any of the other testimony, a little
bit of the memo that's in front of you as part of the packet and how the committee
reached that decision. There was a lot of discussion about the calculations and the
methodology that was done by the consultants and the committee as a whole agreed
with the methodology and the calculations that the consultants came up with. The
reasons that the committee recommended a fee less than the full cost recovery was on
other grounds and those grounds were more of a concern that the city hadn't
continuously kept up with the process and I guess my opinion -- and it is just my
opinion, is I think there was some misunderstanding among the committee that the city
hadn't, prior to this year, engaged in a process like this, with a consultant, with as in
depth of study and analysis as was done. The city had adopted fees annually like is
Meridian City Council
September 5,2006
Page 17 of 74
required -- like the statute requires. They had addressed them annually and they didn't
-- they didn't meet very regularly, though, to how those fees were being addressed out
in the real world, whether they really were based on real world costs and real world
numbers. So, the committee as a whole in their discussion felt that the city and the
committee themself haven't spent as much time as they should have in addressing
those types of real world situations and, therefore, to impose the full cost recovery fee at
this time seemed onerous to the committee. In our discussions a number of times they
did commit to the fact that the consultants work was stellar and they were very
complimentary that the work and the methodology they came up with to come up with
the full cost recovery fee was reasonable and supportable by the committee, they just
felt that it was not the right time to impose a fee of that magnitude or that large an
increase, because there hadn't been more interim work done. The committee did agree
to meet more often. They did discuss the fact that the fees can only be recalculated
annually anyway. There was certainly some discussion of the fact that even if they had
met more often that the cost of the land, which as Mr. Pippen said, is a huge driver,
especially in the park fee, the cost of land in this area, as all of you know and probably
as some of the testimony you will hear, rose dramatically very quickly. And so I don't
know if that was a fair consideration, but that certainly was what the committee
considered or what was concerned with is that it was such a drastic increase in the
minds of some of the committee members. In conclusion, again, they did agree to the--
the lesser amount as a committee and that's the recommendation in front of you. They
also had recommended a different amount for the nonresidential, but that just doesn't
bear out legally to do it that way, so they -- the nonresidential fee is based on the
proportionate share amount that is reduced in the residential share portion as well.
When I asked the committee at one of the meetings if they wanted to commit or at least
recommend to the Council what they do with the fact that it's less, do they have a
recommendation on whether the Council should lower the -- essentially the level of
service by lowering the expectation in the capital improvement or whether the Council
should consider infusing more money into the system, as Mr. Pippen stated. It appears
at the end of the day that's what you're left with, to go to the lower fee, and the
committee did not feel comfortable in making that recommendation. They felt that that
was really within the purview of the Council and not the committee to make that
recommendation. Again, I asked them, you know, that was simply a recommendation
on their part and they still did not fell comfortable in making that recommendation to you
of which of those is the end result of the lower fee. If you had any other questions about
the process, I just wanted you to understand the committee's perspective from my
perspective and, again, there is a couple of folks here who probably have more
information on their perspective on the committee, so --
De Weerd: Mr. Nary, for the record, when did we last update this?
Nary: The last update I believe -- Mr. Baird can correct me -- I think it's in April of 2005
or was it August of 2005?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's been just over a year and the
current fee is around 800 dollars for parks only.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 18 of 74
Nary: Right. There is no current fee, as you know, for fire or police. So, the increase
we are talking about is approximately 1,000 dollars above what is currently being
imposed, of which of that over -- almost five -- 450 dollars of it is for police and fire, so
the remainder is for parks.
De Weerd: And I believe that it was after updating that fee it was felt we needed to
retain a consultant to take us through a more methodical process and approach to make
sure that as we look at these fees we've had more the specifics and made sure -- I
believe even from the Ada County perspective that we needed to firm up our approach.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you are correct. I mean Ada County
was uncomfortable with the process that we had used previously and there was even
some discussion at the committee level that just a straight percentage increase would
probably not have been defensible to the same degree, because, again, there was no
analysis done and it wouldn't seem reasonable to just say close to 15, 20, 30 percent
number would feel fairly random. Ada County was uncomfortable with how the fees had
been calculated in the past, because, again, they didn't feel a very -- they didn't feel
supported by the methodology that was done and that was the reason the city did
choose to go a different route and to take a much more methodological approach to
using a consultant and creating a much better back bone for defense of the fee in the
future.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is there a member of the committee who would like to
speak of the recommendation? Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Echeretta: Miguel Echeretta. 6206 North Discovery Way. I'm here representing the
building contractors.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Echeretta: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I was also on the
impact fee advisory committee. We appreciated the builders and I know my
association, the involvement. The consultants were very good at walking us through the
process and finding a way to look at this, a very complex thing. in a way that we can all
understand and work through. We also brought the fees through working with the
consultants down from where they were, somewhere around 2,500, I believe, was the
initially proposed impact fees. Now, all that being said, there is certainly one I know on
the impact fee advisory committee a lot of concern over just the amount. We are talking
1,846, reducing that possibly to 1,600. That's still doubling of the fees. So, clearly, our
industry -- and I know my association, when we talk about doubling fees, that's going to
raise some hairs and raise some concerns. So, certainly that was the case. I know that
although Mr. Nary was I think very good in describing some of our discussions, there
was debate beyond just not being too much or spending too much, as to what a system
improvement or a capital improvement really entailed. because we did have a lot of
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 19 of 74
discussions about our fire trucks, our different communications equipment. There is a
very -- it's very complex and I know there was some dissension, some disagreement
there as well. We did come to, basically, a consensus that let's move forward with this,
let's look at something less than the maximum allowable of 1,846. We chose 1,600 in
part because it's still giving, again, a doubling of the fees and perhaps not overreaching
to the extent that we could otherwise. Primarily, you know, adding fire and police, we
can certainly understand that and increasing parks, we can understand that as well, but
there is a number of things in there that perhaps there are alternate means or methods
of paying for that equipment beyond just impact fees. And that's largely where we came
to that conclusion. Let's allow the Council, let's allow the Mayor to look at that and look
at what other options may be available for -- for instance, with some of the equipment.
You know, again, just to, I guess, state our position, we are not here and I think it's a
real credit to both Meridian and to our association, we are not here, necessarily, to
oppose or say that there isn't a need for the city services to expand and that impact fees
should be part of that, but we do want to see it in a more incremental fashion, you know,
the 1,600 or below is something I think we can live with. It's something I think we can
manage and plan for and I think from this point forward the impact fee committee
spending more time looking at this in detail, you know, having that quarterly and annual
review of the fees to see what's happened, to see how these -- this has worked out,
because I know Doug had mentioned it's predictable and precise, but -- and the analysis
that was done has created a more predictable precise methodology, but it's also very
dynamic, you know, we are seeing the economy now shifting a little bit. We don't all
know what that means, but it's just difficult to gauge. And I think keeping a tab on it,
having the committee really meet regularly and monitor that -- if they need to go up
again next year, then, I think we can do that. If they don't, maybe they even need to
come down, then, we can do that, but it's tough without that constant monitoring that I
think wasn't necessarily in place before this most recent change. So, again, I'd just say
that we have appreciated the process of the consultants, the city, the Council and look
forward to continue working here and being part of the community. I'll stand for any
questions.
De Weerd: Council, questions?
Bird: I have one.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Bird.
Bird: Sir, your association, as long as it stays at the 1,600, you know, you could -- you
wouldn't care if it was 377 for the fire and less for the parks or something like that?
Echeretta: That's correct.
Bird: Thank you.
De Weerd: Any other questions? I guess I would -- I understand that the fee was at
2,400 and, then, through discussion on trying to find a fairer or more equitable balance
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 20 of 74
in the capital improvement plan and how those growth factors were allocated, they did
come down to the 1 ,846.
Echeretta: Correct.
De Weerd: That's correct? So, in the discussions the committee could not come back
with a recommendation on either lowering our standard of service, so that it met with the
fee that you're recommending or increasing the amount that our existing residents had
to pay. What were some of the discussion points on that, that they couldn't come back
with a recommendation?
Echeretta: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the challenge there for the
committee was information. We don't necessarily have or didn't have all of the budget
numbers that you would be looking at for capital expenditures. It was difficult to gauge,
you know, perhaps some of your expertise, your knowledge, as to where money was
going to be allocated that perhaps impact fees would not need to be used for or could
be used in addition to funding that was going to be directed from another source. So,
you are correct in the fact that we didn't have specific line items as a committee to say
let's remove these items from fire or these from police, rather a general number to
perhaps create the dialogue here at City Council to look at that, to look at some of what
the city can finance, what other sources or other funding sources could be available.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Echeretta: Thank you.
De Weerd: I do have a number of people who have signed up to provide testimony or
to indicate their support or neutrality. When I call your name if you'd like to provide
testimony, please, come forward. William Bome. Bame. Bame. Is for. Would you like
to provide testimony? Okay.
Same: Name and address?
De Weerd: Yes, please.
Same: My name is William Same. 2173 North Wingate Avenue. Madam Mayor, City
Council members, I am just so delighted to see what's taken place here with the impact
fee process. I made an embarrassing effort to try to get involved and I -- it was
humbling, because it showed my ignorance to the process. But in doing so it gave me a
revealing opportunity to observe and see the City of Meridian and its -- its investment in
getting on board with a challenging step that it takes with growth. Impact fees is
something that, you know, it's like you walk into a building or a bar or anyplace and want
to have somebody -- everybody to be your friend. Well, you're not going to get that. But
you got to -- you got to make tough decisions. The point here is that you ended up
starting a process and it's the beginning, it's the seed for the future, and I'm impressed
with the process that you have started here. It may not have all the right answers here
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 21 of 74
immediately, but it was a bottoms up process. It was a process where you said let's
look as best we can -- there is not all the numbers here in place, but it was as best we
can what are our needs. You weren't trying to impress everybody, it wasn't a matter of
marketing and hype and promotion, but you did a bottoms up process and said what do
we have, what's our budget, to the best your abilities, and I think you did it to the best of
your abilities and, then, you came up with some numbers and you said that's what we
got to try to look at as far as how growth can pay for itself and I was impressed with
that. Why do I think that's so important? I think it's important, because it shows that the
City of Meridian is a city that can carry on its responsibilities with integrity and tact and I
think that's important as we look to the future when as a city we have to have a
relationship with the state of Idaho and the legislature, when there may be other
activities that will take place in looking at other revenue vehicles that will be on a far
broader scope with a sense of vision looking down the road. But the City of Meridian
can stand tall and say we are a city that is going to do to the best of our abilities to do it
right and I think that's great, because there is a lot of shortcuts that can be taken, but,
you know, I have learned through my life that shortcuts aren't the way to go. And this is
beginning. So, in conclusion, what I would say is you have got a process started, so as
soon as you're done may I suggest that the first step you do is start the process for this
for next year. That's the best thing I'd say. There is a lot of discussion about this and
that, but as soon as it's done take only five minutes and go, haa, we are done and, then,
turn right around and say let's start for next year. Okay. Thank you so much for your
time.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Alisha Kromas? Signed up for.
Kromas: Good evening.
De Weerd: Good evening.
Kromas: My name is Alisha Kromas. I live at 3297 West Kirkham Lane, Meridian.
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I live in Ten Mile Greens, a senior community,
west of Ten Mile between Cherry Lane and Ustick. We are right behind fire station two
and our community has utilized the paramedic capability of the fire department
numerous times in the five years I have been in Ten Mile Greens. Because Meridian
has grown so much in these five years, I worried that the services we now enjoy will be
severely curtailed if the Council does not impose impact fees to the maximum allowable
amount in order to keep up with continued growth in Meridian. Our dollars are shrinking
every year and we must keep up with the growth by utilizing impact fees to cover the
continued need for police, fire, and parks in the new areas. Our tax burden has almost
doubled in the five years that I have been here and I fear if this trend continues we will
be taxed out of our homes. In closing, I urge the Council to impose the maximum
allowable impact fees in order that all areas of Meridian will have the police, fire, and
parks coverage that we all currently enjoy. Meridian is a wonderful place to live and I
would like to see that trend continue. Thank you very much.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 22 of 74
De Weerd: Thank you. Mary Ann Porter signed up for. Okay. Thank you. I thought
you looked really familiar. Nice to see you. Jim Kromas.
J. Kromas: Mayor and Council members. Alisha, actually, is my wife, so we both live at
the same address.
De Weerd: If you will just restate your--
J. Kromas: 3297 West Kirkham Lane, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
J. Kromas: New one. 83646. I'm going to be honest with you, until recently I thought
that impact fees were universally accepted. I just assumed we all paid impact fees
when we came here. And looking at these numbers, I just went through my mind again,
if I was going to buy a house that I knew I was going to have impact fees, I mean it's a
no brainer, I mean there is -- it's going to cost me, what, a few cents to make sure that
the facilities are going to be there and the discussion that I heard tonight, the
presentation, already said what I want to say, everything is all said, that we need these
impact fees and I think we are just up to the amount that we are going to have. And I
had something to say, but everybody said it and I don't have to prove anything, but all
I'm saying is that I'd sure feel bad if the services that we receive now are lessened
because of the impact fees or taxes increased. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Susannah Arnim.
Arnim: I'm Susannah Arnim, I live at 3587 South Springfield Avenue. Madam Mayor
and Council members, I want to thank the City of Meridian impact fees advisory
committee for its hard work on this project and for its support of the consultants' full cost
recovery fee recommendation for the police department. Their services in preventing
crime and reducing the impact on individuals, families, and the community at large are
critical in our community. But I must disagree with his recommendation for reduced
amount for fire and parks. Implementing the full recovery amount will allow our fire
department to maintain existing levels of service as our city grows. The number of fire
calls and inspection requests for residential and commercial structures is rising. The
fire department's need to support fire services for a growing community demands a full
cost recovery fee. Homes lost to residential fires are in the news each week. Like most
people, my home is my greatest asset. I worked hard to purchase it. My name is the
only one on the mortgage. I have it insured, but I know from a friend's experience last
year that the loss of your home and the irreplaceable family artifacts it contains is every
bit as devastating as being the victim of a crime. Protecting the investment, small and
large, businesses make in Meridian is also important. If a business has a fire it is a
serious disruption to its owners and employees lives and livelihood. We must have the
fire houses and response times to protect our current and future residents. Our parks
and recreation offering have not kept up with our growth. Meridian is playing catch up in
the establishment of city and neighborhood parks. If we want to succeed in attracting
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 23 of 74
quality businesses and employee residents, we need to continue offering an exceptional
quality of life. Parks enhance neighborhoods and communities and are a quiet, but
effective element of our economic development efforts. I believe that the sources of
growth in our community should pay their own way and recommend the Council vote for
the full cost recovery fee for all three departments, fire, parks, and police.
De Weerd: Thank you. Trent Wright signed up neutral.
Wright: Hello. My name is Trent Wright at 9550 West Bethel Court. I'm here
representing the Treasure Valley Realtors Association. We have about 5,500 members
here across the Treasure Valley and I did mark down I'm neutral. I didn't know, really,
what to put. We are for some of it and we are against others, so I thought I'd at least
put neutral and get up here. First off, I'd like to comment that the process in dealing
with Meridian with the impact fees and coming to at least this point has been highly
successful. I have been working with the city of Caldwell, Nampa, Boise, and a lot of
the other surrounding communities over the last couple of years and never have I been
part of a process that's been so comprehensive and so well thought out until I came to
the process here at Meridian and Tom Pippen has been a great asset to Meridian. I
know he and I have gone back and forth on a lot of issues, but the issues that I'd like to
talk about first and foremost is the 1,600 dollars and that the Treasure Valley Realtor
Association supports the 1,600 dollars and any efforts to lower those below that would
be even more appreciated. We do not support any dollar amount above and beyond
the 1,600 dollars, regardless of the support of effort that the consulting firm has
provided to the city. I believe one of your questions, Mayor, earlier to Miguel was what
was some of the reasons we couldn't agree on 2,400 originally and why we are at 1,800
now and now you're asking for 1,600 and I think that can be fairly easily summed up
with the fact that a lot of the information that was provided in the consulting firm for the
original CIP just didn't pass the test when it comes to the Idaho statute for impact fee
structure. For instance, your Borup Park that is purchased out there is a large part of
your acreage, it's undeveloped and when it's undeveloped you can't count it as part of
your park infrastructure. In other words, if a city resident can't currently use Borup Park,
it's not a park, it's simply dirt, and, therefore, it had to be removed out of it. That was a
big chunk of your 2,400 dollars. You wanted to get further into the development. When
you're looking at fire and police, if you look at the definition of facility in the Idaho
statute, nowhere in there does it talk about the jaws of life. It doesn't talk about
breathing apparatus. It talks about the facility. And when you're talking about the
facility I think that that's exactly what it means, it means the bricks and mortar structure
to help the city get off the ground to build that building and wait about 18 months and,
then, property taxes kick in to fund the rest of it like they should in most other
surrounding communities. I think another comment was made that now that the City of
Meridian has become the size that it is, the fire has to have different insurance
regulations now in order to keep the insurance quote at the rate that is for the city, but I
would also specifically look at the Idaho impact fee statute 67-8203, part 29, where it
talks about clarifications of the system improvements that specifically do not include
upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements to serve
existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or
Meridian City Council
September 5,2006
Page 24 of 74
regulatory standards. I don't know how more specific to put it, but that was some of the
more specific language in Idaho code for why we continue to reduce the fee over and
over and over again to get to that 1,800 dollar mark, so -- and that's -- I wanted to
address your question earlier that you asked of Miguel and I think that's a more direct
answer of why we are at 1,800 and not 24 and I don't think that the City of Meridian will
get to 24 anytime soon for those very reasons, but, once again, I'm in support. My
association I should rather say is in support of 1,600, because of the underlying fact that
you are going from 800 dollars to 1,600, you are doubling the fees of the impact fee
structure for the City of Meridian. That's so hard to get your arms around it when you're
trying to build into your budget if you are a large developer in the community trying to
get your bonding off the ground to get your money in place, I don't think it's as easy as
assuming it's, well, I'm looking to buy a house, well, who can't come up with an extra
1,600 dollars on a 250,000 dollar house. That's not quite as simply as that when you're
the developer or you're the builder trying to get your projects off the ground and I'm
certain that you guys fully realize that. The realtors fully support the advisory committee
meeting on a more regular basis and if we need to adjust that in the upward motion or
the downward motion as years go on by, so be it, but at this point in time my members
are supportive of 1,600 dollars. With that I'd like to stand for any questions.
De Weerd: I just have a question. You know, the impact fees are based on certain
formulas and one of the reasons we got our consultants on board to really make sure
that we were following the process per state code and make sure we did it right, so I
understand from the committee's perspective that no one disagrees with the capital
improvement plan that the numbers were derived from. I believe one of the
communities that was not named was Star and they went from zero to 2,000. Did your
organization come out and testify against that and -- you know --
Wright: Mayor and City Council, I would be happy to address Star's budget and impact
fee structure at a separate time. I'm here to speak directly to the impact fee structure of
Meridian.
De Weerd: Well, we are not going from zero to a number that's -- that everyone has
agreed on the capital improvement plan. I just -- I'm trying to struggle with how do you
reduce a fee without the result of either lowering your standard of service or increasing
the amount that the existing citizens have to pay and that -- I won't be breaking a tie,
because there is three people up here, so I will not have a vote on this, but that's the
bottom line question.
Wright: And that's certainly a decision that, unfortunately, I'm glad that I'm not in the
City Council, that you're going to have to make, whether it's adjusting the growth portion
of that impact fee -- there is many ways to look at this. I mean you could double your
efforts in getting members of the develop community to donate their land. I know that
you have specifically expressed it as becoming harder and harder as land values go up,
why would I want to deal with the city when I can get top dollar, but there is a lot of
wiggle room I think out there, there is a lot of arena, the building -- or, excuse me, in the
bonding process. I just don't think that it's fiscally responsible to rely solely on impact
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 25 of 74
fees to keep a city floating on the city services. My association personally in our policy
guidelines supports impact fees. They are necessary to keep communities going, but
they are necessary to keep communities going from -- from -- from a standpoint of we
don't want growth to stop. But we don't want the impact fees to be the crutch that
carries everything. You know, routinely we hear the stories of large cities in other parts
of the country that have 30,000 dollar impact fees and 45,000 dollar impact fees and so
why are we here in the City of Meridian arguing about 1,500 and 1,600 and 1.800 and
2,000 impact fees and I'd just like to point out that if somebody in those communities
would have got up and argued a lot of points that the builders and the realtors are
arguing at this point in time, they might not have eventually got to those high dollar
marks and I think that to make the argument that it's -- that it's just as simple as if I'm
looking to buy a new home in a part of the community and that impact fees are just a
small part of that, why wouldn't I want to pay that 1,600 or 1,800 dollars to have those
services is very short sighted on the overall fiscal structure of the community. There are
more people moving from within the community to other parts than there are actually
outside people moving into specific new subdivisions in the new construction parts that
this fee will be applicable to. So, I find it very difficult to say or support people that say
that the growth does not pay for itself, I mean those people that live here are paying,
you know, taxes in just about every form and fashion from going to the new Cabello's
and buying gear, going to the gas station, going to the local gym, you know, local city
attorneys and so forth. I mean there is so many areas that people are paying their fair
share to make sure this community stays afloat and that's all new growth any way you
want to look at it.
De Weerd: Well, we appreciate them supporting our Council members. I just -- I would
like to say something, because I think Councilman Bird really is the symbol of that. Our
community has a long time tradition of not looking to our taxpayers first. We do look for
community and we are community partners. We have public-private partnerships all
over the place. So, this isn't the first place we look. And as I understand it from reading
the reports and exercises, that it's the proportional share of this growth, it's not more
and it's not less and I'm sure if it was more you would be standing here on legal ground
telling me exactly which line item that applied to. We will look under every rock to make
sure that we pursue grants or we look for partnerships with developments as they come
in, we will continue to do that, and I do understand that was discussed at the committee
as well.
Wright: Mayor and Council, if I could point out -- I guess what I'm trying to provide for
you is a little bit of cover. There are a lot of people that are watching what is going to
happen to the City of Meridian with their impact fee structure, specifically because if you
__ I guess what I'm trying to say is some of the definitions of what a facility is some other
definitions that we are currently going back and forth of, will be defined for you in an
effort to reduce what the cities can raise their impact fee budgets to. So, I would be
careful in recommending a CIP that might be questionable in certain areas, because
you might be crippling other communities that might want to use some of these
particular issues that you're getting money for. Those decisions will be made for you at
a higher level, I guess. If we need to go back in and clarify the state statute to say what
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 26 of 74
a facility is or what you can or can't raise the dollars and spend the money on, that is an
effort and a direction that we are ready to go.
De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Trent, Miguel had made a comment in his remarks that at least his organization
didn't have an objection and accepted and understood the full capital improvement
amount of 1,846. Their concern more was directed on its immediate implementation
versus maybe the phased in or addressed in a different way. Do the Treasure Valley
Realtors feel the same way?
Wright: Largely, yes. I think in addition to that they would also like to have a 60 day
phase-in from the actual point that it's applicable, if you guys decide to implement it,
instead of this traditional 30 days.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: The other question I had for you was you made reference to reductions in
concerns with the fire impact fee schedule. If the parks impact fee schedule was
reduced, was there something specific with regards to their capital improvement plan
that --
Wright: I think largely some of the issues were, for instance, there was -- at the very
beginning of this process there were lawnmowers, for example, there was two 65,000
dollar lawnmowers that were part of the CIP program and that falls under the
maintenance schedule of things and that's really something that the city has to pick up
on your own dime. Another reference I made was to the Borup Park. That's a large
chunk of land that the city currently has for its parks infrastructure, but it's not
developed, it's not green, there is not grass out there, people can't use it, so you can't
use it in your level of service for a thousand people, so that needed to be pulled out,
too.
Borton: I understand that. But when I look at the final approved capital improvement
plan where a maximum allowed fee is derived, which doesn't include the Borup
property --
Wright: Okay.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 27 of 74
Borton: -- then that maximum allowed fee is recommended to be reduced from 1,384
down to 1,215 --
Wright: Okay.
Borton: -- of what's included in the capital improvement plan after those things have
been removed, was there something, then, in addition that you thought shouldn't have
been --
Wright: Well, I -- the association did feel that some of the trails and pathway
improvement part of it should be removed -- and, granted, that's only a 75,000 dollar
portion of it, but when we are talking about parks and recreation, I think largely where
we would like to see the reductions come from -- I think that we can keep the total list
here of parks improvement, but if we want to get to that 1,200 --
Borton: 1,215.
Wright: Thank you. -- 1,215 number, we need to focus on a hundred percent
contribution that's being placed on growth. I think that if we really realize it, I mean we
are going to get communities from all over the valley using specific parks in our area,
not just our residents, and our own residents that are currently enjoying the parks that
are built using others. So, what is the sole reason for placing one hundred percent of
that growth portion on new growth? I mean a large reason why the city of Boise is
under 1,300 dollars is because their portions are a much lower percentage. Now, they
come to it from a different mathematical standard, but they firmly believe in their
structure that those percentages should be much less, because everybody in the
community will be using those. Unfortunately, if you try to apply that same sort of
growth portion of math to some of the fire and other instances, I think Tom could very
well defend that -- the way that the fire and police services work is a much different
standard, but when you're looking at parks, I think a large part of our association and
belief is that that percentage should not stand at one hundred percent solely towards
new growth. And I think that we could adjust those percentages to get to the number
that would be recommended under the 1,600 dollar mark.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
Wright: Thank you.
De Weerd: Okay.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Ted. Mr. Baird.
Baird: While the threat of legislative tinkering is still in the air, I'd like to address what
the committee did. It's been mentioned about the process and how what's in the CIP
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 28 of 74
has been fully vetted and everybody involved with the process, in my understanding, is
comfortable that what's included is defensible. We have had legal reviews. We have
had community reviews. I can't think of anything in there -- anything that was
questionable was taken out. At every opportunity when the committee had to make a
choice, the consultants always recommended the most conservative route. So, you
have got, in our opinion, a very defensible capital improvements plan.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Wright: Thank you.
De Weerd: Summer Crie has signed up for.
Crie: Mine's really short.
De Weerd: You can pull that down. Thank you.
Crie: My name is Summer Crei. I live at 2282 South Retriever Way. My husband and I
have lived in Meridian for almost eight years. We have two daughters, two and four
years old. We choose to live in Meridian, because the quality of life that it has to offer to
us and its services. We don't want to see our services deteriorate with the growing
population and encourage you to require new growth to pay for itself and to adopt the
maximum allowable fee proposed. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Those are the names that were signed up. Is there
anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Yes. Come forward. If you will,
please, state your name and address.
McCoy: Bruce McCoy. 2171 South Retriever. I just feel compelled to say a few things
to the City Council in hearing all the discussion. As president of the parks commission
in the past four years I have seen the city really struggle with the whole parks issue. I
think some things are not understood. I mean property values here are great. My
house has gone up 25 percent in six years, so has raw land. And that's the biggest
issue with parks. By Idaho state law, we cannot provide greater services outside the
City of Meridian than we provide to the City of Meridian residents in the city limits. So,
that means that we are at the mercy of developers to provide parks beyond the city
limits as new subdivisions come on. Also, I think it's misunderstood when people look
at parks and recreation fees, it was being sort of expressed that that was something
passed from the developer to the home buyer. In most cases what happens is those
fees actually get processed from developed to the city in exchange for land values and
they give city land -- land to the city for development in exchange for the dollar amounts.
And by keeping that at that point it allows us to have more to deal with and actually get
bigger parks and actually provide more amenities to the citizens and I think that's
important to note. If that number shrinks, we won't get but maybe five acre parks here,
little pocket parks there, and no large areas for people to congregate and enjoy the
recreation that the city has to offer. So, I think those are some important issues to
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 29 of 74
consider. I support, obviously, the full proposed 1,846 with the full amount going to
parks, that it needs to just keep pace. At this point we finding barely three acres per
thousand residents in the city and the goal is to get the five and possibly seven or
beyond to make this city be like many cities we all admire. Thanks.
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir.
Whitney: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Ron
Whitney. 2635 West Primeland Drive, Meridian. I'm kind of in Trent's position, I'm a
little bit neutral. I'm going to wear two hats tonight. My first hat's going to be
representing the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho and would like to
say that we do really appreciate the open door policy you have had towards working
towards developing these impact fees. It's been great to work with Tom and the group
and the city advisory committee working on this. My -- and I just want to throw out a
couple of thoughts, you know, is what you're thinking about this. I know there has been
a lot of talk about how the fees have been developed and I think the methodology is
very concise. There is state statute that says what you can use impact fees for. I think
the biggest thing that hit me in the whole process is -- is that it's -- the whole thing's,
basically, founded on growth projections and those growth projections are based on
information that comes from various organizations and agencies that deal in that aspect
throughout the Treasure Valley. But those projections are just that, they are projections.
They are a crystal ball. They are a guess. And they are our best guess, but all in all
what it means is that it is subjective. As objective as the process is, the final number is
very subjective based on those growth projections and that's probably why you're
seeing a lot of the variations in the fees that are being proposed. So, I don't think what
we have is a concise number. It is based on some projections. Turning my other hat
around, as a builder here in the Treasure Valley, a relatively small builder. I have
projects in Boise and Garden Valley and the City of Meridian right now that I'm working
with and within that I have two clients, one is a young family, I built a house for them five
years ago here in Meridian and they have come to me and asked me to design another
house and build them another house here in Meridian. The whole idea that growth must
pay for itself, which we constantly hear, seems to assume that that growth is all coming
from outside the city limits. Let's let those outsiders pay for this growth as they come in.
What we forget is our own citizens here within the city who are making lateral moves.
The other client I have is an older lady. She's moving down, she's redesigning her
house so that she can move her mother in with her. They are both currently citizens of
the City of Meridian and in each case, you know, as I'm going through the line items of
what their cost on the homes are going to be and we are in the early stages, if these
impact fees take effect before we get their plans in to plan check, they are asking, gees,
you know, I'm already here, I'm not growth, why do I have to pay these fees anymore
than my neighbor does, just because I decided that -- in one case they are moving
within the same subdivision, probably not making any more than a half mile move and
the older gal is probably moving about three miles within the city. So, I think we need to
be careful about the concept of let growth pay for growth and assume that that growth is
all coming from outside our city, because we do have a lot of citizens here who are
moving laterally within the city. Thank you. I'll stand for questions.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 30 of 74
De Weerd: Well, Mr. Whitney, I guess I will just make a statement. I was one of those
lateral moves, but I know that someone from out of the area bought my house and so
when I vacated that house and moved into the other house, I did create growth,
because of the new people coming in. Did I pay the impact fee? Yes, I did. I created
another impact. So, it is -- it still is an additional set of residents coming in, because
that is who will fill that new -- your old house.
Whitney: Only if that is the person who fills out that house. We do have young families
who are buying their first homes right here in the City of Meridian that have growth up in
the City of Meridian and most likely they are the ones who are going to buy that house
for somebody else who is moving up, because that's going to be the starter home that
they are looking for. So, I would agree that, yes, we know that a percentage of -- a high
percentage of our growth is coming from outside the city. I just don't want us to forget
those within the city and particularly those young families, you know, who are looking for
new homes. We are looking at one set of fees here with the City of Meridian and we
know that ACHD is increasing fees and we are seeing a constant rise in fees and we
are just trying to make sure that we can also maintain an affordability to our housing.
De Weerd: I appreciate your comments.
Whitney: Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any further testimony? Okay. Tom, do you have any
additional comments?
Pippen: I would be happy to answer any Council questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If we can have -- just address -- there was a question on growth projections. If
you could briefly address that for us.
Pippen: Madam Mayor, Members of Council, Tom Pippen once again. There was a
question as to the growth projections. In my opinion, that's a good question, but I don't
think it impacts, to excuse the pun, the fees, because impact fees are on a per unit
basis. In other words, we have developed CIPs assuming a certain level of growth. If it
turns out that Meridian grows slower than what we have projected, you will collect less
money, but that's okay, because you won't need to build the full CIP. If it turns out that
Meridian's growth accelerates beyond what we expect, then, you will need more than
what we have talked about in the CIP, but that's okay because impact fees are on a per
unit basis and in that case you would collect more than what we have estimated. So, it
Meridian City Council
September 5,2006
Page 31 of 74
is true that we did have to use growth projections, but the key point is that those
projections are tied to the CIP on a per unit basis and the actual level of growth that
Meridian experiences in the future is neutral to the consistency and the integrity of the
fee system. I can guarantee you you're going to grow at a different rate than what we
estimate, but that's okay, because you'll either spend less than what we estimate, but
the appropriate amount on a per unit basis, or you will spend more than what we
estimate, but, once again, it will be appropriate on a per unit basis.
De Weerd: Thank you. Did that answer your question, Mr. Wardle? Okay. Anything
further?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Tom, I do appreciate your candor. It might be the first time I have heard
someone acknowledge a growth projection might not be accurate.
Pippen: I don't feel like I'm making a big concession there.
Borton: Let me ask you just generally when an advisory committee makes a
recommendation for an impact fee amendment based upon a capital improvement
plan --
Pippen: Uh-huh.
Borton: -- by way of example, Ida Max is in the capital improvement plan and an impact
fee is amended to accommodate for that item --
Pippen: Right.
Borton: -- or a reduced impact fee, let's say, to accommodate for that item and others.
Is there any -- does that preclude the -- an advisory committee the next year or year and
a half from forming again, reassessing the impact fees and if that particular item hadn't
purchased yet or acquired yet --
Pippen: It could be put back in. Yeah. Nothing precludes the CIP from being updated
every time the fees are updated.
Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: Just one other. Have you seen other municipalities, either locally or where ever
you have done your work, that have utilized some sort of regular schedule, be it every
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 32 of 74
single year, every two years, that you would recommend, regardless of what happens
here today, Meridian get on a particular schedule going forward?
Pippen: It's fairly common in most western states -- and I have done impact fees in
New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and now Idaho. It's fairly common for
the advisor committee to meet at least once a year. Some communities consider
meeting quarterly and in my experience that usually works for a little bit, but, then,
meeting fatigue sets in and there is not new data every quarter. So, I would say
meeting annually is a pretty common thing. Most communities do what has been
incorporated in your ordinance that you're considering, which is saying that we are
going to have an inflation adjustment every year and that will just go on until we decide
to reexamine the fees. So, if your advisory committee met every year and if they didn't
have a specific recommendation for how to amend the CIP in year one or year two,
then, the inflation factor would apply. A lot of communities in the western U.S. are
adopting the ENR, the Engineering News Record, which is a construction cost inflation
index, and they only bring the consultant back or they only have staff update the study
every three to five years and inflation just kicks in in between and both Trent and Miguel
mentioned that the fees could go down. That is a possibility if construction costs go
down. I haven't seen it recently, but if you do tie the fees to the index, it could drift up or
drift down.
De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Nary.
Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, on that same point, the committee did
discuss both of those considerations, meeting more often, and they did recommend
meeting on a quarterly basis to avoid that meeting fatigue. I mean they recognize that
maybe the potential would be that they wouldn't have a quorum each time if they would
attempt to meet quarterly to assess are the fees keeping in line with costs. Secondarily,
the discussion also was from the committee, the meeting I attended, about the phasing
in of that 1,846, was that a practical way to impose the full fee at some point in the
future and the committee did not adopt that as a recommendation, because the idea is
to meet annually to assess the fee. And so since they couldn't and shouldn't change
the fee except annually anyway, having a schedule of implementation doesn't make
much rational sense, because each year you have to come back and justified what the
fee is that you're going to impose. So, trying to impose it in 2006 and say next year we
will impose it -- we will add another 100 dollars to it, still requires you to do the work to
justify it, so it didn't make much sense. So, they did discuss the possibility of phasing
that in and didn't find it, was the way it's structured in the statute to make any real sense
to do it that way.
De Weerd: We will let Mr. Wardle plug himself in. Mr. Wardle, did you have any
questions?
Wardle: No. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 33 of 74
De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Council, is there any further testimony? Thank you.
If you have no further questions or information needed from staff, there is no further
citizen testimony, I would consider a motion to close the Public Hearing. Unless you
have things you want to discuss.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I have a procedural question for Mr. Baird.
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: I notice within the ordinance, which we will be talking about in Item 12, the
amounts which were published are currently blank; correct? So, we need to decide --
do we decide once we close the Public Hearing, decide an amount, place that in the
ordinance, what's the proper procedure for that?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Wardle, to clarify, the
public notice for tonight's hearings listed both the full cost recovery or what we are
calling the maximum allowable and the committee recommendation. So, the public's
been put on notice that it could be one, it could be the other, it could be something
totally different. When you get to Item No. 12, the ordinance, you will need to select the
figures to fill in the blanks. All the way down. You will have six -- five items to fill in,
since we are not collecting nonresidential square footage for parks and recreation. The
second item that you will also need to do in the ordinance -- and I'm anticipating that this
would be in the motion for the ordinance -- is to select an effective date. State statute
requires that it be at least 30 days after passage and publication of the ordinance. So,
the earliest possible date, if the ordinance is passed tonight, would be -- I'm thinking
October 9th. But we'd need a specific date so we can put the billing department on
notice to get their systems updated to collect that fee on the implementation date. So,
those two items I would anticipate would be in the motion for the ordinance, but there is
nothing to prevent you from discussing that and expressing your preferences on the
record at this point while the hearing is still open.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Baird. Did that answer your question?
Wardle: I think we need to discuss it now, right, Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, if I may, I'd like to thank the committee for their hard work and
efforts. Thank all the people who have commented tonight and over the course of this
process. I'm troubled by one -- one issue and, really, only one issue and that is I
understand the rationale that the committee came up with on the reasonableness of
1,600 dollars as an impact fee. I understand from a real world dollars and cents sort of
measurement that that could be applicable to our current fee. I just -- the one thing that
I have heard repeatedly from our staff and consultants is that the methodology supports
a different number. And so I really am having a difficult -- I can understand the issues of
affordable housing, people moving laterally from the community. I can understand all
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 34 of74
those sorts of things. But I -- when -- I think what I'm being asked to do today is to tell
our community, in my opinion, what we are going to set for the future and so that's,
really, the discussion that I have been listening to this evening.
De Weerd: Okay. Any further comment? Okay. I look for your direction.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Baird.
Baird: If there is no further comment from the Members of the Council, I'd suggest that
you entertain a motion to close the combined public hearings.
De Weerd: I think I have already suggested that. I'm just waiting for their direction.
Baird: Okay.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: Before that, Mr. Baird, do we have to -- and should we approve the Item 11 -- I
guess we have to close the resolution of capital improvement plan before moving on to
12?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, that's correct.
We put them in this particular order, because that's what the statute requires that before
you amend your impact fee ordinance you must update the capital improvements plan.
That's being processed as a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, just because the
law requires it to be that way.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Mr. Baird, we -- at this -- the Public Hearing on the amendment, we don't pass the
fees and everything until we get to the ordinance 06-1255; right?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's correct. The resolution adopting
the capital improvements plan incorporates all of the information contained in the report
that's dated -- I believe, the final version was dated August 28th. There is a matrix
contained in one of the appendixes to the report that lists the multiple requirements of
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 35 of 74
the CIP and by passing resolution 06-528, you would be in agreement that we have met
all those requirements.
De Weerd: Okay.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: Just a little statement before we close the Public Hearing. First of all, we had
some that -- impact fees are not going to help at all with your taxes, whether -- you
know, your taxes are going to go up because of your assessed value of your property,
regardless of whether this impact fee is passed or not. We are increasing it -- you
know, we are doubling it if we go the 1,600 and we are more than doubling it if we go
the 1,846. We do need it to maintain the service that we have got now. We have
become too large of a community to do like we did in the last 35 years and that was
when you needed something you went out and got people and you went and done it.
As your community gets larger you need more and you're not going to get that kind of
support. And our business people can only pay for so much money. And regardless of
what we think the developer and builder is not -- the consumer is going to pay at the
end with a mark up, regardless of what fee we adopt, it will be passed onto the
consumer. I hope that it is -- you know, that these young starter families can afford
houses, but I think that interest rates raising -- it's going to be worse than impact fees as
far as them qualifying. I'm struggling on which one to go to. Like I said, doubling the
fee is pretty tough. I am very stuck on staying with the fire and police at the max on
them. If we come down to it, I could wobble a little bit on the parks. That's my
statement.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I will throw out my two bits on the process and what we have seen and I do
appreciate the work of the committee. It's extremely impressive, as Mr. Pippen and
everyone that worked with you, did a fantastic job. I might have a real convoluted
concept of impact fees and I have been corrected many times. The way I see them,
regardless of the amount, I view them personally as a tax. I use the word tax. I don't
like to use the word fee or assessment when things happen. And the reason I do it --
and maybe it's for myself, is to remind me what's taking place and I use that word when
government gets involved and takes a piece of a private transaction and I know it's
necessary and required, but I'm very sensitive to it. Because that's what happens here
and it is -- it's an element regardless of the fee, where it's set, that a large majority of it
is borne by the consumer and that's understandable, it's accepted, and I don't think
there is anyone in the room that would generally disagree with that concept. It doesn't
mean we don't need impact fees, but I'm extremely sensitive to their impact on
consumers, I'm sensitive to the fact that the growth paying for itself and the ability to use
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 36 of 74
impact fees to pay for some of these services -- and I'm not suggesting this government
body does that at all, but, generally speaking, it opens an opportunity for government to
utilize other tax resources for other spending. Unlike a business, for whatever reason,
you don't find a lot of government entities -- and, again, I'm not speaking towards
Meridian, but I'm explaining some of my philosophies. You don't find a lot of
government entities pinching and clawing to save every dime. Rather, if they find
another revenue source, they utilize it, they spend it, and rarely do you see an
opportunity for government to, then, return funds or take the return funds to the
taxpayer. It doesn't happen. So, by way of example, if impact fees go to whatever it
goes to in a particular municipality, you can invite an opportunity for that government,
then, to expend general revenues on other stuff. It may be necessary, maybe not, but it
surely is never going to be returned to the taxpayer. That just, for whatever reason,
doesn't ever happen. My thought on this particular impact fee amendment is one that
definitely, as Mr. Pippen suggested, should be reviewed annually, amended annually. I
think we will find in a year doing this again, some of these figures will change. I think
some of the expenses will change. I think, in particular, one of the items most likely to
change is land costs and perhaps development costs. We have seen the market
already start to make some changes in that regard. I think those expenses are more
likely to change in that short amount of time, as opposed to fire trucks, station
construction. So, I would be inclined to accept the hard work and diligent effort and
compromise that the advisory committee recommended. I think that as is -- everyone in
this room and Miguel and Trent both acknowledged and other builders might agree as
well, that the higher fee might be one that we get to, and maybe it's next year it goes to
1,846, maybe 2,100. Maybe 17. If it allows us to provide a more accurate reflection of
the cost to provide these and maintain these services to Meridian, then, I'm all for it.
And if we come back in a year and our CIP denotes an actual fee that should be
anything below 1,846, I'll be glad that the committee made some compromise and kept
the costs as low as possible to maintain these level of services. So, my preference
would be go to the committee recommendation from the advisory committee of 1,600 in
the amounts as they set forth and request this matter to be addressed next year and
every year as Meridian continues to grow. So, these figures can be adjusted and
accurately reflect the expense to maintain services for Meridian residents. That's my
short version.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: I'm really glad we got the short version. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: He's almost as good as the one we had sitting there two terms ago, in his short
version, but -- no. I have got a question for Mr. Borton. I, too, agree with the 1,600.
That's what I would support. With one change. I would want the 377 to stay with the
fire and take the parks down to 1,138 dollars.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 37 of 74
Borton: Councilman Bird, you read my mind. And I don't know if I alluded to some of
my concerns -- not concerns -- some of my focus on the parks capital improvement plan
where there might be the greatest opportunity for fluctuations in resources necessary to
meet and maintain those needs. I agree with what you're suggesting, that perhaps the
fire impact fee maintain at 377 and -- I can't do the math off the top of my head -- 1,215 I
guess less 77.
Bird: 1,138.
Borton: You have done the math already for the parks and rec fees. Again, to be
assessed and reevaluated in a year. I have no objection to that.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird.
Baird: Might I suggest that the discussion include what to do with the nonresidential per
square footage for fire. The consultant has said it, when one goes up, the others have
to follow proportionately.
Bird: That would go to 25.
Borton: I presume that would -- yeah.
Bird: That would go to 25.
Borton: Twenty-five.
Bird: We are going up there and it's not applicable in the parks impact fee, so it don't --
don't do anything there.
De Weerd: Well, Council, I guess since the Public Hearing is still open and -- and while
I appreciate the preservation of the goals of the institution of new fees for police and
fire, I guess I need to understand in being able to answer, because I get the phone
calls. I get the phone calls from our citizens and the comments that growth needs to
pay its proportional share. And so I need to defend your decision. And so I need -- I
need some help with this. Is the message that parks are less important? You know, I'm
just trying to get an understanding of how we can maintain the police and fire and
arbitrarily reduce the parks, because the costs haven't changed in the formulas and yet
the market might show that the price of land might reduce, but I guess we enlisted the
help of a consultant to make us -- help us do it right, so we could stand the questions
from both sides of this. So, I just need your help in answering the questions that I
believe my office will be getting, because I do have a number of e-mails, letters to the
editor, that I am cc'd on on growth should pay for itself and I would appreciate your help,
then, in how to respond.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 38 of 74
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: If I might just -- on the issue of consultant report versus Council decision, I will
-- I'll make my comment that while the consultant did a diligent job and brought forward
a report, our citizens elect us to sit here and make these decisions, not to simply take a
consultant report word for word. And so on that issue I feel Council decision is certainly
more important than -- than just rubber stamping a report. And on the issue of are
police and fire more important than parks, from my perspective public safety is more
important than parks and recreation. I have said that before. It's not a new issue. It
doesn't mean the parks are not important, but if you prioritize those two, in my mind they
are.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: For 41 years I believe in the City of Meridian I have probably been involved in as
much parks work and youth recreation as anybody in town, but I believe that the impact
fee for the parks at this point, by reducing it to 1 ,138, is not going to hurt it one bit. I see
-- I have -- it was brought up about the Borup property out there. We don't even have a
master plan on it. We need -- we need to step to the plate as a Council and make sure
that these parks ground that we have got are developed. Now, I realize that we have
taken some big steps. You can't be behind in park acreage like we were ten years ago
and expect in one decade to catch up. Especially when the city has grown the
magnitude and the quickness that we have grown. So, I have no -- I have no problem
defending 1,138 impact fee for the city parks. I believe that in the fire and police we
need to stay and maintain the safety aspect. As our city has grown, so has crime and
so has calls. We have had over 300 percent increase in emergency calls at fire
stations. So, I believe we need to stay with that and I can assure the realtors that under
this administration, under Tammy and this Council and the fire chief, that anything that
we use on here will be a capital improvement. It won't be air tanks and stuff like that, I
can assure you that. By impact fees in there, that allows us to maintain our paramedics
that we have on every call that comes out, a first line person, and as I have got older
and had some problems, I'm glad to have somebody like that that can administer stuff,
be first line, I don't have to wait for the ambulance. And by having an impact fee so that
we can buy some capital improvements through the department, allows us to pay the
extra to have paramedics on our fire department. So, that's why I would support the
1,600 and I want to keep the fire and police at the same and I will play with the parks.
Thank you.
De Weerd: Play with the parks.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 39 of 74
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Baird.
Baird: Staff might appreciate some input from Council with regard to where to make up
the difference with parks. Basically, you're taking -- by my calculations, 3.2 million
dollars out of the park's capital improvement plan. Would you like to see that capital
improvements plan revised? Would you like to encourage us to seek donations? I think
jumping on with -- Stacy had mentioned earlier I think we need a plan.
De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Baird. That's, essentially, what I was asking in -- in that
reduction is it had to go -- something had to go and so I'm not saying you're less
important than a consultant, but they gave us the numbers and now we need to modify
them. If we modify the amount, we need to modify the numbers, so -- because I think
you're much more important than a consultant.
Wardle: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Mr. Baird, is that something that -- obviously, what we are seeking per direction
this evening, in addition to some of our other public hearings, is an amount from the
Council and pursuant to that I would assume that we could have departmental
recommendations come forward from any of those affected, would that make sense?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's within your discretion. If you pass
the CIP resolution as is, that will be sending a signal that you're expecting either general
fund, donations, or grants make up the difference.
Wardle: Okay.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. If
there is no further discussion.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 10 and 11.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I -- it's just Item 10.
Wardle: On Item 10. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 40 of 74
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. A motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 10. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11:
Resolution No. 06-528 CPA 06-001 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to amend the text of the Comprehensive Plan to update the
Ten Year Capital Improvements Plan for parks, police, and fire capital
improvement projects.
De Weerd: Okay. Moving to Item 11 on Resolution No. 06-528. Mr. Berg, would you
like to read this resolution.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Resolution 06-528. A
resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian to amend the text of the
City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan to update the ten year capital improvement plan
for parks, police, and fire capital improvement projects and providing an effective date.
De Weerd: Thank you. Council?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Resolution 06-528.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 11. Is there any
discussion? If not, Mr. Berg.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 12:
Ordinance No. 06-1255 Third and Final Reading of
Amendment to Impact Fee Ordinance increasing the park impact fee
imposed on building permits for residential construction; and adopting new
impact fees for fire and police capital improvements to be imposed on
building permits for residential and non-residential construction:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 12.
Bird: Don't you have to read --
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 41 of74
De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read Ordinance No. 06-1255 by
title on Iy.
Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance 06-1255, an
ordinance to amend the municipal code of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of
Idaho, by repealing existing Title 10, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code, and by adopting a
new Title 10, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code, to be known as the Meridian Impact Fee
Ordinance, to provide for the imposition and compensation and payment of a police
impact fee, a fire impact fee, and a parks and recreation impact fee on future
development, providing authority, intent, and definitions, providing for the establishment
of the separate impact fee funds for each of such impact fees, providing for exemptions,
refunds, credits, and waivers respecting such impact fees, providing general provisions,
applicability and providing for conflict, severability and an effective date, which is 30
days.
De Weerd: Thank you. And that's a -- Council, you have heard the third and final
reading of Ordinance No. 06-1255. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is
there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? You already heard how
boring the title was. Okay. Council, any discussion?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Do I have a motion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would -- I guess it would be proper to insert the fees at this point before we pass
it. The fees I am going to recommend are for police 85 dollars per dwelling unit, six
cents per square foot on nonresidential. Fire impact fee 377 dollars per dwelling unit,
25 cents per square foot on nonresidential. And park impact fee, 1,138 dollars per
dwelling unit and eight cents per square foot, for a total of 1,600 dollars impact fee and
26 cents per square foot on nonresidential.
Baird: One correction to the math. That would be 31 cents per square foot.
Berg: I think it was only the top two.
Bird: I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry.
De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second?
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 42 of 74
Baird: I might ask the maker of the motion to consider inserting the recommended
effective date.
Bird: Yes. I will do that. I haven't given the ordinance. And with that fee schedule, I
would move that we pass Ordinance 06-1255 with an effective date of December 1 st,
2006.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve the fees as read by Mr.
Bird. Any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13:
Continued Public Hearing from August 8,2006: VAC 06-008 Request
for a Vacation of a Pressure Sewer Easement within The Reserve
Subdivision by Conger Management Group - southwest corner of North
Locust Grove and Chinden Boulevard:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is a continued -- and thank you all for being here tonight.
We appreciate your involvement and your testimony. And thank you to our consultants.
We appreciate the diligence you gave and leading our citizens committee. That was
very much appreciated.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I hope that -- and I know you will, but I hope that we can at least -- I would
hope that we -- our advisory committee on fees would meet quarterly and I'm sure you
will see that that's done, if the rest of the Council agrees.
Borton : Yes.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: My only comment to that is I would say quarterly, but to be reviewed annually
by the Council.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 43 of 74
Bird: Oh, yeah.
De Weerd: We had that on the schedule. Okay. Item 13 is a continued Public Hearing
from August 8th on VAC 06-008. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a requested vacation for a
pressure sewer easement and the applicant has provided all the necessary
relinquishments. Staff is recommending approval. Did you -- president -- it was a very
short presentation, Madam Mayor.
De Weerd: My goodness. Why thank you, Anna. Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: It is a Public Hearing. Is the applicant here this evening?
Canning: Madam Mayor, on the vacations there is no conditions of approval, so
oftentimes the applicant -- if staff is recommending approval, there is no need for them
to be here.
De Weerd: They won't come, uh?
Canning: Yeah.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, it is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the public who
would like to provide testimony on this application? I do have to ask.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Seeing no further Public Testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on
Item 13.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 44 of 74
Wardle: I move we approve Item 13, V AC 06-008.
Borton: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 13. If there is no discussion, Mr.
Berg, will you call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 14:
Continued Public Hearing from August 15, 2006: VAC 06.004
Request for Vacation of the existing utility easements on the interior lot
lines for Lots 21, 22, 25 and 26, Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 3
Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - northeast
corner of Ustick Road and Meridian Road:
De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 is a continued Public Hearing from August 15th of VAC 06-
004. Anna.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a vacation of the public
utilities, irrigation, and drainage easements for Sundance commercial subdivision, also
known as Sundance NO.5. It's located on the northeast corner of Meridian and Ustick.
We do have all the necessary relinquishments and staff is recommending approval. To
our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Is there anyone who would like to provide
testimony on this application. Okay. Council?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 14.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Two ayes and one -- do we have enough to vote right now?
Baird: Madam Mayor, yes --
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 45 of 74
Canning: Madam Mayor, if you'd like to take just a moment to wait, I have to get some
other drawings -- or some other slides up for another presentation that I have been
waiting to do.
Baird: Madam Mayor, I didn't realize the loss of your quorum and evidently that wasn't
a permanent situation.
Wardle: Aye.
De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. That was closing the Public Hearing.
Wardle: Sorry about that.
De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approve Item 14, VAC 06-004.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 14 and to vote in Mr. Wardle as the
next public works sewer meter changer. Okay.
Canning: I thought he was coming to the charette for all four days.
De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll on approval of Item 14.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15:
Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006: MI 06-005 Request
for a Miscellaneous application to amend the previously approved
Development Agreement (AZ 03-038 and concurrent files PFP 03-007 &
CUP 03-071) by removing a provision requiring all future uses on the site
to be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process for Mussell
Corner Subdivision by Brian Holleran - Northeast corner of Victory Road
and Meridian Road:
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 46 of 74
De Weerd: Thank you. Item 15 is a continued Public Hearing from August 22nd on MI
06-005. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Mussell Corner project.
It's located at the northeast corner of Victory and Meridian Road and the application
before you tonight is a development agreement modification. To back up and give a
little bit of the history, the city required, through a development agreement, detailed
conditional use approval for all future uses in this development and that was done at the
time of annexation in order for City Council --- at that time it was City Council, now it's
the Planning Commission, to be able to review the buildings that were going to take
place and the conceptual -- in the development of that property. There was no concept
plan presented, other than for the small portion in the front, which now has the -- thank
you. Double D on it. Sorry about that. It's getting late and my mind is going. So, there
was that requirement placed on the development agreement. So, the applicant is
proposing to amend two sections. One is the uses permitted by this agreement and
then -- that's in section four. And, then, also section six, conditions governing
development of subject property. So, if the Council chooses to approve this
development agreement modification, each building on the subject property would just
be subject to a certificate of zoning compliance approval through the planning
department, unless the schedule of use required a Conditional Use Permit, but if it were
a permanent use it would just go through the CZC process. To support this request the
applicant has submitted a master site plan that I will show you momentarily and also
nine pictures of what future buildings would look like on the site and also detailed
elevations for the next building within this development. Currently on the site there are -
- it's 23 acres and it's currently zoned C-G, but there is a combination feed store and
gas convenience station, a landscape nursery, which takes up the bulk of the property
and that was the existing use at the time of annexation. A sprinklers contractor's
business called 2M and that's in the structure toward the front. And so those are the
existing structures. And just to also let you know, this is an entryway corridor along
Meridian Road, so any structures that face Meridian Road would be subject to the
design review guidelines in our standards in our UDC. So, those are just some of the
existing conditions to get up to speed. Okay. One of the things that the applicant is
asking for, along with this development application -- there is a lot of stories to tell, so
I'm trying to take them in order and this is one of those stories and that's the expansion
of the 2M use. So, they are currently in a metal building on the property and they want
to expand that use. At the time that the annexation went through, that 2M contractor's
yard storage wholesale warehouse unit was viewed as accessory to the sprinkler -- to
the Victory Greens operation. So, we had a large landscaping business staying on the
site and there was a -- kind of ancillary sprinkler contractors building staying on the site
as well. The original intent was that those would be redeveloped over time, he would
see the concept plan. That's the concept plan you're getting before you tonight. But
they are proposing that that nonconforming use, that contractors yard, sprinklers
building, stay on the site. And they are actually proposing a new building to facilitate the
expansion of that use. Now, staff worked with the applicant that -- the use is technically
prohibited in the zone, it's an industrial use, this is a commercial property. The one
avenue of approval that we were able to find is that flex space is an allowed use in the
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 47 of 74
C-G. Flex space is generally to accommodate -- there is usually some wholesale
component or some warehousing or storage component, a small office, and also a small
retail front. So, staff felt that this was the only thing close to what the built form that this
use needed, so we have been working with them as this is a possible opportunity. We
have worked with them. We have elevations of -- of that use. Here it is. So, this is the
elevation that would face Victory Road and we have worked with them to make it look
like several tenants. The flex space is not -- it's somewhat defined as being just those
mixes of uses that I talked about with -- for -- in a multi-tenant structure and it's also
talked about in the definitions of the UDC is generally a higher design standards than
what you would see typically in like an industrial classification. The best example of a
flex building that I can give to you is those on the backside of Winco. As you go toward
Lee Reed there is some new little buildings there. You may have noticed the large
retention basin that's landscaped nicely, but those -- the VGA did some buildings back
there that are quite nice, but -- and those are our best example of flex space in the City
of Meridian, so -- this is the applicant's proposal for the expansion of the 2M use. Staff
has some concerns and we have voiced these. Typically, we are talking about a multi-
tenant structure. So, what you would see on the backside of a facade like this would be
four overhead doors. The idea being that -- you know, that -- that each of those is a
separate unit, instead of housing one single unit. We did talk to the applicant, they felt
that because this was a metal siding material, that those doors could be added at a later
time. Okay. Now, I'm going to move on to the actual DA changes. The recorded
development agreement currently states that each new use will be approved through
the Conditional Use Permit process. What they are proposing is that instead that the
language be modified so that uses allowed under the city's Unified Development Code -
- that principally permitted use would be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit
approval, provided all future buildings have -- and this gets to some of these elevations.
I will put up Double D. That will help you picture some of these. A sloped metal roof
with overhanging eaves that are supported by posts, are oriented toward the public
street, front door facing street, siding visible from the street containing at least three foot
tall wainscoating constructed of stone, brick, or other similar materials. And you can
see all those features at play on this elevation. And each building is generally
consistent with the nine pictures submitted with this application, as determined by the
planning director. If a future proposed building is not consistent with the -- those
provisions, then, the building would be -- require conditional use approval. Let me go
through some of these photos for you. So, again, you have metal roof, large
overhanging eaves. You don't see the wainscoating in this one. This elevation you see
the metal roof, the overhanging eaves. You can see them in these two elevations. And,
then, the wainscoting. Future construction would be consistent with the master site
plan. I'll go up to that. This is the master site plan. This is the existing Double D
building. This building, I believe, also has prior approval. These are the existing
structures on the site. This area would be for the existing Victory Greens to continue
until further decided. And, then, these would be the new structures proposed on the
site. Do need to point out they have shown a northern entrance to the state highway
facility. That was only approved as a temporary entrance for Victory Greens property
use. It was very specifically temporary until such time as you saw this concept plan
and, then, that direct access to the highway would go away. So, just want to make it
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 48 of 74
clear on the public record tonight that Council should view that northern entrance as not
an appropriate entrance at this time as shown on the site plan. Furthermore, staff has
suggested that any individual building be limited to a maximum 11,000 square foot
building footprint and let me -- all buildings with frontage on Victory Road or Meridian
Road will be limited to a maximum 11,000 square feet and no building on the site would
have a footprint larger than 20,000 square feet. So, along the front you would have the
smaller buildings and, then, as you got to the interior you get some larger ones. If the
future proposed building is not consistent with the master site plan, then, the building
shall be required to obtain CU approval. And, then, that all future buildings on the
subject property will be required to submit a certificate of zoning compliance application
and all future buildings adjacent to Meridian Road will be required to obtain design
review approval. So, those two sections already applied. That was with regard to then
allowed uses, so the next section is conditions governing development of the subject
property. Currently now it just says that they all need to go through a CU. Staff is
proposing that it just be changed to say that it needs to be consistent with section four
and those were all the details I provided. I have gone through all the elevations with
you. Staffs recommendation is for approval, but, please, direct the city's legal
department to draft modifications to the recorded development agreement of Mussell
Corner as proposed or as modified, but also, please, address some of the outstanding
issues noted in the staff report and those, essentially, are do you want to require
additional modifications to the existing 2M building that's in the existing metal building
on the site at this time. Should the proposed flex building be allowed to house the
expansion of the nonconforming 2M use, is the concept plan sufficient to remove the
CU requirement in Council's mind. And, again, please, note that with any decisions
you're making you're not authorizing the northern entrance to the state facility. And,
then, are the proposed design standards sufficient to remove the CU requirement. So,
there is a number of outstanding issues that Council needs to comment on and we can
adjust them accordingly. With that I will end staffs presentation.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions for Anna at this time? Okay. Is the
applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record.
Oaas: My name is Eric Oaas. 519 West Front in Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Oaas: Distinguished Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. We appreciate the
opportunity to talk with you tonight about this proposal and with regard -- really, there is,
really, two -- you know, in our mind there is, really, two parts of what we are proposing
tonight. One is the modification to the development agreement and the second is to
really address the 2M -- the specific use that we are talking about. So, with regard to
the first, there, really, are three -- I guess three points that I'd like to make with regard to
why we think it's appropriate to modify the development agreement and the first is that
the CUP provision that is part of our development agreement is really no longer required
by City of Meridian in similar subdivisions due to the adoption of the Uniform
Development Code. We are, thus, only requesting that we be held to the same
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 49 of 74
standard as new subdivisions. Second, we -- as Anna mentioned, we will still need to
get a certificate of zoning compliance, which must be approved by the planning
department, so you're not handing us any kind of a blank check. And, third, we are
creating -- actually creating less work for city staff by foregoing the CUP provision. It
should shorten the process and save time and money for the city. Now, there are -- we
have provided -- as Anna has said, we provided the City of Meridian the proposed
development standards for the Mussell Corner in the form of a master site plan that you
see and the representative pictures of similar buildings. These design standards have
been reviewed and supported by staff. The development standards will provide
uniformity and consistency to the design for the entire development. As Anna said,
these guidelines include pitched standing seam metal roofs, wood frame porch roofs,
and columns, attractive store fronts with a fair amount of glass. And the siding of future
buildings will be similar in material, but different in looks, so that we are not necessarily
making all the buildings look exactly the same. The second part of what we are
proposing tonight is approval of the 2M building and, as Anna indicated, staff has been
very helpful to us in trying to help us figure a way to make this work. And the reason
that it's important is because 2M is a -- it's a Meridian business. It's been here for 11
years. They employ, you know, nine people. they are looking to add two more people
and they have been in this location for -- for the entire 11 year period and there was a
point in time when they came to us and said, you know, we need to grow, we don't have
enough space in the current building, what can you do for us? We talked about laying
out a new building -- next to the existing building and -- and, you know, got into this
discussion with them. Well, they said, well, you know, that's fine, we'd like to go out and
look at other sites in other areas. And so during this process, you know, we came to
them with several proposals. They were actually looking at -- seriously looking at a site
-- a couple of sites in Nampa and we were able to say now, wait a minute, this is where
your market is, this is where your customers know you, this is where you need to stay.
And Meridian wants to -- you know, wants to keep you here, you're a good valuable
business to the community. They -- I think they gave it serious thought and they truly
recognize that being here in this -- in this space was very important to them in their
market. Their customers know where they are at and they have established a very
good clientele there and they wanted -- they wanted to stay. So, we said, okay, let us
go to work on it. To that end we -- you know, we put together a building and came back
to them and, you know, proposed a lease rate that -- that they really had to swallow
hard with and the reason is because the cost to the new building and the design
modifications that we were making to the building were expensive. We worked with
them over and over and over again. They said, you know, this is too much, we are
going to go to Nampa, but, fortunately, we were able to -- you know, to get them back,
get them back to the table and work through this -- this issue. What we are saying,
though, at the end of the day is we are adding significant cost to this building over and
above, you know, and those costs have to be borne and carried by 2M in their lease
and -- and I guess in our opinion we have tried and with staffs support we have tried to
make this building look as -- as reasonable as possible and a flex building -- as close to
a flex building as possible, while containing the overall cost of the project. The fact that
it is -- that it doesn't have multiple bay doors on the back side of the building to us is sort
of irrelevant, because you can always add those doors later on, should another user
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 50 of 74
come into the building. You can always add dividing walls. All of these -- these items
can easily be added to this building should it be required in the future. But we have
negotiated with them, you know, a 15 year lease on the property, they want to stay
there, they are a good employer, and we think we ought to work with them and we are
requesting the City of Meridian to do the same. I guess with that, the bottom line is we
believe that our proposed 2M building meats the intent of the planning and development
standards required by the City of Meridian based on the following. One, the definition of
a flex building, the use of a site for warehousing, offices, and/or retail showroom,
flexibility and use of the interior spaces and low scale attractive exterior experience
characterize flex buildings. Table 11-2B, allowed uses in commercial districts. Under
this table a flex space is a principally permitted use in a C-G zone. The table indicates
that flex space is subject to specific use standards in accordance with Chapter 4 and,
then, Chapter 4 goes on to say the specific use standard section that flex space retail
shall not exceed 25 percent of the leasable area in any tenant space. At the end of the
day we believe that what we are proposing is -- will comply with the -- with the flex
space. We have -- we have modified the building to -- we think to the highest extent
possible, while keeping the cost constraints in mind for this very valuable business. And
with that I will stand for questions or, you know, I may call on our most able support staff
here.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Bird: I have none, Mayor.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Oaas: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council.
De Weerd: Okay. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this
application? Okay. Council, do you have any further questions for Mr. Oaas? I guess,
Eric, I do have a question for you, since there is no public testimony. It seems to me
were you part of this -- the original application?
Oaas: The original application for --
De Weerd: To annex this entire site and that sort of thing. I guess I ask you that,
because I -- it seems to me like we had some neighbors from Observation Point that
were concerned about what the view would be and, you know, certainly this is a better
view than what they currently have, but the CUP also allowed them to be able to
comment on design and that sort of thing, as new uses were allowed. Did you have a
neighborhood meeting with the surrounding property owners? Okay. Perhaps your
colleague can talk a little bit about that.
Holleran: Brian Holleran, 519 West Front Street, Boise.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 51 of 74
De Weerd: Thank you.
Holleran: Madam Mayor, Council Members, we did -- we originally thought we were
going to have to go through the CUP process, so we did have a neighborhood meeting.
Sent out all the notices. I was not at that meeting. I do believe three -- two or three
neighbors showed up. Were you at that meeting, Eric? We had the meeting and there
was little attendance.
De Weerd: And there wasn't concern about the metal roofs or --
Holleran: I don't -- I don't believe so.
De Weerd: Okay.
Peterson: Eric Peterson. 2620 Pleasanton Avenue, Boise.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Peterson: I was at that meeting and there was about five -- five neighbors from around
the residents on the east side and they have no problem with any of the metal building
that was going on there or that we had proposed. I hope that answers your question.
De Weerd: Yes, it does. Thank you.
Peterson: Any other questions?
De Weerd: No. Thank you. Okay. Council, seeing that there is no further testimony--
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: I believe the planning director had some specific questions she needed
answered.
Canning: Yes, sir. There was -- do you want to require additional modification to the
existing 2M building at this site. It's a -- it's just a metal structure. It doesn't meet these
standards that they there are proposing for the new structures. Should the proposed
flex building be allowed to have the expansion of the nonconforming 2M use. Is the
concept plan sufficient in your mind to reduce -- to remove the CUP requirement. And
also are the proposed designs sufficient to remove CU requirement.
Wardle: Thank you. Madam Mayor, before I close the Public Hearing and make a
motion, I will just -- from the design standard portion I think it really is something that we
are asking. We used to require -- and I remember the discussion we had during this
original application and the only ability that this Council really had to implement any
Meridian City Council
September 5,2006
Page 52 of 74
gateway standards or design standards would be through a conditional use. And so we
placed that upon this application. Since that we have approved other applications that,
in my mind, don't have the level of detail that's been shown tonight for this specific
commercial development. So, I think that the site plan, comprehensive plan and design
standards proposed in my mind meet our expectation and that -- for our original intent.
From the flex space standpoint, I want to commend both the applicant and the planning
director for working on how to -- how to fit a use -- how to come up with a way to be able
to keep a business in Meridian and while I don't think it's something that we should
encourage on every application that comes forward, it certainly seems in my mind to fit.
I think we get a nicer product out of it. We certainly get a business that wants to stay in
Meridian and make that work. So, those are -- I think -- did I answer --
Canning: Madam Mayor, President Wardle, the only one you haven't answered is the
existing 2M building. And I don't have photos. It's -- it's a metal building. Yeah.
Wardle: I guess my personal preference, Madam Mayor, would not be to require at this
time that that -- that that building be changed. I didn't hear public testimony and heard
that we did have some neighbors come to the meeting, so--
De Weerd: Eric, can I ask you another question? On the -- I do understand and
appreciate your attempts to keep the existing business and meet their requirements for
for their expansion. What is the intent on the existing building?
Oaas: The existing building will be utilized by Victory Greens, the current landscaping --
well, nursery and landscaping business. It's there.
De Weerd: So, it will be utilized by the business that is on site right now.
Oaas: It will be utilized by the business and item -- one thing that I think is a real
positive is they are going to be doing a lot of clean up. There is sort of a storage,
containers, and various materials that are stored on the property that through this
process they will be getting cleaned up and they can utilize this is -- this building to act
as it really is, a service facility and a storage facility, so it leans up beside in a very
significant way.
De Weerd: Is there in any way to modify it, so at least it looks a little bit closer to what
your flex building will look like?
Oaas: Madam Mayor, with all due request, we are -- we are having to go through some
pretty significant electrical upgrades to the building to bring it up to code. So, there are
-- you know, are we really focused more a making the building a good, safe building to
-- to live -- to work in, to add a lot of -- the materials that we are going for this flex
building would be very significant and, essentially, would -- would price the building out
of being able to utilize it for its intended use. It may be what we might propose is that --
that once the Victory Green -- Victory Greens facility is no longer present and, then, you
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 53 of 74
know, there is another use for the building and that -. and the properties, that they are
not there anymore, maybe that's an appropriate time to look at upgrading the building.
De Weerd: And maybe they can landscape it, to buffer the look. And we are providing
landscaping, you know, across the whole -- you know, across the whole subdivision
anyway. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Oaas? Okay. Thank you.
Oaas: Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Wardle: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Hearing no further comment, I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 15.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of closing the Public Hearing say aye. All ayes.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE ONES, ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Okay. Council, any discussion, further information needed from staff?
Okay.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item 15, MI 06-005 and to instruct the
City Attorney's Office to prepare the proper documents to amend the development
agreement.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Wardle, do you have any
requirements, then, on the existing 2M building that once it is no longer used by the
landscaping business that it would go away or be brought up to a certain standard -- to
the rest of the standard of the subdivision? Do you have a recommendation on that?
Wardle: I don't have a specific recommendation, Madam Mayor. Unless someone
would like to amend the motion.
Bird: I don't.
Wardle: I believe the applicant in the Public Hearing stated his willingness to do that.
But I wasn't going to tie that to my motion.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. If they won't tie it to the motion, I'll tie it to your word. Okay.
Any discussion, Council? Mr. Berg, will you call roll.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 54 of 74
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 16:
Item 17:
Item 18:
Public Hearing: AZ 06-013 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.77
acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons Subdivision by
America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue and east of Ten
Mile Road:
Public Hearing: PP 06-011 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 122
residential lots (50 4-plex lots and 72 townhouse lots) and 10 common lots
on 21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons
Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue
and east of Ten Mile Road:
Public Hearing: CUP 06-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
construct a multi-family development consisting of 200 multi-family
dwelling units (4-plexes) on 50 lots and 72 townhouse dwelling units on
21.77 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Canterbury Commons
Subdivision by America West Homes, LLC - south side of Pine Avenue
and east of Ten Mile Road:
De Weerd: Thank you. Thank you. Items 16 is -- 17 and 18 have been requested to
continue -- yes -- to September 12th, 2006. I will open these three public hearings for
Council's continuation of AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I would move that we continue AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006 to
September 12th, 2006.
Wardle: Second. And, Madam Mayor, I believe we have the applicant here. Because
we have continued this because we are missing a councilmember, if we could hear that
that date would be acceptable to them.
De Weerd: Okay. Well, this is a Public Hearing. We do have a motion and a second to
continue it.
Bird: We can still hear him, can't we?
De Weerd: Procedurally, Mr. Baird--
Baird: let's see if we can get a nod.
De Weerd: A nod is not a discussion.
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 55 of 74
Baird: Madam Mayor -- if we are going to have testimony, Madam Mayor, we should
probably withdraw the motion.
Bird: I will withdraw the motion.
De Weerd: Thank you. So, I do have an open Public Hearing and we would like to hear
from the applicant if continuing this to the 12th is acceptable.
Applicant: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my clients and their consultants
were here this evening and we are prepared to go forward. We did receive notice late
on Friday from your legal counsel that this was a possibility that this would be
continued. It certainly causes some delay and it certainly causes expense on my
client's behalf. While we do recognize that Councilmember Rountree is not here and we
respect your decision to go forward with continuing it until next week, we will be
available then, but I do need to express our frustration at the late notice, because
certainly had we been made aware of this week I think we would have been amenable
to go ahead and continue it, not having to appear tonight and not having had all people
here. So, with that we certainly would be amendable to continuing it until the 12th.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And we apologize for the inconvenience.
Bird: Madam Mayor? I do, too, want to apologize, but we felt as a Council that
Councilman Rountree had -- the one that had asked for the reconsideration, so -- and
he I don't think had this planned a long time, something he had to do. Anyway. I would
move that we continue AZ 06-013, PP 06-011, and CUP 06-006 until September 12th,
2006.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved to continue Items 16, 17 and 18 to September 12th.
All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 19:
Public Hearing: AP 06-001 Request for an Appeal of the Planning
Director's determination that the submitted development applications for
Waverlv Place Subdivision are incomplete by Vacation Village Villas,
LLC - 2510 Magic View Drive:
De Weerd: Item 19 is a Public Hearing on AP 06-001. I will open this Public Hearing
with staff comments.
Bird: Madam Mayor, before you open, can I make -- can I ask something?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 56 of 74
Bird: I was not here for the testimony on the original. I got in -- I come in late that night.
I have read all the minutes, all the public testimony, so I'm asking my other two
Councilmen if they feel I'm qualified to sit in on this.
De Weerd: We haven't heard this, Mr. Bird.
Bird: No. No. But I mean there is some background to it that I wasn't -- I didn't hear
the people actually testify. I did hear -- I did read it and I have gotten ensuing e-mails
and letters and stuff.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I would say that while there is some background information,
this is a separate applicant that I think the planning director is seeking Council's
direction on and I'm comfortable with --
Borton: Absolutely.
Bird: Okay. Thank you.
De Weerd: I guess just for the public record, this hasn't been in front of Council, has it?
Baird: Madam Major, Members of the Council, we will certainly let Mrs. Canning give
her presentation, which will contain lots of background, but that's correct, this is going to
stand on its own tonight.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is Waverly Place project and it is
located on -- actually, I have got -- it's on Magic View. This area here. You had heard
previous applications -- and I believe the ones that Mr. -- Councilmember Bird is
referring to were on the other side of the street, but it was a similar situation. But this is
a very separate application that you have not heard before. The only item you're
considering tonight is my decision not to accept the application. You're not discussing
proposed uses, you're not making a decision on anything other than my refusal to
accept the application. The applicant turned in a project for a multi-family development
on the property I noted and I determined that it was inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and could not be -- the complete application, unless it had an
accompanying Comprehensive Plan amendment. That is the decision that they are
appealing tonight. So, ultimately, the job of Council tonight is just to decide whether I
erred in not accepting that application. And now I'll go into a little bit more of the story.
The future land use map for this area designates this property as office. The property to
the interior of Wells Street is noted as commercial and, then, you will see the
surrounding properties have a mix of medium density and low density residential. The
applicant was not proposing a bump in a land use designation, they were just proposing
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 57 of 74
L-O zoning and, then, a multi-family development, which is conditionally allowed in that
L-O zoning. I have to toggle back and forth between several things today here. The
Comprehensive Plan -- I'm going to use the analogy of a bundle of sticks and you're all
familiar with that for land use, but what we have got going here is that the
Comprehensive Plan divides that bundle of sticks into various parts and, then, the
zoning category divides that in a different way. So, it's important to focus -- in my mind
it's important focus on what the Comprehensive Plan divisions were. This is shown as
office and it states that this designation will provide opportunities for low impact
business areas. These would include offices, technology and resource centers.
Ancillary commercial uses may be considered particularly within research and
development centers of technological parts. So, this is one of the most restricted comp
plan designations that we have. It's not one of the most, it is the most restricted
Comprehensive Plan designation. It only picks out a very few of those allowed uses
from the unified development code and says, really, only a few of those would be
appropriate in this area. Now, you can compare that to like the wastewater treatment
plant mixed use area where the only excluded use is residential. So, in this case we
have got this designation that really has a very limited number of appropriate uses that
would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. My understanding is I have been
told about the hearing process for the Comprehensive Plan is that that was used
because there was a commitment made to the residents -- at that time to the north and
to the west that that office designation would provide a buffer between their residential
estates or larger residences and the commercial area kind of at the core of the Wells
Street property and that that office designation was purposefully very limited to provide
that. So, when this application came in the applicant has suggested that L-O zoning is
appropriate and consistent with the Comp Plan and I would agree. But they are also
saying that -- find the right one. Sorry. That all the uses allowed within L-O are
therefore appropriate. Their argument is that because the L-O use is appropriate,
therefore -- because the L-O designation is appropriate in general with office, that any
use allowed within that district is similarly appropriate and that's why when you get down
to multi-family development where it's listed as conditional, they are saying that that's an
appropriate application and does not require a Comp Plan amendment. Just to point
out some of these conditionally allowed uses. We have restaurants, public
infrastructure, parking facilities, nursing or residential care facility, nursery or urban
farm, multi-family development, laundry and laundromats, light industry, informational
industry, hospital, civic and social fraternal organizations, church or place of religious
worship. So, to use their analogy, if multi-family is appropriate in this location, then, a
hospital would be as well and I would believe that those uses, multi-family or hospital or
many of those I read off, would not be a low impact businesses. The final thing I
wanted to talk about with regard to my decision was -- if I can remember what it was. I
lost my train of thought. I'm sorry. Oh. The multi-family development that they are
proposing would be condominiumized. We ran into this issue before on Casa Meridiana
in that the unit appearance would be very much like a single family detached -- or
attached units, not necessarily an apartment complex that you would typically think of a
multi-family development, this would be closer to townhouses. They would be
condominiumized, therefore, they meet the definition of multi-family, but this would,
essentially, be medium density residential development in the L-O zone and, then,
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 58 of 74
again, to remind you, the decision previously on the property to the south, they did
provide a Comprehensive Plan amendment. The Council did decide that residential
wasn't appropriate on that piece of property. But that former action by Council did
weigh into my decision as well. The general gist of that was that residential
development wasn't appropriate at that time. So, all those factors led to my decision.
And I think I have articulated it as best I can.
De Weerd: Thank you, Anna.
Canning: But I would be happy to answer any questions.
De Weerd: Council, any questions?
Bird: I have none at this time.
De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Angstman: T.J. Angstman -- I'm too short. T.J. Angstman, 3649 Lake Harbor, Boise,
Idaho. 83703.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Angstman: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, I'm usually here or usually in front of city
councils about applications pending. This is the first time I have ever been here about
an application that's not pending and I guess -- I think I have figured out, as I sat here
today, why we are here. Actually, I think the staff is -- if they could bring up the -- could
you bring up the slide showing what the office -- it says in the Comprehensive Plan.
Right here -- this elucidates where our problem is coming here. In my -- our submittal
showed this. City Council passed Resolution 04-54 -- pardon me -- 454 in 2004, I would
suppose, and modified that -- the Comprehensive Plan in this regard and added this
following language to the bottom of that office paragraph. It says: Additionally -- it says
additionally, as noted in the residential district section of the Comprehensive Plan, light
office uses may be appropriate in limited circumstances and at the discretion of City
Council. And what the applicant is appealing is the planning director's removal of your
discretion -- from your discretion whether or not in this instance a light office use would
be appropriate in this application and without evening allowing us the due process to
bring our case forward to the Council, the decision has been made without public input
and without a Public Hearing. I will tell you that my client has made a considerable
effort to meet with the neighbors and gain consensus in the neighborhood in order to
propose a project that would be appealing, not just to the applicant, but also to the
neighbors, and so in that regard I have a few submittals, because we have statements
from the neighbors that we would like to submit to the clerk and have in the record. I
have from Jim Flecker--
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 59 of 74
Baird: Madam Mayor? I'm sorry to interrupt at this point, but I really want to caution the
Council from getting into the merits of the actual application and I don't want to cut you
off, but 1 think that you're going there.
Angstman: Sure. Quite frankly, I agree. I'm afraid that we are going to get into whether
or not it's a good idea or bad idea in today's forum. Really what the question is, is it an
issue of the Council's discretion or is it an issue where the discretion on whether or not
an application should be approved has been delegated improperly or properly to staff
and I think that your attorney is correct. Although we do have people who have asked
us to submit their comments. And so I don't -- with that regard, I don't know what to
say. I will say this. One of these is important and touches on the issue not of whether
or not our project is a good project or not, but it touches on what the Comprehensive
Plan says and this is from Richard Allison, who actually participated as a drafter in the
1993 Comp Plan and what he said in his letter that the 1993 Comp Plan is the primary
policy document in identifying policies to guide future development and in the 1993
Comp Plan it designates the area that we are talking about as a mixed use -- it says
mixed use area adjacent to 1-84 Overland Road and Franklin Road. In it it states
probable mixed uses for the area could be commercial, combined medium to high
density residential, open spaces to buffer highway noise, tourist lodging, industrial,
office, medical and related land uses. That's the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, which is
kind of an overriding guiding document and he submitted that in this -- and we do have
from -- I would say, you know, from the neighbors that are adjacent that came to our
neighborhood meeting, we have their letters of support. I agree with Council that, really,
the question is whether the decision is taking away something that was at your
discretion, correct or incorrect, but I don't know what to do. They did -- these people do
ask that we submit them, so maybe rather than read them, if I could just submit them to
the record, keep the -- our promise, you know, to them. That's up to you.
Baird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'd suggest that since they are being
offered that we accept them and keep them in the record. I'd advise you not to consider
anything that's not relevant to the question before you. However, if this does make it to
the next hurdle, those will be available to be considered on the record as the application
is before you. That way they don't have to send the e-mails again.
Angstman: Thank you. And I will just submit those to the clerk. Now, as I stated, it
appears that one of -- perhaps the staff is operating without the benefit of this resolution
indicating that these sort of things are a discretion of the Council members, not at the
discretion of staff. But, nonetheless, even if there is -- what the Comprehensive Plan
said and it hadn't been amended, we still believe that a -- should the -- if this is
designated on the Comp Plan as office, had the city decided to annex this, perhaps
involuntarily as -- and maybe the City of Meridian doesn't have that policy, but other
cities in this valley have done that in recent memory.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 60 of 74
De Weerd: We don't.
Angstman: Understood. But should you, it would be annexed with an L-O zone and
what we are saying is if this is a conditional use in an L-O zone, it's the Council's
discretion to determine whether or not it should or should not be approved and the
public should have input, not just a -- the planning director deciding that the application
is not complete. And at this point in time we have tendered a check for -- with our
application fees and, then, we also had to pay 603 dollars just to have the benefit of
coming here tonight. And it does seem to be a little bit onerous, because we really want
to have the benefit of the input of the Council, if it were denied, to know, you know, what
would -- what the Council would like to see in this area and without ever getting to the --
over the hurdle of having an application we will never know what the city wants us to --
how the city would like us to develop the site. I also -- I suppose most of these points
have been made in our submittals and I would, you know, stand for questions on
anything else that -- any other remarks that have been had or that were contained in our
papers that were filed along with our application. I'll stand for questions.
De Weerd: Council, do you have questions?
Bird: I have none.
Angstman: Thank you.
De Weerd: Anna?
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the amendment to which -- I'm sorry,
I have forgotten his name -- to which he referenced -- you will recall that a few years
ago -- a couple years ago we did an amendment to allow parcels that were designated
as residential for you to consider office uses if those properties were less than three
acres in size. That's what that amendment refers to. The portion he was reading refers
to office uses proposed in a residential district, not offices proposed in an office district
-- or designation. So, that -- I didn't copy that for your consideration tonight, because
this isn't a residential district -- or designation, so that's why you're not seeing it. It was
that amendment that we did for those parcels that were three acres or less, where the
surrounding patterns had not accommodated them through stub streets and where it
was not possible for them to really redevelop the property as residential, but that,
instead, an office use. And, again, just office uses could be considered there, not the
full range of L-O uses permitted. And that was quite a bit of the discussion that we had
during those hearings was just about the limited -- very much limited to an office use,
not the full range of L-O. The 1993 Comp Plan was noted by the applicant as being an
overriding policy document. It is not. The now 2006 amended Comprehensive Plan is a
stand alone document, other than a capital improvements plan and design guidelines
that are adopted as addendums to that. There is no overriding policy plan from the
1993 Comprehensive Plan. There was one thing I forgot to point out and I apologize for
that. I had left the commercial designation up there, because it does note that in some
Meridian City Council
September 5,2006
Page 61 of 74
cases different classifications of uses may be consistent. So, we have got a multi-family
residential listed as appropriate in a commercial district and you may recall you had an
application before you the other night where there was -- and I said district again.
Designation. Commercial designation. There was an R-15 district proposed within a
commercial designation and I did determine that that was consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. That's kind of the flip side of the question that's being asked
tonight. So, just to clarify those things and to make it clear as to what the applicable
Comprehensive Plan is.
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I do have a number of people who have signed up in
favor of the appeal. Mr. Baird, before I name these off and ask them if they'd like to
provide testimony, can you give an overview of what kind of testimony we are seeking
oh this?
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think when you gave your opening
remarks you stated very clearly what the question is before you. It's not is this a good
project or not a good project, it's not do we want this across our fence or not, it's -- the
way it's been framed is -- is the application, should the application move on for your full
consideration at a future time, a future hearing. And with that I'm going to throw it over
to Anna and see if she's got any other thoughts. I know that Anna did talk with Bill Nary
today about exactly how this thing was anticipated to be run, so --
Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, to my knowledge -- and we haven't
done many appeals of my decisions, so this is a first for everybody a little bit. But I
really think the only thing under consideration tonight is did I error or not. If you feel I
have erred, just kind of similar to some other applications, what will happen will be I will
accept the full range of light office uses on these areas designated as office within the
Comprehensive Plan. There are other areas in the city that have this designation, but I
guess that would be the next step -- or the dominoes in what would happen with this. I
don't know if you want to extend that to other uses at this point. I guess I would just
extend it to the L-O uses, but --
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Anna, when you use the term light office -- and reading the -- some of the
materials provided by the appellant for this case -- are you using the term light office
and L-O zone as one and the same?
De Weerd: Yes. I'm sorry. It is actually limited office. I apologize for that. I think it
used to be light office and now it's limited office. So, what he's saying is that all the
zones listed in this -- all the uses listed in this zoning category of L-O would be
appropriate in anywhere that's designated office on the Comprehensive Plan.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 62 of74
Borton: And -- Madam Mayor? I guess is it your read on it -- it is mine -- that the
analytical leap is the definition of -- or the language in the office definition of the Comp
Plan which uses the phrase light -- the phrase light office is actually making reference to
specifically the L-O zone?
Canning: To my knowledge it doesn't. It says that low impact business areas include
offices, technology, and resource centers.
Borton: Right. I was making reference to the sentence that was added that was
referenced by the applicant that says: Additionally, as noted, the residential district
section of the Comp Plan, light office uses may be appropriate in limited circumstances.
The phrase light office in that definition --
Canning: But that only applies to the residential district. So, I wouldn't say that there is
that leap here. I guess I don't agree that there is a leap. So, it's hard for me to agree
with your statement.
Borton: I see where the confusion lies. Thank you.
Baird: Madam Mayor? So, to recap your original question, the testimony should be
limited to whether or not the planning director's decision was in error.
De Weerd: Okay.
Baird: That's the question for you tonight and what the testimony should be limited to.
De Weerd: So, the application you received was for a residential development?
Canning: Yes, ma'am.
De Weerd: And why wasn't there a Comprehensive Plan change, then, request?
Canning: Madam Mayor, that's what I asked for to deem it complete and they chose not
to provide that application, they chose instead to appeal my decision.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Okay. I do have a number of people who have signed up. If
you would like to provide comment when I read your name -- remember this isn't on the
project itself, it's just should this be heard by Council. Rich Allison for.
Allison: My name is Rich Allison. 916 North Main Street, Meridian.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Allison: Thank you. Madam Mayor, Councilmen. There were a couple of references I
made, which I provided a written copy to the Council and the Mayor, but there are a
couple of things that I made reference to the 1993 Comprehensive Plan and the reason
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 63 of 74
I did so directly relates to testimony given by the planning director where she stated that
the residents surrounding Magic View Subdivision had been promised it would be office
only and that's incorrect. As stated in my letter, it says during our discussion -- and here
we are into what -- well, maybe I should preface this slightly. We identified areas for
special use planning. This property is in the mixed use areas adjacent to 1-84, Overland
Road -- Overland and Franklin Roads. It states probable mixed uses in an area that
could be commercial, combined medium to high density residential, open space uses to
buffer highway noises, et cetera. Then, further, during our discussion in this area a
number of residents from the Green Hill Estates Subdivision to the north of the property
expressed concern about a 24 hour a day business that might be built right across their
fence. Therefore, it was my recommendation that we designate the perimeter lots at
Magic View Subdivision L-O, allowing as many uses as outlined in the section of this
plan, but would prevent other such uses as a 24 hour a day gas station. This satisfied
the adjacent owners. And this is actual -- actually, what I did at the meeting during the
1993 Comprehensive Plan review that we prepared in December of 1993 and was
adopted in December 1993. Then, I went further to explain what limited office district--
what it actually means by ordinance and by ordinance it is a very lengthy -- not this
meaning, but a very complete meaning and that is in the letter. And to my knowledge
by ordinance it has never been changed. And, then, I went on to -- with regard to other
things, which Council has said we shouldn't discuss. But I think those should be looked
at carefully by the city attorney. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Celeste Fox is signed up in favor. Thank you. Okay. Just to
go on record that you favor the -- support the appeal. Gene Fox supports the appeal.
Okay. Alta Jones. Okay. Thank you. Rita Exline supports. Peggy Slotten supports.
Okay. Is neutral on this. Okay. Betty Pearcey. Pearcey. Okay. She's in favor of the
appeal. And her husband is also. Okay. Thank you. Robert Orcutt in favor. Okay.
Bonnie Robinson in favor. Okay. Thank you. Judy Handlee in favor. Okay. And Sheri
Stiles in favor. I'm sure she has something to say. No? Good evening.
Stiles: Good evening. Sheri Stiles from Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens in
Eagle, Idaho.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Stiles: We are here only for one reason and that is because this is the second attempt
we have made to submit an application on this property and the second time it has been
denied. We were left with no other choice but to ask for an appeal to let it go through
the due process and be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City
Council and to be judged according to the merits of the project. I would certainly hope
that every project that comes in here has to comply implicitly with what the planning
director wants and just be based on her opinion of whether it should be approved or not.
As speaking from experience, it was unheard of to deny an application that was
complete. We have submitted every piece of information that is requested for a
complete application, except for the Comprehensive Plan change. It does not require a
Comprehensive Plan change. The reason for the L-O designation adjacent to those
Meridian City Council
September 5,2006
Page 64 of 74
residential homes was to provide a buffer between the more intensive commercial uses
and those homes. I can see where maybe the Council would be a little concerned that.
you know, it would just be widespread residential subdivision after residential
subdivision out there, but due to the price of the property and -- that's not going to be
the case. I don't want to get into anything about the project. I guess I see if we are
denied to go forward, at least to be heard and have our application continue through the
process, there is no difference between someone coming in and requesting a
commercial use that's allowed in an L-O district as a conditional use, because it's not
office. I mean it's ludicrous. And all we are asking is that you let us go forward and let
us go before the Planning and Zoning Commission, talk to the City Council and make
our presentations and you just judge it according the merits of the project. You can
approve multi-family as a conditional use in an L-Q zone, but you do need to let the
applicant know what -- under what conditions it will be allowed. I don't know if you have
any questions of me, but that's all we are trying to do.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Is there any further testimony on this application? You do have wrap-up
remarks. You are the applicant.
Angstman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Councilmen. I would like to -- I have got a copy
of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and I just -- I have to refute the statement that
the -- that this amendment had to do with residential -- the definition of what's allowed in
residential. And I wish -- I can give you one copy is all I have, but I will show you -- the
underlined portions are what are changed. Here is residential and there is a section, as
the staff indicated, regarding use of three acre -- three acre properties in a residential
section, but that's not the section I'm referring to. You go down here where it says office
and what I read to you is at the end of the office definition, not in the residential
definition and I guess I can submit this if you don't have --
Borton: Madam Mayor, that is -- that definition is included in your submittal, the one you
have --
Angstman: It is. You do have my submittal, so--
Borton: Page two of your remarks.
Angstman: Okay. And that -- I just have to -- that's the only thing I had to say in
rebuttal is that it is in the office definition, not in the residential where it says that this
issue is a -- is a City Council discretionary issue, not staff. I would ask -- I don't know if
it's possible. Like you said, this is the first time you have been faced with this. But I
think my client should get his 603 dollars back. I mean I really don't think that we should
be here and have to appeal this decision when it's clear in the ordinance. So, I don't
know if it's in your discretion to give that back, but I would request it if it is. Thank you.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 65 of 74
De Weerd: Sir, I do have a question of you. I guess the same question I had asked the
staff is why there wasn't a Comprehensive Plan change request with this application.
Angstman: The use submitted is an allowed use with a Conditional Use Permit in the --
under the Comprehensive Plan. It would be costly to my client to submit a
Comprehensive Plan amendment and useless, because it's not required under the
Comprehensive Plan, it's not required under the ordinance. The ordinance says Council
can determine whether or not this use is appropriate in an L-O zone and it's a
conditional use under the L-O zone. Should this property be annexed it would
necessarily be annexed with a zoning designation of L-O and as a conditional use in an
L-O zone, Council can approve a multi-family development and that's what's being
proposed is a multi-family use. It is a good buffer between commercial and residential
and that's why your ordinance allows a conditional use. One of the things that staff said
is the applicant believes that these uses should be allowed. That's not what we believe.
We believe that Council should make the decision whether they be allowed. Council is
elected, they are -- they have constituents, they live in the community, and they get to
decide whether or not such a use should be -- should be approved or not, not staff. And
that's fundamental to due process that the elected officials would make these
discretionary types of decisions and that is why we chose not to simply submit a Comp
Plan amendment and stipulate to -- that we don't comply with the Comp Plan, when we
do.
De Weerd: But that is her job to interpret that and you do have an appeal and that's
why you're in front of Council tonight is you disagree with a determination that our staff
was given the authority to make and that authority was given by this Council and so
that's all I have to say on that is please don't keep beating up staff for doing their job.
She was doing her job as she's asked to. You have the ability to appeal and that's why
you're here in front of us today. This Council will make that determination, then.
Angstman: Madam Mayor, I do take issue with the thought that I'm beating up staff. It
is my job today to present my client's case, not -- my client's case is staff made an error.
That does not mean that I don't -- I have sat here today and I have listened to her do a
remarkable job on all these other projects. It is not meant to be a criticism of her as a
person or the way she does her job generally.
De Weerd: Okay.
Angstman: In this instance she made a mistake and the mistake is the definition of
office under the Comp Plan. It says that this is an issue at the discretion of Council and
that does -- you know, this does raise due process issues. If your own Comp Plan says
this is an issue that should be submitted to Council and staff members are taking that
issue away from Council, that's a due process issue.
De Weerd: Sir, I believe this is your due process, so it's here in front of Council.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 66 of 74
Angstman: It is, indeed. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Canning: I think I understand now what Councilman Borton was trying to get at and the
applicant, but I think if you go back to that text amendment it's clear that that section
reference was with regard just to the residential districts and that's why the residential
districts are referenced in the introductory clause to that statement, so --
Baird: Madam Mayor and Members of the Council.
De Weerd: Mr. Baird.
Baird: Because your decision might hinge on which interpretation of 04-454 you believe
is correct, could I suggest we take a short intermission, get you each copies of that,
before you make your decision?
De Weerd: That's an excellent suggestion. Council, I will call a recess for ten minutes.
Reconvene at 10:45.
(Recess. )
De Weerd: I will go ahead and call this meeting back to order. We are back in order.
We are back in meeting. I think. Okay. Good to go? Okay. Council, you have in front
of you Exhibit A, the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and I guess I would ask Anna
for comment and, then, I would ask the applicant.
Canning: Yes, ma'am. I can give quite a bit of information on that resolution that you're
seeing tonight. This is the staff report written for that Comprehensive Plan amendment.
As you will see here Wendy Kirkpatrick was the staff working on the application and this
was the one that generated 04 -- just lost the -- 04-454. So, as you will see in the
summary and the background material, that this will modify the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan by adding a text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The text
will allow applicants to request L-O zoning in areas where the Comprehensive Plan
designation of residential, which are located along arterial streets and section line
roads. Additionally, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will allow applicants
to request property with a public, quasi-public designation -- and I'll leave off there,
because it's getting out of the realm of what we are talking. And, then, it goes through
the specific proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and you will see here the
underlying text of at the discretion of City Council, areas with a residential
Comprehensive Plan designation may request office uses. And you will go down to
office and you will see that language that was pointed out to you earlier and also some
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 67 of 74
language we changed for public, quasi-public. Staff went on to do a Comprehensive
Plan analysis. Low density residential -- going to the last section. This application
would allow for an applicant to apply for L-O zoning when the subject property is located
on an arterial street or a section line road. Medium density. Again, this applicant would
allow for an applicant to apply for L-O zoning when the subject property is located on an
arterial street or section line road. High density same. Office. The proposed text
amendment will not change what is allowed in areas with a Comprehensive Plan
designation of office. So, the definition that would apply, that added language, was just
with regard to folks applying for an office use within a residential designation -- district.
Or a residential designation. I think that shows why I am sticking to what I see as the
Comprehensive Plan, the allowed uses within that office designation include offices,
technology and resource centers. Ancillary commercial uses may be considered,
particularly with research and development centers or technological parks. And I guess
there was a comment made earlier that if a commercial use came in that was not one of
those listed, would I turn it away as an incomplete application -- and exactly that's what I
would do. So, you know, I wasn't doing this just because it was a residential project, I
was doing it because I felt it didn't meet this definition as shown in the Comprehensive
Plan.
De Weerd: Okay. Sir?
Angstman: Madam Mayor and Councilmen, I respectfully disagree with that analysis.
What you have been shown is a staff report, which is not ordinance and does not
become the law for the City of Meridian. What is the law is what the Comprehensive
Plan amendment stated and it states within its definition of what an office use would be,
that it's the discretion of Council. Now, I do -- I can see how this could become an issue
and how this decision could be made, but I, frankly, when I see the statement in the
staff report, that doesn't change how office uses would be handled, I can -- we looked at
the 1993 Comprehensive Plan, discussed it, and if this doesn't change what was
happening before, what was happening before was office uses included anything under
L-O category in the comprehensive -- in the zoning ordinance. So, if this doesn't
change how offices were being handled, then, it would still include all the conditional
uses listed in the ordinance under office. Thank you.
De Weerd: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant, Council?
Bird: I have none.
De Weerd: Okay. Okay.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Is there any further public comment?
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 68 of 74
De Weerd: Is there any further public comment? Thank you.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we close the Public Hearing on AP 06-001.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 19. All those in
favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Borton.
Borton: I see the problem with this is a disagreement with what was intended by the
Comp Plan amendment and what specific definition states. For what it's worth -- and I
think the intent of staff is right on line with what perhaps was discussed and the staff
report makes reference to. From my read on it, for what it's worth, the office definition
and the additional language does actually modify -- modify that definition. And perhaps
it's actually a question for legal counsel, Mr. Baird to determine, but I see the addition of
that language and contractual interpretation rules which would allow you to pull out the
phrase within the comment to determine what's been added and in the office definition it
does add additionally light office uses may be approved in limited circumstances and
that light office uses includes into the office definition in what was added. It makes
reference to as noted in the residential district. I think what was intended was to apply
that light office use to residential districts. It doesn't say that. Coupled with the fact that
it's actually included within office definition paragraph, creates, I think, the confusion
between staff and the applicant and I think that's my sense of what Mr. Angstman -- how
he reads it. I see it ripe for a prompt Comp Plan textual amendment to fix that. It
doesn't sound like that was what was intended when the amendment was made, but
that's how it reads in the staff report, it's not what indicates or dictates what the
requirements are upon an applicant. Those are specifically set forth in the Comp Plan.
So, for what it's worth that's how I read it. I don't think we are -- I would be inclined to
grant the appeal. I make no comment or no reference or indication one way or another
on the application itself, whatever it would say and whatever it would do, I give no
indication whether I would be in support of it or against it, regardless of what anyone
has said here tonight. But I do think that the appeal is warranted in light of the language
that's set forth in the office definition. And that needs to be fixed, because I think you
will get additional requests the way it's written.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments?
Meridian City Council
September 5. 2006
Page 69 of 74
Canning: Can I ask a follow-up question?
De Weerd: Anna.
Canning: Would deleting that sentence fix it? It seems to me that that's what needs to
be done, but does it need to be modified or deleted, do you think?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes.
Borton: If the inclusion of this sentence permits light office uses at the discretion of
Council -- so if that's not what is intended, then, the sentence should be removed.
Including that -- the comment portion as noted in residential districts section, doesn't
clarify its definition nor does it limit its scope to residential districts, it only sort of invites
confusion that we have got, so I guess delete it.
Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, perhaps the direction could just be to
planning to work with legal to craft language that will fulfill the original intent of the '04
amendment. Again, that's beyond the scope of the question before you, but if you see a
problem you're telling us how you think it should be fixed.
Borton: But I think that's the only thing that's fair to staff. Got to make these judgment
calls and, then, if it's unclear you're the one that's got to wrestle with it, so to clarify it as
best we can.
De Weerd: Mr. Wardle.
Wardle: Madam Mayor, I guess I -- not having the experience in law school as a
number of my colleagues here, the one thing that I look at is the question in my mind is
really an appeal of the planning director's decision and I can understand her
interpretation of this specific code and, then, were there any questions for her, she has
some background information from the Council on a not -- not the same project,
obviously, but in the original Comp Plan amendment, which was denied, there is some
very specific public testimony language, discussion by this City Council as to the merit
of any residential projects within a very very very specific geographic boundary, so I -- in
that sense I can understand her specific decision on the incompleteness of the specific
application without a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 70 of 74
Bird: Put my penny's worth in. I agree with Councilman Borton. I think -- and I think we
need to sit and really take a hard look is this what we really want in there or how do we
want to do it. And. then, on staff's -- the benefit of staff, they -- we can change things up
here. They can't. They have got to go by what the thing says. So, that's why they do
their rulings that they do, because they have to live with it. We can change it. You
know, I'm like Councilman Borton, how I vote today -- tonight isn't going to determine
how I would vote on the application.
De Weerd: Okay. With all the discussion, do I have a motion?
Borton: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton.
Borton: I move we approval or affirm or grant, whatever word fits there, AP 06-001, a
request for an appeal of the planning director's determination.
Bird: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second approving the appeal. Is that right?
Bird: His motion is approving the appeal.
Borton: Or--
De Weerd: Granting the appeal.
Bird: Upholding the appeal of the applicant.
De Weerd: Can you give me the words?
Baird: Madam Mayor, let's go with grant the appeal and you might want to give further
direction that what that -- what that means is that you're going to direct that it be
accepted and set it for appropriate hearings.
Borton: So moved. Motion to reflect that it be deemed complete, received, and set for
appropriate hearings.
De Weerd: Okay. Second agrees?
Bird: Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion?
Bird: Madam Mayor?
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 71 of 74
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: And I don't think the motion meant this and the second certainly didn't, but the
applicant asked about the refund of his fees for this appeal. That isn't included, is it?
Borton: It is not.
Bird: Okay. Second agrees.
De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you, please call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay.
MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Item 20:
Item 21 :
Item 22:
Item 23:
Item 24:
Item 25:
Ordinance No. 06-1256 : AZ 06-026 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 60.96 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Paramount South
60 Subdivision by Paramount Development - northeast corner of North
Linder Road and West McMillan Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1257 : AZ 06-018 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 20.01 acres from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density
Residential) zones for Incline Villaae Subdivision by Incline Village, LLC
- north side of Cherry Lane west of Black Cat Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1258 : AZ 05-064 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 116.81 acres from RUT to R-8 zone for Bear Creek West
Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - south of West Overland
Road and west of South Stoddard Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1259 : AZ 06-015 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 182.60 acres to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (168.23
acres), TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood-Residential) (10.42 acres) and C-
N (Neighborhood Business) (3.94 acres) zones for Tanana Vallev
Subdivision (f.k.a. - Lookout Ridge Subdivision) by Farwest, LLC -
southeast corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1260 : AZ 06-027 Request for Annexation
and Zoning of 3.92 acres to an R-8 zone for Tapestry Subdivision by
Raftis Tapestry, LLC - 635 and 675 South Linder Road:
Ordinance No. 06-1261 : RZ 06-005 Request for a Rezone of
1.004 acres from R-4 to L-O (Limited Office District) for Meridian
Professional Office by John Homan - 2835 and 2825 North Meridian
Road:
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 72 of 74
Item 26:
Ordinance No.
06-1262
: 2006/2007 Fiscal Year Budaet:
De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Next items are ordinances on Items 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,
25 and 26. I am surprised that no one wants to sit here and listen to these ordinances
read by title only. Oh, Frank will. Thank you, Frank. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read
these --
Berg: I will start, Madam Mayor, with the ordinance Item 20. Mayor and Council, Item
20, Ordinance 06-1256 an ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of
the south quarter -- excuse me -- south half of the southwest quarter of Section 25,
Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in
Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho,
and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested
by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification
of said lands from RUT to R-8 residential district in the Meridian City Code, providing
that copies of this 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 an effective date.
Berg: Item 21, 06-1257, an ordinance for annexation of property located in a portion of
the southwest quarter of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and
territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate
limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and
determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-4 in the
Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this 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 an effective date.
Berg: Item 22, Ordinance 06-1258, an ordinance for annexation of property located in
the west half of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of
the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining
the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT to R-8 in the Meridian City
Code, providing that copies of this 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 an effective date.
Berg: Item 23, Ordinance 06-1259, an ordinance for annexation of property located in
the northwest quarter and the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 30,
Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in
Attachment A and annexing certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho,
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 73 of 74
and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested
by the City of Meridian, establishing and determining the land use zoning classification
of said lands from RUT to R-8 in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this
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 an
effective date.
Berg: Item 24, Ordinance 06-1260, an (AZ-06-027 Tapestry Subdivision) for annexation
of property being all of lots 14 through 17, Van Hees Subdivision, as recorded in Book
12 of Plats at page 688, records of Ada County recorder, Boise, Idaho and a portion of
the SE quarter of the NE quarter of Section 14, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, 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 limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing
and determining the land use zoning classification of said lands from RUT (Ada County)
to R-8 (Medium Density Residential District) in the Meridian City Code; providing that
copies of this 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 rules; and providing
an effective date.
Berg: Item 25, Ordinance 06-1261, an ordinance finding that John Homan, the owner of
certain real property has made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification
(RZ-06-005 - Meridian Professional Office) for real property being Lots 1-3, Block 1 of
Salisbury Land Subdivision, and portions of W. Sedgewick Drive and N. Meridian Road
in Section 1, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as
described in Attachment "A" of this ordinance and re-zoning certain lands and territory.
situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian;
and re-zoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-4 (Low Density
Residential) to L-O (Limited Office District) in the Meridian City Code; providing that
copies of this 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 rules; and providing
an effective date.
Berg: Item 26, Ordinance 06-1262, an ordinance pursuant to Idaho Code 50-1002 and
50-1003, providing for title and findings providing for the option of the budget
incorporation of 95,835,010 dollars to defray the necessary expenses and liabilities of
the City of Meridian in accordance with the object and purposes in the certain amounts
herein set specifically for the fiscal year beginning October 1 st, 2006, and ending on
September 30th, 2007, to levy all such appropriate taxes and levies as authorized by
the law upon the taxable property and to collect all unauthorized -- excuse me -- all
authorized revenues, to provide for the waiver of the second and third readings
pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902 and providing for an effective date. The filing of a
Meridian City Council
September 5, 2006
Page 74 of 74
certified copy of this ordinance with the Secretary of State. And there will be a test
tomorrow.
De Weerd: I'm sure we will pass. Okay. You have heard all of those very worthy
ordinances read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear them read in their
entirety, anyone of them? Thank you so much. Council, I would entertain a motion.
Bird: Madam Mayor?
De Weerd: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we approve Ordinance No. 06-1256, 06-1257, 06-1258, 06-1259, 06-1260,
06-1261, and 06-1262 with suspension of rules.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve ordinances on Items 20
through 26. Mr. Berg, will you, please, call roll.
Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn if there is no further
business.
Bird: So moved.
Wardle: Second.
De Weerd: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
De Weerd: Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:59 P.M.
MA