HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 01-16 Pre
Meridian City Pre-Council Meetina
January 16. 2007
The Meridian City Pre-Council meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M. on
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 by President Councilman Joe Borton.
Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, David Zaremba, Charlie
Rountree and Joe Borton.
Staff Present: Bill Nary, Joe Silva, John Overton, Anna Canning, Ron Anderson
and Will Berg.
Item 1.
Roll-call Attendance:
Roll call.
X David Zaremba
X Charlie Rountree
o
X Joe Borton
X Keith Bird
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
Item 2.
Adoption of the Agenda:
Bird: Mr. President.
Borton: Mr. Bird.
Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as published.
Rountree: Second.
Borton: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as published. All
those in favor say aye.
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Item 3.
Discussion and Update on Fireworks Ordinance by Joe Silva:
Silva: Thank you Mr. President Borton, Members of the Council. Sometime ago
you directed us to do a revision of the proposed Fireworks Ordinance - we have
been working with other Treasure Valley Fire Departments to gain some
consistency in terms of the requirements for fireworks stands and also working to
work on - get working on the county's version of a proposed fireworks ordinance.
So, with that we will just kind of go over the highlights and then open it up for
questions this evening. So, we started out with some definitions. These will be
some things that are commonly available through Wal-Mart or Fred Meyers.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 2 of 15
These things are not regulated now. They won't be regulated under the
proposed revision.
Nary: Mr. Silva just in case the Council wants; I have hard copies if you want. I
know you have them on your Laser Fiche, but if you want that I have those
available too.
Zaremba: I think we already had a hard copy. Is this revised or --?
Nary: Yeah, this has been revised. So, I will hand these out.
Silva: The copy that Mr. Nary is making available to you is the one that came out
of legal and we will start out with a couple of definitions. Non-aerial common
fireworks do not travel outside a 15 foot diameter circle or admit sparks outside a
20 foot diameter circle or shoot above a height of 20 feet. Dangerous fireworks
are everything outside of that. So, dangerous fireworks do potentially travel
outside a 15 foot diameter circle or do admit sparks outside of a 20 foot diameter
or shoot above a height of 20 feet; commonly those are bottle rockets,
firecrackers those sort of things. Obviously, the problem has evolved as a result
of some flaws in the existing state law that allows the Idaho residents to
purchase dangerous fireworks and those are the types of things that we are
trying to address. After the Fourth of July and prior to that we are flooded with
complaints about the use and discharge of fireworks in neighborhoods. One
common thing that we have is that fireworks when they are carelessly used or
illegal fireworks utilized they can put other people's property at risk. They are a
class "c" explosive. So, what we have proposed is to limit the availability of
dangerous aerial fireworks, ensure that non-aerial common fireworks are
purchased and used under the supervision or of a parent or guardian - we made
some provisions here where the person has to be at least 16 years of age or be
accompanied by a parent or guardian to purchase fireworks. Also, they have to
be age 16 to work within a fireworks stand. We will continue to enforce the
requirement that fireworks offer for retail sales should not be readily available or
accessible to the public until the sales have been consummated in terms that the
fireworks have been bagged up and that they have been paid for and then the
consumer can walk away from the stand at that point. We just don't want to
allow direct access because a carelessly discarded cigarette can ignite a fire in a
fireworks stand. One of the things that drove this revision was we were having
some conditional use permits that were being proposed of up to 2,800 square
feet in the case of a tent. So, the fire code currently only requires or limits a size
of tent to 200 square feet for a tent; 400 square feet for a canopy, which has no
sides on it or has at least 75 percent of a perimeter walls open. The ordinance
would prohibit the sales, storage, possession and use of dangerous fireworks in
the City of Meridian and we would not allow short term sales of non-aerial
common fireworks to be conducted from a permanent structure. We had one
vendor who desired to actually go into some open vacant space and utilize that
space to sell fireworks. It was a sprinkler building, but it was not designed nor
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 3 of 15
intended for the storage of fireworks and as I mentioned earlier you would have
to be age 16 to purchase fireworks unless you were accompanied by an adult
and again they have to be accompanied by a parent or guardian when they are
purchasing if they are under the age of 16. We are trying to require the parents
to be more responsible for their children and we have had a lot of kids who -
small kids because there has been no age restriction previously who will utilize
their allowance to just simply come up on their own and buy fireworks and
parents don't even know that that purchase has been made. We are putting this
ordinance in front of you. The other consideration that we are working on is
another ordinance that we are proposing be passed by Ada County that would
basically require that all wholesale sales of dangerous fireworks be conducted
only from a permanent building, meeting land use requirements and having a
conditional use permit and comply with the currently adopted versions of the
buildings and fire codes. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Borton: Thank you Joe. Council any questions?
Rountree: Mr. President.
Borton: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: Right off the bat you talk about some definitions here on non-aerial
common fireworks and you have some circles or heights identified. Are those
numbers founded in some kind of an industry standard or in the standards or
marketing of fireworks industry or how are they derived? I assume it is not
arbitrary.
Silva: President Borton, Councilman Rountree those are the definitions that are
commonly found on in the state statute and that is where we derived those.
Zaremba: This is kind of a sideways question. In the previous draft in the
section referring to temporary stands and tents, which in this draft is Section 5-4-
13, there was a comment that the parking areas have to be either of a vegetative
material or somehow non dust in compliance with the city's parking ordinance
and I am not finding that here. Did that provision get lost? It is a city ordinance,
but I think it would be useful to repeat it here for all temporary stands that they
have to have dust abatement either by a vegetative cover or by a heavy cover
and it was in the previous draft, but either I am missing it or I am not finding it
here. The second part of that is whether we should actually state it here or just
reference the parking ordinance where the rule exists and maybe that is a
question for Mr. Nary. The statement in the previous draft complied with what I
recalled the parking order it said about temporary stands.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council and Councilman Zaremba I think
that is a good idea. It makes more sense that if we are going to establish the
standards to not then reference somebody to another section of the code. So, if
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 4 of 15
we are going to do that it probably is cleaner as you suggest that we put that
back in. One of the things that I guess for all of the Council members, one of the
things that we are not done with yet and as you can see even with a hard copy
draft in front of you and that Chief Silva has it is a little harder to follow when you
have lots of bubbles and all of these things. We need to - Ms. Kane from my
office has been going through it to try to maybe make sure that when we bring
you a final version it is a little cleaner. There are a couple of things and more
formatting that we want to do. So, that is something that we probably add back
into those requirements in regards to the temporary stands, but we do have
some references to the UDC and we want to make sure that if we are going to
reference it back to the UDC that it makes sense or if it is the same reference in
the UDC that it is consistent. A couple of those things will do that, but I will make
a note of making sure we include that because it doesn't make sense, like I said
to have some of the standards here and some of the standards in another part.
So, we will make that one, but when we bring you a final one hopefully it will be
cleaner and an easier version for you to as to what is intended and the format
itself sort of follows a little cleaner.
Zaremba: Thank you. Other than that I think it is going in the right direction. It is
the right thing to do.
Borton: Councilman Rountree.
Rountree: Mr. President a question for Mr. Nary as it relates to of age of
purchasing. It references minor purchasing -are the 16 and 17 year aids a
different class of minors? Because apparently anybody 16 or older can buy-
Nary: I am trying to see -
Rountree: It is 5-4-20.
Nary: The state code doesn't set out any specifics as to that other than the state
does pass the liability for damages of juveniles onto the adults. It does allow for
that, which is contained in here. That is something that is certainly a discretion
on the city's part as to what age limitation to allow it. It is not preempted by the
state code to prohibit it.
Rountree: I just asked the question for consistency.
Nary: Is it 5-4-6, is that what you said?
Rountree: 5-4-20.
Nary: Yeah, I don't know if that is a standard practice - Chief Silva might know
that. I mean you certainly have the ability to set that age of that - it is certainly
from a legal standard that the state law recognizes adult at the age of 18. So, it
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 5 of 15
is simply a difference maybe based on the practicality of what has been done,
but I don't know that. Chief Silva might have more.
Silva: President Borton, Councilman Rountree. That had to do with the vendors.
What we couldn't end up with is the purchasers being older than the people
working in the stand and that was some input that we got from the vendors that it
was going to be too troublesome to have - because initially we proposed age 21
for the supervisor, age 18 to work in the stand and the vendors indicated that that
was going to be too burdensome. So, we went with age 16 and we made age 16
to purchase and age 16 to work in the stands. At least - one of the vendors had
the stand being attended by a mother with some very small children. One of
which was in a playpen and that is why we wanted to put a minimum of age to be
in the non-public area of the stand. That is what drove that.
Borton: Any other questions Council?
Bird: I have none.
Rountree: I don't have any right now.
Borton: I have got one question along the same lines as Councilman Rountree's
with the regards to some of the standards. One of them that sort of jumps out at
me is the - some of the distances, you know when it says you can't smoke within
50 feet; you can't light anything within 300 feet and the one that sort of shocked
me is that you can't operate within 100 feet of a flammable liquid dispensing
device - that sounds awfully close. Is there a standard for that as well or a
reason why it is not maybe a more universal distance for those types of
flammable activities?
Silva: President Borton that was taken out of the state law. That was our
existing standard that we carried over into this draft. Certainly it could be more
restricted if you wish. Those standards, those spacing requirements that you
see, you know 300 feet for the fireworks discharge; 25 feet for a gas fire
generator; fuel powered equipment. Those sort of things were taken out of the
NFP standard that governs temporary fireworks stands sales and we took the
most restrictive; either that or the state law, whichever was more restrictive to
provide maximum and base it on something that was either found in a National
Fire Protection Association standard or our existing state law with respect to
fireworks or the fire code was the other option we took in there to govern those
distances.
Rountree: I guess I have one more, Joe.
Borton: Yes.
Rountree: The City Attorney has somewhat modernized the language in the
original draft and I don't know if there has been an opportunity to vet this with the
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 6 of 15
other entities. If there has what has been their response and if not when is that
going to happen in order to maintain consistency and whatnot with this
ordinance?
Silva: President Borton, Councilman Rountree a lot of these things are specific
to our city and would not play an important part because the basic principles, the
distances, the 600 square foot for the tent - all those essentials are the same.
Given that we all conduct business just slightly differently in each city, I have not
had a chance to share this with the other fire agencies, however, I did touch base
with Caldwell and Nampa and they are moving forward with their adoption of
basically the same ordinance and we are making a follow up presentation to
Treasure Valley Partnership to inform all Mayors and Council and County
Commissioners at that point.
Rountree: Thank you.
Borton: Any additional questions from Council? Well, thank you Joe, we
appreciate the presentation and the continued updates. I take it at this point; it is
under a little more refinement by legal and then come back before Council for
approval.
Nary: Mr. President.
Borton: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council another suggestion when we do
get this in final version for you that it might be wise to have at least one public
hearing on this ordinance because it does have an impact in the community and
obviously to the vendors. This is one that probably would make sense to do it in
that fashion and we don't do it in a lot of these, but we don't have a lot of these
types, but this one certainly may have some impact that people may want to
have some time to have a voice before they hear about it.
Borton: That is a great idea.
Item 4.
Discussion of Amending Ordinance for Residential Parking by
Bill Nary:
Nary: Thank you Mr. President, Members of the Council I also have a hard copy
of this. This should be on your Laser Fiche as well. If you want a hard copy I
can certainly pass one down to you. This is an ordinance that has been
discussed for a number of months with the Traffic Safety Commission and what
brought it about was that we have had some discrepancies in neighborhoods as
to what ordinances applies in regards to parking - types of vehicles that can be
parked there; how long can they be parked there; how it is being applied. I think
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 7 of 15
our Police Department has tried to create a set of standards even though our
ordinance was always very clear - tried to create a set of standards that made
some sense in their applicability of the types of vehicles we see in neighborhoods
and trying to make sure that our neighborhoods don't get overrun with trailers
and large scale semis and flatbeds and those types of things. So, what we did at
Traffic Safety was discuss how it has been applied and what makes the most
sense and try to create more order in the ordinance than what we currently have
today. If you notice that the ordinance talks about parking on public streets
within the city because we do have to address this in lots of different areas. It
does basically break them off into two different provisions. Ones that certain
vehicles or trailers that are allowed to be parked in the street for no more than
two hours at a time and vehicles or trailers that must be moved within 72 hours.
So we tried to create a consistency there between them so that there wouldn't be
any parking in the residential neighborhoods and we could delete residential
neighborhoods if we want to make it on all city streets - we may have to
distinguish some between industrial zones and we probably may want to exclude
industrial zones, which we could do, but the two hour ones basically are large
scale vehicles, basically those over the 12,000 gross vehicle weight. The trailers
that are not attached to vehicles we wanted to avoid that type of extended
parking once they take them off of their - whether it is a camp trailer or whether it
is a trailer for hauling goods. Once they took it off the trailer we felt that they
needed to move them quickly, not have them just remain on the street for an
endless period of time and then farm vehicles or construction vehicles didn't
need to remain on the streets for more than two hours. Again, we can adjust that
by zones if you would prefer. Again, we had a discussion about residential
verses public streets, so your direction on that particular area would be helpful.
Those 72 hours basically are things in how they have been applied by our Police
Department. If vehicles passenger cars or trucks, commercial vehicles that are
below the gross vehicle weight of 12,000 pounds and that is a good break point
for most of the commercial vehicles from our research and discussion. Motor
homes, mobile homes, recreational vehicles could be parked again up to 72
hours on the street. When talking with our police force they found that it was not
uncommon in the course of a couple of days prior to the weekend and a day or
two after a weekend for somebody to park their motor home out on the street in
front of their house while they are either loading it or unloading it, we felt that that
three day time period was reasonable; that is how it has been applied. Obviously
as long as you are not living in it, you can't live in it for three days and if the trailer
is attached to the vehicle, most of the information that we had from our traffic
team indicated that they do find that occasionally that people do bring a trailer
that is attached. They then bring it overnight. They leave it overnight and they
tend to move it. So, the three days that if it is attached, seemed to be
appropriate for most vehicles. The intents of the exceptions was to allow for the
ongoing construction project, so vehicles that are related to it - so the
construction equipment that is related to a house that is under construction would
allow it to remain out there verses constructions that is not related to that. So, it
doesn't end up all over the neighborhood and all over the subdivisions. The
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 8 of 15
number two is already an existing exemption, allows for it again if it is operating
in relation to a conditional use permit or other type of permit or industrial
operation. We could make that clearer if you think it is necessary throughout the
ordinance and then that has to be parked obviously near the operation that is
ongoing and then lastly we felt there was a necessity that we found from our
traffic team that there are some vehicles occasionally that are parked in
neighborhoods, but they are for on-call emergency responses, whether it is Idaho
Power, the United Water, those types of things and they may be parked in the
neighborhood because the technician has to take him home because he has to
go out at two in the morning to go turn the power back on. So, it didn't make
sense to put a limitation on those types of vehicles if they are being used for that
purpose. That is the basic tenants of it. Lt. Overton and a member of the Traffic
Safety Commission as well - I don't know if he has any other information from
the police side, if you have questions or anything else, but if you have some
direction and if you think it is not clear, you want us to help clarify a little bit more
before we bring it back to you for a review on your agenda. I can do whatever
your preference is.
Rountree: Mr. President.
Borton: Mr. Rountree.
Rountree: It seems to me that it would be of value to either consolidate in this
ordinance or refer in this ordinance the traffic related parking restrictions that are
in state traffic regulation, such as the direction you park. Do we have any
prohibitions in the City of Meridian to park adjacent to fire hydrants? There is a
state regulation that relates to blocking access. Those kinds of infractions that to
my knowledge after been enforced in the City of Meridian, the question is do we
want to? I suspect they are in an ordinance somewhere and if that is the case
they at least ought to be under parking.
Overton: President Borton, Councilman Rountree I didn't bring that particular
ordinance that he read tonight. That is only one section out of our parking. We
have a substantial amount of parking ordinances that we write that are separate
from this one.
Rountree: Okay, that answers my question; other than are they all current and
enforceable?
Overton: Councilman Rountree, currently they are. We - my hat is off to my city
attorney. We are constantly going through those and upgrading those and
making sure that the language is enforceable in trying to clear them up.
Especially in the case we are in right now where we end up with a code that is
hard to enforce just because of the way it was written 10, 15 or 20 years ago.
Rountree: Thank you.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 9 of 15
Nary: Mr. President, just to maybe help add on to that. I mean, our initial parking
code 7-2-1 has a lot of those references Councilman Rountree is talking about.
Parking (inaudible) crosswalk, next to an intersection, by a fire hydrant, those
types of things. So, there is already those provisions as well. We can certainly if
you think it might be clearer in the beginning of this ordinance, in addition to other
parking regulations found in this code, these additional ones apply or some to
that affect. So, it is clear that there are other ones, so if someone were to look at
one section they wouldn't just assume this was the end all of all sections. But,
we can certainly do that.
Rountree: To the novice attorney that might be helpful.
Borton: Mr. Zaremba.
Zaremba: Yes, I have actually two things. One to chime in with Councilman
Rountree that the one piece that seems to be left out of lists that Mr. Nary
mentioned is parking in front of mailboxes. That actually is not allowed. I think it
is a federal law that nobody seems to be aware of. You are not allowed to block
a mailbox. Maybe just look and see if it is there in the rest of the ordinance.
Nary: I can actually add to that. Mr. President, Members of Council,
Councilmember Zaremba we have had that discussion at the last Traffic Safety
discussion. One of the concerns from the Traffic Safety team is the enforcement
end. If you want to park in front of your mailbox and you don't get your mail that
day because you chose to park in front of your mailbox then shame on you. But,
you don't necessarily deserve a ticket for that. So, what we discussed was
creating an ordinance that I haven't had time to craft that and creating an
ordinance that would make that a nuisance type of offense. So, if someone else
parks in front of your mailbox so that you can't get your mail then you have a
means to regress, to deal with that verses currently where we don't have that
kind of prohibition, but it would have to be initiated by the property owner and
from an enforcement end, I think it makes more sense for us because again if
you choose to allow your friend, your wife or family member park there that is no
different than parking in front of a driveway. It is normally prohibited, but if you
park in front of your own driveway, you are not going to expect to get a parking
ticket for that, but if you initiate that with police because someone else chose to
block your access then that would be different. So, we have had that discussion.
We felt that in this ordinance because we had discussed it for a number of
months and really needed to bring this forward and get this moving through the
process because Code Enforcement has these questions come up repeatedly,
especially on trailers and such, but that we do need to address that and we do
need to bring something else forward whether it belongs in 7-2-1, which is likely
where it will go and how we craft it so we can make sure that it is not something
that we are going to end up with an enforcement nightmare in trying to do this all
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 10 of 15
over town, we just haven't got to that. So, we have thought of that and we are
going to be bringing something else back.
Zaremba: Great, thank you. My other question was, actually I guess for
discussion and that is anticipating the person that would park their trailer in front
of their house while they are loading it or unloading it or something for 72 hours
and then the 71st hour they hook up their car, drive it around the block, bring it
back and park it in the same place facing the opposite direction. Is there any
desire to have a limit of number of times that you can do that per 30 days or
month or anything like that?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilman Zaremba one thing
that other places, other jurisdictions have done and we can certainly add that
language to this ordinance is that once that time limit expires, you must remove
that vehicle from the face of the block for at least the equivalent period of time.
So, we could certainly add some language like that to this ordinance to make it
clear - normally, you know it doesn't happen very often, but certainly it can
happen that people will move their car ten feet or move their car, you know, from
one side of their house and the other and those kinds of things to try to avoid the
citation. If you think that will make it clearer we certainly and I don't know if Lt.
Overton has an opinion about it, but I certainly have seen that type of ordinance
where it basically just requires you to move it off the block itself so that it can't
locate it anywhere in front of that location for at least that same time. You could
certainly do that.
Overton: President Borton, Councilman Zaremba trailers have always been a
very touchy area for parking because normally police aren't even notified until it
has been there three, four or five days and then we go and we have to initiate a
contact based on the fact that it is the first time that we have seen it. So, we give
it another 72 hours. We have not had a problem in the past with people pulling it
out and pulling it back unless it is a construction trailer, which is different than
your typical travel trailers. The travel trailers normally by the time they get the
wrath of the neighbors and us with getting stickers and fines, we don't see them
reappearing. That does not do away with the neighbors that get upset because
their neighbors go camping every weekend and so they have a 72 hour block
every week and when they bring it back they are loading and unloading and we
deal with those on a case by case basis. But, we have not had a serious
problem with people trying to avoid a citation for illegal parking with taking it
around the block and coming back - the vehicles, yes, but the travel trailers we
haven't.
Borton: Thank you Lt. Overton. That does sort of explain the practical effect that
it is and it is in effect longer than 72 hours. You know it is the neighbor on day
four that complains and then the clock kind of starts at that point. With regards to
the drafting and some of Lt. Overton's comments - as much as maybe the four
want to word-smith to the extent that there is any recommendations from the
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 11 of 15
Traffic Safety Commission and Lt. Overton and the Code Enforcement officers
who have to make the judgment call on timing or definitions, you know, their
recommendations of particular language which allows them to enforce this is
what I would look towards in support of. I think they would know best.
(Inaudible--) - what definitions they need to make it effective. The question I
have and the answer is probably in a different section is what is the citation for it?
Can you tow it in addition to a fine?
Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council I knew you were going to ask that.
It is just - I believe it is a citation and a fine. I don't believe there is a towing
provision in this parking section from the public street. Now, maybe Lt. Overton
would know better than I do. There is provisions for issuing citations for it. So, it
does fall under the parking citations, but I don't recall, even looking now, I don't
recall any provisions that we have authorized towing off of the street.
Overton: President Borton, I believe it is currently a $25 fine for violation of that
72 hour period. At the point that it can become - if it is hooked up to a trailer, we
give them that 72 hours. If it is not hooked up, we can treat it as an abandoned
vehicle. When it is treated as an abandoned vehicle, then it is in a position that
can be towed away. So, it all depends on how it is being used and how the
situation arises; like we take them on a case by case. Generally speaking it is a
ticket, if it is over the 72 hour mark, unless it is under the abandoned vehicle
section, in which case we do look at towing them away.
Borton: I don't know if I am asking a question that doesn't need into. I mean if
the fine is self efficient; if there is a need to increase the punishment or the
problem with persistent violators?
Overton: President Borton I don't think we have seen - at least I don't recall, I
don't get the phone calls whether we have a persistent violator that is causing us
problems. We have empowered so many of our homeowners' association with
the civil routes that they can also take to help work with us to deal with some of
these situations that most of them end up getting resolved through that manner
instead of through us piling on additional fines.
Nary: I can maybe add to that too, Mr. President and Members of the Council
that most of the discussion with the traffic team indicates that the notice is
generally sufficient in their experience to get this problem resolved but for the
abandoned vehicles and as Lt. Overton said those are the ones that do get
towed. Most people don't, at least to this point, haven't pushed the notice
provision that requires them to move it within the 72 hours or risk being towed or
to take that risk. So, we haven't really had a problem. I mean we will look at the
section on the fines and the citations to make sure that we don't have any issues
of it and certainly if it becomes a recurring problem, we may be coming back
saying people are considering this a cost of doing business and they are willing
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 12 of 15
to pay $25 a whack to keep parking their car, but we haven't seen that to this
point.
Borton: Any further questions for Council? So, this will come forward for final
approval?
Nary: Yes, Mr. President, we will finish up some of these - some word-smithing
and we will get that in front of you here in the next few weeks.
Borton: Okay, very good. Thank you.
Item 5.
Discussion of the Design Review Position I Job Description by
Anna Canning:
Canning: President Borton and Members of the Council during the budget
hearings I asked for money for a design planner, a principle planner that would
head up our design review guidelines and also the implementation of those
guidelines. But, I told you that I didn't plan on hiring that person until January
and that I would come back to you with a job description. So, what I have
provided for you tonight is a job description for the principle planner and also just
some preliminary work that we had our intern do just on design guidelines verses
prescripts of standards, verses design guidelines and how those can be
implemented. That was just no more than just a little bit of information with
regard to that. I am not asking you to discuss that tonight. What my thoughts
are initially is that this planner would work to develop the guidelines or prescripts
of standards and that we would have administrative design review with appeal up
to a hearing examiner - that would be someone in the design profession and
then if that appeal was unsuccessful, the applicant could appeal up to City
Council. So, those are my initial thoughts. But, really what I am asking for
tonight is just approval to go forward and hire someone with the job description
that is before you tonight. The budgeted funds for this were before we did the
salary adjustment for the planners. So, in the budget it actually has $48,500 as
the salary. We are anticipating a salary closer to $55,000, but with a four month
salary savings, there is plenty of money for this year's budget, and it would just
be additional funds for next year's budget. That is all I have, other than to
answer questions that you may have.
Borton: Council, questions or comments? I know I have seen an electronic
emailed version of the job description. I don't have a copy in front of me.
Rountree: It is in here.
Borton: Is this the job description? I thought it was just something more than
that. Is it more than just these two pages?
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 13 of 15
Canning: I thought the job description got forwarded to you as well.
Borton: I have seen the email, I just don't have it here in front of me and it is not
on the web link.
Canning: I have a paper copy. I just modified it slightly from the existing
principle planner position. Do you want me to just - well I can get this job
description to you. Can I assume that Council is okay with it unless I hear
otherwise within a short amount of time or do you want me to come back next
week?
Bird: Mr. President, I would prefer it to come back next week after we get to look
at it and stuff. I am not - to be right up front, I am not real sure that we need to
be hiring an extra person at this time in that department with our revenues being
down what they are, even though we did have it budgeted doesn't mean you
have to spend it.
Borton: Anna, do you think there is some value to review that and it might even
get tweaked a bit after the workshop on the 30th with P&Z. Is there anything that
might come from that that could change what you think this position should fulfill?
Canning: Two answers since it was a two-fold question. I am not sure that our
revenues are actually down; now development services are definitely down and
we do rely on the Building Department's excess funds to fund a portion of our
salary. I did look at our end of year numbers and we are dead even with last
year, actually as far as the number of applications that we have processed and
our revenues. So, those are similar, but I agree that the funds from the Building
Department to support us definitely are lower. I do not have the expertise in-
house to do the design guidelines and the standards that I hear that Council
wants. I just don't have it right now. The available consultants, which is usually
how we go - the consultants in town are few and far between and have been
proven very difficult to get timely products out of. Our current efforts at design
guidelines have gone very slowly because of that. So, I do think that if Council
wants to have design guidelines for the city, I will need to hire someone. Now,
whether that replaces somebody that is a whole different question. The joint
discussion with the Planning and Zoning Commission - the Mayor asked us to
schedule that joint commission and asked for that item to be on there. We
haven't worked out the details of what that discussion is going to be. So, I am
not sure if that discussion is going to influence this one at this time.
Rountree: Mr. President.
Borton: Mr. Rountree.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 14 of 15
Rountree: Anna, with my new found liaison role, I would like to have an
opportunity to sit down with you on this particular topic and get all of us again a
hard copy of the job description and we will get our heads together and put
together a proposal of what we think has some merit and bring it forward either
next week or the following week, if that is okay with you?
Canning: Yes, that is fine with me and I apologize for not forwarding it to you as
my liaison - you will find I am terrible at that because I am so used to not talking
about everything to all of you - I am not allowed to most of the time, so I forget
when I supposed to. So, I will get that to you and shall I put on as a Plannin~
Department report for next week as well? Or, do you want to wait until the 30t
and just discuss it all then?
Rountree: Mr. President, I don't know what the Pre-Council looks like next week.
As I recall it is pretty full.
Borton: It is. It begins at 6:00 with a split corridor update and discussion and
Aldape property discussion.
Canning: We can do it all the 30th. That is fine. It makes some sense to do it
that way.
Bird: It would give us more time.
Canning: Yeah. Great. I will do that. Thank you, sirs.
Borton: I guess in that regard we are getting another copy of the proposed job
description and information to the extent that everyone can get that before the
30th. So, hopefully we all have seen it and reviewed it before.
Canning: I should be able to get it out to Will for distribution tomorrow, once I
find it. I actually couldn't find it once I -
Borton: That brings us to the conclusion of our agenda for the Pre-Council
meeting.
Bird: I move we adjourn the Pre-Council meeting.
Zaremba: Second.
Borton: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor?
ALL AYES. MOTION CARRIED.
Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting
January 16, 2007
Page 15 of 15
MEETING AJDOURNED AT 6:46 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
0, MAYOR I"ll
\\\U, ., ri!l{~.
,,\\\\~~ Of &,?;:?{~;i;I/,;>,
....:','- I:I-.~ _....~... '".J '{;"" ~ ~..>__
~..... () "00ri;.~Or'?/iJti..~>,...f;'i,;f' "<.. ,
...... ~-.;.;. (';'" .... .<,'
......,,~ .~ I '\ .~-
2 ~ _ ~
~ TTE~I5gI, ~~
~ ~~ VVJl,IL1Arvf G. BERG, JR
::. ~/:). ~ Cj ,/ ........,
~ 7-'\ f./& I ~~"1 . ~;\ ~'..() '-:;.~
~ '-:y ~ <J _ / ~~ ~_.< ~ ~.-.'::'
.........,.. f\-. ~ .;.('''.. .c. ...:."
/.... t -U-l ':). Fen.! \'v. .... .......
- / I U~'!.l ~ ~., \ '\ \
IJ'f \\\
J'}lj:q \\1\\\\\
Z I ZV' I 0 7
DATE APPROVED