Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 09-26 Meridian Citv Council Meetina September 26. 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, September 26, 2006, by President Shaun Wardle. Members Present: Shaun Wardle, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree and Joe Borton. Members absent: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Caleb Hood, Len Grady, Joe Silva, John Overton, Doug Strong, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree o X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Wardle: I would like to welcome everyone to our City Council meeting for the City of Meridian, Tuesday, September 26, at 7:00 o'clock. I will begin with roll call attendance. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Wardle: Thank you. Item 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all please rise and join me in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle: Wardle: Item No. 3 is our community invocation by Pastor Burton Roberts with Meridian Gospel Tabernacle. Roberts: Before we pray, I'd like to just take a moment to say my thanks for the Roberts family for honoring my father the way the Council did on his passing. It's meant a lot to our family to know that the City Council honored him in the way that you did and I just wanted to thank you for that. Let us pray. Most gracious and kind Heavenly Father, we are, indeed, thankful that we can come to you and invoke your presence at this time of gathering. We know that our hearts -- we love this community. We are so thankful for your watch care in our lives. We just ask again, Father, that you would watch over every decision that is made here tonight, cause our hearts to be able to be joined together with purpose and vision, a unity that will produce for us a continuing community wherein we can be known as a community of love, acceptance, and forgiveness, a community that's concerned about appropriate growth, but we know, Father, that these Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 2 of 28 decisions are not made without struggles, so we ask for your wisdom and your guidance at this time tonight. We ask these things in Jesus mighty name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: Wardle: Pastor Roberts, thank you for your continued service to our community. Item NO.4 is adoption of the agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: We have a few changes here on the Consent Agenda. Item A has been asked to be pulled and tabled to October 3rd, '06. On the regular agenda Item No.9 has been asked to be withdrawn by the applicant. And Items 15 and 16 have been asked to be withdrawn by the applicant. With that I move that we approve the revised agenda. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the revised agenda. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 06-018 Request for a Variance for full access to Bienville Square from State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) for Bienville Sauare Subdivision by Red Cliff Development - 2539 North Eagle Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: VAR 06-019 Request for a Variance approval for removal of the sidewalk requirement along Larkwood Place for Cardigan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkwood Place: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 034 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 2.95 acres from R4 (Ada County) to L-O (Limited Office District) zones for Ashtvn Park Annexation by David N. Price -- 201 West Ustick Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 033 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 7.6 acres from RUT (Ada County) to 6 acres of R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) and 1.6 acres of R-8 (Medium Density Residential) for Benelli Sprinas Subdivision by Rob Godsill - 3420 South Locust Grove Road: Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 3 of 28 E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 041 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 17 single-family units in the proposed R-4 zone, 8 single family units in the proposed R-8 zone and 5 common lots on 7.6 acres for Benelli Springs Subdivision by Rob Godsill- 3420 South Locust Grove Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 06- 006 Request for a Rezone of 6.82 acres from R-8 to R-15 zones for Cedar Sprinas Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of West McMillan and west of North Meridian Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 033 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 48 attached single- family units in the proposed R-15 zone, 20 detached single-family units in the existing R-8 zone and 5 common lots on a total of 11.05 acres for Cedar Springs Townhomes by John Flaherty Construction - south of West McMillan and west of North Meridian Road: H. Water Main Easement Agreement for All Vallev Animal Care by Boise Valley Common: I. Aareement for Professional Services for Information Technologv Strategic Audit with Kerrin Executive Services: J. Public Works Change Order No. 2 of Contract for PRY Radio and Power Installations with Lea Electric: K. Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Meridian and Local Union # 2311 for Fire Inspector Position: Wardle: Item No.5, the Consent Agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: As I stated, Item A on the Consent Agenda needs to be tabled until October 3rd, 2006. And with that I move that we approve the revised Consent Agenda and for the President to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 4 of 28 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Department Reports: A. Legal Department - Bill Nary 1. Approve SWAC Recommendation on Application for Meridian Middle School Cardboard Recycling Pilot Program for $220.00: 2. Approve SWAC Recommendation on Application for Meridian Bovs & Girls Club of Ada County for Centennial Park Artwork Project for $7,740.00: 3. Entitlement Citv Letter for U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development's designation as an Entitlement Community: Wardle: Item NO.6 is Department Reports. Item 6-A, Legal Department, Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President. There are two items there, one and two, that are Solid Waste Advisory Committee recommendations. We bring those to you periodically during the budget year. There is money set aside in the budget for these type of applications. The Solid Waste Advisory committee has recommended approval of both of these. Just to refresh your memory, these types of projects require a 50 percent match by the applicant. Both of these meet this criteria. Just as one note, item two is for 7,740 dollars for the Meridian Boys and Girls Cl.ub application. That would exceed the remainder of the budget. There is a portion of that that can be paid out of this year's budget that would take the total amount in that line item down to zero. There is a remainder that we will bring back to you in the new year when the specific -- the specific amount out of the next year's budget needs to be paid in phases, because this is a phased in project anyway, but I wanted to make you aware of both of those. If those meet your approval, we'd simply ask for your motion and approval of those. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, questions about the Solid Waste Advisory Committee recommendation? Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: Just for clarity, this is not taxpayer dollars, this is the money that has been raised through our recycling; right? Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 5 of 28 Nary: Absolutely. Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, all of the money that's in that fund comes from the return by SSC to the city from the funds they receive from the recycling program that his held city wide. So, all of the funds from that don't come out of the General Fund, they all come from the return on the recycling program. Bird: Thank you. Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move we approved the two SWAC recommendations of Meridian Middle School cardboard project for 220 dollars and the Meridian Boys and Girls Club for 7,740 dollars. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve both recommendations from the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Item 3, Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President. Item 3 is a letter from the City with the Mayor's signature to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City of Meridian, when it went over 50,000 residents, is now eligible to be an entitlement city and directly receive funds from the federal government for community development block grants. So, rather than getting in the large pool, which is made up of cities statewide that are eligible, we are eligible as an individual city to be entitled to receive those funds directly. There is a longer process that goes into place and I will just give you a very brief thumbnail about that. The intent is to implement a program that would begin October 1 of 2007. So, in the next year what we would be doing is -- right now we don't have city staff set aside to use this or to manage this. We are looking to contract with an entity like Sage that has been our assistant in getting these block grants and developing these block grant programs for the city, to have them do the underlying work that's necessary. What that is is to establish a program to get public input to look at the possible varieties of programs that can be done, whether it's building infrastructure like sidewalks in areas of our city that are needed for a safe route to schools or routes for low income folks to be able to have better access to the downtown core, whether it's to purchase property -- that's the more extreme end, whether to purchase property that could be used for moderate income housing or low income housing -- there is a variety of different things that these funds can be used for, but the first step in the process is to do this and the letter has to be sent to them before the end of the week, so that's why Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 6 of 28 it's here tonight. Mayor de Weerd wasn't able to be here tonight to present this herself, but this is the first step. There is a lot more things that will happen. Eventually, what happens in the process is that when these funds are, then, available, they are made available in the spring, what the intent is is to bring projects to you by your next budget cycle for you to be able to have the public hearings, make the decisions as to which projects you want to fund with the available monies that the city is entitled to and, then, those monies would, then, be able to be used October 1 of '07 when the program actually would begin. That timing -- at least in talking to other cities that do this type of work around the state, Lewiston, Idaho Falls, Boise, Pocatello, that timing really works in the city's best interest to be able to identify the needed projects and fund the needed projects for your budget cycle. Most of the other cities don't do it that way, so they have to speculate the amount of funds they will get and which funds they can, then -- which project they can, then, fund and sometimes it gets a little troubling. So, probably the most positive side from the city's aspect of doing this is none of the cities in Idaho that have taken on this task have ever turned backwards and stopped doing it. You always have the ability to stop doing it and not continue to be an entitlement city if you don't want to be -- no city has done that, because they have found the benefits to the citizenry has been enough to make it worthwhile. There is administrative fees that can be taken out of the money, so the city isn't necessarily funding this out of taxpayer dollars, it's all funded out of the grant monies and you can do that through a contract process like we are considering. Anyway, if it meets your approval, we'd like your approval to move the letter forward so we can be in the process. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, questions? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Bill, what kind of funds are we talking about -- not funds, but amounts are we talking about? Nary: It's hard to get specific numbers, but somewhere between three and four hundred thousand dollars, based on our population. That's a factor that -- Rountree: Per year? Nary: -- goes into it per year. Yes. There is a factor that goes into it as population, there is a number of other factors. To give you just a brief example, Idaho Falls has a higher population than Pocatello, yet gets a smaller entitlement than Pocatello, just because of the economy in Pocatello is a little different than Idaho Falls. Housing stock, economy, those things go into that. But they said three or four hundred thousand is a pretty realistic number to be looking at. Rountree: Thank you. Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 7 of 28 Wardle: Council, additional questions? Just for clarification, Mr. Nary, this is to express our interest in becoming an entitlement city and certainly the opportunity for grants and funding will be discussed in full at our fiscal year 2008 budget; is that correct? Nary: Yeah. And, in fact, Mr. President, Members of the Council, it will be discussed with you a whole bunch before that. But, yeah, this is just the first step. If we don't do it by the end of the month we will lose a year in the cycle. So, that's the reason we want to have this part done and you will see a whole lot more of this before your -- even your budget hearings next summer. Wardle: Okay. Rountree: Do you need a motion or just general consensus? Wardle: Preferably a motion to support the Mayor's signature. Nary: A motion would be better, because, eventually, there is, obviously, some real commitment on the city's part, so we would prefer that. Rountree: Mr. President, I move that we endorse and authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to HUD designating Meridian as an entitlement community. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to support Item 3, Legal Department. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Public Works Department 1. Personal Services Contract between the Citv of Meridian and Whitman & Associates. Inc. to provide building inspection services and plan reviews for structures constructed within the City of Meridian: 2. Personal Services Contract between the Citv of Meridian and RIMI, Inc. to provide mechanical inspection services and plan reviews for structures constructed within the City of Meridian: 3. Personal Services Contract between the Citv of Meridian and DMH. Enterprises to provide plumbing inspection Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 8 of 28 services and plan reviews for structures constructed within the City of Meridian: 4. Personal Services Contract between the Citv of Meridian and Harold's Electric. Inc. to provide electrical inspection services and plan reviews for structures constructed within the City of Meridian: 5. Personal Services Contract between the Citv of Meridian and Greene's Fire Protection & Safety Services. Inc. to provide fire inspection services and plan reviews for structures constructed within the City of Meridian: Wardle: Thank you. Item B is Public Works Department. Before you are each of the contracts, which I will read by title. Personal Services contract between the City of Meridian, Item 1, Whitman & Associates, Inc. Item 2, RIMI, Inc. Item 3, DMH Enterprises. Item 4, Harold's Electric, Incorporated. And Item 5, Greene's Fire Protection & Safety Services, Incorporated. And I'm going to address any questions to Len, if you would. Grady: Mr. President, Bruce Freckleton has put these contracts together. Basically, they are a carryover from last year's same percentages, same stipulations as far as services. So, it's really just a pass through. I'm available for general questions. If we need to get more details we will have to wait for Bruce next week. He turned up sick today, so -- Wardle: Thank you, Len. We have discussed in the past making some changes to these arrangements. I believe those things are -- those are things that the department is considering for next fiscal year; is that true? Grady: That's correct. Wardle: Okay. Council, questions for Len or potentially the legal department on any of these contracts? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Question for legal counsel. You have reviewed these contracts? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yeah, these are the same agreements we have previously approved. So, yes. Rountree: Thank you. If there is no further questions, Mr. President, I move that we authorize and move forward with the personal services contracts in Item 6-8. One, Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 9 of 28 Whitman & Associates; two, RIMI, Inc.; three, BMH Enterprises; four Harold's Electric; and, five, Greene's Fire Protection & Safety Services. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve contract extensions for the city and the building department. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. Parks Department - Doug Strong 1. Award of Bid I Approve Budget Amendment for Adventure Island Splash Pad to Haemker General Construction. Inc. Wardle: Item 6-C is the Parks Department. Mr. Strong. Strong: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. I'm back before you tonight -- as you recall, I think it was back in August of -- I had before you our first bid on the construction of the Adventure Island splash pad. The recommendation was to deny that bid and rebid it, which you approved. We have successfully rebid the project and it doesn't show on the form that you received earlier, but we -- the earlier bid was 214,000 dollars. This -- the low bid the second time around was 183,340, which is a 57,660 dollars savings from the first bid and, essentially, the difference was the time frame to complete the project. And so that's -- that's one of the first items that I want your consideration on tonight is awarding the bid to install the equipment that we have already purchased to build this splash pad and, then, the second part is to amend our budget to fund the difference between what we currently have left in that line item and what it would take to finish the project. And just for the clarification, as we move -- when we first budgeted this project we designed it for a fresh water system. As we got further into the project the decision was made that we needed to build it with a recirculating system for water conservation issues. That added about 60,000 dollars to the cost of the project. So, that's, essentially, the difference that we are looking at in this budget amendment request from -- even with the rising costs of construction and so forth, so -- and as you will see on your notes also, that in July the architect's estimate was that the bid would come -- should be around 174,000. So, it seems like a very responsive bid or a reasonable bid and we would like to get it funded and underway. So, with that I'm open for questions. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Strong. Council, questions for the director? Borton: Mr. President? Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 10 of 28 Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Doug, what's changed on the timeline with the new bid? Is it going to be a slower installation? Strong: Yes. At this point, since we are not really looking at a summer season to make it viable that I think the extension was out through May of next year to complete. The construction will begin this fall and as much work will be accomplished as the weather will permit and, then, with completion in the spring. And if you have been out there you will see other work going on around that playground as well. Some groundwork to bring landscaping into pretty much grade for this project, as well as a swing area that's being installed. So, there is quite a lot of work going on this fall and we will continue that as long as the weather permits. Wardle: All right. Thank you, Doug. I'd like to commend the Parks Department for having the foresight to go back and actually rebid this project and understanding that we would have liked to have it before this summer season, but I think in the end we saved some dollars and will get, in my opinion, probably a nicer project out of it for what we are getting. So, with that, Council, I would need one motion to award the bid and another to approve a budget amendment to complete this project. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve and award the bid for the Adventure Island splash pad to Haemker General Construction. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve the bid. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve a budget amendment for the completion of the installation of the Adventure Island splash pad in the amount of 86,500. Rountree: Second. Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 11 of 28 Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve a budget amendment for 86,500 dollars. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: Wardle: Item 7. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: FP 06-042 Request for Final Plat approval for 12 commercial building lots on 3.77 acres in an L-O zone for Sundance Subdivision No.5 by Dave Evans Construction - Northeast Corner of West Ustick Road and North Meridian Road: Wardle: Item NO.8 is FP 06-042, final plat for Sundance Subdivision NO.5. I'll open with staff's comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. We do have a letter from the applicant stating that they are in full agreement with the conditions of the final plat staff report. Wardle: Council, questions for staff? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. Bird: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approved FP 06-042. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No.8. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Tabled from August 22,2006: Public Hearing: VAR 06-017 Request for a Variance for a right-in only access from Eagle Road to Sadie Creek Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 12 of 28 Promenade for Sadie Creek Promenade by Landmark Development Group, LLC - Southwest corner of Eagle Road and Ustick Road: Wardle: Item 9 has asked to be withdrawn by the applicant. Mr. Nary, do we need a motion to accept that withdrawal? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yes. And just to give you some background, if you recall, we left that on awaiting the decision from ITD on -- regarding this particular property. The Bienville one was set over because they had some paperwork to complete on that, but it was approved. What the Council had recommended for approval was approved by ITD, so they no longer need this access. Wardle: Thank you. Council? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we withdraw Item NO.9 from the agenda. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to accept withdrawal of Item NO.9. Mr. Clerk, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 10: Item 11: Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006: AZ 06-028 Request for Annexation and Zoningof 4.43 acres to an R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zone for Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006: PP 06-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 2 residential lots (proposed to contain 48 Multi-Family units) and 2 common lots on 4.43 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006: CUP 06-021 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval to construct a multi-family development consisting of 48 multi-family dwelling units (8 plexes) on 2 lots totaling 4.43 acres in the proposed R-15 zone Touchstone Place Subdivision by Horizon Development - 1187 East Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 13 of 28 Wardle: Thank you. Items 10, 11 and 12 are continued public hearings from August 22nd for Touchstone Place Subdivision. I will begin with staff comments. I believe we asked for some specifics on a legal matter, if that's correct. Hood: That's correct. Mr. President, Members of the Council, this -- these items were before you on the 22nd of August. The matter was continued out primarily due to a boundary -- a property line dispute. One of the adjacent neighbors claimed they did not receive adequate notice from the city. That was one of the factors. I think there were some other questions that arose during that Public Hearing. I do have some updated information for you. There was a letter that the city received on September 21 st from Meuleman Mollerup, the attorneys for the applicant, and, essentially, what it says, just to paraphrase that -- I think this visual was at the hearing last time. The properties -- the areas in dispute are in between the red and the green lines on both sides of this property. The subject property is -- kind of goes around visual of that property. What the applicant has proposed to do is not include anything that's being disputed and, in fact, they are willing to convey that to the adjacent property owner to just say we wash our hands of this problem. I did talk with Bill Nary today and, really, the only concern I think that staff has with that approach is if this parcel does not want to accept that property, then, you have a spite strip enclave that may hang out there forever, a piece of county ground in the middle of our city. So, that would be the only -- the only concern that we still have -- at least staff still has with that approach. However, it's the easiest approach for the applicant to get through the process. Mr. Nary may have some language for you should you decide to approve this project, stating that the applicant must give consent to annexation in the future and that way we can -- if no one picks it up we can just annex the property and, you know, they will still own it and be a part of this project and at least it gets annexed into the city with a zone, rather than having to -- consensual annexation into the city. I don't know if Mr. Nary wants to chime in on that. The other -- the other item, I guess, that I would call to your attention regarding this project is we did receive an e-mail from Mr. Joe Silva, from the fire department, asking that the requirement for the third access point, which is condition 3.17 in Exhibit B, be deleted, as it is not necessary for this project and, then, to clarify in condition 3.16 that the westerly driveway will need to be widened to 26 feet, rather than the 25 feet as that building is taller than would be allowed with a 25 foot wide drive aisle. Again, that property boundary dispute and allowing the attorney for the adjacent property owner to come to a hearing were primarily why this matter was pushed over to tonight. I will stand for any other questions you may have. Wardle: Thank you, Caleb. Council, questions for planning staff? Rountree: I have none. Wardle: Does legal staff have any additional -- Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I think we can probably resolve those issues of that sliver in a DA and simply -- the only two things we really would need from the applicant is a legal description of that parcel, so that way if it is a remainder parcel Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 14 of 28 and remains in their ownership and isn't transferred, then, they would be consenting to that being annexed into the city. I think their intent is to give up ownership and I believe that's probably going to happen, but in case it doesn't, we don't need a three foot wide strip of weeds right there on Fairview. So, we just want to have some assurance that we can annex it if that's what it remains. Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, additional questions for staff? Rountree: Not at this time. Bird: I have none. Wardle: Is the applicant present? Will you, please, state your name and address for the record, please. Briggs: My name is Dean Briggs. Briggs Engineering. 1800 West Overland Road. I thought I'd come and shed just a little light on the annexation process on this. The legal parcel that they are purchasing would include the area that we want give up and we are proposing that we go ahead and annex that parcel, so that -- and, then, work out some -- the lot line adjustment or property line adjustment with these people to the west. It's my understanding that property has sold. I haven't seen the -- to a commercial venture also. So, as it stands now, we'd like to go ahead and annex the entire piece, because it's one parcel, we don't want to annex just part of it and make it two parcels and, then, we will develop our project in such a fashion that it doesn't affect that piece to the west and when the lot property line adjustment comes in with the parcel to the west, they will incorporate that into their commercial project. So, is that kind of clear? Wardle: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Rountree: No. Briggs: And as far as Mr. Silva's comments, we appreciate that. Wardle: Thank you. Briggs: Do you have any questions? Rountree: No. Thanks, Dean. Wardle: This is a Public Hearing. If there is anyone else that would wish to provide testimony? Seeing none, Council? Bird: Mr. President? Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 15 of 28 Wardle: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-028, PP 06-028, and CUP 06-021. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved seconded to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Thank you. Mr. Nary, just a quick question. The development agreement would be able to address the issues that the applicant has stated? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, yeah, I don't -- unless Mr. Hood has a concern, I don't have a problem with us annexing the entire parcel. If they sell it and want to severe it, then, they are going to have to go through a process to do that and that portion still is within the city. I don't know if Mr. Hood has a different concern, but I don't have a problem with that. Hood: My only concern is that the engineering firm, Mr. President, Members of the Council, the engineering firm who, no offense to Councilman Borton, but he being more on the survey side versus -- I guess the letter from the attorney's office says that: Please note that the boundary description of the proposed subdivision before the City Council does not include the disputed property, nor does it include the other potential overlap of the property. So, there is -- we have got some conflicting testimony here. Briggs Engineering is saying it's not included -- or is included in the annexation. The letter from their attorney says that it isn't included. So, I don't know what the legal description says. I haven't reviewed it, but I do see it -- either way we are okay, I guess, but -- Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, as long as what you're annexing and what the DA would reflect that we are annexing property that they own -- if there is a dispute over the ownership, I think that was -- when I spoke to Mr. Mollerup that's what I had understood was what he put in this letter was that they were going to not -- not annex that portion of the property today, but if that's their desire, that's fine. I mean we can annex it and still resolve that under the development agreement or not annex it and resolve it in the development agreement. We can do either one, if that's the Council's desire, but we are going to annex what they own and that's fine. If we need to adjust that at some point we can do that. If they need to sever that parcel later, they can do that through the process. So, we can take care of that either way. Wardle: Thank you. Borton: Mr. President? Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 16 of 28 Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Question for legal Council. So, the specific description within the application isn't dispositive of what's being annexed then? By way of example, if the description listed the western most line, would that potentially meet that strip outside of the -- Nary: Well -- and that -- Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, I mean I guess that's -- that's what I had understood from their counsel was that that section of the property, what is I think the pink line on there or the red line on there, was the portion that was going to be left out and that's why the development agreement should reflect -- we need a property description of that little sliver. Now, what Mr. Briggs is saying is we are just going to annex the entire parcel. If they believe they own the entire parcel, as far as we can tell we think they do, too. The dispute is by the neighboring property owner and that's, again, not an issue for us, that's an issue for them to work out. As far as we can tell from the assessor's map, they own all of those -- that parcel. So, either one of those outcomes we can deal with. If they do own it, which we think they do, we can annex the whole thing. If they want to leave a portion out, all we would want is a description of that parcel and a consent to annex it if it remains in their possession. If it gets sold and severed off to somebody else, there will be a process to do that. Borton. Okay. Wardle: Council, additional questions? Clarification? I would entertain a motion on Item 10. Nary: I don't know if he has anymore rebuttal, Mr. President. Since we have had some more discussion on the record, I don't know if he has anything else as the final work here. Oh, I'm sorry -- Wardle: We need to reopen the Public Hearing. Nary: I didn't realize that. I don't know -- do you think there is anything you need to tell Mr. Hood? Wardle: If I could entertain a motion to reopen the Public Hearing. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: Move we reopen the Public Hearing on Items 10, 11 and 12. Wardle: Thank you. It's been moved and seconded -- I'll second that. So, it's been moved and seconded to open the Public Hearing. All in favor? Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 17 of 28 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Sir, if you will, please, come forward and state your name and address again. Briggs: Dean Briggs. 1800 West Overland Road. What we are doing is because there is a legal parcel there, we figure we have to annex the entire legal parcel. When we subdivide we will exclude that parcel as either just a non-buildable lot or just exclude it. And, hopefully, we will get the property line adjustment done before we do that plat, which would be the best of all worlds. But we do want to annex the entire portion, because that's a legal lot and the attorney's own surveyor filed a record of survey telling us that that was a parcel, the parcel we are buying. So, that's where we are at. Wardle: Thank you. Council, additional questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Wardle: Before we entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing, I'm going to ask if there is anymore testimony to be given on any of these applications. Staff, any additional comments? Okay. I would entertain another motion to close the public hearings. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item 10, AZ 06-028, to include staff and applicant comments and incorporate legal counsel's directions in the development agreement. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 10. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council September 26. 2006 Page 18 of 28 Wardle: Item No. 11. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item No. 11, PP 06-028. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 11. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: Item No. 12. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we approve Item No. 12, CUP 06-021. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 12. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2006: AZ 06-029 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.39 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed - south side of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road: Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2006: PP 06-029 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 29 single-family residential lots and 4 common / other lots on 9.88 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Silversprings Subdivision by Reed Kofoed - south side of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road: Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 19 of 28 Wardle: Thank you. Item Nos. 13 and 14 are continued public hearings from September 19th, last week. I will open these and begin with staff comments. Hood: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. Just a quick refresher. We are on the south side of McMillan Road, east of Meridian Road. There are two five acre parcels that are proposed for annexation and subdivision within the city. Twenty-nine single family homes are proposed here. The main reason that this was continued, as you recall, Havasu Creek, which is to the west and south of the subject site, with their preliminary plat and final plat approval, a cross-access -- 50 foot wide cross-access ingress-egress easement was provided to the subject site. The question arose of how come it was a cross-access easement and why wasn't it a 50 foot wide public street stub to this property. What staff has found out over the past week was that there was -- the owner of the house lot at that time did not want to see a street constructed through their backyard. City staff at that time recommended that it be amended from a public stub street to just be a cross-access easement at that time. That's how it was final platted. Now, the intent, I think, was that it would be a public stub street or a public street in the future. The problem with that is that you have got the width of that lot that's not constructed as a public street by the Havasu developer, nor were they supposed to construct that at the time of their development. It was probably an error on the city's part, although the error wasn't between preliminary and final plat, as maybe was alluded to in the previous discussion, it was something that was brought up and discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission and Commission agreed that it could just be an access at this time and they did not want to see that public street stubbed to this gentleman's backyard either. The stub street would, obviously, you know -- at least at the staff level we preach interconnectivity all the time, so from my perspective it would be ideal to have it extended. The problem, again, is that you don't have a public street extending to a public street. So, therein lies the problem. We did meet with the homeowners association who owns the property underlying this access easement and they were not favorable to giving up that access easement to ACHD for a street. They were pretty concerned about cut-through traffic and safety concerns with the kids in the area if that road were to be pushed through. We talked with ACHD as well about possible condemnation or anything they could do to help us out to get that 50 foot wide easement actually into public property and the basis for that just is not there in this case. So, that's pretty much what I found out over the past week talking with some other staff members, reviewing minutes and whatnot. So, that's the update I have for you and if you have any questions I will try to answer them. Wardle: Thank you. Council, I believe that was the issue we were looking at. Do we have -- Rountree: Surprise. Surprise. Wardle Maybe not the answer we were hoping we would find, but -- additional questions that we might have of staff? Rountree: I have none, nor of the applicant. Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 20 of 28 Bird: Me neither. Unless the applicant has -- Wardle: Is the applicant present and would like -- okay. Thank you. Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Borton. Borton: I guess a question of legal counsel is a couple specific choices whether or not we want to take any -- is there any other, counsel? Nary: Certainly, Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Borton, I mean you have a couple different choices that you could make. I mean one option you could certainly do is deny this access -- deny this particular request for annexation and the plat, because the connectivity isn't present. That's certainly an option that you have and it would be, then, incumbent on the applicant to go and resolve those issues with the Copper Basin people. Another is that you can require -- because there is an easement there, there is an issue that's problematic, is that the Copper Basin Subdivision has built a wall across what is platted on their plat as an ingress-egress easement. So, there is an easement that exists there today that has been blocked by their masonry wall that goes across it. They should be required to remove it if you want that easement to remain. You can require this applicant, as part of their approval, that they remove the wall and construct a roadway there. It would only be a private roadway at this point, it may be required to be barricaded until it can be a public roadway or dedicated as a private roadway, but you can certainly require it. They have an easement there that they can be required to construct on if that's what you want as part of this -- this annexation and some notice needs to be given to Copper Basin that that wall has to be removed and to open up that access. The last is is you can allow that to happen. The long term need of the city your discussion has been over is that going to have a light at that intersection. Mr. Mills from ACHD is here, we did speak shortly before the meeting. There is no -- there is no plan in effect today to construct a light at that particular section. It's a natural place to put a signal at some point in the future and there may be a need to put it in at some point in the future, but there is not a plan in the works today to do that. There is a circuitous route to get to that light, if you notice if you go back east from this particular parcel there is a road stub below there where it says Red Rock, that can allow access all the way back around. Again, I don't know if most people are going to drive that way, but it certainly is some connectivity. I think it's your folks' call. Obviously, you don't have to require the access, you can allow it to remain the way it is. My only other recommendation, if that's -- if that's your decision, then, at some point you may want to vacate the easement that's already there, because there is not much point to having an easement that goes into a wall. You could require a stub road be built there and resolve it later. That's probably the other option. Whether that makes sense to you or not, that's your call, but you could require that this applicant stub the road to the edge of that wall and not necessarily require it to go all the way through today. So, those were a bunch of different options that you have all within your discretion to do. Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 21 of 28 Wardle: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council? I do have two open public hearings, if we need any additional information from staff, applicant. Rountree: Mr. President, just a comment on the options that counsel presented to us. It seems to me that it makes an unfortunate situation worse the more we drag this on, so having said that, if there is no other discussion or comments, I'd move that we close the Public Hearing Items 13 and 14. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All in favor? Borton: Mr. President? Wardle: Discussion. Borton: Just briefly. I might be in the minority here and probably am in the minority here, but to the extent there is an opportunity to create some connectivity and alleviate a wrong, I'm not quick to pass on that, so that's a concern of mine, which is why I requested some time to see what options, if any, we had. Wardle: Additional discussion on the motion? I would say from my perspective we have received as much information as we can. I would offer a potential option when we come to preliminary plat that we could still approve that and potentially look at the opportunity to continue to work with the applicant in the neighborhood to have this preliminary plat be in substantial completion at final plat stage if it can get to that point with that access, but those are my only comments. Rountree: Mr. President, as we discussed this I don't disagree with Councilman Borton. I guess I'm wondering what his feelings would be if it were possible to utilize that easement and incorporate a pedestrian way at a minimum. Then that way at least there is access for bikes and people and the Havasu Creek folks really have no recourse in that situation I wouldn't think and I don't -- and we would need to hear from the applicant if that was possible. Wardle: Well, Council, I do have a motion and a second to close the public hearings. I would suggest that we leave the public hearings open, hear from the applicant on that issue, if it is a question. Bird: Withdraw the second. Wardle: Okay. Rountree: Withdraw the motion. Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 22 of 28 Wardle: Motion withdrawn for close of the Public Hearing. Mr. Rountree, would you like to expound on -- Rountree: I guess, Mr. President, it would be a question for the applicant. Is there a possibility of lining up a pedestrian access with that easement that would provide -- I know they have one pathway to the school site to the south and I don't know what the lot sizes are, because my eyesight's not good enough to read those fuzzy numbers. It would require some reengineering, but we can hear from the applicant on the pros and cons of that. I think from a continuity standpoint you still get some inter-neighborhood continuity. Erickson: Ross Erickson, 1854 East Lanark here in Meridian. Mr. President, Members of the Council, I guess to speak towards that pathway connection to that cross-access easement, we really don't feel that it's necessary and the reason being is that we are providing a connection here to the school site and there is an existing pathway along the back of this property that goes all the way out to Red Horse. So, there is a connection through to Red Horse over to Copper Basin or Havasu Creek, whatever you want to call it. So, I guess with that we would prefer not to construct the additional pedestrian pathway, because we feel that there is already connectivity within the development. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Council? Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: That satisfies my curiosity. I would remake my motion to close the public hearings for Items 13 and 14. Bird: I'd second it. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 13 and 14. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I would move that we approve Item 13, annexation 06-029. Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 23 of 28 Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 13. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I would move that we approve Item 14, preliminary plat for PP 06-029. Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 14. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006: AZ 05-067 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.9 acres from Ada County RUT to R-15 Medium-High Density Residential zone for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects - 1777 Victory Road: Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from August 22, 2006: CUP 05-060 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 32-unit multi-family development in a proposed R-15 Medium-High Density Residential District for Casa Meridiana by Insight Architects -1777 Victory Road: Wardle: Council, I believe last week we gave specific direction to staff in further review of issues from preliminary plat to final plat and just to put that back to Mr. Hood that these are issues that -- certainly I know planning staff is diligent about, but just to redouble our efforts to make sure that those things are at least brought to decisions -- or brought to some further discussion. With that, Council, we have Items 15 and 16, which have been asked to be withdrawn by the applicant. I would need a motion -- Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we withdraw Items 15 and 16 from consideration. Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 24 of 28 Bird: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to withdraw Items 15 and 16. Mr. Clerk, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Continued Public Hearing from September 19, 2006: MI 06-007 Request for Modification of the Development Agreement for Cherry Lane Christian Church for removal of the Conditional Use Permit requirement for construction north of Ten Mile Creek by Cherry Lane Christian Church - northwest corner of West Franklin Road and North Ten Mile Road: Wardle: Item No. 17 is a continued Public Hearing from September 19th, MI 06-007. I will open with staff comments. I believe that the questions of staff were related to consolidation of access points. Hood: That is correct, Mr. President, Members of the Council. This site is located on the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Franklin. It was approved this last year with a C-N zoning for a church and some accessory uses on the church site. They applied -- the subject application is asking to amend the development agreement in effect for this site on the triangular portion that they own on the north side of the Ten Mile Creek. So, this area here they are trying to remove that requirement for condition use permits prior to construction or establishment of any new uses. As the president just alluded to, the questions of access points came up at the last meeting. As you can see on their site plan there are three access points to Ten Mile Road north of the Ten Mile Creek, the northerly one being to a future city well site, the middle one primarily serving as the access to the gazebo park area for the church and, then, the southern most access -- right here, I believe, is for a bus and maintenance storage area. We did receive some comment today from Gary Inselman at ACHD. Len met with a representative from BRS last week to talk about consolidating access points or not consolidating access points. I'll let Len maybe talk a little bit about that meeting. I will summarize just real quick the e-mail that we received from Gary. It says if the city wants to reduce the access points, ACHD would prefer the city well lot take access from the church parking lot. If the city needs a driveway of their own, ACHD would prefer that it not connect to the church parking lot. The southern driveways that serve the bus storage area is proposed to be gated and not connected to the parking area. If that is the case, ACHD would not object to this driveway being constructed, with the condition that it be gated and the gate located 50 feet behind the future curb of Ten Mile Road. I did also want to note, ACHD did review this concept plan at the time of annexation. However, they did not provide specific conditions, because it was just an annexation. They will not provide comments until it's a development application and it generates trips. Until it generates trips they are just comments. They did review and approve these access points and we rolled Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 25 of 28 those into the DA also in effect. So, if you decide you want to consolidate an access or three into one or whatever, that will need to be directed towards our legal staff to make that amendment as part of any other amendments, I guess, to the DA you decide to make. So, I think I will turn it over to Len real quick and if you have any questions for me I will be here as well. Wardle: Thank you, Caleb. Len. Grady: Mr. President, Members of the Council, I did meet with the applicant. Primarily my purpose was to discuss the well lot and access to that. In order of preference, I think my recommendation would be to continue to have the access to the well lot, but bollard it off and what that will allow us to do is if we do have to get a drill rig there in the future, we are not having to contend with the parking lot traffic. So, on a day-to-day basis we would just take our access through a cross-access easement through the church. If that's not acceptable, we are also fine with just taking all of our access through the -- through the church parking lot. In the future if we need to, we will just have to figure out how to get the heavy equipment through the parking lot. So, we are okay either way. Wardle: Thank you, Len. Council, questions for staff? Is the applicant present? I do have a question, Len. Was the applicant in agreement with the bollard situation? Grady: Yes. Wardle: Okay. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Since I created this issue, Len, I understand where you're coming from, but ACHD has indicated that if the city so chose, the sole access to that future well lot would be not interconnected with the parking lot. Is that better for the city? Because, obviously, it's not a high volume move, it's something that could be done during the nonpeak hours, et cetera. I understand your desire to maybe listen to what I was saying, but I was just trying to see are there better answers. If the best thing for the city is to have the sole access in there, then, I don't have a problem with that. If ACHD has indicated what setbacks ought to be and particularly with the bus access and parking lot access, so -- Grady: On the scale of -- yes, ideally we would have sole access. ACHD has indicated that if we have access direct to our well site, that we not allow cross-traffic to go through the parking lot and we are certainly fine with that. We are probably talking about five trips a week on a -- three to five is on average. So, it's not -- certainly not a large volume. Meridian City Council September 26,2006 Page 26 of 28 Rountree: And, Mr. President, I would assume that site's going to be fenced for security reasons, possibly gated? Grady: It's yet to be determined if -- certainly we can fence it if -- if required. A lot of these well sites that we have at parks and similar are open, because there is enough eyeballs on it to make sure that it's secure. If you think it should be fenced, we will fence it. Rountree: Well, I'm just asking to make sure that if, in fact, we go with the sole access, that there is sufficient room to get off the road and out of traffic and across the sidewalk to get a vehicle stopped and a gate opened and, then, into the site. So, that would be my only concern, would be safety. Grady: Got you. I would expect that early on we would not have it fenced or gated, we just take direct access and, then, insure that no cross-traffic goes through to the parking lot. Rountree: Thank you. Wardle: Thank you, Len. Council, I guess my opinion on this is that certainly it's a great goal to try to consolidate accesses. It seems in this specific instance it serves the needs of the city to follow staff's recommendation and remembering that we are in a -- even though this is a private development, it is certainly an amenity -- more of a park and an open space and probably functions very similar to one of our city parks. We do have an open Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would wish to testify on Item 17? Rountree: Mr. President, I don't see anybody jumping up, so I would move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 17. Bird: I would second it. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 17. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I would move that we approve the development agreement request MI 06- 007 on Item 17 and include in the development agreement the recommendations made by ACHD as it related to gating and setbacks for the bus access and the sole access point without cross-access to other parking areas for the city's future well site. Bird: I would second that. Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 27 of 28 Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 17. And just for clarification, that is to approve the already commented on three access points. With that clarification I will ask the clerk to call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 18: Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) - (to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property, which is not owned by a public agency) and (f) - (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation): Wardle: Item 18 is Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) and (f). Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Wardle: So moved and seconded to adjourn into Executive Session. Rountree: Mr. President, just an item of discussion -- and I see before me information that we have fairly frequently, but the numbers are coming down on the delinquency list. Is there a reason for that? And my question goes to Len, if he knows, before we adjourn. Because he probably won't be here when we get back. Grady: I don't know, but I will sure -- I will sure research it and get you an e-mail. Rountree: Because they have been as high as 90,000 dollars. In the last few months they have been in the ten to 12 thousand dollars. So, maybe we just check in the books more often. Wardle: Well -- and it's good to see those numbers come down. Nary: Mr. President? Wardle: Mr. Nary. Nary: Yeah. I mean I think part of the reason for that is a much more refined system of how it's being done, as has been done in the past, and I think has improved the compliance measure as well. And so I think there has been a lot of effort on the finance department and utility billing to bring those numbers down and to be more reflective of some accurate accounting and billing practices, so -- Meridian City Council September 26, 2006 Page 28 of 28 Rountree: Mr. President, my compliments to staff. That's a significant change in cash flow. An important item for the city. So, a job well done. Wardle: Thank you. We have a motion to adjourn into Executive Session. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Wardle: Council, I would entertain a motion to come out of Executive Session. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn out of Executive Session. All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Wardle: That brings us to the end of our regularly scheduled agenda. Council I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. Wardle: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:19 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)